What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
If DRDO has achieved IOC for LCA in just 21 years(1989-2011) under sanctions, then its better than european countries who had latest technology base. Even Eurofighter and Rafales lag so much compared to LCA programme.

Mh, why did we achieved IOC yet? Because we changed the indigenous engine with a foreign one, because we changed the indigenous radar with a foreign one, because we used foreign cosultancy to fix weight problems, as well redesigning NLCA.

If we had gone for co-developments with Elta, or Snecma for radar and engines from the start and not only when the indigenous developments failed, we would see squads of LCAs already inducted and flying over Indian skies! Same would be the case if we had used Elta 2032 and RD 93 engines as ready and available stop gaps, till indigenous counterparts would have been developed and mature, but we didn't and hoped that we can do it alone. But hope and overestimating our capabilities will lead us nowhere, a sad lesson that we learned through the LCA program.
 
.
Mh, why did we achieved IOC yet? Because we changed the indigenous engine with a foreign one, because we changed the indigenous radar with a foreign one, because we used foreign cosultancy to fix weight problems, as well redesigning NLCA.

Even Gripen has foreign engine. Did that prevent it from gaining IOC? Also, Sweden has no aero-engine R&D efforts. Their security scenario(under umbrella of west) doesn't require it.

LCA's RADAR is home-made MMR. "AESA for LCA" project was sanctioned only in Dec 2009, with development variant to be available by 2013. Western countries started it decades back. So, if DRDO comes out with first AESA flight on LCA before 2015, it will be world record!

Also, IAF is adamant about "latest" AESA and not ready to proceed in steps & begin with whats available, which is what R&D is about - Go in steps, stand behind your TEAM, support them till the end. Even USAF or Europeans didn't attempt to go AESA in first attempt. If IAF lacks maturity to understand R&D profiles & technology roadmaps, we can't blame others for that. A mature approach would have been to induct whats available in 100-120 so domestic production facilities get setup and industry gets a boost. Then, in next step, they can talk about AESA and all gizmos.

Biggest problem with domestic R&D has been IAF's immature attitude of demanding copy of exactly what West has. They are simply not ready to accept what they get and allow R&D to move in steps, which is normal in west and european R&D houses which are century old now. IAF behaves like a kid who want to grow up fast, but immature enough to not understand that there is no shortcut!

If IAF acts in more mature way, and stand behind the team, outcomes will be much better. R&D is all about sticking and perseverance. But IAF's attitude is - "we won't touch it. we are too lazy to participate in programe. that's not my job. we prefer roaming around in foreign airshows".


IAF has a lot to learn from PLAF and USAF, in terms of maturity. Its still far away from that stage.

If we had gone for co-developments with Elta, or Snecma for radar and engines from the start and not only when the indigenous developments failed, we would see squads of LCAs already inducted and flying over Indian skies! Same would be the case if we had used Elta 2032 and RD 93 engines as ready and available stop gaps, till indigenous counterparts would have been developed and mature, but we didn't and hoped that we can do it alone. But hope and overestimating our capabilities will lead us nowhere, a sad lesson that we learned through the LCA program.

My dear, life is all about learning & sticking to your efforts. Even first 20 of american GE aero-engines failed and blasted on testbeds. Did they start crying or whining? No.

You have two options in life - Live in past, cry about it, be pessimistic, beat your chest :lol: OR be positive, humble, act in mature way and stand behind your team.

So far, IAF has failed to show a mature leadership. Same is the case with Army. Navy is far more mature and have better approach to things. They focus on realities rather than living in past and being cynical, pessimistic and showing "devdas" mentality.

IAF = Indian army = Devdas.
Indian Navy(IN) = A mature leadership, quite comparable to USN.
 
.
By the way, I don't think going alone in LCA was a mistake. Actually, thats what we need to do more. If DRDO has achieved IOC for LCA in just 21 years(1989-2011) under sanctions, then its better than european countries who had latest technology base. Even Eurofighter and Rafales lag so much compared to LCA programme.

F-35 yet to achive IOC and was due on 2016 but further pushed back to 2018...it a only a troll if someone points about the delay in LCA , you are correct to point out that LCA is a long lap forward in extablishing technology base in india...
 
.
@MumbaiIndians :- LCA radar is not indigenous mmr but elta 2032.. And AESA will only be ready around 2018-2020

Also the LCA has not met up with requirements of the IAF even after 21 years so why should IAF trust HAL again for the AMCA? going for the MRCA and making tot an important part of it to improve indigenous technology - thats a mature decision, trusting DRDO and HAL to deliver the goods even after they have failed in the past - thats just stupid
 
.
@MumbaiIndians :- LCA radar is not indigenous mmr but elta 2032.. And AESA will only be ready around 2018-2020

Also the LCA has not met up with requirements of the IAF even after 21 years so why should IAF trust HAL again for the AMCA? going for the MRCA and making tot an important part of it to improve indigenous technology - thats a mature decision, trusting DRDO and HAL to deliver the goods even after they have failed in the past - thats just stupid
in which aspect the LCA not meet with requirements of the IAF , could you please enlighten us..
 
.
@MumbaiIndians :- LCA radar is not indigenous mmr but elta 2032.. And AESA will only be ready around 2018-2020

Also the LCA has not met up with requirements of the IAF even after 21 years so why should IAF trust HAL again for the AMCA? going for the MRCA and making tot an important part of it to improve indigenous technology - thats a mature decision, trusting DRDO and HAL to deliver the goods even after they have failed in the past - thats just stupid

I dont think trust is the actual word.. it is the IAF commitment which has lacked... just jotdown how IAF has been changing there requirement.. from a military thrust of 81KN fighter to a 95KN fighter clearly shows IAF has no management principle or commitment on what they want
 
.
in which aspect the LCA not meet with requirements of the IAF , could you please enlighten us..
Tejas flies, but IAF dithers
Read the article and you will find out. also iaf wanted an indigenous fighter- not a fighter with 40% indigenous tech.
the LCA cant fire a bvr missile yet or even make a 7g manouver and you tell me it is fully compliant??
note that I am not saying it will not become compliant by the time of FOC, but as of now a lot of work needs to be put in
 
.
. .
I dont think trust is the actual word.. it is the IAF commitment which has lacked... just jotdown how IAF has been changing there requirement.. from a military thrust of 81KN fighter to a 95KN fighter clearly shows IAF has no management principle or commitment on what they want
I doubt the IAF cares much for reasons for the delay in LCA( especially if they are to blame partially). they seem to have zero confidence in indigenous fighter building capacity of india. they are on board with the amca only because they know they already have the fgfa in their pockets
 
.
I doubt the IAF cares much for reasons for the delay in LCA( especially if they are to blame partially). they seem to have zero confidence in indigenous fighter building capacity of india. they are on board with the amca only because they know they already have the fgfa in their pockets

IAF dont care because they are the customers.. there threat perception is changing from time to time ... i guess they have understood there mistake from LCA.. and now they are on board for MK-2 and AMCA from day one... even i remember IAF ACM was saying let the DRDO define the technology and they will validate it(this shows still they cant define anything).. but on the level of participation yes they have changed there position...
 
.
the article states that the contract to get the derby will be signed soon. the missiles will start arriving some time next year.
thus making it clear that the lca will not have bvr capability till next year

It is only contract to procure new Derby.... but Derby has been already integrated by DRDO on sea harrier... so they have the expertise and they have the missile in there hand to test it...

Though the integration will happen latter in this year.. but test will be carried next year ... there are other serious test going on... one is the wake test...anti spin test.... and there are some critical test like increasing AoA and g test.. which is more important and will be completed this year..
 
.
It is only contract to procure new Derby.... but Derby has been already integrated by DRDO on sea harrier... so they have the expertise and they have the missile in there hand to test it...

Though the integration will happen latter in this year.. but test will be carried next year ... there are other serious test going on... one is the wake test...anti spin test.... and there are some critical test like increasing AoA and g test.. which is more important and will be completed this year..

yes, the lca is improving and will probably become compliant to the iaf by time of foc.....but it isnt right now- that was the point i was making
 
.
yes, the lca is improving and will probably become compliant to the iaf by time of foc.....but it isnt right now- that was the point i was making

Thats what we are trying to explain... IAF requirement has changed from 81KN to 95 KN... so it will not meet.. if the earlier requirement has been justified they would have placed ordered..

Right now they wanted lot from this smaller plane like extended range with more internal fuel (add a 1200litre drop tank within the body) + 5 tonne of just bomb payload itself... incase if the MTOW exceeds Mirage with the same empty weight which i think this is possible...

Right now the empty weight is 6560(it was supposed to be 5400kg).. so by god's grace if they reduced the structural weight and the new weight stands at 6600kg ... then the loaded weight with just internal fuel of 3500 kg will be 10 tonne and add two 1200 litre drop tank of 1 tonne which will be 12 tonne which is still less than M2K loaded weight... so bombs and other payloads if you had 5 tonne it comes to max of 17 tonne... which is almost equal or more than the payload of J-10... there by it will increase thrust to weight by 1.0 ... Since the wing area will be increased so the wing loading should be same or even if it increases to 300 it will be still agile....

see how deadly the IAF requirements are... (They are looking for the fuel same as M2K + more payload)...

Right now Tejas carries same payload of M2K but with less fuel...
 
.
Even Gripen has foreign engine. Did that prevent it from gaining IOC? Also, Sweden has no aero-engine R&D efforts. Their security scenario(under umbrella of west) doesn't require it.

Wrong in many ways! They had Volvo aero engines long ago and the engine in the Gripen is a Volvo engine as well, although around 40% is GE origin. The point is, they planed from the start to modify a proven foreign engine, instead of developing an new indigenous one. That's why they had not such problems and delays like we had.


LCA's RADAR is home-made MMR. "AESA for LCA" project was sanctioned only in Dec 2009, with development variant to be available by 2013. Western countries started it decades back. So, if DRDO comes out with first AESA flight on LCA before 2015, it will be world record!

MMR is not completely homemade, but uses parts of the Elta 2032 as well, again not from the start, but when we realised that they offer better techs that we can't develop on our own so far and the AESA is even a better example! We started developments alone, IAF found out that it's below their requirements, now they search for an co-development partner for help.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom