LCA News and Discussions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2010 08:18

carlo kopp claims the su35BM has a very powerful self defence suite.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 04 Aug 2010 09:04

nachiket wrote:
shiv wrote: Rad please let me ask you a question. I agree that the AMRAAM C-5 is a big threat. But how will a similar missile help the IAF protect against AMRAAMs? Surely countermeasures against the AMRAAM would be a better idea. Surely the answer to a sword is not a sword but a shield?
Shiv saar, in this case the "shield" can never be guaranteed to block the "sword" in every case. having a longer (or atleast same length) "sword" to strike first along with the shield is a necessity.

A better analogy would be an archer with bow and arrow (read KS-172) against the sword in the true sense of asymmetric warfare. This is what Chinese have done against American aircraft carriers i.e. anti ship ballistic missiles or Russians fielded against carriers i.e. long range supersonic cruise missiles.

Cheers....

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 04 Aug 2010 09:49

Earnest request, lease do not go OT and derail LCA thread

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 05 Aug 2010 17:32

Alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LCA Specs goes missing from ADA site.So there is no official specs for it

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Aug 2010 17:40

prabhug wrote:Alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LCA Specs goes missing from ADA site.So there is no official specs for it

prabhug, what is this supposed to mean ?

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 05 Aug 2010 17:53

The specs in the site were very old.Expecting the latest spec with IN20 engine

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 06 Aug 2010 12:05

prabhug wrote:The specs in the site were very old.Expecting the latest spec with IN20 engine

What? I thought the specs were already based on the F404-IN20 engine. What other engine is being used in the prototypes?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Aug 2010 13:19

Not maintainence , the whole website has been redesigned , i dunno whether they will put those info anymore in there

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 08 Aug 2010 10:45

Noob Question::

Well, with the fumes of EURO birds being recommended to be painted in Indian colors flirting around, the question I would like to ask is whether this signifies EURO engine for LCA..?

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 08 Aug 2010 11:38

I think a better question would be that are we going to buy EF's and the Engine's(for L.C.A) from Europe,thus kicking unkil in the unmentionables. Sorry don't know the answer myself , only rephrasing the question (though personally would love to see it happen).

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 09 Aug 2010 14:55

When talking about the 2 engine contenders for the Tejas Mk 2 project, most BRFites refer to the dry or wet thrust numbers. But, what really matters is the engine's thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) because that factors-in the weight of the engine as well and hence provides an accurate comparison between the 2 engines for the potential performance advantage when used in our Tejas.

Current:
1. GE F414-IN is rated at a TWR of 9:1.
2. EJ200 is rated at a TWR of 9.175:1.
--- Clearly, EJ200 will provide better performance for Tejas ---

Future:
1. GE F414-EPE is expected to be rated at a TWR of 9.2:1.
2. The upgraded EJ2x0 is expected to be at TWR of 9.3:1.
--- Again, as per these estimates, EJ might edge out GE ---

* EJ200 might also get Thrust Vectoring in coming years. Something unlikely with the GE engine.

Even if one sees this as a very minor difference and considers both engines as equals, then ofcourse the potential commonality (which is appreciated) between MMRCA and LCA would yet again drive GoI towards signing up the deal with EF and give EJ200 the edge.

I am pretty sure we will see Typhoons in Indian colours in 3 years from now, while Tejas Mk2 will get the EJ200 engines.

PS: Kaveri is probably aiming for the AMCA project now. LOL

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Aug 2010 16:01

>>>But, what really matters is the engine's thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) because that factors-in the weight of the engine as well and hence provides an accurate comparison between the 2 engines for the potential performance advantage when used in our Tejas.

That may not be the case for most of the fighter jets. What matters most is the T/W of the aircraft - because that is the figure which gives an indication of the reserve power the a/c has. Next is the dimentions of the engines - the smaller the engine, the better (of couse, we would like it to be as light as possible too). It is a matter of couple of hundred kgs, when you compare the weight of engines. But if an engine having a better T/W gives less thrust than another engine with worse T/W engine, then it is going to affect the performance of the fighter, notwithstanding the light weight of the engine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Aug 2010 16:10

I see visions of Tejas1 and Tejas2 in huge numbers as the single "low-end" fighter ~300 (supplemented for a decade by the upg Mig29 and M2k until Tejas numbers build up) ; EF and MKI (200 + 300) as the "high-end" and the Jags (some upg and new build) slotted into their niche role of DPSA...eventually tejas/AMCA would take over from either end. nearly 800 high tech fighters same as current inventory but far more potent.

Mig27 and Bison fully and finally gone. oldest lots of jags also retired.

