LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jan 2014 17:19

Meanwhile, he's being asked -

- if Tejas is a stealth fighter
- is it better than the F-22
- can it do the cobra maneuver

and then

- how to join the air force

and finally, one gent wants Gp Cpt Krishna to help him secure tickets to the Republic Day parade.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 17:31

Sagar G wrote:
Karan M wrote:FB is coming as 'loading, loading, loading' for me....with that silly icon... guess you guys will have to carry on & ask the qns.
How will anything else load when you are busy watching RaGa's tode nahi, jode campaign ads

They have upgraded me to his gyaan on economic affairs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 17:33

Viv S wrote:Maximum payload carried to date - 3800kg

Wow!! Incredible. MTOW is then greater than whats publicly advertised and that MTOW is probably the certified (safe) limit for long structural life.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jan 2014 17:36

Karan M wrote:
Viv S wrote:Maximum payload carried to date - 3800kg
Wow!! Incredible. MTOW is then greater than whats publicly advertised and that MTOW is probably the certified (safe) limit for long structural life.

Sorry, I misread that. The answer was 'above 3.5 tons'.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 17:52

Ok, 3.5T was the original design limit which we thought was unachieavable due to weight increase. I had estimated 3.2T based on MTOW and clean weight calculations.. but if that 3.2T was (need to check) apart from 7 pylons/2R73E, then 3.5T sounds about right.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 25 Jan 2014 17:58

indranilroy wrote:Updated list.

1. If you have questions outside this list, you can always ask and share the information here.
2. The questions are ordered from top to bottom based on priority.
3. I will try to ask as many as I can. For one's that I can't ask, I will send AK a mail.
4. Karan would you please ask the radar/avionics questions?
5. Anybody else volunteering to ask questions?

General
1. What is the status of PV-2, NP-2? Does the program still need the LSP-6 for high AoA envelop expansion?
2. What are the envisaged roles of the LCA in the IAF? Has the role of LCA in the LCA-Mig-29K partnership in IN It will complement the Mig-29Ks on IN but is the role of Tejas in this partnership plans to use Tejas ?
3. Increase in internal fuel/range/payload of Mk2?
4. Why has there been only 2 flights for LSPs since Dec-31 according to ADA website?
5. Is FOC possible by this Dec? Or is it mid of next year?
6. Status of Mk-II. Has the metal cutting begun? When can we expect first engine run/flight?
7. Difference in performance parameters of LCA-AF and LCA-Navy
8. What is the maximum payload carried by LCA so far?
9. Any truth behind plans plans of an Mk3?
10. And another one that is not at all technical- Will the Tejas enter service without an HF designation?

Airframe related
1. Current AoA achieved? What is the STR at this AoA. Target AoA for FOC? STR at that AoA? Will it satisfy STR requirements of ASR, or will it be met only in Mk2? There was a paper discussing levcons on the AF-models as well owing to their superior L/D ratio. Is this still being considered?
2. Did the study on using MLG doors as airbrakes go anywhere? Mk2 models show the same airbrakes as Mk1. Does it mean the uncommanded pitch-up on deployment of airbrakes has been satisfactorily solved?
3. Are sharper pylons being developed?
4. Any plans of multi-ejector racks? Many models (even wind tunnel ones) show 2 1000 lb bombs in tandem on the inward pylons.
5. Will both 750 ltr and 1200 ltr supersonic tanks be tested before FOC? Can the centerline hardpoint take a 1200 ltr tank (I ask this because of clearance at rotate).
6. What is the status of the new landing gear that was re-designed for NP-1 NLCA?
7. Could you please confirm the empty weight of LCA? What is the definition of clean take off weight?
8. What is the configuration for which combat radius is 500 km and ferry range is 1700 km
9. Is the active fuel proportioner already onboard?
10. Leh trials - problems/issues faced? Fixes implemented?
11. Are the issues related to the toe-touch during ejection resolved since AI'11?
12. Has the minimum chute jettison speed reduced from the 40 kmph identified at AI'11?
13. Buffeting at supersonic flight near sea level was reported. If true, has it been fixed?
14. Have the brake overheating problem been solved?
15. On the N-LCA Mk2 the position of the landing gear would be brought 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. Models don’t show any fairing. Any information.
16. Any scope of Mk2 to supercruise?
17. Have we identified the supplier for the indigenous tires?
18. Has lightning test for *entire* Tejas been completed, or will be done before FOC?

