What's new

INDIA’s Indigenous fighter aircraft programme: what we learnt from Past

$@rJen

BANNED
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
-21
Country
India
Location
Israel


Pakistani go away from this thread. we don't want your troll here


INDIA’s Indigenous fighter aircraft programme: what we learnt from Past

Published November 11, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE : Ranjan Kumar Parida / IDRW.ORG

62729.jpg


The criticisms are not new, the development is slow and they say time is constant here like a black hole circling over India. Many shortfalls and many waivers but still to see the bird on IAF’s hand, yes am talking about HAL Tejas (LCA), will take you back to 1960’s with up and downs in Indian aerospace industry and finally a glimpse of hope with a big order and future development plan.

What you need to have became credible force in Aerospace

Major world powers have capability to design, develop and manufacture fighter aircraft indigenously. Technically, this would include all major components – aero-engines, radar, aircraft design, metallurgy, weapons and sensors. Currently only USA, Russia, France and UK have these capabilities and are followed closely by Germany, Italy, China and Sweden.

Background
Good start but poor follow-up has continued to challenge India’s desire to master aerospace technology. India’s desire to build its own fighter jet began well with the HF-24 Marut program. The project was approved in 1957 and the first prototype flew in 1961 – a mere four years later. The first squadron went operational in 1967. However, the program encountered a premature end in 1982 due to the short-sightedness of the IAF, Government and HAL. The political leadership and the bureaucracy displayed inexperience and strategic carelessness during HF-24 Marut development and operational life. The end result was withering away of precious knowledge gained over the development. During the same period, HAL shifted its focus to production of MiG-21s under license.

The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) decision was taken in 1983 in order to replace aging MiG-21s manufactured during 1970’s and 80’s, as most of them were expected to be phased out in the 1990s. The indigenous design and development of LCA was sanctioned in 1983 and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was constituted in June 1984. IAF issued requirement in October 1985 with a projected requirement of 220 aircrafts (200 fighters and 20 trainers), to be inducted by 1994.

Why LCA, as opposed to MCAs (Rafale, Eurofighter) or HCAs (Sukhoi 30 Mki)?
This concept of LCA has been a source of much study and research to achieve performance requirements at affordable cost. This became more feasible in the jet age as emphasis shifted to getting the same performance with relatively lower thrust engine. The Gnat aircraft, which the IAF flew effectively in 1965 and 1971 wars, was a light weight fighter whose performance in its category was excellent, at minimal cost. This left a lasting impression on IAF and hence the decision for LCA.

What went wrong? Or did anything go wrong, at all?
Prima facie, the perceived delay in the LCA project can be blamed on the lack of co-ordination between user (IAF), designer (ADA), manufacturer (HAL) and the Government, which made it impossible to deliver the LCA project in time. And one wrong was done more over the other – clubbing of Kaveri engine project with LCA. Kaveri engine got delayed because of India’s lack of experience in building turbofan engines. India did tie-ups with unreliable American companies at a time of not-so-good relations, and nuclear tests resulted in sanctions, which pushed back the project by few more years. From LCA decision being taken 1983, till the final operational clearance in Q1 2016 is 33 years – which seems very long. But after removing 4 years for funding gap (from 1989, when project definition was finished, till 1993, no funds were made available to LCA project) and 4 more for sanction issues, LCA project took 25 years. Ideally, world over a fighter jet project takes more than 20 years.

To build a fourth generation fighter aircraft from scratch with a countrywide aerospace ecosystem and research, testing and certification facilities in less than three decades is, by any standards, remarkable technology leapfrog. Anywhere in the world it would draw generous praise but in India, thanks to media attention with questionable intent. Even while mentioning reasons for delays in the program, DM Manohar Parikar agreed in Parliament that lack of trained engineers, infrastructure, including test facilities had played a major role.

How good is HAL Tejas (LCA) and where it headed from here?

Tejas test pilots continue to believe that the aircraft is more versatile than MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat), MiG-27 and Jaguar (primarily ground strike aircraft), and all variants of the MiG-21. They even say it can take on the Pakistan Air Force’s early F-16 variants and outclass the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. Deliveries of combat standard units of Tejas Mk-I began on 17 January 2015, with final operational clearance (FOC) expected Q1 2016. In a major breakthrough IAF recently ordered 120 HAL Tejas. IAF wants the final version should have advanced (AESA) radar, air to air refueling, BVR missiles and electronic jammers to block enemy radars.

Future Developments
ADA is also working on an improved version, HAL Tejas Mk-II, with greater capability based on Indian Navy’s prolonged requirements. Looking into higher drag on water surface HAL Tejas Mk-II will be powered with GE F-414 engines that produce 98kN of peak thrust. Apart from engine, Tejas Mk-II will feature upgraded avionics, more advanced radar and longer combat radius.

