LCA and Economics
Sunil Sainis and George Joseph
In 1983 India set out to build its first
modern fighter aircraft, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). This was by all standards an
ambitious plan, especially for a country, where numbing poverty casts a dark shadow and
technology and industry lag far behind the world. In the early years of the Independent
India these aspects had fueled intense debates over the needs of defense versus the needs
of development. The resolution of these debates had first appeared in the slogan `Jai
Jawan, Jai Kisan’ (Victory to the Soldier, Victory to the Farmer) coined by the Late
Prime Minister Shri. Lal Bahadur Shastri [1]. The idea was to create platforms for
research and development that would both foster local industry and build a credible and
reliable defense system for the nation. This basic notion was evolved considerably since
the 1950 and several organizations have been created under the leadership of the Defense
Research and Development Organization (DRDO). Though initially some projects failed to
meet set targets, the Govt. of India never wavered in its support of the overall idea. A
crucial area was combat aircraft technology, efforts in the 70’s had met some success
but India was far from being self-reliant in this field. This field was perpetually in a
state of intense flux, our traditional suppliers the Soviet Union seemed to lag
technologically in certain areas and the cost of western platforms appeared prohibitive.
These factors were the initial impetus behind the LCA project.
The project received support from then
Air Chief Marshal Shri. Idris Hassan Latif, and the needs of the Indian Air Force for a
light supersonic multi-role fighter were put down in the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) by
1985. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was set up under the Ministry of Defense
(MoD) to act as the nodal body for the project. The LCA program has made an arduous
journey from those humble beginnings to the flight of the LCA Technology Demonstrator
(TD-1) made on January 4th 2000. As soon as its wheels lifted off the ground,
the crowds were ecstatic, the scientists and the dignitaries were jubilant, and even
scribes could not hold back their emotions.
The reason for their joy was
understandable. The flight of the TD-1 was a full 5 years late. The delay had stemmed from
the actually complexity of the project [2]. The institutions had overestimated their
capability, and at times failed to fully utilize existing experience [3]. As most of the
technology was first prototyped in the west, the project has called for a greater
interaction with western aviation entities. This made the advanced project very vulnerable
to international interference [4]. The enormous emphasis on
indigenous development of several technologies added to the high project cost.
As it is natural in a democratic nation
like India, the costly LCA program has undergone public scrutiny and criticism. Most of it
focused intensely on the fact that the project has exceeded the original expectations of
budgeting and timing. The sources of this criticism are primarily sections of the military
[5,6],, journalists [7,8,9,10], and other eminent persons, both inside and
outside the country [10,11,12,13]. The project has also come in for a scathing review from
the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Government of India (GoI) [14].
The CAG has recommended that after the flight of the TD-1, the GoI review the entire
project and decide whether it wants to proceed with indigenous development or cancel the
project and purchase an equivalent system from a foreign supplier.
At first sight it appeared as though the
critics did have a sound platform on which they based their arguments. However on several
forums (especially www.bharat-rakshak.com),
there were questions raised about the validity of some of these arguments. So it was
decided that the economics of the LCA should receive closer scrutiny in the next BR
Monitor. The results of this exercise are presented in this article.
Basic Issues
It was imperative that we looked at
the cost-effectiveness of the LCA program with the view of carrying out an economic
analysis. For this we required some basic information: costs (both direct and indirect), a
measure of the outcome in terms of effectiveness, benefit, utility or consequence and a
comparator or a set of comparators with similar information.
The Comparators
The LCA is designed to replace the MiG-21
fleet of the IAF. The MiG-21 is used extensively in the IAF. Due to its rugged design and
mass production it is the most produced fighter aircraft in aviation history and has seen
action in many air forces all over the world [15]. The LCA is billed to be the
world’s smallest, lightweight, supersonic, multi-role, single-seat fighter designed
to function as IAF’s frontline, multi-mission tactical aircraft. The term light can
be misleading; the LCA will be able to deliver as much ordnance as the much larger
MiG-27s.
The above description puts the LCA in a
class that is much beyond the MiG-21 that its was meant to replace. The LCA would offer
more utility than the MiG-27, as it is a multi-role fighter. In economic terms they are
not really comparable products. Another problem with the Mig-21 or the MiG-27 is that they
were designed and developed in the former USSR and it is very difficult to accurately
establish development costs. Hence we could not examine the Mig-21 as a suitable
comparator for the LCA program. This leads us to two other aircraft, which could serve as
comparators: The F-16 Falcon and the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen.
The F-16 and the LCA
A comparison of the LCA (projected) and
the F16C/D block 50+ shows the following similarities [Refer Table 1].
