LCA News and Discussions

[pentaiah]

We trust the rust called MiG 21 but not the radiance of Tejas
Just get at least a squadron to actual end users and let them play with it for Pete's sake

[member_20292]

Even the Russian amb mentioned that Arihant submarine will have acoustic quitening of Akula class submarine ( Russian Typhoon class SSBN )

What NATO has termed Akula class is called Schuka / Pike class in Russia. This is 8000 tonnes. Arihant is 6000 tonnes.

What Nato has termed Typhoon class, is called Akula in Russia. This is 24000 tonnes big. Modern day Loch Ness monster.

[Austin]

Not a right thread to discuss but I am aware of those

[member_20292]

^^^ So, I wonder why you said that Arihant has dampening system designed for something 4 times bigger?

[member_24574]

Hi All,

Well this is my first post here after lurking in this forum for last 6 years ...

Some how i feel that the delay in LCA is mostly to blame on ADA, DRDO and HAL. I wish this should change by proper performance management for all this organizations since
we can not keep saying that it would be delivered soon ... rather we have done the delivery and we are working on the next set of challenges ... also i believe GOV of india should pay better to right people to get right products

[nvishal]

@podila.aditya
The people from HAL have influence(karebi dost) over the officials in the MoD.
Aside from that, HAL also has extreme well wishers in the civilian jingo arena.

1) MoD - Check
2) Civilian(PR) - Check

Who is left there to criticize or object?
This has enabled HAL to slither away from all its short-comings

[shiv]

Well this is my first post here after lurking in this forum for last 6 years ...

Some how i feel that the delay in LCA is mostly to blame on ADA, DRDO and HAL.

Welcome Aditya. This is how I am starting to see the issue.

The LCA is looking like a partial success because PSUs have been forced to work on their own and import less than 100%. Until programs like LCA and IGMDP came, all PSUs were merely changing the label on imported goods and selling as their own. I am sure BEL, BEML, HVF, HAL have all being doing only that. BEL builds imported radars, NVGs and other equipment, HVF builds imported tanks, BEML builds imported trucks, HAL builds imported aircraft. All these government owned companies have been passed off as "indigenous manufacturers" for decades and it is we who are the fools. No ask. No tell. No wonder we have no serious technological base after 65 years.

You ask them to make something of their own that has less than 100% imported content, then you get results like LCA Tejas, Arjun, INSAS, IJT, HTT-40, Kaveri etc. They are all partially indigenous (less then 100% import content) , have some good features, but are interminably delayed

[Kartik]

cross-posting from the Aero India thread, since this is almost totally about the Tejas Mk1, N-LCA, Tejas Mk2 and N-LCA Mk2

Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won’t describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA). I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn’t hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.

- Tejas LSP6 is the platform on which the spin chute will be integrated but it’s not here as yet. Will get done before FOC.
- Tejas Mk1 has achieved the IOC AoA limit of 22 deg and they will go a couple of degrees further in tests, when the spin chutes are integrated on LSP6. This is to ensure that they know that the airplane is safe even at higher alpha although the FBW will restrict it to the AoA limit for FOC for service pilots (which is higher than 22 deg, but he didn’t say how much)
- Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri’s airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.
- Tejas MK2 will get an approx 10mm increase in diameter for the increased air flow requirement of the F-414 (Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj confirmed this as well). Too small a difference to be visible to the naked eye for us jingos. The spring mounted doors may also be bigger if needed
- When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”. When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure. He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.
- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It’s a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn’t push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.
- When I asked him whether the Navy fully backs the NLCA program, he laughed and said “I’m here, aren’t I?”. So all in all, it appears that the IN is backing the program fully
- NP1 hasn’t flown more than 4 flights because they’re re-designing some of the structures on board. This is the additional strengthening required for handling the thumping that is a carrier landing. The landing gear is being re-designed since its overweight and NP2 is going to fly soon.
- I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should’ve started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1. The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn’t have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won’t face since it’s a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren’t the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.
- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

At this point he had to leave and I was disappointed since I hadn’t gotten to discussing anything about the Elta 2032/MMR, Litening LDP and the weapons on the Mk1 such as the Derby/Python V/R-77/Astra and Sudarshan..

[Kartik]

Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”.. Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:

- The Tejas Mk2 is being lengthened by 0.5m only and not 1m as that big gasbag Prasun Sengupta was fibbing about. We really ought to never take him seriously at all. The reason cited were CG change primarily.
- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.
- The fuselage on the Mk2 will be slightly wider as well due to the larger diameter of the F-414 engine. This will be used to put onboard additional fuel
- The widening of the fuselage will push out the wings a bit, thus increasing wing span. Otherwise no increase in wing span as such. It doesn’t need it, since the wing area is massive already
- Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.
- He confirmed that the intake size will go up by approx. 10 mm for the Mk2.
- There is a LOT of work that is required to be done due to engine change. This is something jingos must keep in mind since jingos keep asking if this or that engine can be used or not on a platform..pumps, motors, fuel supply lines, nearly everything associated with the engine requires re-design due to an engine change due to higher fuel flow rates for a larger engine and the different specs of the power generation on board. Plus, the higher weight means localized structural strengthening as well, all of which takes time
- N-LCA will be an out and out 9G fighter. He was categorical about this.
- NP1 trainer doesn’t have a radar- the radome is used for carrying avionics. He said he was more interested in the NP2 since it was the first fighter and was going to carry the same radar as that on the Sea Harrier. I tried to quiz him on this because the Elta 2032 on the Sea Harrier is not the same as the Elta 2032/MMR on the Tejas Mk1, but he didn’t stop what he was saying.
- NP2 is basically similar to the NP1, but with the rear seater’s canopy painted over (he said that! I asked if it was faired over and he said no, just painted over). The rear seater’s space will carry avionics (that were put into the radome on the NP1) and additional fuel tank.
- NP1’s LEVCONS will be initially having 3 positions- 10 deg, 20 deg and 30 deg, just like flap settings. I tried to ask him if the LEVCONS would be just lift generating surfaces or that they could be used as additional control surfaces by the FBW FCS to increase turn rates but he said that they were primarily required for higher lift when landing and taking off
- They’re working on the hands-free take-off for the N-LCA. He said that it was no big deal and they’ll do it for sure
- Mk2 is to get bigger MFD displays, but he said that even the ones on the Mk1 are actually good and possibly adequate
- One piece of news that will get some jingos happy- he said that he has asked CSIO Chandigarh to develop a frameless HUD instead of the current one. It’ll feature higher FoV and its easier to view through since there is no frame obstructing the pilot’s view.
- DASH HMDS from Elbit for the N-LCA as well. I had initially thought they’d go with the Thales Top Owl-F as on the MiG-29K
- Just as I suspected, I asked him if the current drop tank is transonic- he confirmed that it is. A supersonic tank is being developed to carry about 200 gal. (~750 ltrs)
- Also confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the centerline fuel tank – since we almost never see Tejas Mk1 carry a centerline fuel tank in place of the innermost wing pylon drop tanks. If required, Mk1s can carry drop tank on the centerline station also
- Regarding IFR, it is Cobham that is going to work on it. Asked if it’s a fixed probe, retractable or semi-retractable, it was confirmed to be semi-retractable, like that on the MiG-29UPG. I asked about the lack of internal volume on such a small fighter for even a semi-retractable probe and he said that its going to be a small probe, and they’ll manage to find the space for it
- No OBOGS on Tejas Mk1 or NP1. It’ll be there from Mk2 onwards. Designed by DEBEL and certified by CEMILAC
- Regarding the landing gear, he said it was 1600 kgs over the Tejas Mk1’s landing gear weight initially!! They designed it per MilSpec which was too conservative. Also, in addition to the general Factor of Safety that is needed for Ultimate Loads, they added another Factor of Safety of 1, for a total of 2.5 because it was being done for the first time in India and they were concerned about the design..and used maraging steel which was heavy.
- He clearly said that before the NP1 first flight, none of the OEMs even believed that this program had any future and no one cooperated with them when asked for help. Then, when NP1 flew, they were interested in helping out.
- US Navy is now consulting with them on where to reduce weight, what other materials to use. All the leg work is done here itself though, and no work is being done by foreign OEMs. They are confident of shaving off 1000 kgs and bringing it to 600 kgs over the LCA AF version’s landing gear weight for the N-LCA
- On the N-LCA Mk2 they will change the position of the landing gear and bring it more towards the wing/fuselage joint. The landing gear will then retract into a fairing for that. That will also free up space in the fuselage for additional fuel
- Regarding radar, he said that they are pretty confident about it. The reason is that they’re using the same Elta 2032 as on the Sea Harrier! Since they’ve already qualified that radar for the Derby, he was pretty confident about the Derby on the N-LCA. Asked about the Python-V he said that it’s the R-73 that’ll be the WVR weapon..when I asked him how come the Python V was shown on the mockup outside, he said it’s just a mockup. Wasn’t very clear about this
- Shockingly about the radar, when I asked about what increased range one might get with the Elta 2032 since the diameter of the antenna on the N-LCA will be bigger than that on the LUSH SHar, he replied that there is no increase in range, its more than sufficient..I asked him specifically again that “really same detection range?” and he said yes. Again not very clear about this
- When quizzed about AESA for the N-LCA Mk2, he said that for now it’s the same Elta 2032 and Cmde Mao had recently even gone to Israel to test the radar that will be used on the N-LCA Mk2. Here, he mentioned that “if you get anything from Israel, just take it. Their equipment is very good”. Then went on to mention how the Barak was tested on the Viraat and was successful on its very first trial with 2 missiles fired. The first hit the target and the second hit its debris!
- He confirmed that the anti-ship missile for the N-LCA is going to be the Kh-35E, similar to the MiG-29K. Laughed when recollecting how poor the Sea Eagle was as an AShM.
- Primary role envisaged for the N-LCA is that of CAP and Fleet Defence, replacing the Sea Harrier. He was quite dismissive about the P-3C Orion threat (jokingly saying that to shoot that down, a gun is enough!:P), but was primarily concerned about the cruise missile and anti-ship missile threat to the Carrier. But he mentioned that a Carrier Battle Group consists of several rings of protection for the carrier, and that the carrier will get warned about any possible airborne threat several hundred kms before it even approached it. With that much warning, a N-LCA could dash to the edge of the fleet and take on the threat.
- When I asked him if shooting down sub-sonic anti-ship missiles with on-board missiles was a possible scenario for the N-LCA, he replied in the affirmative
- When he mentioned this, I asked him how good the Elta 2032 was with regards to dealing with sea clutter and he said that its very good.
- NP2 is currently already going through integration tests. Will likely fly in June or July if no issues are found.
- NP1 has given them a lot of data for how the platform behaves in 4 flights itself
- Said how the LCA is designed as per the Test Pilot’s recommendations- whatever they want, ADA/HAL give it to them. He said let the IAF get the Rafale and then ask for these small changes and then they’ll figure out just how hard it is to get anything they want. On the N-LCA, we can integrate whatever we want, and for the entire lifetime of the fighter. Easier upgrades will be available since everything is known about the aircraft to the designers

I had to leave at this point since my friend who I’d met after 6 years was in a hurry to leave so we could escape the impending traffic snarl. Thanked the Cmdr profusely and got his card as well. I asked for some other brochures on the Mk2 and he said that he could give me a soft copy of it. To date, I’ve never had so much come from a single conversation at any airshow or business show. Very competent fellows are working on these programs. They need our support and encouragement. Those who are constantly piling it on them, with negative reports are basically doing this nation a great dis-service. Criticize the organization perhaps for its failings, but those who are working on these programs are to be commended and encouraged.

[shiv]

+1 Kartik. I haven't read such an informed post re Aero India on BRF since my early teens.

About LSP 6. There appears to be no hurry in getting it to fly and test AoA. They will put software limiters at current AoA and proceed gradually with testing so the AoA increase might come only after FOC

[Kartik]

thank you Shiv saab..BTW, was BRF around in your early teens?!

[PratikDas]

Kartik ji, thank you so much for that update. It was to me like water is to a nomad.

[Yogi_G]

- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

Maybe this was discussed on BRF and I missed it. This does indeed come as a big surprise to me, shows that the mk1 is a very competent fighter by itself and is in no way short on anything. Kick to guys like me who thought mk1 wasnt a full fledged dog fighter and mk2 will fill that spot. Then LCA in its current from is way >>> than mig 21 bison ++. Somehow my entire outlook on the LCA mk1 has changed now...

[Austin]

Great Update Kartik , Kudos !

[suryag]

Kartik ji you are really awesome, thanks for the great report. These stars should have an open house for BRFites where all questions can be asked.

did you get to talk to the other star Gp.Capt Suneet Krishna?

[vina]

- Tejas Mk1 has achieved the IOC AoA limit of 22 deg and they will go a couple of degrees further in tests, when the spin chutes are integrated on LSP6. This is to ensure that they know that the airplane is safe even at higher alpha although the FBW will restrict it to the AoA limit for FOC for service pilots (which is higher than 22 deg, but he didn’t say how much)

Nice post ! My guess is that the in service Tejas will be alpha limited to between 26 to 28 deg with sufficient gust margin. You need that much alpha for the Tejas to pull the full 9Gs consistently in our conditions. Currently I guess with around 22 deg alpha Tejas is pulling around 7G or so.

The LSP-6 will explore the real high alpha regimes 33 deg+ like the NASA's F-18 which was specifically set up to do it.

When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”. When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.

Perfect ! It is great that the word gets back to the services via their own folks embedded in the program about their Brouchuritis! Putting stuff like .. M2K's ITR + a few deg, and Mig-29 STR + a few deg is a killer combo.

- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

Oh. I wouldn't worry about it. It will come when it comes. I will put money on us having a Naval variant on our carriers.

[Yogi_G]

Not sure if it will be OT here, but since LCA has been a learning experience and based on what Sri Mao has said, if we do have a plan of a naval AMCA down the line shouldnt we first come up with a naval AMCA and then come up with the land based one?

[nikhil_p]

My paanwallah was right!

We do a disservice to both the Mig21Bison and the LCA Tejas when we compare them. The Bison was designed to be a point defence a/c, the Tejas is a swing role plane. It is more like a Bison + Jag Darin 3 + Mig 27, with the endurance and 'hit' ability of a Mig23/29, the agility of a Mirage2000 and the AoA of a Su30.

Yes, there is brochuritis but Kudos to the LCA team to have delivered on what was expected.

[srai]

+1 Kartik

[vina]

Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”.. Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:

Cmdr Nagaraj and Cmde Maolankar were incredibly nice to you. I can imagine myself in your place and saying that I do YumBeeYea-giri and I am self employed at a small company, the conversation would have ended right there. For them to take you seriously and continue talking itself is a big thing.

- The fuselage on the Mk2 will be slightly wider as well due to the larger diameter of the F-414 engine. This will be used to put onboard additional fuel
--- and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.
-- On the N-LCA Mk2 they will change the position of the landing gear and bring it more towards the wing/fuselage joint. The landing gear will then retract into a fairing for that. That will also free up space in the fuselage for additional fuel

I had written earlier how the Navy's undercarriage is probably going to end up like the one in Mig-29 and SU-30 ,mounted at the wing/fuselage join and retracting into a fairing, freeing up the current fuselage wheel wells for fuel. The IAF probably needs to think on these lines as well and put a less heavy duty undercarriage in a Navy MK2 like layout and get the internal fuel advantage. The engineering is going to happen for that. Might as well use it.

- Regarding radar, he said that they are pretty confident about it. The reason is that they’re using the same Elta 2032 as on the Sea Harrier! Since they’ve already qualified that radar for the Derby, he was pretty confident about the Derby on the N-LCA. Asked about the Python-V he said that it’s the R-73 that’ll be the WVR weapon..when I asked him how come the Python V was shown on the mockup outside, he said it’s just a mockup. Wasn’t very clear about this

Don't worry. It will get an AESA radar eventually.

[shiv]

thank you Shiv saab..BTW, was BRF around in your early teens?!

Of course! Would the forum software tell lies?

shiv
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 20118

[SagarAg]

Kartik ji iss jingo ka dil khush kar diya aapne.

[SaiK]

kudos kartik

[putnanja]

Thanks Kartik! That was one informative post, which sadly, no so called "defence journalist" has been able to ask so far!

Did you ask about the max G tested so far? Any info on the weapons tested so far? for both A2G/A2A? Has the A2A missiles been tested with the radar so far? Any BVR tests?

[SagarAg]

Thanks Kartik! That was one informative post, which sadly, no so called "defence journalist" has been able to ask so far!

Did you ask about the max G tested so far? Any info on the weapons tested so far? for both A2G/A2A? Has the A2A missiles been tested with the radar so far? Any BVR tests?

I think you will get to know this in the upcoming Iron Fist show. LCA Tejas is taking part in it I suppose.

[NRao]

Very interesting:

- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

Wonder if the current set of OCs would/should suffice for the IAF to place more orders in that case. Or just be patient and let IN take care of matters. The way I see it is that the IAF should not complain much here on out. ?????

[vishvak]

- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

Maybe this was discussed on BRF and I missed it. This does indeed come as a big surprise to me, shows that the mk1 is a very competent fighter by itself and is in no way short on anything.
..
Somehow my entire outlook on the LCA mk1 has changed now...

Remembering here a post earlier in another forum from my side, on importance of defense institutes amongst other things.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1396585

However reality can be be better, it seems. How over decades Indians in general for LCA and defense personnel in particular have surmounted challenges.

Considering how powerful LCA naval variants could be, it might initiate a new era if the effectiveness and power of the fighter jet is considered, along with prowess of ship building capabilities. In a straightforward manner, there could be smaller carrier ships designed, along with indigenous engines, for one or two squadrons each with groups sharing indigenous support logistics etc. The genius, efforts etc of Indian defense personnel could be leveraged here clearly to push a defense scenario with enough elbow room to be driven bottoms-up or top-down approach.

The international naval scenarios are also going to change, considering how Russians are going to build aircraft carriers as well. Not to miss how Americans have not held themselves back to enquirer weight-reduction in LCA, in spite of decades of naval prowess. There is enough scope here for Russians and Indian naval forces. Considering how Russian and Indian naval approach and fronts are different, each can learn from other considerably. Such opportunities are to be leveraged, and not hidden under any rhetorics. Better not to bind ourselves in illusionary bounds within the whole of Indian ocean.

It is perhaps important to find out how much time it has taken for changes made for engines. That its bigger size and weight may have led to bigger fuselage is great, but this too should be used as an advantage when next make of the fighter jets come out. Better fighter jets may need better engines and approach as well in the sense that engine should not be a majorly a limiting factor majorly, in environments.

[SaiK]

see... we still need to satisfy the outliers that comes up often from the user community. unless, some approved channel comes up and says, DDM is just plain and simple rubbish.

besides, i am taking all those as constructive aspects of maturity.

[srin]

Wow - awesome post sir. Makes up for all the information starvation this time around.

- NP1’s LEVCONS will be initially having 3 positions- 10 deg, 20 deg and 30 deg, just like flap settings. I tried to ask him if the LEVCONS would be just lift generating surfaces or that they could be used as additional control surfaces by the FBW FCS to increase turn rates but he said that they were primarily required for higher lift when landing and taking off

This answers my unasked question on why IAF LCA didn't have the LEVCONS if it helped maneuvreability so much.

