Dont worry abt my motives dear conecentrate on discussion. and i request dont get personal in discussion.
Man first of all go and properly read my previous statement, I didnt raise finger over your motive, instead I had suggested you to understand my motives.
JF-17 IOC:
ur question regarding JF-17 IOC or FOC, i dont know, i think jf-17 forum is the better forum, they can provide the right answer, i can just tell you that 4 JF-17 are currently operating in PAF and 16 more will be inducted this year inshaAllah with serial production starting this year from PAC KAMRA.
Man induction of Jf-17, because PAF was in dire condition on account of ageing fleet. Induction of a particular fighter plane doesnt mean it has completed its IOC and FOC.
kindly tell me when i have written such an statement that LCA is a failure just bcoz it has foreign elements also. i have never written any such thing.
You should check back your previous post regarding your claim of LCA as failure
I wrote:" Project objective, Project Cost, In time delivery of project, Quality and experienced/skill gained are the basis aspects related to any engineering project, .if u discuss with me in good spirit i tell you how this project has failed miserably in meeting the first five basic objectives except the experience/skilled gained which is the only point achieved along with partial achievement of first aspect".
LCA as a project failed in most basic aspect related to any engineering project, skilled and experienced is the only area of its success. if u have different openion then let me know ur views regarding any specific aspect and i will give my reply.
Joodi, I had asked you what are those five basic elements where LCA has failed in a previous thread as well, as I am always ready to discuss with you.
One on One.
Yes JF-17 and LCA are one to one, (this is my assessment, u have every right to disagree).Quite frankly I dont see a possibility of JF-17 versus LCA dog fight in near future (LCA not ready). when I mean one to one, it is on the basis of available technical data, kindly discuss each aspect separately if u have a different opinion but purely on technical ground.
You had provided all the specifications of LCA and JF-17 on previous occasion, I had discussed all those technical details with you with textbook precision, I think you should refer my previous post.
Plz put a side any romanticism abt the aircraft and analyze them purely as a machine.
Joodi, so far I had answered to your question filled with skeptics about LCA as a project, What exactly makes you think that I had fumed Romanticism about aircraft?
MMR failure:
what is wrong with u man, just read ur comments "when it is used as a point defence fighter, then MMR is a definately a workable piece", come on dude, there wer serious problems even with the air to air mode that was made locally, Even HAL and ADA have never been able to make such an overambitious claim regarding local MMR, ur statement of workable piece is totally baseless and nonfactual.
Oh my goodness! Where does there was an problem with Air to Air mode?, pls provide link before accusing me of making baselss and nonfactual claims.
How does HAL and ADA have made such an overambitious claims? Since MMR is not their product and their work is only to integrate it with LCA.
Offcourse my comments would be baseless and nonfactual since they are assumptions and I had put on condition about it as point defence fighter.
first of all LCA is designed as a multirole aircraft not as a point defence fighter, secondly it is MMR, i repeat multi mode radar not a sigle mode radar so either stop calling it a multi mode radar and call it a single mode radar or accept the truth of failure of local MMR.
I had put a condition of Point defence fighter regarding my claim of MMR, since it is valid to some extent since LCA is going to replace Point defence fighter of IAF that is Mig-21.
About my acceptability of Failure of MMR, I dont have the such credentials to lablled it as a failure because some chronic issues with MMR with regards to Air to ground Mode doesnt translate in itself it as a failure.
u are claiming MMR a definate workable piece, then kindly tell me on what basis, dont make such baseless tall claims, local MMR program was a complete failure, not a partial failure as u said. and now isrealis have been called in for help and assistance and do the job what havent been done even after 18 yrs. face the hard core facts.
Pls 18 years of delay, delay and assistance from Isrealies doesnt translate MMR as a failure because it is a tradition of engineering projects which cant get completed without any flaws.
LCA Superiority Hypothesis:
u says " advanced avionics, topclass engine, top class BVR missile" "topclass" yaar atleast use mature words.
Dude would u kindly share with me the basis of such conclusive (yet very hypothetical) statement regarding LCA engine, BVR capability and avionics/radar superiority over JF-17.
Then pls tell which words should I used? It is a reality and worldwide acknowledgement, since its some of some of the Su-30MKI avionics are sourced directly from the LCA.
Regarding engine, current engine of the LCA is being utilized also on F-18 super hornets as well F-117.
Regarding BVR, IAF arsenal of BVR which comprises Isreali, Russian and in development Indian version of Astra are on par with worlds top class BVRs.
Regarding Radar, Elta of isreal is already pitching hard to integrate their AESA on LCA.
Ur whole hypothesis is totally baseless, based on tall claims. Non of the fact supports ur statement, no data, no reference material.
Pls let me know on which elements of LCA, I should provide you with Links and facts. Then I will swarmed your response with several links and facts
How can u say that engine in LCA is powerful than the Russian RD-93 in JF-17, go and check the details of both engines and rectify ur false statement urself. (kaveri is not ready so it can not to taken in for comparision with already installed russian Rd-93)
Joodi, The GE F404 is a rather popular engine: F/A-18 Hornet, F-117 Nighthawk and even the famed B-2 Stealth bomber is powered by (Four) F404s! The JAS-39 too is powered by a modification of the F404 made by Volvo. When the Rafale prototype first flew, it too had the GE F404 engines.
LCA has no avionics superiority over JF-17, avionics is a very detailed topic, i can discuss separately if u wish, and wipe out any such superiority complex.
Joodi, it is reality that Avionics used on Su-30mki is sourced from the LCA, and those same avionics make Su-30mki unparallel to anyother fighter plane.
I am just inviting you to wipe out my superiority of complex in terms of avionics. But before that let yourself get familrize yourself with LCA Avionics.
The following are the components developed by Indian agencies:
32 bit Mission Computer cum Display Processor - MC-486 and DP-30MK (Defence Avionics Research Establishment - DARE)
Radar Computer - RC1 and RC2 (DARE)
Tarang Mk2 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) + High Accuracy Direction Finding Module (HADF) (DARE
IFF-1410A - Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)
Integrated Communication suite INCOM 1210A (HAL)
Radar Altimeter - RAM-1701 (HAL)
Programmable Signal Processor (PSP) - (LRDE)
The 32-bit Mission Computer performs mission-oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration-cum-redundancy management and in-flight systems self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for the mission computer's software. The other DARE-developed product, the Tarang Mk2 (Tranquil) radar warning receiver, is manufactured by state-owned BEL at its Bangalore facility.
These avionics equipment have also been certified for their airworthiness in meeting the demanding standards of Russian military aviation. The cumulative value of such indigenous avionic equipment is estimated to exceed Rs. 250 lakhs per aircraft. Since the core avionics were developed by a single agency (DRDO) - they have significant commonality of hardware and software amongst them using a modular approach to design. This obviously results in major cost and time savings in development; it also benefits the user in maintenance and spares inventories.
The DRDO has gone a step further and come out with a new design of the Core Avionics Computer (CAC) which can be used with a single module adaptation across many other aircraft platforms. Thus the CAC which is derived from the computers designed for the Su-30MKI will now be the centre piece of the avionics upgrades for the MiG-27 and Jaguar aircraft as well. The CAC was demonstrated by DRDO at the Aero India exhibition at Yelahanka and attracted a good deal of international attention. Taken together with the systems already developed indigenously for the LCA (such as the Digital Flight Control Computer and HUD), clearly Indian avionics have a significant export potential in the burgeoning global market for avionics modernisation.
The navigation/weapons systems from the various countries were integrated by Ramenskoye RPKB.
As for ur "topclass BVR capability" my dear neither the MMR nor the BVR-AAM is ready for LCA, MMR is underdevelopment with the isreali help and assistance, how can any one even talk abt superior BVR capability when radar is still in development phase and BVR-AAM is not even finalized for the LCA either by HAL or IAF. A final decision is yet to be taken abt what BVR-AAM, LCA gone use, will it be any russian BVR , western BVR or the local BVR ASTRA.
