LCA News and Discussions

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 08 Oct 2012 22:09

LCA won't be like that. India needs a lot of planes & all our suppliers have wisened upto our money. They know this customer is rich and are pricing their wares accordingly. At the end of the day, IAF has a limited budget and they have to fulfil their needs within it. Unlike the IA, they can't get sufficient nos on imported maal. Gone are the days when we could barter Migs with rice & tea. The LCA is the only aircraft they can get in numbers within the 2 lakh crore rupees that have been allocated for the next 10 yrs. More than 3/4th of that amount is going to be taken up by Rafale & FGFA with Rafale procurement alone going for an amount greater than a lakh crore. The strings are going to be pulled tight and with the Chinese defence budget growing, they won't be reluctant to cover their shortcomings in quality by quantity.

My estimates per plane (including R&D)
FGFA - 800 crore (US$150 million)
Rafale - 800 crore (US$ 150 million)
LCA - 200 crore (US$ 37 million)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2012 22:21

Think about the GE engine alone is a night mare! All it takes to some obama or romney to get frown face on GoI. They can block further sales and support. It is quite scary, and just reflects how fragile is our project. Of course, that is a risk, and the mitigation is get the Kaveri10 fitted on to Tejas TD and get a showing first that it can take a lower flight envelope and validate many requirements that qualifies.

I agree and we all agree that it needs the 100kN. but, not validating the existing engine on to LCA platform is failure beyond recognition [FUBR range]. So, I hope the concerned authorities take note of this, and think in the right direction about these risks.

Pumping money in to Kaveri pays! and heavily too in the future.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 08 Oct 2012 22:39

http://idrw.org/?p=14745

On Tejas front , after successful test flight of LSP-7 in month on March this year, Nearly Seven months have passed but last of the Limited Series Production (LSP-8) aircraft still has not taken to air yet , nor any updates regarding its flight path has been informed in Media .

All eyes are now on Live Fire Power Demonstration which Indian air force will be carrying out next year in month of Feb; Where Interestingly Tejas MK-1 will be for first time show its fire power to the Top Ranks in the Indian air force. Sources say that Information on its current status will only flow after Live power Demonstration Next Year, and it is quite unlikely that SP-1 and SP-2 aircrafts will be handed over to Indian air force for their own evaluation and assessments and Actual handing over and first flight of this aircrafts may take place only next year and Handing over to IAF in mid of next year.

Second IOC (IOC-2) of Tejas which has already been delayed by 1 year and will be achieved if the Fire Power Demonstration to be held Next year is successful .Disappointing news is that work on first airframe of Tejas MK-2 which is supposed to take to air in end of 2013 has yet to begin.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Oct 2012 10:51

Aditya_V wrote:Sorry dont agree , Aim-9M can be intergrated with JF-17 only if Khan has agreed, for the aircraft radar to tell IR missile which target to hunt and whether lock has been achived requires significant American help.

Nope. It doesn't work like that. The sidewinder doesn't talk to the radar at all. The pilot aims the missile using a fixed reticule on the hud, and the seeker acquire the target. The only signal that come out of the missile from the GCU via the umbilical is the acquisition tone that tell you if the seeker found the target or not.

So, if you already have a sidewinder platform, you can take reference to that and integrate it with pretty much anything else. You need to:

1. Design a pylon with the release/ignition mechanism. Link it with your fire control buttons.
2. Make sure that the missile, when mounted, have a true boresight angle to the centre of the aircraft.
3. Add a reticule in the centre of the HUD/MFD.
4. Pick up the analog tone signal from the umbilical, and connect it to the audio system.

Piece of cake, if you have a working system, a multimeter and an oscilloscope.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Oct 2012 11:08

Dileep, Isnt the Aim-9M a digital missile, will the logic still work, Doesnt the use of American Missile on a Chinese Aircraft breaks Uncle terms of Sale.

Any other Nation other TSP would have been penalised for such behaviour???

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Oct 2012 12:11

The "Mike" version have a digital GCS, but the interface remains the same. The guidance is vastly superior on its own. That's all. There is no cueing.

It is the "X-Ray" variant that introduced the "cueing" capability, ie the capability to turn the 90 degree off boresight FPA to certain location to acquire the target. none of the previous versions have that capability. I don't think Pakis are talking about the X-Ray variant that entered service in 2003.

I agree on the legal part. It is illegal to mount the missile on other platforms. But you know pakis. They know how to screw unkils arse, and go scot free. You should give credit to them for that.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Oct 2012 12:49

IIRC the PAF had previously integrated AIM-9B's and others with the F6

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Oct 2012 13:30

IOC-2 is now September 2013. My guess is that it will slip further to end of 2013. FOC will probably be a year after that in case one is wildly optimistic.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Oct 2012 13:51

Lalmohan wrote:IIRC the PAF had previously integrated AIM-9B's and others with the F6

THat was in Cold war Nixon era when Russia was the enemy and Uncle cooperated, this was also before the digital age.

Lets a US State dep or POTUS make a public statement that integration of American Missile on Chinese Aircraft is ok.

Dileep- one question how does a Pilot know a Missile has locked on to target, that would require some cooperation Interating the source codes with the Chinese avionics on the Aircraft, so that the missile and pilot cockpit tones are talking the same language. Also, how the missile and HUD interface happen.

Don't think Chinese can do this independantly without American help.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Oct 2012 14:02

all the old stories of jet combat have tales of sidewinder growl in the pilots ear as it seeks and then higher pitch as it locks
agree that for digital aircraft, more integration is required
however if they are using standard data buses e.g. 1553b, which has been around for 20+ years, then it may not be too challenging

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Oct 2012 14:14

The missile gives out an audio signal that emits a lower frequency when the seeker scans, and a higher frequency when a target is acquired. This audio signal is directly connected to the headphone system. Very simple onlee.

The reticule on HUD/MFD is static. You just point it by turning the nose of the aircraft. The 'X-ray' version can be cued by the helmet. That is a different animal altogether.

You need software interface only if a stores management system is in place. And the only status needed for that system is "availabe/not available", which could be managed by linking with the firing system.

Remember, the aircrafts already have the chinese version of short range IR missile, which uses essentially the same system.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Oct 2012 15:27

Dileep, Doesnt the pilot need the Missile tracking the target on HUD and apart from Audio que have a visual cue on the HUD that target has been locked on, and more importantly how is IFF intergrated, the Pilot will want to know on HUD which aircraft the Missile is locked on to, like its the Bogey 5-miles way and not the wingman who flying near him. If he has does not know which aircraft it is locked on to, the missile is useless. Besides, logically speaking given the controls Uncle has I am sure there will be some software issues where Uncle will not want people buying Raytheon Missiles and Intergrating with Migs.

Otherwise what stops us from say putting Python V on a Su-30 or buy a Few Aim-9M's for Jaguar's.

Offcourse , we are talking about Fizzile YA here where Wingman's have shot down thier leader, and AA Alam counting kills which are downed sabres as Hunters.

- the last part I made up like the original Alam claim.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Oct 2012 18:21

The seeker of the sidewinder is pretty narrow angle. It will lock only on the target that it is pointed at. The initial models with the rotating mirror supported two modes. One the boresight mode with a small reticule on HUD, and the other scan mode with a wider reticule. The boresight mode is more sensitive, but can lock on a smaller cone of visibility. Scan mode is less sensitive, with a bigger cone of visibility. Both modes will lock onto the highest IR signature in the FOV. Flares work as decoys because of that. The later models like the Lima have wider FOVs, but still it just locked on onto the strongest IR signature.

All these tracking on a moving reticule, and IFF integration are for radar guided missiles. They do not work with the old sidewinders. You have to point them to where you want to shoot, and it will shoot down the brightest IR source, friend or foe.

That is how sidewinders work. The original spec was "electronics like a tabletop radio, mechanicals like a washing machine". It is a simple missile that works beautifully.

Even the X version are cued using the helmet, not the radar.

Otherwise what stops us from say putting Python V on a Su-30 or buy a Few Aim-9M's for Jaguar's.

Python is an entirely different animal. no comparison with sidewinder.

You can't integrate the sidewinders because unkil won't sell you any, you don't have any to misappropriate, and you can't steal. There is no technical difficulty to integrate the older version of sidewinder. THEN, we do have pretty good IR missiles in the form of R-73

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 21:01

snake 5 is way too advanced than the dessert snake. dessert snake does only appear going sideways by name, and totally dependent on its eye-less forward facing sensors. snake 5 is way ahead in lock on after launch, many control surface to guide to target, electro-optical, thrust vectoring, mach-4, and a definite all aspect death to any paki fighter jets.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2012 22:21

From DRDO site:

Telecast Schedule
Please watch Tejas - INSIDE OUT : DRDO episode on Discovery Channel.

Repeat Telecast on
23rd October 2012 - Tuesday at 1800 hr
28th October 2012 - Sunday at 1100 hr
30th October 2012 - Tuesday at 1600 hr

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Oct 2012 23:15

anyone that gets to see this, please record this one..

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 16 Oct 2012 10:17

Watched it in bits when it was telecasted....

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 16 Oct 2012 16:13

SaiK wrote:snake 5 is way too advanced than the dessert snake. dessert snake does only appear going sideways by name, and totally dependent on its eye-less forward facing sensors. snake 5 is way ahead in lock on after launch, many control surface to guide to target, electro-optical, thrust vectoring, mach-4, and a definite all aspect death to any paki fighter jets.

But do we have snake 5? I thought we have only snake 4. Snake 5 is eqvt of desert snake x

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 16 Oct 2012 18:45

I am not so sure if Python-5 is as effective as they claim, seems like it took 2 to shoot down a slow moving UAV recently. I still think Aim-9x block 2 should be the most effective short range IR missiles, no other missile in its class has been more tested or even combat proven to the same level. Even early versions proved deadly when used by the Issys.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 16 Oct 2012 18:50

Please no personal opinion.^^^^

proof should be given here

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2012 21:19

Septimus ... I have seen many a fanboy ... but fanboys of your caliber are really rare.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Oct 2012 21:46

here is the incident Septimus is referring to
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ranian-uav

video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7q4u1sj ... creen&NR=1

the drone appears to be a really small one - in the Nishant size ...

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Oct 2012 22:17

drones are not easy to get lock and shoot

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Oct 2012 22:21

nishant type bees hardly have any metal parts other than engine. baki all plastic, cardboard, rubber, very low IR signature...... hard to get a good lock I would agree.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Oct 2012 23:48

Some new pics of the Tejas were put up on the tejas.gov.in website.

Tejas detachment gallery

Looks like they were taken at some airbase in Rajasthan, perhaps Jaisalmer or Jodhpur.

note the asymmetrical load out on this Tejas. One drop tank on an inner wing pylon and no dummy R-73s on the outer wing pylons.

member_23844 · Post by **member_23844** » 17 Oct 2012 10:47

two fuel tanks and 4 air to air missiles seem to be give a low punch.I believe LCA should have 2 additional hardpoints under its belly to accommodate two additional AIR to AIR missiles.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Oct 2012 11:00

nakul wrote:LCA won't be like that. India needs a lot of planes & all our suppliers have wisened upto our money. They know this customer is rich and are pricing their wares accordingly. At the end of the day, IAF has a limited budget and they have to fulfil their needs within it. Unlike the IA, they can't get sufficient nos on imported maal. Gone are the days when we could barter Migs with rice & tea. The LCA is the only aircraft they can get in numbers within the 2 lakh crore rupees that have been allocated for the next 10 yrs. More than 3/4th of that amount is going to be taken up by Rafale & FGFA with Rafale procurement alone going for an amount greater than a lakh crore. The strings are going to be pulled tight and with the Chinese defence budget growing, they won't be reluctant to cover their shortcomings in quality by quantity.

My estimates per plane (including R&D)
FGFA - 800 crore (US$150 million)
Rafale - 800 crore (US$ 150 million)
LCA - 200 crore (US$ 37 million)

LCA will not be 37 million onleee.

Its going to be closer , when you include RnD , and delays and all to be closer to 50 million USD

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 17 Oct 2012 11:07

in the 4th pic from above, the pylon besides the drop tank is half white and marked with black squares. why it should be so? can it be some dummy payload for weapon release mechanism testing?

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Oct 2012 11:11

Kartik wrote:

Very interesting picture. Translated in Inglees .. it is testing out the radar's ground ranging and targeting modes. Notice that this flight is not carrying the laser designator (that pod is empty). Radar fully integrated and working onlee in A2G modes. The only things left is to test out the A2A BVR modes, and hopefully we will see the Tejas firing a Derby to take out a drone at long range.

Hallelujah!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Oct 2012 11:27

Glad to see those r-73 Hardpoints empty and asymetric loads, looks like the FBW has matured. Compared to other aircraft Tejas Pylons seem to take care to keep the Munitions Missiles away from the wing, it looks there is more than the foot away from the wing. Don't seem to see such a Gap in other 4g or 4G+ fighters.

Would love to see the flight test of the Derby.

Anyone have an idea of what the combat radius of Tejas on internal fuel? cause with only 6 hardpoints + 1 for FLIR, 2 for Drop tanks, just 4 for bombs and AAM does not seem to be enough, would love it to carry 2 derby's in the underbelly. -

BTW what is the orange coloured munition on the left outer Pylon in the first pic?.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 17 Oct 2012 11:46

^^^^^

IIRC Tejas has 7 + 1 hard points including ann underbelly hard point. Saw some pic somewhere but cannot seem to find it now. Gurus will probably shed more light on this.

The orange munition on the 1st pick is a practice bomb rack similar to the green one adjacent to it.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 17 Oct 2012 12:15

^^^ I think we should remember that this ia a LightCA. Not to be confused with heavier a/c. Not that there is no scope for addlitional hardpoints. But we have to leave it to the IAF to decide its role and focus. Besides, the MK1 is going to be limited production. The engine change for the MK2 will see it maturing and being even more of apaki/chini @rse kicker. Which the MK1 will alos do but in a more limted role.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 17 Oct 2012 12:22

The LCA ferry range is about 3000 km. That should allow it to operated without fuel tanks from forward bases, thus freeing up space for weapons. For CAP & CAS, the freed space will be better utilized by missiles & bombs. With larger nos, we can keep them closer to the sector where they are needed instead of doing a Khanesque mid air refuelling / external tanks from far away bases. Considering that IA does not have its own fixed wing fleet, LCA would need to be close to the deployed area for quick reaction time. For a Mig 21 replacement, the LCA Mk1 is more than sufficient. LCA Mk2 will be a true multirole aircraft & suitable for the next 30-40 yrs with regular upgrades.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 17 Oct 2012 12:47

Any idea whether the below 2 identified issues has been addressed :--
1. Issue with Air brakes located at the rear of LCA ?
2. Redesign of the pylons to improve aerodynamics ?

From the pics, I could see the pylons have not been changed but can't confirm.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Oct 2012 12:52

the french AF mirages have a single centerline pylon which is very tall, mounting dual LGBs.
you can see it in 2nd part of the video here - set to 3:19 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6okVNJ6Uos

we could borrow the rafale 3-racked concept and mount 2xAAM on each pylon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LwMzEjJ ... re=related

mody · Post by **mody** » 17 Oct 2012 13:04

No NEW news about the LCA program. This is getting really frustrating.
IOC being postponed to September '13 is also very puzzling. The LCA will be taking part in ground attack exercise prior to that and has already demonstrated A2G modes with dumb bombs and Laser guided bombs.
No comparable aircraft ever demonstrated these kind of capabilities prior to IOC during their development phase.

Speculation Alert:

I think the LCA program guys have kinda hit a wall. The whole testing program has been fairly conservative in its approach, and very risk averse. Now the designers are not sure about how to open up the flight envelope even more, while still being in the risk averse mode, and take the aircraft to designed performance limits. The flight envelope needs to be opened up so that the LCA can achieve high sustained turn rates and go upto 9G. Also the AoA needs to be increased to 28 degrees, from the currently achieved 22 degrees. The weight of the aircraft also needs to be analyzed to check if they can achieve any further reduction, especially for the Naval variant.
The aircraft does seem to have the potential to achieve the above performance specs.

It seems the design team is not sure how to test for the above performance specs, fast and without taking undue risk. A crash of an aircraft now, would certainly spell trouble for the program.
An external partner who can help with the testing of the aircraft for opening up flight envelope and achieving these performance specs is what is needed. A partner like Lockheed or someone similar would be able to help in not opening up the envelope to the above specs, but also help with Testing using the LSP6 aircraft, to really push the LCA to its limits.

-JMT

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 17 Oct 2012 13:58

^^^ they'll prolly get the 100 kN engine and good radar BEFORE they test at 9G and 28 AoA. To make sure that the IAF is all in with committed buys for all the numbers of LCA.

mody · Post by **mody** » 17 Oct 2012 14:23

The 100 KN (approx), engine is going to come with the GE 414. Today's comment CAS Browne says the contract for 99 engines has been signed.

But the bigger problem right now seems to be with the testing and more specifically, how to conclude the testing the requirements and finally certify the aircraft. The design team seems to stopped at the last hurdle of the testing phase and seem confounded as to how to go about finishing the last 10% or so of the tests to finish the testing and show the aircraft operating at its full design capabilities.

The MK1 can also go upto 9G and achieve AoA of 28 degrees and sustained high turn rates. Maybe with the low powered engine, it may not be able to do the same when fully loaded, but what about doing this with partial fuel load and no weapons? This would only be for testing out the aerodynamic performance of the plane and to test the flight control software to the max. With a more powerful engine, or conversely, slightly lower weight, the plane can have the full performance even when fully loaded.

It seems that if the LCA team had an external experienced hand to guide them with the testing program, over the last two years, the same would have been completed by now.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 17 Oct 2012 15:02

indranilroy wrote:Septimus ... I have seen many a fanboy ... but fanboys of your caliber are really rare.

Aim-9x block 2 is a very pragmatic weapon, name another A2A missile that is more combat proven (good luck finding a IR missile that has been tested as much as the Aim-9 series let alone been used in combat), moreover plans are out to upgrade the block 2 further. Besides testing is done on realistic QF-4 drones which are deploying flares in various flying angles. I seriously doubt any other a2a missile has been tested as much.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... rades.html

To me the failure for one Python-5 in shooting down a simple low profile UAV actually says a whole lot of things, firstly it may not be as effective as well though against low profile targets, so Spyder SAM with Python-5 doesn't suddenly make us less vulnerable to low flying subsonic cruise missiles. Secondly, it is unadvisable to buy a product that hasn't been tested enough.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aim9.html

Though an utter failure at first with only 16% kill probability for the aim-9 B , over the years that improved to over 80% for the Aim-9L used during the Falklands and by the Issys. Over the years we have had Aim-9x and now aim-9x Block 2 which IMO should have a kill probability of around 95% easily.

Plus production rates are extensive and price very good, this will lead to quick deliveries of large quantities and porbably local assembly/ manufacture if the order is large enough. Even the Jags now have the Raytheon munitions control unit, would be ideal to have the aim-9x block2 for it as well. LCA mk1/2, Jag are ideal candidates for the Aim-9X block 2/3 perhaps even the Rafale if costs of large orders to be kept in mind.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Oct 2012 15:22

Septimus not being combat proven is not a show stopper else no new weapon system will see active deployment. Moreover I consider it a very loosely used phrase on online forums to push one's pov. You should perhaps also give a thought to the fact that Israelis have seen as much air combat as any other airforce in the modern times and they are gradually switiching to Pythons from the Sidewinder now there could be more to it that just the capability of the missile as such however to make a claim that Python is an inferior missile system by quoting a failed test is amusing to say the least.