Table 1: Comparison between the F-16 and the LCA |
|
LCA |
F16C/D block 50+ |
Length |
13.20m |
15.03m |
Height |
4.40m |
5.1m |
Span |
8.20m |
10.0m |
Max Speed |
1700 Km/hr |
Mach 2.05 |
Max Weight |
8500 kg |
17010kg |
Ceiling |
16400m |
16750m |
Range |
840km |
1000km |
Armament |
1 cannon & 7 hard points, ext load 4000 kg |
1 cannon, 2 Sidewinders, ext load 4500 kg. |
Engines |
GEF404 F2J3, KAVERI GTX-35VS |
P&W F100-PW-220 |
Control Systems |
Quadruplex (Digital) FBW based on MIL STD 1553B Bus |
Triplex DFCS with one Analog Backup on MIL STD 1553B Bus |
| Source: www.fighter-planes.com |
From this seems plausible
to say that the LCA should be comparable to the F16 C/D (Block 50+). Let us briefly look
at F-16’s development cycle. In January 1972, the Lightweight Fighter Program
solicited design specifications from several American manufacturers. The General Dynamics
entry for this was the YF-16. It made its first test flight on February 2nd
1974 [17]. Subsequently the F-16A, a single-seat model first flew in December 1976. The
first operational F-16A was delivered in January 1979 to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing
at Hill Air Force Base, Utah [18]. The entire F-16 program reached operational status in
seven years after inception. By contrast the LCA program started in 1985, the TD-1 rolled
out in 1995 and finally flew for the first time in 2001. The service-entry dates can
optimistically be expected to be 2007. The time line comparison between the F-16 and the
LCA heavily favors the F-16.
The Saab JAS39 and the LCA
Let us also take a look at the Saab JAS39
Gripen [19], a light multi-role fighter developed by the Industrial Group JAS, consisting
of Saab Military Aircraft, BAE Systems, Saab-BAe Gripen AB, Ericsson Saab Avionics,
Ericsson Microwave Systems, Celsius Aerotech and Volvo Aero Corporation. A comparison of
the LCA and the Gripen shows the following similarities.
| Table 2: Comparison
between the JAS39 and the LCA |
|
LCA |
JAS39 Gripen |
Length |
13.20m |
14.10m |
Height |
4.40m |
4.50m |
Span |
8.20m |
8.40m |
Max Speed |
1700 Km/hr |
1400Km/hr at sea level, Mach 2.0 at altitude |
Max Weight |
8500 kg |
12474 Kg |
Ceiling |
16400m |
15240m |
Range |
840km |
3000Km (ferry range) |
Armament |
1 cannon & 7 hard points, ext load 4000 kg |
One Mauser BK27 27mm cannon, 8 hard points, ext. load 4000 kg. |
Engines |
GEF404 F2J3, KAVERI GTX-35VS |
Volvo Aero RM12 (developed from GEF404) |
Control Systems |
Quadruplex FBW based on MIL STD 1553B Bus |
Triplex DFCS with Analog backup on MIL STD 1553B Bus |
| Source:
www.fighter-planes.com |
The Gripen program was
conceived in studies in the conducted by the Swedish aerospace industry in 1978. The
Swedish Government prompted in part by evaluations of the F-16 and F-18 by the Swedish Air
Force and issues of economics approved the concept of a new light multi-role aircraft.
Later in 1982 the Swedish Parliament voted to approve the project and the Defence Materiel
Administration signed a contract for development of the JAS 39 Gripen. The first prototype
flew in 1988 and the final flight tests were completed in December of 1996 [20]. By March
2000, approximately 85 aircraft have been delivered to the Swedish Air Force, and there is
a possibility of sales to foreign countries [21]. Here too a comparison of the initial
development time (up to prototype production) of the Gripen with the LCA, strongly favors
the Gripen. One could easily conclude from these two examples that LCA R&D is of a
poor quality and severely lags the world standard. The authors feel that such an argument
is deceptive; it neglects the fine print here.
Firstly the F-16C/D (Block 50+) is a
considerably evolved form of the YF-16 produced 24 years ago. While a good deal of this
evolution was to expand on the original idea of a Light Weight Fighter to new roles and
deployments, there were also several changes in the control system. The F16C/D that we see
on the market today owes a fair bit to the work done between 1978 –1989 on the
Advanced Fighter Technology Integration Program, which tested systems like Triplex Digital
Flight Control System (3 digital control systems and 1 Analog backup) [22]. The LCA by
comparison has begun with a Quadruplex DFCS (All four levels of control systems are
digital) this is a considerable advance over the F16C/D. The Gripen for its part has also
benefited from this research as it has though the consortium approach, sub-contracted
development of several systems to participants of the advanced American programs like
Lockheed Martin, Rockwell etc [23].
Secondly in designing the F-16, General
Dynamics made use of advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other
aircraft [24]. The prototype version YF-16 used main landing gear tires from the B-58
Hustler [25], an emergency power unit from the Concorde, an ESCAPAC II ejection seat from
the A-4, an air data probe [26] from the SR-71 Blackbird, and servo actuators from the
F-111 Aardvark. The actuators in the leading edge flaps were rotary actuators from the
F-111 bomb bay doors. The canopy design and the canopy latching system were based on the
NASA X-24. Off-the-shelf equipment used in the FSD craft includes a head-up display
modified from an A-7 Corsair, nose gear wheel and tire from the F-4, a signal data
recorder from the A-10, an oxygen quantity indicator from an F-5E, and a nose wheel
steering system from the T-39. The engine, of course, was a modified version of the Pratt
& Whitney F100 engine used in the F-15. The same applies to the Gripen where a large
number of subsystems were contracted to European and American systems companies [23] and
unlike the LCA, Saab did not have to face sanctions.
