HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[khanz]

LCA or tejas i guess it's called is a nice looking bird looks like a mirage is it based on that ? incidentally imo even jf-17 looks like a mirage too infact lol both jf-17 and lca they look almost identical to each other from the side and front.
Anyway best of luck with it's development.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

PtbP and Kent, get a room or stick to the topic!
Thanks!

You are so understanding

 

[Joodi]

KENT here is my reply;

u complaint abt my attitide that i point out only the problematic areas regarding LCa & dont appreciate the acheivements, look man, dont expect me to praise the achievements, u may find thousand of blind advocates and fans of both jf-17 and lCA, i being an engineer is more interested in pointing out the problamatic areas, what is done, done, better concentrate on failures it is the path to success, i dont see LCA project as bias critic, i see LCA as a competition for jf-17, both IAF and PAF are continously coming up with new ideas and concepts abt their product that is very healthy sign.


JF-17 inception:

as for ur question regarding JF-17 program, that how long did it take, unlike LCA it took less than a decade,(due to difference of approaches for two aircrafts). China and Pakistan signed the agrement for the joint development and production of FC-1, (later named JF-17) in June 1999, the first FC-1 was rolled out on 31 May 2003. It made its first flight on 24 August 2003, and now four JF-17 have already been inducted in PAF. 15-20 to will be inducted this year along with serial production from KAMRA this yr.


Isreali ELTA Radar:
dude that wasn't my statement, I myself didn't said that indian organization were incapable to come up with local MMR for LCA. This was stated by indian Defence Minister Shri AK Antony himself in a written reply in Lok Sabha refering to a question that why there has already been a delay in developing Multi-Mode Radar for LCA by 12 years (atleast 5 more to come).

The project for development of (MMR) was started in June 1991 with Probable Date of Completion of 6½ years. There has been a tremendous time delay and cost overrun in the said project. Now Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (IAI), which has experience in developing similar types of radars will provide a radar system for LCA, recently IAI head visited India & reached an agreement with local authorities to develop the system for Limited Series Production and Series Production. U know local MMR program failed (dont mention those partial successes), i m not interested in pointing fingers at any one's capabilities but it happens automatically after failure.

you says "there was problem with air to ground mode": hahah, yaar KENT, LCA is a multirole aircraft, and its MMR is supposed to work in all modes (air to air , air to ground , air to sea). plz dont advocate blindly, its doesnt help, failure, means failure: reasons behind the failure is a different matter.


Regarding MFDs:

As for the multi function display u says local "When the LCA reaches production stage, local MFDs are expected to be fitted," first of all LCA in production stage, it means 5 more yrs to come, even defence minitry says if every thing goes right Tejas will enter service in 2012 at the ealiest.(yet another very very doubt full claim, keeping in view the past track record of tall claims), further more it is said that local MFDs are "EXPECTED", MY GOODNESS AGAIN JUST EXPECTATION.

AND dear dont talk with if and but and in future tense, its better if we stay stick to what has been achieved in LCA project till now, and the truth is that up till now it is foreign MFDs.


Regarding KAVERI:

Oh bhai, I Know it is "GTRE" who is supposed to do the KAVERI work, dont expect me to name subdivisions and organizations every time, it is basicaly the HAL and ADA , but as the saying "failures & misdeeds of children brings a bad name to their parents (HAL)."
KAVERI even after 23 years(atleast 5 more to come, i doubt this claim also) is not ready, and u know its true yaar. and now GTRE has even asked for foreign assistance and help to over come the short comings. kaveri is not ready and from 1983 to up till now it is the general electric who engines are providing the power.

Cost escalation & Delays:

yah u are right cost increase and delays are normal with any project,
but dude that is no ordinary delay and cost escalation, more than a decade and half long delay and giantic cost escalation.and HAL guys are justifying it in the name of indeginization.

Project objective, Project Cost, In time delivery of project, Quality and experienced/skill gained are the basis aspects related to any engineering project.if u discuss with me good spirit i tell you how this project has failed miserably in meeting the first five basic objectives except the experience/skilled gained which is the only point achieved along with partial achievement of irst aspect. i will sum time discuss each and every aspect of these project separately.

this is the main problem with HAL and ADA, they make tall claims. Some body should tell them "action speek louder than words". HAL , ADA and GTRE at the end of every yr issues a new year message to their nation that by next year LCA will be ready for induction, and Re-issues the same press release again by changing date as the new year arrives. its annoying we are hearing such dead lines more than a decade yaar.


LCA/JF-17 comparision:

u ask me which way LCA and Jf-17 are very much comparable, yaar go check my detail analysis on back pages. when i say they are similar i mean technically in most of their aspect (they are one on one), i dont get bias either it is LCA or JF-17, i judge each aircraft for its merits and demerits, bcoz at the end of day, in a dog fight or combat these machines have perform on its technical grounds not on the basis of their association with india or pakistan.

for summary in two lines:

JF-17 is winner in terms of service ceiling, ferry range, combat range, wings loading, production status, unit cost, fatigue life.

LCA is a winner in light weight, payload, TWR, G limit.

Both are similar in terms of speed, engine thrust, BVR capability,FBW capability, weapon suit.


and plz stop rasiing this question again and again that how many countries can make aircrafts, i can list two dozen countries with their product, dont put such excuses, if only 7-8 countries can be nuclear power out of which two are india and pakistan then y not an aircraft, which is technically of no comparision with a nuclear bomb and it facilites. (i can write this with surity bcoz.i myself is an engineer with specilization in the field of nuclear, working in a nuclear facility)

 

[KENT]

KENT here is my reply;

u complaint abt my attitide that i point out only the problematic areas regarding LCa

Really, Did you really thrown spotlight over problems of LCA? Ask me, Instead you were emphasizing your focus on proportion of Foreign Subsystem in LCA, which I had pointed quite systematically and on top of that I was very quick in acquainting from which source i.e. wikipedia you are basing your premise about LCA .

