LCA MK2 a disaster waiting to happen!

[Capt.Popeye]

More pointless gibberish, adding no value to the topic or discussion. As was your first post, so is this last. And everything in between. Now if you'll excuse me, I would rather respond only when somebody says something of substance, rather than vacuous venting.

@janon: as was correctly opined else where the LCA project has been a great technological reserch project while falling short as a product. It led to developmental work in many areas which India had not even remotely approached earlier. One of them was in Material Science, notably in Composite Materials. But similarly in this very same area, there were setbacks too, notably in Metallurgy. A great part of this can be attributed to the huge behemoth that DRDO is, akin to the CSIR. In such a huge umbrella Orgn. everything happens thus leading to some deficiencies getting masked. Thus the Good hides the Mediocre. Now Scientific Research Work is very different from setting up Manufacture Process or for that matter even creating a Product. That is where Industry and End-Users need to be involved. In the case of the LCA, this did not happen. Everybody else (apart from the scientists) was either kept at or remained at "arms-length" and more. More so in the initial stages. That has never the subject of any serious analysis and rectification.

Here there were three Agencies who were "ostensible stake-holders". Designer, Industry/Manufacturer and End User/Customer. Any research into the level of synergy/co-operation between these three will be shatteringly revealing.
To start with; the Designer had nearly zero experience in the product that he was setting out to design, which is both understandable and acceptable. But inputs from the other parties were hardly (if at all) sought and received.

Just compare this to the Gnat Project (which in a manner of speaking, was India's first LCA). There was no Designer (in India) and the design had its fair share of flaws. Hence the Gnat Handling Flight/Unit was set up in Kanpur. The IAF fliers gave valuable inputs to the Manufacturer which helped to iron out the flaws one by one. Mr.E.W.Petter (the Gnat's designer and Folland Aircraft) acknowledged their role. There is no parallel in the LCA project to this endeavour. A great deal of this was due to the "attitude" of the "guys with qualifications". So the other stake-holders moved to the side-lines and remained there. It is laughable when people quote "Mil-Std" and "Mil-Spec" at every twist and turn, because they matter only when they become efficacious in application. Otherwise they are just "paper" (sometimes close to toilet-paper). In the case that I wrote about earlier: the faulty design of the FFA, it met all "paper" specs (Standards) but when it came to application, even more so in the consideration of damage-that was different.
So unlike the view(s) of someone on this board, "voices need to be heard" at least. Not to do so can be perilous. And expensive to boot.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

LCA (mk1----mkxx) is a flop project...Better to buy mig21's again... or reduce your poverty level from 65% or atleast provide toilets to your people...

Well just because you *** have a functioning survey department dosent mean you don't have poverty. First try to get your railways up and running before you comment on us.

On topic:

LCA MK2 is a waste of time. It was something the IAF never needed. It was the Navy who proposed a point defence interceptor for it's fleet defence and then the IAF jumped into the band wagon. The LCA has lost all relevance in modern warfare over the skies of India. India right now needs a heavy and medium mix of fighters to fend of rivals in the next decade. The LCA MK2 is more like a mirage 2000 that will lose relevance pretty soon.

I rather stop the IAF funding for LCA and use the GE 414 engines for the development of the AMCA which is a much more valid proposal from the IAF.

 

[Riaz Hussain]

well bhai LCA MK1can beat your super dupar JF17 any given day as per current specs , yes its delayed but not because of HAL but deu to constant change is requirements by the IAF who never want anything accept foreign maal which comes with kickbacks hope u understand

as for MK2 it will have a more power full GE 414 engine same as on F18 E , with a israeli ASEA radar & avionkicks & EW suit + bigger feul capacity & enlarged air intakes while still as feul efficient and agileas the MK1

dont worry we have already purchased 100 such engines and talks for best possible price for ASEA are on weather u like it or not IAF will have 5 squads of LCA MK2 at least

JF-17 is a success story. That is more than what I can say for the failed project LCA. LCA is a joke for the world community. A jet which every one in the world should spit at. LCA should be covered by the spit of every one in this world. That's how shameful and stupid of a project it is.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

LCA (mk1----mkxx) is a flop project...Better to buy mig21's again... or reduce your poverty level from 65% or atleast provide toilets to your people...

Well just because you do not have a functioning survey department dosent mean you don't have poverty. First try to get your railways up and running before you comment on us.

On topic:

LCA MK2 is a waste of time. It was something the IAF never needed. It was the Navy who proposed a point defence interceptor for it's fleet defence and then the IAF jumped into the band wagon. The LCA has lost all relevance in modern warfare over the skies of India. India right now needs a heavy and medium mix of fighters to fend of rivals in the next decade. The LCA MK2 is more like a mirage 2000 that will lose relevance pretty soon.

I rather stop the IAF funding for LCA and use the GE 414 engines for the development of the AMCA which is a much more valid proposal from the IAF.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

JF-17 is a success story. That is more than what I can say for the failed project LCA. LCA is a joke for the world community. A jet which every one in the world should spit at. LCA should be covered by the spit of every one in this world. That's how shameful and stupid of a project it is.

Well if it was the IAF the JF 17 would have been in the dustbin before it actually took off. You had no other choice to replace all those aging aircrafts. The only aircraft you could afford was the JF 17 which was sold to you saying that it brings BVR capability to your air force but we are yet to see the much Vaunted SD-10 to be fired from the JF 17.

The LCA is no longer a point defence fighter it was envisaged to be. And it has lost all relevance in the IAF doctrine.

 

[sankranti]

@janon: as was correctly opined else where the LCA project has been a great technological reserch project while falling short as a product. It led to developmental work in many areas which India had not even remotely approached earlier. One of them was in Material Science, notably in Composite Materials. But similarly in this very same area, there were setbacks too, notably in Metallurgy. A great part of this can be attributed to the huge behemoth that DRDO is, akin to the CSIR. In such a huge umbrella Orgn. everything happens thus leading to some deficiencies getting masked. Thus the Good hides the Mediocre. Now Scientific Research Work is very different from setting up Manufacture Process or for that matter even creating a Product. That is where Industry and End-Users need to be involved. In the case of the LCA, this did not happen. Everybody else (apart from the scientists) was either kept at or remained at "arms-length" and more. More so in the initial stages. That has never the subject of any serious analysis and rectification.

Here there were three Agencies who were "ostensible stake-holders". Designer, Industry/Manufacturer and End User/Customer. Any research into the level of synergy/co-operation between these three will be shatteringly revealing.
To start with; the Designer had nearly zero experience in the product that he was setting out to design, which is both understandable and acceptable. But inputs from the other parties were hardly (if at all) sought and received.

Just compare this to the Gnat Project (which in a manner of speaking, was India's first LCA). There was no Designer (in India) and the design had its fair share of flaws. Hence the Gnat Handling Flight/Unit was set up in Kanpur. The IAF fliers gave valuable inputs to the Manufacturer which helped to iron out the flaws one by one. Mr.E.W.Petter (the Gnat's designer and Folland Aircraft) acknowledged their role. There is no parallel in the LCA project to this endeavour. A great deal of this was due to the "attitude" of the "guys with qualifications". So the other stake-holders moved to the side-lines and remained there. It is laughable when people quote "Mil-Std" and "Mil-Spec" at every twist and turn, because they matter only when they become efficacious in application. Otherwise they are just "paper" (sometimes close to toilet-paper). In the case that I wrote about earlier: the faulty design of the FFA, it met all "paper" specs (Standards) but when it came to application, even more so in the consideration of damage-that was different.
So unlike the view(s) of someone on this board, "voices need to be heard" at least. Not to do so can be perilous. And expensive to boot.

I expected you to be above snide sniping, but never mind. You are quite wrong in stating Mil-Std matter only in case of successful design. The very concept of successful design is when it satisfies the Mil-Std.

What this tells me is that you are from an end user background and hence this know it all attitude without actually knowing anything about actually designing anything. Now there is no shame in that. There are Project Managers and then there are project managers.

Mil-Std's define the operational limits of the product, especially for military application.

Faulty design happens when the requirement is not mapped properly. This is usually due to the poor requirement definition by the end user. This is the only area where the end user can provide any relevant input, and this is the area where they show incompetence and fail miserably. Instead they want to lay Project management and program management.

What your earlier example told me was that the user requirement was not correctly defined. It had nothing to do with meeting the Mil-Std. You probably do not understand the difference, because if you did, you would not have made such a ignorant comment.

As i said earlier, competent voices need to be heard, not people who think they are experts.

But that aside, I do enjoy some of your posts. So cheer.

 

[fast]

Wait, I thought LCA is the 4++ gen super-duper fighter that Indians have always claimed it to be. LCA MK2 must be 4.75+ gen then. Why is it a failure?