Thirdly there was a large pool of
experience present within the American workforce. The so-called `Fighter Mafia’ of
John Boyd, Tom Christie, John Chuprun, Harry Hillaker, Chuck Meyers, Pierre Sprey, Everest
Riccioni, and others championed Light Weight Fighter concept [27]. These veteran designers
in 1971 pushed the Tactical Fighter Requirements Division of Air Force Headquarters to
fund a study titled "Study to Validate Expanded Energy-Maneuverability Through
Trade-Off Analysis". General Dynamics and Northrop conducted this work. Fueled by
steady funding (about $150,000 total) and the good tradeoff data from the study, the
lightweight fighter concept was ready in a very short time. The transition was accelerated
by the Packard Commission’s resurrection of prototyping to validate new aircraft and
other military programs before they go into production. The Americans thus were able to
combine these ideas to produce an airplane of reduced size and price [28]. We must also
note that by the time the first generation F-16A rolled out the F-15 and F-111 were
already flying and had seen action. Saab Military Aviation has produced a range of
advanced fighters like the Saab Draken [29], a Mach 2.0 fighter built in the 1952 and the
Saab Viggen [30] a multi-role fighter built in 1967.
When the LCA rolled out the only the
other aircraft development effort in India was the aborted HF-24 Marut. The capabilities
of the LCA and the Marut are so vastly different, that a fair number of components had to
be completely redesigned for the LCA, this adds to the development time and cost. A key
point here is that both the Americans and the Swedes drew upon a sea of expertise,
technology and institutions that were built up much before the F-16 or the JAS39 came
along. India has developed a fighter of similar configuration and the ancillary support
and development institutions required to develop this fighter, all in a span of 20 years.
This is quite an achievement. However given the cost of developing a complex instrument
like a combat aircraft, one is almost tempted to simply buy a ready-made and proven
platform from a trusted supplier. We examine the possibilities in this regard in the next
section.
Comparison of costs of procurement
There exist several products in the
market which seem to match or exceed LCA specifications, however not all of these are
viable choices. The choices and the reasons for rejecting them are listed in the table
below.
Table 3: Comparison of estimated costs of various
aircraft |
AIRCAFT |
ESTIMATED COST |
REASONS FOR REJECTING THEM |
F-16 A/B/C/D |
$ 30-35 Million with spares [31] |
Deals are prone to sanctions [32]. |
MiG-29 |
$30 Million (spares extra) [33] |
Poor quality control, unreliable suppliers for spares, and very low TBO on critical
components like engines [34]. |
Saab JAS39 Gripen |
$53 Million (spares) [35] |
Too expensive to be bought in numbers. |
Dassault Rafale |
$55 Million (Spares extra) [35] |
Too expensive to be bought in numbers. |
Sukhoi Su-27/30/35 |
$40-45 Million[36] |
TBO on critical components is low, and this is too expensive to be bought in numbers.
|
The Mirage 2000 and the
LCA
The F-16 and the Gripen are both
aircrafts that the IAF has no experience operating. The only other multi-role fighter that
the IAF current has in its inventory is the Mirage 2000. So when looking for a comparator
for the LCA we cannot ignore the Mirage 2000 as it a globally accepted multi-role fighter
platform which also happens to be in the service of the IAF. The Mirage 2000C/D [37] is an
advanced multi-role fighter that has its origins in the d'Avion de Combat du Futur (ACF)
program run by the French Government in the mid 70s. The design has undergone considerable
evolution and France, Egypt, Greece, India, Peru, Qatar, Taiwan, and the United Arab
Emirates operate versions of it. The Indian Air Force has the Mirage 2000H, and by all
accounts appears quite satisfied with it’s performance. This plane has also performed
quite well in the Kargil Crisis. The exact specifications of the Mirage 2000H are shown
below [38] [refer Table 2]. Though larger than the LCA it can perform all the tasks of the
LCA.
Table 4: Capabilities of the Mirage 2000H |
Design Features |
Low-set thin delta wing with cambered section and cleared for 9g and 270/s roll at
subsonic and supersonic speeds, there is extensive use of composite materials. |
Avionics |
IAF's Mirage 2000s are equipped with a multi-mode RDM pulse Doppler radar which
allows multi-target selections at all altitudes with look down/shoot down operation and
features HOTAS concepts. It is also fitted with an Antilope terrain-following radar for
automatic flight, down to 61 meters. IAF Mirage 2000s are fitted with the Litening Laser Designation Pod
for use with laser guided bombs. |
Engine |
One Snecma M53-P20 turbofan rated at 21,384 lbs. of maximum thrust. |
Maximum Speed |
Mach 2.2+ |
Service Ceiling |
16,460 meters; 54,000 ft. |
Maximum Range |
With internal fuel - 1852 km; 1151 miles.