Meanwhile a nation surrounded with two aggressive neighbors can’t afford to have just fourth generation fighter. The Chinese today are flying two fifth generation fighter prototypes, one of the fighter J-20 going to be in series production from next year onwards and intended to export to friendly nations. While India realized the situation back in 2008 and started a JV with Russia to develop fifth generation fighter (FGFA) but lack of co-ordination between the nations stalled the project sometime back and IAF now wants to buy Russian version of FGFA T-50 on Government to Government agreement.

Meanwhile IAF with his local partner ADA wants to develop an indigenous fifth generation fighter (AMCA). At the moment the project is out of definition phase and entering to funding phase. AMCA is a much bigger program compared to LCA, in LCA the country leapfrogged from nowhere to fourth generation fighter aircraft. In case of AMCA while the LCA platform will help us, however, our scientist needs to crack number crucial technology like advance radar, Stealth technology and high power engine, currently USA and Russia possesses the technology and China somehow successful. To make the project successful we need larger Research and development base with serious funding upfront.

Now, the good news
In the process of building an indigenous fighter aircraft, India has almost solved the puzzle of fighter aircraft building. With favorable conditions, and proper planning, the successor of Kaveri engines will hopefully be ready by the time India is ready to produce the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The LCA project has built India’s capabilities in fighter aircraft production from ground up. India can repeat the same success story with AMCA, only this time faster. As they say, it is only hard the first time!
 
Nice article indeed. Specially this Part
What went wrong? Or did anything go wrong, at all?
Prima facie, the perceived delay in the LCA project can be blamed on the lack of co-ordination between user (IAF), designer (ADA), manufacturer (HAL) and the Government, which made it impossible to deliver the LCA project in time. And one wrong was done more over the other – clubbing of Kaveri engine project with LCA. Kaveri engine got delayed because of India’s lack of experience in building turbofan engines. India did tie-ups with unreliable American companies at a time of not-so-good relations, and nuclear tests resulted in sanctions, which pushed back the project by few more years. From LCA decision being taken 1983, till the final operational clearance in Q1 2016 is 33 years – which seems very long. But after removing 4 years for funding gap (from 1989, when project definition was finished, till 1993, no funds were made available to LCA project) and 4 more for sanction issues, LCA project took 25 years. Ideally, world over a fighter jet project takes more than 20 years.

To build a fourth generation fighter aircraft from scratch with a countrywide aerospace ecosystem and research, testing and certification facilities in less than three decades is, by any standards, remarkable technology leapfrog. Anywhere in the world it would draw generous praise but in India, thanks to media attention with questionable intent. Even while mentioning reasons for delays in the program, DM Manohar Parikar agreed in Parliament that lack of trained engineers, infrastructure, including test facilities had played a major role.

WOW, a guest is asking the host to GO AWAY?

He He. The OP forgot to mentioned Chinese and Philipenii too. Anyway @sarjenprabhu remove the first line in red, and encourage pakistani members to read the article.

Moderator, @Zarvan have also posted the same article, Pls merge them both.
 
Indian aircraft program is a complete failure just like a lot of other indian initiatives, that's why india is buying foreign aircrafts in hundreds.
Ya just like Isro's Mars orbit Mission or chandrayan or Indian economy which is 8 times of your economy or our foriegn reserves which will be around 20 times of your foriegn reserves....
 
I think for start it was a wise decision since it would have given good knowledge and sense to country which imports many things .My only disagreement to this article comes when author tries to compare it with Pak F16 and JF17 not because i have some complex or i have any thing against Teja .Thing is it has yet to perform and prove where as F16 is all together a different class even to JF17 .Other wise what article suggest is dilemma in our part of world.
 

Pakistani go away from this thread. we don't want your troll here


INDIA’s Indigenous fighter aircraft programme: what we learnt from Past

Published November 11, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE : Ranjan Kumar Parida / IDRW.ORG

62729.jpg


The criticisms are not new, the development is slow and they say time is constant here like a black hole circling over India. Many shortfalls and many waivers but still to see the bird on IAF’s hand, yes am talking about HAL Tejas (LCA), will take you back to 1960’s with up and downs in Indian aerospace industry and finally a glimpse of hope with a big order and future development plan.

What you need to have became credible force in Aerospace

Major world powers have capability to design, develop and manufacture fighter aircraft indigenously. Technically, this would include all major components – aero-engines, radar, aircraft design, metallurgy, weapons and sensors. Currently only USA, Russia, France and UK have these capabilities and are followed closely by Germany, Italy, China and Sweden.

