HAL finds no takers for LCA

The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was recently named Tejas, after over 17 years of development, by the Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee a little while ago at Bangalore. For a project conceived way back in 1983, it certainly took a long time to come out with a name.

A retired Air Marshal on being queried about what he thought of the LCA slated for induction into the Air Force in 2007 said, “The Air force should rather have something off-the-shelf immediately for sustaining operations, while the LCA (Tejas) tries to catch up with several off-the-shelf world-class aircrafts currently available in the international market.”

This is indeed the typical refrain from the defence personnel acutely concerned about the gnawing need for operational sustainability above anything else. The general lack of confidence and impassivity to indigenous production by the end-users is a dampener, given the general fanfare surrounding the Prime Minister's show of appreciation to the LCA team for progressing with the project despite all odds.

The LCA project finding a name after 17 long years of development -- and after serious time and cost overruns -- has raised a few eyebrows among several of the primary users, who have by now become less enthusiastic and more cynical with each passing day.

They would simply like to have something operational and workable, immediately, rather than have to wait several more years, and several billion rupees later, only to be told that it's a non-starter, as in the case of the Trishul missile system. The Trishul project was officially scrapped in March 2003; the reason given was that its technology had become obsolete and that it had a dysfunctional command guidance. The Trishul missile did not become obsolete overnight but after 20 long years and after several periodic tests were reported in the media as being successful.

The common question among the end-users is: What's the assurance that LCA (Tejas) will not go the way of the notionally unassailable Arjun Tank or the now scrapped Trishul Missile system (easily making it the most expensive and effort-consuming firecracker ever at 3 billion rupees and 20 years of development)?

It is indeed alarming that in the name of furthering indigenous technology, the defence services have been forced to operate with less than world-class state-of-the-art equipment. Almost certainly, the best test of developed equipment worthiness would be in being able to find willing buyers from other countries. Perhaps it's time the defence services procurement are subjected to more open market forces -- plainly, the defence production facilities should not depend primarily on the Indian armed forces to bail them out with the products they produce. They should be able to profitably find a demand for the equipment they produce in the international market before making itself an albatross around the hapless Indian defence force.

For instance, an unenthusiastic army placed an order for Arjun tanks even though it has been proven deficient in several aspects when compared to the proven Russian tank available off-the-shelf. The Defence Minister, George Fernandes who is also responsible for the performance of defence production happily informed the parliament that the army was indeed satisfied with the Arjun tank's performance, and had placed an order for 124 more such tanks. Sure, by ensuring that the army bought the Arjun tank the nation benefited in the sense that it meant employment and utilization of heavily unutilized capacity in the defence production workshops, but it is also certainly cost the nation dearly in not being able to provide our defence forces with the very best of cutting edge technology available internationally at comparable cost.

When the Trishul project was envisaged in 1983, the goal was to provide an indigenous and superior SAM (Surface to Air Missile) system -- the envisaged system was to be superior to the then available Russian Osa -- K / M Surface to Air Missile system by Year 1993. There must have been a design plan in place that would constantly upgrade the system design to incorporate newer features, technologies and developments to what would be relevant at the time of delivery and beyond. If that was the case, then why was the system termed obsolete for use after 20 years? Should there not be an enquiry into the scrapping of the Trishul project? Would the people ever come to know how the taxpayers' money was indeed squandered, in the name of achieving indigenous capability?

Has the opportunity cost on the operational efficiency of the forces ever been quantified every time we have a design or requirement mismatch with the delivered product, a time overrun, or a cost overrun when compared to the procurement of off-the-shelf state-of-the-art equipment?

Even today, the dragging of feet over the purchase or indigenous production of an advanced fighter jet trainer is costing the Air Force dearly in terms of combat aircrafts and pilots lost and their cumulative effect on the morale of the Air Force personnel, of both the technical and the executive cadres, is immense with the burden of innumerable enquiries after each occurrence of malfunction or failure.

DRDO has promised to deliver over 1000 different products with the 'Made in India' tag. How many of them would actually meet the specifications of the design and be within the limits of the envisaged delivery date, quality and cost criteria? One must certainly admire the bravado shown by DRDO in attempting to make indigenous almost everything that a superpower would possibly do, on a shoestring budget against all likelihood of it being successful. Would it not be less foolhardy to attempt and make successful one project at a time given our meager financial muscle?

Repeated trials and testing, with the end mostly in a haze, is the curse of several such projects -- this is indeed demoralizing to the services. Added to that, is the fait accompli of it being forced upon the services, when superior off-the-shelf products could have been procured at a comparable cost.

The staffing and recruitment at the DRDO have shown they have in their midst individuals of extraordinary brilliance and determination, yet time overruns, cost overruns and end-user dissatisfaction is an recurring gripe against the organization.

Probably, the solution to this malady is a healthy dose of privatization and accountability of the production workshops to the extent that profitability and ender-user delight becomes the sole mantra for their continued existence. A persuasive transparency that each individual and team will be held accountable in the making of the product that needs to necessarily delight the end user in design, time and cost attributes should go a long way in curing them of this malady.

After several wars, have we learnt any lessons from lost human lives and poor morale of the defence personnel due to use of apologetic and deficient equipment? If we do intend to learn lessons, then it's time we translate them into the philosophies of: shape up or ship out, export or perish, and inculcate the fact to the production units that their very existence is dependent on the unit's earnings -- for the general good of the nation.

CNN and Fox have beamed us live the images of the Iraqi war involving marines and their hardy equipment designed to fit the marines like a glove, the smart bombs, the laser-guided missiles and patriot missile defense systems that have mostly worked. Can the Indian defence personnel boast of similar unrivaled capability in equipment and technology made available and operational for training, well ahead of the actual combat deployment, from the stables of our defence production units? Or, is this asking for too much?

www.sulekha.com...

Originally posted by chinawhite
the SD-10/PL-12 has a longer range than a R-77

SD-10/PL-12 range = 70km .... posted by you

R-77RVV-AE-PD range = 160
The 'PD' stands for Povyshenoy Dalnosti, which in Russian means Improved Range. This variant has been test-fired and uses a solid-fuel ramjet engine

link

India's ASTRA BVRAAM's range = 80km (the currently tested variant)
link

The missile would be capable of turning at a '40 G-plus rate' with an eventual operational range of over 100 km. The missile is 3.8 meters long and equipped with an active radar-seeker. The Astra will use a mid course internal guidance system to track target aircraft. The missile has an active radar seeker to find targets, and electronic counter measure capabilities that allow the missile to jam radar signals from an enemy surface-to-air battery to ensure that the Astra is not tracked or shot down. Astra would have a 15 kg warhead with a proximity fuse.

link

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
the SD-10/PL-12 has a longer range than a R-77

SD-10/PL-12 range = 70km .... posted by you

R-77RVV-AE-PD range = 160
The 'PD' stands for Povyshenoy Dalnosti, which in Russian means Improved Range. This variant has been test-fired and uses a solid-fuel ramjet engine

link

India's ASTRA BVRAAM's range = 80km (the currently tested variant)
link


link

lol dont post things that are not operational..please.

Chinawhite, sure the LCA's development was a problematic one. And this article is a several years old one which was written when the LCA was troubled. And it is also an example of India's free media.
But the horrid past is behind the LCA and now its fixed and is progressing well

Lets look at the J-10. First of its design is based on the Israeli Lavi and Israel have transferred several aircraft technologies to China. Despite this China has had sivere and several problems with the J-10 and it has crashed several times with one killing the chief test pilot.

But China's state controlled media does not tolerate any such articles on its "copy-everyting" weaponry or the painful and killingly slow development of the J-10, the FC-1 and the Type 98. All these involve haevy russian involvement and despite this and over 20 years of struggling on this none of these have been operationalised.

Before you post such outdated and unwarrented crap, do look at how the development of the J-10, FC-1 and the Type-98 have progressed. and i recall " People living in glass houses should'nt throw stones at others". There was a time when the chinese armed force did not even want to induct the J-10 and FC-1.

And go look at how the J-10 prototypes crashed and killed its chief test pilot and taken over 20 years despite the fact that Israel gave China most of what the J-10 contains and the fact that Russian built the rest. And the same goes for the FC-1 as well.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite, sure the LCA's development was a problematic one. And this article is a several years old one which was written when the LCA was troubled. And it is also an example of India's free media.
But the horrid past is behind the LCA and now its fixed and is progressing well

My article is 2003 not 7 years ago

lets look at your articles.
2003
www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

2003
www.pakistanidefence.com...

2002
www.newsmax.com...

now lets see who post the older articles

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Lets look at the J-10. First of its design is based on the Israeli Lavi and Israel have transferred several aircraft technologies to China. Despite this China has had sivere and several problems with the J-10 and it has crashed several times with one killing the chief test pilot.

