Hi,<BR>Austin...at the end of that lamented thread;-),my conclusion was the same...that the phased array for the su30mki~zhuk27.<BR>BTW,the no11m was supposed to be the standard fit for the su27m=su35 which went on to be the su37 with tvc...<BR>The no11m has had a troubled history and one wonders whether it will be fielded in bulk.<BR>The zhuk27 appears to have a better future having been funded by india.<P>Here's some more from: <A HREF="http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avsu27.html" TARGET=_blank>http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avsu27.html</A> <P>"One of the problems is that, given the chaotic state of the post-Soviet industrial system, developing the avionics for an operational Su-27M has been troublesome in the extreme. Originally, the aircraft was to be fitted with an advanced N-011 multimode radar from a Russian organization named NIIP, but this development program has proven something of a moving target. The latest implementation of the N-011 has a claimed range of up to 160 kilometers (100 miles), the capability to track 20 targets at once, and engage six of those targets at once. "<P>"NIIP's rival Phazatron has responded with the Zhuk-27 radar, or the similar Zhuk-PH with a phased-array antenna. The Zhuk-PH is stated to have a slightly longer range and wider scan angle than the N-011, the capability to track 24 targets at once and engage eight of them simultaneously. NIIP, not to be outdone, has proposed a new radar of their own that not only has multimode capability, but can track aerial and ground targets at the same time. "<P><BR>"One of the other incremental improvements of the Su-27M was a new and bigger tail stinger, intended to house an N-012 rearward-facing radar, with a range of up to 50 kilometers (31 miles). The N-012 would cue rearward-firing missiles, a concept which has been flight-tested by the Sukhoi OKB. The Su-27M is also to have a comprehensive EW suite for offense and defense, but the status of this effort is uncertain." <P>cheers,<BR>nitin<P>Please send me the seadragon info...my email id:<BR>email@example.com<p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 05-01-2001).]
LCA Specifications<P>Type: All weather air-superiority fighter and light close support aircraft.<P>Variants: Single-seat multi-role fighter.<BR>.............Single-seat multi-role naval fighter.<BR>.............Dual-seat combat-capable trainer.<P>Design Features: The airframe is based on an oval-section fuselage with a shoulder-set double delta wing. It has a compound sweep on its leading edges, which exhibit considerable twist between their inboard & outboard ends. The moving surfaces comprise three-segment flaps on the leading edge and two-section trailing-edge elevons (or elevators). All control surfaces are operated via a full quadruplex digital FBW control system, designed jointly by Lockheed Martin Electronics and ADE.<P>Composite materials, which amounts for over 30% of the weight, and aluminum-lithium alloys have been used to keep the weight down. A special type of material - CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics) - is used in the wings, control surfaces and vertical tail. Titanium alloy is used near 'hot spots' such as the engine. A brake parachute improves landing field performance.<P>Avionics: The LCA will have a multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar and FLIR (Forward-Looking Infra-Red). The cockpit is equipped with HOTAS, HUD and two color multi-function CRTs compatible with the use of NVGs. They are integrated with other elements of the electronic suite such as the INS via a central computer and three MIL-1553B data-buses.<P>The LCA has a Utility Systems Management System to monitor the health of each of its systems and optimize their performance. For maintenance the LCA has 500+ Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.<P>Engine: LCA prototypes will feature a G.E. F404-F2J3 turbofan rated at 18,097 lbs. of thrust with afterburning. Production aircraft will have a Kaveri GTX-35VS turbofan rated at 20,200 lbs. of thrust with afterburning. The engine is operated by Dowty/Smiths FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control System).<P>Fuel Capacity: Internal fuel capacity - 3000 litres. The centreline and the two-inner hardpoints under each wing, can carry five 800 litres fuel tanks. The aircraft also has an in-flight refuelling probe fitted on the starboard side of the forward fuselage to increase range.<P>Maximum Range: ?<P>Maximum Speed: Mach 1.7<P>Service Ceiling: 50,000 feet.<P>G Limits: +9/-3.5<P>Armament: The LCA is fitted with an internally mounted GSh-23mm twin barrel gun with 220 rounds of ammunition. Seven external hardpoints, can carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers and ECM pods. The aircraft is designed to use armament from Western, Russian and Indian sources.<P>Maximum External Stores Load: 4000kg (8818 lbs.)<BR> <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Features/LCA.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Features/LCA.html</A> <P>Self Defence: A RWR system, jammer and chaff & flare dispensers.<P>
<I>>>I would estimate max TO Weight of 10T, similar to JAS Gripen.</I><P>Actually the JAS 39 Gripen's MTOW is 14 tonnes (as confirmed from the Gripen's official site <A HREF="http://www.gripen.saab.se)." TARGET=_blank>http://www.gripen.saab.se).</A> I expect the LCA's MTOW to be similar.<P><I>>>Where did you get the 13T MTOW number from ?</I><P>Damn! I don't have the exact quote, remember reading it in some Jane's thingy. I'll try and confirm it.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by merlin (edited 05-01-2001).]