Radar, avionics and weapons
19. What is the status of the kevlar radome and does it restrict radar range to 45km as one report suggested? Status of the of the quartz radome
20. Is the radar on Mk1 a hybrid one or 2032 in its entirety? Is an AESA radar definitively being planned for the Tejas Mk2?
21. What is the status of the ODL for the IAF and can Tejas Mk1 fighters be datalinked currently?
1. MAWS on Mk1 - active or passive? Same question wrt Mk2.
2. Status/scope for integration of (a) EL/M-8222 [jamming] (b) EL/M-2060 [recce] (c) SIVA HADF [ESM]
3. Missiles. BVR: Derby, R77?, WVR: R-27, Python5? A2G: Kh-59?
4. Any information that you can share on the state of the frameless HUD development at CSIO?
5. Any information of IRST on Mk2?
6. ECM/ESM antennas on Mk1 - solid state (AESA)?

Miscellaneous question
1. Any info about the MTO of the AL-55I on the IJT? What according to you is going to be a number that IAF would be happy with?

IR,

IMHO, i am afraid some of the questions particularly in 'General' category are not relevant for the TP to answer. we would be wasting the gentleman's time which is limited. also relevant, limited but which covers most peope's queries are already there. to name a few i find 'not' relevant at all are -

General

2. only IAF can answer that and somebody like Mao can answer the IN/MIG 29K/NLCA related question.
5. again IAF would decide it with the ADA.
9. doubt he would be able to throw any light on it.

Airframe related

14. The Brake system has been improved significantly

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jan 2014 18:20

Q Is the active fuel proportioner already onboard?

- The aircraft has a passive fuel proportioner and it is working fine.... so we probably don't need an active fuel proportioner.

Q Leh trials - problems/issues faced? Fixes implemented?

- The aircraft has performed well during the earlier Leh trials and we hope to further improve the capability when operating in extreme weather. We shall be conducting some tests in the coming months.

Also, the NP-2 is going to start flying 'very soon'.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 Jan 2014 18:33

Wonder if they would want to say anything about the possibility of Enclosed Weapons Pods. Esp. considering there is nothing yet on the Multiple Ejector Racks itself.

With a conservative expectation I don't expect a response that would gladden a jingo's heart. Still if possible please do try to raise this query.

Also the top mach number at ceiling, level flight, full load as well as 800-1000 kg load.

I may be wishing for too much though

TIA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jan 2014 18:51

ravi_g wrote:Esp. considering there is nothing yet on the Multiple Ejector Racks itself.

Multiple ejector racks will be integrated before FOC.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 25 Jan 2014 20:39

some relevant answers by the Gp captain and TP - Mr. Suneeth Krishna on FB listed below -

Mach Clearance

- As on now we have cleared the Tejas to 1.6 Mach as per the IAF requirement.

PV-5

- It is already undergoing ground tests after modifications and should start flying very shortly.

IFR

- Refuelling probe is only an external attachment. All production aircraft will have it.
- Tejas will have a fixed air to air refuelling probe. Tejas can be refuelled pretty quickly on ground as well..!

Multi ejector pylons for LCA MK 1

- Yes.

EL/M-2032 Performance

- Excellent...!

When NP-2 will fly?

- Shortly ...

maximum payload carried by LCA so far

- Above 3.5 tonnes.

EW related question was unclear but

- Yes. It will be EW enabled.

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Jan 2014 21:55

pragnya wrote:some relevant answers by the Gp captain and TP - Mr. Suneeth Krishna on FB listed below -

This is as official as it gets and its awesome!

Mach Clearance - As on now we have cleared the Tejas to 1.6 Mach as per the IAF requirement.

1.6 Mach is great!

maximum payload carried by LCA so far - Above 3.5 tonnes.

All I can say is :WOW: That is a mean bird

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jan 2014 22:11

Other sources,posted earlier,the IAF have asked for A-o-A to be raised to 28deg. from 24,apart from refuelling probes for FOC.Was there any light shed on this?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 23:03

Group Captain and LCA TP Suneet Krishna wrote:
Cockpit

Cockpit is hugely comfortable..... its truly HOTAS wherein the pilot can perform most of the functions without lifting his hands off the primary controls

Air- conditioned so you can set it as per your preference... as you do it in your car.

Systems integration
Can't answer you on specifics. But you must understand that the Tejas design is entirely in our hands. Any weapon/ system that the IAF need to integrate on this platform is very straight forward unlike on aircraft bought from outside.