Unreadiness of MMR doesnt mean LCA cant be associate itself with superior BVR, LCA always has an option of Isreali Elta AESA and AN/APG-67 from Lockheed Martin. Regarding your BVR, I think you should recheck regarding its BVR-AAM, LCA has always an option of variety of BVRs that is being available with IAF arsenal like R-77 and Python and underdevelopment Astra. We could have fitted LCA with AESA, but IAF decided to go with MMR.
Not a single test has been conducted in this respect. Last october LCA gone through its first ever weapon test in last 25 years, and that also not for BVR-AAM, it was of a Russian within visual range (WVR-AAM) R-73. Even the test regarding WVR-AAM were not final, it was only for the firing test of R-73 and not an accuracy test, there being no target.
Man you are claiming both your assumption at the same time regarding test of AAM, first you claim that not a single test has been conducted but at the same breath you admitted that LCA has gone through AAM Test.
Offcourse there is no target since it is inherited obligation of first ever test firing of AAM from any kind of new fighter plane, so accuracy test would not be an obligation.
the main objectives of that test firing were:
Safe separation of the missile from the parent aircraft.
Effect of missile plume on engine air-intake
Functionality of store management system (SMS) including safety interlocks
Effect of missile plume on composites structures
Handling quality assessment during missile launch
All this objectives were accomplished during test firing of AAM from LCA
After the test firing Mr. PS Subramanyam, director of the LCA programme said that:
Our next goal is target acquisition and fire control, which will take off only after a multimode radar (MMR) is fitted on the Tejas, which is under developed with Israeli help, and is likely to be fitted onto the Tejas.
dear integration of BVR capability is no joke, and it becomes a far cry when the MMR it self is not ready. and BVR-AAM is not finally selected.
Man this are step by step testing of AAM associated with any kind of fighter plane which has never tested with AAM earlier before.
So first build a fully funcational MMR for LCA with all necessary modes (with isreali help and assistance), then finalize the BVR-AAM for it and then integrate them to achieve the objective. We will discuss the BVR capability issue later when it is made available on LCA, better achieve success in integrating WVR-AAM completely first and then think abt BVR issue.
If this really was the case, then why did you made the claim of JF-17 being equal to LCA in BVR.
Joodi, In my opinion you should remind yourself about this verdict, since you were the one who say that JF-17 and LCA both are similar in terms of speed, engine thrust, BVR capability,FBW capability, weapon suit.
When you want me to show the superiority of BVR of LCA after whole completion of Radar and BVR integration, then you should not make the statement that JF-17 and LCA are equal in terms of BVR. Since I justify the superiority of BVR on LCA on the premise that whole range of BVR missiles as well as Radar on offer to LCA and in contrast I havet seen anything like that in respect of JF-17.
If JF-17 is really equal to LCA in terms of BVR, then why dont you let JF-17 to integrate itself with Radar and BVR missiles on the same premise you have reminded me about integration of radar and bvr on lca.
On what premise you have equalize LCA with JF- 17 on BVR issue?, when you yourself not confirm about the integration of RADAR and BVR on JF-17 itself
ur stated areas of LCA superiority are following facing these problems at the moment;
1. The integration issues of a new radar to the aircraft needs to be resolved.
It has nothing to do with my claim of superiority, since myself has admitted with this fact.
2. Domestic radar program has ended in a failure and now a isrealis have been brought in for MMR .
Domestic radar is not ended in failure, some of its minor nicks that was created during Air to ground mode have been corrected with Isreali Help. Minor nicks doesnt describe in itself complete failure.
3. Integration of a complete weapons suite needs to be resolved (just one missile trials as yet)
Definetly an hardcore fact
4. FBW issues needs to be resolved so that the aircraft prototypes can surpass the 5G turn limit in current trials. (rated G limit is +9)
Pls provide the link for this exaggeration.