Dont embarass youself...there was only 5 J-10 were built for testing.

The development of J-10 has proven to be tortuous. The first prototype was set to fly between 1995-96, powered by a newly designed WS-10 turbofan. However the development of this indigenous engine suffered some serious difficulties and thus the rear fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned in order to accommodate an alternative AL-31FN engine imported from Russia. As the result, the first prototype (01) made its maiden flight on March 23, 1998, two years behind the schedule. The project suffered another setback between 1998-99 when the 02 prototype lost control and crashed, caused by certain system failure, presumably with either the FBW system or the engine. After careful redesign and extensive ground test, the successful flight of a new prototype (1002) put the project back on the track.

It took so long to esign the J-10 was because there was a change of requiement.

... J-10?? i think that its an attempt to copy out MiG 1-44

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


But China's state controlled media does not tolerate any such articles on its "copy-everyting" weaponry or the painful and killingly slow development of the J-10, the FC-1 and the Type 98. All these involve haevy russian involvement and despite this and over 20 years of struggling on this none of these have been operationalised.

Before you post such outdated and unwarrented crap, do look at how the development of the J-10, FC-1 and the Type-98 have progressed. and i recall " People living in glass houses should'nt throw stones at others". There was a time when the chinese armed force did not even want to induct the J-10 and FC-1.

And go look at how the J-10 prototypes crashed and killed its chief test pilot and taken over 20 years despite the fact that Israel gave China most of what the J-10 contains and the fact that Russian built the rest. And the same goes for the FC-1 as well.

The FC-1 development............yeah slow

The project was initiated in February 1992, by China Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) who officially invited the PAF to invest in the Super-7 program. In return for full participation in design and development phase, with exclusive co-production rights. After careful consideration Pakistan Air Force (PAF) decided to go ahead with is project and got the Government approval in October 1994.

T-98

Started in early 90's(92) finished in 1998.....thats 6 years

When didn't the chinese military want the J-10

> Composites are inherently stealthier than metal and the LCA's air frame, including wings, fin and fuselage are made of carbon composites

> Very small size with tail-less design and simple delta wing config ensure a very low RCS

> DRDO has said it will have an RCS of 1/3 of a Mirage-2000 (without RAM)

> Uses the GE-404 engine(atleast for now) - which is also used in the F-117 and is optimised for stealth and very low heat signature

> The LCA will also be painted with Russian RAM that has alredy been used on Mig-21's

INDIAN AIR FORCE PROCURES RUSSIAN STEALTH TECHNOLOGY FOR MIG-21's
The Indian Air Force (IAF) is now adding stealth modifications to an existing $340m programme to upgrade 125 of its MiG-21bis fighters to MiG-21-93 standard. Sources for Jane's Defence Weekly have revealed these secret events in a report published in today's edition of the magazine.

Extensive tests to demonstrate Russia's ability to upgrade Indian fighter aircraft with stealth capabilities took place in front of Indian defence ministry officials at the Sokol aircraft plant in Nizhniy Novgorod on 29th May 2000. The demonstration was highly successful and is understood to have resulted in the Russian government and RSK MIG urging the IAF to adopt the stealth modifications across its MiG-21-93 fleet.

The core of the demonstration saw two MiG-21bis--one upgraded with stealth technology and one without--being tracked by what is believed to be a Mig-31 in a controlled test of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and coatings developed at the Moscow Institute of Applied and Theoretical

During its flight the radar signature of the upgraded Mig-21bis was shown to be between 10 and 15 times weaker than the regular MiG-21bis.

> Moreover the LCA's basic design itself is so stealthy, that DROD is using the LCA's airframe and basic structure for its future stealthy MCA.

Originally posted by russiankid
... J-10?? i think that its an attempt to copy out MiG 1-44

nope...not even close.

Its based on the LAVI but doesn't share anything of what the LAVI used

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
> Composites are inherently stealthier than metal and the LCA's air frame, including wings, fin and fuselage are made of carbon composites

> Very small size with tail-less design and simple delta wing config ensure a very low RCS

> DRDO has said it will have an RCS of 1/3 of a Mirage-2000 (without RAM)

> Uses the GE-404 engine(atleast for now) - which is also used in the F-117 and is optimised for stealth and very low heat signature

> The LCA will also be painted with Russian RAM that has alredy been used on Mig-21's

> Moreover the LCA's basic design itself is so stealthy, that DROD is using the LCA's airframe and basic structure for its future stealthy MCA.

