Tag Archives: LCA

Drdo

23 yrs and first fighter aircraft hasn’t taken off

Leave a comment

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Four

23 yrs and first fighter aircraft hasn’t taken off

Amitav Ranjan , Siv Aroor
Tags :
Posted: Wed Nov 15 2006, 00:00 hrs
New Delhi, November 14:

At its last meeting in December 2005, the General Body of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the society developing the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, recorded one fact: the Indian Air Force, despite official plans to ultimately buy 220 LCAs, would order only 20 aircraft.
And that the IAF had refused to push the order up until it’s convinced that the new 2010 deadline, the project’s third consecutive time over-run, would be met.

The IAF had more than a reason.

According to latest official figures that will shortly be tabled by the Standing Committee on Defence in a report for Parliament, available with The Indian Express, DRDO’s 23-year-old indigenous fighter aircraft programme, taken as a whole — including the radar, jet engine and Naval variant — would have wiped away a minimum of Rs 9444.5 crore by 2010. Aggregate cost over-run: Rs 4,094 crore. Delay: 12.5 years and counting.
By DRDO’s own testimony in June to the same committee, there are still “certain complexities,” although it claims it will produce the 20 LCAs on order from the IAF by December 2011. But that would still be understandable if the LCA was in any way ready.

Five months after the ADA meeting, Air chief S P Tyagi communicated in no uncertain terms to then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee that his force could not depend on the programme in the short term. Shortly thereafter, he told The Indian Express: “We have to see if it is a suitably modern aircraft when it is complete. Right now we just cannot take any decisions. We can only wait for initial operational clearance (in 2008).”

The implication: the IAF is not sure if the LCA would have slipped down a few generations by the time it’s inducted. But the Standing Committee only had this to say: “The Committee are constrained to note that, keeping in view the ever-increasing delay in operational clearance of LCA, early induction of the same as IAF squadrons seems to be an unrealistic proposition.”

Just how unrealistic it is is something that has come to characterize the LCA programme ever since its inception in August 1983, and culminating now in a gravely unready fighter aircraft that the IAF could have no choice but to induct in large numbers from 2012.

Consider the following: Despite a battery of nine test pilots who have been embedded with the LCA programme, the IAF has refused to officially certify any technological aspect of the LCA apart from its structural strength, until initial operational clearance (IOC). Air Headquarters said so, in a written reply to this newspaper. The clearance should have been achieved by 2007 but its new schedule is 2008.

After a four-year wait following the rollout of the LCA technology demonstrator in 1997 for a first flight, former Air chief S Krishnaswamy made out an official case in 2003 for a “limited series induction” of the aircraft to give the IAF a chance to familiarize itself. He told The Indian Express, “The LCA is not full in any way, each prototype is different. I was a staunch supporter of indigenisation but am also very critical. How long can you keep on developing a product?”

The eight promised Limited Series Production fighters, envisaged as a part of the Rs 3,301.78 crore second phase of the programme, are nowhere in sight. The LCA, which should have undergone weapons trials by 2003, will now only undergo “dummy” trials in December 2007 according to DRDO chief M Natarajan, putting a big question mark on the possibility of IOC by 2008.

The real problem: the HAL-DRDO multi-mode radar, the very brain that will guide the LCA’s weapons, is not ready. After spending Rs 166.8 crore since 1997, HAL has decided to bring in a foreign technical partner to bail it out. The radar has been tested on an HS-748 Avro, but persistent problems with software and its signal processor have forced HAL and DRDO to admit their failure.

DRDO has justified the delays and their impact on the IAF’s preparedness by pointing to a revision of the development strategy because of a foreign exchange shortage in the 1990s, US sanctions, re-designing composite wings for weapon definition after January 2004 and extensive on-ground and independent evaluation.

After a cost and time overrun of Rs 2,456 crore and 13 years since 1996, DRDO admitted to the Standing Committee in June that it could complete the Kaveri engine only under a foreign joint venture. Problems that have crippled the Kaveri, according to the latest DRDO testimony, include critical glitches in aerodynamic, aero-mechanical, combustion and structural integrity.