Problematic areas of LCA, offcourse they are widely known facts, nobody is contesting those problem including me or rather DRDO, HAL, ADA, but rather you should get it clear from yourself, Are you really pointing out problem behind the LCA?

Regarding you accusation of me for raising fingere over your Attitude. How can I complain about your attitude, without knowing your Motives? Instead I raised my fingures over your intention of assessing LCA.

& dont appreciate the acheivements, look man, dont expect me to praise the achievements,

Nobody on earth expect you to praise the LCA achievements, when person who is outright in claiming LCA projects as failure on the premise that, LCA contain fraction of Foreign subsystem and it is delayed and hence it is a failure.

u may find thousand of blind advocates and fans of both jf-17 and lCA,

Have you included yourself in it?

i being an engineer is more interested in pointing out the problamatic areas,

Are you an aerospace engineer? I think you forget to name your background of engineering.

what is done, done, better concentrate on failures it is the path to success,

that is exactly what is being done with LCA projects.

i dont see LCA project as bias critic,

But so far you are sounding like a one of those bias critic. But afterall who care about critics of LCA, since words used in those criticism are very cheap and hence anyone can come and show there annoyance with it.

i see LCA as a competition for jf-17,

See whatever as you wish in it according to what suits you, but in contrast mainly we see LCA as a cornerstone of Indian aviation industry.

both IAF and PAF are continously coming up with new ideas and concepts abt their product that is very healthy sign.

An inherited obligation to match itself with changing modern technological needs.

JF-17 inception:

as for ur question regarding JF-17 program, that how long did it take, unlike LCA it took less than a decade,

See, there is no need of admitting this fact, infact I had acknowledged the same, I guess you forget to read it. I suggesting you to go back and read the same.

(due to difference of approaches for two aircrafts).

One was envisaged to laid the foundation of aviation industry whereas other was simply conceived to replace aging fleet and export purpose due to cheap price.

China and Pakistan signed the agrement for the joint development and production of FC-1, (later named JF-17) in June 1999, the first FC-1 was rolled out on 31 May 2003. It made its first flight on 24 August 2003, and now four JF-17 have already been inducted in PAF. 15-20 to will be inducted this year along with serial production from KAMRA this yr.

An indisputable fact, I never contested it.

Isreali ELTA Radar:
dude that wasn't my statement, I myself didn't said that indian organization were incapable to come up with local MMR for LCA.

You raise fingure over the capability of Indian electronics regarding radar and not Indian organization.

This was stated by indian Defence Minister Shri AK Antony himself in a written reply in Lok Sabha refering to a question that why there has already been a delay in developing Multi-Mode Radar for LCA by 12 years (atleast 5 more to come).

Link pls for such admission by Indian Defence Minister. Whereas it is widely known fact that MMR is delayed, I never denied it.

The project for development of (MMR) was started in June 1991 with Probable Date of Completion of 6½ years. There has been a tremendous time delay and cost overrun in the said project.

Offcourse as I made a statement about inevitability of delays as it is very first attempt and in addition to it radar project was started from scratch.

Now Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (IAI), which has experience in developing similar types of radars will provide a radar system for LCA,

Not similar type of radar, in contrast it will be joint venture between IAI and radar manufacurer of India with the sole objective of correcting the errors in MMR.

recently IAI head visited India & reached an agreement with local authorities to develop the system for Limited Series Production and Series Production.

How much recently? Date of the agreement when it was inked?

Name of the local authorities to develop the system?

U know local MMR program failed (dont mention those partial successes)

I would call it as partial failure in terms of Air to ground Mode. Regarding the Partial success, you haven’t even named the firm which made MMR, then only you conclude it MMR was failure.

, i m not interested in pointing fingers at any one's capabilities but it happens automatically after failure.

So far you just pointing fingers at one’ s capabilities without knowing the ground realities.

you says "there was problem with air to ground mode": hahah, yaar KENT, LCA is a multirole aircraft, and its MMR is supposed to work in all modes (air to air , air to ground , air to sea).

Man, I think you have pretty serious comprehension problem indeed. Man go back and read what I had claim when it is used as a point defence fighter then MMR is definetly workable pieace.

plz dont advocate blindly, its doesnt help, failure, means failure: reasons behind the failure is a different matter

Offcourse, it is failure, but partially and not defeated entirely as project.

Regarding MFDs:
As for the multi function display u says local "When the LCA reaches production stage, local MFDs are expected to be fitted," first of all LCA in production stage, it means 5 more yrs to come, even defence minitry says if every thing goes right Tejas will enter service in 2012 at the ealiest.

It is doubtful claim, When person like you can based his premise by sourcing data about foreign subsystem like MFD from Wikipedia and then I think there is no problem for me as well asserting Indian MFD to be configured in LCA based in same source of wikipedia.

(yet another very very doubt full claim, keeping in view the past track record of tall claims), further more it is said that local MFDs are "EXPECTED", MY GOODNESS AGAIN JUST EXPECTATION.

Offcourse, as I had admitted words and talks are quite cheap, it is usual statement that we have been hearing from each and every criticisizer about LCA.

AND dear dont talk with if and but and in future tense, its better if we stay stick to what has been achieved in LCA project till now, and the truth is that up till now it is foreign MFDs.

Offcourse I think I should have taken the care of future tense, since the claim of local MFD being configured is being made in a past tense.

Regarding KAVERI:

Oh bhai, I Know it is "GTRE" who is supposed to do the KAVERI work, dont expect me to name subdivisions and organizations every time, it is basicaly the HAL and ADA ,

Huh? GTRE is HAL and ADA, Man I think you are out of your own mind, GTRE is an Aerospace Engine Lab of DRDO.

but as the saying "failures & misdeeds of children brings a bad name to their parents (HAL)."

