LCA News and Discussions

[Indranil]

From HAL-Connect- Issue 65.

With the test flight of the last limited series production aircraft (LSP-8) on March 31, 2013, the Division is geared up to enter series production phase of LCA program. The LCA program is anticipated to give a business volume of 188 aircraft for IAF and Navy over the next 12 years. Series production is planned with a peak production rate of 16 aircraft per annum. With commencement of series production, the LCA production group shall turn into full-fledged production Division.

[Anurag]

From HAL-Connect- Issue 65.

With the test flight of the last limited series production aircraft (LSP-8) on March 31, 2013, the Division is geared up to enter series production phase of LCA program. The LCA program is anticipated to give a business volume of 188 aircraft for IAF and Navy over the next 12 years. Series production is planned with a peak production rate of 16 aircraft per annum. With commencement of series production, the LCA production group shall turn into full-fledged production Division.

Great news! 188 is a solid number. I don't see why they cannot meet these targets. Now time to just roll out the Mk-II/III/IV

[Sancho]

Unless you do it, there is nothing called experience.

Exactly, but experience don't come from the numbers of LCA we develop, but that we develop and induct the fighter at all!
The numbers only tell what requirement we have and if there is no requirement anymore, there is no need to keep producing it. As I said, look at the Jags, we kept producing them until 2008 and now we hardly can use it anymore, since any multi role fighter we induct will be clearly more capable (even LCA MK1). The idea of 400 x LCAs was great a decade ago, but not in a decade!
Similarly, to gain experience in navalising or testing carrier fighters, all we need is the N-LCA MK1 tech demonstrator, not a fully fledged carrier fighter version, with a lot of costs and modifications, but only modest perfermance in return.

Process correction happens consistently, and people don't goto sleep from marut to lca. if you have done that, the process itself does not belong to the country, and one can remain slaves to firangs for ever.

Who says the process must stop? In fact it it only starts now, since the overall LCA program and the gain Indian industry will only come through the serial production and operational service in IAF. That experience and know how then leads to further upgrades and modernisations of the available fighters and don't automatically mean we need to produce another 100 fighter with every modernisation step.

From HAL-Connect- Issue 65.

With the test flight of the last limited series production aircraft (LSP-8) on March 31, 2013, the Division is geared up to enter series production phase of LCA program. The LCA program is anticipated to give a business volume of 188 aircraft for IAF and Navy over the next 12 years. Series production is planned with a peak production rate of 16 aircraft per annum. With commencement of series production, the LCA production group shall turn into full-fledged production Division.

Was about to post that as well, which confirms the rumored numbers of around 120 fighters for IAF and around 60 for IN basically.

More than enough to make this project successful and which keeps the production going till around 2025!

[SaiK]

Boss, those experiences are screw driver techs mostly. The genuine experiences will come only from LCA going operational and there on.

[Sancho]

The genuine experiences will come only from LCA going operational and there on.

That's what I said and why I want ADA/DRDO/HAL to focus on getting it developed and ready in the fastest and easiest way and not to keep delaying things because we wait for indigenous radar developments, because we want to add fancy displays or such silly things.
And why I am against such completely unrealistic dreams about LCA instead of MMRCAs, 500 or even more more LCAs..., the time for dreaming is over, we need results now!

[pentaiah]

Not bad
In the previous page I speculated 16 LCA
Per annum batch of 4 per quarter
In the first year and 32 per annum next year on
That's about 8 LCA in a quarter in 4 lines of production

[Manish_Sharma]

I think dumping Rafale and going for Tejas is the way, for 20 billion dollars we can probably have 600 LCAs. While for per year production Reliance can be given 400 Tejas order and they can do the miracle they did with 1st time refinery building. Yes that would be a good start if they can deliver well they can even get big production share for AMCA and Tejas Mk3 too.

ToT wise in Rafale case I thought the tech will help us in build quality for AMCA, Nirbhay etc. also Rafale being so light and able to lift so much:

Rafale has excellent payload for its small size. Officially Rafale C can carry a incredible 20900 pounds of payload despite the fact that it is slightly smaller than Typhoon which can carry only 16500 pounds.

The payload of Rafale C is also officially MORE than F-18EF ( F-18EF is 42% larger than rafale C, but F-18ef carries only 17700 pound officially).

And this is not all. When Rafale get its uprated M88-3 engine and when the new 3000 liter (792.6gals) center line external fuel tank is being qualified for use, rafale external payload weight will further increase to almost 23000 pound !!! Thats almost the same as the 24000 pounds achieve by the 50-65% larger F-15E.

Rafale C MTOW will soon be increase to 60,000 pounds. Rafale C is about 20680 pound when empty. Its MTOW to empty weight ratio is 2.9 times !!

F-15E MTOW to empty ratio is 2.56 or less. F-15E probably rank second.

No other airplane is close or even close. eurofighter Typhoon MTWO to empty weight is only 2.14 !

B-2 bomber may have highere MTOW to empty weight ratio. But B-2 is a subsonic load carrying bomber. For fighter plane comparison Rafale C MTOW to empty weight ratio is HIGHEST among all supersonic fighre aircraft.

[Suraj]

Except that the Reliance Jamnagar refinery was built by a consortium of western companies including Bechtel and Honeywell... Reliance is good at many things including infrastructure implementation, but they're not a heavy engineering production company themselves.

[vina]

notice the seamanship of the Russian frigate in rough seas

That destroyer is making ver heavy weather of a moderate sea, with water over the bow and amazingly over the stern as well in a quartering sea of roughly sea state 4 or 5 per what I see. That boat is wallowing like a stuck pig, seems ver top heavy , has great difficulty holding course in a not ver heavy sea and basically has very poor sea keeping qualities. This one is a dawg as far as that went.

[shiv]

OT but I wonder what platform the camera was on. The camera pitches very little and does not roll at all

[NRao]

Camera on the carrier Kuznetsov. The dawg is Adm Ushakov - a destroyer.

On iPod, so cannot link in another vid of K. This vid has a plane on landing breaks her front strut and part of the Ushakov vid too.

[Pranav]

OT but I wonder what platform the camera was on. The camera pitches very little and does not roll at all

Attached to a boom?

[shiv]

Camera on the carrier Kuznetsov. The dawg is Adm Ushakov - a destroyer.

On iPod, so cannot link in another vid of K. This vid has a plane on landing breaks her front strut and part of the Ushakov vid too.

Front strut?

[Dileep]

another whine fest
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/tejas-aircra ... 782-3.html

Sure. It is like SHQ barging in into the kitchen while I am cooking something and goes: "This dish is deficient in at least 100 technical parameters. You only tasted it till now. It is still on the stove, simmering. It is too watery, and smells of raw spices. I see no fried mustard and chilles floating in the liquid, which is a requirement to meed the FOC. The smell of coriander leaves is also absent. BlahBlahBlah.."

Speculation: Jeernalist meets IAF guy.

Jeernalist: "Bhaatt ij happening with that Yell-See-Yeah thingie saar?"
Afsar: "I myself can not answer that. We didn't get our hands on it. Only Test Pilots are flying them."
J : "But are they happy about it?"
A: "Well, what I hear is, there are a lot of things that need to be done. We will need hundreads of test flights to work all out"
J: "Bhatt ij a test flight saar?"
A: "Youknow.. Where you wire it up with all kinds of measurement stuff and monitor them from the ground. Now, if you will excuse me, I have something important to do."

Jeernalist gets back and writes what his pea-sized brain could gather from the conversation.

[Singha]

the seas seem like 'confused' like when multiple wave patterns cross each other...seems to have put the DDG stabilization algorithm out of kilter or that ship is going too slow to be stable in such sea state..it almost seems to be standing still.

btw the talwar class too has a deck below the heli deck that will be awash in heavy seas. kind of strange the Rus who operate in hostile artic waters use such low freeboards. you can see the wide gaps below the deck rail barrier to let the sea wash out again
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Talwar8.jpg

vs
Shivalik class
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w1Te9kELSl8/S ... ik+DTN.jpg

a video of a talwar class on trials with RuN sailors , speeding at 27 knots...from that stern deck....note the huge wake left behind...it would capsize a yacht or fishing boat for sure...that deck will surely be awash in heavy seas. must be some kind of R&R area, launchpad for boats and divers in good seas...and a great place to drag long lines with fishing hooks to catch tasty fast fish of the marlin/swordfish/tuna family if the chef so wants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQexHdFfE4

[srai]

...

This self escort stuff is also a bit overblown.

You are highly mistaken, because credible self defence capabilities guaranties that IAF need less fighters for a single mission! During Kargil for example:

A typical bombing mission would involve 4 Mirages from 7 Squadron loaded with dumb bombs leaving a base in Punjab together with a two seat Mirage loaded with a LGB and Laser Designating pod. This 5 ship would rendezvous with 3 aircraft of 1 Squadron carrying Beyond Visual Range Weapons (Super 530D), operating out of another base. This rendezvous point would change on a mission to mission basis and once joined up, one escort aircraft would return. Once over Jammu and Kashmir they would be joined by Mig29’s giving top cover.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... PCamp.html

With the M2K-5 IAF wouldn't need the additional 3 x Mirage as escorts (or the Migs), since the 5 x Mirage in strike role would be able to carry LGBs, LDPs and 4-5 x AAMs each too!
That also shows that your example about operational costs is wrong, since more fighters per mission => higher operational costs!

...

KaranM is right on this one. A Mirage-2000-5 loaded with LGBs, fuel tanks, AAMs would not be very maneuverable. If enemy fighters showed up and these MK2-5 had no escorts, they would need to drop off their ordnance i.e. LGBs and fuel tanks in order for them to be able to engage the enemy fighters. Primary mission would have been aborted and ordnance wasted. Even in Libya campaign where there were virtually no enemy fighters, one of the two Rafale would be armed for air-to-air role and escort the second Rafale armed for air-to-ground operations. The second Rafale, mind you, also carried AAMs but its primary task was ground attack.

[vina]

the seas seem like 'confused' like when multiple wave patterns cross each other...seems to have put the DDG stabilization algorithm out of kilter or that ship is going too slow to be stable in such sea state..it almost seems to be standing still.

There is no stabilization "algorithm" . It is pure old dharti maa (ie gravity). A monohull ship like that one is gravity stabilized. It is just that , that particular destroyer design is very top heavy (all that SS-xxX Moskit/whatever surface to surface antiship , 16 nos, each weighing a few tons, guns, torpedo tubes,all that big superstructure and the associated masts and heavy equipment there), and of course the low freeboard makes that ship behave the way it did.

A more modern design, with those big missiles in VLS tubes inside the hull and smaller , superstructure and mast with more of the weight lower down in the hull would be far better.

[Singha]

do warships have horizontal stabilizer fins near the bow under the waterline? passenger ships tend to have them.
this is to cut the rolling motion...does not help pitching or corkscrewing I think.

these fins are supposed to be able to cut 25' off a 30' roll.

[Eric Leiderman]

I not quite sure what this is doing in the LCA section.

However the stabalising fins start being effective at speeds above 15 knots and they are for roll
Cruise ships have a much higher freeboard and reserve buoyancy.

[pentaiah]

I will keep it minimal in deference to Eric's observation.

The Russians are not idiots to have designed the ship the way they did, nor are they not sufficiently educated in mathematics of fluids.

The meta centric height has been kept higher so that the correcting torque against the rolling forces are higher and quick, this will enable the ship to swing like yo yo with great discomfort to the sailors but will have high sensitivity to rolling forces, it may even hunt before stabilizing.

Not good for cruise ship but fine for fighting ships.

Lets get back to LCA
Thanks

[vina]

I will keep it minimal in deference to Eric's observation.

The Russians are not idiots to have designed the ship the way they did, nor are they not sufficiently educated in mathematics of fluids.

OT. That destroyer is a 60s design, missiles are not VLS, the russian fleet operated in severe geo constraints , largely confined to the baltic sea, which is really a lake, and not like the US and brit fleets that operated in every corner of the world, including North atlantic and pacific. the russian design was fine for it's age and purpose. but put that in the indian ocean in a tropical storm and it is really out of it's depth.

The meta centric height has been kept higher so that the correcting torque against the rolling forces are higher and quick, this will enable the ship to swing like yo yo with great discomfort to the sailors but will have high sensitivity to rolling forces, it may even hunt before stabilizing.

you have NO idea of what you are talking about. it is wide flat bottomed boats (typically river boats) and cargo ships with broad beams that have the kind of dynamic behaviour you talked about, where the restoring moment is very high (due to the large waterline area, because of the higher beam) and there will be violent motions and very uncomfortable (taking a river boat into the open sea for eg).

Not good for cruise ship but fine for fighting ships.

The kind of motions for cruise ship is exactly good for fighting ships, with smooth gentle rolls of a long period , and that is also the reason why the tend to have deep hulls of smaller beam . will make for a good stable gun platform, along with good sea keeping and also comfort.

Lets get back to LCAThanks

yes. but let us stick to things we know and not go off on things that we don't. all, design is about choices and trade offs for a particular mission profile and cost and other stuff. what works good in one set of circumstances (ie a design optimized for a lake like baltic sea), will not do in other areas. rodina doesn't and didn't have a magic bullet , nor did or does any one else.

[RKumar]

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2117 Test Flights Successfully. (4-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-361,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-154,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

to
LCA-Tejas has completed 2122 Test Flights Successfully. (13-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-362,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-158,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

[vic]

If we cancel:-

Mig-29 upgrade
Mirage 2000 upgrade
Rafale Order
Jaguar re-engining; then we order something like 1200-1800 LCAs. I think we should develop our indigenous ability and for heavy fighters we would have Su-30MKIs. If their is some slight gap in LCA Mark-2 then one more squadron of Su-30MKI can be ordered from HAL (with the highest possible indigenous content)

[P Chitkara]

For a couple of pages now, I have started finding this xxx number of LCAs instead of M2K/Rafale (some even suggested SU30) kind of funny.

Why are we comparing apples to oranges? I will be personally delighted to see something like 300+ LCAs in the AF including MK II and subsequent tranches. That being said, the LCA was conceived to fit in the light category and cannot cover base for medium category as well; it is simply not designed to do so.

[NRao]

Camera on the carrier Kuznetsov. The dawg is Adm Ushakov - a destroyer.

On iPod, so cannot link in another vid of K. This vid has a plane on landing breaks her front strut and part of the Ushakov vid too.

Front strut?

Front wheel strut(?) breaks on landing. The tail hook snags a line, but the front wheel collapses.

Here you go:

@ 1:20

[shiv]

Front wheel strut(?) breaks on landing. The tail hook snags a line, but the front wheel collapses.

Here you go:

@ 1:20

Ohhhhhh flippin heck! Is that a Yak 130 off a carrier or - I can't believe my eyes - is it an Su 25 off a carrier?

[Austin]

Seems like Su-25 landing gear broke it was tossing during landing , Su-25 were used for carrier training.

[vic]

LCA Mark-2 is medium category

[suryag]

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2122 Test Flights Successfully. (13-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-362,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-158,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2125 Test Flights Successfully. (17-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-363,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-160,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

[Nikhil T]

For a couple of pages now, I have started finding this xxx number of LCAs instead of M2K/Rafale (some even suggested SU30) kind of funny.

Why are we comparing apples to oranges? I will be personally delighted to see something like 300+ LCAs in the AF including MK II and subsequent tranches. That being said, the LCA was conceived to fit in the light category and cannot cover base for medium category as well; it is simply not designed to do so.

Agreed. There are other costs also applicable when we say lets order 1800 LCAs instead of the ~250 M2k, Mig-29 and Rafale. The latter jets would need 750 pilots trained and ready (assuming ~>50% redundancy) while 1800 LCAs would need 2700 pilots for the same redundancy. To train each of these pilots, we'd need many times more Stage-I/II/III trainers (all imported) and then each pilot's training costs >Rs 25 crore. Then there's ground infrastructure for additional birds and trained manpower. It'll be a sub-optimal solution because of the price we pay and the capabilities we receive.

A better way would be to replace all the remaining 150-odd Mig-21s by LCA MK1 and since we're already top heavy in terms of fighters, get an additional 150-300 of these in its current form.

[vic]

Do a costing structure and give yr numbers, rather than knee jerk dismissal.

[Nikhil T]

Do a costing structure and give yr numbers, rather than knee jerk dismissal.

Like your super researched post below that says that if hundreds of LCA Mk2 have some "slight gap" then one additional Su-30 MKI squad of 18 jets will suffice as additional armor?

If we cancel:-

Mig-29 upgrade
Mirage 2000 upgrade
Rafale Order
Jaguar re-engining; then we order something like 1200-1800 LCAs. I think we should develop our indigenous ability and for heavy fighters we would have Su-30MKIs. If their is some slight gap in LCA Mark-2 then one more squadron of Su-30MKI can be ordered from HAL (with the highest possible indigenous content)

My post has numbers if you'd like to read.

[Philip]

The LCA was meant to replace the MIG-21s,the LCA delay saw the upgrading of MIG-21s to "Bison" std.,which has proved very successful as seen in Indo-western air force exercises. But the MIG-21s Bisons are also elderly,have limited life, and the balance of the MIG-21 fleet in large numbers cannot be upgraded.Therefore,if the LCA is going to be further delayed,and the dates for induction delayed even further-we just cannot have them in perpetual elasticity, we will need to replace the obsolete MIGs with another fighter,either new,or preferably more of what we already have,keeping a close eye on the cost involved.The cheapest option would be to induct a sizeable qty. of MIG-29/35s as we are already operating the MIG-29 which is being upgraded and new MIG-29Ks are being bought for the IN,deliveries already made.New M-2000s aren't available unfortunately,therefore extra Jaguars and more Flankers,perhaps single-seater SU-35s and SU-34s may be bought to also augment the LR strike capability.

It would be easier to induct these aircraft as they are in production and in service ,drawing little controversy.We are already seeing this happening with increased numbers of SU-30MKIs ordered-the last a batch of 40+ ordered when Pres.Putin came a-visiting.With "Super Flanker" upgrades on the anvil in the near future older SU-30MKIs will be kept operational with the latest technological improvements.Remember that we've yet to finally sign the tortuous MMRCA/Rafale deal and the rate of production and induction of this type gives a replacement gap too long for comfort.I do not know why we couldn't have bargained for at least one sqd. of French Rafales on an immediate basis.Remember that we obtained Jaguars a long time ago in somewhat similar fashion.The only other serious affordable contender would be the Gripen,but choosing it would kill off the LCA.The IAF would be perpetually comparing its attributes in comparison with the LCA's faults,much in the same manner that the IA has done with the Arjun,but at least Arjun MK-1 has been inducted and there's the difference! A clear time frame for induction of LCA MK-1,and dev./production and induction of MK-2 must be established.If further delays are incurred ,forget about the LCA playing any meaningful part in the IAF's order of battle for the next decade.WE would've and the induction of the FGFA by then and it will be "goodbye" LCA.

[vic]

So as per you, An additional LCA will cost Rs. 25 crore more, due to higher backend cost? So add cost of USD 5 Million per LCA and reduce total number by 20%

Also a squadron of Su-30MKI is to plug a gap of 2 years till we ramp up LCA production. Yes, my post is super researched compared to import loving jingos, who hate everything Indian.

[P Chitkara]

Phillip saar never lets go of an opportunity to push a case for Ruskie stuff.

[aditya.agd]

India cannot fight her wars with foreign equipment. IAF needs to have an Indin strategy considering our capabilities and not foreign assurances. Let IAF order large number of LCA MK1 and then go fr Mk2 unless there is something that we do not know about Lca.

[aditya.agd]

If LCA was given to private sector, it would now be competing against Rafale.

[Philip]

Desi first,if available and capable,otherwise what would you do? To plug a gap both in quality and quantity one has to equip the armed forces with weapons with which they can take on the enemy successfully.Why eevn the Chinese are importing Russian eqpt. and the Russians French Mistral amphibs! Cost is also a significant factor in "plugging the gap".Though one feels that the Gripen is actually the ideal replacement for MIG-21s ,small single-seater multi-role fighter,it will kill off the LCA programme.It is also a new acquisition.Buying more of the same,as we're doing with the Flankers attracts no controversy,it's why if the LCA does not arrive as scheduled,we should consider acquiring more Fulcrums.After all the IN is acquiring 40+.That the aircraft happens to be Russian is inconsequential.

What depresses one is the apparent lack of progress on LCA MK-2.This the aircraft which is supposed to meet the IAF's parameters and most urgent requirement.

[vic]

I think we should have immediate order for:-

20 LCA on LSP-8 standard

20 LCA on IOC-1 standard

20 LCA on IOC-2 standard

20 LCA on FOC-1 standard

20 LCA on FOC-2 final LCA mark-1 standard.

So IAF should immediately give order for 100 LCA mark-1 and MoD should release funds Setting up production line for 30 LCA per annum

Not to forget, it is good time to decide on the follow up of Hawk AJT, so that we have 10-15 years to bring it up to production with indigenous engine and high percentage of domestic content.

[RKumar]

What depresses one is the apparent lack of progress on LCA MK-2.This the aircraft which is supposed to meet the IAF's parameters and most urgent requirement.

I didn't expected such statement from senior member ... IAF jumped from mk-1 to mk-2 band wagon after IN pointed out some short comings due their requirements. There is no need to be depressed as mk-2 should fly sometime in 2014.

I am only worried that HAL in not producing enough numbers which they are supposed to be. Although I understand that new line need some time to stabilise but dil mange more