With 3000L drop tanks - 3333 km; 2071 miles |
G Limits |
+9/-4.5 - normal and +13.5/-9.0 - ultimate. |
Armament |
Has two internally-mounted 30mm guns with 125 rounds of ammunition. Nine external
hard points can carry AAM like the Super 530D and the Magic-II and air-to-surface
missiles like the AS-30L
& the Matra ARMAT and a
variety of other guided & un-guided ordnance. Can also carry a tactical nuclear payload. |
External Load |
6300 kg; 13,890 lbs |
Self Defense |
An automated ICMS Mk.2 with receiver/processor in the nose to detect missile command
links; an extra pair of antennae near top of the fin and additional DF antennae scabbed to the
existing wingtip pods |
|
The IAF has ordered 18 Mirage 2000C/Ds
[39] so as to make up attrition losses and expand ground attack capability. This aircraft
is should not be confused with the Dassault Mirage 2000-5 (projected as a 5th
generation multi-role fighter estimated to be around $55 Million [40]). The cost of a
Mirage 2000C/D is estimated to be about $ 25-30 Million [41], and the cost of upgrading
from this to the Mirage 2000-5 is about $5-10 Million [42]. The Mirage 2000-5 does not
meet our cost requirements.
The present sets of aircraft were
purchased in 1982 and the details of this deal are displayed below [43].
Table 5: Mirage 2000 deal (1982) |
Payment for retention for option to license manufacture: |
Rs 3.92 Cr. |
Contract for procurement of the aircraft: (Integration and operational clearance
of a variety of weapons but not the supply of these weapons.) |
Rs 621.75 Cr. |
Replacement of existing aircraft radars was recommended in 1980. Tropical trials
conducted in 1986 had also revealed high rate of failures of the radars. The modification
of the radars and electronic warfare system (EWS) was completed only in January 1993. |
Rs 62.09 Cr. |
While the aircraft was inducted in 1985, the facilities for its repair completed
by 1996 and till then the aircraft were sent to the manufacturers abroad for repair. |
Rs 67.62 Cr |
Setting up of repair facilities for the airframe and its accessories at the PSU
instead of at the Air Force Depot would result in extra expenditure: |
Rs 73.78 Cr. |
This would inflate the cost of overhaul and entail extra financial burden of on
the Air Force on the overhaul of aircraft during its life cycle: |
Rs 197.80 Cr. |
The weapon system imported: |
Rs 11.15 Cr. |
Total so far for 40 aircraft |
Rs. 966.33 Cr. ($1.0291 Billion US in 1982 and 1.838 Billion in 2000, that’s
$45.95 M apiece in 2000) |
Bearing in mind the fact
that most of this Rs. 966.33 was in FE (Foreign Exchange) and that there is little
involvement of local industry in this project, every spare part is imported and is subject
to the vagaries of the supplier and of FE reserves. It also seems plausible that Dassault
Aviation would sell us a few Mirage 2000’s now but would in time coax us into buying
the costly 2000-5 or quite possibly super-costly Rafale. This is the path that other
Dassault customers like Greece and UAE have been led down. Another large deal with
Dassault would definitely involve making considerable commitments of foreign exchange.
Thus in addition to not benefiting local industry and economy in a direct way, the deal
would actually lead to fall in our foreign currency reserves. So every time one of these
pricelessly expensive planes crashes, in addition to a possible personal disaster, we will
also have a minor fiscal calamity.
Having thus put the development cycle of
the LCA in perspective and viewed the costs of purchase and operation of comparator
platforms, we now proceed to look more closely at the costs of the LCA development
program.
Cost of the LCA Development Program
Today the LCA program has cost India a
sum of approximately Rs. 2188 Cr. The project has taken the better part of two decades.
Project outlays so far and a look at major areas of investment
[44] are summarized in the tables below.
Header |
Estimated Cost |
Foreign Exchange Component |
LCA costs as per feasibility study in May 1985 |
Rs 750 Cr. |
N/A |
Phase-I of Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) includes
design, construction and flight test of two Technology Demonstrator aircraft (TDI,TD2)
construction of a Structural Test Specimen construction of two Prototype Vehicles (PVI
&2); creation of infrastructure and test facilities. commenced in April 1990 approved
Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs (CCPA) 1993 |
Rs 2188 Cr.(1991 prices) |
Rs 873 Cr. |
Phase-II of FSED estimates including construction of three more PV
'5, the last PV5 (trainer); construction of a Fatigue Test Specimen; creation of
facilities at various work centres. (Not yet approved by CCPA) |
Rs.2340 Cr. |
N/A |
Table 6: Subsystem cost estimates |
|
Estimated Cost in Cr. Rupees |
Revised Cost in Cr. Rupees |
| Major subsystems |
Total |
FE component |
Total |
FE component |
Radar system |
62.27 |
35.37 |
100.05 |
69.65 |
Flight control sys. |
57.80 |
42.82 |
160.00 |
118.32 |
Indigenous Engines |
382.81 |
155.39 |
760.00 |
365.03 |
Engine control sys. |
8.96 |
5.19 |
17.74 |
12.11 |
A brief overview of the
Capital Outlay on the LCA up to March 31, 1999 as per the ADA Annual Report 1998-1999 [47]
shows the following headers and funds allocated.
