Maskirovkamost posters here are pretty much unaware of the realities..there was no reason for Saab to want India to join in on the Gripen program from the start. first of all, India didn’t have a very big defence budget then and the money available for spending on defence R&D was paltry to say the least..and even if India had joined the program, what would they have done to help ? there was little expertise and little know-how- it was all wasted after the HF-24..Saab on the other hand, had a captive SwAF customer base, which at that time at least, had a large requirement of over 200 Gripens. now, since the demand is low, they’re happy to share the technology in order to get more customers.
and then again, in those days, European partners would never part with top-notch technology..even France’s Dassault, from whom India had bought the Ouragan, Mystere and Mirage-2000, had offered an analog FBW for the LCA, which prompted ADA to go to Lockheed Martin instead..that one fact alone is responsible for at least 3-4 years delay, due to the post-Pokhran sanctions and seizing of data by LM..had Dassault given the ADA help in developing the all-digital FBW instead of offering an analog one for the LCA, that wouldn’t have happened. maybe it might have flown earlier with an analog FBW, but that one factor alone would’ve made it due for upgrades within half a decade of being inducted.
as for Sweden, they’ve never been a partner for India in defence, and apart from the Bofors guns, there is very little of Swedish origin in the IAF (some EW pods)..
and yet, when ADA did approach Ericcson for the PS-05A radar to be used on the LCA, the Swedes only wanted to install it as-is without parting with any technology related to the PS-05A, and as a result, the deal fell through..for a piddly slotted array radar, they were unwilling to share the technology, so why on earth would they share technology relating to how to build a fighter with India ?
unfortunately for India, Russia had no major expertise with digital FBW in the late 1980s and that led ADA to choose Dassault as initial design consultant and then use LM as its partner for FBW..as it is, the Mirage-2000 was the best jet in the IAF then and ADA wanted a fighter as nimble and multi-role as the M2k was..
and the argument that India should end this LCA program to make its defence stronger is ridiculous and short-sighted..China never made good airplanes when it began, but today they’re attempting a 5th gen fighter on their own..thats only possible due to the confidence and knowhow built up over decades of building and flying their own fighter derivatives and finally with the J-10..even with the JF-17, they’ve been cautious, and haven’t inserted as much technology as they could..but, iteratively, they’ll improve upon it till it finally becomes a good enough 3.5 generation fighter. the same is happening in India..
and for those complaining about the LCA’s avionics, thats just utter trash..anything that was of Indian origin on the Su-30MKI is from the LCA program only. the indigenous Jaguar DARIN-II and MiG-27 upgrades are based on technology developed for the LCA. those alone have saved millions of $ that would’ve been spent keeping factories in UK or Russia alive.
as for those complaining about its cockpit layout and comparing it to the Rafale or Gripen, do a cost analysis as well..the LCA will end up costing around $25-30 million per unit, whereas the Gripen is probably around $50-55 million per unit and even more for the Rafale..there was someone complaining that the FoV on the indigenous CSIO developed HUD is only 25 deg and less than that on the Typhoon..what they ignore is that its more than the Thales supplied HUD and costs probably half or a quarter of what the HUD on the Typhoon costs.
and while its layout is probably a generation behind Rafale or Gripen, its of the same generation as the Mirage-2000-5 Mk.2 which is what IAF’s Mirages will be upgraded to..no one in the IAF is asking Dassault to upgrade the Mirage’s cockpits to Rafale standards, are they?
I for one, know what the LCA will provide the IAF- a cheap, capable, multi-role fighter that can be very useful to bulk up the IAF and still be as capable or more as the bulk of our immediate neighbourhood’s fighters..I mean for God’s sake, the PAF intends to use the JF-17 as its mainstay for the next 30 years ! and we’ve never heard any reports of just how great it is..but to the PAF’s credit, they’re willing to take the JF-17 and work on it to make it a decent fighter. I guess thats what happens when you face a cash crunch.
A very informative answer. Thank you!
I actually did´nt know India spent so little on their armed forces at that time. The thing they could have brought to the table? Cash$$$$
Just like the are doing with PAK-FA project.
I know India knew **** about making fighters but if they had brought a bag full of money and just said “- We want this and this and we are willing to learn and gain experience of anything you got”. I´m sure SAAB would´nt object.
“Gripen is probably around $50-55 million per unit and even more for the Rafale..”
Actually. A couple a weeks ago the last Gripen Cs were delivered to the Swedish air force. And now a summarize have been produced. The contracted fly away price for the Gripen C/D was actually lower then it was signed! It was just below 30 million $.
MaskirovkaI hardly hate Indians because I don’t support the LCA Program. Regardless, on how many times you want to spout such a racist remark…………..Then you have to throw in Native American Indians and let see South American Indians. Really, such behavior reflects poorly on you and the cause you claim to be fightning for! WHY???
Because, I wouldn’t say the LCA Programs is Gods Gift! That its wonderful! That is will be superior to the JF-17 and just about everthing else it may face.
I have to say I really love this last quote………
Even if LCA have had some delays (a couple of decades) the next Indian fighter will be a even greater success. Rest a sure. It will be twice as successful as the LCA or Arjun, cause that´s the way India works. Never give up, never surrender and always be successful! (despite the reality)[/QUOTE]
1.) If, the LCA ever does enter service it will suffer thirty years of delays!
2.) I have no doubt the next Indian Fighter will be better. As when your at the bottom the only place is up! Yet, I take note with the “even greater success” point. As the LCA has had no success at all………..
3.) Sorry, you lost me on the “twice as successful as the LCA or Arjun” cause that’s the way India works??? Unless you are saying we keep trying? Which, is my point about the LCA. Try something else………..
4.) Never give up, never surrender and always be successful! Well, I hate to tell you but if you are not successful your only choice is surrender. Seem like you would rather loose the war than to admit a mistake???
Man you guys just kill me…….
If, a soldier is in the middle of a battle and his gun doesn’t work. Your response is never surrender and I’ll be successful! What you will be is dead! Hello, wake up and pick up another gun or keep picking up guns until you find one that works……….then you can fight back and maybe survive.
Hey Scooter. Ever heard of a thing called sarcasm/irony?
I´ve had a few drinks now and then is when my sarcastic side turns up.
Unfortunately English is not my language (and perhaps ironic humor) so it might not be that obvious.
(Ps. Just as you now, that post was kind of ironic)
MaskirovkaWith the LCA Mark 2 hopefully entering service by 2013…………Which, is very optimistic to say the least! So, that’s a good 30 years from the start of conception….:eek:
edited
LCA can not failure. Cause the Indian MOD have stated that they WILL order a bunch even if the a/c is not up to standard and the Indian airforce don´t want it. There for it is a success.
Even if LCA have had some delays (a couple of decades) the next Indian fighter will be a even greater success. Rest a sure. It will be twice as successful as the LCA or Arjun, cause that´s the way India works. Never give up, never surrender and always be successful! (despite the reality)
MaskirovkaRafale versus Tejas:
A. Formally Launched Time of the Project:
* Rafale: 1983 ~ 1985
* LCA: 1983B. Maiden Flight of the 1st techonological demonstrator:
* Rafale A: 1986
* LCA TD1: 2001C. Maiden Flight of the 1st prototype:
* Rafale C: 1991
* LCA PV1: 2003D. First contract for production aircraft:
* Rafale: 1993
* Tejas: 2005E. Maiden Flight of the 1st productional fighter:
* Rafale B301: 1998
* Tejas LSP-1: 2007F. FOC of the first squadron:
* Rafale M: 2004
* Rafale B/C: 2007
* Tejas MK1: 2011 ~ 2013G. The productional fighters that have been ordered at the end of 2008:
* Rafale: 120 (13 F1, 48 F2, 59 F3)
* Tejas: 20 (all MK1)H. The productional fighters that have been delievered at the end of 2008:
* Rafale: 68 (42 Rafale B/C and 26 Rafale M)
* Tejas: 8 (LSP-1 to LSP-8)I. The weapons that have been tested and formally used before the end of 2008:
* Rafale F2: MICA EM, MICA IR, Paveway II, Paveway III, AASM, SCALP-EG.
* Tejas PV1: R-73……..
Or perhaps compare it with the Gripen which is a more similar aircraft, a light fighter.
Started at the same time (1983), 1st flight I think was 1988, 1st productional a/c in 1993 and 1st operational squadron in late 1996.
If India would have chosen to collaborate with SAAB in the early 80s (an option I don´t think was impossible) India could really have started replacing those MiGs in the mid 1990s. The timeframe is exactly what the LCA was suppose to do.
MaskirovkaYup, we shot for the moon. We bit more than we can chew. [Put in your favourite here]. I agree.
Call the LCA names. Hey, we are not kids anymore. Big deal, as if it was gonna influence anything anyway.
But Scooter is another story.
Who does he quote … Ravi Sharma … Does he know the history of Ravi Sharma. Nope.
Does he care? Nope.
So what does he care about?? He cares about the someone finally wrote in the media about his favourite pet-theory …. That LCA is doomed, failed, can’t fly ….. Yada yada yada ….
Is it constructive?? NOPE ….
What’s his suggestion then?? Buy whorenet …. [Wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy …… :D]Pessimist realist. Sheesh. Keep it to your own programs. Its not as this is the first thread from Scooter about LCA and his “INDIA-BAITING“
When you have 9 pages of irrelevant bile, followed by “India is NOT Saab”, that is hardly pessimist realism. Enuf is enuf.
Anyway, about his history, I am pretty sure you have seen his last thread about the Russian-Georgian conflict.. Was bloody well pooh-poohed by one and all. God knows what world he lives in.
So Deino, I appreciate your civil reply. But Scooter is too easy to figure out.:p
Regards,
Ashish.PS: BTW Deino, have always appreciated your posts on Chinese Aviation. Kudos to you, man. Keep them coming…. 🙂
Why do keep discussing Scooter in your entire answer? Do you think Scooter was the most relevant in Deinos reply and to this discussion about LCA?
How about discussing some of the things Deino actually pointed out that is relevant, the things about LCA.
The LCA was intended to replace the MiG-21s in the 1990s. Has it successfully done so or has it failed in that?
MaskirovkaMashkirovka, I dont know what timeframe of thirty years you were talking about, to me it got its first stage of funding for feasibility study only in 1991 then FSED was done by 1999 or so and second phase of funding provided with a first flight around 2001 iirc.
I can only hope for the best for LCA, but IMO LCA’s cockpit is just fine enough, who cares as long as it works?
The LCA project started in 1983 with main goal to replace the old MiG-21s in the 1990´s. If it then took 5 or 10 years for the designers to finally come up with a design and the government to give the final go ahead was just too bad for India, the end result was the same. The LCA never did replace the MiG-21s in the mid 1990s.
Now, 25 years after the LCA project started not a single MiG-21 have been replaced by it. And if the LCA ever comes to series production (like right now despite it does´nt even meet the most basic requirements) the first operative LCA squadron may enter service in 2015 and replacing the MiGs.
That is only 20 years behind schedule…
A success? Not in my book.
If the only reason to start the LCA project in 1983 was to create an indigenous aviation industry not even then is it a success. There are faster and cheaper ways to get there.
I know it´s not the easiest thing in the world to create a fighter, the industry that lies behind it and all that from almost scratch and I off course applaud India for making that decision decades ago. But that does´nt change the facts when it comes to the LCA project. I think that if India had chosen another path in 1983 (like a tight collaboration with an experienced western aviation company) they would have achieved results faster and cheaper. And the know-how gained from such a project could very well have resulted in a indigenous next-generation fighter being in the pip-line at the moment.
MaskirovkaFor me, monocrome crt displays and analog switches i kind of 80s, not western stat-of the-art sensor fusion. So this is just the top of the iceberg that you can see in the cockpit..But its still functional and probably works fine but weighty.
The engine cant compensate for all weight, the flight preformance suffers still. so does wingloadings, weaponsload, and range etc.
And the HUD certainly does´nt look “state of the art”. By going only by the looks of it it looks very big and clumsy, but still with a small screen.
Compare it with HUDs in Gripen, Typhon, Rafale etc…
Gripen cockpit. (don´t know which model)
Maskirovkawhat a joke !! 😮
you’re saying that its better to have had a LCA crash (like the Gripen, Typhoon, etc.) rather than having any design issues ?! what on earth do you think a crash of a prototype is due to ? in most cases, it points to a design flaw ! the fact that it hasn’t had a single accident in almost a 1000 flights means that the design is sound, but it requires tweaking to achieve the performance that the IAF wants out of it..the engine issue is piddly, and CAN and WILL be handled- after all, the pictures you saw above, had 2 Tejas, flying with 2 different variants of the F-404. one on the PV-3 was the older F-404 F2J3 and the other is the F-404 IN20 on the LSP2..
fact of the matter is, there are more than enough vested interests in India itself that are waiting to see the LCA fail- there’s a well entrenched arms mafia, lifafa journalists (journos who get paid to write articles praising foreign items and maligning any indigenous effort) and a skeptical Armed force, that has in the past seen shoddy support from HAL and cause of that just doesn’t want to indigenise. a crash in such a situation would be a killer blow to the LCA.
I really don´t follow the debate how journalists, arms mafia etc in India works. In any other country that designs and produces fighters a crashed prototype does´nt kill the project. Off course we have our share of sceptically, critics and negative people over here to that questions every arms project (specially such a risky and costly as a new fighter) but the debates are (most of the time) kept on an intelligent level. A crashed prototype is just that – a crashed prototype. Something to learn from.
