vikasrehmanNick while you may be correct, IAF Chief’s comments can also be read to mean that 48 LCA wil be inducted by 2010-11-12 thereafter the pace will accelerate for inducting 20 LCA per annum
Curious, how can you say this? Please exaplain.
vikasrehmanOn the contrary, I think it has improved considerably from where it stood only couple of years ago, i.e. even though we disagree we can hold a healthy discussion.
vikasrehmanNick, I do agree that it is most likely the rate of ‘induction’ rather than ‘production’ which would be the limiting factor for LCA’s induction into IAF. However, since LCA is generally considered to be the most pivotal element of Indian aviation industry’s growth and maturing process, Im of the opinion IAF has to induct it in bigger numbers than currently planned…i just noticed that the end of 13th defence plan is around 2022.
vikasrehmanI dont get what you are saying since the Parliamentary reports in the past clearly state, that production is per IAF demand. They want a hike, HAL will do it. Basically, the IAF will take a minimum of 6 squadrons – minimum, because, if you see the Jag orders, if anytime, the IAF sees a clearance for more, and need – they’ll snap up more. And Navy has its own demands.
The article is of course from the horses mouth, ie the CAS, FH Major.
2Sq = ~40 aircraft. 6 Sq =~120 aircraft.
Nick, I might be wrong here, but 6 squadrons in IAF will have 108 units (18 per squadron) unless they want to go for 18+2 (reserve) which would be 120 units. In any case, if two squadrons (40+8 LSP as you said) are inducted in 2010/11 that would leave 72 units to be inducted between 2012 to 2018/20. This is roughly 8 to 10 units per year, which I personally don’t think is enough.
In any case, according to the FH Major, two squadrons of the LCA in the IOC version will be inducted in 2010-11. After that, the IAF plan is to have six LCA squadrons by the end of the 13th Defence Plan. These squadrons should start joining the IAF by 2017. I wonder if this is another example of poor journalism considering the fact that if 40+8 (as u said before) are inducted in 2010/11 and remaining squadrons start joining IAF by 2017, what happens in between?
As for the rate of production, I have no doubt that it is per IAF demand. But the rate is not high enough.
vikasrehmanSecond post: This, is ~ 120 aircraft by 2018-20. But, given MOD approval for squadron increase, we can see more. Add another 3-4 squadrons (~40-60 aircraft) for the Navy. So the LCA has a ~200 production run, which is more than enough for the type.
Nick, this is where i slightly disagree with you. I have also come across this news about 6 squadron by 2018/20 (not sure if it was an article or Indian MoD’s report?), though I think India needs to increase the rate of production once FOC is achieved…unless of course they are thinking of limiting LCA production run and start working on a derivative (not an upgrade) in the interim.
vikasrehmanPlease read what has been quoted earlier. The new engine is meant to achieve the 4T max warload figure. Otherwise, as Sens said, anyways the LCA is well placed with the current ~2T payload. Please do a calculation of the likely AFB vs target, and you’ll realise what the LCA can or cannot do. And what it is easily capable of. Frankly, the IAF understands this, or they would never agree to another squadron of the LCA, discussions on this board apart.
Nick, has IAF decided to exercise the option for 20 LCA?
PS. Over the recent months, LCA has been in the news quite a lot, and to be honest, it is not easy to distinguish truth from mere rumour. Having said this, if IAF has decided to go for more LCA than was previously ordered in spite of any shortcomings, i’d call that a wise move. I cant think of any airforces/developers which expect full mutlirole machines from Day 1, unless of course you are buying an already developed machine.
vikasrehmanSens, we dont even know whether this new rumour about LCA’s having limited weapons capability is true or not. But the point I was trying to make was that you can’t shift your goals in this manner as Abhimanyu appeared to have suggested, i.e. we aimed for 4000 but 2,500 would suffice because its good enough or that’s what we need.
vikasrehmanBesides, the sum of individual pylon capacities of Tejas is actually >5,000 kgs (as per a document posted on BR forum over a year back). Let alone this, as mentioned earlier, the max. payload for ANY mission profile never exceeds 2,500 kgs, which is far lesser than the limit of 4,000 kgs. Thus, if the MoD assessment of “limited weapon capability” is applied to 4,000 kgs, there may be no practical limitation.
Abhimanyu, with all due to respect, while I do agree that ‘limited weapon capability’ (if applied to 4,000 kg…and i suspect it is) probably wont have any practical limitations, one cannot hide this limitation behind ‘practical limitations’. I’ll give you a very simple example. In UK we have a top speed limit of 70 mph, yet we can buy cars which can do 200 mph. Now if a designer’s goal was to design a car that could do 100mph and for whatever reason the car could not go above 70 mph, would you agree with the argument, ‘oh well its ok since the top speed limit is 70 mph’?
I again ask , would an LCA with Basic A2A capability (BVR missile + WVR missile) and some infant A2G capability (Dumb bombs , no PGM’s , no cruise missiles and what not) and limited load (Full A2A) with IOC in 2002 be better then what is now being offered in 2012 timeframe ?