As far as engineering projects are concern, this are indispensable inevitability’s. Those who overruled this chilling truth is completely naïve.

KAVERI even after 23 years(atleast 5 more to come, i doubt this claim also) is not ready, and u know its true yaar. and now GTRE has even asked for foreign assistance and help to over come the short comings. kaveri is not ready and from 1983 to up till now it is the general electric who engines are providing the power.

Offcourse, engines are such kind of engineering elements that only few countries in the world has achieved commandibility over it and as far as India is concerned, infact Kaveri was started from scratch.

Cost escalation & Delays:

yah u are right cost increase and delays are normal with any project,

Herted courtesy

but dude that is no ordinary delay and cost escalation, more than a decade and half long delay

All those projects are started from scratch and in addition to it with some shoe string budget are always subject to meet with same fat as LCA.

and giantic cost escalation.

Gigantic! As far as portfolio of budget goes it is equivalent to shoe string cost escalation.

and HAL guys are justifying it in the name of indeginization.

Definetly, as far as value of currency goes in India, it is clearly justifiable and it is unquestionable truth when some sort of the project started without anykind of knowhow of advance technology and unavailability of required infrastructure in the country to gain competence in expertise of building the fighter plane.

Project objective, Project Cost, In time delivery of project, Quality and experienced/skill gained are the basis aspects related to any engineering project.

There was a dearth of above skill and associated elements of engineering project in India regarding aerospace segment, when India had conceived the LCA projects and hence it takes time and cost overrun to gain all such proficiency and that’s exactly what happened with India.

if u discuss with me good spirit i tell you how this project has failed miserably in meeting the first five basic objectives except the experience/skilled gained which is the only point achieved along with partial achievement of irst aspect. i will sum time discuss each and every aspect of these project separately.

I have completely geared up myself to discuss with you those five basic objectives where LCA has failed miserably.

this is the main problem with HAL and ADA, they make tall claims.

Kindly describe those tall claims, pls post atleast single press release.

Some body should tell them "action speek louder than words".

They are more then mature enough to understand this quotient as far as their status and scale of engineering background and associated milestones are concerned.

HAL , ADA and GTRE at the end of every yr issues a new year message to their nation that by next year LCA will be ready for induction, and Re-issues the same press release again by changing date as the new year arrives. its annoying we are hearing such dead lines more than a decade yaar.

What was the last time when they had issued such press release? Pls provide me with the link where you had came across with such claim.




QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
LCA/JF-17 comparision:

u ask me which way LCA and Jf-17 are very much comparable, yaar go check my detail analysis on back pages. [/QUOTE]

Those are not analysis, rather they were general specifications and hence specifications alone can’t describe anything.

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
when i say they are similar i mean technically in most of their aspect (they are one on one), [/QUOTE]

How does they are one on one? Have you come across any actual dog-fight including LCA and JF-17?

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
i dont get bias either it is LCA or JF-17, i judge each aircraft for its merits and demerits, bcoz at the end of day, in a dog fight or combat these machines have perform on its technical grounds not on the basis of their association with india or pakistan. [/QUOTE]

After all quite customary way of assessing the both the aircraft.

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
for summary in two lines:

JF-17 is winner in terms of service ceiling, ferry range, combat range, wings loading, production status, unit cost, fatigue life.
LCA is a winner in light weight, payload, TWR, G limit.

[/QUOTE]

Has JF-17 achieved IOC?

How did you manage to arrive at unit cost & fatigue life?

LCA has advanced avionics, top class engine, top class range of BVR missiles.

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
and plz stop rasiing this question again and again that how many countries can make aircrafts, [/QUOTE]

Comparison become imperative to justify the magnitude and scale of Fighter plane projects and associated cost and delays.


QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
i can list two dozen countries with their product, [/QUOTE]

List me out a single country which has started the fighter plane project from scratch and achieved desired objective in time and without costoverrun

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
dont put such excuses, [/QUOTE]


Those are not excuse, rather ground reality associated with Fighter plane projects.

QUOTE=Joodi;128338]
if only 7-8 countries can be nuclear power out of which two are india and pakistan then y not an aircraft, which is technically of no comparision with a nuclear bomb and it facilites. (i can write this with surity bcoz.i myself is an engineer with specilization in the field of nuclear, working in a nuclear facility) [/QUOTE]

Nucler bomb expertise and Aerospace expertise are completely different entities. Both of this entities needed different level of specialization and expertise. Nucler bomb in itself doesn’t made it qualified itself as ultimate technological achievement. India and Pakistan opted for nucler bomb only to secure their survival, hegemony and sovereignty.

 

[khanz]

will LCA get israeli avionics ? I heard it will that will be very impressive .

 

[KENT]

will LCA get israeli avionics ? I heard it will that will be very impressive .

First of all you should not expect any foriegn avionics in LCA, so far all the avionics configured in LCA are of Indian Origin. As per the concept of LCA program to attain self sufficiency in every respect, no matter how foreign avionics would be sexier, then would never gona use in LCA

 

[Joodi]

Dont worry abt my motives dear conecentrate on discussion. and i request dont get personal in discussion.

JF-17 IOC:

ur question regarding JF-17 IOC or FOC, i dont know, i think jf-17 forum is the better forum, they can provide the right answer, i can just tell you that 4 JF-17 are currently operating in PAF and 16 more will be inducted this year inshaAllah with serial production starting this year from PAC KAMRA.

kindly tell me when i have written such an statement that LCA is a failure just bcoz it has foreign elements also. i have never written any such thing.
I wrote:" Project objective, Project Cost, In time delivery of project, Quality and experienced/skill gained are the basis aspects related to any engineering project, .if u discuss with me in good spirit i tell you how this project has failed miserably in meeting the first five basic objectives except the experience/skilled gained which is the only point achieved along with partial achievement of first aspect".