Header |
Funds allocated (Rs) |
Project Definition Activities. |
89 Cr. |
Infrastructure Buildup (Buildings, computers, Office and Engineering Design
Equipment, Vehicles, Communications, Plant Machinery) |
157 Cr |
Aircraft Design and Integration (Software tool development, Simulators, Cockpit
evaluation facility and engineering costs) |
150 Cr. |
Prototyping Activity (Tools, Test Equipment, CFC Components, Aircraft Materials,
Aircraft Fabrication, |
244 Cr. |
General Systems (JFS, PTO shaft, AMAGB, Fuel Oxygen Monitoring Systems etc…)
|
101 Cr. |
Flight Control System |
135 Cr. |
GE Engines |
108 Cr. |
Avionics: (Cockpit Instrumentation (HUD, MFD, Display Processor, Control Panels),
Mission Computer, Ring Laser GYRO, ASTRA PDP, MPRU, CCU, FDR, MMR, Communications,
Electrical, etc…) |
57.5 Cr. |
Ground Testing (low Speed, High Speed etc…) |
112 Cr. |
Flight Testing |
29 Cr |
Training Consultancy and Technical Assistance |
36 Cr. |
Technology Development (Design Analysis, General Systems, Composites, Avionics
Display, Production Technology, Actuators) |
75 Cr. |
Product Support (Ground Support Equipment) |
4 Cr. |
Addl. PV 1 & PV 2. |
35 Cr. |
Balance stage payments to other work facilities, and Engg. Change Order etc…
|
82 Cr. |
Sub Total |
1598 Cr. |
The figure of Rs. 1598 Cr.
represents the money spent so far by the LCA project (till 1999). This contrasts with the
estimated FSED allocation of Rs. 2188 Cr. The unit flyaway cost of LCA assessed as Rs
10.30 Cr. in 1985, is now estimated to cost between Rs. 85 Cr [44]..
The effectiveness of the LCA
So far we have covered a majority of the
cost issues related with the LCA and the unit cost of the comparators. In order to compute
a cost-effectiveness ratio we require an effectiveness denominator for the analysis. We
need a set of performance related criteria to compare both the LCA and the comparator.
Here it is prudent to consider what has already been published in open literature about
various combat aircrafts. Yefim Gordon has compared the Mig-29 Fulcrum series to the F-16
Block 50+ series.
As per the methodology followed by Yefim
Gordon to compare various versions of Mig-29 and the F-16 in [Table 1], a comparison of
the two platforms would involve looking at the following quantities.
- Thrust to weight ratio: at combat (1000m and Mach 1. with
full internal fuel load) and at takeoff.
- Rate of Climb at 1000m and Mach 0.9 at full internal fuel
load.
- Maximum turn rate at 3000m with 50% fuel.
- Specific Wing loading at takeoff.
- G limits.
- Acceleration from 600 to 1000 Km/hr at 1000m.
- Fire control radar performance data including weight,
volume, scanner diameter, mean radiation power, aerial target detection range (in open
airspace, in look-down-shoot-down mode-forward hemisphere, in look-down-shoot-down
mode-rear hemisphere) against a selected target.
- Weapons control systems data including Fire control radar
performance in terms of number of targets tracked, number of targets attacked
simultaneously, scanning in azimuth, surface ship (of a selected radar cross-section)
detection and Optoelectronic targeting system in terms of Aerial Target detection range
(head-on mode and pursuit mode), laser rangefinder, use in strike mode, active ECM.
- Armament packages.
- Maximum air-to-air missile ranges.
These above mentioned figures can be used
to define an arbitrarily scaled quantity called the Combat Efficiency Quotient.
We then establish the following quotients
- Combat Efficiency Quotient in Intercept mode: includes
data from the weapons control system and mission avionics, speed in intercept more and the
weapons carried, combat radius etc….
- Combat Efficiency Quotient in Dogfight mode: includes data
from the weapons control system and mission avionics esp. ESM suite and acceleration,
combat radius etc…
- Combat Efficiency Quotient in Strike mode: includes data
from the weapons control system and mission avionics, Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW),
air-air refueling capability, low level penetration mode performance.
These three can be combined to give a Combined
Combat Efficiency Quotient for air-air and strike modes.
The Reliability and Serviceability
Parameters like Operational Readiness Quotient, Specific Maintenance labor Intensity
(man-hours per flight), MTBF (Minimum Time Between Flights), Airframe Life and Relative
cost, enables us to produce an overall cost-effectiveness figure for each airplane. Hence,
it is possible to compare the LCA with the F-16, Gripen and the Mirage 2000, but it is too
early for such comparisons to be made as the LCA is still in the TD-1 stage.
Additional facets to the effectiveness
denominator
The LCA is designed to have several
features specifically tailored to IAF requirements. The LCA Jet-Fuel Starter (JFS) has
been successfully tested at an altitude of 6.4 Km; this enables the LCA to operate from
such high airfields like Leh [48]. It must be noted here that though the Mirage 2000 flew
several successful sorties during the Kargil Conflict, it does not have the ability to
operate from airfields at such high altitudes. Save the less sophisticated Mig-21 and
Mig-23, no other aircraft is said to meet these requirements. The LCA Environment Control
System (LCA) is designed to operate in tropical conditions, this will improve pilot
comfort [66]. Hence when comparing the effectiveness of the LCA with its
comparator these additional factors would have to be considered too.
Given that it is impossible to calculate
the effectiveness denominator at the present time and therefore not possible to carry out
a cost-effectiveness analysis. A discussion of the economics of the LCA must now focus on
the output of the project to date. In the next section we discuss the achievements of the
project thus far, we look at issues of project management, technology development and
private participation.