I myself wrote the LCA is winner in some areas but ur superiority statement regarding powerful engine, MMR, avionics and BVR capability are totally baseless. No fact and data supports them. Kindly dont make premature hypothetical claims.
I never made any hypothetical claims since I only try to correct your ignorance about LCA in its subsystem.
Cost escalation:
Gigantic cost escalation, yes dear its gigantic cost escalation and I mean it.
How do you mean it? Have you got the copy of audit report of LCA project management?
fist come to kaveri, delays and cost escalation have dogged development of this indigenous GTRE Kaveri engine for the LCA to such an extent that the first two squadrons of LCAs will be fitted with General Electric F-404I.20 engines, similar to those fitted in the prototypes. the Cabinet Committee on Security judged that the Kaveri would not be installed on the LCA before 2012-13.
Definetly indisputable fact, since privilege of development of Fighter plane engine is being associated with very few countries in the world and on top of that India started the development of engine from scratch and hence delays were inevitable.
Kaveri development is now estimated at Rs 2840 crore rupees way over the Rs 380 crores originally approved in 1989.
My goodness a cost escalation of 860%, Oh God, where are the finanacial managers, and you and HAL guys are justifying it just by a single word 'indeginization'.
How did you arrive at the figure of 860%?
What kind of equation and ratios did you utilize to come across this figure?
What was the value of the Rupees in terms of doller during the project was first envisage and correlation of your equation with this value to arrive at this figure of 860%?
it has been more than 18 yrs and the engine is not yet ready. is this enough excuse for such giagantic cost escalation and 14 yrs of delay (5 more to come atleast, i.e 2 decade of delay).
When Aviation giant like France can suffered from delays of 13 years in M-88 engine development for rafale as well as significant cost escalation despite decades of engine development experience, then one can get the glimpse of magnitude of complexity involved in engine development and associated cost escalation. GTRE without its prior experince of engine development started kaveri project from scratch, so inevitability of delays and cost escalation can be justified.
kaveri was a separte program now come to the LCA itself, the development cost LCA has also spiralled upwards exponentially, it could well now cost Rs 10,000 crore, by the time it is complete by 2012 (very little hope).
Original project cost estimates were put at Rs 5600 crores but the Government has sanctioned Rs 5489 crores ($ 1.18 billion) to cover development of the two technology demonstrators (TD-1 and TD-2), five prototype vehicles (PV1 to PV-5).
Offcourse mate, I admitted from long time and still want to admit that such cost escalation is being experience in every fighter project, since the figure that you have mentioned above is from wikipedia and significiant amount of it is spent on creating the necessary infrastructure for fighter plane development. Regarding the figure of Rs. 10,000 crore is you have quoted from wikipedia and it was quoted by the Times of India, but I think you forget to mentioned over here A Rs. 2,000 crores (over US$450 million) order for 20 Tejas aircraft would represent a unit procurement cost of US$22.6 million for each and By comparison, the Times of India quoted the costs for the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen and French Rafale as Rs. 150 crores (US$34 million) and Rs. 270 crores (US$61 million), respectively, while pricing the new American F-22 Raptor stealth fighter at Rs. 480 crores (US$108 million).[2]
and this doesnt just stops here, there are dozens of other aspects related to this two deacdes of delay in providing the IAf specified aircraft. one such aspect is the mig21 upgrading, Due to delay in LCA, IAF had to spend extra Rs 11,440 crore in forced upgrades (bcoz various variants of the MiG-21 that the LCA was supposed to replace a decade ago were forced to serve till 2019-2021 at least) and stop-gap acquisitions.
The project that has started from scratch and with limited budget and on top of that without any kind of knowhow and expertise of homegrown design. Tejas was badly hitted especially during 1999 pokhern nucler test and US imposed sanction on India. During that Sanction period, all GE engine as well as FBW techs were held, and hence HAL had to acquire competency on their own in FBW development and they done that on their own.
The cost of complete weapon suit for LCA is separte from all these cost estimates, aircraft weaponization is another very expensive area which is still taken to be taken in to account.
Please Please Please Please provide the link which can validate this exaggaration.