10 Phalcons and 15 desi AEW
25 AAR tankers
6 JSTARS

its not a bad vision I think.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 09 Aug 2010 17:23

I am not sure whether thrust vectoring even if available on EJ will make it's way to LCA. Thrust vectoring, after all comes with additional weight and at least I have doubts whether the benefits provided by it will be enough to justify the additional weight.

Can any of the gurus enlighten us on it?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Aug 2010 19:50

Everybody is doing their own lungi dance(for or against) in MMRCA and forgot about our little champ plane

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Aug 2010 19:51

P Chitkara wrote:I am not sure whether thrust vectoring even if available on EJ will make it's way to LCA. Thrust vectoring, after all comes with additional weight and at least I have doubts whether the benefits provided by it will be enough to justify the additional weight.

Can any of the gurus enlighten us on it?

Prof Prodyut Das on Thrust vectoring

http://rapidshare.com/files/377207669/c ... r.pdf.html

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 09 Aug 2010 20:01

@Shiv
Well, TVC making LCA uncontrollable is a bit exaggeration because FBW system could be upgraded to cope with it. Plus TVC is not a priority area in research in India atleast. They are working on it for AMCA but nothing is going on for the LCA. EJ guys doing it is a different issue.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Aug 2010 20:11

smpratik wrote:@Shiv
Well, TVC making LCA uncontrollable is a bit exaggeration because FBW system could be upgraded to cope with it.

Well its your word against his.

I am certain that the truth lies somewhere between your words and his, but the reason I keep pointing out the Prof's words is that there is another viewpoint which seems to be lost on TV fans. Maybe aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter lack TV because of the very arguments that Prof Das makes. Everything is always a trade off. To get TV you trade off something else - i.e you have a more complex (and possibly failure prone) mechanical system and a more demanding set of control laws that need longer validation.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 10 Aug 2010 00:36

smpratik wrote:@Shiv
Well, TVC making LCA uncontrollable is a bit exaggeration because FBW system could be upgraded to cope with it. Plus TVC is not a priority area in research in India atleast. They are working on it for AMCA but nothing is going on for the LCA. EJ guys doing it is a different issue.

I do not know whether I am right. I think the LCA is not just for the replacement of MiG 21 alone (while that was the main objective and is going to be achieved in any way); it is also a permanent platform (at least till the MCA appears on the radar) for all of our EXPERIMENTS, even if related to issues beyond LCA 'per se'. I for one believe that LCA is going to be a platform for testing a lot of things such as canards, TVC, future engines, radars, weapon systems, UCAV capabilities, and a million other things, though not meant for LCA itself. Neither canards nor TVC will spin the LCA out of control. There is a constant action-reaction interaction between the pilot / software / control surfaces. The laws are the same for the wind tunnel size to LCA to SU30 to Tu 160.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Aug 2010 01:09

^^^ Agreed in principle. As much as I admire Prof. Das, I fail to understand how if everything is scaled down why would lighter plane have TVC?! I have seen RC-planes with TVC (very rudimentary) which pull off hovering, cobra and the entire gamut of high alpha stuff. however, I can understand if somebody says, well you can add TVC to this light plane, but the advantages and disadvantages would level out, so why put it in?

testing a lot of things such as canards TVC, future engines, radars, weapon systems, UCAV capabilities, and a million other things

I would like to take off canards from that list and add engine intakes right at the beginning of that list. The reason for taking off canards is that they started off with a design with canards, and then dealt away with it by modifying the wing. With canards being so radar friendly, I don't think that we would see a lot of canards in any of the new designs.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 10 Aug 2010 16:22

shiv wrote: Prof Prodyut Das on Thrust vectoring

http://rapidshare.com/files/377207669/c ... r.pdf.html

Prof Prodyut Das has his own opinion on all topics!!

What about NASA Rockwell-Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31? its was of same size as LCA.

One must not discard a tech just because its too hard to achieve. Maybe TVC developed on LCA will end up on other Indian designs, like AMCA.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 11 Aug 2010 02:15

Sid wrote: What about NASA Rockwell-Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31? its was of same size as LCA.

Surprising! 20 years ago this X-31 had canards, TVC, achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack, successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft!!! And it was of almost the same size as the LCA, or even smaller and lighter. For all of that it was just an experimental aircraft!!!!