Project Management Setup
At the time of the inception of the
project it was felt this effort would draw immensely on expertise present in several
different institutions present all over the country. Thus an emphasis was placed on a team
approach to problems, and although ADA was the nodal agency, it worked in close
coordination with several other agencies. To ensure cooperation between various
departments at a high level and good oversight on the project, the ADA has a General Body
and a Governing Body. The General Body of ADA comprises:
- President: Raksha Mantri : (RM) (Defense Minister)
- Vice President: Vitta Mantri (Finance Minister)
- Members: Min. of State for Defense, SA to RM/Sec. DOD
R&D/DG-ADA, Chief Air Staff, Sec. Def. Prod & Supp., Sec. MoD, Sec. Def. Fin.
& FA, Sec. Finance, Sec. Dept. of Space, Sec. Expenditure, Dir. NAL, Chair. HAL.
- The Permanent Invitees are: Project Director (Admin.) ADA
(He functions as the Secretary ADA), LCA Program Director, Financial Advisor to DG-ADA,
Managing Director HAL.
The Governing body of ADA handles
more detailed organization involving the various secretaries of the concerned departments.
It meets somewhat more frequently than the General Body. The Governing Body consists of:
- Chairman: SA to RM/Secy. DOD R&D/DG-ADA,
- Co-Chairman: Chairman HAL.
- Members: Sec. MoD, Sec. Finance, Sec. Def. Prod. &
Supplies, Chief Air Staff, Sec. Expenditure, Sec. Def. Fin. & FA.
- The Permanent Invitees are: Project Director (Admin.) ADA
(He functions as the Secretary ADA), Dy. Chief Air Staff, LCA Program Director, Financial
Advisor to DG-ADA, Managing Director HAL.
The Technical committee of ADA is
responsible for advising the Governing Body on scientific issues. The Chairman HAL is the
head of the Technical Committee.
The Project Directors manage the
day-to-day affairs of various subprojects. They also meet on a weekly basis on the Program
Coordination Committee of ADA to discuss and sort out coordination problems. The LCA
Program Director heads this body. In order to ensure that the resources existing in
different institutions can be brought to bear effectively on special issues; the ADA
operates a number of National Teams. This novel approach has been successfully applied to
address issues relating to the Flight Control Law (NAL, ADA, CAIR, HAL, IAF), Carbon
Composite Wing (NAL, HAL, ADA), Flight Testing (NTFC), foreign contracts for feasibility
studies, and to overcome the adverse effects of sanctions.
Various R&D labs attached to the
DRDO, DOE, DAE, CSIR, IITs, IISC, PSU R&D, and ISRO also receive guidance from the
ADA. HAL, ADE and ADA interact with public sector and private sector industry also. They
design complicated parts and get them manufactured by Indian industries.
Govt. of India certification bodies like
Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC), Directorate General of
Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA), and the Center for Reliability (MIT STQC
Directorate) etc… monitor product quality and award aerospace/military grade
certifications to successful projects.
In addition to project management ADA
activities briefly revolve around the following core areas [48]:
- Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
- Airframe including Carbon Fiber Composite {CFC) Wing and
Fin
- Propulsion System
- Mechanical General Systems
- Flight Control System
- Avionics and Electrical Systems
- Quality Assurance and System Effectiveness
- Ground and Flight Testing
A detailed list of the persons involved
in the LCA project may be obtained from the ADA Website or from reference [34].
A diagram of the various bodies involved
in the LCA project is shown below:
Figure 1: Representation of LCA Team
Technologies developed and Spin offs
The LCA project has resulted in the
indigenous development of a vast number of technologies. There are major advances in all
the major ADA sectors. The advances are briefly presented in a table below
[48,51,52,54,55,62,63,66]:
Area of R&D |
Outline of advances made in the field |
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics |
CFD codes, various aspects of wind tunnel testing, development of Control Law,
and control law simulation and testing facility, use of supercomputer to attack various
aerodynamics issues, Finite Element Method codes, Aero Elasticity Studies. |
Airframe including Carbon Fiber Composite {CFC) Wing and Fin |
Precision machining of special metals like Titanium (challenging), Aluminum,
Composites manufacture and machining, Carbon Disc brakes. |
Propulsion System |
Engine Design work at GTRE, design and manufacture of very high reliability
sub-components like fan-blades, casings etc, for the Kaveri, JFS, Hydro-mechanical parts,
Engine Control Unit, Nozzle Control Unit [51]. |
Mechanical General Systems and Manufacturing. |
Landing gear, Brake Systems, AMAGB, Brake Parachutes , CAD-CAM software,
Environmental Control Systems, Application software for Distributed Numerical Control,
software to improve control over CNC instruments. |
Flight Control System |
Control Software, Iron Bird testing facility, Mini Bird, Cockpit Controls,
Actuators and other components of Digital Flight Control System and computer [52]. |
Avionics and Electrical Systems |
Design of Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), LCD, Antennae, Testing
facilities like DAIR, Communication Equipment, Control and Coding Unit, IFF, Various
cockpit systems and simulators, Mission Computer, Lightning test facility, Multi-Mode
Radar. |
Quality Assurance and System Effectiveness |
Several quality assurance programs like Failure Mode Effect and Criticality
analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, `Walk through check lists’ etc… were implemented
[53]. Software like C-SCAN was developed to deal with QC issues in composites [54], Software Test Plan based on DOD standard. |
Ground and Flight Testing |
Flight test facility and equipment, testing during ground run, fast and slow
speed tests, |
The detailed list of
technologies developed and their applications may be found in the Appendix I.