Background
Good start but poor follow-up has continued to challenge India’s desire to master aerospace technology. India’s desire to build its own fighter jet began well with the HF-24 Marut program. The project was approved in 1957 and the first prototype flew in 1961 – a mere four years later. The first squadron went operational in 1967. However, the program encountered a premature end in 1982 due to the short-sightedness of the IAF, Government and HAL. The political leadership and the bureaucracy displayed inexperience and strategic carelessness during HF-24 Marut development and operational life. The end result was withering away of precious knowledge gained over the development. During the same period, HAL shifted its focus to production of MiG-21s under license.

The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) decision was taken in 1983 in order to replace aging MiG-21s manufactured during 1970’s and 80’s, as most of them were expected to be phased out in the 1990s. The indigenous design and development of LCA was sanctioned in 1983 and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was constituted in June 1984. IAF issued requirement in October 1985 with a projected requirement of 220 aircrafts (200 fighters and 20 trainers), to be inducted by 1994.

Why LCA, as opposed to MCAs (Rafale, Eurofighter) or HCAs (Sukhoi 30 Mki)?
This concept of LCA has been a source of much study and research to achieve performance requirements at affordable cost. This became more feasible in the jet age as emphasis shifted to getting the same performance with relatively lower thrust engine. The Gnat aircraft, which the IAF flew effectively in 1965 and 1971 wars, was a light weight fighter whose performance in its category was excellent, at minimal cost. This left a lasting impression on IAF and hence the decision for LCA.

What went wrong? Or did anything go wrong, at all?
Prima facie, the perceived delay in the LCA project can be blamed on the lack of co-ordination between user (IAF), designer (ADA), manufacturer (HAL) and the Government, which made it impossible to deliver the LCA project in time. And one wrong was done more over the other – clubbing of Kaveri engine project with LCA. Kaveri engine got delayed because of India’s lack of experience in building turbofan engines. India did tie-ups with unreliable American companies at a time of not-so-good relations, and nuclear tests resulted in sanctions, which pushed back the project by few more years. From LCA decision being taken 1983, till the final operational clearance in Q1 2016 is 33 years – which seems very long. But after removing 4 years for funding gap (from 1989, when project definition was finished, till 1993, no funds were made available to LCA project) and 4 more for sanction issues, LCA project took 25 years. Ideally, world over a fighter jet project takes more than 20 years.

To build a fourth generation fighter aircraft from scratch with a countrywide aerospace ecosystem and research, testing and certification facilities in less than three decades is, by any standards, remarkable technology leapfrog. Anywhere in the world it would draw generous praise but in India, thanks to media attention with questionable intent. Even while mentioning reasons for delays in the program, DM Manohar Parikar agreed in Parliament that lack of trained engineers, infrastructure, including test facilities had played a major role.

How good is HAL Tejas (LCA) and where it headed from here?

Tejas test pilots continue to believe that the aircraft is more versatile than MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat), MiG-27 and Jaguar (primarily ground strike aircraft), and all variants of the MiG-21. They even say it can take on the Pakistan Air Force’s early F-16 variants and outclass the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. Deliveries of combat standard units of Tejas Mk-I began on 17 January 2015, with final operational clearance (FOC) expected Q1 2016. In a major breakthrough IAF recently ordered 120 HAL Tejas. IAF wants the final version should have advanced (AESA) radar, air to air refueling, BVR missiles and electronic jammers to block enemy radars.

Future Developments
ADA is also working on an improved version, HAL Tejas Mk-II, with greater capability based on Indian Navy’s prolonged requirements. Looking into higher drag on water surface HAL Tejas Mk-II will be powered with GE F-414 engines that produce 98kN of peak thrust. Apart from engine, Tejas Mk-II will feature upgraded avionics, more advanced radar and longer combat radius.

Meanwhile a nation surrounded with two aggressive neighbors can’t afford to have just fourth generation fighter. The Chinese today are flying two fifth generation fighter prototypes, one of the fighter J-20 going to be in series production from next year onwards and intended to export to friendly nations. While India realized the situation back in 2008 and started a JV with Russia to develop fifth generation fighter (FGFA) but lack of co-ordination between the nations stalled the project sometime back and IAF now wants to buy Russian version of FGFA T-50 on Government to Government agreement.

Meanwhile IAF with his local partner ADA wants to develop an indigenous fifth generation fighter (AMCA). At the moment the project is out of definition phase and entering to funding phase. AMCA is a much bigger program compared to LCA, in LCA the country leapfrogged from nowhere to fourth generation fighter aircraft. In case of AMCA while the LCA platform will help us, however, our scientist needs to crack number crucial technology like advance radar, Stealth technology and high power engine, currently USA and Russia possesses the technology and China somehow successful. To make the project successful we need larger Research and development base with serious funding upfront.

