LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
44.The views expressed by Air HQ as early as in March 1989 that the aircraft planned to be developed by ADA would be deficient in crucial parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and weight adversely affecting its performance have not been overcome in LCA Mk-I developed by ADA as it does not meet the requirements of IAF fully in terms of combat potential and survivability. It was precisely with this forethought that the Empowered Committee headed by Chief of Air Staff had recommended in October 2007 for the building of LCA Mk II under FSED Phase-III in order to meet the ASR parameters. Consequently, till the LCA Mk-II is developed, manufactured and inducted into squadrons, the IAF would be constrained to use the 40 aircrafts of LCA Mk-I with reduced operational capabilities.
Just cannot believe the incompetence here!
Just cannot believe the incompetence here!
This was known for decades. That's why the HAL proposed the Mk1A. But there has been significant improvement with the FOC version of Mk1 in terms of avionics and BVR capability.
ADA didn't believe it will be as bad as they expected it to be. Especially because they were throwing around unrealistic dates like induction by 1998, 2000 etc. It was the right sized aircraft for an induction in 2000. But once that didn't happen, IAF asked for new radar and electronics and that increased weight. Plus the aircraft also became overweight.
Now, the airframe being overweight is the main problem. The electronics is roughly on par with global standards. Hopefully Mk1A fixes that issue. They can remove ballast, and still shave some weight out of the airframe and landing gear. Properly distributing the internal estate will also help manage CG better. @vstol Jockey can explain this better.
But the highlight is this.
Like I said long back, look at a F coming in. That is the only way we get a GE assurance, else, all the best.
LCA is Late Coming Aircraft or LAst Century Aircraft as far as I am concerned. The contention that IAF keeps changing the parameters, with delays ranging from 6 to 10 years, what is the battlefield supposed to do, wait for the HAL-ADA to catch up?
Nothing unbelievable. Wait for people to cry IAF top brass is selling the nation etc etc, the usual bullshit. By retrospectively defining the FSED Phase I closed and shifting the remaining part of work originally planned under the phase to phase II, they simply hoodwinked everyone showing completion of Phase I, a progress!!!!
Interesting:
Audit also observed that ADA had utilised these LSP aircraft towards flight testing/evaluation for achieving IOC/FOC, instead of handing over these aircraft to IAF, in contravention to the commitment given in October 2001 while obtaining GoI sanction for building these LSPs under FSED Phase-II.
That is significant. One needs to recall that the Rudra evolved from IA being able to identify the requirements while operating the aircraft. That was after ALH had been flying in Aviation units for sometime. Here, platform not given to IAF and they are expected to put forth requirements! Strange.
Like the you know what modi did in Paris story?Don't fall for random fantasy stories.
did you read the quote I picked from that report?
here- read again:
Air HQ expressed its views in March 1989 that the aircraft being developed by ADA would be deficient. IN 1989. before the funds were released in 1991. then why build it?
ADA believed they will meet all the necessary parameters with the same design. They bit off more than they could chew, but they did more or less achieve what they had set out to do. They should have been a whole lot faster.
Plus the line of thinking at the time was if the design was cancelled, then it would take years to restart such a project again. It will become like the HF-74 program. No different from why Arjun wasn't cancelled in 1991 after the army decided that the Arjun's design is no longer necessary due to terrain and infrastructure.
Also the lack of foresight. They didn't think about what could happen in the future. They are a here and now organisation. The "catering for the future" attitude has only started coming in over the last decade, particularly with the younger breed of scientists. Most likely because the Internet has reduced gaps in basic foundation knowledge.
The thing about this contest between air force pilots and scientists is simple. The scientists know more and they see more. So the Air Marshals are going to have to swallow their pride and learn to respect that fact, which they are now, but didn't before. But at the same time, scientists are going to have to be far more innovative than they were before. So there was nothing wrong with going ahead with the basic design.
Honestly - Just want the Mk1A to break cover and all can see what the final design is like - let only the Mk2
I wouldn't pay mind to the report on LCA. It's trashing the IOC version only, which is fine. The FOC version improves a lot on the IOC version.
The current IOC and FOC versions are not the definitive versions anyway. Once the Mk1A starts coming in, it will be second to the Rafale in air to air combat for quite sometime in the IAF, until the MKI gets upgrades.
your optimism - thats all I need in my life.
It's not optimism, it's just basic specs. The new radar will give the LCA more than double the detection range compared to Mig-29 and M-2000. Plus, with the dual pulse I-Derby ER, the LCA will have the second best BVR missile after the Meteor in our inventory. The triple pulse, dual seeker Stunner can also be integrated on the LCA, which will give it a far greater advantage compared to the I-Derby ER. The I-Derby ER is advertised to be 80% as effective as the Meteor and 50% more effective than the AMRAAM. The Stunner could be even more effective than the Meteor due to its dual seekers and triple pulse motors.
Otoh, MKI, Mig-29 and M-2000 will only have the older R-77, Astra Mk1, R-27 and MICA family of missiles for now. All these are AMRAAM class or below.
The Rafale will equal the LCA in terms of radar, but will come with Meteor, and naturally has an EW advantage.
Only the upgraded MKI will exceed the LCA and Rafale's radar range, along with next gen missiles like Astra Mk2 and Desi Meteor. Perhaps even the Stunner.
@randomradio
I truly hope that your optimism in the capabilities of HAL-ADA-GTRE percolates into positive developments in actual
I truly hope that your optimism in the capabilities of HAL-ADA-GTRE percolates into positive developments in actual
So let it be written. So let it be done.@randomradio
I truly hope that your optimism in the capabilities of HAL-ADA-GTRE percolates into positive developments in actual
Whenever I'm depressed, I engage @randomradio .It has immense therapeutic benefits.
@randomradio
I truly hope that your optimism in the capabilities of HAL-ADA-GTRE percolates into positive developments in actual
You could doubt it last year. But now that HAL have fully configured the Mk1A specs, what I wrote above is now the new reality.
Even the Mk1 without any weight reduction but with Mk1A avionics will be our second best fighter jet, solely because of the AESA and new missiles. Gagan Shakti showed that the LCA could easily commit to 6 sorties a day, which the MKI cannot do, although it can fly longer which gives it other more significant advantages. So the Mk1A with advanced avionics, weight reduction and superior ergonomics is going to solve most of the problems associated with the program as a whole.
GTRE's accomplishments are a mixed bag. What they have achieved is right up there with our SSBN, BM program and ISRO. But we are yet to find utility in what they have developed, but that's only a matter of time. I just hope the govt supports their program, if not it's going to be a repeat of Marut, and this time it will be much more damaging. The fact that we can now power a flying wing UCAV with our own engine is already a feather in GTRE's cap.