Private Sector Participation
The LCA project has managed to secure
considerable amounts of participation from the private sector. This participation falls
into three broad areas; manufacturing of pre-designed components (moulds, tools, jigs,
etc…)[56] and special purpose tools [57], software development [58] and advanced
machining products (aerospace grade Line Replaceable Units (LRU))[59].
Some of these companies existed before
the LCA project but a fair number are new. Almost all of these companies have had to
expand their capabilities and take on serious financial liabilities because of the LCA
project. A large number (approximately 300) of small and medium-scale units are involved
in mechanical production. These units are heavily invested in the LCA project as it stands
today and will suffer enormous hardships if the project is summarily cancelled. Many of
these companies are in a position to exploit spin-off technologies and will at the very
least be able to assert a presence in the aerospace market.
The software companies have been able to
combine their participation in the LCA to enter into very high-end markets like embedded
systems, ultra-stable code development, and computational fluid dynamics calculations.
Some software companies have used their LCA experience to build up manpower and then moved
into more lucrative businesses like e-commerce. This has added to growing presence of
Indian companies in the world software market.
Small and Medium-scale manufacturing
units have been able to upgrade manufacturing setups so as to meet the requirements
imposed by certifying bodies such as DGAQA and CEMILAC. This has spawned ancillary
industry as some of these companies outsource their initial requirements and focus on
meeting aerospace tolerances and quality guidelines. This has provided employment for
highly skilled craftsmen. We present a list of private companies involved in the LCA
project in Appendix II.
Limitations
It has to be noted that this article
draws data from various public sources of information. It represents an open literature
analysis of what is known thus far about the LCA program and its comparators. While the
real costs of development, ownership and operating such platforms are very important in
economic analysis, it must be noted that such data is very difficult to come by.
Additionally, it was observed that the utility of the various platforms could only be
gauged with time. Hence it is provides an inkling about the benchmarks that the LCA needs
to meet in order to prove its effectiveness over its life cycle.
Conclusions
The LCA project represents a considerable
investment in advanced infrastructure relating to the crucial aviation industry.
Subsequent to the flight of the TD-1, at least some of the R&D effort supported by
this investment has met with visible success. A large portion of the investment so far has
gone into development of a base of research and academic institutions vital to foster a
sustained presence in this in this field.
At the present time it is possible to
estimate the unit cost of the LCA and the measures of effectiveness for evaluating
multi-role aircraft. However the absence of a production version of the LCA precludes the
possibility of a computation of cost-effectiveness quotients. Critics of the project must
accept the fact that our specific requirements on cost and performance are not met by
platforms currently available on the market and that superficial comparisons of
effectiveness of the LCA with other `international standards’ are utterly meaningless
at the present time. These factors increase the need to encourage and sustain the
development of platforms specifically designed to perform in the Indian context. In the
LCA project Indian R&D institutions and manufacturers have once more demonstrated
their ability to overcome the initial lack of a technological base. This feat merits the
highest commendation.
It is also important to take note of the
growth fostered in certain industrial sectors. This is a very positive in economic terms
as it moves us one step closer to improving the competitiveness of our industry and
moreover reduces the impact of defense purchases on foreign exchange reserves. If the
manufacturers are indeed able to exploit spin-offs and affect a stronger showing in the
aviation market, then we could see real long-term prosperity in certain parts of India.
The authors also recommend that stronger measures be taken at the earliest possible to
transfer more technology to industry and specific economic incentives be offered to
private sector companies to participate in the LCA project. Even if the LCA does exceed
the present estimated unit cost, the funds will end up being dispersed within the country
and will boost local industry.
At this stage in the project several
critical subsystems are poised to reach completion. This is a reason to continue funding
the project. If a decision is made to curtail project funding now, a fair bit of the
progress to date will be lost as talented manpower will leave the company and several
private companies involved in the project will suffer enormous losses [4].
Given the complexity of the LCA platform
and the fact that this is a first attempt, it is also likely that there may be a few
setbacks in the months to come. This is quite common with such projects. The authors feel
that these setbacks should be faced with courage and every effort to realize the full
potential of the LCA must be strongly supported.
Appendix I: Technologies developed and
Spin offs
Next we briefly profile the technologies
developed for this project, the agency, and the possible spin-offs (we apologize for any
that we may have missed).
AGENCY |
IMMEDIATE APPLICATION TO PROJECT |
SPIN-OFFS AND/OR MARKET POTENTIAL |
ADA: Aeronautical Development Agency: Computer Aided Design [62] |
Autolay Software: used to design LCA. |
ADA had tied up with Computervision, the largest CAD/CAM company in the world,
for marketing Autolay, following which the Airbus Industrie had evinced a keen interest in
the product |
ADA: Aircraft Systems Maintenance Simulator [63]
Designed in collaboration with IIT Bombay
and Tata Consulting. |
Simulator for LCA maintenance. |
A Maintenance simulator was designed for Mig 29 a/c. This was used to train IAF
and Royal Malaysian AF personnel in India. |
ADA: Flow Simulation |
The CFD group uses a suite of CFD software developed in Indian institutions under
projects
sponsored by ADA or developed in-house. Present capability is a simulation of transonic
flight of LCA with stores. |
CFD has very broad applications. The transonic field integral method can be used
for highly complicated geometry with moderate computing resources. |
ADA [64]: GITA |
Graphical Interactive Three dimensional Analysis software, LCA Design. |
Technology Associates Inc of US and Boeing use it for CAD\CAM application |
ADA [65]: Prana |
Virtual Reality software for CAD applications. A prototype can now be readied
through virtual reality in nearly half the time it takes for a physical prototype. VR
technology would be used for the first time in the Indian aircraft industry for the LCA. |
This software can be used in the automobile, shipbuilding and aero industries.
ADA is on the lookout for a marketing tie-up. Many DRDO labs and corporate groups such as
TVS and Mahindra and Mahindra have already expressed interest in it. |
ADA |
Design of LRU for Hydraulic, Fuel and Environmental Control Systems. Actual
Manufacture is outsourced. C-SPAN implementation for detecting flaws in Composites with
cooperation of CAIR and VIVASONICS. |
The local manufacturers have been able to build up confidence in producing
aviation grade components |
ADE: Aeronautical Development Establishment (DRDO)[62] |
Engineering Test Station for integration of hardware and software of DFCS |
|
ADE (DRDO) [62] |
Dynamic Avionics Integration Rig: to test LCA avionics |
|
ADE (DRDO) [62] |
Indigenous Real Time Simulator for testing LCA Control Law (CLAW) |
|
ADE (DRDO) [63] |
Bread board model of Display Processor |
|
ADRDE (DRDO) [66] |
Brake Parachute and Spin Parachute. Tested at IISC and Terminal Ballistic
Research Lab (TBRL) |
Parachute imports for some platforms are of a low quality, this could find
application there. |
ASEIO (DRDO) |
EW equipment, Mission Computer, Standby UHF link. |
|
ARDE (DRDO) [67] |
Ejection system for LCA, this includes a combination of ejection seat and canopy
release system. |
This product has been tested and certified by the Martin Baker Corp. of UK. This
system can be re-used on any subsequent platform. |
BARC: Bhabha Atomic Research Center: Computer Division[68] |
ANUPAM-860/16 Node parallel processor, used for CFD work related to LCA engine
intakes |
Other versions of ANUPAM/16 Node (ex. ANUPAM-Pentium/16) are under development.
This is a significant contribution to evolving field of Parallel Processing applications. |
BEL Bangalore |
LCDs, Populated PCBs of the Flight Control Computer. This unit played a crucial
role in overcoming the setbacks of the sanctions. |
|
BHPV Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd. Vizag: |
Heat Exchanger for environmental unit. |
|
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Corporate R&D, |
Pump Motor for Radar Cooling |
|
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, MHD Centre Trichy |
ECS test facility |
|
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad |
Brake Dynamometer |
|
CAIR: Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: Control Systems Group [69] |
Part of National Flight Control Law Team, work relates to control systems |
|
CAIR: Robotics Group [69] |
Gantry robot and supplied it to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for LCA wing
inspection |
|
CDAC |
LCA simulators |
|
Central Electro Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi |
Development of Cd. plating for maraging steel (Grade-250) |
|
Central Institute of Tool Design, Hyderabad |
Tooling and machining of precision parts |
|
COMPROC: Composite Production Center (DRDO) |
Composites for LCA |
Composites for other defense applications. |
CSIO(CSIR) |
Heads Up Display for LCA |
|
CMTI bangalore. |
Manufacturing of LCA parts and machinery. Testing of Filter Elements and
Development of Filter test rigs |
|
CVRDE: Central Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (DRDO) [62] |
AMAGB: Aircraft Mounted Accessories Gear Box |
|
CVRDE: [62] |
Hydraulic Filters designed by ADA. |
|
DEBEL (DRDO): |
Pilot’s personal systems, onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS). |
|
DRDL (DRDO): |
Radome for MMR, Carbon Brake discs for LCA, Control and Coding Unit (CCU). The
MMR Radome required indigenous production of Kevlar Socks and Low loss polyester resin. |
|
DEAL (DRDO) |
Communication Radio and Data link. |
|
DMRL (DRDO): |
Rotor and starter casting for Jet Fuel Starter, Heat exchangers for environmental
unit. |
|
DLRL (DRDO) |
EW equipment |
|
DSIC |
Digital Engine Control Unit |
Used with GEF404 now, but will eventually end up being used with GTX-35VS. |
ER&DC |
LCA simulators |
|
ERDL |
Canopy Severance System [70] |
|
ECIL Hyderbad |
Materials for LCA |
|
Government Tool Room & Training Centre, Bangalore & Mysore |
Machining & Assembly of Precision Valves |
|
GTRE Bangalore: |
Kaveri engine (GTX-35VS) and testing of sub-systems like ECS, FADEC etc… |
This technology will spawn other engine designs. |
HAL: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Hyderabad) |
Integrated Communication Equipment (INCOM), MMR, Electronic Controllers, IFF
Transponder, Audio Management Unit, Radio Altimeter, Utility Management System |
Various items can be installed on other platforms. |
|
