Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

LCA Tejas Multirole Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Dark_Prince, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    When they chose the F404, neither F414 nor EJ200 were available. It was MMRCA which opened up access to the two engines. You forgot that we were under sanctions until 2004 and had to use whatever engine we had available at the time.

    By the time they thought of using F414, that was in 2007 or 2008, when Mk2 program was thought of after we got access to new engines. But at that time they were promising delivery of Mk1 in 2010.
     
  2. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,479
    Likes Received:
    14,901
    Country Flag:
    India
    In 2009, IAF recommended EJ-200 as the power plant for LCA but for unknown reasons, ADA went ahead with L1 bidder which was f414-400 and rest is history.
     
  3. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    Yes, it was the typical L1 disease.
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    Another of this, I don't understand the matter, but comment anyway posts of you. If you would take only 5 minutes to understand properly, you could save yourself a lot of time.

    Which doesn't matter in the context of the LCA program, since ADA is in charge for it and the design, while DRDO is only development partner of technologies and weapons. Therefore you have to differ in terms of responsibility!

    Yes the LCA program was to create an indigenous aviation ecosystem, but THROUGH A SUCCESSFUL FIGHTER DEVELOPMENT! ! !
    Without getting the fighter ready and according the project goals, you don't have an indigenous ecosystem!
    ADA for example used the program to gain design know how, by initially getting Dassault consultancy and similarly have hired Airbus after they messed up with NLCA. But look at all our aircraft projects, they are largely suffering from design problems (IJT, LCH, Saras...).
    Similarly, DRDO/HAL used it to get their foot into radar and engine developments, which also ended in getting external help to fix failures.
    So we have started a lot of things, based on this program, but most of them didn't ended in a success and now we at least have to fix some of the issues and make the overall LCA program to a success after all, by finishing the fighter and learning from the mistakes!

    No it didn't, because we wouldn't need to buy a foreign MMR, or foreign weapons for them, if DRDOs radar and LGB developments succeded. Not to mention that much of what we developed for MKI is trickling down in terms of EW systems and pods. That's why it's sad to see, that LCA MK1A still might end up with foreign EW systems again.

    So the engine is somehow an excuse for a draggy design and 1t overweight? That doesn't make any sense, but you just wanted to say something right?

    True and if that happens, it's a mistake of the designer, because he couldn't keep specs within development goals, or simply underestimated the required changes. So just as ADA is responsible for LCAs weight and drag issues, Saab is for Gripen E's weight issue.

    Another great proof that you don't understand the matter! LCA is designed too small, to provide proper upgrade potential. That is why MK1A and MK2 designs will need airframe extentions, to add avionics, internal fuel, or fit higher thrust engine. So it's about internal space, which is far too limited to add modern systems (I even explained recently why no IRST might be fitted to the nose either), like avionics, or integrated EW. That shows a great lack of foresight in the design stage and ADA is responsible for that.

    So you even admid that ADAs nose was not suitable to effeciently use the radar, but still deny that ADA made a mistake. And I am the ignorant, hilarious! :biggthumpup:

    I suggest informing yourself before you jump into the next rant with faulty conclusions, simply because you don't understand things. There are plenty of infos from IN officials given on that matter at Aero India presentations, or articles from former admiral Arun Prakash.
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    The problem was, that ADA projected Tejas as a light fighter in the Mig 21 class. That resulted in the conclusion that around 50kN dry would be sufficient to power a 5.5t fighter and why Kaveri, RD93 or GE404 were solutions back then. If they had aimed on a single engine medium class design instead, they could have used Snecmas M52 from the Mirage 2000 or the AL31 that we ended up getting as well.
    So the base idea in terms of size and weight was wrong, which then translated into more problems along the way.
    Same goes for the decision of GE414, which not only was based on costs, but on the fact that ADA then can power their NLCA idea with it as well. The EJ200 was the clearly better engine for IAFs needs and had more industrial prospect for India, but had no navalised version. Another bad decision made by ADA in this program.
     
    Blackjay likes this.
  6. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,479
    Likes Received:
    14,901
    Country Flag:
    India
    LCA engine selection went wrong due to two reasons, The love for Rafale and the Italian waitress. Other than MBT Arjun, LCA has also been a victim of internal sabotage.
     
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    If Rafale had any relation, we would have gone with a Kaveri Snecma engine development long ago and had tried to include it into the licence produced Rafales as well. Something that I was badly hoping for, but that neither our side and certainly not the French side wanted. So that can be ruled out completely.

    The biggest problem for the LCA program, was overestimation of the indigenous capabilites, incompetent project management and unnecessary distractions.
    If you think about it, if ADA didn't came with the nonsense idea of NLCA MK2...

    ...the development had focused on the needs of IAF only
    ...they wouldn't had needed a navalised engine
    ...they wouldn't had started the MK2 design concept to include more fuel tanks for INs needs
    ...we might had taken the offer of EADS / Airbus to integrate EJ200 + TVC + jointly develop a trainer varient based on LCA

    LCA MK1A, then could had EJ200 with 3D TVC, AESA, refuelling probe...
     
    Sahil ecclstone and sunstersun like this.
  8. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,479
    Likes Received:
    14,901
    Country Flag:
    India
    I do agree with you that we over estimated our capabilities. I also agree with you that we tried to make an N-LCA out of it which was nothing but stupid. However, look at what we have been able to achieve and how it can be used for newer and better designs. Every dark cloud has a silver lining to it. Let us look at the bright side of it. LCA is far more potent than Mig-21Bison anyday. I am convinced about it. But how IAF killed it and how the bribe seekers in ADA and MOD killed it, is a subject matter which needs detailed investigation. Right from ADA to IAF knew that with EJ-200, their will be no need to redesign the aircraft as it was a drop fit with a thrust bump of 69Kn dry thrust. But we chose F414-400 which needed complete redesign of the aircraft. have you ever gone and bought a pair of shoes which does not fit your foot size and after that go in for surgery to shorten your foot to fit the shoe size? ADA did just that. Everyone associated with decision making for LCA project is a cheat of this nation barring the guys who actually worked on it.
     
  9. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    As far as I know, ADA and IAF wanted EJ200, but procurement rules did not allow for its induction because F414 won L1.

    Blame UPA. And it had nothing to do with money, it had all to do with the reputation of one man.
     
    Shekhar Singh and zebra7 like this.
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    I am and that sadly is faaaaaar too less, compared to what we could have achieved if we had done this project with some more rational thinking and less chest bumping.

    Going for a medium class platform => larger size more space for additional systems, Kaveri engine development in the heavy class, which then translates into 1 engine for Tejas and MKI...

    => if we had coupled an M2K licence production, with Dassault partnering in Tejas (as offsets like they are doing now in Kaveri), IAF would not suffer a lack of fighters and Tejas might be in a better development stage, most likely even finished and in production by now.

    => If we had taken a French or Russian engine and Israeli radar from the start, LCA would already be inducted years ago. Instead we have to watch our enemies flying their fighters for nearly a decade now and getting international attention on air shows for their achievements, while we still hope to get Tejas ready one day and everyone takes India as a joke in the aviation field.

    => If we at least were able to get the basics done (Astra, Sudarshan, cockpit avionics, a 4th gen EW and a pulse doppler MMR), the outcome of the project could had been added to fighter upgrades and make IAF less dependent on buying foreign stuff, but that isn't the case either.

    So all that is left to make LCA the program a success, is to finish it, no matter the mistakes, delays or costs.

    Which is a flawed comparison, because the Mig is a 2nd gen fighter. LCA needs to compare itself with 4th gen fighters, be it upgraded or newly developed once
    (M2K-5 / F16MLU, Mig29 UPG, Gripen C/D...).
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  11. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,479
    Likes Received:
    14,901
    Country Flag:
    India
    No sir, ADA cheated this nation as F414-400 did not meet the specifications at all so how cud that become L1. The only engine which met all requirements was EJ-200 and the Eurojet went mad as a result and quoted a much higer price thinking that F414-400 will be rejected for not meeting the QRs. For saving 100million dollars we agreed to invest over one billion dollars to redesign LCA and in the bargain had to induct 8.7billion dollar worth of Rafale. Now tell me how do we call F414-400 as L1.
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    L1 never meant the cheapest on costs must be selected, but the cheapest offer that fulfills the requirements. Otherwise the Mig 35 or SEs were selected in MMRCA, the IL78 would had been selected in the tanker tenders, the Ka226 would had been selected in the LUH tenders and so on.
     
  13. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    In most tenders the products don't fulfill requirements.

    In MMRCA, none of the competitors fulfilled all requirements.
     
  14. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    The problem is ADA decided to go for a modified design instead of asking for a drop in replacement for the F404.
     
  15. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,148
    Of course, because every customer has different requirements, but that means you choose the cheapest of those, that fits the most. Fitting as many criterias as possible comes first and only then the cost factor comes into play.
     

Share This Page