Most significantly, DRDO has admitted to the Committee that to improve performance and safety issues, a JV could be attempted. Former DRDO chief V K Aatre said: “When I retired (in August 2004), there were some loose ends in the programme involving the radar and jet engine. But I am surprised they have still not been resolved.”

The DRDO was pulled up in January by the Standing Committee to explain how the LCA’s delays would impact the IAF’s modernization. Their reply: “IAF only can state the possible impact of delay on modernization exclusively due to LCA.”

But at Air HQ, an unofficial and approximate damage analysis of the LCA’s delay, shared with The Indian Express, is to the tune of Rs 11,440 crore in forced upgrades (some variants of the MiG-21 that the LCA was to replace will be forced to serve till 2019-2021 at least) and stop-gap acquisitions.

This does not include the purchase of 126 fighters potentially worth Rs 30,000 crore that the IAF will shortly begin an acquisition process for. In an unusual move, the Naval LCA will use air data systems from Russia’s state-owned Rosobornexport, which will also create a shore-based test facility for the Rs 948.90 crore development. MiG Corporation will conduct a design review and be DRDO’s chief consultant.
Drdo

Antony asks DRDO to build credible missile defence system

Leave a comment

Antony asks DRDO to build credible missile defence system

Agencies – Indian Express

Posted: Fri Jun 03 2011, 15:01 hrs

New Delhi:

Defence Minister A K Antony today asked the DRDO to prioritise the development of 5,000-km range ballistic missile while building a credible missile defence system for the country.

He also congratulated the Defence Research Development Organisation for developing the interceptor missile allowing India to join an elite club of nations possessing such advance technology.

“DRDO must demonstrate the capability to develop missiles of the range of 5000 km at the earliest. This is a challenge for the DRDO and I hope they will successfully meet this challenge at the earliest,” he said here.

Antony was addressing a gathering of defence scientists who received the DRDO’s annual award for excelling in their respective areas.

“The interceptor missile defence program has taken India into the elite club of nations that possess the capability to demonstrate this technology. DRDO should now concentrate on developing a credible ballistic missile defence for the country,” he added.

He also asked DRDO scientists to focus on the development of Mark II version of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun for the Indian Army and Kaveri Engine.

“The development of MBT Arjun and Kaveri Engine has been hit by delays. Development of MBT Arjun is a major milestone. But Mark II is another area of challenge. That challenge you have to meet,” he told the gathering.

Antony also asked DRDO and Indian Air Force (IAF) to ensure on schedule the induction of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas into the force.

“After getting the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for the LCA Tejas, we are moving towards its Final Operational Clearance (FOC). I am sure DRDO and IAF will work together to deliver Tejas on schedule,” he said.

He added that the delays in the development of indigenous engine for the fighter jets had given more time for the induction of the LCA and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) for the IAF.

Drdo

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

Leave a comment

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

Ashok Parthasarathi and Raman Puri

The facts with regard to perceived cost and time overruns and performance shortfalls in perspective

There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence “system,” or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.

Performance shortfalls

The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc Rs.560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD. This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.

It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of Rs.4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA’s ASR and PDD called for, was modest.

“Go-ahead”

After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that “go-ahead” covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of Rs.2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational ‘go’ date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.

Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another Rs.2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.

At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.

Consequently, in “generational terms” the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.

On the engine

It is true that the Kaveri engine for the LCA that the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) of the DRDO has been developing for 12 years has not yet met its technical performance targets and requires redevelopment. So far the GE 404 engine from the U.S., which powers the F-16 fighter-bomber, has been used to power the LCA. The problems the GTRE has with the Kaveri are not unusual in a complex fighter aircraft engine project being undertaken for the first time. Moreover, the financial sanction of about Rs.320 crore given for engine development was possibly only to cover the Project Definition Phase and some high-risk technology development effort. We do not know of a first-of-type high-technology fighter aircraft engine being developed anywhere in less than a multi-billion dollar programme and a 20-year-plus development cycle. Even Snecma, the sole fighter aircraft engine manufacturer in France, despite decades of experience in developing and manufacturing engines for Mirage III, V and F-1, took about a decade and $2.2 billion to develop the M-88 engine for the Mirage 2000. The development of the Kaveri is unlikely to cross $1 billion.

The LCA with a GE 404 engine has done 800-plus hours of flight-testing. Even with that engine the performance has been not only vastly superior to that of even the recently upgraded MiG 21 BIS (the IAF is operating almost 400 of the series), but it has shown itself to be comparable in many critical parameters to the Mirage 2000. Modifications to the aircraft structure are under way to reduce weight and improve engine performance. When the GTRE’s joint venture with a leading foreign engine manufacturer for further development is completed in the next four years, the Kaveri will be brought up to a performance level, superior to the GE 404. Fitted with it, the LCA will be truly comparable to the Mirage 2000 and in many respects even superior. And all this in an aircraft much lighter than the Mirage 2000.

Superior

As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF’s inventory.

So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.

As recently as in 2005, the IAF’s requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?

As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.

The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.

It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.

(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).

Drdo

Sanctioned in ’83, LCA Tejas is yet to take off

1 Comment

Sanctioned in ’83, LCA Tejas is yet to take off

Rajat Pandit, TNN Feb 12, 2008, 01.55am IST

NEW DELHI: When defence minister A K Antony witnesses a flight demonstration of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in Bangalore on Tuesday, he should take a close look at the fighter which typifies all that is wrong with defence projects in India.

The LCA project was sanctioned way back in 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore to replace the rapidly aging MiG fighters.

A quarter of a century later, with project costs already pegged at Rs 5,489.78 crore, the LCA is still at least four years away from becoming fully operational.

And when IAF finally inducts an LCA squadron, around 2012 or so, it will fly with American GE-404 engines and radars developed with Israel’s help, apart from several other ‘foreign’ parts in what is touted to be an ‘indigenous’ project.

Yes, developing a supersonic fly-by-wire fighter jet from scratch, with international sanctions in place for several years, is an extremely complex task. “But taking almost three decades is criminal,” said a senior official.

“All the agencies involved in it like the Aeronautical Development Agency, Defence Research and Development Organization, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and even the IAF, which has frequently changed requirements of weapons and electronic warfare midway, have to share the blame,” he added.

For the record, the two LCA technology demonstrators and three prototype vehicles have clocked over 800 flights till now, accumulating 425 hours and covering a flight envelope of 1.4 Mach and 15-km altitude.

Last year, the LCA even test-fired its first air-to-air missile, prompting the defence ministry to proclaim it as “a historic event” marking the beginning of the “weaponization” of Tejas. But the fact remains that the deadlines for the IOC (initial operational clearance) and FOC (final operational clearance) of Tejas have been revised time and again. As things stand now, IOC is projected by 2010 and FOC by 2012.

IAF, on its part, has ordered only 20 LCAs so far, despite pressure from the defence R&D establishment, unsure as it is of the delivery date and whether the LCA will be a top-notch fighter once it is ready. Incidentally, IAF and Navy had earlier projected a requirement of as many as 220 LCAs.

The less said about the indigenous Kaveri engine, which was meant to power the LCA, the better. The repeated failures of Kaveri – its development cost has jumped to Rs 2,839 crore from the initial Rs 382 crore – has meant the first 40 LCAs will have the American GE-404 engines.

With no solution in sight, DRDO has invited proposals for foreign collaboration for the co-development of Kaveri now. Keeping all this in mind, the overall development cost of LCA will zoom well over Rs 12,000 crore before it becomes a reality.

 

Readers’ opinions (33)

Sort by:Newest|Oldest

vivian fernandes (bombay)
12 Feb, 2008 09:21 AM
I have recently started working for the aviation industry and i have come to learn that although building a plane sounds easy there are so many parts that have to fit together that it is a mind boggling process.. However like many of the readers have mentioned,it should not take us 24 years to make a plane fly .. I do agree that the indian scientists are underpaid and i think it is high time we start bringing in private contractors like most of the western countries do.. so i think the only solution to this problem is to bring in people who know what they are doing and not leave projects in the hands of un educated,3rd rate politicians who might as well sold the parts for the plane on the black market to line their pockets..