The first thing you wrote I totally disagree on. It´s much more easy to fix a software problem then have to redesign the aircraft and go back to the drawingboard again. If you have a sound design and a good engine to start with you can put in any software you want, and update/upgrade it so it´s constantly state of the art. With a poor design, well the only thing to do is to scrap it and design a new plane…
MaskirovkaIf Lca had not progressed at all and was just Hangar Queen i could have supported ending the program ,but after 960 successful test flights and after 8 years from the first TD-1 all the Birds are flying and not crashed or involved in any accident yet when most of the Fighter aircrafts entering Service had major or minor incidents in its testing phase same aircrafts Developed by countries who are trying hard selling their aircrafts for MMRCA,i will give a pat on the ADA and HAL Engineers and say job well done so far and Hope they can keep there promise to make Tejas a Success Story for Indian Aviation Industry
After 30 years there must of course have been some progression, otherwise I think even the Indians would have killed the project. But I would be less concerned if a prototype crashed due to a software problem in the FBW. Those kind of things can be sorted out pretty “easy”. The issues facing LCA with redesign of the fuselage, not knowing which engine to use etc are problems you don´t fix so easily.
I thought one of the first thing you do when you are about to build a fighter is to chose which engine to use. Then you design the aircraft around that engine. With the Kaveri being a no-go the LCA will off course face a lot of problems (which it is doing).
MaskirovkaSeems like most people here would love us to depend on foreign countries and are against us developing stuff on our own.
In the long term we are going to do it anyway you all just want our money.
So if one does´nt think LCA is a success that means you´re anti-India?
Personally I think LCA is a failure. It was meant to replace the MiG-21s starting in the 1990s. Today 15 years later it has huge problems in the most basic aspects and is not even certain that it will be fielded.
And that´s a shame, cause I would love to see the LCA mass produced and in service, not cause it´s an Indian product (I could´nt care less about where it´s from), but I love fighters and a new one in the sky would be great…
MaskirovkaCertainly the Styx was the first ‘modern’ antiship missile (self propelled) to be used in combat… sinking the Israeli destroyer ‘Eiliat’ in 1967.
Well how many have been used? Styx and the Exocet? And perhaps the Sea Skua launched from Brittish Lynx helicopters during GWI.
I´m still wondering when Styx was first operational in an air-launched version.
MaskirovkaThe Rb04 was not a sea skimming missile, was developped with foreign cooperation as was the Rb08 (developped by Nord Aviation of France with a CSF radar ) which was still not a see skimming missile (flying at 250µm).
The russian Styx was probably the first modern antiship missile, service entry 1959.
Rb04 flew 10 meters over the ground (sea), to me that is sea skimming. What RB08 has to do with this discussion I have no idea…
When did the air-launched version of the Styx enter operational service? That´s the only interesting question that is relevant for this thread…
MaskirovkaWhen Ukraine is going to replace its air crafts in the future, how many fighters are we talking about? They have nearly 400 at the moment (according to wiki) and even if they decide to cut its airforce with 50% it´s going to be a huge deal.
I noticed that Ukraine has got a huge numbers of transports and helicopters (for instance, 60 Il-76 and 245 Mi-24). But no AEW&C, that seems odd.
MaskirovkaUh, no. If one doesn’t like the noise one shouldn’t live by an airbase. What next, “You can’t fly because I demand a clear sky”? :rolleyes:
Bodö has been there for over 500 years. The airbase 50? years. What would you think is the easiest thing to do. Relocate thousands of citizens, relocate the airbase or buy a different aircraft?
(Norway is a democracy so you can´t just by force move thousands of people against their will or force them to live in their homes under roaring jets. Democracy, ever heard of that?)
MaskirovkaNope. Not by a long shot.
The first country was Germany, World War II. Two in fact, the …
Ok, I did´nt know that Sweden had the first modern anti-ship missiles with all the capabilities it implies (sea-skimming, active radar-guided etc).
BTW. I was looking at the Soviet anti-ship missiles from that era (1950/60´s). They were huge, several tonnes beasts. Basically unmanned fighters filled with explosives and a radar they strapped to their bombers. So you could say the Japanese were first here with their kamikaze planes. The only different are the human replaced with a radar. 🙂
(Soviets 1st anti-ship missile was actually an unmanned MiG-15 IIRC according to Wiki)
Edit: This beautyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
Sign In