Now, the good news
In the process of building an indigenous fighter aircraft, India has almost solved the puzzle of fighter aircraft building. With favorable conditions, and proper planning, the successor of Kaveri engines will hopefully be ready by the time India is ready to produce the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The LCA project has built India’s capabilities in fighter aircraft production from ground up. India can repeat the same success story with AMCA, only this time faster. As they say, it is only hard the first time!
The fighter can take on early variants of F-16? PFFFT!!!!! All F-16s have been upgraded to MLU standard equivalent to Block-50. Now the aircraft will launch AIM-120C AMRAAM from 120 km and maneuver away. Tejas will have to wait to get to 75 Km to launch R-77 Adder. And in avionics, EW and turn rate Tejas is nowhere near the performance of F-16.

Tejas will never match JF-17 in turn rate. Tejas's Turn rate is so poor that it is nowhere near other 4th Generation aircraft. I mean even a mig-21 takes minimum 25 seconds for a 360 degree turn whereas Tejas takes 31 seconds.

th


JF-17 and F-16 both can turn 360 degree in 15 seconds. By the time Tejas will complete a 360 degree turn JF-17 will circle around it two times.
 
25 years is long to develop a fighter if compare with other fighter development project like f-18 rafale euro fighter typhoon or gripen but for a starter developing country maybe not too long.
 
What have we learnt from our homegrown program:


Cart Before the Horse: Without an engine, there is no credible platform.

Electronic pain: Electronics suite, Radars, OLS, are paramount and unless we develop our own > not just replicate foreign systems.

Hand Carbide diagrams come back to bite: Without metallurgy cooks and those power hungry arc furnaces there wont be any developments in metallurgy. we will keep importing raw material.

Project management and value stream analysis: those pesky Gantt charts, resource allocations and walls filled with sticky notes to reduce cycle times in VSLA's and opex exercises actually work despite the boredom of lead engineers . Without gate reviews and PDP's projects will never keep their time lines.

Airforce can't sit and chillax: the living testament is the Indian Navy, just look at their Directorate of Indigenisation and take a cue out of it.

Throw some money: Billions for russians, french and middleman, peanuts for Indians. Throwing money and people at a problem may not always solve a problem, but surely polar opposite doesn't help either. Hire some decent engineers and managers, reverse the brain drain from MNC's, poach technicians from russia, and for god's sake pay them well.
 
25 years is long to develop a fighter if compare with other fighter development project like f-18 rafale euro fighter typhoon or gripen but for a starter developing country maybe not too long.
Right. Instead of investing here India could've bought some quality F-16s or F-18s
 
Right. Instead of investing here India could've bought some quality F-16s or F-18s
Thats the difference pakistan needs to learn even if it take longer time,if we are able to master it, it will beneficial for us long run.

Whereas buying off the shelf product will lead to humiliating conditions sometimes, u must be very much aware of you F16 saga
 
Right. Instead of investing here India could've bought some quality F-16s or F-18s

Right instead of launching Arayabhata in 1960s , India should have leased some US or USSR satellites, Instead of investing in the automobile sector in India, India should have imported all its vehicles, trucks etc. Instead of investing in producing railway engines, Super critical power units, Wind mills, Ships, Destroyers, Frigates, Submarines, PHWRs, Helicopters etc etc etc, India should have imported all of them like Pakistanis do. Right?

And above all, instead of building our own 100cc scooter engines, we should have imported them. I agree with you.
 
What have we learnt from our homegrown program:


Cart Before the Horse: Without an engine, there is no credible platform.

Electronic pain: Electronics suite, Radars, OLS, are paramount and unless we develop our own > not just replicate foreign systems.

Hand Carbide diagrams come back to bite: Without metallurgy cooks and those power hungry arc furnaces there wont be any developments in metallurgy. we will keep importing raw material.

Project management and value stream analysis: those pesky Gantt charts, resource allocations and walls filled with sticky notes to reduce cycle times in VSLA's and opex exercises actually work despite the boredom of lead engineers . Without gate reviews and PDP's projects will never keep their time lines.

Airforce can't sit and chillax: the living testament is the Indian Navy, just look at their Directorate of Indigenisation and take a cue out of it.

Throw some money: Billions for russians, french and middleman, peanuts for Indians. Throwing money and people at a problem may not always solve a problem, but surely polar opposite doesn't help either. Hire some decent engineers and managers, reverse the brain drain from MNC's, poach technicians from russia, and for god's sake pay them well.

Most important lesson- don't stop development at any point under any circumstances.

If we had followed on Ajit it follow -on fighters Tejas would have been easier.
 
Back
Top Bottom