- Primary role envisaged for the N-LCA is that of CAP and Fleet Defence, replacing the Sea Harrier. He was quite dismissive about the P-3C Orion threat (jokingly saying that to shoot that down, a gun is enough!:P), but was primarily concerned about the cruise missile and anti-ship missile threat to the Carrier. But he mentioned that a Carrier Battle Group consists of several rings of protection for the carrier, and that the carrier will get warned about any possible airborne threat several hundred kms before it even approached it. With that much warning, a N-LCA could dash to the edge of the fleet and take on the threat.

I'm still trying to understand if tactically having lighter and smaller LCA's is much more preferrable than having heavier and larger mig-29k's. Would the decrease in the payload carried by each fighter be balanced by the increase in number (and I don't know by how much).

Mind you, I'm amazed at the IN attitude but still curious from a very technical viewpoint. If IN _wanted_ to say no to NLCA, they could have easily come up with a dozen justifiable ones.

[SagarAg]

Mind you, I'm amazed at the IN attitude but still curious from a very technical viewpoint. If IN _wanted_ to say no to NLCA, they could have easily come up with a dozen justifiable ones.

This just shows the difference between who are seriously serious about indigenous developments & efforts and who just have the thinking "Ghar ki murgi daal barabar". Ahem Ahem..

[Kanson]

Nice one to read, Kartik!

[vishvak]

Mind you, I'm amazed at the IN attitude but still curious from a very technical viewpoint. If IN _wanted_ to say no to NLCA, they could have easily come up with a dozen justifiable ones.

This just shows the difference between who are seriously serious about indigenous developments & efforts and who just have the thinking "Ghar ki murgi daal barabar". Ahem Ahem..

A reason could be that as an evolving jets could have 'different' versions based on different factors. At prototype stage it is nice to have a set of 'exact match' parts that make the whole plane over time. It is perhaps very important to have a level of 'synergy' in evolving different versions such that the 'exact' match does not become a weak link in production/logistics. A few on-time delivery of top-of-the-line foreign aircrafts by purchase arrangements however may have an effect of its own but can't overshadow issues that are indigenous.

[Indranil]

Somebody chipkao Kartik's posts.

[A Sharma]

kartik for Nishan-e-Haider

[Surya]

Sagar got a point

the awesome support from Boeing comes at the X billion price tag

How much are the local users willing to pay for that sort of support? or is it the expectation that you are local\PSU \desi so it should be cheaper

Want to know how Ecuador feels about post deplyment support

[pankajs]

Thank you for the update Kartik saar.

On LCA radar, here is a report from the defense-update.com. Not sure how reliable the information is.
Advanced Systems Improve Tejas’ Fighting Skills

The LCA will also carry the EL/M-2052 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar developed by IAI Elta. Originally, the EL/M-2032 was selected but the new 2052 now available with a more compact antenna is best designed to fit the nose cones of LCA and Jaguar, offering enhanced capabilities for both fighters. This agile radar, along with the DASH-3 helmet mounted display sight from Elbit Systems will enable a Tejas pilot to acquire targets at all combat ranges and engage them in full sphere, shooting the missiles by merely looking at the target, without having to maneuver the LCA toward the target, thus making the Tejas much more potent than the sum of its aerodynamic capabilities offer.

Also, from their Aero India 2013 Photo Report

EL/M-2052 showing the two module architecture of the new system, designed to fit into compact spaces like the LCA nose cone

EL/M2052 AESA radar to be integrated in the LCA

[Sancho]

Hi Kartik, very interesting infos thanks!

- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

Confirms my view about AMCA beeing totally developed without taking the requirements of the forces to account and mainly AGAIN, with the interests of ADA/DRDO.
Sad, but no wonder that IN is happy to get anything, even if it is only N-LCA.

