LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote: That is it - 120 birds and the run is over. This sidelining of the Tejas is probly because of 2 reasons (speculation alert!):
CM.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories889.htm

The actual orders are for 8 LSP, 20 (already ordered) + 20 (in pipeline) for MK1. The reason for the delay in second order is because IAF, HAL & ADA are in discussions about standard of fit for second tranche of MK1 aircraft, and whether they will be trainers (predominantly) or single seaters - reports note the second tranche will have 16-17 trainers. The LCA trainer once it completes its certification process would be the standard fit taken up.

The expected numbers of LCA MK2 are 83 with additional options, to be exercised as IAF sees fit. This makes the minimum orders for the LCA - versions, as 123 + 8 = 131.

The Navy has told HAL to plan for around 57 aircraft in total but of the MK2 variant. That adds upto 188 aircraft. You can see some of the recent numbers here.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 254509.xml
http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... Id=8548495

More attrition replacements & additional orders are also expected from the IAF (as is usually the case with the IAF, reference, see Jaguar orders, or Sukhoi orders) for WWR & filling in existing requirements - approximately ~2-4 squadrons, which at the lower mark are around 40 aircraft. This is one of the key reasons IAF has ordered more Sukhois as well, before production winds up, and they ordered 37 Jaguars before the line closed. So far pilot response to LCA has been very positive & once IAF gets its hands on the aircraft, and familiarity increases, additional orders can then be expected.

It also bears testimony to the remarkable stupidity of the Indian media (Aroors et al) that they drummed up the "83 orders for MK2" as being unexpected, when you have umpteen reports before the event (IOC) all speaking of the numbers expected, and that too without options, which are usually exercised once the product is seen to be reasonably mature (inducted, few years in service).
Week Report wrote:Flying with the IAF would be a major milestone for this multi-mission tactical fighter capable of air combat, offensive air support and other combat missions. At the flight test stage, on an average, each aircraft does eight sorties per month, but in the operational squadrons, they will be flown almost every day. “It is a fully combat-ready aircraft that encompasses all features that the IAF wants,’’ says Group Captain Suneet Krishna of the NFTC, who has been test flying the LCA and has been associated with the project for 10 years (see box). The NFTC pilots, from the IAF and the Navy, have so far completed 1,500 sorties, testing a number of parameters or test points.

“Tejas is so agile and so good that it sometimes surprises you,” says NFTC Project Director Air Commodore Rohit Verma. The veteran pilot, who has flown the Russian MiGs and French Mirages, is in love with Tejas.
Overall, HAL expects a production run of around 200 LCAs before the production transitions to the AMCA. Hence the reference to the number 200 at the press conference, even keeping variability in additional IAF orders/naval orders in mind.

Original plans for the LCA were always at the same level, with numbers of around 220 aircraft mentioned. There were hopes that even the MiG 23, 27,29 series would be replaced by the LCA doubling orders, but the IAF made it clear it was seeking a heavier MMRCA to supplant these aircraft.

So LCA orders as projected are not that different from those originally estimated.

The challenge will be to match production at HAL with induction by IAF. IAF would expect HAL to deliver as fast as possible, whereas HAL, justifiably would want IAF to commit upfront to production, to justify its investment and raise production to 20 planes per year for MK2 from current 8, low rate production of MK1 variant. The irony is that all these agencies are funded by the same Govt of India, but this is the usual politicking between different stakeholders.

Positively though, The IAF is putting up 30% of the funds for the LCA MK-2. This flows from a reccommendation a few years back, that henceforth, services have to be involved in funding their products, so as to remain involved in programs
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by krishnan »

(Tarmak007 is releasing video(s) of Team Tejas and their activities shot by the blogger with a nano-HD device. You will also seem some backroom boys, hangar activities and interviews with Test pilots. This video is dedicated to all Tejas fans and Tarmak007 members across the globe.)
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Karan,

My inputs came from discussions with IAF engineers associated with the program, later posted to Maintenance Command, last year.

While I fully agree with your point on incremental blocks, and the additional margin (risk averse design), that indeed is the cause of the weight gain, that we discussed few pages back, I disagree with the following -

1.Provision for newer munitions (heavier load carrying structures)

This is not correct, since Tejas is still expected to carry no munition heavier than 454 kg bombs + laser guidance package in inner pylons. Now, if change from R-60 (43.5 kg) to R-73 (105 kg) leads to weight gain in ranges of three digit kgs, was the initial wing so flimsy?

2.More (Additional) avionics systems (internal EW suite) & mechanical systems (OBOGS)

I have not seen any known apertures in Tejas that correspond to an internal EW system. I would be grateful if you could point me to one if I have missed. Until I find one, I will logically conclude that Tejas doesn’t have an internal EW system, and it is a BR myth.

Secondly, here is a typical internal EW system. Since no one has ever seen the Tejas system, we will use this as an example - http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/alq135/ & http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... ALQ135.pdf
The weight is 190.2kg. The Elta 8222 weighs 100 kg. Again, it would be simpler to carry a 100 kg pod rather than a 200 kg internal system. That is exactly what the IAF plans to do, and there is NO internal EW system in the Tejas.

It is very well established in aeronautical systems that OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Otherwise, every plane would have still been carrying bottled oxygen. All fighters worldwide are weight conscious and power conscious. Tejas being a short legged system by philosophy, bottled oxygen would have sufficed for a hour long sortie. However, it turns out OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Since I do not know the weight of the Tejas OBOGS system, I will use the following examples -

The CV-22 OBOGS generating oxygen for 7 people weighs 26 kg. Here - http://www.asma.org/asma2010_mp/pdfs/as ... nt_124.pdf Here is a typical fighter OBOGS http://www.cobham.com/media/65629/ADV10556.pdf

So it is complete nonsense that 26 kg OBOGS (weighing lesser than bottled oxygen) + 61.5 kg increase from R-60 to R-73 + non-existant internal EW system led to 1000 kg weight gain.

The real reason is additional margin (risk averse design) + poor estate management that resulted in a not so optimum hip bone in our cheetah. The fact remains despite additional margin (risk averse design), the hip bone was not able to carry 105 kg R-73 instead of 43.5 kg R-60 without redesign. So even the additional margin (risk averse design) explanation doesnt hold good in all cases.

It is exactly these issues that are going to be rectified. HAL chairman is very clear in his words. I did not point the estate management point earlier because it was not open knowlege (though common knowledge in IAF circles), however with this media report, I can present the facts on the table.

Lastly, let us view it as a positive development, that work is progressing in the right direction.
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Feb 2011 16:47, edited 4 times in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

Cain Marko wrote:
That is it - 120 birds and the run is over. This sidelining of the Tejas is probly because of 2 reasons (speculation alert!):

1) Hopeful scenario: The IAF does not fully trust US components and does not want to base a large number of fighters on GE engines. The LCA team otoh, has always seemed to be in favor of US components despite repeated snubs, and this probly causes a rift, and the Tejas remains an experiment with limited success in that it to a large extent fulfills the techie goal of creating an aerospace industry but falls short of providing a usable fighter. The IAF as end user can now perhaps trust in the AMCA project a bit more willingly (unlike LCA)

2) Sorry scenario: The IAF trusts the US but has simply no faith in Tejas and technocrat ability. As a result it skippers the Tejas and focuses on MRCA instead. This should be borne out by either the Gripen or Shornet making landfall gains.

Anyways, in either case the Tejas gets token order (123).

CM.
Image

CM bhai saab, when AI 2011 is in progress, definitely this is not the time for speculation! Time to keep the ADA guys busy and they too may love to clarify our doubts. Raise a toast when all that is done.
Karan M wrote:Overall, HAL expects a production run of around 200 LCAs before the production transitions to the AMCA. Hence the reference to the number 200 at the press conference, even keeping variability in additional IAF orders/naval orders in mind.

Original plans for the LCA were always at the same level, with numbers of around 220 aircraft mentioned. There were hopes that even the MiG 23, 27,29 series would be replaced by the LCA doubling orders, but the IAF made it clear it was seeking a heavier MMRCA to supplant these aircraft.

So LCA orders as projected are not that different from those originally estimated.
Karan saab, that is only if IAF is going for 1 to 1 replacement, which may not be the case; just as LCA Mk1 found a new role and not replacing any existing aircraft.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vic »

narmad wrote:
The 99 GE 414 engines will bring up the second order of 20 PLUS another 80 odd Mk2
Will all the 99 Engines will be used on Airframes ?
Wont the 99 engines include some Spare Engines ?

It is actually 107 engines
Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Arya Sumantra »

Karan M wrote: Overall weight gain is a more relevant metric & this is known to be the primary cause of LCA not meeting expected requirements in two criteria, by a marginal amount, namely STR, and acceleration. Marginal, because incorporation of HMDS + new missiles makes up for the disparity between required (by ASR) and currently achieved with GE404IN20. A significant shortfall would not be made up even with advanced avionics. The STR issue was linked primarily to weight gain.

Acceleration was also linked to drag issues which is now being overcome with minor redesign of the forward portion of the aircraft (adding a plug).

So the weight gain issue is the primary remaining one, which cannot be met by redesign alone & needs to be solved by a stronger engine.
I don't think one should blanket blame the overweight as the main problem. Being overweight in wrong locations in most likelihood is the problem. If you want to look at total weight you may not find it too much higher from other planes powered by similar or even lower thrust engines. So how are they able to manage? Overweight would be the problem for other things such as climb rate, ceiling altitude, max speed, linear acceleration etc but NOT so much for AOA and alpha, imho.
shiv wrote: Carlo Copp
http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-FBW-CCV.html
Artificial Stability and the Fighter.

One possible solution to this problem would be lowering the aircraft's static stability, particularly in pitch. This can be achieved by shifting the centre of gravity aft of the centre of lift, thereby creating a nose-up pitching moment, which will assist in rotating the aircraft's nose into a tight turn. However, the resulting loss in stability must be countered and this is the task of artificial stability.
Whether you see this as a pitching moment about CG or as a tipping moment about the instantaneous Center of lift is upto you. Location of CG vis-a-vis center of lift has a relevance and merely looking at total weight is being myopic.

If you are stable being horizontal in a level flight it is going to take a hell lot of effort to disturb you from that state. If you are unstable being horizontal you are most likely stable at some other angle AoA. Looking at cobra manouever one would surmise that a flanker is stable being vertical hence an instantaneous turn to get into that position and slower turn out of that position.

JMT
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by merlin »

tsarkar wrote:Karan,

My inputs came from discussions with IAF engineers associated with the program, later posted to Maintenance Command, last year.

While I fully agree with your point on incremental blocks, and the additional margin (risk averse design), that indeed is the cause of the weight gain, that we discussed few pages back, I disagree with the following -

1.Provision for newer munitions (heavier load carrying structures)

This is not correct, since Tejas is still expected to carry no munition heavier than 454 kg bombs + laser guidance package in inner pylons. Now, if change from R-60 (43.5 kg) to R-73 (105 kg) leads to weight gain in ranges of three digit kgs, was the initial wing so flimsy?

2.More (Additional) avionics systems (internal EW suite) & mechanical systems (OBOGS)

I have not seen any known apertures in Tejas that correspond to an internal EW system. I would be grateful if you could point me to one if I have missed. Until I find one, I will logically conclude that Tejas doesn’t have an internal EW system, and it is a BR myth.

Secondly, here is a typical internal EW system. Since no one has ever seen the Tejas system, we will use this as an example - http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/alq135/ & http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... ALQ135.pdf
The weight is 190.2kg. The Elta 8222 weighs 100 kg. Again, it would be simpler to carry a 100 kg pod rather than a 200 kg internal system. That is exactly what the IAF plans to do, and there is NO internal EW system in the Tejas.

It is very well established in aeronautical systems that OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Otherwise, every plane would have still been carrying bottled oxygen. All fighters worldwide are weight conscious and power conscious. Tejas being a short legged system by philosophy, bottled oxygen would have sufficed for a hour long sortie. However, it turns out OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Since I do not know the weight of the Tejas OBOGS system, I will use the following examples -

The CV-22 OBOGS generating oxygen for 7 people weighs 26 kg. Here - http://www.asma.org/asma2010_mp/pdfs/as ... nt_124.pdf Here is a typical fighter OBOGS http://www.cobham.com/media/65629/ADV10556.pdf

So it is complete nonsense that 26 kg OBOGS (weighing lesser than bottled oxygen) + 61.5 kg increase from R-60 to R-73 + non-existant internal EW system led to 1000 kg weight gain.

The real reason is additional margin (risk averse design) + poor estate management that resulted in a not so optimum hip bone in our cheetah. The fact remains despite additional margin (risk averse design), the hip bone was not able to carry 105 kg R-73 instead of 43.5 kg R-60 without redesign. So even the additional margin (risk averse design) explanation doesnt hold good in all cases.

It is exactly these issues that are going to be rectified. HAL chairman is very clear in his words. I did not point the estate management point earlier because it was not open knowlege (though common knowledge in IAF circles), however with this media report, I can present the facts on the table.

Lastly, let us view it as a positive development, that work is progressing in the right direction.
Weeelll, the estate management problem was not just know in IAF circles :-)

That the weight gain lead to lower performance is fine, but you stated in your earlier post that an engine with lower thrust values (Gripen RM-12) gives a heavier aircraft better performance (as one of the questions asked). How would internal estate management being sub-optimal do that?

Lesser AoA is fine because the full envelope has not been opened up yet (ADA being very conservative here, understandably, but still a little disappointing). But how is the STR lower with lesser weight and more thrust (GE F404-IN20). Poorer estate management cannot be the answer here. Perhaps a draggier airframe?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Karan M wrote:Acceleration was also linked to drag issues which is now being overcome with minor redesign of the forward portion of the aircraft (adding a plug).
Shouldnt this have been addressed during design and tunnel testing? This would have been apparent when the TD's were flying. And yet we're doing this in Mk2 after 6 PV, 8 LSP and 20 ISP. Applying the area rule to avoid transonic drag is a starting point of design, I am assuming the designers did, and we still have the issue.

You also missed AoA, that allows manoeuvering without stalling. This document mentions design AoA as 35 degree. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downl ... diance.pdf Yet IOC AoA is 22 degress that will become 24 degrees by FOC. Surely 37% decremental performance does have more reasons. And the worst part is that a cranked wing is supposed to enable high AoA like 35 degrees, which we dont get, probably because of other reasons, as Ajai Shukla correctly reported that the engine starves because of poor inlet design.

Also, it has +6g limits when design limits were +9g. This is contrary to the explanation of additional margin (risk averse design) in terms of structures.
merlin wrote:but you stated in your earlier post that an engine with lower thrust values (Gripen RM-12) gives a heavier aircraft better performance (as one of the questions asked).How would internal estate management being sub-optimal do that?
merlin wrote:But how is the STR lower with lesser weight and more thrust (GE F404-IN20). Poorer estate management cannot be the answer here. Perhaps a draggier airframe?
Yes, draggier airframe and the following
Arya Sumantra wrote:I don't think one should blanket blame the overweight as the main problem. Being overweight in wrong locations in most likelihood is the problem.
That is what is covered under estate management, not just easy access for ease of maintenance. And overweight in wrong locations does affect performance.

When we laugh at the Chinese for reverse engineering, we completely miss the point. They take an existing design, iron out deficiencies and marginally improve performance, which is what is required on the field. When we found the Kashin high bow resulted in good seakeeping, we used it in the Delhi. Project goals need to be realistic. Something I will always hold against the way LCA project was run is that lighter/smaller was never necessary for being an effective fighter. Yet these goals, to some extent, did shift focus from the primary objective of designing a good fighter.
Sidhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Feb 2011 20:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sidhu »

In addition to the above. Is it a possibility that due to inefficient intake design, the engine is not able to produce all the thrust it is supposed to produce. I am sure the thrust produced would definitely be stated with the clause that 90 KN under ideal test conditions ....

On chinese reverse engineering. I did find the ACM's statement trivial. Any country is allowed to defend itself with whatever means it deems necessary. I do understand that it is an ethical question, but when it comes to survival ethics tends to take a back seat. I am sure that the ACM would have loved DRDO had they been able to reverse engineer the F-22 and produce a cheap mass produceable 5th Gen Fighter
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by negi »

When we found the Kashin high bow resulted in good seakeeping
Ah so is that the reason why the R class patrols our east coast (they say Bay of Bengal is pretty rough as compared to the Arabian sea) ? :)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:Karan,

My inputs came from discussions with IAF engineers associated with the program, later posted to Maintenance Command, last year.
That is fine and you are welcome to disagree. However, my inputs come from a direct interaction with the flight crew (including test crew) at public events plus open literature. I would point out that until the IAF gets its hands on the bird post IOC it will not really know its capabilities in entirety, and even the MK2 will come with new lessons versus the MK1.
While I fully agree with your point on incremental blocks, and the additional margin (risk averse design), that indeed is the cause of the weight gain, that we discussed few pages back, I disagree with the following -

1.Provision for newer munitions (heavier load carrying structures)

This is not correct, since Tejas is still expected to carry no munition heavier than 454 kg bombs + laser guidance package in inner pylons. Now, if change from R-60 (43.5 kg) to R-73 (105 kg) leads to weight gain in ranges of three digit kgs, was the initial wing so flimsy?
It is not incorrect, but you have made the incorrect assumption that I postulated the weight change was only due to this account (gain in range of 3 digits) - no, actually, the overall weight change is due to a combination of all the factors. Now, coming to the point, the R73 change in weight is around 240% more! This is a significant change by any means & needs to be accounted for in terms of load factors & the like. Its not also just the missile itself, the launchers need to be strengthened & redesigned & also need to be improved for cooling the new missile which has different requirements. And even the launcher is being redesigned for lower weight & less drag. Overall, the issue is a classic case of last moment scope creep. Now, the IAF is actually telling ADA that it may also include a new WVR missile, for its next gen induction but this time around, its in time for the MK2 redesign so that should not cause any issues.
2.More (Additional) avionics systems (internal EW suite) & mechanical systems (OBOGS)

I have not seen any known apertures in Tejas that correspond to an internal EW system. I would be grateful if you could point me to one if I have missed. Until I find one, I will logically conclude that Tejas doesn’t have an internal EW system, and it is a BR myth.
Your logical conclusion would be incorrect, because the system would appear on production variants & each aircraft is including different systems & hence just going by what the average person has seen in public is no guarantee of what has been included or not. Even otherwise, its a tough call.

For instance, please do point out, using public IAF pics of the MiG-27, where the Tempest EW system has been incorporated, or its earlier variant on the MiG-23BN. I daresay, you will not be able to, because finding out dis-coloured dielectric patches on low resolution aircraft pics is not an easy task unless one knows what one is exactly expecting to find. Even there, the original installers will have a hard time figuring out where, what is, from pictures alone.

On this very forum, there was a discussion on the aperture for the MiG-27 variant of the LCA EW suite which has been developed both for the LCA & MiG-27, which by coincidence, happened to occur because somebody took a photo of the upgraded MiG-27 testbed which is validating the system. A fluke photograph at the right time.

If you want more details, you may of course contact the testing authorities or developmnet ones or refer to the MOD annual report, which notes the development of the indigenous RWJ - Radar Warning Jammer, for the LCA and that 40 kits have already been made ready for the MiG-27.
Secondly, here is a typical internal EW system. Since no one has ever seen the Tejas system, we will use this as an example - http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/alq135/ & http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... ALQ135.pdf
The weight is 190.2kg. The Elta 8222 weighs 100 kg. Again, it would be simpler to carry a 100 kg pod rather than a 200 kg internal system. That is exactly what the IAF plans to do, and there is NO internal EW system in the Tejas.
This is incorrect assumption on your end, when you say this is "exactly what the IAF plans to do" because that is not the mandate they have given DARE, which has developed the RWJ & of which advanced variants are now in development. I will come to why they asked DARE to so but first, from your own data you have the weight of the ALQ 135 at 200 kg! It is not because it is internal alone but because of the specific design attributes! But the RWJ is a good comparison to this, because as a system, it is far more powerful than the ELTA 8222 which is an earlier generation SPJ & is not a good comparison for either the RWJ or the ALQ-135. The ELTA 8222, while a good jammer, is now dated, and can jam significantly fewer targets & in not as effective a manner as the RWJ.

