I

ts irrelevant what you think.

Fact – LCA core avionics have been operationalized on over 200 aircraft already.

Can go into the details – but again – would it matter?

But by all means complain all you want – it wont change things.

First – Then why are you bothered to reply to me if you think what I say is irrelevant kindly ignore me.

Second – My question is, whether it is operational on the LCA, that is all.

D

ont talk drivel please – attempt to be coherent.

One of the first things is to research what has been posted already.

Its the LCA Mk2, not MK1.

Its intended to have an AESA (heavier), an all internal EW suite (heavier), OBOGs and IFR. Its pylons are intended to carry heavier loads.

These are but some of the changes – I could talk more- but I do wonder whether you will understand the minutiae.

You are avoiding quesiton. May be I should rephrase it.

The F 16 A/B had a powerplant that was sufficent to power the fighter and could reach its required levels ofr performance with the same.

The LCA MK 1 apparently cannot reach the performance parameters set out for it with its original engine.

The F 16 C/D again had enhanced capability and a powerplant which could reach the desired level of performance.

The LCA MK2 says it will. I don’t know if it will let us wait and find out. The first LCA the MK1 is a failure as it do not meet the parameters set out for the original LCA>

And the added weight you talk about as the IAF requirement is applicable only to the MK2 the MK1 should be able to perform as advertised if it cannot then its a failure atleast partly.

Since composite structures on the LCA are already ready and it is the FBW, engine and weaponisation which remains.

And I am saying despite the composites its still overweight the money and research may have been better spent elsehwere like in developing a decent powerplant.

You are talking absolute illogical circular trash here. First you were whining that the GOI doesnt armtwist the IAF.

Now you claim they do, and the IAF doesnt get what it wants!

And then you come up with some nonsense that the GOI should study the IAFs choices!

I mean- are you even aware of the basics of how decisions are taken? Heard of a procurement matrix, heard of the L1 tendering system, heard of the CCS, and the RM’s role?

Clearly not – you are simply and absolutely ignorant of the entire decision making process in India – and from your posts, apparently the rest of the world.

Apparently, opinions are what you have, but facts – you couldnt be bothered with those!

I am not replying to your jibes and insults.

Silly comment – weights and form factors were designed FOR the LCA have been flown on the LCA already, flight qualified, modified for other aircraft AND operationalized.

I seriously doubt that claim

Silly comment#2- and tilting at windmills! The F-16 would NOT have remained agile, if it added its enhanced avionics, payload, CFT etc and retained its original powerplant.

The F 16 Block 52+ r Block 60 has a lot more capability than the baseline F 16.

Tell me what the LCA MK1 has over the planned LCA that it is overweight and requiers a new powerplant.

Also note that the original F 16 and every block since had a powerplant that was adequate for its weight. The LCA MK1 or block 10 do not have that.

Let me make it simpler for you – the Indians wanted x aircraft at y weight, so they used composites, and they got that. They could have NOT used composites and got an x* aircraft at Y++ weight and paid a tradeoff elsewhere – so they didnt!

Its all about design choices – something which you still are unable to grasp.

Again posts entangled with insults.

Let me make this simple to you.

For me they made the wrong deisgn choice in going for composites. A normal fighter may have been in service by now.

Your poorly worded posts, grammatical errors, lack of research, all suggested the reverse- thanks for confirming it!

Ignoring personal and unfounded insults. I think i should rather ignore you totally.

Actually I see Ankush in this very thread, querying you for your alleged sources – I think you’ll have to try harder.

See it if you want to. its your choice.

Absolutely nothing in the terms of facts, sources, or any worry about credibility whatsoever.

Unfortunately, adults dont operate like this.

I repeat I don’t care what you or anyone else here think about me or the way i operate.If saying all this makes your day then have a good one 🙂

and you are making all your claims based on some users comments on videos of the JF-17 and LCA from youtube !! .. what a joke !! some Pakistani fanboy can guess how many Gs the fighter is pulling based on some edited clips of fighters, and you’ll swallow it hook line and sinker..

Was talking about Sustained Turn Rate (str) not G load.

Its called sourcing! Its something all adults do, in real life!

And coming to your knowing things – what exactly are YOUR qualifications?

Tell us.

I don’t think that is any of your bussiness. I simply refuse to answer such comments.

I see – so tell us where and how these were achieved and under what loads? What of the STR, which you were confidently stating?

This was quoted by Ankush in some Brochure. Go to the JF 17 The New Rafale thread in this very forum if you want to see.

About the STR i read that on Pak Def based on some analysis some users made on videos of JF 17 LCA and F 16 seemed pretty convincing.

I

n other words, you dont have ANYTHING.

No sources, nothing.

Just opinions which you were passing off as fact.

In another news I don’t give a **** about what you think

Ante – you do your credibility no good with your posts.

I don’t need your or anybodys certificate. I post what I think and what i read sometimes I cannot remember the sources, sometimes I won’t be in the mood to search for them. Well thats how I operate.

Ak-47 was never a battle rifle, but intended to be a mass produced automatic weapon for closer ranges! Russian tanks were every bit the equal of their western contemporaries in many areas, and reflected the design priorities of their designers!

Fighter pilots are an expensive and scarce breed – are you even aware of how much training costs? Aware of how many years it takes?

What of the human costs involved when a human being is lost?

In India – human resources, ie soldiers are every bit as valuable as those in any other country! Please talk sense.

Wow Your AK 47 is news to me. AK 47 and its derivatives AK 74 etc were and are battle rifles and were used by Indian Armed forces till they got the INSAS. They are still used by many. Russian tanks equal, ahem exploding turrets comes to mind.

There are only limited funds available and the IAF has to choose between a menagerie of different blocks in service or one consolidated block.

The best way to induct a fighter is by inducting it and upgrading it modularly. Like in the case of the Su 30s in IAF.

The Israeli’s shut down the Lavi because it was funded in part by the United States which withdrew the same. Not because they could’nt make it!

And they are paying the price for it. I think we would too in future if we continue to be dependent on others for our planes.

Wars are always won with lose of life. Russians lost more than Germans to win WW2. When it is war for the war planners atleast soldiers are not seen as humans, but as companies battalions and regiments, pieces in a big chess board. If you put too much emphasis on the safety of a single solider, wars can never be won.

Absolute rot – the soldiers are not a Govt’s plaything. They protect me, an Indian taxpayer (which I doubt you are), and the Govt. elected by me and my peers, has to fulfill its oath to them by providing them good functional kit!

The soldiers are in effect employees of the government. They protect you because protecting you is their duty. Their sacrifices must be respected and acknowledged but they should not be made all powerful. Good functional kit : what is more functional to you the best kit for half your army or the next best thing for the whole of it. You also should know the number of people turned away at every recruitment rally. In a country where a lot of people are unemployed finding soldiers is not hard.

the fact is that the IAF is making noise over its engine and weight because the requirements were very stringent. the PAF on the other hand is happy to recieve its fighters because even with the fact that its not as good as the LCA, its actually a LOT better than the F-7s and A-5s that its got to retire. and even then, the IAF is going to induct the LCA and that too in significant numbers.

They would still be better than the MIG 21s that it was supposed to replace.

What matters is what the IAF thinks – and it is the IAF which changed its requirements midway and the program is accomodating it.

The LCA TD et al already met the early-mid-90’s Performance parameters.

The IAF has upped its avionic fit for the LCA, and added weight to the program. Now the developers will compensate!

Sadly it should not be that way. Even in countries like the U.S the Armed forces do not always get what they want.

The IAF is under government control. The IAF should say what it want and the civlillian government should decide after assessing all options. Now the IAF would get most things they want and not all. This is the way forward.

Use your sense, if the LCA didnt have composites, it would not even meet original requirements let alone what the IAF has added – an all internal EW suite, an IFR suite, more weight clearance for select pylons, OBOGs etal.

Again tell me how much of these IAF requirements have been integrated. No flight has taken place with a radar on board, Enlighten me on the internal avionics and EW suite that it flies with. Apart from the specs do the LSPs even fly with them ? You have to consider the one ton overweight is despite not having a radar. Or are they filling the nose up with dumb weights to simulate a radar ?