Funny that we are discussing whether we should experiment all that on LCA platform, 20 years later!!!!! Why not? We must experiment all that and even more on LCA despite Prof Prodyut Das and his ilk.

hariks · Post by **hariks** » 11 Aug 2010 03:11

When we talk of thrust to weight ratio why is the T/W ratio of an engine so relevant?
Since the acceleration will depend on T/W ratio of the Engine+Aircraft, a large constant (Aircraft's weight) is added to the W in the equation, and then the engine with higher thrust will show a better ratio (considering the weights of the engines are not hugely different). So F114 may show a better T/W ratio, but as they say if Ej200 can be "configured" for higher thrust then this is not an issue.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Aug 2010 03:24

It isn't as simple as looking at Thrust vs Weight of the engine to estimate which is better or not. For instance, take the case of the Jaguar re-engining. The F-125IN is lighter than the Adour Mk 821 and produces more dry and wet thrust, yet that advantage is whittled away to some degree since the Jaguar with the F-125IN will require ballast to be placed in the rear to balance out the lighter engine weight so as to not shift the CG of the aircraft further forward. That means that while the engine might be lighter, it doesn't necessarily work as a weight reduction factor without having to carry out a very significant design change to move the CG aft. The only possible way to do that would be relocate some avionics equipment into an aft bay but that requires space to be available and there shouldn't be losses due to locating avionics far from the sensors.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Aug 2010 07:40

Telang wrote:
Sid wrote: What about NASA Rockwell-Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31? its was of same size as LCA.
Surprising! 20 years ago this X-31 had canards, TVC, achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack, successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft!!! And it was of almost the same size as the LCA, or even smaller and lighter. For all of that it was just an experimental aircraft!!!!

Funny that we are discussing whether we should experiment all that on LCA platform, 20 years later!!!!! Why not? We must experiment all that and even more on LCA despite Prof Prodyut Das and his ilk.

You make an interesting point. After all the achievements of that X-31 - TV has not been implemented in any western aircraft in these last 20 years other than the Raptor - which is a huge fighter and a program that seems to be going nowhere.

After all these years the MKI is the only in service aircraft that is both affordable and has reliable TV. And it is also large, like the Raptor. What does that say about the value of Prof Das's insight?

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 11 Aug 2010 08:37

Kartik wrote:It isn't as simple as looking at Thrust vs Weight of the engine to estimate which is better or not. For instance, take the case of the Jaguar re-engining. The F-125IN is lighter than the Adour Mk 821 and produces more dry and wet thrust, yet that advantage is whittled away to some degree since the Jaguar with the F-125IN will require ballast to be placed in the rear to balance out the lighter engine weight so as to not shift the CG of the aircraft further forward. That means that while the engine might be lighter, it doesn't necessarily work as a weight reduction factor without having to carry out a very significant design change to move the CG aft. The only possible way to do that would be relocate some avionics equipment into an aft bay but that requires space to be available and there shouldn't be losses due to locating avionics far from the sensors.

You are talking about "re-engining" the Jaguars and not "re-designing" them to work with the new engines. The potential advantage of the engines was lost because of the patch work needed to get the job done for the Jaguar upgrade. In the case of LCA Mk2, the chairman of ADA told Aviation Week in an interview that they are planning on minor re-design of the airframe to fit the new engine (either of the 2 considered) and also increase the air flow. This will obviously mean the aircraft is being optimized to use the engine to the max, in which case the one with better specs and better future R&D scope wins. In my opinion, that is the EJ200.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 11 Aug 2010 09:04

Telang wrote:
Sid wrote: What about NASA Rockwell-Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31? its was of same size as LCA.
Surprising! 20 years ago this X-31 had canards, TVC, achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack, successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft!!! And it was of almost the same size as the LCA, or even smaller and lighter. For all of that it was just an experimental aircraft!!!!

Funny that we are discussing whether we should experiment all that on LCA platform, 20 years later!!!!! Why not? We must experiment all that and even more on LCA despite Prof Prodyut Das and his ilk.

I think the reason why some experimentally successful technologies don't make it to the production models is the cost-to-benefit factor. Maybe adding TVC and canards to LCA won't give it a justifiable increase in punch for the buck.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 11 Aug 2010 09:20

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

ITP have suggested that a Eurofighter fitted with the nozzle will benefit in a number of areas including; reduced after body drag (through tighter nozzle shape control), an estimated 7% improvement in installed thrust for the supersonic cruise regime (M1.2 non-reheat at 35000ft) and a 2% improvement in maximum take-off thrust.

Consider Tranche 3 EF Typhoon with the uprated EJ2x0 engine with 72kN dry thrust as planned and TVC which adds to the thrust an expected 7% more. This adds a mere 5kN to get the engine to a total of 77kN dry thrust in supercruise regimes. This comes at an expense, of course. But, what kind of added costs are to be expected in production and maintenance?

I am sure they will waste a whole year in just coming up with a feasibility report on it.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 11 Aug 2010 11:01

remember we used AN-12 as bomber in 1971 Karachi Harbor raids. It does not mean AN-12 could become bomber.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Aug 2010 11:22

Consider Tranche 3 EF Typhoon with the uprated EJ2x0 engine with 72kN dry thrust as planned and TVC which adds to the thrust an expected 7% more. This adds a mere 5kN to get the engine to a total of 77kN dry thrust in supercruise regimes

Problem is that 72KN and 77KN etc are at sea level and are static thrusts (ie when the plane is at rest).

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 11 Aug 2010 12:41

vina wrote:
Consider Tranche 3 EF Typhoon with the uprated EJ2x0 engine with 72kN dry thrust as planned and TVC which adds to the thrust an expected 7% more. This adds a mere 5kN to get the engine to a total of 77kN dry thrust in supercruise regimes

Problem is that 72KN and 77KN etc are at sea level and are static thrusts (ie when the plane is at rest).

I know. That is the whole reason why air forces do not buy aircrafts by looking at the spec sheet. We have competitions like the MMRCA just for that. In the mean time, we lay men on BRF speculate based on the puny info we have from these manufacturer's brochures.

But, it baffles me that 4 of the 6 MMRCA contenders failed Leh trials while our Tejas apparently cleared it with ease while being thrashed around by IAF as grossly underpowered. What does this translate to?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Aug 2010 17:34

Did the LCA operate with a full warload,etc.? I wonder what paramerters were used for the trials for the MMRCA birds.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 11 Aug 2010 23:03

shiv wrote: You make an interesting point. After all the achievements of that X-31 - TV has not been implemented in any western aircraft in these last 20 years other than the Raptor - which is a huge fighter and a program that seems to be going nowhere.

After all these years the MKI is the only in service aircraft that is both affordable and has reliable TV. And it is also large, like the Raptor. What does that say about the value of Prof Das's insight?

Shiv, I dont know how you missed the point I was making. The Americans and the Germans through X 31 have the tech in their shirt pocket. They may have not used it yet for the reasons best known to them and Prof Das. But, in the middle of the night, if they find that tech needed, they shall have it implemented by the day break. Most of NASA projects have no immediate application, but the mastery of the tech is safely deposited in the minds and hands of their scintists and technicians, to be drawn at will. That is long sight, and coming to the insight of Prof Das, I feel it is foolish to miss on learning only to be repentant when that missed out knowledge is badly needed. We have TVC and Canards on MKI, we dont know how to do that on our own. What is wrong in learning all that, whether immediately needed or not??

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Aug 2010 23:10

Philip wrote:Did the LCA operate with a full warload,etc.? I wonder what paramerters were used for the trials for the MMRCA birds.

it operated with 2 R-73s and 2 full 800 ltr drop tanks. the Gripen C/D did the same with 2 IRIS-T and drop tanks. None operated with "full warload".

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 11 Aug 2010 23:15

prastor wrote:

I think the reason why some experimentally successful technologies don't make it to the production models is the cost-to-benefit factor. Maybe adding TVC and canards to LCA won't give it a justifiable increase in punch for the buck.

Prastor, I do not recommend TVC or Canards for LCA, you mistook the point. THERE IS NO CALCULATION OF PUNCH FOR THE BUCK OR BUCK FOR THE PUNCH. I AM RECOMMENDING ACHIEVING MASTERY ON THE TECH OF TVC AND CANARDS BY EXPERIMENTING ALL THAT ON LCA PLATFORM. THIS TECH MAY BE NEEDED ELSEWHERE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES. I hope I must have made my point clear.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 12 Aug 2010 00:12

Telang

Cant the experimentation wait till we get the current platform operational?
Do we have the luxury of time and money to do experiments at such a scale while the Forces wanted the platform being developed yesterday ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Aug 2010 00:43

While going through the Flight Global archives (an excellent source of historic articles), I came across something that completely blew me away..I can bet that no one on BRF (including me since I was 12 years old back then) knew that China, in 1994, actually was in preliminary discussions to collaborate with India on the LCA program. The article below, appeared in a Flight International magazine in 1994. Don't know how far these discussions actually went but going by the fact that no one has ever mentioned this before, I can assume that it didn't go very far. China later on approached Israel and the Lavi design was then used as the baseline for China's own J-10 fighter.

I used to collect Flight Internationals from our local raddi-wala for Rs 5 per issue. God knows who it was that kept throwing away these great mags because I used to treasure them..in those pre-internet revolution days, these Flight Internationals were a way to get a rare glimpse at what was happening around the world in aviation. The first time I saw a Eurofighter (it was not the Typhoon in those days), Rafale (a Dassault advert showing a Mirage-2000N flying with a Rafale prototype in white) and Gripen (something about the introduction of vortex generating strakes near the cockpit) was in the pages of this excellent magazine.

Anyway, what this article makes very clear is that India made attempts to involve Saab and BAE as partners in the LCA programme, but both didn't agree. Many have in the past accused it was a huge mistake not to seek partnership with some large experienced global aviation firm to accelerate the LCA's development but this article dispels the myth that attempts were not made.

China/India discuss LCA project
VEENA SINGH/ NEW DELHI

CHINA AND India have entered preliminary discussions over co-operation on the latter's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, with a high-level Chinese delegation visiting the country at the end of July for talks. India has been desperately seeking partners for its long-running LCA programme to replace its ageing Mikoyan MiG-21s, as project costs have escalated. Approaches to Western manufacturers have so far proved fruitless. A Chinese delegation, led by Zhang Yang-Chong, vice-president of the Aviation Industries of China, led a ten-strong delegation to Bangalore to meet thee LCA programme director Kota Harinarayana. India had previously approached Saab of Sweden and British Aerospace as potential partners for the LCA programme, but neither company appears willing to gamble on the project. China has a long-term requirement to replace its Xian J-7 (MiG-21) and Shenyang J-6 (MiG-19) in the attack role, with the LCA providing a potentially attractive option.Informed sources, however, suggest that while collaboration between China and India on a civil aircraft programme is credible, military collaboration is more problematic. China has also expressed an interest in developing jointly a 100-seat regional airliner with Hindustan Aeronautics and South Korea. There is doubt, however, about whether this projected project will come to fruition.

article link

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 12 Aug 2010 00:57

narmad wrote:Telang

Cant the experimentation wait till we get the current platform operational?
Do we have the luxury of time and money to do experiments at such a scale while the Forces wanted the platform being developed yesterday ?

Good question. As for luxury of money, ask Suresh Kalmadi how much we can really save if corruption is plugged just from the CWG. Even allowing corruption, my guess is we can simultaneously run ten LCA developmental programmes, as for our monetary capabilities are concerned. As for man power, go to any matrimonial site and search for simple graduates or post graduates (boys or girls) in arts and pure sceince subjects, and you will know the reality. My state alone churns out about one lakh engineering graduates every year, while the accumulated product for the last five years is still remaining unemployed!!!!. Do you know that the "fly by wire" tech development of LCA had under graduate students from one of our colleges as part of the developmental team? Probably this night, right now, some aerospace engineering graduate is getting prepared to appear for an interview tomorrow as a data entry operator / store keeper in some tiny organisation. While that is the kind of reserve we have, what are those engineers who worked on drawing boards for LCA from 1984 to 2000 doing right now? Probably biting their nails and whiling away their time. Go to any site on the web that gives the Chinese story of reverse engineering / re-engineering / bribing / industrial espionage (right now an NRI is awaiting announcement of life imprisonment in USA for having passed on stealth tech to Chinese); and see what they achieved in what amount of time.

The problem with Hanuman was that he never knew his own capabilities till some one told him of his capabilites. Your question itself seems to be proving some point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Aug 2010 08:34

Telang wrote: Prastor, I do not recommend TVC or Canards for LCA, you mistook the point. THERE IS NO CALCULATION OF PUNCH FOR THE BUCK OR BUCK FOR THE PUNCH. I AM RECOMMENDING ACHIEVING MASTERY ON THE TECH OF TVC AND CANARDS BY EXPERIMENTING ALL THAT ON LCA PLATFORM. THIS TECH MAY BE NEEDED ELSEWHERE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES. I hope I must have made my point clear.

Telang I am not an aerospace guru and I don't know if you are one. But I would like to make a point.

Thrust vectoring research is better carried out on a two engine aircraft simply because of the safety it provides and resistance to program cancellation in case of an accident.

If we must experiment, I would much rather see a resurrection of the HF 24 for all sorts of experimentation.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 12 Aug 2010 08:47

Telang,

When the future(5th gen AMCA) is twin-enginned which is much easier to be handled for a TVC aircraft than a single enginned tvc, then why do you want to waste efforts working on a single engine tvc's FBW? I would assume that two engines could balance each other but a single engine tvc could be as uncontrollable as a diwali rocket.

But to argue from opposite side, one could always install TVC engines in LCA but use them as non-TVC engines. This achieved by locking the control software from allowing nozzles to bend sideways but instead allowing only nozzle dilation and contraction like regular non-tvc engines. In the meanwhile the FBW folks develop the complex fbw for a single engine tvc plane. The iaf isn't bereft of planes until r&d is over. Not sure whether the gain is worth the efforts.