Kotresh Tambrallimath (Bangalore)
12 Feb, 2008 09:00 AM
Indian Scientist salary is 5 to 10 times less than normal software Engineer salary. Because of this transition rates are high, so project is getting delay. Regarding cost of project, all are talking about 5000 cr. but how many billions of dollars US has invested to come to this position ??? Developing our own technology and building LCA is far far far better than Buying Black box(F16). I am very much thankful to all our scientists who are working in ADA and DRDO for there effort and dedication.

Krishna (Pennsylvania, PA)
12 Feb, 2008 08:31 AM
Well…I have worked on the LCA’s cockpit software programs in the early 90s. I know very well that we tried imitating F16’s fly by wire technology. We even followed USA DoD standard for software documentation. But I don’t understand why there is so much delay in taking off. I think we could not even copy something properly.

Prasad (Atlanta, USA)
12 Feb, 2008 08:24 AM
Even if we consider 12K Crore to develop an aircaraft from scratch (and belive, me there are many more things to an aircraft apart from the engine), I think it is not a bad price. Considering India has 12 lakh crores in its coffers as foreigh exchange and its income has multiplied manifold in past few years, 12 K crores for this project is not at all astronomical. We have to be cognizent of the fact that the project was executed by a government agency in complete isolation until recently without any private participation. India has learned a good lesson from it and is now encouraging privte participation in these kind of projects. I think we need to look at it much more positively. Every project is a learning curve and we have learned our share from this one too. I find such reports a bit too harsh towards all the good work which has gone into it. As a responsible mouthpiece of Indian media your esteemed publication should refrain from publishing such articles, which show our research establishments in bad light.

Rishi (Bangalore)
12 Feb, 2008 08:21 AM
Its time for the government to come out of the politics and took hard decision and recruiting from top premier colleges by offering them competetive pay.India have enough talent to build anything the only thing is that there should be strong will power behind it.

Drdo

Panel wants overhaul in DRDO’s set-up

Leave a comment

Panel wants overhaul in DRDO’s set-up

Rajat Pandit, TNN Mar 19, 2007, 12.13am IST

NEW DELHI: Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has taken yet another hit.

After being slammed for huge time and cost overruns in virtually all its projects, a parliamentary committee has now called for DRDO’s drastic overhaul if it’s to supply cutting-edge weapon systems to the armed forces in time.

 

And the “fundamental changes” must start at the very top. In its latest report tabled in Parliament on Friday, apart from recording Defence Research and Development Organisation’s “disappointing performance”, the Standing Committee on defence expressed its “displeasure”at the scientific advisor (SA) to the defence minister wearing so many hats.

In addition to being the SA, he is also director-general of DRDO, secretary (R&D) and director-general of Aeronautical Development Agency.

This must change, as also DRDO’s penchant for taking too many things on its plate. Venturing as it does even into making juices, mosquito repellents, titanium dental implants and the like, the committee said DRDO must concentrate only on “fundamental and crucial” defence research.

Urging the government to encourage the private sector to come into defence R&D and production in a major way, the committee said DRDO must be made more accountable and open to independent auditing.

A comprehensive national policy should also be formulated to recruit and retain “talented and experienced”scientists in Defence Research and Development Organisation, which has a shortage of around 1,400 scientists, as also promote its closer cooperation with IITs and universities.

Calls for a revamp of Defence Research and Development Organisation, of course, are not new. This newspaper, in several reports, has highlighted that it continues to flounder in developing desperately-needed military capabilities for the country.

Whether it’s the much-touted Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), sanctioned in 1983 but still at least four-five years away from becoming fully-operational, or the bulky Arjun main-battle tank, which the Army is being forced to swallow, the story has remained grim.