Basically according to you IAF is stretching the original design beyong its limits by asking for integration. It appears to be ow even without integrating all they want. Is it viable to persue the LCA then as more weight that comes with 4++ capability will reduce its flight performance.

It shows me the lack of robustness of the original design. Compare it to the F 16 which has picked on a lot of weight and still survives because of the robust original design.

Give us the exact breakdowns!

Like I said not everything requires a source its a common knowledge. Most in the forum wil agree with me on that, that the EF and Rafale uses more composites than the Su 35.

The Rafale and Typhoon achieve their sterling performance thanks to lightweight structures which allow for more fuel efficiency and less power generating and fuel hungry powerplants, which too is tied to cost!

Which is exactly why many potential export customers want the Rafale with a more powerful engine. And the EF 200 is a rather powerful engine.

Composites are a success as far as the LCA is concerned.

I would say that when the LCA is in suqadron service in numbers and when we read about it doing awesome things. Right now it has not even met its performance parameters.

Composites are used in India not just for the LCA, but for missile structures, for transporters, armour as well as the civilian ISRO.

I was being critical about using them in the LCA project it has not helped reduce the weight (its a ton overweight without the radar and other stuff) and we have to see about the RCS, when we have them inducted.

The Su-35 does include a good amount of composite structures – please look up to see what the term composite means. And that is partly why Sukhoi claim improved performance figures over earlier Sushkis.

Still not as much as modern western fighters

The F-22 cost is not because of composites but because of the radical nature of its entire design, which flows from its performance specifications of combining the requirements of flying faster, higher, being far less visible than most of todays 4G aircraft!

It is one of the reasons. One among many. I would also assume that the procurement costs of the Rafale and Typhoon are so high because of using so much composites.

And will you fight your battles for them?

No that is their duty and many fancy the job as a pilot. So many would.

Agree but the IAF disagrees. So your thoughts are moot.

Sadly it is, but a stong willed government can make laws and put the IAF and armed forces in their place.

Talk is cheap, provide the evidence both in terms of G’s, AoA and STR, and under what conditions.

I am not doing your research for you atleast google. The JF 17 has achieved 8.5 G and better AoA than what the LCA has achieved so far. The LCA however remains a better aircraft on paper.

The LCA is about building an aerospace industry, not just getting a fighter ready. That takes and will take time.

LCA is about building a plane, and the benefits to the Aerospace industry is the by product. You are confusing it and saying the LCA is building the Auerospace industry and the plane is the by product, that is exactly what is wrong with the programme. India may gain a lot but the fighter may never see light. We could may well be like the ISRAELIS good at avionics and all but not that successful in building planes,

Your optimism does you credit, but there is no way the ADA will take the risk given how many vultures, read arms dealers would target the program.

For people who do not take risks the rewards are less.

do you even think that the IAF would accept a fighter at the technology level of the JF-17 when it had the choice of fighters like the MRCA candidates ??

I believe that the Armed forces must be FORCED to buy a certain quantity of Indian equipment even if slightly inferior.

JF 17 is a good little fighter, I would have like LCA to enter squadron service and then upgraded to later standards as time goes by rather than wanting everyhting at once.

Having said that the JF 17 do not suffer from overweight and has already taken more Gs and better AoA and sustained turn rate than the LCA.

Now the LCA may better it but it is a slow **** of a programme you gotta admit it.

If I had the power to tell the ADA what to do, I would have said get on with the tests show us that you can achieve the promised performance, if you lose a few prototypes then so be it we will fund you for more.

That has to be one of the most inane and absolutely ridiculous posts ever made on this forum. Composite technology is one of the absolute “must invest” areas in aerospace, and India is well suited to keep abreast.

Please dont talk nonsense about a topic you clearly know so little about.
Reply With Quote

I am sorry the composites may have its good uses, but in the Indian context and in the context of any developing country trying to kick start a fighter programme i think that is hardly the way to go.

How much composites have the new Su 35 super flankers have ? With modern avionics they can equal any fourth gen composite filled euro Canard which costs twice as much.

And we all know how the use of composites and stealth has made the F 22 so unsustainable. That even a small runway crash could cost much more than buying a small fighter.