- The fuselage on the Mk2 will be slightly wider as well due to the larger diameter of the F-414 engine. This will be used to put onboard additional fuel

- Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

That would be highly disappointing, since the additional fuel was an IN requirement as well and needed since the ski-jump take off alone requires much fuel.
If you are right about that, even with additional fuel, the additional weight of the naval version will further reduce the range with internal fuel. That again would mean N-LCA MUST take off with 2 wing fuel tanks even in CAP roles, to offer sufficient endurance, which limits the weaponload to just 2 x BVR missiles and 2 x WVR missiles.

Sadly you couldn't ask him about the payload limitations of N-LCA, beeing operated from a STOBAR carrier. Would be interesting to finally get a confirmation, that this is very limited as expected as well.

- Mk2 is to get bigger MFD displays, but he said that even the ones on the Mk1 are actually good and possibly adequate

Again a confirmation, that all the bragging about 5th cockpit displays in the media, was purely based on DRDOs behalf.

- Shockingly about the radar, when I asked about what increased range one might get with the Elta 2032 since the diameter of the antenna on the N-LCA will be bigger than that on the LUSH SHar, he replied that there is no increase in range, its more than sufficient..I asked him specifically again that “really same detection range?” and he said yes. Again not very clear about this
- When quizzed about AESA for the N-LCA Mk2, he said that for now it’s the same Elta 2032

That again would be highly disappointing, since LCA was developed with a good nose diameter in mind. But didn't the navy required AESA radar for N-LCA MK2 whatsoever and if he talks about EL2032, does it mean non of the LCAs will come with the indigenous puls doppler radar?
Did you got any status on that?

[Sancho]

I'm still trying to understand if tactically having lighter and smaller LCA's is much more preferrable than having heavier and larger mig-29k's. Would the decrease in the payload carried by each fighter be balanced by the increase in number (and I don't know by how much).

If there would be a tactical advantage by having smaller fighters only, all air forces and navies around the world would go for them, instead of bigger fighters especially for the air superiority roles. Operating them from a carrier with ski-jump take off makes the situation even worse, not better.
As said in my last post, taking off alone requires much fuel, but even in CAP roles the fighter needs sufficient ammount of fuel to have a good endurance. But the minute N-LCA needs to take the wing fuel tanks in any role, it's limitation to just 3 wingstation will be a huge burden wrt weapon loads.
The Mig 29K here will have a clear advantage over N-LCA, able to carry even 3 fuel tanks if neccessary and still having enough hardpoints free for 6 x AAMs.
If N-LCA will have the EL2032 only, the Mig might even have the better range with the Zhuk ME, better load and range capabilities too, so the only advantage of N-LCA would be a smaller RCS.

If IN _wanted_ to say no to NLCA, they could have easily come up with a dozen justifiable ones.

They have no choice, since this is the only development that will be done for them and even that only as a navalised air force version, which alone has it's limitation. So they have to back it up and show support, even if it's not a good carrier fighter.

[vasu raya]

Wouldn't widening the fuselage in the Mk2 have the same impact as adding CFT's wrt turn rates and transonic regimes?

[NRao]

Why is it that we compare one-to-one - as in NLCA to a MiG-29K. IIRC Kartik's post, per the IN guy, stated that the LCA would be adequate (will need to look it up again). The NLCA will not be operating in a vacuum. There should be other assets that will assist the NLCA.

BTW, the LCA was designed in the 80s to take care of the F-16C.

- Primary role envisaged for the N-LCA is that of CAP and Fleet Defence, replacing the Sea Harrier. He was quite dismissive about the P-3C Orion threat (jokingly saying that to shoot that down, a gun is enough!:P), but was primarily concerned about the cruise missile and anti-ship missile threat to the Carrier. But he mentioned that a Carrier Battle Group consists of several rings of protection for the carrier, and that the carrier will get warned about any possible airborne threat several hundred kms before it even approached it. With that much warning, a N-LCA could dash to the edge of the fleet and take on the threat.