vikasrehmanHow much Russian content is in the LCA now and the projected MK2??? Seems like Indian is looking more and more to the West. Especially, with the members of the MMRCA as good example. At least it appears that way to me….
I do agree. Yet the point was why would IAF compromise on the avionics performance in this case when they seem to be unwilling (as many have claimed) to be doing so vis-a-vis LCA.
vikasrehmanAs a matter of fact Indian has clearly put out its hand. Not only to the US but Europe and Asia a well………With more and more Military Exchanges, Military Projects, and several high profile Military Exercises. With many of those ties with the very members in the MMRCA. Personally, I think India is “very” seriously “thinking” of a major “Strategic” shift to the West.
I think you would be unwise to think the US or Europe would not offer Indian a great deal of ToT……………..Which, has to be extremely attractive to the Great Country of India.
I think India wants to get the best -read full ToT in this case- from both sides, i.e. US and Russia. While I agree that India is considering a major strategic shift, the scale of ToT would be determined by US/Russia in future and India’s strategic relations with either country. As of now, if IAF decided to sign a contract for F-16/F-18 tomorrow, Im not all that sure if Russia would be all that happy for IAF to integrate R-77 etc on this fighter. OTOH, Im not sure if US would be happy for IAF to integrate AMRAAM etc on MKI etc.
vikasrehmanIndia will happily accept the 10%-15% avionics performance shortfall of choosing another aircraft from a more reliable partner who offers truly deep ToT and doesn’t demand intrusive base/equipment inspections, etc. etc.
Really? And yet IAF seems to have been so insistent on having a top notch fighter, i.e. LCA, from Day 1 before they place orders for substantial numbers.
vikasrehmanmost of them learnt to call it that at this very forum..I first saw the name “lawn dart” for the F-16 and “Sewer Hornet” and “Super Whorenet”, on this forum..;)
May be so, but although I might be proven wrong on this, but I can’t remember anyone (who did not follow IAF, i.e. IAF enthusiast) referring to these fighters by such exciting names in a serious manner. And then the hostility went down gradually for one reason (ppl realised that the two are as good as others:)) or perhaps another (ppl reaslised they were serious contenders and a name might stick to a very capable fighter on these forum for many years to come;))
vikasrehmanIts not nice to call it the ‘Sewer Hornet’ when its current capabilities exceed most if not all of its competitors in the competition. And the multi platform operational capability without modifications is an added boon, but that alone does not guarantee anything.
The American hatred of some of my compatriots is upsetting.
Take a lot at the archives of BR forum. The two (F-16/F-18) have been called worse.:) Only when ppl (BRFites) realised that:) the two were:) serious contenders, they kinda stopped…(probably so) it does not come back to haunt IAF enthusiasts.
vikasrehman21Ankush, that was indeed a logical summary of some the reasons for these delays and why India should keep going with the programme.
vikasrehmanHere is the link …. Full Scale Engineering Development started in 1993.
http://www.drdo.org/products/lca.htm
Mod Statement about LCA
The irritating thing is that even after showing n number of links, it will be still be 1983.
Ok. So what was happening between 1983 and 1993?
Its totally understandable that FSED started in 1993, but wasn’t any work done on LCA’s design prior to that? One only has to go through some flight global articles to see that.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%200080.html?search=LCA
According to this (Jan 1990), by 1986 ADA had assembled a team of 300 engineers (around 600 by 1990), PD completed by 1988. So what were those 300 engineers or 600 engineers actually doing?
Whatever the reason, whether it is the lack of experience, poor management, or both or any other, there is no doubt that the LCA project/programme in itself started in 1983. Regardless of the fact the fact that PD was completed in 1988 or funding was allocated in 1990s, or India approved two protypes in 1990…one can only assume that a lot of initial work (all part of overall R&D) must have already been carried out for GoI to approve this…we all know the initial date of the programme. There should be no doubt that the programme has done wonders for Indian aviation industry, but has totally failed (thus far) to achieve its other main objective which was the replacement of Mig-21s. Finally, the best way IAF can show its committment to the programme is by ordering more and now, rather than simply saying it has potential and we hope to induct it in so and so number…at least the option of 20 should be exercised…but perhpas IAF is pessimistic because they have no idea when would MK2 would come through its full R&D.
vikasrehmanI think all of us would agree that a few years ago, it was generally accepted that LCA project started in 1983. Over the last couple of years many other dates/funding-related issues have started to creep up, and to be honest they do make sense to an extent. However, whether HAL/ADA had 10 employees or 1000 in 1983, I think it is quite safe to say that LCA programme in itself (with all its objectives) started in 1983, and the actual development of the fighter itself started at a later date? Regarding R&D of LCA
When were the first requirements issued?
When was the first design frozen?
When was the first mock up built?
When were the feability studies carried out?
When was the first wind tunnel test performed?
Fighter design and development has a million and one steps? Did all that start in 90s?
vikasrehmanAir Chief Marshal Fali H. Major:: The LCA is an amalgamation of a number of critical technologies, many of which are not available in India. Once the initial operational Clearance is achieved, we will induct one squadron into the IAF. On obtaining the Final Operational Clearance, more squadrons would be inducted during the 12th Plan period. The IAF is extremely hopeful that the LCA Tejas programme will match up to our expectations.
Back in 2005 or so, after IAF placed the order for first 20 LCA (+8 LSP) there was talk of an imminent order of another 20 (exercising the option of 20). Has that materialised yet? When does the 12th plan period start…if im not mistaken, one plan period is 5 years?
In my view, Tejas is in the class of Gripen-C, in terms of weapon-load and range. With the addition of an engine of the class of GE-F414, it will be able to reach 8G limit and top speed of mach 1.8.
Yet Gripen did not need GE-F414 to achieve those goals.
Actually, it is agreed by various defence analysts that Tejas is practically closer in specifications to a Mirage-2000 and MiG-29; it’s role as merely a MiG-21 replacement is thus an “overkill”.
This is what a lot of ppl are saying. Induct the fighter for the role it was intended for. But IAF appearing to raising the bar all the time (for whatever reason).
The above is inaccurate. Tejas carries the same number of weapons as carried by Gripen C and F-16 in their ‘normal’ or ‘fighter’ configurations. The advertised max. load of 8 tons in case of F-16, Rafale etc. is only the surplus to carry nuclear weapons and/or cruise missiles. In normal load-outs, Tejas will also have similar combat radii as the MRCA contenders.
F-16 (and probably Gripen too) can do all sort of manuevers with its normal load, can go to 9G. Can Tejas do the same? And Im not all that sure whether Tejas will have the same radii as other MMRCA contenders in normal loadouts.
Tejas programme as a project has achieved one of its goals in a fantastic manner. India, as a country, has a good aviation industry which could, should and would be developed further. On other fronts, i.e. replacing Mig-21s, making India self-reliant, Im afraid the project has not had that much of a success. For those who say that the first goal, in terms of priority, was the start of an aviation industry, is there any evidence for that from the era when the project was launched?
vikasrehmanYou are comparing a production aircraft with one without a radar. Anyway if the proposed Elta’s EL/M-2052 AESA is true then it will have an edge over all Gripen models apart from the NG.
But Gripen (and any other MMRCA contender) would be mature designs with years of service behind them.
It’s true that the candidates of MMRCA are much more capable than LCA. However, they are also 50% to three times more expensive in unit cost, not to mention the future operational cost.
Such figures/estimates (both fly away price and life cycle costs) are always based on the production run, i.e. minimum numbers of fighters to be produced. The figure of $22.6 million was based on how many units? Would this many units be produced? Did this take in consideration AESA/F414 etc?
It’s not at all clear to me what level of capability the aircraft has already achieved. Is it an adequate Mig-21 replacement as is? If so, why not build 100 or so MkI Tejas using the existing Kaveri engine? It would not be so expensive at the unit cost of about $22 million reported earlier in this thread and there would actually be something to show for the last 30 years’ effort to produce an indigenous fighter.
At the same time development of a more capable MkII with a more powerful Kaveri-based engine could be undertaken. By 2015 or so India might be able to field a very low cost F-16/Gripen class aircraft with export possibilities.
I have no idea why, but this question always comes to mind when discussing LCA. Why did IAF not accept LCA in its current format (say like F-16/Mirage/flanker/Mig/Gripen) which would be better than Mig-21 any day and gradually develop further variants. Some have argued in the past that its becasue IAF wants a top of the range fighter right from the beggining…unfortunately not good enough reason especially when considering its impact on the local aviation industry.
vikasrehman55 fighter squadrons, each with 16-18 aircraft, I don’t know how IAF could pull this one in reality…unless they reduce the squadron strength. The question becomes even more complicated when one considers the fact that IAF also wants to reduce the different types it has been operating for the ease of logistics which would inevitably be good for the finances. On another note, if im not mistaken 55 squadron notion also takes into consideration many of the old types. Now that IAF will induct a greater number of MKIs (than originally planned) and MMRCA will also join them at some time point, Im not sure they would still stick to their 55 squadron requirements, when many of the old types don’t need replacing on 1:1 basis.
vikasrehmanLooking at this deal from an air force’s perspective, I don’t think its importance should be underestimated. I assume this ARM would equip PAF’s JF-17 (most likely) and possibly Mirage. We have also heard about PAF’s interest in A-Darter (though chinese are also working on their next gen WVRAAM). Now Mektron is involved in R&D of A-Darter with Denel, and the latter has been involved in a number of PAF projects, i.e. H-2/H-4. A recent article from Defence News also indicated that the refuelling kit on PAF fighters (Mirage/JF-17) might also be of South African origin. I think this missile purchase might lead to more purchases in the future.
vikasrehmanAny news of Brazil officially joining the PAK-FA?
vikasrehmanIts hard to say anything about Iran’s nuclear programme. We don’t know much about its current state, and Im not sure if we have enough resources in that country to provide all the details. So it may not be as advanced as they want us to believe or on the contrary it may be more advanced.
But for the sake of argument, lets assume it is moderately advanced. If so I don’t think Israel alone has the means to destroy it. People in this field learn from others’ experiences, and Iranians must have spread their facilities thinly all around to regain the capability if something of the sort happen. By aerial strike/s alone, their programme can be slowed by a few months/years perhpas but it is unlikely to be eliminated.
Its the aftermath, however, which is perhaps more interesting. I am not sure if Iranians have the operational means (as of yet) to hit all of Israel. But if they, I think they would undoubtedly send some towards targets in Israel which would include Israeli nuclear facilities in retaliation. Yes, Israel has some ABM capability, but what if some of these actually hit their targets?
vikasrehmanAbsolutely no chance. Geopolitics happen at government level. This deal was stuffed up at the yard.
OK. Lets suppose it was only poor project management. So why India and Russia have had to talk about it at the highest of the levels, and yet its getting from bad to worse. Is this the norm? Serving officers of both nations have now made certain remarks about this deal. Does this normally happen?
Sign In