LCA as a project failed in most basic aspect related to any engineering project, skilled and experienced is the only area of its success. if u have different openion then let me know ur views regarding any specific aspect and i will give my reply.


One on One.
Yes JF-17 and LCA are one to one, (this is my assessment, u have every right to disagree).Quite frankly I don’t see a possibility of JF-17 versus LCA dog fight in near future (LCA not ready). when I mean one to one, it is on the basis of available technical data, kindly discuss each aspect separately if u have a different opinion but purely on technical ground.
Plz put a side any romanticism abt the aircraft and analyze them purely as a machine.

MMR failure:

what is wrong with u man, just read ur comments "when it is used as a point defence fighter, then MMR is a definately a workable piece", come on dude, there wer serious problems even with the air to air mode that was made locally, Even HAL and ADA have never been able to make such an overambitious claim regarding local MMR, ur statement of workable piece is totally baseless and nonfactual.

first of all LCA is designed as a multirole aircraft not as a point defence fighter, secondly it is MMR, i repeat multi mode radar not a sigle mode radar so either stop calling it a multi mode radar and call it a single mode radar or accept the truth of failure of local MMR.

u are claiming MMR a definate workable piece, then kindly tell me on what basis, dont make such baseless tall claims, local MMR program was a complete failure, not a partial failure as u said. and now isrealis have been called in for help and assistance and do the job what havent been done even after 18 yrs. face the hard core facts.


LCA Superiority Hypothesis:

u says " advanced avionics, topclass engine, top class BVR missile" "topclass" yaar atleast use mature words.

Dude would u kindly share with me the basis of such conclusive (yet very hypothetical) statement regarding LCA engine, BVR capability and avionics/radar superiority over JF-17.

Ur whole hypothesis is totally baseless, based on tall claims. Non of the fact supports ur statement, no data, no reference material.

How can u say that engine in LCA is powerful than the Russian RD-93 in JF-17, go and check the details of both engines and rectify ur false statement urself. (kaveri is not ready so it can not to taken in for comparision with already installed russian Rd-93)

LCA has no avionics superiority over JF-17, avionics is a very detailed topic, i can discuss separately if u wish, and wipe out any such superiority complex.

As for ur "topclass BVR capability" my dear neither the MMR nor the BVR-AAM is ready for LCA, MMR is underdevelopment with the isreali help and assistance, how can any one even talk abt superior BVR capability when radar is still in development phase and BVR-AAM is not even finalized for the LCA either by HAL or IAF.

A final decision is yet to be taken abt what BVR-AAM, LCA gone use, will it be any russian BVR , western BVR or the local BVR ASTRA.

Not a single test has been conducted in this respect. Last october LCA gone through its first ever weapon test in last 25 years, and that also not for BVR-AAM, it was of a Russian within visual range (WVR-AAM) R-73. Even the test regarding WVR-AAM were not final, it was only for the firing test of R-73 and not an accuracy test, there being no target.

the main objectives of that test firing were:
• Safe separation of the missile from the parent aircraft.
• Effect of missile plume on engine air-intake
• Functionality of store management system (SMS) including safety interlocks
• Effect of missile plume on composites structures
• Handling quality assessment during missile launch

After the test firing Mr. PS Subramanyam, director of the LCA programme said that:

“Our next goal is target acquisition and fire control, which will take off only after a multimode radar (MMR) is fitted on the Tejas, which is under developed with Israeli help, and is likely to be fitted onto the Tejas.

dear integration of BVR capability is no joke, and it becomes a far cry when the MMR it self is not ready. and BVR-AAM is not finally selected.

So first build a fully funcational MMR for LCA with all necessary modes (with isreali help and assistance), then finalize the BVR-AAM for it and then integrate them to achieve the objective. We will discuss the BVR capability issue later when it is made available on LCA, better achieve success in integrating WVR-AAM completely first and then think abt BVR issue.

ur stated areas of LCA superiority are following facing these problems at the moment;

1. The integration issues of a new radar to the aircraft needs to be resolved.
2. Domestic radar program has ended in a failure and now a isrealis have been brought in for MMR .
3. Integration of a complete weapons suite needs to be resolved (just one missile trials as yet)
4. FBW issues needs to be resolved so that the aircraft prototypes can surpass the 5G turn limit in current trials. (rated G limit is +9)

I myself wrote the LCA is winner in some areas but ur superiority statement regarding powerful engine, MMR, avionics and BVR capability are totally baseless. No fact and data supports them. Kindly don’t make premature hypothetical claims.

Cost escalation:

Gigantic cost escalation, yes dear its gigantic cost escalation and I mean it.

fist come to kaveri, delays and cost escalation have dogged development of this indigenous GTRE Kaveri engine for the LCA to such an extent that the first two squadrons of LCAs will be fitted with General Electric F-404I.20 engines, similar to those fitted in the prototypes. the Cabinet Committee on Security judged that the Kaveri would not be installed on the LCA before 2012-13.

Kaveri development is now estimated at Rs 2840 crore rupees way over the Rs 380 crores originally approved in 1989.
My goodness a cost escalation of 860%, Oh God, where are the finanacial managers, and you and HAL guys are justifying it just by a single word 'indeginization'. it has been more than 18 yrs and the engine is not yet ready. is this enough excuse for such giagantic cost escalation and 14 yrs of delay (5 more to come atleast, i.e 2 decade of delay).

kaveri was a separte program now come to the LCA itself, the development cost LCA has also spiralled upwards exponentially, it could well now cost Rs 10,000 crore, by the time it is complete by 2012 (very little hope). Original project cost estimates were put at Rs 5600 crores but the Government has sanctioned Rs 5489 crores ($ 1.18 billion) to cover development of the two technology demonstrators (TD-1 and TD-2), five prototype vehicles (PV1 to PV-5).

and this doesnt just stops here, there are dozens of other aspects related to this two deacdes of delay in providing the IAf specified aircraft. one such aspect is the mig21 upgrading, Due to delay in LCA, IAF had to spend extra Rs 11,440 crore in forced upgrades (bcoz various variants of the MiG-21 that the LCA was supposed to replace a decade ago were forced to serve till 2019-2021 at least) and stop-gap acquisitions.

The cost of complete weapon suit for LCA is separte from all these cost estimates, aircraft weaponization is another very expensive area which is still taken to be taken in to account.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

I am concerned...

If it was to be a Pakistani Project i would say.... Is it worth puting so much effort in a project to create a medium tech plane which will (when produced serially) become old news in the coming decade.

Just cannot accept the fact that LCA will have 100% Indian Components. Can't see the infrustructure for Avionics and Aircraft Industry self reliance in all aspects, building up in India!

 

[Joodi]

I am concerned...

If it was to be a Pakistani Project i would say.... Is it worth puting so much effort in a project to create a medium tech plane which will (when produced serially) become old news in the coming decade.
!

Exactly, the future prospects and growth potential for LCA are already on question,

IAF is making its intentions clear, they are no more interested in any such indeginious venture in future. IAF is going for 126 (4.5 generation) multirole aircraft (either amercian, eurpoean or russian), which will be manfuctured in india on TOT basis.
and with the signing of aggrement with Russia for a 5th generation aircraft (PAK-FA), the future of Local medium combat aircraft darkens & MCA project is very likely to be shelved. Now IAF is concentrating on 4.5 generation and 5th generation aircraft ventures, the growth potential and future propects for LCA doesnt look bright at all.

 

[KENT]

Dont worry abt my motives dear conecentrate on discussion. and i request dont get personal in discussion.

Man first of all go and properly read my previous statement, I didn’t raise finger over your motive, instead I had suggested you to understand my motives.

JF-17 IOC:

ur question regarding JF-17 IOC or FOC, i dont know, i think jf-17 forum is the better forum, they can provide the right answer, i can just tell you that 4 JF-17 are currently operating in PAF and 16 more will be inducted this year inshaAllah with serial production starting this year from PAC KAMRA.

Man induction of Jf-17, because PAF was in dire condition on account of ageing fleet. Induction of a particular fighter plane doesn’t mean it has completed its IOC and FOC.

kindly tell me when i have written such an statement that LCA is a failure just bcoz it has foreign elements also. i have never written any such thing.

You should check back your previous post regarding your claim of LCA as failure

I wrote:" Project objective, Project Cost, In time delivery of project, Quality and experienced/skill gained are the basis aspects related to any engineering project, .if u discuss with me in good spirit i tell you how this project has failed miserably in meeting the first five basic objectives except the experience/skilled gained which is the only point achieved along with partial achievement of first aspect".

LCA as a project failed in most basic aspect related to any engineering project, skilled and experienced is the only area of its success. if u have different openion then let me know ur views regarding any specific aspect and i will give my reply.

Joodi, I had asked you what are those five basic elements where LCA has failed in a previous thread as well, as I am always ready to discuss with you.

One on One.
Yes JF-17 and LCA are one to one, (this is my assessment, u have every right to disagree).Quite frankly I don’t see a possibility of JF-17 versus LCA dog fight in near future (LCA not ready). when I mean one to one, it is on the basis of available technical data, kindly discuss each aspect separately if u have a different opinion but purely on technical ground.

You had provided all the specifications of LCA and JF-17 on previous occasion, I had discussed all those technical details with you with textbook precision, I think you should refer my previous post.

Plz put a side any romanticism abt the aircraft and analyze them purely as a machine.

Joodi, so far I had answered to your question filled with skeptics about LCA as a project, What exactly makes you think that I had fumed Romanticism about aircraft?

MMR failure:

what is wrong with u man, just read ur comments "when it is used as a point defence fighter, then MMR is a definately a workable piece", come on dude, there wer serious problems even with the air to air mode that was made locally, Even HAL and ADA have never been able to make such an overambitious claim regarding local MMR, ur statement of workable piece is totally baseless and nonfactual.

Oh my goodness! Where does there was an problem with Air to Air mode?, pls provide link before accusing me of making baselss and nonfactual claims.

How does HAL and ADA have made such an overambitious claims? Since MMR is not their product and their work is only to integrate it with LCA.


Offcourse my comments would be baseless and nonfactual since they are assumptions and I had put on condition about it as point defence fighter.

first of all LCA is designed as a multirole aircraft not as a point defence fighter, secondly it is MMR, i repeat multi mode radar not a sigle mode radar so either stop calling it a multi mode radar and call it a single mode radar or accept the truth of failure of local MMR.

I had put a condition of Point defence fighter regarding my claim of MMR, since it is valid to some extent since LCA is going to replace Point defence fighter of IAF that is Mig-21.

About my acceptability of Failure of MMR, I don’t have the such credentials to lablled it as a failure because some chronic issues with MMR with regards to Air to ground Mode doesn’t translate in itself it as a failure.

u are claiming MMR a definate workable piece, then kindly tell me on what basis, dont make such baseless tall claims, local MMR program was a complete failure, not a partial failure as u said. and now isrealis have been called in for help and assistance and do the job what havent been done even after 18 yrs. face the hard core facts.

Pls 18 years of delay, delay and assistance from Isrealies doesn’t translate MMR as a failure because it is a tradition of engineering projects which can’t get completed without any flaws.

LCA Superiority Hypothesis:

u says " advanced avionics, topclass engine, top class BVR missile" "topclass" yaar atleast use mature words.

Dude would u kindly share with me the basis of such conclusive (yet very hypothetical) statement regarding LCA engine, BVR capability and avionics/radar superiority over JF-17.

Then pls tell which words should I used? It is a reality and worldwide acknowledgement, since its some of some of the Su-30MKI avionics are sourced directly from the LCA.

Regarding engine, current engine of the LCA is being utilized also on F-18 super hornets as well F-117.

Regarding BVR, IAF arsenal of BVR which comprises Isreali, Russian and in development Indian version of Astra are on par with world’s top class BVR’s.

Regarding Radar, Elta of isreal is already pitching hard to integrate their AESA on LCA.

Ur whole hypothesis is totally baseless, based on tall claims. Non of the fact supports ur statement, no data, no reference material.

Pls let me know on which elements of LCA, I should provide you with Links and facts. Then I will swarmed your response with several links and facts

How can u say that engine in LCA is powerful than the Russian RD-93 in JF-17, go and check the details of both engines and rectify ur false statement urself. (kaveri is not ready so it can not to taken in for comparision with already installed russian Rd-93)

Joodi, The GE F404 is a rather popular engine: F/A-18 Hornet, F-117 Nighthawk and even the famed B-2 Stealth bomber is powered by (Four) F404s! The JAS-39 too is powered by a modification of the F404 made by Volvo. When the Rafale prototype first flew, it too had the GE F404 engines.

LCA has no avionics superiority over JF-17, avionics is a very detailed topic, i can discuss separately if u wish, and wipe out any such superiority complex.

Joodi, it is reality that Avionics used on Su-30mki is sourced from the LCA, and those same avionics make Su-30mki unparallel to anyother fighter plane.

I am just inviting you to wipe out my superiority of complex in terms of avionics. But before that let yourself get familrize yourself with LCA Avionics.

The following are the components developed by Indian agencies:

32 bit Mission Computer cum Display Processor - MC-486 and DP-30MK (Defence Avionics Research Establishment - DARE)
Radar Computer - RC1 and RC2 (DARE)
Tarang Mk2 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) + High Accuracy Direction Finding Module (HADF) (DARE
IFF-1410A - Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)
Integrated Communication suite INCOM 1210A (HAL)
Radar Altimeter - RAM-1701 (HAL)
Programmable Signal Processor (PSP) - (LRDE)

The 32-bit Mission Computer performs mission-oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration-cum-redundancy management and in-flight systems self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for the mission computer's software. The other DARE-developed product, the Tarang Mk2 (Tranquil) radar warning receiver, is manufactured by state-owned BEL at its Bangalore facility.

These avionics equipment have also been certified for their airworthiness in meeting the demanding standards of Russian military aviation. The cumulative value of such indigenous avionic equipment is estimated to exceed Rs. 250 lakhs per aircraft. Since the core avionics were developed by a single agency (DRDO) - they have significant commonality of hardware and software amongst them using a modular approach to design. This obviously results in major cost and time savings in development; it also benefits the user in maintenance and spares inventories.

The DRDO has gone a step further and come out with a new design of the Core Avionics Computer (CAC) which can be used with a single module adaptation across many other aircraft platforms. Thus the CAC which is derived from the computers designed for the Su-30MKI will now be the centre piece of the avionics upgrades for the MiG-27 and Jaguar aircraft as well. The CAC was demonstrated by DRDO at the Aero India exhibition at Yelahanka and attracted a good deal of international attention. Taken together with the systems already developed indigenously for the LCA (such as the Digital Flight Control Computer and HUD), clearly Indian avionics have a significant export potential in the burgeoning global market for avionics modernisation.

The navigation/weapons systems from the various countries were integrated by Ramenskoye RPKB.

As for ur "topclass BVR capability" my dear neither the MMR nor the BVR-AAM is ready for LCA, MMR is underdevelopment with the isreali help and assistance, how can any one even talk abt superior BVR capability when radar is still in development phase and BVR-AAM is not even finalized for the LCA either by HAL or IAF. A final decision is yet to be taken abt what BVR-AAM, LCA gone use, will it be any russian BVR , western BVR or the local BVR ASTRA.

Unreadiness of MMR doesn’t mean LCA can’t be associate itself with superior BVR, LCA always has an option of Isreali Elta AESA and AN/APG-67 from Lockheed Martin. Regarding your BVR, I think you should recheck regarding its BVR-AAM, LCA has always an option of variety of BVR’s that is being available with IAF arsenal like R-77 and Python and underdevelopment Astra. We could have fitted LCA with AESA, but IAF decided to go with MMR.

Not a single test has been conducted in this respect. Last october LCA gone through its first ever weapon test in last 25 years, and that also not for BVR-AAM, it was of a Russian within visual range (WVR-AAM) R-73. Even the test regarding WVR-AAM were not final, it was only for the firing test of R-73 and not an accuracy test, there being no target.

Man you are claiming both your assumption at the same time regarding test of AAM, first you claim that not a single test has been conducted but at the same breath you admitted that LCA has gone through AAM Test.

Offcourse there is no target since it is inherited obligation of first ever test firing of AAM from any kind of new fighter plane, so accuracy test would not be an obligation.

the main objectives of that test firing were:
• Safe separation of the missile from the parent aircraft.
• Effect of missile plume on engine air-intake
• Functionality of store management system (SMS) including safety interlocks
• Effect of missile plume on composites structures
• Handling quality assessment during missile launch

All this objectives were accomplished during test firing of AAM from LCA

After the test firing Mr. PS Subramanyam, director of the LCA programme said that:

“Our next goal is target acquisition and fire control, which will take off only after a multimode radar (MMR) is fitted on the Tejas, which is under developed with Israeli help, and is likely to be fitted onto the Tejas.

dear integration of BVR capability is no joke, and it becomes a far cry when the MMR it self is not ready. and BVR-AAM is not finally selected.

Man this are step by step testing of AAM associated with any kind of fighter plane which has never tested with AAM earlier before.

So first build a fully funcational MMR for LCA with all necessary modes (with isreali help and assistance), then finalize the BVR-AAM for it and then integrate them to achieve the objective. We will discuss the BVR capability issue later when it is made available on LCA, better achieve success in integrating WVR-AAM completely first and then think abt BVR issue.

If this really was the case, then why did you made the claim of JF-17 being equal to LCA in BVR.

Joodi, In my opinion you should remind yourself about this verdict, since you were the one who say that JF-17 and LCA both are similar in terms of speed, engine thrust, BVR capability,FBW capability, weapon suit.

When you want me to show the superiority of BVR of LCA after whole completion of Radar and BVR integration, then you should not make the statement that JF-17 and LCA are equal in terms of BVR. Since I justify the superiority of BVR on LCA on the premise that whole range of BVR missiles as well as Radar on offer to LCA and in contrast I have’t seen anything like that in respect of JF-17.

If JF-17 is really equal to LCA in terms of BVR, then why don’t you let JF-17 to integrate itself with Radar and BVR missiles on the same premise you have reminded me about integration of radar and bvr on lca.

On what premise you have equalize LCA with JF- 17 on BVR issue?, when you yourself not confirm about the integration of RADAR and BVR on JF-17 itself

ur stated areas of LCA superiority are following facing these problems at the moment;

1. The integration issues of a new radar to the aircraft needs to be resolved.

It has nothing to do with my claim of superiority, since myself has admitted with this fact.

2. Domestic radar program has ended in a failure and now a isrealis have been brought in for MMR .

Domestic radar is not ended in failure, some of its minor nicks that was created during Air to ground mode have been corrected with Isreali Help. Minor nicks does’nt describe in itself complete failure.

3. Integration of a complete weapons suite needs to be resolved (just one missile trials as yet)

Definetly an hardcore fact

4. FBW issues needs to be resolved so that the aircraft prototypes can surpass the 5G turn limit in current trials. (rated G limit is +9)

Pls provide the link for this exaggeration.

I myself wrote the LCA is winner in some areas but ur superiority statement regarding powerful engine, MMR, avionics and BVR capability are totally baseless. No fact and data supports them. Kindly don’t make premature hypothetical claims.

I never made any hypothetical claims since I only try to correct your ignorance about LCA in its subsystem.

Cost escalation:

Gigantic cost escalation, yes dear its gigantic cost escalation and I mean it.

How do you mean it? Have you got the copy of audit report of LCA project management?

fist come to kaveri, delays and cost escalation have dogged development of this indigenous GTRE Kaveri engine for the LCA to such an extent that the first two squadrons of LCAs will be fitted with General Electric F-404I.20 engines, similar to those fitted in the prototypes. the Cabinet Committee on Security judged that the Kaveri would not be installed on the LCA before 2012-13.

Definetly indisputable fact, since privilege of development of Fighter plane engine is being associated with very few countries in the world and on top of that India started the development of engine from scratch and hence delays were inevitable.

Kaveri development is now estimated at Rs 2840 crore rupees way over the Rs 380 crores originally approved in 1989.

My goodness a cost escalation of 860%, Oh God, where are the finanacial managers, and you and HAL guys are justifying it just by a single word 'indeginization'.

How did you arrive at the figure of 860%?

What kind of equation and ratio’s did you utilize to come across this figure?

What was the value of the Rupees in terms of doller during the project was first envisage and correlation of your equation with this value to arrive at this figure of 860%?

it has been more than 18 yrs and the engine is not yet ready. is this enough excuse for such giagantic cost escalation and 14 yrs of delay (5 more to come atleast, i.e 2 decade of delay).

When Aviation giant like France can suffered from delays of 13 years in M-88 engine development for rafale as well as significant cost escalation despite decades of engine development experience, then one can get the glimpse of magnitude of complexity involved in engine development and associated cost escalation. GTRE without its prior experince of engine development started kaveri project from scratch, so inevitability of delays and cost escalation can be justified.

kaveri was a separte program now come to the LCA itself, the development cost LCA has also spiralled upwards exponentially, it could well now cost Rs 10,000 crore, by the time it is complete by 2012 (very little hope).
Original project cost estimates were put at Rs 5600 crores but the Government has sanctioned Rs 5489 crores ($ 1.18 billion) to cover development of the two technology demonstrators (TD-1 and TD-2), five prototype vehicles (PV1 to PV-5).

Offcourse mate, I admitted from long time and still want to admit that such cost escalation is being experience in every fighter project, since the figure that you have mentioned above is from wikipedia and significiant amount of it is spent on creating the necessary infrastructure for fighter plane development. Regarding the figure of Rs. 10,000 crore is you have quoted from wikipedia and it was quoted by the “Times of India”, but I think you forget to mentioned over here A Rs. 2,000 crores (over US$450 million) order for 20 Tejas aircraft would represent a unit procurement cost of US$22.6 million for each and By comparison, the Times of India quoted the costs for the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen and French Rafale as Rs. 150 crores (US$34 million) and Rs. 270 crores (US$61 million), respectively, while pricing the new American F-22 Raptor stealth fighter at Rs. 480 crores (US$108 million).[2]

and this doesnt just stops here, there are dozens of other aspects related to this two deacdes of delay in providing the IAf specified aircraft. one such aspect is the mig21 upgrading, Due to delay in LCA, IAF had to spend extra Rs 11,440 crore in forced upgrades (bcoz various variants of the MiG-21 that the LCA was supposed to replace a decade ago were forced to serve till 2019-2021 at least) and stop-gap acquisitions.

The project that has started from scratch and with limited budget and on top of that without any kind of knowhow and expertise of homegrown design. Tejas was badly hitted especially during 1999 pokhern nucler test and US imposed sanction on India. During that Sanction period, all GE engine as well as FBW techs were held, and hence HAL had to acquire competency on their own in FBW development and they done that on their own.

The cost of complete weapon suit for LCA is separte from all these cost estimates, aircraft weaponization is another very expensive area which is still taken to be taken in to account.

Please Please Please Please provide the link which can validate this exaggaration.

 

[KENT]

Exactly, the future prospects and growth potential for LCA are already on question,

Future prospects of LCA is very bright and several technologies that India have learned from LCA is blooming in the form of Su-30mki, IJT,SARAS,MCA, PAK-FA,MTA and host of all other upgrades of existing fleet of IAF as well as ECM and avionics as well as Multi mode Radar.

IAF is making its intentions clear, they are no more interested in any such indeginious venture in future.

And that is why they have provided its complete support for homegrown project like LCA and IJT as well as that is why Indian navy has constructing the Air-defence ship from where it can launch Naval LCA. Very recently LCA flown with Isreli laser targeting pod. IAF can't get such advance fighter plane at such a less cost anywhere in the world.

IAF is going for 126 (4.5 generation) multirole aircraft (either amercian, eurpoean or russian), which will be manfuctured in india on TOT basis.

We already got the 4.5 generation fighter plane in the form of Su-30MKI and MRCA has been press into service to reduce operational and logistical cost as well as stop gap measure to maintain the desired level of squadran for IAF and hence it has nothing to be done with LCA.

and with the signing of aggrement with Russia for a 5th generation aircraft (PAK-FA),

the whole object of Signing of PAF-FA project was to learn and get required competence in building Fifth generation fighter plane.

the future of Local medium combat aircraft darkens & MCA project is very likely to be shelved.

It will never going to be shelved since the first flight of LCA, several foriegn aviation giant have come forward to collabrate with their Indian Couterparts and regarding MCA, work on MCA had already been started as well very recently design of MCA has also been freezed.

Now IAF is concentrating on 4.5 generation and 5th generation aircraft ventures, the growth potential and future propects for LCA doesnt look bright at all.

The avionics that were used in su-30mki project were partially also sourced from LCA project, as from Isreali and frech sources. Without LCA project IAF could never think of 4.5 and 5 generation fighter project. To operate and to concentrate on 4.5 and 5 geneation fighter project, one need to have an experience and competence in fighter aircraft development and in case of IAF the experience was in terms of the LCA.

 

[JimmyJ]

I think many of the fellow members would oppose the idea of India directly jumping into the LCA project. LCA project wouldn't have suffered the huge time delay if the development of Marut(remember the first program from India ?) had been continued. When Marut was halted, the technical learning curve itself was gone. If India doesn't seek the completion of LCA the same will happen again. This will lead to an incapability towards building a 5th Gen fighter on its own. So with all the criticism received from all quarters, GOI will pursue the project to the very end. A big criticism was regarding the cost escalation. Please check into the fighter development cost of 3rd and 4th gen fighters of western counterparts. You will see that what LCA has been allocated is a fraction. Cost escalation is expected in a defence project as requirements are meant too change and especially when requisite skill is little. Check about JSF and you will know what does cost escalation means perfectly. India still is learning many things, so where ever it cannot go alone it will seek foreign help. But at the same time will also learn to design and build the component in near future. The small steps are from where we all start to learn and build a better nation. America was not created in a day, nor was the Great Britian. They all have gone thru what India is currently passing with regards to technological developments. So lets wait to see where India leads to........

 

[Titanium]

United States delay hits Tejas flight test


Ravi Sharma
BANGALORE: The Aeronautical Development Agency’s (ADA) bid to identify a global aerospace firm that could help it hasten the flight test programme of the light combat aircraft Tejas appears to have hit a hurdle. The U.S. Department of State is yet to permit American companies seeking to tie up with the ADA, to share what is perceived as sensitive defence technologies with India.

Under the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) rules governing implementation of the Arms Export Control Act, American companies cannot export or import defence and military-related articles and services without approval from the State Department.

The move will jeopardise the bid by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to share their technological expertise with the ADA and, ironically, help their competitors, European aerospace firms Eurofighter and Saab, which are also vying for the contract.

Sources told The Hindu that the State Department’s delay in giving permission to the American firms could affect the Navy’s plans to shift from platform-centric to network-centric operations.


The Hindu : National : United States delay hits Tejas flight test

 

[su-47]

this means that we'll have to get help from Eurofighter or Saab instead of LM or boeing.

 

[GreenMan]

Most of LCA's software is written in the Ada prgramming language

LCA's Software
Quote from the above link

The heart of the system is a 32-bit Mission Computer (MC) which performs mission oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration / redundancy management and in-flight system self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for mission computer software.

This makes it less future proof as outside of the US Department of Defence Ada is a dying language

Here is a report about the future prospects of Ada

What About Ada? The State of the Technology in 2003

Indians copied the Americans and used Ada for LCA's Mission Computer's software but soon the development tools and the eco system around Ada will dry up as not many private companies will be supporting Ada.

US compaines themselves are moving to the use of COTS ( Commercial off the Shelf ) stuff for their newer develpment , like the Golobal Hawk program relies mostly on COTS and given that not many private companies will be developing newer tools for Ada , its future indeed looks bleak.

As the support for Ada dies down Ada based software will become increasigly diffucult to maintian and upgrade and given the dimissal record of LCAs other development this will be yet another nail its coffin