LCA News and Discussions

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 09:14

Guys livefist has the MK2 models. Analysis requested

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Feb 2011 09:15

Since there doesn't seem to be a large size difference, if the structural weight saving measures work well, there is a good chance they can keep the empty weight between 6500 and 7000 kgs, which would give the Mk2 a fantastic T:W ratio. I can't tell from the pic if the intakes are larger, so don't know how they are handling the increased air-flow requirement of the 414.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Feb 2011 09:17

Its good to see ADA improved upon what was sub-optimum in Tejas MK1 design and incrementally upgraded what was good in MK1 , there are not many changes and not many surprises that would lead to any delays or prolonged flight testing regime , the risk has been mitigated quite well in the design stage of Tejas Mk2

I think this is what the IAF wants in Tejas Mk2 ,Good Job ADA !

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Feb 2011 09:19

Kartik wrote:Only lengthened by 0.5m. Not 1m as was claimed by Ashok Nayak.

It seems from all the chatter in the videos that Mk-2 design may not be set in stone yet.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 09:19

but no aesa in the upgrade list

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Feb 2011 09:22

I WANT A YAAYEEYESYEAA radar!

If not right away, at least in later blocks!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2011 09:23

dont worry - the end user IAF would likely insist for that.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Feb 2011 09:23

X-post...

rakall sir thanks for the summary..may i add few points.

rakall wrote:-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

Flat trajectory of the curve in the Weight Vs Approach speed graph gives indication that there will be no restriction on payload that it can bring back to the Carrier while landing.

- 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.

LG is designed as per guideline- not purposely over-designed. But it came heavier. To reduce the weight they have to adopt less conservative approach in doing that. In establishing such design cut there is a risk of breaking the aircraft. He quotes his Sea Harrier experience.

-Will have more fuel than the NP1 as well as AF-single seater (Doesnt say how. Can somebody ask at ADA stall?)

Becoz of the drooped nose with enhanced spine, it can hold more fuel compared to AF-single seater.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Feb 2011 09:24

Doesn't mark I have OBGOS? why is it listed as part of Mark II?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2011 09:26

Also, the lengthening is behind the cockpit at not at the nose.

This makes perfect sense to me. Given the area curve that we saw in the paper (elaborating lessons learnt on Mk1), I couldn't fathom how a nose plug could mitigate the jump after the cockpit. I had hypothesized that a plug behind the cockpit, would make most sense an that is what we see. Also notice how the refining of the wing body blend at the aft has been incorporated. It is exactly how it was shown in the paper. Also notice how the dorsal spine shows the wasp-waist shape near the thickest part of the wing. The MKII will be quiet sleeker through the air.

The pylons don't look sharper to me (may be because of the image resolution).

I don't know whether they missed drawing the air brakes or they would be absent in the MK-II. The paper had discussed using the MLG primary door as the air-brakes.

Can't say whether the air intakes have been modified. A inch of extra dia might mean a lot.

All-in-all, I like the MkII. Nothing major, yet quite substantial.

P.S. Here's a pic of the Tejas with the centerline pylon displayed:

(Courtsey SriSri). Is there a chance that somebody in HAL/ADA reading our discussions on BR?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Feb 2011 09:28

nachiket wrote:
Austin wrote:First Impressions Of The Tejas Mk.2
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.

As i said earlier, no levcons.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Feb 2011 09:35

indranilroy wrote:
P.S. Here's a pic of the Tejas with the centerline pylon displayed: (Courtsey SriSri). Is there a chance that somebody in HAL/ADA reading our discussions on BR?

Thank you Thank you! I have been waiting for such a pic for ages.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Feb 2011 09:41

indranilroy wrote: All-in-all, I like the MkII. Nothing major, yet quite substantial.

There are changes not listed in the paper. Take a peep when we have real Mk2

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 09 Feb 2011 09:43

Fuel dump system in MK2 will make sure there are no limitations on payload bring back. IN influence pretty clear on MK2.

Cheers....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2011 09:54

Kanson wrote:
indranilroy wrote: All-in-all, I like the MkII. Nothing major, yet quite substantial.
There are changes not listed in the paper. Take a peep when we have real Mk2

Of course Kanson ji! But atleast we don't have LEVCONs/larger wing/more hardpoints etc. If you ask just my opinion, adding those were counter intuitive. I had argued against them few pages back. Actually the airframe of the Mk II is very akin to what I have been saying for some time now. So the changes make perfect sense to me.

There is just one thing which I was not sure/am still not sure is shape of the air intake. I don't understand it and hence I am not commenting on it.

I have a feeling that MK2 will be AESA equipped. I would have really jumped up and down if we had a non-retractable refueling rod and used this saved internal space for an IRST (I don't care if it is imported).

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Feb 2011 09:58

Is the increase in length, in the portion behind the wing? As the wing span has not increased which would normally be the case, if the wingschord is increased?

It may be my eyes but intakes seem slightly larger and the spine protuded and wasp like?? Aft end is obviously smoother. Air brakes missing?

It is possible that increase is distributed into nose and aft end, say .25m each?? Height seems to be more, lengthened landing gear or raised cockpit?

Internal fuel increased + internal EW, how? Better arrangement of internal space? I suppose better space mangement, better CG management and better/active fuel transfers for CG management "might" be some of the internal changes??

Some Weight will obviously be shaved off, say empty combat weight of 6700kg?? It is good that they are sticking to MMR, rather than jumpig too quickly to AESA.

There is obviously an Air to air refueling probe.

IMHO The only thing missing now is an IRST

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 09 Feb 2011 10:17

suryag wrote:but no aesa in the upgrade list

Good I say. They must be listing all that is required for the FOC. Including AESA as a pre-requisite will only raise the stakes and dim Mk2's chances of a timely FOC. AESA development can go on parallely.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2011 10:26

vic wrote:Is the increase in length, in the portion behind the wing? As the wing span has not increased which would normally be the case, if the wingschord is increased?

I don't think that the wing has been changed at all. Why should they change it?

vic wrote: Height seems to be more, lengthened landing gear or raised cockpit?

If you increase the length of the plane, you should proportionally increase the height the rudder for yaw control at higher AoA.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 10:29

From Sri Baghel's stream
LCA completed 1551 as of yesterday and 920 hours of testing

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2011 10:33

Notice that except for the nose drop, the Navy MK2 looks more similar to the IAF MK2 than the NP1 dummies that we have seen till now.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 10:51

it is confirmed from the CEMILAC talk
Guided r-73 firing hasnt been done
dispensing of CMDS in conjunction wtih RWR hasnt been done. Sri Baghel is a man with wonderful sense of rustic humour

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Feb 2011 10:53

tsarkarji, what you say makes a lot of sense and reconciles with most of the media reports on LCA performance.
However, I have a different question. We are building ships for our navy for more than 30 years. Why do we still need consultancy on real estate management? What more is required to master that skill? If we are still not confident on real estate management of frigates which we are building for so long and for which ready made designs are available via consultancy, how will we manage the same for closely guarded secrets like nuclear submarines?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2011 11:21

In some ways, I feel in the aft section we are going back to the TD1's shapes

1. The wing body blending continues all the way to the nozzle. Albeit, there is some refinement in MK2.
2. The parachute housing cap tapers away rather than a solid block.

Click on image for higher resolution:

Compare the same with the LSPs (Click for higher res)

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Feb 2011 12:05

Hmm. Someone posted, more internal fuel + internal jammer, How ?

The answer is right in front of you.

in this pic, look closely to the starboard side of the fuselage , just aft/thereabouts of the cockpit and also in this pic where the contours are seen very clearly from the side, and together read it with the general arrangement 3d isometric view in this

!

It is clear that the blue are new tanks that have been added. There are two tanks in the side, on each side of the front fueslage, roughly in front of the intakes and there is a tank on top of the spine and wing tanks, sort of like a "Whispers Ultra Wings" sanitary napkin (nanha Moojahids, ask your girlfriends / Google Chacha if you are nadaan in such matters) draped on the spine with wings on the sides.

From the looks of it , roughly some 100 to 125 kg in each side tank and "whisper ultra wing" tank , by my madrassa math looks like upto 400 to 600kg + some another 100kg maybe in spine area where the "whisper ultra wings " tanks tapers off into a spine plus a "sting ray" kind of tail. All in all approx extra internal fuel, that in addition to the existing tanks, takes it close to 2300 + 400 /600 +100 , ie around 2800 to 3000kg total per my estimate.

AoA!AoA! Just what I was hoping for! That is around the internal fuel of a M2K ! With 90KN engine (similar to the M2K) and around a ton and a half less empty weight, this thing is sure as hell going to be one helluva package. This will have a very very decent range and persistence (no wham,bham, thank you maam here).

Hmm. On second thoughts, looking at the "whisper ultra wings" and "stingray tail" and the additional height of the plane (0.5m or so ?), I think I will revise the fuel estimates upwards by to 3000kg to 3300kg internal. Now did someone say Gripen NG had
40% more internal fuel than the Gripen C ?. Well, whaddya know, this bird too has around 40% internal fuel over the current Tejas!
All that is 400% halaal onree (quake in your shalwars PakLurks).

Now, All I want is an AESA radar added! .

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Feb 2011 12:16

Hmm and also looks like what they did was fatten the area curve to smooth out the kinks for better area ruling and used the resulting bulges to put in the side tanks in the front and the "whisper ultra" tanks on the back .

Two birds in one stone eh ? Ek teer mein do nishan ?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 12:29

sad to see that there is no way you can build a mk2 without building mk1. I am pretty sure IAF will order more once we get IOC for MK2

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 09 Feb 2011 13:06

@ suryag: Would you please explain your comments. Why this cribbing tone? All design is evolutionary. Even the Su 30 MKI went through iterative cycles. Isn't it time we stopped our self flagellation and just got on with it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2011 13:16

the stingray tank is almost like a internal pair of CFT given its location but much less drag penalty.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 13:17

yaar i was not cribbing just wishful thinking as to how nice it would have been if we had made a mk2 capability right at the beginning, but nothing comes for free and you have to make a mk1 to get to mk2 that is how design chakra very similar to the thoughts we generally have outside exam hall - "if i had known this i would have done it right"

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 13:18

all bangalorites should be banned from posting in the day allowed to post in the evening only if they come back with a pic/video

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 09 Feb 2011 13:20

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

.

Yes.. I didnt want to take names..

Anyway one day after the AeroIndia2011 "busy"ness settles down. I will write the story from the incident..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Feb 2011 13:34

mk2 is looking good, thanks to everyone for their evaluations of the design
personally, the sooner we get these early models into regular service the better, it will give lots of learning opportunities for the services and industry. it doesnt matter too much if the first block doesnt have x,y,z capability - but the other aspects of operations, tactics, familiarisation need to ramp up quickly

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Feb 2011 13:51

Nachiket,

PV-5 didn’t have it, that was IOC configuration, so there was no new system to account for excess weight that supposedly affected STR, AoA, acceleration issues. I believe Mk2 has excess weight at wrong places trimmed.

Vina,

You are correct about area ruling applied to the upper fuselage. It should improve performance quite a bit.

The plane based jammer, it would be in wing leading edge, shoulder or even vertical tailfin leading edge, but not in the nose or under the cockpit, that is slab-sided.

For the benefit of other readers, some may know the following, but I will repeat for the sake of clarity and continuity.
On EW, ground rules are as follows - the fighter radar is X Band. Enemy fighter radar is also X Band. So jamming signals (irrespective of mode) must be X Band. (I am ignoring S Band and L Band ground and sea based enemy radars for the time being.)

Now, if my radar is AESA, I may use 80% of my Tx modules for normal radar search functions while using another 20% of my Tx modules to jam enemy fighter X-Band radar.

But we don’t have an AESA radar yet. Now, I can’t have a radar emitter and EW emitter in the same nose, because jammer in nose means smaller radar face, that is unacceptable. Also interference issues. So F-15 has wing leading edge root mounted jammer, Su-35 has in wing leading edge jammer, there was a proposal and photo somewhere of MiG-29 with Italian jammer in the wing leading edge. MiG-27 has a nose mounted jammer because it doesn’t have a radar in the nose.
For S Band and L Band, one can carry a pod. However, jamming ground based radars is very difficult for a standard fighter given the high radiated power and high computing power available in a ground based radar. That is the job of specialized jamming planes like EF-18.

Picklu,
What IN did was make incremental upgrades. However, Project 28 and Project 71 are brand new ships, despite using DCNS and Fincantieri consultancy respectively. So, we are gradually reaching there. 10 years from now, we’ll probably be selling consulting to others.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Feb 2011 14:06

Thanks tsarkarji.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 09 Feb 2011 14:14

@ Suryag- Sorry, if I gave offense. But what with all the DDM's running similar pieces, guess I got hypersensitive.

saurav.jha · Post by **saurav.jha** » 09 Feb 2011 15:57

No mention of AESA on MK-II is a kind of let down.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 09 Feb 2011 16:05

Who is letting down whom my friend? The ADA Letting down IAF?

The IAF is not operating a single AESA Fighter radar as of today. It will be at-least 2015 when one enters in IAF. There is a AESA fighter radar being prepared at LRDE.

The ADA has done a good thing by delinking AESA radar from MK2. They could offer it as a Upgrade to MK2

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Feb 2011 16:17

Sweet! She looks a little trimmer in the middle

I for one am rather happy with this - more than anything else, I'd wanted to see a fighter with tremendous flight performance, where the basics (TWR, fuel fraction, turn rates, acceleration) are completely licked, and this version is IT from the looks of it anyways.

The sooper-dooper stuff can come anytime, not a big deal. IOWs, I'd rather see a streamlined EF-2000 or flanker type, where you can keep adding derivatives with fancier gadgets, than a slug like the bug, which is a LOT of gimmickry but the basic design requires numerous band-aid fixes. Not optimal imho.

CM.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 09 Feb 2011 16:31

So, this is what IAF wants ? can anybody clarify ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Feb 2011 17:06

Wah, wah! I am almost doing lungi dance right now. To go on about this Mk2 version: Consider a comparison vis a vis the M2k:

1) If they can manage to achieve their goal of weight reduction, the empty weight on the bird will be around 6200kg! Realistically, even if they can manage to keep it at around 6500kg, we are looking at a truly powerful single engined a/c - no other comes close! That allows a TWR far above an underpowered M2k (7600 kg empty with 10 ton engine).

2) As Vinaji was saying the endurance on this bird will be excellent. Assuming they manage to keep 3000kg fuel internally, the FF will be better than that of the M2k, albeit marginally. And the mirage always had excellent fuel fraction.

3) Now keep in mind that the 414 engine has a better SFC than the 404 IN20, and that the IN20 has a much better SFC than the M53 on the Mirage. IOWs, we are looking at a bird with a truly potent combat endurance.

4) Only place the M2k-5 will be ahead is external payload - but who cares, 5000kg+ will be more than enough on an a/c the LCA's size.

All in all, this is a saalid improvement over its "role model". One thing that really pleased me re. this design is the fact that the cranked delta design remains. It so validates the ADA's decision to drop the canards! Sure shuts up all those chootiyas saying that it needs canards and whatnot to be a better design - STFU, wot?

Now all I need (to be really happy) is a massive order of 300+ from the IAF!

CM.