The certification for IOC has been given based on the certification agency fully certified that all the teething problems are resolved and the aircraft is fully capable to enter service.....that answer's lots of your questions.

Tandem Pylons
We will integrate tandom pylons to be able to carry more number of weapons. That is one of the FOC tasks.

Passive Fuel Proportioner
Tarmak007 The aircraft has a passive fuel proportioner and it is working fine.... so we probably don't need an active fuel proportioner.

Leh Trials
The aircraft has performed well during the earlier Leh trials and we hope to further improve the capability when operating in extreme weather. We shall be conducting some tests in the coming months.

HMDS
We have a fully integrated helmet mounted display.... you only have to look at the enemy aircraft to fire off a missile.!

The HMDS is fully integrated on the Tejas. We can designate targets using the HMDS and fire weapons. It greatly improves Air to AIr and AIr to ground capabilities..!

Swing Role
Hi Navneet. Tejas is designed to be a multirole aircraft. It can easily swing between air -air to air - Gd role.

Performance
In its class, Tejas is one of the most agile fighters.... hope you get to see that during the next Air Show.

Tejas is a light and agile fighter designed for very specific roles. IAF needs a mix of fighters to fulfill different roles. Tejas will do part of that.

Relaxed static stability along with state of the art fly by wire make the Tejas hugely manoeuvrable and gives optimum performance

MK2
MK2...In design stage...

Yes , Mk2 is happening and the design is progressing well.

FOC
Everybody is working very hard to reach FOC ASAP. Of course additional capabilities will keep getting added ON as they are tested and certified.

Radar

Sir,Performance of the EL/M-2032 radar on the LCA MK.1?

>> Excellent...!

how many targets can it track and engage at a time in a look and shoot mode ??? And sir it wd be better if u kindly answer my last question about any unique capabilities ?

>> Can't give any specific numbers. But be assured it is one of the best in its class...!

EW Role
Sir,Happy Republic Day!!My question -- Is there any plan to make a fully 'EW' enabled Tejas just like Growler?
>>Yes. It will be EW enabled.

MK3
is there any plan for stealth tejas mk-3?
>> Not yet...

AOA
We will be testing the aircraft to the AOA where we can derive maximum performance from it.... pure AoA number has not much meaning.

AMCA
Thanks..That will be great..because we have to move a head of time to face challenges from both side threat..
>> AMCA will fill that need.

IFR

Will the production MK.1 really have an IFR probe as I think was reported but I'm still cynical about?

>>>Refuelling probe is only an external attachment. All production aircraft will have it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 23:11

This took the cake though.

We are nearly 15 Person wants to go Republic Day Parade,
We try It Before 3 days Bt Due to Shortage of ticket we not getting.
Kindly Provides us Ticket or ENTRY METHODS.
JAI HIND
JAI HIND

The patient Group Captain replies.

Watch it on the TV, I will do the same..!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2014 23:11

for mach 1.6, with what weapons config/payload weight /altitude data? or is that too much to ask?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jan 2014 23:49

SaiK wrote:for mach 1.6, with what weapons config/payload weight /altitude data? or is that too much to ask?

To be fair it was supposed to be a public relations exercise. 'Good aircraft', 'great achievement', 'symbol of progress' and so on. Specific figures on the other hand (even those that are readily available for other aircraft) are not something he would feel comfortable divulging without running it by the higher-ups first. Especially for a chat on a public forum.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2014 23:55

PR it may be but the answers were non equivocal. They were overwhelmingly positive and such replies would not be given for an aircraft that was struggling.

Some insights were new - A2G designation via HMDS, bit about true HOTAS (which goes a long way in explaining why pilots love it) plus comfortable cockpit and AC (eg original IAF aircraft were infamous for hot 'pits with their unsuitable AC), and good progress with Mk2 (always helps to have insiders confirm such stuff instead of "we will see")

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jan 2014 05:52

The HMDS seems to be out of the MB where the sage looks at a crane and it gets reduced to ashes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jan 2014 07:36

the only difference being the sage has internal systems to target destruction, whereas the external (to sage) system uses sage's focal points to guide to the target. kinda dynamic man-machine interface leveraging best use of man's sensory inputs.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Jan 2014 11:31

In defence of

LCA Tejas – Indian & The Indigenous

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 26 Jan 2014 22:08

Definitely not TD-1. Looks like either PV-3 or one of LSPs because it has the RWRs in place, and the smoothed out aux intake on the spine along with various bulges which were not on any of the TDs or the early PVs.
But it does appear they did paint over the serial and made it KH-2001

.

tsarkar wrote:I dont like speculating, but do make allowances for intelligent guesswork.
tsarkar Post subject: Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013Posted: 14 Jan 2014 22:28
Tejas can fly to any part of India via staging through air force stations all over India. It flies more economically on its own GE F404 than four P&W engines on C-17. My take is that this is a non flying LCA TD or PV being flown to Delhi for Republic Day to display on a trailer. They cannot spare a flying bird that is more usefully deployed for FOC flight testing.

