What's new

LCA-Tejas: Why Final Operation Clearance (FOC) doesn’t matter!

fsayed

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
2,606
Reaction score
-2
Country
India
Location
India
@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @Stephen Cohen @anant_s

@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @ranjeet

@GURU DUTT
http://idrw.org/lca-tejas-why-final-operation-clearance-foc-doesnt-matter/
LCA.jpg


It was at the end of 2013 when Initial Operational Clearance-II of Tejas was finally granted and since then proposed deadline for Final Operation Clearance (FOC) has been postponed and delayed several times but does Final Operation Clearance is really that important? and does FOC of a new fighter jet really is counted as a significant milestone in other international projects?

Well a simple study will reveal that official declaration of Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is always considered as an important milestone in any fighter jet project because once IOC is achieved it only means that aircraft in question doesn’t require any structural modifications and can be used on basis upon which it can enter into series or small scale production, while it keeps on getting internal changes and up gradation over the period of time .

Prospective International buyers usually refer to IOC Certification of the aircraft to make a decision if the aircraft can be purchased and also refer to combat capabilities of the aircraft at the time of sale. Fighter jet fresh off the new production line usually comes with limited combat capabilities since additional combat capabilities are only added after new technologies are developed over the course of time and as per growth potential of the aircraft and its avionics.

From Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) to Final Operation Clearance (FOC) process is not a time bound progress nor there is any set timeline for everyone to follow but if an average turnaround period is calculated based on various fighter jet projects from past and present then average usually comes to 5-6 years but in some cases, FOC declaration is never disclosed and the product continues to get incremental combat capabilities over the course of period which might span out to a decade or more .

In LCA-Tejas case, end of 2015 was when it was first supposed to attain its FOC, which was too short of time-frame set since the addition of combat capabilities along with avionics and software update usually takes 5-6 years on average even in cases where manufacturers have several decades of experience in development of fighter jet.

Work required to move from IOC-II to FOC in two years for LCA-Tejas required addition of a new Python-5 Close Combat Missile and addition of new Derby Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles, new supersonic drop tanks, mid-air refuelling system, integration of the gun, flight envelope being extended to -3.5G to +8G from the -2G to 6G, Angle of Attack (AoA) also increased to 24 degrees.

As of now LCA-Tejas already has cleared all Air-to-Ground operation capabilities and can operate rockets, guided, unguided bombs and also has achieved extended flight envelope but as expected integration of CCM and BVR missiles along with Gun integration turned time-consuming but that was predicated even way in 2013 it self by many Defence Analysts as of for In-flight refuelling probe trials too will be time-consuming affair and even with dedicated full-time refueller aircraft stationed for mid-air refuelling trials will take more than two years due to lot of safety issues related measures required to be adopted which slow down trials considerably and such trials also require careful planning and safety checks .

FOC certification for LCA-Tejas MK-1 now has been scheduled for mid-2018 but it is also fact that Qualification and addition of features and capabilities or replacement of obsolete technology will continue in parallel and it now seems IAF has also understood this and is now open to working with developers and other various agencies to keep adding additional capabilities to keep the aircraft technically relevant rather than chasing FOC certification .
 
.
As long as the LCA are being built and being inducted into the IAF, the certification will come.

The problem exist only when the LCA are NOT being built and not be inducted into the IAF.
 
.
IAF should contribute in getting FOC.
..actually, IAF should push for it, considering that these are the planes they woukd be getting in very near future...earlier than Rafale
 
.
FOC?
Heck, IOC 2 didn't matter either.

Almost every other fighter aircraft building nation debugs and improves their's after induction, we should have inducted Tejas a long while ago.
 
.
with all due respect, I don't agree with title.
FOC is important for LCA program to stay alive. It's a very good fighter for its cost and considering our first attempt to build such a technology but time overruns has led to one service chief after another giving it a cold shoulder.
So in this context FOC would mean that LCA gets inducted in particular role that it is designed for and used. This alone would generate huge confidence not only for its designers and builders but also its users for LCA as well as future programs of LCA mark 2 and AMCA.
@Abingdonboy @Nilgiri @nair
 
.
i think the strngent FOC norms (IFR + BVR + gun integrations) etc should have been staggered into block I, block II, block III as Pakistan had done with their low cost fighter. the idea that it has to be the best right from the start will always keep a new kid behind because there will always be new stuff coming up by the time you perfect and test the existing add-ons.

should have said - gun + bomb drops as block I -> which will give it a CAS role
then BVR + IFR in block II -> which will give it an air denial role.
then add in-house advances on engine and radar for other testing purposes (block III and above)

thats exactly the process followed by PAF.
 
.
pakistans secrets assets are Indian defence establishments. long may they live and continue to do what they do best.
 
.
i think the strngent FOC norms (IFR + BVR + gun integrations) etc should have been staggered into block I, block II, block III as Pakistan had done with their low cost fighter. the idea that it has to be the best right from the start will always keep a new kid behind because there will always be new stuff coming up by the time you perfect and test the existing add-ons.

should have said - gun + bomb drops as block I -> which will give it a CAS role
then BVR + IFR in block II -> which will give it an air denial role.
then add in-house advances on engine and radar for other testing purposes (block III and above)

thats exactly the process followed by PAF.
Damn can someone tell me whether there are any IFR + BVR on those currently operational aircraft? One guy telling me it's tested, then the other tells me no FOC. Which one is it?
 
.
Damn can someone tell me whether there are any IFR + BVR on those currently operational aircraft? One guy telling me it's tested, then the other tells me no FOC. Which one is it?
BVR is already there. IFR is being integrated. For FOC the BVR is tested already, IFR probe integration and aerodynamic tests are being carried out. Actual refuelling tests remain.
 
.
BVR is already there. IFR is being integrated. For FOC the BVR is tested already, IFR probe integration and aerodynamic tests are being carried out. Actual refuelling tests remain.
I repeat my question how many planes are operational and of those plane, how many have BVR and IFR? Simple question, if none , just answer none.
 
. .
IAF should contribute in getting FOC.
..actually, IAF should push for it, considering that these are the planes they woukd be getting in very near future...earlier than Rafale
Push to get FOC for a fighter they didn't want in the first beginning?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom