LCA News and Discussions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Jan 2011 20:14

kit wrote:Israel bars AESA radar export to India
source flightglobal

Nice. It is going to have impact on American jets in MMRCA selection. Already there are many who go hysterical on mere discussion of choosing American toys.

Fani_A · Post by **Fani_A** » 11 Jan 2011 20:48

Kanson wrote:
kit wrote:Israel bars AESA radar export to India
source flightglobal
Nice. It is going to have impact on American jets in MMRCA selection. Already there are many who go hysterical on mere discussion of choosing American toys.

News item says Eurofighter is winning the MMRCA so the USA must have found out and hence retaliated.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 11 Jan 2011 20:52

Fani_A wrote:News item says Eurofighter is winning the MMRCA so the USA must have found out and hence retaliated.

The U.S. is getting a lot of business even without the MRCA. What possible options for the LCA Mark II if Elta AESA is out of the picture (assuming the ban impacts the LCA Mark II project)?

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Jan 2011 21:06

SriSri wrote:
Fani_A wrote:News item says Eurofighter is winning the MMRCA so the USA must have found out and hence retaliated.
The U.S. is getting a lot of business even without the MRCA. What possible options for the LCA Mark II if Elta AESA is out of the picture (assuming the ban impacts the LCA Mark II project)?

Recall Gecko's famous words in the movie Wallstreet 'Greed is good., it defines, it changes and it provides impetus for action'. US of A wants indian money for its products and for keeping jobs in their country ., but *also* wants a tight hold on India's ****s , so that it remains pliant in any economic or political decision.A timely squeeze will remind the indian leaders who the boss is even when the ruling party changes.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Jan 2011 21:09

What possible options for the LCA Mark II if Elta AESA is out of the picture (assuming the ban impacts the LCA Mark II project)?

SABR! SABR! with the rrrrrr really rolling ...

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Jan 2011 21:39

We can go for the ES 05 Raven, the radar on the proposed Gripen IN/NG. Swashplate design should do a better job than the Elta, LCA MK2 will have a cute nose as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jan 2011 21:46

LRDE was hard at work on a aesa and had demoed some modules in defexpo. I'd say lets take up on Saabs offer to help with the Tejas mk2 and blend in whatever is needed from Raven project to make this desi aesa kit a success.

as for SABR, throw it out on its ear. repeat same for F-solah and F-18.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jan 2011 21:56

The $100 million question is whether Israel will still continue to supply the X-band TRX modules (transceivers) for the Indian AESA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2011 21:57

Going SAAB way also might introduce khan controls a little bit. There could be political pressure if not on technology aspect. We could also consider the MRCA AESA candidate to down scale fit on LCA Mk2. Now, only if the LCA-MMR-AESA does not make up. As Singha points to the LRDE's work, this might not be a bigger impact. I think LCA MMR AESA will arrive in a year or so before the Mk2 gets delivered. Kaveri could get an upthrust version order as well, all indigenous. Kaveri and MMR would put us in a different league without any pakisque or chippanda hyphenations.

Khans will ensure they would delay this LCA as much as possible any way they can get to do it. It is a struggle, we have to face it.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Jan 2011 22:08

Selex makes the Raven AESA and they don't have anything American in it. Also I doub the American intention is in delaying the LCA, it is basically aimed at promoting American companies like Raytheon, America subsidises Israeli defense industry and hence have a big say in their exports as well.

To delay the LCA all they have to do something about the engine...further down the line.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jan 2011 22:09

Arent the Swedes at the forefront of selling to TSP and preach HR to India?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Jan 2011 22:22

Yes but one could argue tha the American supply of F 16s and Russian supply of RD 93s are more damaging than Erieye.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2011 22:36

okay, what are the american parts in the elta 2052?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Jan 2011 23:20

American funding basically.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2011 23:26

..and please note the timing of this announcement after LCA gets to the IOC.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Jan 2011 23:35

Could be misreported as well. I will wait till further confirmation, may be Anant Krishnan will post it on his blog as he works for AW as well.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Jan 2011 23:53

jamwal wrote:CFTs can be taken off only on ground. That means the plane has to lug them around even when they are empty till it lands.
Are you sure that these tanks don't take up pylon space ? I'm not 100% sure on this.

Pratik jii,
Which comments ?

Jamwal, while its true that CFTs cannot be dumped in mid-air unlike drop tanks, what Indranil has said is also true. They are low drag designs that do not impose the same drag and maneuverability penalty on the platform carrying them. They don't use any pylon space, and are in fact attached to the fuselage through big thick fittings. These fittings would need to be designed and added to the fuselage bulkheads to transfer loads into the fuselage.

Nevertheless, a study is required before such CFTs are designed for the LCA.
1) Are the LCA's mission requirements such that it requires drop tanks for more than a certain number of missions? What percentage of missions require drop tanks and how does IFR
2) How much drag reduction is there compared to carrying drop tanks and how much will that improve performance?
3) Does it impose any performance limits ? And will that be acceptable to the IAF ? Even with drop tanks, there will be performance limits, so a tradeoff study will be needed
4) Do the freed up inner pylons help in carrying more payload and is that desirable?
5) Can the fuselage bulkheads selected for the CFT fittings carry additional loads or will they need bulking up? They'll most likely need bulking up and that adds structural weight that will be carried everytime, whether CFTs are there or not. This will require significant work.
6) It will affect the fatigue limits since the fuselage will now be carrying more of the loads that were being carried by wings earlier. That will require substantial bit of work as well to study that and assess it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Jan 2011 23:58

Singha wrote:LRDE was hard at work on a aesa and had demoed some modules in defexpo. I'd say lets take up on Saabs offer to help with the Tejas mk2 and blend in whatever is needed from Raven project to make this desi aesa kit a success.

as for SABR, throw it out on its ear. repeat same for F-solah and F-18.

Indian market is a competition between various companies which had put sanctions on India for several decades.

They want to take to long term strategy of defining the development of the Indian system

astal · Post by **astal** » 12 Jan 2011 00:00

self deleted

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Jan 2011 00:17

Israel bars AESA radar export to India

The Israeli defence ministry has blocked the potential export sale of Israel Aerospace Industries' EL/M-2052 active electronically scanned array radar to a number of countries, with its action having an immediate impact on the Indian market.

The restrictions were imposed following pressure from the US administration, which has outlined its concerns to Israel several times in the past two years.

Washington's position is driven by an assumption that exporting IAI's advanced radar would undermine the sale of US-made systems on the international stage, sources say.
...
...
...

Does the 2052 have any US technology/parts for US to insist on banning exports ?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 12 Jan 2011 00:22

Kartik wrote:5) Can the fuselage bulkheads selected for the CFT fittings carry additional loads or will they need bulking up? They'll most likely need bulking up and that adds structural weight that will be carried everytime, whether CFTs are there or not. This will require significant work.

Are the bulk heads made of Titanium or Composites? the weight gain vs. increase in endurance might be worth it. Heard PAK-FA uses a lot of Titanium.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 04:09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S3TbhCaS-k
Can't hear from work (only view). what are they asking ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Jan 2011 04:52

Singha wrote:LRDE was hard at work on a aesa and had demoed some modules in defexpo. I'd say lets take up on Saabs offer to help with the Tejas mk2 and blend in whatever is needed from Raven project to make this desi aesa kit a success.

as for SABR, throw it out on its ear. repeat same for F-solah and F-18.

SAAB cannot help in the AESA radar aspect completely since they are not the makers of the Raven ES-05A. Its Selex that has responsibility for the front end. Its the software and backend processing of the PS-05A that SAAB was responsible for. But SAAB's help in reducing weight, drag and increasing fuel by re-designing or re-locating MLGs will be very useful. Maybe even the Selex Skyward-G IRST or a similar system can be integrated to give the Tejas Mk2 a passive attack and tracking capability.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 12 Jan 2011 05:06

from the lca before ioc link on livefist, 7 hardpoints occupied

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 05:21

As we discussed earlier, an air launched Nag version that perhaps could be lengthened/modified for extend range (12-16km) with at least triplet/quad rack could be an awesome treat to watch. Perhaps we could start integrating brimstone earlier than Nag if not ready.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 12 Jan 2011 06:29

SaiK wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S3TbhCaS-k
Can't hear from work (only view). what are they asking ?

Don't bother hearing. Usual crap. They start with saying its 30 years in the making about 5 times. Then the lady says the IAF pilots flew it for 'final operational clearence'! Then the guy on site asks whether the Mirage 2000 is the inspiration since it has delta wings and a "pointy nose" like the Mirage

And then he keeps asking what other aircraft it can be compared to.

These guys are a shame.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Jan 2011 06:30

vasu_ray wrote:
Kartik wrote:5) Can the fuselage bulkheads selected for the CFT fittings carry additional loads or will they need bulking up? They'll most likely need bulking up and that adds structural weight that will be carried everytime, whether CFTs are there or not. This will require significant work.
Are the bulk heads made of Titanium or Composites? the weight gain vs. increase in endurance might be worth it. Heard PAK-FA uses a lot of Titanium.

Aluminium alloys. Titanium is only used in parts that are exposed to high temperature and where such an expensive metal's use is justified.

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 12 Jan 2011 08:11

I read in a post here that conformal fuel tanks can actually generate lift to compensate for their weight.
I don't understand how that works, since they do not offer an aerofoil section to the air flow, but lets assume
that they actually do in some way. So if drag is not a problem, then I think the weight issue can be solved if
the tanks are actually built into the structure as part of the wing root. In fact the attachment point of the wing
to the fuselage could become a hollow triangular shape which would considerably stiffen the wing. This would
actually improve the capability of the wing to take more load while providing volume inside for the additional
fuel. The tanks would be permanent in this case, since they do not add drag. Does this make sense?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2011 08:34

Weight is drag. More weight more drag. It will require more power, and more power requires bigger engine/more fuel. Also more weight requires stronger supports to bear the weight and those stronger supports will be heavier. No free lunch. It all boils down to having the smallest, lightest and most fuel efficient engine you can get. For India that will mean imported engine for decades unless we accept limitations and work for an indigenous solution despite the limitations.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 08:41

in that sense might be a good option to persist with LRDE aesa + whatever help saab, israel & selex are willing to provide than go for a ribbon wrapped american product like sabr or apg81. might be 15% less capable than best of breed but the chinese do not have best of breed either, so it balances out. and we would retain full control and improve on it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2011 08:52

By the way the "10 per year" comment has been explained by HALs chairman. He said that it can get faster only if we stop making Hawks. Making Hawks and LCA side by side means only 10 LCA per year. That is all that we have the capacity to make. If capacity is to be increased the unit will have to be expanded. Add to that the fact that making the ALH and Jaguar also take up space and workers. And Dornier? And that is in Bengalooru alone.

IJT production will start within the next year or two. Where will they take that? And there is a basic trainer coming - like Grob or something. MKI at least is elsewhere. Where will MRCA go?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Jan 2011 08:52

Just as a reference, these are all the things that we sought support for from a Development Partner:

LiveFist: India's LCA AESA Radar Programme Detailed

(a) antenna panel consisting of main antenna, guard antenna and sidelobe cancellation antenna,
(b) transmit/receive modules/groups,
(c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface,
(d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and
(e) array calibration/BITE among other areas.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Jan 2011 08:54

As shiv said, weight is drag. As the weight of an aircraft increases, the wing needs to generate more lift inorder to fly. The more lift you generate, the more induced drag you create since the induced drag is nothing but horizontal component of the lift generated by wings whereas the vertical component is the lift available to the aircraft. That is why it is called 'Induced drag' because it is induced by lift. So the more weight you hang on an aircraft, irrespective of where, it will create more drag. Sorry for going OT.

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 09:02

iirc HAL plans to setup a second plant somewhere near blr for the MRCA. the current facilities and land look maxed out unless they want to raze the old terminal building and part of civil apron area and construct the new plant there...might be a good option as cost incurred will be minimal vs a greenfield site and workers need not relocate. most of the infra need already exists right next door...test facilities , paint shops, canteens, medical units, tool shops , BESCOM sub station, BWSSB water mains etc could be shared out.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 09:03

the comments on the AESA report in livefist are hilarious...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2011 09:10

Singha wrote:iirc HAL plans to setup a second plant somewhere near blr for the MRCA. the current facilities and land look maxed out unless they want to raze the old terminal building and part of civil apron area and construct the new plant there...might be a good option as cost incurred will be minimal vs a greenfield site and workers need not relocate. most of the infra need already exists right next door...test facilities , paint shops, canteens, medical units, tool shops , BESCOM sub station, BWSSB water mains etc could be shared out.

I think a new plant on a different site is a better idea. The chairman said it would take 3 years to set up MMRCA production facilities.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Jan 2011 09:15

I think a new plant on a different site is a better idea. The chairman said it would take 3 years to set up MMRCA production facilities.

Oh well. With all the delays and everything, I think it is best the MMRCA is scrapped. The Baboos in Dilli and the Mantris in perpetual somnolence will see to it that the MRCA decision will be inked by around 2015/16 time frame when Ta..Da.. The MkII will be rolling off

, and then we can close the chai biskoot sessions and tell the competitors to go home.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Jan 2011 09:17

shiv wrote:By the way the "10 per year" comment has been explained by HALs chairman. He said that it can get faster only if we stop making Hawks. Making Hawks and LCA side by side means only 10 LCA per year. That is all that we have the capacity to make. If capacity is to be increased the unit will have to be expanded. Add to that the fact that making the ALH and Jaguar also take up space and workers. And Dornier? And that is in Bengalooru alone.

IJT production will start within the next year or two. Where will they take that? And there is a basic trainer coming - like Grob or something. MKI at least is elsewhere. Where will MRCA go?

Shiv, the IJT is most likely going to be manufactured in HAL Kanpur's facilities. The MRCA will see a dedicated facility being set up. There was a recent article on that. I was hoping that some private player like L&T or Mahindras or Tatas would've been roped in to assemble the basic trainer. Taneja Aerospace might not have the required strength in personnel to do that. But this was a good opportunity to get private players accustomed to the assembly lines seen in aerospace. Then, more and more work could've been outsourced to them with HAL being a final integrator type agency. I guess that opportunity is lost since HAL has it on its order books instead and will consequently surely delay other far more important projects like Tejas and HJT-36.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 09:21

OT: L&T has brought online yesterday a facility in hazira to manufacture supercritical boilers and power turbines from Mitsubishi.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Jan 2011 09:26

Singha wrote:OT: L&T has brought online yesterday a facility in hazira to manufacture supercritical boilers and power turbines from Mitsubishi.

If I am not wrong it's competitor in power sector, BHEL has the same tech, so probably this is for civilian purposes.

Cheers....