 

[GURU DUTT]

1) OKay (Future tense)
2) Future tense
3) Future tense

well bro i can understand why your so synical about such projects ...anybody can understand bu taking into considaration of condition of your countries economy into view

but india is not pakistan and we are not at anybodies mercy nor does owr econmy works likes yours dont worry we are getting there its slow & painfull but we have full control over the situation and we will soon be there worry about your PAF which cant even afford to by second hand jets from so called brotherli islamik nations

 

[Sergi]

@Capt.Popeye : suppose you are new prime minister of India ( just suppose )
What will you do to remove the flaws mentioned in post#61 ???
And what organisational changes will you impose ???

 

[GURU DUTT]

LCA MK2 is not a waste or anything

it was concieved to be a point defence aircraft for IAF & IN which it is in current form all the wepons have been tested (stand off wepons, WVRs&BVRs,ARMsand so on)

once it gets a better ingen(GE414) new intakes & an Israelli (ELTA-2052 is almost finalised) there is hardli anything pakistan has got to counter it with as for china it will never be used on that front as MKI & Rafale & FGFA will do the honours in that sector it will be great for small ACs as INS Viraat & Vikrant and great as a replacement for duties done by the MIG 21 Bisons while it can also take jobs of JAGs & MIG 27 withowt any modification if onli its range increases and we might be able to put a set of confourmal feul tanks on top of it and increase its fighting radius to 500+ Kms & backed by M2ks & MIG 29s(western sector willbe much safer) & i guess we could utilize MKI, RAFALE & FGFA for the north eastern sector

 

[HariPrasad]

Hi, Guys ,

I do not know why you all are worried so much about Tejas. It had a lots of problems in past. Almost all of them are been addressed. Remaining few will also be addressed in the times to come. Look at the video of Tejas July 2013 test. It takes off with about 4.0 tons in almost 10 seconds. We have build a huge strength in aviation through this plane. LCA Mk2 is going to be a very Nice plane and will surpass all expatiation. I request members not to spread the lies like Airforce do not want Tejas etc. This aircraft is going to be a state of art aircraft in a short period of time to come. These are complex technologies. It requires time to master. Once the remaining issues are addressed, it will come out with shinning colors. I post a link of how designers think about LCA.

Designers insist Tejas will belie all sceptical questioning | Business Standard

IAF was happy with Tejas even in 2010. Tejas have come a long way since then.

IAF 'reasonably happy' with LCA Tejas: Barbora - Indian Express

 

[GURU DUTT]

@Capt.Popeye : suppose you are new prime minister of India ( just suppose )
What will you do to remove the flaws mentioned in post#61 ???
And what organisational changes will you impose ???

if i have my say on iot i will love to see intakes like Rafale + levcons like FGFA & conformoul feul tanks like F16 Sufa on it with an israeli latest gen ASEA and mix of israeli/American AAs & HRAMs & stand off wepons on it and just might something like stormshadow underneath aswell

 

[rockstarIN]

Why people are thinking that LCA MK-2 altogether a different plane? It is just an update of MK1 with more updates.

It will not take much time as MK1, most of the teething problems are done for MK1

 

[IND151]

The points mention are not very worrisome if correct at all . I see a lots of change in air intact of previous models of LCA (PVS) and LSP8. I do not know why he states that ADA is shying away to change the design of air intac. Afterall MK2 is design to overcome all shortcomings of MK1 design. It will have a lots of Design changes, It will have batter aerodynamics, More thrust, More speed, 400 to 500 KG reduced weight, More payload carrying capacity etc. Mk2 is going to be an awesome aircraft.

But still LCA MK2 is not going to exploit its full potential of the frame. Had it been prolonged by 56 inches and fitted with 108 KN GE 404 engine, It would have emerged as a fighter with MMRCA capabilities. But that would have taken a long time for testing. Since IAF need this plane urgently, they took a pragmatic approach to increase length by half a meter and widen the fuselage marginally to avoid long testing.(learn from a blog from a guy involve in LCA design)

Explain this; with photos if possible.

 

[IND151]

Why people are thinking that LCA MK-2 altogether a different plane? It is just an update of MK1 with more updates.

It will not take much time as MK1, most of the teething problems are done for MK1

The sources suggest same.

The Mk 2 will see problems with current Mk 1 ironed out.

But the evolution will not stop and I think that Mk 3 will be a reality