This is exactly what should have been done…though I dont know if it was possible back in 2002? By now IAF would have had a number of LCA flying around with the basic tech being matured and work on upgrades being carried out. If this news of ‘limited weapons capability’ is accurate and IAF still inducts LCA, I would say they are learning and going in the right direction.
Also, you are understating the amount of effort it would take to actually get the LCA to the state above. Eg in 2001, Air Marshal MSD Wollen notes that it will definitely take ~2010 to get the LCA operational given a prudent comparison with how much time and effort it took the Gripen, Rafale etc to reach IOC. So the combination of sanctions and a first time effort plus overall testing required would definitely take a substantial amount of time.
Nick, I have only very limited knoweldge of aviation industry and even less of aircraft design and development. Yet I did say (and years ago) that Indian dates for LCA induction are not realistic. Though we have talked about the culture etc, this question still baffles me to an extent.
vikasrehmanOriginal M2K contract for 36 or so units signed in 1986. Then came the M2K-9 contract for 32 or so units in 1988, and last units were delivered in 2004. Weapons integration for M2K-9 was meant to have finished in 2005 and last upgrades for original M2K-9 in 2007. So yes, the timeline for the delivery of Rafale is that bit dubious. I can only hope that French do not try to include another 101 things in the package.
vikasrehmanWell either its for the LCA or the MKI, what it being the tip of the spear and all, and Pakistan buying 500 AMRAAMs. The program exists.
Add to that 300 SD-10 (as of now). Anyway, I don’t think IAF or Indian armed service modernisation is Pakistan centric anymore.:)
vikasrehmanCTOW – Clean Take off weight, 9.5T
Empty – 6.5T
External stores >/= 4T
MTOW 14.5 T
Internal fuel 2.485 T
External fuel 2.812 T1T = 1000 Kg
Speed
1.15M at low level
1.6 M at alt
Nick, is this the official ASR?
Im slightly confused. Is the CTOW literally CTOW (in which case it should be around 9 T (Empty weight + Internal fuel) or is it basic AA configuration? Also MTOW…is it really meant to that high?
vikasrehmanwhy not? China managed to overcome some of the bottlenecks it faced due to technological backwardness by getting Russian engineers to work on its programs and got Israeli help as well, did’nt it?
It is precisely this which makes one think about the nature of bottleneck/s wrt Kaveri. India has planty of funds now, so the obvious solution would be to get expert help…there are plenty of people out there who will be willing to work in India. Yet all this talk of EJ200/F14/New engine development does make one wonder about the current status of Kaveri. Is it really only the last 5% of AB thrust?
vikasrehmanIndia has integrated Russian AAMs in the past wherein the OEM was less than cooperative. This was also done with the R-73E. Push come to shove, even the RVV-AE can be integrated with the MMR/ Elta 2032. Political issues apart, the tech part can be licked.
Nick, I wasn’t questioning India’s ability to integrate the weapons/radar at home, rather the political climate. Considering India’s dependence on Israel and Russia for military hardware/development (though its a two way traffic as the latter two get money for providing the service), could India really afford to go ahead with any (open) integration without any authorisation? Since the latter two are not exactly the best of the pals, how reluctant would they be to share their technologies with each other…unless of course either could co-operate with India separately.
Also, it seems the Kaveri project is now being shut down on the quiet. If this JV gets underway, Kaveri will not power the LCA even in the future as no JV will be for just 20 or 40 aircraft engines. And hence Kaveri is dead for all intents and purposes or at the most reduced to a R&D effort.
Unlikely, especially if Kaveri has achieved its dry thrust and 95% of AB thrust…as so many on this site have said. If this is the case indeed, then these companies would be brought in most likely to further the development of Kaveri rather than develop another engine.
vikasrehmanVikas, I’d suspect that the Derby would be the first BVR weapon on the Tejas. it would’nt be that straightforward for Elta to integrate the R-77 with the E-2032 radar even if Russia cooperated, as compared to simply using the Derby. as weaponisation progresses, the R-77 could be integrated as well, and hopefully by then the MMR will be in place of the E-2032.
Bringiton, Im also thinking on the same lines. But then I do wonder about something else too. IAF is currently using R-77. Both Derby (also on Harriers for IN) and Astra are likely to come in at some timepoint in future. And anything besides Mig-35 would surely bring along a western BVRAAM. Does IAF really need so many different types?
PS. With regard to your post about tranche development, besides other facts as you mentioned its allows for maturation of technologies, and you are more likely to detect any remaining flaws with a greater number of machines.
vikasrehmanAs long as India is not paying for that, the answer is no, otherwise the answer is yes.
Sens, although i agree that India will have to pay for any such integration, I wonder who would carry out this work? Would Russia or Israel be willing to provide each other the required details of the relevant systems? For example, the israeli radar on Harrier uses Derby and not R-77 while Mig-29K will be using the latter.
Sign In
