LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 20:36

agree. of course, it wont be as simple as TA+AP, which is why I said simplistically speaking .. a pilot flying low can rely on a mix of AP for some waypoints and TA for warnings.. but a dedicated TFR mode will be more complex.

i don't particularly care if TFR isn't on Uttam. need of hour is to achieve decent A2A and A2G performance and operationalize. then refine as need be.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Feb 2015 20:37

You guys are giving ideas to lifafa and ppt giri gang.

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 25 Feb 2015 21:50

Another view of LCA on static display
Click

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 25 Feb 2015 21:55

negi saab ...even sukhois don't have both TA and TF mode in their radars, i guess su-30s carry external pod for that purpose . The last mig-29 that crashed on the Himalayas could have been avoided if it had TAR screaming at the pilot.

wig · Post by **wig** » 26 Feb 2015 14:39

CSIO develops naval variant of head-up display for Tejas

HUD: An electro-optical instrument
•CSIO scientists said the naval variant of the HUD, an electro-optical instrument installed above the cockpit's instrument panel, is different from the other versions
•The primary difference between the ship-borne and land-borne versions is the vertical field of view. The pilot of a naval aircraft should also be able to see the deck of the ship, which is much shorter than conventional runways, from approach and take-off angles that are different while operating from airfields, a scientist said.

When the indigenously developed Tejas light combat aircraft’s naval version made its successful test-flight from a ski-jump a few days ago, feeding vital flight parameters to the pilot was a gadget designed and fabricated in Chandigarh.
The Head-up Display (HUD) installed in the cockpit is a product of the Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO), which has developed various versions of the gadget for the Tejas’ air force variant as well as the jet trainer being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
CSIO scientists said the naval variant of the HUD, an electro-optical instrument installed above the cockpit’s instrument panel, is different from the other versions as the environmental and technical specifications vary according to operating requirement.
“The primary difference between the ship-borne and land-borne versions is the vertical field of view. The pilot of a naval aircraft should also be able to see the deck of the ship, which is much shorter than conventional runways, from approach and take-off angles that are different while operating from airfields,” a scientist said.
Also, the HUD for naval aircraft has to cater to high radiation levels, which are five times higher on a ship than on the ground. Besides the cockpit configuration of the air force and naval aircraft being different, the onboard systems for naval aircraft have to be more rugged to cater to the harder landings on ships.
The HUD superimposes vital flight parameters on the pilot’s vision of the outside world, giving him requisite information like air speed, altitude, weapon status, rate of turn and angle of attack at a glance and without having him to peer down inside the cockpit, thus enabling him to fly with his “head up”.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 46987.html

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 26 Feb 2015 15:03

youtube has a short ground gun firing video.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Feb 2015 15:11

Who is manufacturing this CSIO-HUD? Samtel makes the HUD for the Su-30 MKI. Samtel also signed an MOU with SAAB to license produce the RIGS HUD for helicopters.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 26 Feb 2015 16:13

Shreeman wrote:youtube has a short ground gun firing video.

Posted on U tube by a Rakshak.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 26 Feb 2015 21:03

Shaun wrote: negi saab ...even sukhois don't have both TA and TF mode in their radars, i guess su-30s carry external pod for that purpose . The last mig-29 that crashed on the Himalayas could have been avoided if it had TAR screaming at the pilot.

A pod for TA/TF functions sounds good, it an be used on many platforms that do not have a radar and since the capability is will be growing overtime, they can start with slow flying choppers first then transports doing LAPES and then onto fighters. Hopefully C-130 allows for integration from such an external pod.

In those Red flag exercises, the fighters carried ACMI pods for recording and later debriefing purposes and also letting the AEW systems their location all the time. In peacetime this tool can be invaluable for all weather flying in the mountains. Wonder if the ACMI is just a radio or uses INS/GPS functions independent of the platform, operational IRNSS would be a boon if its the latter.

Supposedly on the Mig-29 crash there was an Su-30 flying overhead and if its imagery of the terrain and the Mig-29's location through the ACMI pod is overlapped, the TA function could have been made active. Verbal communication alone between pilots wasn't going to cut it.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Feb 2015 23:44

I couldn't spot any news on the amount of fuel increased for Mk2 Airforce and the completely redesigned Mk2 for Navy, which might be carrying a lot more.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Feb 2015 06:21

wouldn't this be dangerous to do? ricochet off the ground to hit the fuselage?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 27 Feb 2015 06:48

vasu raya wrote:
Shaun wrote: negi saab ...even sukhois don't have both TA and TF mode in their radars, i guess su-30s carry external pod for that purpose . The last mig-29 that crashed on the Himalayas could have been avoided if it had TAR screaming at the pilot.
A pod for TA/TF functions sounds good, it an be used on many platforms that do not have a radar and since the capability is will be growing overtime, they can start with slow flying choppers first then transports doing LAPES and then onto fighters. Hopefully C-130 allows for integration from such an external pod.

In those Red flag exercises, the fighters carried ACMI pods for recording and later debriefing purposes and also letting the AEW systems their location all the time. In peacetime this tool can be invaluable for all weather flying in the mountains. Wonder if the ACMI is just a radio or uses INS/GPS functions independent of the platform, operational IRNSS would be a boon if its the latter.

Supposedly on the Mig-29 crash there was an Su-30 flying overhead and if its imagery of the terrain and the Mig-29's location through the ACMI pod is overlapped, the TA function could have been made active. Verbal communication alone between pilots wasn't going to cut it.

Even EL/M 2032 currently in tejas have TA mode. I confused LANTIRN with LITENING POD that MKIs carry. Anyway we can move the discussion to radar and spec thread.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Feb 2015 08:38

On the Mig-29 crash, the a/c did not crash into ground but side face of a mountain at 15,000+ feet. And that too at almost the apex of the peak. And there was no Su-30 flying overhead but another Mig-29.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 27 Feb 2015 08:53

^^^
Yes , it was also night fly ops and that's why i am telling , TA could have avoided that crash .

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Feb 2015 09:20

^ We do not know what caused the crash , besides in the Himalayas any TA will be tested to it's limits, 15000 ft in himalayas is like flying at ground level and we do not have comprehensive terrain contour maps of the our terrain nor do we have access to our own GPS sat network , hell we don't even know if GPS signals are available throughout the Himalayan region.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Feb 2015 10:21

negi wrote:^ We do not know what caused the crash , besides in the Himalayas any TA will be tested to it's limits, 15000 ft in himalayas is like flying at ground level and we do not have comprehensive terrain contour maps of the our terrain nor do we have access to our own GPS sat network , hell we don't even know if GPS signals are available throughout the Himalayan region.

No, GPS signals are not available in the Himalayan region.

naved · Post by **naved** » 27 Feb 2015 11:10

^^ Wouldn't that really depend on whether you have LOS to a satellite that may be on the horizon. There may be local/temporary black holes, but it would be wrong to say that the Himalayan region has no GPS coverage

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Feb 2015 11:31

^^^ Okay, correction, there is GPS signal but the coordinates are way off (sometimes southern hemisphere). As a standard rule forget GPS anywhere near IB and J&K. It is done artificially.

Anyways, there are existing SOPs on use and over reliance on GPS while operating in the Armed Forces. If you rely heavily, you may land in Lahore when you wanted to go to Amritsar.

Secondly, GPS signals suffer losses in rough weather (heavy clouding for one) and in hills weather is always rough. One valley may be clear and bright but never bet on the next valley when you turn or hop a pass.

Sometimes, and very strangely though GPS signals have held steady even in very rough weather and I am one of those who lived to tell the tale because the GPS did not give up.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Feb 2015 13:45

Coming back to the "snail's pace" of the M-2000 upgrade,isn't it obvious? If you take so long for an upgrade of an old aircraft,any aircraft not necessarily the M-2000,obsolescence will set in faster and the cost ,$2.4B would've been wasted .How would these "upgrades" compete with newer aircraft fielded by our enemies? For that price as I've said before,we could've picked up 70-80 brand new MIG-29Ks which cost us just $32m a piece! The 60+ 29 upgrades are costing us less than $1B.

The point I was making was the lack of any model of the LCA Mk-2,that too after 2 air shows.yes,I've been to the last two and to every BLR air show from inception.The NLCA differences are not in Q at all. There was a recent report that the Mk-2 design had been "finalised".Is there any more info on this? In contrast,the AMCA model was quite well made.One wished for more info. esp. weaponry to be carried.

Looking at the comments in above posts about the HF-24,one cannot help feeling what a great tragedy it was and wasted opportunity . It was a beautiful aircraft.Internal weapons bay at that time.The Egyptians were supposed to share the Helwan engine with us,but after the Israelis effectively sabotaged that project,we were up the creek.Engine wise we've been up the creek ever since! I also think that the HF-24s fate was also due to western nations not wanting us to develop our own independent aerospace industry,esp. engine tech.Those were Cold War days. At that time,we were buying British and French aircraft.The Gnat wasn't considered even by the Brits.Teddy Petter's effort was an individual effort,brilliant, acclaimed by Flight mag for shooting down a Mirage in the '71 war and for its simplicity of concept and long life in the IAF. The Brits wanted us to by that turkey the Lightning! Fortunately we chose the MIG-21 which has served us well for over 50 years and the Bison expected to serve us until 2025.

KM though at fault on many issues,believed in a robust national defence industry. If only we can get our LCA act together upon a war footing...

PS:Did anyone attend the MKI future development briefing by Sukhoi? I unfortunately missed it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2015 09:20

SaiK wrote: wouldn't this be dangerous to do? ricochet off the ground to hit the fuselage?

What is ricocheting off the ground? If you are talking about hot gases they are emanating from near the fuselage in the first place.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Feb 2015 10:16

shiv wrote:
SaiK wrote: wouldn't this be dangerous to do? ricochet off the ground to hit the fuselage?
What is ricocheting off the ground? If you are talking about hot gases they are emanating from near the fuselage in the first place.

The empty shell of the rounds being fired...could they ricochet off the ground and hit the fuselage?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Feb 2015 11:01

The people testing the gun on the ground, would be aware of the potential damage such casings may cause and would take appropriate steps to protect the aircraft from damage.

The simplest way, I can think off is a net to catch such shells at the ejection port of the gun. The designers I am sure would have a solution. It is not visible in the 5 second clip.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Feb 2015 12:26

Are there any shells being ejected or it is just a flash from the flash suppressor (If a shell would have been ejected it would have created a huge hole on the floor) ? I know the 30mm GSH gun on the Mig-27 has a mechanism to collect the spent shells , not sure about the GSH-23.

Btw regarding the Marut and issues with Aden 30 mm cannon, read this about Ru's issues with GSH 30 (on Mig-27M)
and how many failures and AC losses they had to go through before they got the two working together

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/GSh-6-30.htm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2015 13:39

There appears to be a chair like box in the LCA video to collect to collect shell casings - in fact you can see some blurry things seeming to fall in the box well behind the muzzle flash

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 28 Feb 2015 14:38

rohitvats wrote: The empty shell of the rounds being fired...could they ricochet off the ground and hit the fuselage?

Ground firing is routinely done on operational fighters to zero the sights after overhaul or repair. There is no danger involved (unless you happen to be in the line of fire...).

The shell casings are not ejected with sufficient velocity for it to ricochet of the ground. Being composed of a relatively dense metal (brass) and being quite heavy, the shell casings will need quite a lot of force imparted on them to be able to ricochet off the ground to begin with, much less damage the firing aircraft. The Ejection Mechanism does not impart that much force by itself, however that is not all. The ejection mechanism does not eject the casing directly, it instead ejects the casing into a chute after which gravity takes over and the casings fall vertically down. So there is no way for enough force to be imparted for a ricochet.

There would probably be a plastic or sheet metal bin kept under the ejection port so that the casings are captured and not rolling around on the floor getting in someone's way.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 28 Feb 2015 15:46

SaiK wrote:
wouldn't this be dangerous to do? ricochet off the ground to hit the fuselage?

Is it just me or does that gunfire just looks awesome?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Feb 2015 17:13

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> So it has to be a significant effort. Design a new airframe if necessary, with significant structural redesign and keep the process going. If not Kurt Tank get somebody else in to India at the time to do the complex stuff. Having 4 guns all available (as on Hunter) is fine, but would Marut be useless otherwise? IIRC it had internal carriage of rocket/bombs & external carriage as well. The main thing is to keep going on with further revisions.

The PLAAF's F-7 experience, the Russians with all their MiG-variants all did the same. They just kept plugging away. In Maruts case two things happened, IAF disinterest after 4Gun issues, and the MOD's lack of support for a proper engine. Attempts to develop further Marut variants never went anywhere. HAL got so disenchanted with the entire process that it thought its design team was useless investment & decided life was fine doing assembly jugaad of whatever it got via the TOT farce. All players in this debacle basically messed up.

Karan - The 4-gun issue on Marut was discovered quite early in it's lifetime and post the death of TP, the a/c was not cleared for 4-gun use. But this was in 1971 period - the three squadrons of Marut continued to serve in the IAF with 2-gun regulation till they were replaced by Mig-23BN. That is well into the 80's. In fact the last a/c was withdrawn in 1990.

So, to say that IAF lost interest in the type because of gun issue is incorrect. It fought the 1971 war with two guns.

Also, why do people forget that that Marut was designed to be supersonic fighter with Mach 2.0 performance at 60,000 feet. And when the IAF realized that given the engine issue the same is not going to be happen, the a/c was modified for ground attack and interdiction role. And that is the role it served in IAF for the period it was in service.

By all accounts, during this entire period IAF worked very closely with HAL to sort out all the issues - from initial testing of the aircraft to adapting the a/c for interdiction mission once any chance of getting foreign engine did not materialize. And IAF handled severe spare parts issue during early years.

A fact which people forget to recognize is that post 1974 'peaceful' nuclear explosion, there was no foreign engine coming our way. In fact, it seems the existing Orpheus engines also had a spare part problem.

Any iterative development of Marut would've faced the same crippling issue - that of engine. We would have gone the Marut way for Tejas had the American engine not been available.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Feb 2015 17:30

indeed the engines was just part of the manifold punishments dished out by the western govts post 1971 and salt to the wound in 1974.

thats when we asked for bigtime help from Russia and got it. they also supplied us Foxtrot subs earlier when UK denied it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Feb 2015 17:46

Singha wrote:indeed the engines was just part of the manifold punishments dished out by the western govts post 1971 and salt to the wound in 1974. Thats when we asked for bigtime help from Russia and got it. they also supplied us Foxtrot subs earlier when UK denied it.

Singha - for too long an urban legend has existed that Marut went the way it did because of IAF.

What no-one is willing to answer is that what role did IAF have or could play in the main engine issue! There were not one but multiple efforts of getting an engine but nothing came of these efforts. Russian engines were rejected while US did not help because we were talking to USSR for Mig-21 and then 1965 happened.

IAF adapted the a/c for a different use as against required usage. In the end, around ~140 of the type served in IAF service. In the end, IAF ended up inducting Jaguar and Mig-23BN for DPSA and TASA roles.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 01 Mar 2015 07:49

@ Rohitvats: You are new to the forum and may have missed an earlier discussion on the same topic. I have a coffee table book about the life of Kurt Tank written by someone very close to him a German. It is full of pictures. It has a very large section on Tank in Bangalore. The preceding section is on Tank in Argentina designing the Pulqui.
The book has many, many details and pictures of the Hf-24 in various stages of it's design. Some years ago before your joining date, I had scanned the entire Hf-24 chapter and gave it away to several people on the forum. Vivek Ahuja, Shiv, Ramana etc. easily come to mind.

The Russian engine was a dud. They were BSing Tank all along. The reason was they wanted the Hf-24 project to fail and so that India could be invested in the Mig. Of course one can say no that is not true etc, but I am only quoting a German who was in the design team with Tank and associated with him for a long time.
Brandner was the German who designed the Egyptian engine. The Egyptians had no expertise they just got Willi Messerschmitt and the Austrian Brandner.
Brandner came to India and demonstrated his engine. He was met by Air Marshal Ranjan Dutt at Mumbai and brought to Bangalore. Ranjan Dutt is the father-in-law of Anupam Kher and married to a Swiss woman. The book claims that Tank put his hand on the engine 10 mins after shut off and it was cool enough to touch such was the "excellent design characteristics of the Brandner engine". Tank was very impressed and wanted to go ahead but complications arose of a political nature.

The entire saga is there and also the innovations ( tricycle landing gear, area ruling it is all mentioned in the book, they were all innovations for that era and Tank introduced them) and very detailed specs of the Hf-24 and the story of the first flight when Roshan Suri got scared as the flight was at Rahu kala and according to the Germans did an abort and bashed up the plane and damaged it very severely. This was at Yellahanka. Suri's family had premonitions he would die and so had made a big ruckus. Tank usually piloted the first flight himself but HAL was scared and did not allow it. It was after the Roshan Suri debacle that Suranjan Das took over. The book states, Suranjan Das had a British wife ( this is true) and had no inclination to be superstitious. That is what the book states.
Tank also ALWAYS built a full scale model glider of the plane and flew it himsel to evaluate the low speed and handling characteristics. There is a lovely snap of the Hf-24 glider over the Bangalore skies with little pieces of wool to evaluate the flight characteristics. High speed wind tunnel tests were carried out in Switzerland by prof. Ghatage one of the earlier pioneers at HAL. There is a Ghatage hall or building or lectures something like that that HAL conducts. In all there were 12 German engineers who accompanied Tank to Bangalore.
If you wish to receive the scanned pages from the relevant chapter of the book I can send it but where?

Oh I always though our Shiv is a Anupam Kher double no?

You guys who met at Bangalore recently can vouch for it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2015 07:57

Feb 16, 2015:

A Turnaround For India’s First Indigenous Fighter

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2015 08:03

^^^^^

That issue is loaded with info on Indian Aerospace.