A Sharma wrote:The aircraft on display in the Republic Day Parade 2014 is the historic aircraft that took to skies for the maiden LCA flight on 04 January 2001.
It is indeed TD1 that is not flying.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Jan 2014 04:59

noob question,

Assuming that adequate thrust is when a fighter can supercruise, what kind of engine thrust is required for the LCA with CFTs to acheieve that, is the F414 enough? and if LEVCONs can compensate for the turning rates impeded by the CFTs

F-16IN was criticized for the same in the MMRCA discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2014 07:14

imho, CFTs mean you pretty much screwed up your ASQR. /jmt.

bottom: don't chase after firang designs blindly, but understand them how they got into such designs in the first place.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Jan 2014 07:41

lets say the MMRCA program is scrapped, what is the plan? do we still want to hold the ASQR against LCA Mk2?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2014 11:02

good enough depending on the mission profiles... for example, mk2 has retractable refuelers, and with a mother refueler, sister emberer AEWC, a squadron of LCAs can go for deep strike.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Jan 2014 12:39

vasu raya wrote:noob question,

Assuming that adequate thrust is when a fighter can supercruise, what kind of engine thrust is required for the LCA with CFTs to acheieve that, is the F414 enough? and if LEVCONs can compensate for the turning rates impeded by the CFTs

F-16IN was criticized for the same in the MMRCA discussions

There are 2 different things that you are asking here.
1. Super-cruise with CFTs. In terms of drag there are two major contributors. Induced drag and wave drag. They will both be almost the same with an external tank and a CFT.
2. The second question is about STR (I am assuming). STR becomes better with CFTs. This is because CFTs are designed to create lift to carry their own weight. This decreases the wing loading, and increases L to D ratio. Note that even an external tank creates lift at positive AoA, but not as efficiently as a CFT. The LEVCONs seem to be increasing L to D ratio, and would therefore provide better STR immaterial of whether you use external fuel tanks or CFTs.

Now, how much power will it take to supercruise with CFTs. This is obviously not possible to say with CFDs. Actually not without actual flight tests. But if you ask me, it is most probably not going to happen with current engine technology. Even if it can be done, it will be when the plane has already used more than half of its fuel, nudged by the afterburner to go supersonic and then supercruise.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Jan 2014 17:06

Dennis wrote:Definitely not TD-1. Looks like either PV-3 or one of LSPs because it has the RWRs in place, and the smoothed out aux intake on the spine along with various bulges which were not on any of the TDs or the early PVs.
But it does appear they did paint over the serial and made it KH-2001 .

If it was a PV or LSP, it would've flown on its own rather than a C-17.

SidSom wrote:Noob Question: Was the Aux air intake inserted into and smoothened on the TD 1 Like LSP8. Also few extra antennae on the tail I have not seen on the TD1.

They've probably made outer cosmetic changes to make it look like a SP bird.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 27 Jan 2014 19:34

Let us form LCA Lobby Group and get Memorandum for "Induct Tejas into IAF in Large Quantity" signed by all forum members and forward it to MoD and ask/force/advice them to order IAF to buy Tejas Mk.1 in larger quantity at least 126 rather than 40 nos and cancel the MRCA project or cut down the size of the project to 63 fighters and invest rest amount to LCA & Kaveri Project.

Every year HAL should produce at least 12-16 fighters p.a. and they can upgrade into new block and deliver the same to IAF. So, by the time Tejas Mk.2 get ready I am 100% sure many of the technologies will be tested and improved in various blocks. Serial production can be slowly enhanced to 18-24 p.a. with LCA getting inducted in large numbers Kaveri project might get attention needed and it might get new direction & motivation that IAF is ready to accept it if they show some progress.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 27 Jan 2014 19:56

As has been mentioned umpteen number of times, till the time IAF actually puts its full weight behind this, it will be very difficult to achieve. The onus lies equally on production agency as well - they will have to prove their ability produce quickly, with desired quality.

Until that happens, everything will be ifs and buts and this two line change is a pretty huge change in the scheme of things.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Jan 2014 19:59

Dennis wrote:Definitely not TD-1. Looks like either PV-3 or one of LSPs because it has the RWRs in place, and the smoothed out aux intake on the spine along with various bulges which were not on any of the TDs or the early PVs.
But it does appear they did paint over the serial and made it KH-2001 .
...

So you are basically saying that ADA changed the aircraft and painted a wrong serial number on it, and lied on Republic Day parade that it was the first TD1 that flew? What is their motive and what do they gain by it??

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 27 Jan 2014 21:16

I refer you to photographs of the different LCA airframes here: Link
you can see and compare what the different variants look like and see for yourself what was done to TD-1 if it indeed was TD-1.
Further, TD-1 appears to have been extensively cannibalized at some point after it was withdrawn from flying per this link

As for ADA's motive in doing what they did, only they can answer that question.

putnanja wrote:
Dennis wrote:Definitely not TD-1. Looks like either PV-3 or one of LSPs because it has the RWRs in place, and the smoothed out aux intake on the spine along with various bulges which were not on any of the TDs or the early PVs.
But it does appear they did paint over the serial and made it KH-2001 .
...

So you are basically saying that ADA changed the aircraft and painted a wrong serial number on it, and lied on Republic Day parade that it was the first TD1 that flew? What is their motive and what do they gain by it??

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jan 2014 22:11

^^^

It's probably a LCA mockup.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jan 2014 00:42

Dennis,

It is a TD (most probably TD-1) modified to look as similar to the serially produced aircrafts as possible. Actually if you look closely, you would be able to see that airbakes are actually not perforated but actually painted over. Also notice the wing body blending strake at the trailing edge of the wing. Also no Non perforated airbrakes and that blending were only used till PV-1. But PV-1 is in Bangalore undergoing ground trials. Also notice that that the plane displayed in the parade does not have a real engine. So this is either TD-1. If ADA is saying it is TD-1, I have no reason not to believe them

What they have done is actually use a defunct airframe and turn it into a great static display. I hope they reuse it a lot at various airshows.

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Jan 2014 02:24

Difference between naval and ground based rafale. I think you can draw similarities between LCA and NLCA.
Picture Link

First seen on militaryphotos

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Jan 2014 07:59

indranilroy wrote:There are 2 different things that you are asking here.
1. Super-cruise with CFTs. In terms of drag there are two major contributors. Induced drag and wave drag. They will both be almost the same with an external tank and a CFT.
2. The second question is about STR (I am assuming). STR becomes better with CFTs. This is because CFTs are designed to create lift to carry their own weight. This decreases the wing loading, and increases L to D ratio. Note that even an external tank creates lift at positive AoA, but not as efficiently as a CFT. The LEVCONs seem to be increasing L to D ratio, and would therefore provide better STR immaterial of whether you use external fuel tanks or CFTs.

Now, how much power will it take to supercruise with CFTs. This is obviously not possible to say with CFDs. Actually not without actual flight tests. But if you ask me, it is most probably not going to happen with current engine technology. Even if it can be done, it will be when the plane has already used more than half of its fuel, nudged by the afterburner to go supersonic and then supercruise.

Thanks Indranil, In the scenario where a CFT equipped LCA along with 3 supersonic drop tanks tops up using a refueler which is the start line does an ingress over the Tibetan plateau doing a nape of earth flight, just before reaching target drops the tanks, does the A2G task with standoff weapons and comes back just on CFTs at a supercruising altitude, the internal fuel is saved for any surprise engagements, does it gain significant additional range?

SaiK, since the distance using 3 drop tanks at drag on the ingress and 2 CFTs of same capacity at light load on the egress should be about equal?

Also, if the LEVCONs offer more agility then even with CFTs which offer more time on station, the LCA can perform the same A2A roles as without CFTs?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jan 2014 10:43

vasu raya wrote:
Thanks Indranil, In the scenario where a CFT equipped LCA along with 3 supersonic drop tanks tops up using a refueler which is the start line does an ingress over the Tibetan plateau doing a nape of earth flight, just before reaching target drops the tanks, does the A2G task with standoff weapons and comes back just on CFTs at a supercruising altitude, the internal fuel is saved for any surprise engagements, does it gain significant additional range?

Also, if the LEVCONs offer more agility then even with CFTs which offer more time on station, the LCA can perform the same A2A roles as without CFTs?

Ofcourse if you add more fuel carrying capacity in terms of CFTs, you will longer range.

The second part is not correct. Though, the lift to drag ratio gets better, the absolute value of lift required and drag faced actually grows when you add CFTs filled with fuel. So with the same engine power, LCA with CFTs will struggle more than one without it.

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Jan 2014 18:41

Even if LCA Mark-1 is better than retiring non-upgraded Mig-21s then it is good enough. Further, if they are equal to or better than JH-17 Super Bandar then it is added bonus. Lets not try to overreach too far too soon.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2014 19:07

vasu, your tradeoff did not include the option that is designed for all internal fuel without sacrificing drag and thrust mainly. i'd would not choose either drags - cft or drop tanks for my missions, where i need my weapon payloads for the strike missions.

so, extend the fuselage by a meter by volume, without (or least effect/impact) sacrificing drag or thrust.

and i'd put that on the asqr.

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Jan 2014 19:15

It seems that slowly we are revving up for engine R&D across the Board. I thought I will re-make a list:-

Ground Vehicles

1500-1800hp tank engine (What about transmission?)
500-600hp ground vehicle engine with transmission

Airborne platforms

10hp, 20hp, 40hp UAV piston engines
55hp wankel engine for UAV
110-127-xx kw Jet starters for LCA Mark-1, 2, FGFA
xx kw APU for MRTA
4kn turbojet PTAE-7 by HAL
4kn turbofan by HAL, NAL, GTRE (for cruise missiles and UAV)
1200kw turboshaft by HAL (This is 1600hp turboshaft engine. If 1200kw is assumed to be continuous maximum power output then this engine (and will be used of IMRH) is around twice the power of SHAKTI engine which has continuous max power output of 900hp. Max 30 min output of such engine can be say 2000-2200hp and max take off 2200-2400hp or emergency output upto 2400-2800hp. Note Mi-17’s engine latest engine is VK-2500 and has continuous power rating of only 1100kw, so this engine would be intended for a heavier or more powerful engine. The point is whether this engine is off shoot of Shakti or ab initio design.
20-30kn for IJT, AJT, Civil Liner (UAV?) etc by HAL (HAL has allocated Rs 400 crores for it)
50/80kn Kaveri Gas turbine engine and Non afterburning version for UCAV for which GTRE had asked for Rs 500 crore but no info in open source about further progress
75/110kn +5% uprating potential, a new Gas turbine engine (RFPs out for LP stage) This engine seems to be 130kn engine which has been referred for AMCA, as 110kn engine may have war/emergency setting of upto 130kn.

Marine Engine

10000-16000hp based on Kaveri
1.2MW ship based Generator based on Kaveri
Battery pack and thermal engines for light and heavy torpedoes
Battery packs for subs
Fuels Cells for subs
Nuclear Reactor 100MW for subs
Diesel – Pielstick JV of kirloskars

Industrial

4MW based on Kaveri

Mini and Micro UAV
Electric engines
Space Based

Solid fueled 9tons, 139tons, 200tons etc (used in SLV, ASLV, PSLV, GSLV)
Cryo 7.5kn, 20kn
PAM-upper stage
Semi Cryo 2000Kn
Rumored

Airborne platforms

150hp diesel UAV piston engines
250-500hp turboprop engine for UAV
Turboprop by HAL for Trainer

Space Based
Cryo 60kn, 100kn

Railway
CNG engine based on Kaveri

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Jan 2014 09:28

indranilroy wrote:Ofcourse if you add more fuel carrying capacity in terms of CFTs, you will longer range.

Hopefully that satisfies certain test points with regards to unrefueled range in the MMRCA checklist

indranilroy wrote:The second part is not correct. Though, the lift to drag ratio gets better, the absolute value of lift required and drag faced actually grows when you add CFTs filled with fuel. So with the same engine power, LCA with CFTs will struggle more than one without it

Realistically there is a lot of loiter time before the actual A2A engagement starts and even then they could go with,

-engaging afterburner for longer durations
-use active fuel proportioner removing fuel from the CFTs into the internal tanks
-fuel dump

or increase engine thrust, which means a different engine perhaps moving away from F414, if the MMRCA is scrapped and this causes a spike in the Tejas nos, they could use other engines for the later part of the fleet

SaiK wrote:so, extend the fuselage by a meter by volume, without (or least effect/impact) sacrificing drag or thrust.

they did that with LCA Mk2, still that hasn't reduced their hankering for the foreign MMRCA at exorbitant costs