Jesus the J-10 has stealthy features to....

Please provide links

im interested in the comment from the DRDO guy....

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Lets look at the J-10. First of its design is based on the Israeli Lavi and Israel have transferred several aircraft technologies to China. Despite this China has had sivere and several problems with the J-10 and it has crashed several times with one killing the chief test pilot.

Dont embarass youself...there was only 5 J-10 were built for testing.

The development of J-10 has proven to be tortuous. The first prototype was set to fly between 1995-96, powered by a newly designed WS-10 turbofan. However the development of this indigenous engine suffered some serious difficulties and thus the rear fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned in order to accommodate an alternative AL-31FN engine imported from Russia. As the result, the first prototype (01) made its maiden flight on March 23, 1998, two years behind the schedule. The project suffered another setback between 1998-99 when the 02 prototype lost control and crashed, caused by certain system failure, presumably with either the FBW system or the engine. After careful redesign and extensive ground test, the successful flight of a new prototype (1002) put the project back on the track.

It took so long to esign the J-10 was because there was a change of requiement.

Its you who's embarassing yourself...only 4 LCA's have been built for testing and none of them have crashed. how do you like that ?

FBW failure....*shakes head* ...that's about the only thing that Israel did'nt give China fully.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Its you who's embarassing yourself...only 4 LCA's have been built for testing and none of them have crashed. how do you like that ?

FBW failure....*shakes head* ...that's about the only thing that Israel did'nt give China fully.

The LCA fly-by-wire was programed by the US..

WHeres you proof about 7 J-10 crashs, or are you trying to mislead people again

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite, sure the LCA's development was a problematic one. And this article is a several years old one which was written when the LCA was troubled. And it is also an example of India's free media.
But the horrid past is behind the LCA and now its fixed and is progressing well

My article is 2003 not 7 years ago

lets look at your articles.
2003
www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

2003
www.pakistanidefence.com...

2002
www.newsmax.com...

now lets see who post the older articles

2002 is 7 years back ?? grow a brain

and besides, lets see you post any 2005 articles saying the FC-1's cost is 10 million.

Heck and why did you forget mentioning the sinodefence article which is 2005 and says that the FC-1 dose'nt cost 10 million

And here is a 2005 article on the LCA and its technology.
www.aero.iitb.ac.in:8081...

Its completed 426+ test flights and is going well.

Read it before you post some outdated crap.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Its you who's embarassing yourself...only 4 LCA's have been built for testing and none of them have crashed. how do you like that ?

FBW failure....*shakes head* ...that's about the only thing that Israel did'nt give China fully.

The LCA fly-by-wire was programed by the US..

What a non sensical post and what utter rubbish.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


2002 is 7 years back ?? grow a brain

Here is another example of stealthspys indian education

My article is 2003 not 7 years ago

here stealthspy..i dont seem to mention that your article is 7 years old it was you who said my article is 7 years old your getting confused.

and besides, lets see you post any 2005 articles saying the FC-1's cost is 10 million.

Heck and why did you forget mentioning the sinodefence article which is 2005 and says that the FC-1 dose'nt cost 10 million

my article is globaldefence like i posted before 2005

Originally posted by chinawhite
WHeres you proof about 7 J-10 crashs, or are you trying to mislead people again

Its you whose trying to mislead people. I never said there were 7 J-10 crashes.

Quit putting words into my mouth.

Read stuff properly.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
WHeres you proof about 7 J-10 crashs, or are you trying to mislead people again

Its you whose trying to mislead people. I never said there were 7 J-10 crashes.

Quit putting words into my mouth.

Read stuff properly.

Quote from the one and only stealthspy..posted five minutes ago and already denying it

Despite this China has had sivere and several problems with the J-10 and it has crashed several times with one killing the chief test pilot.

Originally posted by chinawhite

2002 is 7 years back ?? grow a brain

Here is another example of stealthspys indian education

i am proud of my education...atleast is has thought me that 2002 is not 7 years back. I mean chinawhite go check the date

here stealthspy..i dont seem to mention that your article is 7 years old it was you who said my article is 7 years old your getting confused.

when did i say your article was 7 years old ? i said your article was several years old.

and its a pity you cant see the difference and i wont make any personal attacks on education.