With the mind-boggling delays, the costs of most of Defence Research and Development Organisation projects have simply zoomed up. Take the LCA programme. Its initial projected cost was Rs 560 crore.

But now, it stands at Rs 5,490 crore, with another Rs 2,893 crore for its Kaveri engine. By the time the LCA becomes operational, if it does, over Rs 10,000 crore would have been sunk into it.

So, it’s no wonder that India has become the largest importer of military hardware and software in the developing world, notching up arms deals worth $11 billion in just 2004 and 2005.

It will spend another $30 billion over the next five years in armament imports. In view of all this, the parliamentary report expressed the “urgent need” for “a thorough review” of the functioning and organisational set-up of Defence Research and Development Organisation, which has 50 establishments and over 33,000 personnel under its umbrella.

Expressing dismay that DRDO had managed to achieve only 30% indigenisation target as against the 70% target set for the 10th Plan (2002-2007), the panel said the organisation has not been able to achieve its mission of self-reliance in defence production even 48 years after it was established.

Readers’ opinions (3)

asamanja ghose (paris)
19 Mar, 2007 02:16 PM
Dear Editor, Once again, the Parliamentary Committee should have gone much farther in its recommendations. We must institute a thorough judicial inquiry (independent of any and all administrative and political influence) as to why the LCA project and all other important Defence Projects have not yet been completed to date and resulted in such delays and heavy cost over-runs, while forcing the country to spend its meagre Foreign Exchange reserves to import military hardware. For instance, we are being forced to buy 126 Fighter Aircraft. If the LCA had been on time, this would not have been necessary, would it? In my opinion, military hardware-exporting countries and our corrupt politicians, corrupt political parties, and certainly some corrupt scientists in the DRDO are responsible for this state of affairs. They take bribes to design ways and means to delay our projects so as to continue exporting their outdated and “junk” products to India. How is it that no IT raids have ever been carried out on any of the above-mentioned categories of people, but only minor officials have been targeted, just for the form. Why have not the account books of the congress party not been seized and audited thoroughly after allegations that “thales”, the french manufacturer 0f the six diesel-electric submarines from whom india has ordered these, has paid sonia khan (sorry gandhi) a “bakshsish”‘ of 400 crores after the signing of this agreement. it is obvious that rajiv khan (sorry gandhi) did not have as big a stomach to digest the 64 crores that he had taken for the bofors deal and that he did share it with the congress party. Of course, the biggest “boffun” that the Bofors deal exposed was no one to do any thing with the congress, but the self-styled raja v.p. singh, who shouted himself hoarse before being elected prime minister saying that he will unveil the names of all the culprits of this international scandal, but once elected just forgot about it did nothing of the sort. Others like vajpaye and advani did not do much better. are we, as a nation, so cowardly that we are afraid of owning up to and take responsibility for our faults? if we aspire to be a superpower, should we behave like a bunch of sheep or tigers? Should we not start preparing for the day when we will have to tell the USA to get the hell out of the Indian Ocean, as that is our territory, and that they have nothing to do with that any more? Think over all this, dear reader. if these concepts seem too advanced for you, do contact me, i will explain. rest assured, it will be India that will the usa a bloody nose and make them eschew their haughtiness and misplaced sense of superiority. just ask yourself, what is that impostor, cheat and a plain highway robber be without his Indian software developers? What would the USA be without us Indians today? A. GHOSE

viswanath c (mumbai)
19 Mar, 2007 10:08 AM
Many organisations like DRDO are not at all performing well. The entire hierarchy needs to be revamped so that persons who can show results only can remain and exist there. In many cases, such Institutions does not allow youngsters to come forward and in desperation they leve the country. No need to make any hue and cry about depletion or loss of intellectual and technical personnel, let us do some homework to correct ourself!

balasubba raman guruswamy (bangalore)
19 Mar, 2007 08:18 AM
Internal nepotism is the bane of DRDO Labs. The best of brains are demotivated lot. It would be interesting if the ‘heads of the Labs’ are thoroughly investigated on the impact of their personal lives on the working of DRDO, over last 10 to 15 years.