merlin- Thanks:<BR>OK, I accpet the 13T MTOW. That does give rise to loaded takeoff of 5.5 Ton (dry weight) + 3T Internalfuel + 0.5T internal reservefuel + 4T externalstore.<P>That would give considerable multi-role capabelities. It would be very interesting to get max range estimate for 4 external tanks of 800Kg.<P>Totel cruise fuel: 2T + 3.2T(on external drop tanks). Missile ordanance of 800Kg. Assumes 1T fuel for combat and takeoff.<P>With previous post assumptions that gives flight time of 1.53Hr(91 Min), <B>range of 1377Km </B>and <B>combat radius of ~650 Km</B>. Now that is much better then Mig21.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 05-01-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinster:<BR>II) Now that the first flight is over, will this bird just be sitting in the hangar for next 6/8 months before again taking to wings??<P>or will it keep flying to validate incrementally all the parameters??<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As per some of the articles in online newspapers, LCA will continue to go thru tests increasing the envelope gradually with more lfights. I think the 6/8 months that Goerge F is talking about maybe for TD-2 which is supposed to have some added instrumentations.<P>
I know the Kaveri engine is undergoing tests and perhaps needs time. But first the LCA DFBW needs thorough testing. <P>For the Boeing 777, a new engine by Pratt&Whitney was developed. This engine was more powerfull and in 777 only two are needed. I saw a PBS series on this. The way they tested the new engine was by replacing 1 engine out of 4 on the 747. Of course there were enormous problems in using a 747 for test purposes, since the new engine can flame out and engulf the entire craft. However the test ran smooth save for a problem in the intake section that caused a air eddy problem. <P>Is there a way to fit the Kaveri engine on some other aircraft and test?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bala:<BR><B><BR>Is there a way to fit the Kaveri engine on some other aircraft and test?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's being done on a Tu-16 in Russia.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinster:<BR><B>Is The LCA dimensionally closer to <P>III) was there a voice communication from the pilot to ground/other a/c during the test flight. would he be reading out the instrumentation or his perception of handling???</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes the pilot was in constant touch. One of the receivers used by the test pilots was with Rakesh Sharma. The first impression from the Wg Cdr Kotiyal's reports was apparently "good" - with no hint of anxiety - suggesting that the plane handled predictably. Other parameters were apparently being recorded as well - including photos and video from two two seater Mirages. (I got this from someone who was there)<P>One newspaper report suggested that Raksha mantri wanted to talk as soon as the plane was up - but was advised to do so only after it landed. <BR>
<I>>>Just Chipped in to say that the LCA can carry maximum External Store(Wepons, etc) of 4,700Kg and this data is quite reliable.</I><P>That means MTOW of 13.7 ton. <P><B>That would allow following maximum range LCA configuration: </B><P>A. 7.5 Ton Fuel: 3T (Internal) + 0.5T (internal reserve) and 4T (5 external tanks)<BR>B. 1.5 Ton Air Defense Payload: <BR>………..i) Two long/medium range missiles of upto 750 Kg on outer hardpoints.<BR> OR<BR>………..ii) two 1500 lb bombs (Cluster or singular)<P>Total cruise fuel: 6.5Ton (Assumes the balance 1Ton fuel for combat and takeoff)<P>With previous post assumptions that gives flight time of <B>1.9 Hr(115 Min)</B>, range of <B>1721 Km</B> and combat radius of ~<B>860 Km</B>. <P>Compare that with Mig21 <P><BR><B>Typical LCA confign is more likely with only 3 fuel tanks and 4 weapons: </B><P>A. 5.9 Ton Fuel: 3T (Internal) + 0.5T (internal reserve) and 2.4T (3 external tanks)<BR>B. 2.3 Ton (5060 lb) Air Defense Payload:<P>That would allow:<BR>……. 4 air-defence missiles (long & short range) for defensive role OR <BR>……. 2 air defence missiles & 2 bombs of 2000 lb each <P>that gives flight time of <B>1.4 Hr(86 Min)</B>, range of <B>1300 Km</B> and combat radius of ~<B>650 Km</B>.<P><BR><B>LCA confign with only 2 fuel tanks and 5 weapons: </B><P>A. 5.1 Ton Fuel: 3T (Internal) + 0.5T (internal reserve) and 1.6T (2 external tanks)<BR>B. 3.1 Ton (6820 lb) Air Defense Payload:<P>That would allow:<BR>……. 5 air-defence missiles (long & short range) for defensive role OR<BR>……. 2 air defence missiles & 3 bombs of 2000 lb each <P>that gives flight time of <B>1.2 Hr(72 Min)</B>, range of <B>1085 Km</B> and combat radius of ~<B>540 Km</B>.<BR>
Arun_S,<BR>Since LCA will have airborne refueling capability <BR>Can you give ranges for that as well?<BR>Thanks<P>On a similar note how many Airborne Refuelers are we buying from the Bears?<P>LCA is dimensionally closest to JAS Gripen.<BR>In fact, if I didn't know better I would call Gripen and LCA Swedish and Indian versions of the same basic designs.<BR> <P>------------------<BR>Adios<P>Saurabh
Nice Work There Arun ,But I am Back with a few questions:<P> a) Every Modern A/C Engine uses a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control(FADEC) , What Purpose does these FADEC serve , Like does it serve in efficient management of Fuel or Pheraps better Engine maintenance etc etc Could you Elaborate on that.<P>b)Arun in one of your assumption on Wt ,RangeVs Payload you had stated that 2 Airdefence Missile & 2 bombs of 2000 lb each ,But each Airdefence Missile(AMRAAM) class has a weight of 180 Kg or so but it is also possible that each hard Point can carry 2 Missile each( Seen F-16 Carrying 2AMRAAM on each hard Point) That could also be 4 Airdefence Missile and 2 bombs of 2000lb each Or In Total the LCA can Carry 8 AAM( On 4 hard Points) + 2 Short range Missile on its External Wing Tip Plus one 3000Litres Fuel Pod in Its Center Line.<P>c) The Cockpit Architecture Of LCA centers around 2 (5 X 5 inch) LCD on the Right & Left side of the cockpit plus a Dedicated 2 X 3 inch Display Panel for Take you Home system. Now This approach is very Conservative very much Similar to the Cockpit of F-16C/D , IMO what is Missing is a Center 5 X 6 inch LCD for Dedicated Digital Map Generator and Navigation so the other can Take care of Utility Management/ Navigation and the Second one for Dedicated Wepon System Display, This is Just One Possible Cockpit Architecture , All Modern A/C of same class has more or Less Same Configuration , What members has to Say about the Cockpit Architure of LCA. IMHO The Cockpit Architecture of LCA is very Conservative and Not Suitable for Excellent Man Machine Interface . <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nandai:<BR><B>Then Saurabh I hope you know better. <BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Fortunately [for me ] I do <BR><P>------------------<BR>Adios<P>Saurabh
To add a little to the topic of turbine blades - when alloys solidify, they can do so as crystals with one pre-dominant direction of growth like a coniferous tree (columnar) or symmetrically like a snow flake (equiaxed). Since the main stress in the blade is centrifugal, we'd rather have columnar dendrites aligned <I>only</I> along this axis and little or no equiaxed dendrites if we can help it. So the material properties of interest (yield strength etc.) are anisotropic. When the blade is cast, the mold is attached at its bottom to a chill block from where the cooling begins. This attachement is by a thin spiral selector (like a pig's tail) which lets only one of the radially oriented (say ) crystals through. It is this 'single crystal' that controls the final orientation in the blade. <P>Question: I've a couple of news reports dated May 1999, which speak of the Kaveri having been tested for a total of ~900 hours. Curiously, reports after the LCA flight (arounf 18 months later) mention an identical figure for total hours tested. I find it hard to believe that nothing happened in between?