Now the reason IAF asked DARE for this, is because apart from the local self reliance/support factor, carrying external pods is inefficient. Ideally, IAF wants every aircraft to have its own self carried internal EW suite, reducing the reliance on external jury rigged pods which have limited coverage & also come with EMI/EMC constraints (sensor blanking has to be done, post the aircraft systems development).

Another key factor is cost, pods are limited in number and after a certain number of flight ops have to be requalified thanks to the aerodynamic stress. In the USAF, they discovered that of most of the pods they procured, after a period, only a limited percentage (40%) worked after a while & hence they had to set up a crack EW maintenance team which went base to base, checking & solving this issue. You can find this public data from any Old Crows association member.

Net, pods come with a set of disadvantages. They use up pylon space, add maneuvering restrictions, and can cause integration hassles, requiring additional jury rigged sources if the pod itself does not have ram air turbines or if the aircraft systems are incompatible.

On the plus side, they are a flexible way to add EW capability to aircraft with suitable systems (1553 db, provision for EW controller) which did not have any. But its a point to note that all new aircraft or upgrades being conceived of earlier aircraft, come with their own internal EW suites, bar US stealth aircraft which rely on LPI and EMCON & have for the most part ditched jamming, though the JSF is expected to carry the NG Jammer if it becomes available. Also, pods can be developed for specific niche areas beyond onboard self protection jamming or for heavy jamming (eg Growler) beyond self protection.
It is very well established in aeronautical systems that OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Otherwise, every plane would have still been carrying bottled oxygen. All fighters worldwide are weight conscious and power conscious. Tejas being a short legged system by philosophy, bottled oxygen would have sufficed for a hour long sortie. However, it turns out OBOGS weighs lesser than bottled oxygen. Since I do not know the weight of the Tejas OBOGS system, I will use the following examples

The CV-22 OBOGS generating oxygen for 7 people weighs 26 kg. Here - http://www.asma.org/asma2010_mp/pdfs/as ... nt_124.pdf Here is a typical fighter OBOGS http://www.cobham.com/media/65629/ADV10556.pdf

So it is complete nonsense that 26 kg OBOGS (weighing lesser than bottled oxygen) + 61.5 kg increase from R-60 to R-73 + non-existant internal EW system led to 1000 kg weight gain.
Its very hard to carry out a civil conversation with you since you tend to throw out terms like nonsense, myth, this that in every other post. I wonder why exactly you find it so hard to have a civil conversation and disagree without being disagreeable.

Be as it may, your examples are again apples to oranges using data from Cobham & comparing it to the Tejas system. The IAF did not ask for an equivalent "lighter weight system" that would translate to the same bottled oxygen system, and result in weight savings. Instead, they asked for more endurance as the original scope of the LCA had increased to beyond a point defense fighter, and using IFR for more endurance would cause challenges for bottled oxygen. This is directly in relation to increased IAF expectations from the LCA. As things stand, with limited squadron numbers, and a two front war scenario, the IAF wants every frontline fighter to bring maximum it can to the fight. Range, payload all matter. The MiG-21, the darling of the IAF brass at one time, is now increasingly seen as archaic, so much so that a comparison of the LCA as a MiG-21++ causes controversy, when it was the very aircraft it was meant to replace.

So basically, your points above have counterpoints. I would provide more details about the amount of evolution & the things dropped & added in the LCA over the past few years, but the tone & tenor of your replies leaves a bad taste in my mouth & I really am beyond wasting my time and yours on a slanging match.
The real reason is additional margin (risk averse design) + poor estate management that resulted in a not so optimum hip bone in our cheetah. The fact remains despite additional margin (risk averse design), the hip bone was not able to carry 105 kg R-73 instead of 43.5 kg R-60 without redesign. So even the additional margin (risk averse design) explanation doesnt hold good in all cases.
No, the conclusion you have given above would only be true if the weight gain was only from the additional margin.

The claims of poor estate management are not really that critical either. You may have your sources, but I have the horses mouth from the IAF test crew that systems were added keeping in mind IAF constraints & requirements & so far, they have not had any serious issue on this score & they can manage - yes, the LCA is packed but it is not an aspect which is the real decider.

The one thing they have been unhappy about, and which has been addressed over the past few years, is the documentation aspect. They want every issue documented & OEM to provide proper details on every system, since it is critical to maintenance activities. ADA committed that they would ensure this was taken care of. As part of the certification process, CEMILAC & DGAQA have addressed this & certification includes documentation as one of the key criteria. This is also a key factor for the FOC. The IAF has made it clear that every flight qualified item on the LCA needs to have all the relevant documentation & change requests all documented. HAL's investment in certain software beyond that developed for the LCA itself, is also expected to assist here.
It is exactly these issues that are going to be rectified. HAL chairman is very clear in his words. I did not point the estate management point earlier because it was not open knowlege (though common knowledge in IAF circles), however with this media report, I can present the facts on the table.
Sorry, disagree, HAL chairman has just said what has always been known about the LCA being a packed aircraft. Of course it is, volume & specifications wise, it would be. There is nothing new about the estate management thing either. Hindu's Ravi Sharma raised it way back in an article replete with inaccuracies, including transferring estate issues with the Hack to the LCA. The IAF had set a certain level of maintenance requirements for the LCA & these will be met. At any rate, with built in test systems, it will be a far sight better than the antiquated MiGs which soldier on, with mechanics having to literally strip down entire systems to access obsolete avionics & then figure out, using equally obsolete test equipment, what is wrong and why, using a mix of jugaad and experience.

The basic issue is of what is critical versus what is not so much.

Weight, for the LCA was always an overambitious target & for the capabilities it provides will remain so. Supposedly, a radar vendor tapped for the LCA did not believe the weight/volume restrictions as related to expected performance & was forthright with both the ADA & IAF test crew about the same. Even so, system performance is at a level more than comparable "light fighters" worldwide.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote: Shouldnt this have been addressed during design and tunnel testing? This would have been apparent when the TD's were flying. And yet we're doing this in Mk2 after 6 PV, 8 LSP and 20 ISP. Applying the area rule to avoid transonic drag is a starting point of design, I am assuming the designers did, and we still have the issue.
Tunnel testing only gives you datapoints for model building & then you have to validate, finesse the model using test flights and recheck. Not just the LCA but the F-35 has suffered from far more critical constraints when they found out budgeted flights using models were not upto the task. Check:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ng&prev=10

Second, the TDs were not meant for flight testing. They were, as the name suggested, only meant to validate/demonstrate the critical technologies that were supposed to be in the LCA, eg composite wing, glass cockpit, FBW etc. However, given funding delays, it was realized it would be a waste to drop the TDs & wait for the PVs, so they were used for flight testing. I think by now the TDs have been scrapped, so basically, the issues with drag or STR would only arise when the aircraft explored that part of the flight envelope and the model was seen to diverge.

Till 2007, in a public presentation, the given envelope, and the model correlated quite well at certain aspects with flight testing. After that, its entirely possible, in specific aspects, they were not satisfied.
quote]You also missed AoA, that allows manoeuvering without stalling. This document mentions design AoA as 35 degree. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downl ... diance.pdf Yet IOC AoA is 22 degress that will become 24 degrees by FOC. Surely 37% decremental performance does have more reasons. And the worst part is that a cranked wing is supposed to enable high AoA like 35 degrees, which we dont get, probably because of other reasons, as Ajai Shukla correctly reported that the engine starves because of poor inlet design.
I have not mentioned AoA because as it stands the IAF is not too cut up about the AoA as much as it is with STR & acceleration which are more critical to combat capability, and the AoA envelope has not been opened up yet. Boeing was chosen after a presentation where it explained how it had opened up the envelope for the F/A-18E/F program. After that, there were clearance issues, and EADS was chosen instead. Coming to inlet design, there is wide variability of opinion on that score & I have had contrary responses to that Business Standard article. Once the PV variants transition to the FOC MK1 variants, we will have a better idea of where exactly the LCA stands in terms of AoA etc.
Also, it has +6g limits when design limits were +9g. This is contrary to the explanation of additional margin (risk averse design) in terms of structures.
Please read Kartiks post about design limits with loads, I think he covered it quite well, and he may have an archived copy.
When we laugh at the Chinese for reverse engineering, we completely miss the point. They take an existing design, iron out deficiencies and marginally improve performance, which is what is required on the field. When we found the Kashin high bow resulted in good seakeeping, we used it in the Delhi. Project goals need to be realistic. Something I will always hold against the way LCA project was run is that lighter/smaller was never necessary for being an effective fighter. Yet these goals, to some extent, did shift focus from the primary objective of designing a good fighter.
But the IAF is not the Indian Navy and will not accept a reverse engineered fighter, inferior to what current state of the art (available via export controls) is. Its a fact of life & we just have to live with it.
Arya Sumantra wrote:I don't think one should blanket blame the overweight as the main problem. Being overweight in wrong locations in most likelihood is the problem.
Most likelihood based on specific data would be unquestionable. As it stands though, that is not an issue. We are not talking of 200 kg here or there making a problem, but of around 800-900 kg, distributed across different systems and requirements leading to additional challenges.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Sidhu wrote:In addition to the above. Is it a possibility that due to inefficient intake design, the engine is not able to produce all the thrust it is supposed to produce. I am sure the thrust produced would definitely be stated with the clause that 90 KN under ideal test conditions ....
If that were the case there would be a huge hue & cry and consultancy tapped to address that issue. So far, nothing on intakes. Its a non issue. So far EADS for general consultancy & weight reduction with focus on naval LCA, BAe for flight control audit (same as before). Elta for radar assistance & GE supplies engines with modifications. These are the only primary partners, nothing on intakes.
On chinese reverse engineering. I did find the ACM's statement trivial. Any country is allowed to defend itself with whatever means it deems necessary. I do understand that it is an ethical question, but when it comes to survival ethics tends to take a back seat. I am sure that the ACM would have loved DRDO had they been able to reverse engineer the F-22 and produce a cheap mass produceable 5th Gen Fighter
The ACM made that remark at a public seminar, theme being success through collaboration with a large number of foreign delegates. His pointed remark about the difference between India & anyone else whom he may have been referring to, would have been well understood by those who want to collaborate with India.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

As a final addendum, was in a conversation with an Israeli gentleman, who pointed me to this article on how exactly Israeli leaders too had the attitude that only imported items would suffice, and gradually, through import substitution, reverse engineering, TOT, joint development, and own local programs, Israel developed its own world class industry.

As you can see, even Israel has had its share of skeptics. Ultimately, as they did, Indian developers will also gradually overcome the hurdles & get the acceptance of a world class & demanding customer.

It will take time, and there will be many challenges. But the biggest mistake we would do is to curtail our ambition and walk away because we will get no second chances. Just my thoughts.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/op ... d-1.339026

IDF's technological superiority must be defended
Despite Israel's leading position in weapons development, an illusion remains that it is dependent on the United States for the qualitative advantage of its weapon systems.
By Moshe Arens


For many years a basic tenet of Israeli defense policy was that its soldiers must have a qualitative advantage over its enemies in terms of the weapon systems at their disposal. The question was how to achieve that qualitative superiority.
Lavi fighter

Yitzhak Rabin once told me that victory on the battlefield could only be achieved with weapons acquired abroad, and this view was shared by many in the defense establishment. France was Israel's main source of advanced weapons in the 1950s, with the United States assuming that mantle thereafter. The claims by Israeli engineers that they could develop systems that were at least as good as anything available abroad were dismissed as pipe dreams.

Rabin's position came to the fore in 1987, when as defense minister he asked the cabinet to cancel the Lavi combat aircraft development program, which he had inherited from his predecessor, despite the fact that it was to be the most advanced fighter plane in the world at the time, and two prototypes were already undergoing flight testing. After squeezing the cancellation through the cabinet, Rabin ordered Israel Aircraft Industries (now Israel Aerospace Industries ) to close its engineering division lest it drag Israel into another "adventure." That division was one of the best fighter aircraft design departments in the world.


.....

The Israel Air Force was the first to utilize small unmanned aerial vehicles, which destroyed Soviet-made surface-to-air missile batteries during the first Lebanon War, without losing a single plane, and Israel's UAVs are still among the best in the world. But the IAF has remained adamant in its opposition to an Israeli-developed fighter aircraft.

[/quote]
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

~39

Post by Karan M »

Kanson wrote:Karan saab, that is only if IAF is going for 1 to 1 replacement, which may not be the case; just as LCA Mk1 found a new role and not replacing any existing aircraft.
Kanson if I may explain my thinking, the IAF will go for a 1-1 replacement for now & in conceivable future, as authorized combat squadrons are ~39 and as existing squadrons retire, and are numberplated, new raisings will take up those aircraft. The 123 number incidentally, is exactly the number of Bisons (plus or minus 2-3 planes) that will retire, after a brief life extension of another five years. In my opinion, this actually bodes well for the LCA as it fills an existing need and does not have to find/invent a new one. A couple of squadrons thereafter, for MK2, are also, I feel, a given, as once IAF is comfortable with the plane they will add new numbers before the line shuts down
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

>>Kanson if I may explain my thinking, the IAF will go for a 1-1 replacement for now & in conceivable future, as authorized combat squadrons are ~39 and as existing squadrons retire, and are numberplated, new raisings will take up those aircraft.

Karan saab, you know very well current sqd. strength of IAF is way much less than ~39, somewhere close to 30, iirc. There is no way 1-1 replacement is possible, if IAF wants to reach its full sanctioned strength. LCA currently inducted will probably outlive the earliest Su-30 in our inventory. And then there is talk surrounding two-front war which probably needs more numbers. It is Su-30MKI that is replacing MiG-21 in NE. Entire chart is changing. Lets see.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Karan M wrote:It is not incorrect, but you have made the incorrect assumption that I postulated the weight change was only due to this account (gain in range of 3 digits) - no, actually, the overall weight change is due to a combination of all the factors.
So what are these factors. There are vague references to scope creep but no examples other than this one.
Karan M wrote:Now, coming to the point, the R73 change in weight is around 240% more!
61.5 kg, to be precise.
Karan M wrote:This is a significant change by any means & needs to be accounted for in terms of load factors & the like. Its not also just the missile itself, the launchers need to be strengthened & redesigned & also need to be improved for cooling the new missile which has different requirements.
This is a Hajmola statement, as I would tell my children. If some overweight Air Commodore or the "healthy" P V Naik himself flew the plane, will the STR, AoA, acceleration, etc drop? This line of reasoning, viz, new weapons is incorrect, and lets not continue in this path. R-60 too needed cooling, and a few grams of liquid nitrogen more doesnt result in massive weight gain.
Karan M wrote:Your logical conclusion would be incorrect, because the system would appear on production variants & each aircraft is including different systems & hence just going by what the average person has seen in public is no guarantee of what has been included or not. Even otherwise, its a tough call. For instance, please do point out, using public IAF pics of the MiG-27, where the Tempest EW system has been incorporated, or its earlier variant on the MiG-23BN. I daresay, you will not be able to, because finding out dis-coloured dielectric patches on low resolution aircraft pics is not an easy task unless one knows what one is exactly expecting to find. Even there, the original installers will have a hard time figuring out where, what is, from pictures alone.On this very forum, there was a discussion on the aperture for the MiG-27 variant of the LCA EW suite which has been developed both for the LCA & MiG-27, which by coincidence, happened to occur because somebody took a photo of the upgraded MiG-27 testbed which is validating the system. A fluke photograph at the right time.
To cut a long story short, you or me or no one among us has seen a Tejas EW system. Now, reality check. Tarang simply warns the pilot. Tempest offers very basic EW functions, and is described in detail here, including the LRU and where it is installed in MiG-27 http://www.prdomain.com/mediaroom/aeroi ... OCHURE.pdf This is being modified for the Tejas. And it wont weigh so high that acceleration, STR, AoA is affected. Anyways, there is no Tempest or derivative on the Tejas to account for the present performance.
Karan M wrote:This is incorrect assumption on your end, when you say this is "exactly what the IAF plans to do" because that is not the mandate they have given DARE, which has developed the RWJ & of which advanced variants are now in development. I will come to why they asked DARE to so but first, from your own data you have the weight of the ALQ 135 at 200 kg! It is not because it is internal alone but because of the specific design attributes! But the RWJ is a good comparison to this, because as a system, it is far more powerful than the ELTA 8222 which is an earlier generation SPJ & is not a good comparison for either the RWJ or the ALQ-135. The ELTA 8222, while a good jammer, is now dated, and can jam significantly fewer targets & in not as effective a manner as the RWJ. Now the reason IAF asked DARE for this, is because apart from the local self reliance/support factor, carrying external pods is inefficient. Ideally, IAF wants every aircraft to have its own self carried internal EW suite, reducing the reliance on external jury rigged pods which have limited coverage & also come with EMI/EMC constraints (sensor blanking has to be done, post the aircraft systems development).
Another key factor is cost, pods are limited in number and after a certain number of flight ops have to be requalified thanks to the aerodynamic stress. In the USAF, they discovered that of most of the pods they procured, after a period, only a limited percentage (40%) worked after a while & hence they had to set up a crack EW maintenance team which went base to base, checking & solving this issue. You can find this public data from any Old Crows association member. Net, pods come with a set of disadvantages. They use up pylon space, add maneuvering restrictions, and can cause integration hassles, requiring additional jury rigged sources if the pod itself does not have ram air turbines or if the aircraft systems are incompatible. On the plus side, they are a flexible way to add EW capability to aircraft with suitable systems (1553 db, provision for EW controller) which did not have any. But its a point to note that all new aircraft or upgrades being conceived of earlier aircraft, come with their own internal EW suites, bar US stealth aircraft which rely on LPI and EMCON & have for the most part ditched jamming, though the JSF is expected to carry the NG Jammer if it becomes available. Also, pods can be developed for specific niche areas beyond onboard self protection jamming or for heavy jamming (eg Growler) beyond self protection.
Lots of speculation here, however the hard fact is the system under development wont provide full scale jamming like US systems, nor is it an IAF requirement to have that kind of capability in the LCA. The system under development will offer minimal features similar to Tempest. And in the Indian context, pods will offer better jamming capabilities for a long time.

And in any case, the moot point is the jammer isnt present in the LCA today to account for the performance exhibited.
Karan M wrote:Be as it may, your examples are again apples to oranges using data from Cobham & comparing it to the Tejas system. The IAF did not ask for an equivalent "lighter weight system" that would translate to the same bottled oxygen system, and result in weight savings. Instead, they asked for more endurance as the original scope of the LCA had increased to beyond a point defense fighter, and using IFR for more endurance would cause challenges for bottled oxygen. This is directly in relation to increased IAF expectations from the LCA. As things stand, with limited squadron numbers, and a two front war scenario, the IAF wants every frontline fighter to bring maximum it can to the fight. Range, payload all matter. The MiG-21, the darling of the IAF brass at one time, is now increasingly seen as archaic, so much so that a comparison of the LCA as a MiG-21++ causes controversy, when it was the very aircraft it was meant to replace.
The reason I quoted the Cobham system is to show that components, that go into making an OBOGS, are small. For all the verbosity above drifting into two front wars, there is no way the Tejas OBOGS weighs like a Shaktiman truck, and account for the sluggish performance.
Karan M wrote:So basically, your points above have counterpoints. I would provide more details about the amount of evolution & the things dropped & added in the LCA over the past few years, but the tone & tenor of your replies leaves a bad taste in my mouth & I really am beyond wasting my time and yours on a slanging match.
The gross inaccuracies and factual incorrectness, led to my using words like nonsense and myth, like unknown-but-present systems, weapons, or OBOGS weight causing sluggish performance. These words are hardly unparliamentary.
Karan M wrote:No, the conclusion you have given above would only be true if the weight gain was only from the additional margin.
So, as you finally admit in your own words, if the weight gain is not for the above reasons, then where is this extra weight coming from? I have nothing against LCA being packed. It doesnt matter as long as performance is unimpaired. However, point I'm making here is that if layout, including weight, volume, area, isnt managed, performance will be affected. So despite the overweight Tejas weighing the same as the Gripen, is unable to perform is because there are external and internal design deficiencies. Which is what no one wants to admit, despite every fact pointing so. Instead, a further myth is propogated that Mk2 will have more features and more performance over & above Mk1 design specifications. No, Mk 2 objective is to iron out present deficiencies to come close to Mk1 design specificatons, and maybe add some incremental performance over & above Mk1 design specifications.
Karan M wrote:Even so, system performance is at a level more than comparable "light fighters" worldwide.
Maybe. Will the airframe offer clear advantages of a Spitfire vis-a-vis Me109? No. Can the pilot be confident of the aircraft if caught in a turning match? No. Can the pilot be confident to out-turn in a dogfight? No. Can the pilot pull a high g manoeuver to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV? No Can the pilot go high AoA, to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV, without engine flaming out? No
Karan M wrote:Tunnel testing only gives you datapoints for model building & then you have to validate, finesse the model using test flights and recheck.
Another Hajmola statement. Raison d’être of wind tunnels is testing aerodynamic performance of the design.
Karan M wrote:Not just the LCA but the F-35 has suffered from far more critical constraints when they found out budgeted flights using models were not upto the task. Check:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ng&prev=10
They were foolish to rely on computer simulation. It is not possible to simulate every real life situation in the computer.
Karan M wrote:Second, the TDs were not meant for flight testing. They were, as the name suggested, only meant to validate/demonstrate the critical technologies that were supposed to be in the LCA, eg composite wing, glass cockpit, FBW etc. However, given funding delays, it was realized it would be a waste to drop the TDs & wait for the PVs, so they were used for flight testing. I think by now the TDs have been scrapped, so basically, the issues with drag or STR would only arise when the aircraft explored that part of the flight envelope and the model was seen to diverge.
Given that the plane was unstable, testing without validating FBW software being proven was risky. Which brings us to a basic question, which is - Was the incremental better manoeuverability offered by unstable airframe worth it vis-a-vis long time taken to open flight envelope and test basic aerodynamic performance, consequently design deficiencies noticed too late.

Secondly, the drag is mostly in transonic regime, and LCA has been going supersonic for a long time. So the acceleration issues would have definitely been reported by the test pilots.
Karan M wrote:I have not mentioned AoA because as it stands the IAF is not too cut up about the AoA as much as it is with STR & acceleration which are more critical to combat capability, and the AoA envelope has not been opened up yet. Boeing was chosen after a presentation where it explained how it had opened up the envelope for the F/A-18E/F program. After that, there were clearance issues, and EADS was chosen instead. Coming to inlet design, there is wide variability of opinion on that score & I have had contrary responses to that Business Standard article. Once the PV variants transition to the FOC MK1 variants, we will have a better idea of where exactly the LCA stands in terms of AoA etc.
The assumption is with HMDS, maneuvering is unnecessary. Wrong. It is necessary to get your enemy within the HMDS FoV, and that will require hard maneuvering. Anyway, lets wait & see.
Karan M wrote:
Also, it has +6g limits when design limits were +9g. This is contrary to the explanation of additional margin (risk averse design) in terms of structures.
Please read Kartiks post about design limits with loads, I think he covered it quite well, and he may have an archived copy.
He simply stated that with useful load, g-limits decrease. IAF is well aware of this fact, and when it says LCA does only +6g, then it is in clean configuration. And one structural component not able to make the mark will take the rest of it will fail. Hence the requirement of fully testing the envelope and structurally certifying every part to 8g by FOC. Still below 9g design specification.
Karan M wrote:
Arya Sumantra wrote:I don't think one should blanket blame the overweight as the main problem. Being overweight in wrong locations in most likelihood is the problem.
Most likelihood based on specific data would be unquestionable. As it stands though, that is not an issue. We are not talking of 200 kg here or there making a problem, but of around 800-900 kg, distributed across different systems and requirements leading to additional challenges.
Systems, yes. Not requirements. That part is a myth.
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Feb 2011 20:41, edited 2 times in total.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Karan M wrote:As a final addendum, was in a conversation with an Israeli gentleman...
That is because it gets US stuff for free. US aviation cos felt commercial interests threatened and asked their lobbyist lawmakers to threaten Israel by stopping freebies, that shut down the Lavi.

Indians do have innovations. Like Arihant, using SLBM tubes to launch smaller missiles, and deliberately keeping only 4 tubes in Arihant gives an SLBM with SSN maneuverability, and one platform for multiple roles.

Negi, yes. The Delhi faced a huge typhoon in 2001 off Korea. When we entered harbour, shaken but not stirred, the Koreans were amazed. They said everyone in south china sea stayed home during typhoons.

However, the key to asymmetric success is keeping things simple. I dont think anyone would have bothered if LCA was a meter longer or broader or used a heavier engine with more juice, which anyways we're doing today.

My final words on this subject are, "The light is dead, long live the combat aircraft. Keep well, everyone, and thanks Karan for a spirited discussion.
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Feb 2011 20:59, edited 3 times in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

Singha wrote:why not give up 5% thrust but use the EDE advantages of lower opex to get more tejas.
Maybe our IAF guys are of the type from MiB's "the best of the best of the best" character. :rotfl:

Jokes aside, in my opinion, Tejas being the lowest denominator in our inventory, with such EPE engine, it is to make sure it *never* comes second in its performance to the lowest denominator that can be fielded by our adversaries. That will be J-10 and JF-17 even after their MLU.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:So what are these factors. There are vague references to scope creep but no examples other than this one.
Kindly reread the post, it has the exact points.
61.5 kg, to be precise.
Per missile, without taking into account the exact amount of strengthening for the aircraft structure, the launcher weight & other requirements..
This is a Hajmola statement, as I would tell my children. If some overweight Air Commodore or the "healthy" P V Naik himself flew the plane, will the STR, AoA, acceleration, etc drop? This line of reasoning, viz, new weapons is incorrect, and lets not continue in this path. R-60 too needed cooling, and a few grams of liquid nitrogen more doesnt result in massive weight gain.
Ah, out with the digestive innuendoes again! Lets be more clear here, what you are doing is taking extreme positions & then using them to imply all sorts of statements. And no, the R-60 may have needed cooling but its launcher was different & even the current launcher, beefed up for heavier weapons too is being redesigned. You can attempt to dismiss that fact as well, but it remains true.

Sorry, but weight counts & the LCA wing redesign did add weight, you may try to dismiss it using rhetor e.g. "healthy" PV Naik - but I'll take the word of the test crew/designers anyday...they say it added weight, Parliamentary records note it added time & complexity to the redesign & sorry, i'll go with these two statements in toto.
To cut a long story short, you or me or no one among us has seen a Tejas EW system. Now, reality check. Tarang simply warns the pilot. Tempest offers very basic EW functions, and is described in detail here, including the LRU and where it is installed in MiG-27 http://www.prdomain.com/mediaroom/aeroi ... OCHURE.pdf This is being modified for the Tejas. And it wont weigh so high that acceleration, STR, AoA is affected. Anyways, there is no Tempest or derivative on the Tejas to account for the present performance.
No, the more accurate statement would be that you haven't seen or heard about a Tejas EW system or a development path but thats not necessarily true for everyone else, otherwise how would nobodies like me know about it. Many have seen an actual layout in public of the individual Tx/Rx receive apertures, their placements & even the rationale. Am I going to bother to dig it up, run around for the sake of winning an internet argument? Nope, too tiring. But those here interested in the program can be aware of whats been planned for the aircraft and whats currently on trials.

Second, Tempest offers "basic EW functions" - yes, sure, but which were reportedly enough to jam every threat radar the system faced when it was developed, in which case I would say more power indeed to such basic "EW systems", which performed well against even respectable threats. Tempest was actually a program, with systems and technologies developed under Tempest.

Third, from where did you get the idea that the basic Tempest is being modified for the Tejas? This is typical of the kind of categorical statements you make, and which can be mistaken. Of course, when provided data to the contrary, you don't accept it in the spirit with which it was given, but respond with sarcasm & anger.

To the point, the Tempest has little to do with the LCA system! The LCA system is a brand new system with multiple channels, multiple Tx/Rx paths, with associated DRFM. It is a next generation program which was launched with a clean sheet in mind!

In terms of architecture, capability, and performance, it makes the Tempest look archaic (and well it should, it is the next generation) & it can handle far more targets than the limited ELTA 8222 SPJ.

Unfortunately, that internet link of Tempest is also limited (typical ham handed Govt agency PR) & does not contain all the details of the system & program & the technologies it developed. More details are publically available though if you spend some time digging for them, or even better via open events e.g., what one of its developers presented four years back at a public event, albeit in a sanitized fashion. Long story short, it is more than that report. The details I have provided are more than sufficient to dig it out.
Lots of speculation here, however the hard fact is the system under development wont provide full scale jamming like US systems, nor is it an IAF requirement to have that kind of capability in the LCA. The system under development will offer minimal features similar to Tempest. And in the Indian context, pods will offer better jamming capabilities for a long time.
Hardly any speculation. Everything I wrote was a fact. That you do not accept it - basically thats exactly why I find your debating "style" so counterproductive. Its all about "winning the argument" as versus "share knowledge". This is a sad reflection about the level of debate & entirely why I somewhat stay away from topics on this forum since it usually disintegrates into more of these dubious - i said it so it must be true kind of situations. There is no discussion in the actual meaning of the term.

You say it will offer minimal features similar to Tempest, without even having noted the architecture, the performance or what its to be capable of, nor did you even ask about this. Further, you note "it wont provide full scale jamming like the US systems" - as if there are any generic US systems that provide full scale jamming! There aren't. The US operates a plethora of systems. Some are onboard SPJs. Some are support jammers. Some are optimized for surveillance systems, some for fire control..

Fighter aircraft typically carry self protection jammers able to operate/jam in critical bands, namely X, seeker bands, and the more capable ones even include S, L bands for surveillance radars. More pods are used for niche bands or for higher power requirements in dense threat environments. But as a self protection system as versus the pod festooned support & CSM jammer the Growler reportedly is, the LCA & MiG-27s suite, is every bit the superior of current pod systems the IAF has.

That you state "nor is it an IAF requirement to have that kind of capability in the LCA"? Where is this given? IAF requirements are world class & no, they don't compromise on many aspects. I just spoke to an European OEM executive for the MMRCA who noted that some of the specifications given for the MMRCA are things they have never had anyone else come up with. Those requirements btw, were derived after seeing current state of technology viz the LCA - so, long story short, just because the LCA has the Light moniker, that its systems are being given a less stringent performance index, thats wrong. As such the IAF has asked for a derivative of the same system to be on the MiG-29 as well, for which it & BEL have both contributed development funds to DARE. Do you have to accept this? No - but its a fact.
And in any case, the moot point is the jammer isnt present in the LCA today to account for the performance exhibited.
All weights being shown for the LCA are projected weights, with all systems taken into account.
The reason I quoted the Cobham system is to show that components, that go into making an OBOGS, are small. For all the verbosity above drifting into two front wars, there is no way the Tejas OBOGS weighs like a Shaktiman truck, and account for the sluggish performance.
The Cobham system is not germane because the systems on the LCA are unique to it, given IAF requirements. You cannot use generic comparisons because these back of the envelope comparisons go nowhere. Eg, the Kopyo on the Bison versus the MMR on the LCA. Both of them have the same functions, arguably similar architecture, but that is where the similarity ends, in terms of power drawn, weight/volume, even performance expected, there is a significant differential. Pretty much every system on the LCA, bar a few exceptions such as the engine, is a bespoke system, with its own pros and cons.
The gross inaccuracies and factual incorrectness, led to my using words like nonsense and myth, like unknown-but-present systems, weapons, or OBOGS weight causing sluggish performance. These words are hardly unparliamentary.
For my part I too find some of your statements to have gross inaccuracies and factual incorrectness (thats a lot of c's and a lot of s's- i found it hard to spell so i copied your post, lol) as well. However, I endeavour to counter your points by sharing information, however I find your posts to be over aggressive. Surely we can disagree without being disagreeable.
So, as you finally admit in your own words, if the weight gain is not for the above reasons, then where is this extra weight coming from?
I have not admitted anything! Again - a typical case of rhetoric & which misinterprets what I said.

All I said was that for your statement to be true, the weight gain would have to be from risk averse design alone or to the extent that the weight gain from other systems was immaterial. As things stand though, I cannot buy your argument as it does not dovetail with any of the information that I have discussed with several folks.

From my understanding, the weight gain is a combination of all three factors - redesign for munitions, additional systems, risk averse design, with multiple systems & components on the LCA being redesigned & reincorporated making the actual percentage split between all three sections fairly distributed. Weight optimization on the LCA is also an ever moving task & as of early 2010, a new list of areas was being drawn up where gains could be achieved, they were even considering systems which actually met original design goals but could be supplanted by newer, lighter, unified items, but some of that weight might again go to other systems, which is what makes this entire debate so ironic.

Now, I might have actually gone ahead & spent a ton load of my time, valuable to me, to actually trace out each one of those things & discuss them. Unfortunately, given the tone & tenor of your response - hajmola, myth, nonsense, this that, I really dont think my effort would be worth it. Do consider though, what your end objective is. If your end objective is to "be right" that's one thing. But if you want a civil debate, I really dont think your responses reflect the same, semantics about language being "unparliamentary or not" being irrelevant.
have nothing against LCA being packed. It doesnt matter as long as performance is unimpaired. However, point I'm making here is that if layout, including weight, volume, area, isnt managed, performance will be affected. So despite the overweight Tejas weighing the same as the Gripen, is unable to perform is because there are external and internal design deficiencies. Which is what no one wants to admit, despite every fact pointing so. Instead, a further myth is propogated that Mk2 will have more features and more performance over & above Mk1 design specifications. No, Mk 2 objective is to iron out present deficiencies to come close to Mk1 design specificatons, and maybe add some incremental performance over & above Mk1 design specifications.
Sorry, but this is your view, which I disagree with, that there are internal & external design deficiencies because of which the Gripen excels across the board. For one, I would not touch that assertion or its opposite point, unless I have data on the entire envelope, publically released that compares the LCA's flight envelope with that of the Gripen & second, after all systems and weapons are incorporated, what will be the LCA's combat effectiveness in similar conditions versus similar challenges vis a vis the Gripen. I am well aware of certain features incorporated on the LCA which are pretty good, but the comparable system on the Gripen is so hyped..

What the Gripen undoubtedly has, is design maturity, and is well along the product lifecycle. To compare it with the LCA, which is just entering IOC, is besides the point and patently unfair to the latter.

Second, you note that the MK2 will not have more features & more performance above and beyond MK1 and that a myth is being propogated to this effect. Who is propogating this myth?

To my mind, this just reiterates the point that you have an idealogical point of view & are not really interested in an exploratory debate about the LCA MK2!

Of course the LCA MK1 has performance issues which the MK2 has to solve, but that does not mean the MK2 will remain still in terms of other onboard systems, and will be for all practical purposes a MK1 either! For one, the primary radar sensor will be AESA, with its attendant advantages over the MK1 & there are several other systems in development for the TD phase which the IAF has expressed interest in! That these will provide advantages over the current LCA MK1 systems is a given, but the entire package will have to deliver, that too is a given, so where exactly is this myth.
Maybe. Will the airframe offer clear advantages of a Spitfire vis-a-vis Me109? No.
How do you know this? Have you or I flown the LCA? Are we aware of the LCA's performance envelope & what advantages it can & cannot provide. This is another of those areas where I find such statements to be amazingly categorical about a topic only one who has flown the LCA can judge.

I have spoken to several folks who flew the LCA, here & there using the odd opportunity. One in particular was certain that once the LCA got into IAF hands, perceptions would change. But dont take my word for it. A current LCA TP - the head of the NFTC in the Week article above, judges it as exceptionally agile and a delight to fly & that it still surprises him from time to time. The India Strategic article has a unnamed test pilot saying the LCA is a better aircraft to fly than the MiG-21, "“It is small and tight but more comfortable, powerful and fun than a Mig 21,” said one test pilot." Given the bulk of the PAF still flies the ancient J-7, Mirage 3, and that most aircraft have their own pros and cons, so much so that even the current MMRCA aircraft will have performance pluses and minuses versus other peers, I find your statements to be untenable.

Can the pilot be confident of the aircraft if caught in a turning match? No. Can the pilot be confident to out-turn in a dogfight? No. Can the pilot pull a high g manoeuver to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV? No Can the pilot go high AoA, to pull a fast shot when the target is outside HMDS FoV, without engine flaming out? No
Again, these are issues which a combat pilot can judge and to make the kind of statements that you have...well, I really cant agree. Because it is again topical to the aircraft, the type of threat and the situation in context. Heck, even the Mirage 2000 pilot of today cannot be confident he can out-turn any rival in a dogfight, given the aircraft has less STR versus some of its peers. The aircraft is built for fast passes & relies on its high ITR & nose pointing ability to get the first shot in. Does that mean the IAF should dump the Mirage 2000?

In IAF service, the MiG-29s have long required fuel tanks to get any respectable range to escort strikers. If a MiG-29 has tanks its maneuvering limited to a huge degree. So, given the rhetorical questions you have asked, what happens if a MiG-29 is caught unawares by a prowling J-7? Should the IAF ditch the MiG-29 then? Their avionics deficiencies were legion..

Several MiG-27 pilots described as a single pass lorry, a very hard aircraft to manage let alone multitask - so should the IAF have just dropped these aircraft..

All three of these aircraft have significant issues versus an upgraded Flanker in several criteria. They also offer certain advantages.

Sorry, but the rhetorical questions you have asked - they really don't merit an answer because they are rhetorical. I am kind of surprised you even raise these.

There is not a single weapons system in the IAF today - which even after upgrade - does not have significant shortfalls in some arena or the other, bar to some extent the MKI. What the IAF does is to train its pilots to exploit its strengths to optimal effect while attempting to minimize the weaknesses. The LCA is well in line with that approach & its superior onboard systems should give it an advantage versus an adversary in a dissimilar type. If the pilot can exploit them to the maximum potential.
Tunnel testing only gives you datapoints for model building & then you have to validate, finesse the model using test flights and recheck.
Another Hajmola statement. Raison d’être of wind tunnels is testing aerodynamic performance of the design.
Hajmola statement to you perhaps because, you apparently the term is an insult and that suffices for debate wherein you could have asked for more details instead.

To the rest however, its the reality, that tunnel testing, with models & CFD codes for areas of the envelope not available for simplified tunnel testing can only be validated by real world testing. You can continue with the insults all you want, but it wont change the reality that the US, Russia, and now India are discovering that real world testing has significant deviations from wind tunnels and predictive models! Sometimes we are lucky, sometimes, we are not.
They were foolish to rely on computer simulation. It is not possible to simulate every real life situation in the computer.
Really? Wasn't that what you described as a hajmola statement? Here you have one of the worlds most experienced fighter design teams, having cut its teeth on the F-22, attempting to use those lessons for the JSF, overstretching & then going back to traditional methods. In other words, even they followed the same path as Indian designers, albeit even more so & are today facing severe challenges despite their funding and experience.
Given that the plane was unstable, testing without validating FBW software being proven was risky. Which brings us to a basic question, which is - Was the incremental better manoeuverability offered by unstable airframe worth it vis-a-vis long time taken to open flight envelope and test basic aerodynamic performance, consequently design deficiencies noticed too late
Hindsight from me on this topic would be, as Boeings Dinesh Keskar put it, Monday morning quarterbacking, when the LCA plan was postulated, Rajiv Gandhi had got a testimony of full cooperation from the US, birds were singing, the sky was blue. Unfortunately, neither he nor the developers could foresee the collapse of the Indian economy in the years thereafter & nor did he anticipate US sanctions circa 1998. These things happen & we have to deal with it. While you are noting the FBW, do note that we ultimately developed it - the real mistake was not the FBW, but the unproven engine + LCA combination, and also agreeing to unrealistic performance specifications. The only person who pointed this out, Idris Hassan Latif commented that it would really trouble the program, and he was right.
econdly, the drag is mostly in transonic regime, and LCA has been going supersonic for a long time. So the acceleration issues would have definitely been reported by the test pilots.
Might have but the issue gained particular relevance in sea level trials, whichever year that took place in.
The assumption is with HMDS, maneuvering is unnecessary. Wrong. It is necessary to get your enemy within the HMDS FoV, and that will require hard maneuvering. Anyway, lets wait & see.
My assumption is based on the discussions with of one of the test pilots of the LCA who flew with the HMDS. So, yes, I do take his points at face value as I presume he knows what he is talking about, especially about utilizing the LCA's ITR & nose pointing ability + HMDS to take the first shot.
He simply stated that with useful load, g-limits decrease. IAF is well aware of this fact, and when it says LCA does only +6g, then it is in clean configuration. And one structural component not able to make the mark will take the rest of it will fail. Hence the requirement of fully testing the envelope and structurally certifying every part to 8g by FOC. Still below 9g design specification.
Kartiks post pointed out hard & soft limits for FCS, load limits etc with payload as I recall with a direct correlation to the LCA. And the current LCA's full G limits, whatever they be, will be validated by FOC per plan. So I really dont think this is that germane.
Systems, yes. Not requirements. That part is a myth.
Myth for you perhaps but not for me & I will have to disagree with you there.

Having said this, I really dont think I am going to continue with this, if the debate gets more vicious, something which I have no interest in.

For the rest, anyone who has queries on specific aspects - to what limited extent I have information, that I'll share.
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Feb 2011 23:20, edited 3 times in total.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:That is because it gets US stuff for free. US aviation cos felt commercial interests threatened and asked their lobbyist lawmakers to threaten Israel by stopping freebies, that shut down the Lavi.
Actually what I meant was that - what was an eye opener for me, that even in Israel, there were many guys - including senior guys who though only imported was good, and that for the qualitative edge, imported weapons from established suppliers eg France for Israel, would only suffice. But look at where they are today, using the Lavi & other programs. And it was also news for me, that an anti domestic arms lobby played a role in scuttling the fighter plane program as versus only US pressure. So basically my takeaway was

- All nations go through this. As Gandhi (paraphrased said): First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Given what we have learnt in recent days of the threats LCA was under, eg Kalmadi & other interests, and how Antony & even Tata/Bajaj helped to keep it going, my point is it too shall overcome & we should also avoid the Israeli mistake (as that author was bemoaning) of going for a simple path today & paying the price for tomorrow.
Indians do have innovations. Like Arihant, using SLBM tubes to launch smaller missiles, and deliberately keeping only 4 tubes in Arihant gives an SLBM with SSN maneuverability, and one platform for multiple roles.
Agreed, I think the armed forces excel at jugaad & I think they should publicize their activities more.
However, the key to asymmetric success is keeping things simple. I dont think anyone would have bothered if LCA was a meter longer or broader or used a heavier engine with more juice, which anyways we're doing today.

My final words on this subject are, "The light is dead, long live the combat aircraft. Keep well, everyone, and thanks Karan for a spirited discussion.
Thanks Tsarkar - & I'd agree with you about the light part, which I think is best dropped & we should just go for Tejas as long as it is an effective combat aircraft.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Kanson wrote: Karan saab, you know very well current sqd. strength of IAF is way much less than ~39, somewhere close to 30, iirc. There is no way 1-1 replacement is possible, if IAF wants to reach its full sanctioned strength. LCA currently inducted will probably outlive the earliest Su-30 in our inventory. And then there is talk surrounding two-front war which probably needs more numbers. It is Su-30MKI that is replacing MiG-21 in NE. Entire chart is changing. Lets see.
Kanson ji I think I misunderstood what you were saying. What you are saying is because of the sq shortfall, IAF will need more LCAs? Is that correct interpretation?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

It is all perspectives. For example I could define "light" meaning "radiance of light energy" as against "light weight" combat aircraft. I still like LCA in every term. If DDM can twist and turn, so do we can, as our objective here is more with combat requirements. As long as it is not kept it the dark, any tejas must shine.

:wink:

The inlet and canard discussion still does not throw the light. Lot of assumptions thrown as to how the Mk2 would look. Hope ADA would soon satisfy poor jingos in terms a well defined draft pic.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Proof of what I was saying - a brief snippet, check out BEL R&D personnel presentation

http://aeroindialive.nic.in/show_ondema ... &id_part=6

1:45 onwards
Check the slide.

EW systems for LCA, MiG-27, MiG-29

note difference from RWR etc mentioned separately on the slide, as RWR systems for fighter aircraft.

Also shows a brief picture of the SPJ developed for the MiG-27 & then the additional pod mounted jammer (for additional bands) developed as part of the EW Programs of DARE etc

Also mentions TDOA system (ESM) high accuracy developed for Tu-142 (mentioned, to give an idea of where India stands in terms of ESM & even EW).
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

Karan M wrote:
Kanson wrote: Karan saab, you know very well current sqd. strength of IAF is way much less than ~39, somewhere close to 30, iirc. There is no way 1-1 replacement is possible, if IAF wants to reach its full sanctioned strength. LCA currently inducted will probably outlive the earliest Su-30 in our inventory. And then there is talk surrounding two-front war which probably needs more numbers. It is Su-30MKI that is replacing MiG-21 in NE. Entire chart is changing. Lets see.
Kanson ji I think I misunderstood what you were saying. What you are saying is because of the sq shortfall, IAF will need more LCAs? Is that correct interpretation?
Sorry to butt in, but what are the chances that IAF plays Jugaad with the system. Example, if IAF says to MoD, we need 300 LCA's, MoD says, you are crazy, what do we need so many for but if IAF says, 100 more Su30's the MoD is more amiable. I cannot prove this speculation, but I guess, the number of trained pilots available and other logistics, make it difficult to add to the squadron strength and hence they do the next best thing....get more heavy fighters.

Yes, Yes, I know about the small, medium, heavy mix et al but there has not been any serious analysis of the exact mix for Indian conditions for various offensive/defensive scenarios et al. Willing to learn on this matter, if someone knows.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Please watch Capt. Moulankar's LCA Navy presentation very high SIR content in his presentation and he is a good orator
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by putnanja »

suryag wrote:Please watch Capt. Moulankar's LCA Navy presentation very high SIR content in his presentation and he is a good orator
When was this held? Can you give the link please?
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

http://aeroindialive.nic.in

There on the right hit Auditorium AL flight testing, captain Moulankar is the last speaker but lots and lots of info in his talk, Rakall ji will have a tough time summarizing it because everything he says needs to be captured.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Now that we know the LCA capabiltites can any one make a table comparing it to the Mig-21 (Upgraded), Mig-27, Jaguar and Mirage 2000?

it will give us an idea of what will be the LCA sqd capabilities as it starts replacing some of them.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by rakall »

LCA Navy - “Flight Testing for Naval Requirements” Captain Jaideep Avinash Maolankar,Indian Navy

I Love this Mao.

(I absolutely love this guy. I have been postponing a post from AeroIndia2009 – where I witnessed how he courageously stepped forward to take questions at ADA pavilion and gave excellent answers to a Congress MP who just had a sortie on F18. He basically explained, or rather educated the idiotic congress MP on the sanctity, necessity of continuing with the LCA program instead of just buying what the Americans can offer us. The answer basically encompassed not only the technological aspects, but operational & maintenance aspects.. and the socio-economic aspects as well.

So for all those who have time – I RECOMMEND watching his talk under the “Flight Testing” theme on NIC website)


-NP2 will come by the end of the year
-LEVCON leads to a lower approach speed; As well as a flatter trajectory on the Weight to Approach speed curve. Mao feels it is a surprising curve and eager to see if it is really the same in testing
- LG is over-designed.. too strong as it is now. The over-design of the undercarriage from the fact that the decision was taken to only strengthen the centre fuselage section when arrester hook, Naval LG were added to AF-trainer to make it Naval-trainer. So it had to be attached to the same points on the fuselage – that led to a compromise leading to a LandingGear design with “heavy” biceps.. effective in the short term but not good for weight.. So ADA has accepted the NAVY recommendations to re-design the LandingGear in Mk2.
-Mao says “we look at it as a TD feeding less into operations, but a lot more into Mk2 design which will have all issues fixed” (Superb Positive Attitude).. He goes on to say “I think that is the right way to go, bcoz we have to accept we have been too ambitious”
-Not all changes planned have been incorporated into NP1. Some will come in NP2. And the rest will come in Mk2. Calls the LG design a “first cut Navy undercarriage”.

-The Airforce standard intake optimized for buzzfree flow upto M1.8 but it is starving the engine at sealevel, lowspeed flight corresponding to SkiJump launch. Able to get a little bit more thrust from the engine for NP1.
-NP2 will have redesigned intake for increased thrust at SL takeoff. (Says it will do better displays than the current AF fighter). Full Navy specific avionics suite will be in NP2.
-Will have more fuel than the NP1 as well as AF-single seater (Doesnt say how. Can somebody ask at ADA stall?)

Okay.. this is interesting – He says ship motion tests are going to be very interesting. We have to approach this with a lot of caution.. We don’t have experience with this.. I think we will either end up with a compromise aircraft or a BROKEN AIRCRAFT.. I expect atleast one of the test aircraft is going to break.. and that is something we have to accept and move forward”.

-We will go to sea with a auto-throttle, auto-pilot as the expertise we have developed with FCS allows us to do some interesting things (That kind of confidence from a TP is good news for the LCA FCS). Looks good on the simulator, I hope it works that way in the actual aircraft.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by rakall »

Images from LCA-Navy talk by Capt.Maolankar

Image
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Dynamic individual with a great sense of humor & a very dynamic way of expressing things.

On intakes - he says:

LCA (AF) ie LCA MK1 has an intake designed for buzz free operations till 1.8Mach. We'll probably use a different intake for LCA Navy on Mark 2, for carrier specific launch conditions, at low speeds at high alpha as these are the conditions experienced for Ski Jump Launch!

He also notes elsewhere, that these test requirements dont exist for the AF version & the Navy is trying to have them done first for their aircraft in the MK2 version, which is contrary to the IAF plan which builds such requirements (normally) towards at the end via envelope expansion.


Begins the presentation with a statement the Navy is last to present today, and has to make up for other peoples mistakes as usual, looking at the panel with an AF officer in it & everyone smiling. What a sense of humor. :lol:

So in other words, the LCA AF intakes dont have issues (buzz free) for AF & the Navy may change them for naval conditions ie ski jump.

Also says MK1 will be nothing to scoff at (exact words) but MK2 will meet what Navy expects for 20 years.

Basically everything AWST's Neelam Mathews wrote was junk.

Makes a wry comment with a smile that the US Navy has not done the work for India, ie they dont use ski jumps and conventional recovery with deltas, that too FBW ones. Full of wisecracks, but an insight every second, with a level of detail that is incredible.

Points out at every level that the Naval program is extremely challenging, extremely ambitious & the Navy has kept things simple. First, demo the aircraft can actually take off from a carrier, clean, build loads & then move to the next stage.

Humorously refers to the undercarriage, as "we did everything by the book and now we have an overengineered undercarriage" and then amidst smiles, says (something like) we will try things, even if we either end up with at least one compromised aircraft or broken undercarriage but thats fine, we can (paraphrasing) live with it...and then realizes ex CEMILAC or DGAQA (?) guy is in the panel, laughing, and looks at him and says "i know you expect me to slip up here but i wont"...LOL!! :lol:

Brilliant presentation! I wish he had dwelt more on the LCA performance itself but he is very upbeat about the aircraft itself from the early part & is dwelling more on the challenges expected. From the presentation, its clear huge challenges have been overcome at the AF/LCA end as well, mores the pity, there is no NFTC guy presenting on it, like they did circa 2005 or thereabouts.
Last edited by Karan M on 09 Feb 2011 04:45, edited 3 times in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

Karan M wrote:
Kanson wrote: Karan saab, you know very well current sqd. strength of IAF is way much less than ~39, somewhere close to 30, iirc. There is no way 1-1 replacement is possible, if IAF wants to reach its full sanctioned strength. LCA currently inducted will probably outlive the earliest Su-30 in our inventory. And then there is talk surrounding two-front war which probably needs more numbers. It is Su-30MKI that is replacing MiG-21 in NE. Entire chart is changing. Lets see.
Kanson ji I think I misunderstood what you were saying. What you are saying is because of the sq shortfall, IAF will need more LCAs? Is that correct interpretation?
In a way...Yes, sir ji.
With the number of its fighter squadrons (each has 12 to 18 jets) dipping below 30 for the first time, IAF is obviously worried that it's nowhere near even its sanctioned strength of 39.5 squadrons.

This when IAF has identified a requirement of 44 squadrons to meet the 'possible contingency' of 'a full conflict' with Pakistan and 'a dissuasive posture' against China. A simultaneous conflict with Pakistan and China, with the capability to hold Pakistan and defend against China, will require 55 squadrons.
ShauryaT wrote:Sorry to butt in, but what are the chances that IAF plays Jugaad with the system. Example, if IAF says to MoD, we need 300 LCA's, MoD says, you are crazy, what do we need so many for but if IAF says, 100 more Su30's the MoD is more amiable. I cannot prove this speculation, but I guess, the number of trained pilots available and other logistics, make it difficult to add to the squadron strength and hence they do the next best thing....get more heavy fighters.

Yes, Yes, I know about the small, medium, heavy mix et al but there has not been any serious analysis of the exact mix for Indian conditions for various offensive/defensive scenarios et al. Willing to learn on this matter, if someone knows.
In my view, it is actually reverse. It was MoD which forced IAF to look into LCA programme with more involvement when it went to MoD for more aircraft due to their shortfall in their strength. Involvement of IAF became more intense, only after MoD gave a 'whip'. I guess everyone involved(HAL+ADA) got their share of 'whip'.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

Can't the undercarriage strength be tested using a UAV for a relative short distance landing, then get that data to calculate for a bigger vehicle?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: That is it - 120 birds and the run is over. This sidelining of the Tejas is probly because of 2 reasons (speculation alert!):
CM.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories889.htm

The actual orders are for 8 LSP, 20 (already ordered) + 20 (in pipeline) for MK1. The reason for the delay in second order is because IAF, HAL & ADA are in discussions about standard of fit for second tranche of MK1 aircraft, and whether they will be trainers (predominantly) or single seaters - reports note the second tranche will have 16-17 trainers. The LCA trainer once it completes its certification process would be the standard fit taken up.

The expected numbers of LCA MK2 are 83 with additional options, to be exercised as IAF sees fit. This makes the minimum orders for the LCA - versions, as 123 + 8 = 131.
Karan, the bottomline, the way I see it is that altogether 41 IN20s were ordered, and now 99 414s. Ideally, and this is what much of the speculation (from media and jingoes alike) suggests: there would be 40 Mk1s based on the IN20 and of course a good 100 Mk2s based on the 414s. All in all 140 birds and perhaps the LSPs (148 units).

Now in my book, this in itself is rather paltry. This bird was not too long ago the primary replacement for a fleet of 300 odd MiG-21s, and possibly even floggers. Now that number looks rather unlikely. Even now, when the inventory looks rather top heavy (MKI + Pakfa = 500), there surely is room for a much larger LCA production run, but no such noises. However, this is beside the point. Even at a project 45-50 sqds (1000 a/c), one would think that the bulk would be made of LCAs, but otoh, it is diametrically opposite of that logic. The IAF intends to have more twin engined heavies in its fleet (proportionally) than any other AF in the world save perhaps the VVS at its prime.

What is evident from various statements by those in the know (Nayak/PS) is that
a) 8 LSPs and 20 Mk1s (2005 order) will be based on the IN20s.
b) 6 Naval prototypes will also be based on the IN20s
c) 83 Mk2s are likely.
c) The second order of 20 Mk1s will in fact be powered by 414s. To quote PS again,
We plan to use the F404 engines to power the first 20 aircraft the IAF has ordered and the enhanced GE-414 engines for the second order of 20 aircraft, which will be the Mark-2 version,
From the above, we can conclude that - out of the 40 odd 404s ordered, 8 were used for the LSPs, 20 will be used for the first order of 20 Mk1s, 6 will make it to the Navy prototype. 6 birds will find their way on the trainer prototype(s) and possibly for additional testing etc.

Now the confusion comes in with PS's latest words - 83 Mk2s + second order of 20 are in fact to be Mk2s (that second order for Mk1s, as we hoped, has morphed into Mk2s).

In effect then, as things stand, we see plans for ~ 83 Mk2s + 20 Mk1 (IN20 powered) + 8 LSPs (108 birds for the IAF). OR more optimistically, ~ 83 + 20 Mk2s + 20 Mk1s + 8 Lsps (128 a/c). No matter how we view it, this is a paltry order.

In case of first speculation, the remaining 17 odd GE 414s might find their way into testing/LSPs for the Navy. And then perhaps they may exercise the option for the extra 50 naval birds. There is always talk of buying this and that, but it seems such things just peter out with time. The "imminent"order of 20 + 20 MK1s is a case in point. That the IN is interested is a given, but perhaps a Sea Gripen/JSF (remember the RFI/P) might be more interesting for the Navy boys as well.

All in all a rather modest run at best (180 odd a/c totally), and very possibly a LOT less than that. .
More attrition replacements & additional orders are also expected from the IAF (as is usually the case with the IAF, reference, see Jaguar orders, or Sukhoi orders) for WWR & filling in existing requirements - approximately ~2-4 squadrons, which at the lower mark are around 40 aircraft. This is one of the key reasons IAF has ordered more Sukhois as well, before production winds up, and they ordered 37 Jaguars before the line closed. So far pilot response to LCA has been very positive & once IAF gets its hands on the aircraft, and familiarity increases, additional orders can then be expected.

Overall, HAL expects a production run of around 200 LCAs before the production transitions to the AMCA. Hence the reference to the number 200 at the press conference, even keeping variability in additional IAF orders/naval orders in mind.

Original plans for the LCA were always at the same level, with numbers of around 220 aircraft mentioned. There were hopes that even the MiG 23, 27,29 series would be replaced by the LCA doubling orders, but the IAF made it clear it was seeking a heavier MMRCA to supplant these aircraft.

So LCA orders as projected are not that different from those originally estimated.
The above is hopeful, and perhaps I am just being inordinately negative. But that 220 number was IAF projection alone, not IN. As things stand, they'll be lucky to manage that many with IN orders. Still, fingers crossed. As Kansonsahib as noted, now is not the time to be speculative/negative.

CM
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kartik »

rakall, that Congress MP was Naveen Jindal, a parliamentarian and industrialist and a commerical pilot's licence holder.

link

BTW, I noticed that they used one of B Harry's images in their presentation ! even if not intentional, it is a fitting tribute to him that official sources are using his rendering..I still feel sad when I think of Harry and cannot imagine what kind of news and articles we'd have all been able to enjoy had he been around. :(
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

pandyan wrote:^^^ link above..4th picture has 4 black Cobra Dhruvs'. Four more for Ecuador?
Those photos are from 2009
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Last edited by Austin on 09 Feb 2011 09:02, edited 1 time in total.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by nachiket »

Nice. Glad to see there are no major changes. No intake redesign, no LEVCONS. It is basically a lengthened version of the Mk1, with a greater fuel capacity, the F414 engine and structural weight saving measures adopted.

Image

Tsarkar ji, this graphic mentions the EW suite.

Also note the Retractable refueling probe which is a pleasant surprise.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Kartik »

Only lengthened by 0.5m. Not 1m as was claimed by Ashok Nayak.
Post Reply