ManSingh · Post by **ManSingh** » 01 Mar 2015 08:21

The official aero India 2015 video of the LCA...

Lots of new material over last year's video.... Enjoy

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 01 Mar 2015 08:38

vsunder sir, can you please upload the scan copy for us , mango BRFites

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 01 Mar 2015 08:59

Link to the HF-24 is in the Off topic thread in GDF here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1805464

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Mar 2015 09:10

Didn't see this reported here before

ADA Chief says IAF will get 36 Tejas Mk1 in FOC configuration

Thrilled by the assurance given by the Chief of Air Staff Air Cheif Marshal Arup Raha, Team Tejas is on Cloud 9 as the curtains are drawn on 10th edition of Aero India 2015.

Putting an end to all speculations, Raha had categorically stated at Aero India that the Indian Air Force (IAF) has full faith in Tejas and its capabilities.

In an interview to OneIndia, P S Subramaniam, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Director overseeing the Tejas project said that the Chief ‘s statement has rejuvenated the team.

IAF Chief’s remarks lifted the team’s morale

“We read it in the newspapers and it has lifted the morale of all entire teams in ADA, HAL, DRDO and NAL. In a development programme, delays are natural and we are now ensuring that the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) is achieved as planned in December,” Subramaniam said.

As reported by OneIndia earlier, the IAF will start inducting Tejas series production (SP-3) aircraft onwards into IAF.

As per the contract, HAL will have to deliver a total of 20 Tejas series production aircraft in the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) format and another 20 in the FOC mode. The IAF also needs 80 Tejas Mk-2s, which are being powered by the GE 414 engine.

Subramaniam claimed that they are confident of handing over the FOC versions of Tejas from SP-4 onwards.

“We are sure that from SP-4 onwards (likely to be rolled out by HAL during the end of 2015), IAF will start getting the Tejas that matches all FOC requirements. Hence, the IAF will be ready with 36 FOC Tejas aircraft, instead of 20 as per the order,” Subramaniam said.

He said that Tejas has no critical technologies, which are older than four to five years. “We had accommodated so many changes during the development phase. Our mission is to ensure that all updates being demanded by IAF are given to them. At the end of the day, the IAF has every right to demand the best,” Subramaniam said.

Squadron formation activities gather momentum in Sulur

He said the IAF technicians have already started their training sessions with HAL.

An ASMS (Aircraft System Maintenance Simulator) is also operational to train technicians on the maintenance of various systems on Tejas.

He confirmed that the civil works have already begun at Air Force Station Sulur, which will be the base for the Tejas.

“We are on an advisory mode now. The designers have already started interacting with the IAF team in Sulur on matters related to facilities,” he said.

A Full Mission Simulator is expected to reach Sulur soon. He said the IAF pilots will start flying the Tejas officially from April onwards.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Mar 2015 09:47

>> Tank also ALWAYS built a full scale model glider of the plane and flew it himsel to evaluate the low speed and handling characteristics

only a guru hacker type comes up with such hands on ideas. no wonder he is famous.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Mar 2015 15:00

Phantom F-4s did not even have guns , USAF realized the mistake later and got gun pods integrated later . Marut did not continue like the Mig-21 in the IAF because it never got the kind of support which Mig got from USSR. LCA as a platform if supported properly in next 5-10 years time frame should be able to replace the entire fleet of 21, 23,27, Jaguars and imho even the M2k in the IAF.

The foreign arms sales are saturating , remember China has reached total self sufficiency in core areas they might be struggling with jet engines but only in terms of performance when compared to latest and greatest it is not like their engines do not work at all. We are getting there , so who will the west sell to once we become completely self sufficient ? IMHO EU/Unkil know that that is why in coming 2-5 year span we will see a lot of JV proposals or even sales pitches at attractive prices or offset clause thrown in. Fire sales to usual jokers in ME will continue so that west can fund their MIL industry. If we fck up and do a Marut to LCA we will be importing MMMMRCA 20 years from now.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Mar 2015 19:23

negi, if we have capability to fck up kaveri, then anything is possible. i'd keep kaveri as the best measure. if K gets into a PV/TD, then I feel we are moving in the right direction. the probability now is 0.5.. unless we put a pressure against evil forces, we would be always making maruts of ourselves. we have demonstrated once, and will do it again for sure. so, wake up everyone on this one and canvas for K!

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 03 Mar 2015 19:27

Cobham seems to be delaying the project ( delaying tejas to get FOC )by not supplying nose cones and refueling probes on time ..is it deliberate ??