Some useful links on Single Crystal Turbine blades:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/Eurofighter/engines_ie.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/Eurofighter/engines_ie.html</A> <BR><B>Single Crystal Turbine Blades </B><BR>On the microscopic scale all metals (and their alloys) are an arrangement of crystals. How these crystals are arranged, their size and distribution depends on what the metal or alloy is and how it was forged.<P>The vast majority of turbine blades are now made from a Nickel or Titanium based super-alloy. The alloy will contain a variety of elements (their amounts are typically proprietary and well guarded!) such as Tungsten, Cobalt, Chromium, etc. The resulting material is extremely hard and difficult to machine and thus blades tend to be forged in a process called investment casting. When forged using traditional constant temperature furnaces the blade contains many small precipitates of various compounds (Cobalt, Tungsten, Ni3Al, Ni3Ti, etc.). This resolves certain physical problems with older generation blades (such as problems with power law creep) but unfortunately at high temperatures the blade can still deform irreversibly due to a process known as diffusional creep.<P>To vastly reduce this creep problem (which is basically caused by the small, random grain structure) a different approach to manufacture is taken in which giant single crystals are grown. This is achieved by using either a special furnace across which a temperature gradient can be applied or by slowly moving the blade mould through the furnace, a process called Directional Solidification. The resulting rotor is very resistant to both diffusional creep and power law creep and thus may be used at higher operating temperatures. Thus the efficiency of the jet engine is improved and it becomes possible to run the engine under more extreme conditions (such as cruising supersonically) for longer.<BR> <P><BR>==========================================<P><B>Manufacturing Technology for Scale-Up of Single Crystal Turbine Airfoils <BR> </B> <A HREF="http://www.ms.ornl.gov/programs/energyeff/ats/airfoils.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.ms.ornl.gov/programs/energyeff/ats/airfoils.htm</A> <P>
Guys you don't want to miss this!!<BR>News about LCA/Naval LCA/MCA in a LCA special article at "defence india" site.<P> <A HREF="http://www.defenceindia.com/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.defenceindia.com/</A>
This is the best analysis that I have seen yet. Who else but from Jasjit Singh (of DSA).<BR> <A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/07indi6.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/07indi6.htm</A> <BR>Will the LCA help close the fighter gap? : Jasjit Singh<P><I>.... For the future, all reliance seems to be placed on the indigenous Kaveri engine (under development) for the LCA. Prudence demands that we plan for a proven (possibly Russian) engine for the first 50-100 LCA's while the Kaveri undergoes extensive and extended testing. .... </I><P>This does lead to reconfirm the suggestion that India will redouble its efforts to make LCA fuselage a little thicker to accept Kaveri OR newely create AL31F-II from the proven SU30's AL31F Thrust Vectoring engine core. <P>The engineering and manufacturing effort for this is relatively a small project and a seperate TEAM-B need be created at GTRE/HAL for this safety net. Not to mention the operational & cost benifit to India, apart from enabling India be at the forfront of world's engine making industry, with the sure succes of Kaveri in LCA & MCA.<P>Cheers ...<p>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 07-01-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arun_S:<P>This does lead to reconfirm the suggestion that India will redouble its efforts to make LCA fuselage a little thicker to accept Kaveri OR newely create AL31F-II from the proven SU30's AL31F Thrust Vectoring engine core. <P>The engineering and manufacturing effort for this is relatively a small project and a seperate TEAM-B need be created at GTRE/HAL for this safety net. <P>[This message has been edited by Arun_S (edited 07-01-2001).][/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Hello Arun,<P>IMHO you are underestimating the effort that would be needed to mate the AL-31 with the LCA. In conception alone these (the AL-31 and the LCA airframe) belong to two separate classes. I would suspect that the technology flow-down from the Su-30 deep license would be more on component/materials/manufacturing technologies than on the system side. And it would still not be a small effort... although, I suspect such technology collaborations are underway even now which should help. <P>As for TVC, the potential payoffs for that are still unknown. Whereas the weight/cost penalties and operational/integration complexities of having a TV-equipped engine are substantial. I have been puzzled by the IAFs decision to go this route ... was this just to maintain a tech lead on the Su-30 MKK ? On the LCA, a TVC system would be sufficient to blast the design off the "light class" - as is, weight of the LCA has grown from the first projected <7 tonne to the >8 tonnes. <P>regards<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/120101/12intw1.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/120101/12intw1.htm</A> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR><B>Flight into the Future </B>Kota Harinarayana,<P>....the ferry ranges of LCA is about 3,000 km. It has an air-to-air refueling capability and as a result can extend its range and its endurance. The only requirement is they should have tankers to keep the LCA flight for a longer time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is the first time LCA range is made public, by none other then Hariharan. It appears that my previous LCA range estimates were fairly accurate, since the combat cruise speed of 0.9 Mach would give lesser range. All the more heartening to know that LCA combat range is pretty decent.<BR>
One other really interesting tidbit from the interview with Dr Harinarayana (NOT Hariharan): He says the LCA is actually a little better than the Gripen, and bases this on thrust/weight considerations. The F404 on the Gripen has something like 20-25% lower thrust than the Kaveri and the Gripen is slightly heavier than the LCA. Therefore the LCA has a 25% larger T/W than the Gripen.<P>If the control surfaces on the front of the LCA wings give as much maneouverability as the Gripen's canards, then the LCA should be one mean little puppy in WVR air-to-air in the small fighter category. Besides the Gripen, this may include the FC-1, DASA MAKO and the Korean ATX? All that composites work will have paid off.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest