Bharat Rakshak

Thanks - this actually confirms what I had posted earlier about the IAF's revised specs for the LCA asking for an EW suite. This EW suite is in turn a more advanced version of the one on the MiG-27, with DARE working with ELISRA for some of the hardware (which'll be made by BEL). The core of the suite is a flexible processing architecture and receiver (DARE's IP) which can be adapted to multiple uses and placements. This is very critical - as both DARE and DLRL have now developed the capability to detect, classify and sort amongst advanced signal transmitters (LPI for example). The exhibits at Defexpo, clearly showed this capability for the first time. DLRL has a similar ESM system made for all three services, while DARE is taking care of the airborne aspect. So basically, the brains and software that receive these signals, process them (identify, differentiate and figure out how to counter) and then direct the jammer are now inhouse The MiG-29 Upgrade for instance, uses the same core, but with the Tx side codeveloped with Elettronica which is working with DARE to make a customized AESA fit with higher ERP (as suited for the MiG-29). The Super-30 upgrade, as publically shown by DARE, shows two wingtip mounted pods. Possibly yet another application of the same DARE core, but with newer Hardware for the transmit side.

Overall, good progress made in electronic warfare.

This was also mentioned by Col.Shukla in one of his articles. The aircraft was supposed to go to Gwalior for testing there. PV-1 IIRC was chosen because it was equipped with the plain vanilla 404 and it couldnt be used for much flight testing so it was rigged for this purpose

The LCA is a Mirage 2000/MiG-29 equivalent, with better sensors than earlier Marks of both planes, in the footprint (size, logistics) of the MiG-21. This small size enforced by IAF requirement of ensuring LCA can operate within the infrastructure of the vast majority of our AFB (which have everything from HAS, to apron sizes etc influenced by different flavors of the MiG-21), makes this plane a very potent one, no doubt but also makes the design and development very challenging. Basically, the amount of optimization done at LRU level has to be very high. These units have to be compact, modular and easily accessible. Not an easy task when the amount of volume is only so much. This also partly explains why ADA/HAL are so careful when they have to do interior redesign - recently, the entire fuel/hydraulics arrangement was revisited with some redesign/rerouting, after some fuel lines leaked.

I have been long awaiting even one journalist to pick up this aspect and ask some cogent questions about the lessons learnt and how they are applicable for the future - "dense packaging" will be essential even for the AMCA, but then expecting that of our local journalist fraternity is too much.

The great editor of the esteemed Indian Express, who pontificates on programs such as the LCA and has his juniors attack them in his paper, did not even know the meaning of IOC. I don't know many acronym's, says he. Yet, he is an expert on everything from technology development to army movements

Another interesting thing is that the ADA originally explored a version of the LCA called the LCA - agile. This would have a higher thrust engine, aerodynamics improvements & some avionics improvements as well. Its interesting to see this version will see the light of the day in the form of the LCA MK2, which practically speaking has all these planned improvements.

How much commonality one can see between LCA Mk2 and nLCA? I doubt we still have not gotten the core engine GE 414-INS6 ported into it yet, and that would really mean lot of things needs to be revisited for upthrusted engine specs, and how various things handle.

Not long back ago we had this debated on how does these changes will make the LCA Mk2 look like? lot of speculations were made.. any look and feel pics available as to how the mk2 will be?

somethings I found here

The fuselage has been extended by 500mm.
retractable fuel probe
weight reductions - wonder how much it will be offset by fuselage extension?
are some of the interesting changes.
All these will have be done by another 1 1/2 years time left (2014)

During one of the exercises with Khan, their pilots were highly appriciative of Mig-21 with its big jammer. A small plane with a big jammer really put them off... Going by the same analogy I believe Mig 21++ (which is a way of derogating Tejas) should really kick some a%^ not only will it have better aerodynamics but it will have better avionics and finally be more reliable. Our constant rant has been produce it as is..... lets get this plane in IAF and work on constantly improvements.... Learn from the panda....

Folks on the general issue of cuteness or un-cuteness of Naval LCA - I think the real deal will be a single seater. It made no sense to make a single seat NLCA because pilots require special training in carrier take-off/landing. Hence NLCA first build is a two seater for training purposes.Clearly it will carry less fuel and payload than a future fighter.

That is expecting way too much from those dorks. Most have them lack at least one of the following three a) Any sense of understanding even high school physics b) Any rigor in terms of logical analysis and commonsense c) Ethics . A significant number of those dorks lack more than 2 with Ethics being disturbingly the one they lack most often.

I agree it was sad seeing that the newly launched US Boeing 787 for AirIndia occupied Page 1 slot where as the first flight of our very own LCA was relegated to an inner page

The NLCA's capabilities (short, light, STOL, strengthened landing gear) would also make it the best candidate for road-based operations from the forward areas in the event of a nuclear strike or during a 'two-front war'. Do we have any idea as to what the final takeoff/landing run of the NLCA would be?

Saw a Tipnis grey SDRE LCA take off today - pay have been the same one that did the Aero India demo with marks on wing.

so, how many single seater nLCAs are planned?

any photoshop gurus could model a single seater nLCA?
and another on with a superimposed landing on ADS?
and for those creative gurus, perhaps a modified twin engined divertless nLCA! (just a wish onlee)

Photoshop not required. BR has a photo here.

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1839 Test Flights successfully. (27-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-339,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-49,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1837 Test Flights successfully. (26-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-339,LSP1-74,LSP2-206,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-49,LSP5-80,LSP7-2)

NP2 most probably will look like that.

However, LCA NAVY MkII will look much more similar to the airforce version.

Click to enlarge

Thanks Indranil sir for the images..
The frontal view of the nLCA sure looks mighty similar to that of Gripen..

That reminds me of someone I knew a long time back. He was a Metallurgy graduate engineer with a strong moral fiber and he tried to make it in Journalism. He used to tell me how English Honours and History Honours graduates are preferred at most English language dailies. After investing a few years he had to give up last I heard of him, he had migrated back to engineering.

Also I read in some site that a delta wing does not need a very high Angle of Attack. Can someone point me towards something on this (dummies level).

nice pics.. interestingly the naval Mk2 shows a very different undercarriage (more steroidal), than the dual seater NP1. [/artist error]

Glad you liked it ... but no 'sir', no 'ji' please ... Well the Tejas and Gripen has many things in common.


On what feature?

If you are interested, read this. you need not understand the formulas, just understand the logic
click

Coming back to turn rates ... actually you have to be much more precise ... there are a lot of variables involved like speed, altitude etc ... the delta wing just by itself would be excellent for instantaneous turn rate but not for sustained turn rates ... this is somewhat offset with high TWR to overcome the high drag ... also modern delta wings will use slats/canards/vortex generating devices and to maintain control at lower speeds and FBW to lower the drag.

In a typical duel, the pilot with the delta wing (P1) will try to use higher energy from its less draggy cruise/dash and higher instantaneous turn rate to get his nose inside the line of a turning duel first and go for a gun/missile option. Whereas the swept-wing pilot (P2) would try to avoid the first salvo and try to get P1 in a long sustained turn duel ... as P1 loses speed faster, after about 5-6 seconds, the P2 can go for higher alpha to get his nose inside P1 and go for a gun/missile option.

Also the high instantaneous turn rates of the delta are very helpful in breaking out of missile locks etc.

I have never seen a delta winged TVC fighter. And any analysis on such a plane adds vital discussion points for our LCA.

Check this out: Rockwell-MBB X-31

cool.. thanks for that. doh, why I did not think about X31! (gray hair). The 3 axis design is a good basis for LCA. Further modifications can be done such that the 3 axis could hinge on to extenders, and provide higher degree of angle so that it can serve dual purpose thrusting - reverse thrusting capabilities.

Don't know who this TKS dude is, but yeah, whatever, he seems to be the classic stereotype of an IAF/Army type who while good in what they do, simply don't have the background, training, temper ,skills and most importantly institutional backing in terms of rewards to actually develop something new.

Lets face it. An officer who does really well in doing something like product /weapons development is really an orphan. He is really committing career suicide.. (duh.. if you want to rise in the IAF, would you rather be a Group Commander or a test pilot at NFTC.. ask the first Tejas test pilot that question.. though he left to fly Deccan airways!).

Also, the way the IAF acted is really shameful. Just like the Kaveri project..(hello.. they were simply supposed to fail and be wound up, but holly molly, unfortunately they have come up with a working engine!), the entire Tejas itself was an orphan child. Folks who had the "Sucker.. Kicked Upstairs on the Way Out" stuck on their backs were posted as Project Heads, IAF couldn't be bothered, why, they couldn't even be bothered to think about what kind of weapons the planes will fly with.

The attitude was.. Oh well. Let the damn thing fly at all! No way it can fly. The FBW is stuck. The civilians can't make it..Haa. Haa. There boy, A peg of Whiskey! Harrumph. What do they know about planes ? Guess what, it flew and then. Oh dang!.. Now they want to know what kind of weapons. but hey. weren't you supposed to be killed and not bother us.. Oh well.. Take these as weapons fit. What! Now you say the wings need to be redesigned /tweaked. It's your problem, not mine!.

In fact, when I first started posting here (must be 2005/6 I think) and I picked through a logical thread to see WTF they weren't doing carriage and separation trails, the only logical hunch I had that the wing wasn't aero-elastically good enough for the weapons fit the IAF wanted. All this was simply piecing together the open source info and making educated guesses. It was a stunning thought, and I wrote it here on BRF and was quickly confirmed by on poster who worked on the structural design for the Tejas and resulted in a 1 year delay!

The larger point is this. The IAF and the retired blow hards can harrumph all they want about "Bad Project Management" .. "Oh we told you so" (very rich and easy coming from folks sitting on their a**es in the side lines, but can't lift a finger to do anything). To all that, all I can say is this.

The IAF orphaned the Tejas project and simply didn't even want to talk of it and wished it would go away. But it keeps coming back like a bad dream! The IAF until recently (just like the Army with the Arjun), was a big part of the problem and not the solution. Old fuddy duddies blowing their foghorns doesn't change the fact.

We have a Gripen C/D class fighter entering service (think of it. India jumps right into a full multi role class fighter as it's first entry!) and will be fielding a Gripen NG class fighter soon. All in all a stupendous achievement with timeline to MK-II /Gripen NG being very similar.

What we have today is a fighter that is literally far far removed from the initial 1983/4 specs of the Tejas.

All I can say is that the bulk of the IAF are going to be very surprised when this reaches the squadrons and takes on other types like the M2K, Mig 29 and yes the SU-30. When those types have their A**es hand back to them by the Tejas, the shock will be something similar to what the Army brass had when the Arjun mauled their blue eyed boys , the TinCan-90s.

+1 (Koti) *grin

call it shock and awe for the forces...eh!
there must be some inherent proudness here, and somewhere in their minds and hearts.
perhaps hidden, and can't say it.

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1840 Test Flights successfully. (30-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-49,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1839 Test Flights successfully. (27-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-339,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-49,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

Not sure about the following
1. Why hasnt PV-5 flown for a long time
2. Why hasnt LSP-7 flown after its second flight

May be it has gone to the beauty parlor to get some make-up

Just wondering what kind of EW Upgraded PV-1 is getting & when will it start flying

Noob Question....

I always wonder why there are no pics of Tejas or for that matter any IAF a/c which shows vapor forming over wings / lerx etc like so many such pic of khan a/c, russian a/c.... and iirc even a bundar pic.. Is it some thing to do with our dry atmospheric conditions????

For eg .... F-35 with after burner

Vina you should actually read through this before indulging in mud slinging.

Cheers....

TKS dude and BRFite Abhibhushan are one and the same.

OMG! I never thought that it will be you Shiv saaru. A lively picture, I must say. Glad you didn't put two oldies(though AP looks like a Bollywood hero at younger age) in the frame and I know you are a smart person.

The lady in the picture is wearing HAL dog tag, I suppose. I'm sure she must be a known figure.

Vina ji:

TKS saab is no fuddy duddy bara saab. He conceived and led the Jaguar Darin upgrade project. He played a big role in indigenization efforts, often at odds with his seniors, at big risks to his career.

Please read through his blogs to learn about his contribution to the IAF.

Ok. I did read about his contributions to the Darin upgrade and his achievement is impressive, though the only niggle I have is in his assertion that the the Jaguar Darin is the first platform in the world to have the MilStd 1553 bus. I am not sure of that. The F-16 entered service before the Darin upgrade timeline and that had the 1553 bus. Maybe he meant 1553B , which per wiki got defined (and is a refinement of the the 1553A) around '78 or so, in which case he could well be right about the Darin -Jaguar being the first with 1553B if that is indeed the case .

That still doesn't take away anything at all from what I wrote earlier and I am neither slinging mud, nor playing down in anyway TKS and others accomplishments or contributions.

There is a world of difference between saying, there is a need to do an integration of systems from multiple vendors and using a defined bus standard to do it in response to a specific problem like the deficiency in the Jaguar and the systematic building of such competencies methodically as part of an overall strategy!

Ok, let me flesh out what I am saying. The emerging technologies in the 70s and early 80s were crystal clear. FBW controls,digital avionics , glass cockpit, composite structures, new gen engines (F100) and finally new maintenance concepts (LRU,on condition etc).

The problem is that there was no vision or even interest at a fundamental strategic level at the IAF & HAL in terms of competency building! They couldn't care less. The focus was on importing designs and doing screw driver assembly and passing it off as "indigenous".

It could have been pretty easy to have an R&D project with say the Ajeet (which the HAL knew inside out) to have FBW controls, a composite wing and experimental avionics and you could have built that capability in the period 1975 to 1985! The Brits built their FBW competency by having a hold your breath, a JAGUAR (yes, the very same aircraft we are talking about) tweaked for relaxed stability with FBW. The French did the same with a Mirage III.. Yup the same kind used in the Arab-Isreali conflicts in the 60s!

Okay, the IAF had the Mig-21 since 69 or so. What have the done with it? The Chinese played with it intensely and have multiple versions including different wingforms and even one of their latest AJT is a Mig21 derivative. Why didn't India have a FBW version of the Mig-21 with side intakes and a good radar in the nose and a MIL-1533B bus flying in the 80s? After all, the likes of Prof Prodyut Das (he posted in response in his blog) claim the best substitute for a Mig-21 is another Mig-21 or something to that effect if I remember correctly. It would have been silly to do that in the late 80s, but eminently sensible in the 70s! So what stopped the IAF from doing it rather than continue producing some tired old incremental upgrades of Mig-21s until mid 80s .. Where is the Indian version of an FBW Jaguar ? You did help fix a big flaw in it at the HAL during the production run, you did the Darin upgrade which the others adopted.Why not the FBW ? That is because there was no "operational need" and as an organization you couldn't think ahead strategically.

IF that had been done , you could have entered the LCA project with a solid industrial and technical base to do it and you wouldn't have seen the kind of slippages we had.

In the absence that and because of the lost decades of the 60s , 70s and early 80s, we had to start from scratch. The LCA is really some 4/5 projects rolled into one ..FBW, Composites, Avionics, Radar, Engine and maybe Electronic Warfare. Each of which in normal circumstances would have been researched, developed, proven and tested separately! Each of those is a separate 5 to 10 year project at least. The FBW, composites,mission avionics, and electronic warfare are successes , while the Radar and Engine are partially successful (HAL should never have been given the radar responsibility) and GTRE against all odds for a project as complex as the airframe itself has a working engine! All in all quite good.

I really have little patience with the service folks who sat on their backsides in the period 60s to 80s and for whatever reasons dropped the ball, to come back and dump on the LCA and other projects (like Arjun) for slipping timelines and "bad project management" and this and that and claim these are "R&D" projects and are not "operationally oriented" . Of course, there will be a big R&D phase because YOU dropped the ball there because you couldn't think strategically as an organization, and when it came to even "operational oriented" stuff of making it into a fighter out of a prototype, dropped the ball again by totally neglecting it and going comatose!

And no it is not just the LCA alone . Think of all the whining about the lack of an AJT and the how many decades (was it 25 years ?) and pilots lost before we got the Hawk! Well, we did have the "earlier Hawk" called the "Folland Gnat" in service for donkey's years. That was originally designed and used as a trainer! What stopped the IAF from asking HAL to not close the Ajeet assembly line, enhance whatever was needed to bring it upto scratch as a modern day trainer and maybe if it made sense at all, even put the Adour from the Jaguar into an enhanced version and presto, you would have had an "Indian Hawk" . Nope.. It was all about.. Oh, the Govt /Babus aren't giving us money to buy an AJT and you waited 3 decades for it to finally come through!

The less said about the HPT-32 and the HTT-40 fiascoes the better! There we are in the market again, trying to buy a turbo prop trainer in 2012! The IAF and the Army lost the ability to think beyond importing platforms and screw driver assembly and marginal tinkering.

For all the alphabet soup of acronyms of the folks in Army and Air Force who are supposed to look ahead and do planning and requirements and that sort of thing, the performance has been simply breathtakingly pathetic. The only thing they seem to have done in most part is to be reactive in saying.. Oh. Adversary govt platform X, we need to buy platform Y to counter it .

The Navy was the exception. No wonder the Navy today has a home built Nuke Submarine, while the Airforce is importing an ab-initio trainer and the Army is importing Tatra Trucks (and cant even put the steering column in the correct place for our roads), while ironically we have a very strong domestic truck industry that is pretty competitive with anything anywhere! There is a point in that, I am sure.

+1

We have a malluspeak slang 'polichch aTukki' (പൊളിച്ച് അടുക്കി). Which can be roughly translated to "dismantled and stacked up".

It is a pleasure to read when you do that, vina.

In fact, some the absolute lack of any strategic thinking on the part of the IAF is simply breath taking. I thought that only the HPT-32 /HTT-40 fiasco was due to the IAF , but didn't know this..

From wikipidea about HAL Ajeet



Massive dropped balls like these are the reasons and pathetic lack of strategic planning are the reasons why we are in the state we in and importing the BAE Hawk and are going to license produce and support it for another 30/40 years.

dont forget the Pilatus trainer deal. a country which orbits a satellite around the moon not making as basic turboprop trainer (even with imported engine) is a bit odd.