LCA news and discussion

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 21 Sep 2009 17:55

Did somebody notice the side opening panels on LCA engine intakes?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2009 18:02

Raj Malhotra wrote:ADA + HAL has orders now for 2+4+2+8+20+12+6=54 LCA. Their current output is One LCA per One and half year.

ouch !

Did somebody notice the side opening panels on LCA engine intakes?

yep, been there for sometime. I think I saw it first on LCA during AI.
shukla had a report on it last year.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 21 Sep 2009 18:05

Daedalus wrote:
AmitR wrote:
Did anyone notice the roboLizard on the glass canopy of LCA in Shukla ji's blog?

I am sure that is an ultra advanced automated cockpit cleaner robot that India has developed.

I see it and by the way nice find, its hard to spot. May be you should become an analyst for the RAW (or some intelligence agency). Its probably a Common House Gecko or some other gecko.

Ok one more thing, it could be some kind of micro robospy trying to get a peek of the cockpit.

I think the advanced cockpit cleaner is actually cleaning the wall opposite the LCA & not the cockpit! So is it an advanced wall cleaner now

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 21 Sep 2009 18:26

Navy has backed LCA. Showing faith in our scientists to deliver can work wonders. Navy has always supported domestic effort. We will make mistakes, but learn from it.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... cr/370736/

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2009 18:31

^^^
article being discussed in the last two pages.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Sep 2009 18:54

That is an old photograph of the PV-5. It is like nearly 18 months old by now.
The last photo of the PV-5 we saw was it sitting pretty on the tramac, and people were discussing the size of the nosecone.

Added later: on examining the exif data of that image, I notice that this pic of the LCA PV-5 was taken on 2008-6-18 ie. 18th of June last year

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Sep 2009 20:16

There were news early this year of low speed taxi trials etc but than nothing.........

They said after the major review and deciding on a new powerful engine the program was on track for fast completion. It seems they are stuck with Radar integration issues now.

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 22 Sep 2009 01:23

I think the piece by Ajay Shukla on the LCA bagging the order from the Navy was very well written and contained relevant and useful information, unlike some of the reports on it by some posters here.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 23 Sep 2009 11:40

hi can anyone elaborate on the LCA precision laser guided weaponary and BVR MISSILES.
also how is it faring in ground attack capabilities.
question: why is kimov rd 33 ( mig 29 engine ) not considered good enough for LCA.
and what about the radar to be fitted in LCA.

and any realistic figure on when can we see a LCA in IAF and NAVY in full operation.......

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 23 Sep 2009 11:57

abhi.enggr wrote:hi can anyone elaborate on the LCA precision laser guided weaponary and BVR MISSILES.
also how is it faring in ground attack capabilities.
question: why is kimov rd 33 ( mig 29 engine ) not considered good enough for LCA.
and what about the radar to be fitted in LCA.

and any realistic figure on when can we see a LCA in IAF and NAVY in full operation.......

well the LCA should be able to drop lots of Russian, EU, US, Issy and indian weapons, its weapons flexibility will among the highest in the world. rd-33 has a higher infra red signature compared to the EJ2000 and GE F414 and these engines have growth potential, the rd-33 is heavier as well i think but the main reason remains the rd-33 powers the JF-17 and we dont go for the same engine powering the LCA..no way. so far the LCA's weapons trails have been very quiet and secretive so essentially its hard to keep tabs on how far it has reached in the weaponization phase. LCAmk-2's AESA radar is being worked on as we speak, its not the EL-2052 btw, India is developing its own AESA for this, though it may be similar to the EL-2052 since i think we ordered 5 EL's and reverse engineered them...but no confirmation. but i did see LCA's home made AESA on one of the links of pics fom aero india 2009 of BR.

pravula · Post by **pravula** » 23 Sep 2009 12:08

RameshC wrote: rd-33 has a higher infra red signature compared to the EJ2000 and GE F414 and these engines have growth potential, the rd-33 is heavier as well i think but the main reason remains the rd-33 powers the JF-17 and we dont go for the same engine powering the LCA..no way.

Wait a min...... rd-33 also powers our MiG29s. So did we scrap all our 29s just because JF-17 uses it?

(BTW, JF-17 uses RD-93, not RD-33, different placement of gearbox IIRC)

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 23 Sep 2009 12:31

okay so it seems that the rd33 is not considered because itis heavier....
is the only reason for not considering rd 33 is that porkistani jf-17 uses them then we should be having other engines for mig29 smt as well.
and if not and only rd 33 being heavy is the only reason then why is ge414 being used since it is also a heavy class engine.
please help me with this....iam a bit confused........
and also the weapons i know LCA is using are mostly of russian and israeli origin which are performing well.......
and if jf-17 which is considered to be a light weight aircraft and is using rd33 then why not LCA......
do we not consider mig29 to be a potent weapon.........

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 23 Sep 2009 12:58

abhi.enggr wrote:okay so it seems that the rd33 is not considered because itis heavier....
is the only reason for not considering rd 33 is that porkistani jf-17 uses them then we should be having other engines for mig29 smt as well.
and if not and only rd 33 being heavy is the only reason then why is ge414 being used since it is also a heavy class engine.
please help me with this....iam a bit confused........
and also the weapons i know LCA is using are mostly of russian and israeli origin which are performing well.......
and if jf-17 which is considered to be a light weight aircraft and is using rd33 then why not LCA......
do we not consider mig29 to be a potent weapon.........

rd-33 requires a lot of re-work before it can fit in the hole, besides rd-33 has no growth potential, both EJ and GE do have growth potential, both engines are also much more advanced and reliable with better FOB survivability. though the rd-33 have TVC etc it has higher infra red signature, its also considerably heavier, the GE is only 110kg heavier than the EJ. though Russian and Issy weapons are mainstay the LCA can deploy a lot of US and EU weapons as well.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 23 Sep 2009 16:11

RameshC wrote:though it may be similar to the EL-2052 since i think we ordered 5 EL's and reverse engineered them...but no confirmation.

This is an extraordinary claim. I guess it definitely needs some backing up. Links please

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 23 Sep 2009 16:30

abhi.enggr wrote:okay so it seems that the rd33 is not considered because itis heavier....
is the only reason for not considering rd 33 is that porkistani jf-17 uses them then we should be having other engines for mig29 smt as well.
and if not and only rd 33 being heavy is the only reason then why is ge414 being used since it is also a heavy class engine.
please help me with this....iam a bit confused........
and also the weapons i know LCA is using are mostly of russian and israeli origin which are performing well.......
and if jf-17 which is considered to be a light weight aircraft and is using rd33 then why not LCA......
do we not consider mig29 to be a potent weapon.........

You are asking too much without first trying to find out yourself.

This is not the preferred approach in this forum

Please do some googling pre hand and if still you are not able to understand, than ask for it.

-Nitin

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 23 Sep 2009 17:31

abhi.enggr wrote:okay so it seems that the rd33 is not considered because itis heavier....
is the only reason for not considering rd 33 is that porkistani jf-17 uses them then we should be having other engines for mig29 smt as well.
and if not and only rd 33 being heavy is the only reason then why is ge414 being used since it is also a heavy class engine.
please help me with this....iam a bit confused........
and also the weapons i know LCA is using are mostly of russian and israeli origin which are performing well.......
and if jf-17 which is considered to be a light weight aircraft and is using rd33 then why not LCA......
do we not consider mig29 to be a potent weapon.........

RD-33 was open to be fitted on LCA since the project's inception. ADA chose F404 over RD-33 due some shortcomings in the latter. Those shortcomings(or specific requirements) haven't been addressed by the Russians. It's hard to believe that Rd-33 would be opted for Mk-2 when it didn't make it to the Mk1 when conditions were more favorable for it then it had ever been (following the 1998 US sanctions).

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 19:03

KrishG wrote:RD-33 was open to be fitted on LCA since the project's inception. ADA chose F404 over RD-33 due some shortcomings in the latter. Those shortcomings(or specific requirements) haven't been addressed by the Russians. It's hard to believe that Rd-33 would be opted for Mk-2 when it didn't make it to the Mk1 when conditions were more favorable for it then it had ever been (following the 1998 US sanctions).

answer to this question lies in past, when LCA was designed in early 1990s at that time rd33 engines was bad and smoky compared to western engines thats why ADA choose F404 instead but this isn't the case anymore but i don't think rd33mk will ever be fitted to LCA due to diameter constraints

but ADA did not look at M53-P2 - powered later Mirage 2000C models and used to upgrade earlier models with

o Dry thrust: 64.7 kN (6,600 kgp / 14,500 lbf)
o Afterburning thrust: 95.1 kN (9,700 kgp / 21,400 lbf)

there engine was best option for LCA and if India had produced this engine with TOT there could be commonality between m2000 engines and LCA engine

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Sep 2009 19:26

I wonder whether 6 Naval LCA will be single seat or twin seater?

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 23 Sep 2009 20:20

abhi.enggr wrote: LCAmk-2's AESA radar is being worked on as we speak, its not the EL-2052 btw, India is developing its own AESA for this

Hi...Are u sure that India is developing its own AESA for LCA ??
Can anybody else confirm this ?? If possible any links or images.....

Regards

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 20:54

Raj Malhotra wrote:I wonder whether 6 Naval LCA will be single seat or twin seater?

Single seaters I should think.
The weight gain in a twin seater will reduce the weapons payload very drastically. Add to this that the Naval LCA is burdened with a stronger heavier undercarriage, and the STOL from a carrier imposes a restriction on the weapons payload already I think.

So IN will have the twin seater Mig-29K and the single seater Naval LCA taking off from the carriers. I wonder if the two aircraft will differ in the role assigned to them.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Sep 2009 21:03

twin seater mig-29k ? k is single seat, KUB is twin seat. is IN buying all KUBs ?

that's news to me.
LCA rear-seater will eat into fuel capacity IIRC, I don't think it will affect payload that much.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Sep 2009 00:06

RameshC wrote: rd-33 has a higher infra red signature compared to the EJ2000 and GE F414 and these engines have growth potential, the rd-33 is heavier as well i think but the main reason remains the rd-33 powers the JF-17 and we dont go for the same engine powering the LCA..no way.

what IR signature are you talking about ? every turbofan with AB has a big IR signature. unless you use a special shroud, there is nearly no difference between any of these engines in that respect.

the JF-17 being powered by the RD-93 (not RD-33) has NOTHING to do with the LCA. the LCA's interim powerplant was chosen in the late 1980s to be the F-404 because of much higher reliability and MTBF/MTBO. after the Kaveri was dumped, the choice was restricted to the F-414 and EJ-200 primarily because these will have high reliability, MTBO, MTBF, and will require comparatively less re-engineering effort to integrate them to the Tejas airframe, but primarily because these were the only engines in the size range of the F-404 that offer 90kN plus AB thrust. even in AB, the RD-93 is not a 90kN engine.

for some reason, the ADA guys have gone with very little Russian content on the Tejas.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 00:44

not true the EJ2000 and GE 414 both have lower IR singature due to the nozzels they use, the RD-33 has a massive IR signature. F404 is roughly 85 kn engine which is not adequate which is why we want the GE F414 which powers the SH or the EJ2000 powering the EF. both are far more reliable like you said than the rd-33.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 24 Sep 2009 00:54

Rahul M wrote:twin seater mig-29k ? k is single seat, KUB is twin seat. is IN buying all KUBs ?
that's news to me.
LCA rear-seater will eat into fuel capacity IIRC, I don't think it will affect payload that much.

Rahul IIRC IN ordered 16 Mig 29K of which 12 are single saeter and the remaining 4 are twin seater (Trainers) The trainsers are classified as KUBS which will be the precussor of the delivery to be followed by single seaters.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 24 Sep 2009 01:31

nrshah wrote:
abhi.enggr wrote:okay so it seems that the rd33 is not considered because itis heavier....
is the only reason for not considering rd 33 is that porkistani jf-17 uses them then we should be having other engines for mig29 smt as well.
and if not and only rd 33 being heavy is the only reason then why is ge414 being used since it is also a heavy class engine.
please help me with this....iam a bit confused........
and also the weapons i know LCA is using are mostly of russian and israeli origin which are performing well.......
and if jf-17 which is considered to be a light weight aircraft and is using rd33 then why not LCA......
do we not consider mig29 to be a potent weapon.........
You are asking too much without first trying to find out yourself.

This is not the preferred approach in this forum

Please do some googling pre hand and if still you are not able to understand, than ask for it.

-Nitin

got your point
well i actually wanted others understanding
i can do the google stuff and i always do but it is always wise to have others opinions as well........believe me it helps

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Sep 2009 02:40

Rahul M wrote:twin seater mig-29k ? k is single seat, KUB is twin seat. is IN buying all KUBs ?
that's news to me.

Err,
My bad.

I thought the twin seaters would be like the Tomcat twin seaters. The twin seaters will be for training, will be able to carry simulated ammo and will be used for carrier borne flight training etc.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Sep 2009 03:57

RameshC wrote:not true the EJ2000 and GE 414 both have lower IR singature due to the nozzels they use, the RD-33 has a massive IR signature.

do you have a source to back your statement or is it just conjecture ? even otherwise, unless there is a very big difference in the temperatures, the kind of sensitivity that current generation IIR and IR seekers have, unless a thermal shroud is used over the nozzle (something I mentioned in my previous post as well), there is going to be almost (if indeed the RD-33 has a higher IR signature due to a higher temperature nozzle), no difference between an RD-33 and F-414 and EJ200's IR signature..basically all three will be nicely lighting up any IR sensor, either on a missile or on an aircraft, and it was NOT one of the reasons for the non-selection of the RD-33 for the Tejas.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 24 Sep 2009 12:40

Kartik wrote:
RameshC wrote:not true the EJ2000 and GE 414 both have lower IR singature due to the nozzels they use, the RD-33 has a massive IR signature.
do you have a source to back your statement or is it just conjecture ? even otherwise, unless there is a very big difference in the temperatures, the kind of sensitivity that current generation IIR and IR seekers have, unless a thermal shroud is used over the nozzle (something I mentioned in my previous post as well), there is going to be almost (if indeed the RD-33 has a higher IR signature due to a higher temperature nozzle), no difference between an RD-33 and F-414 and EJ200's IR signature..basically all three will be nicely lighting up any IR sensor, either on a missile or on an aircraft, and it was NOT one of the reasons for the non-selection of the RD-33 for the Tejas.

exactly my point ...........
also if the rd33k engine is powering the mig-29 family and are sucessfully operational in mig-29k/kub then why not tejas lca.
also although iam not confirmed on the IR signature but i havenot found anything which says that f-414 and ej200 don't have them.....
and actually since the deciding factor according to design team is thrust and power then we should be comparing that instead of IR signature firsthand.........

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Sep 2009 12:49

abhi, rd-33 is an old design with very high maintenance requirements, low lifetime and virtually no growth potential. the sea wasp has reached its growth potential with a 7% increase in thrust.
that's clearly not enough.
also, remember when the LCA was being designed f404 was thought as stop gap till kaveri was developed. IAF's experiences with the mig-29 certainly didn't endear the rd-33.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 24 Sep 2009 12:56

Rahul M wrote:abhi, rd-33 is an old design with very high maintenance requirements, low lifetime and virtually no growth potential. the sea wasp has reached its growth potential with a 7% increase in thrust.
that's clearly not enough.
also, remember when the LCA was being designed f404 was thought as stop gap till kaveri was developed. IAF's experiences with the mig-29 certainly didn't endear the rd-33.

thanks rahul
dear one more question...
since f-404 is the stop gap for lca and from what i have learnt is f-414 is similar in outward design and shape to f-404 then i think it has to be the best choice for LCA since it can be integrated into LCA without any modifications in airframe design which is paramount....
i presonally believe that since LCA is the lightest one in it's category shouldn't we be looking at the f-414 so that the airframe design is not tinkerd much.........since i believe the role lca has to play implies that the airframe has to be most important.
your comments..........

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 24 Sep 2009 13:25

thanks rahul
dear one more question...
since f-404 is the stop gap for lca and from what i have learnt is f-414 is similar in outward design and shape to f-404 then i think it has to be the best choice for LCA since it can be integrated into LCA without any modifications in airframe design which is paramount....
i presonally believe that since LCA is the lightest one in it's category shouldn't we be looking at the f-414 so that the airframe design is not tinkerd much.........since i believe the role lca has to play implies that the airframe has to be most important.
your comments..........

F-414 is 120 Kg more than what it should ideally have been for LCA , on the other hand EADS insist that LCA would not require any structural changes to fit in with EJ2000 although the thrust is slightly lower than GE Engine , therefore if EJ2000 go ahead with proposed thrust vectoring feature for LCA engine , it might just be the clincher.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 14:03

but we did develope home made con-di nozeels on the kaveri and work in on for MATV hence i doubt the EJ-2000's TVC is needed because it will be more expensive anyways, GE has a lot of exp. with LCA this could help them win, plus added thrust. well the mig-29's IR signature is much higher than the F-18SH's, you dont need sources just watch a few videos of the mig-35/29ovt and SH..there is a difference. plus the mig engine is more smokey as well.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 24 Sep 2009 14:11

NAVAL LCA using G-404IN20 can be used as trainers if they are 2 seaters even if they are underpowered. I think that after first 20, the IAF has also ordered next 12 as two seaters to use as trainers. But HAL and ADA are getting slower by the day with no trance of P-4/5 or LSP-3-5

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 14:24

RameshC wrote:but we did develope home made con-di nozeels on the kaveri and work in on for MATV hence i doubt the EJ-2000's TVC is needed because it will be more expensive anyways, GE has a lot of exp. with LCA this could help them win, plus added thrust. well the mig-29's IR signature is much higher than the F-18SH's, you dont need sources just watch a few videos of the mig-35/29ovt and SH..there is a difference. plus the mig engine is more smokey as well.

RD-33MK is not smoky already, unlike RD-33 ser. 3 it has a new non-smoking combusting camera. Can see MiG-35 in fly without any visible smoke. EJ200 - on other hand is a HEAVY smoker! Just look any video with EF2000. Strangely nobody here bother with this problem while it's on EJ200.

Yes, 20 years ago when the f404 engine was chosen, it's looked like a best choice from tech aspect at least. But now, if looking behind, could be said it was the WORSE decision. Let assume RD-33 was chosen then, India already has finished LCA program, didn't have 10 years of program arrest or uncertainness. RD-33MKV in one-engine variant and TVC would already installed on LCA and manufactured in India. The plane would then already been offered for export just as Chinese FC-1. Now with an American engine inside or a European high cost one the export potential of LCA becomes problematic, hmm...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Sep 2009 17:23

Igorr wrote:RD-33MK is not smoky already, unlike RD-33 ser. 3 it has a new non-smoking combusting camera. Can see MiG-35 in fly without any visible smoke. EJ200 - on other hand is a HEAVY smoker! Just look any video with EF2000. Strangely nobody here bother with this problem while it's on EJ200.

Yes, 20 years ago when the f404 engine was chosen, it's looked like a best choice from tech aspect at least. But now, if looking behind, could be said it was the WORSE decision. Let assume RD-33 was chosen then, India already has finished LCA program, didn't have 10 years of program arrest or uncertainness. RD-33MKV in one-engine variant and TVC would already installed on LCA and manufactured in India. The plane would then already been offered for export just as Chinese FC-1. Now with an American engine inside or a European high cost one the export potential of LCA becomes problematic, hmm...

Exactly. This was the biggest blunder. As was the decision to rope Americans as consultants which has hit the project.
Again. IN looks more professional which took Russian help initially and now every new ship is constructed in-house

As I always say, all those using American equipments don't have in house R & D for whatever reasons. The only exception being Isreal.

-Nitin

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 24 Sep 2009 17:37

>>>As I always say, all those using American equipments don't have in house R & D for whatever reasons. The only exception being Isreal.

How true! look at the F-16 C programme with the Japs...When the Japs decided to design a fighter on their own, Unkeel jumped in and offered to co-develop the F-16 variant to suit the Japs. They took the bait and see where they are? When I last read about the programme decades before, the prototypes were developing cracks on the wings. The Japs were scoring frequent flier points and nothing less.

I am surprised Indian Programme has reached thus far!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Sep 2009 17:56

geeth wrote:
I am surprised Indian Programme has reached thus far!

That is because we stopped / they stopped helping us for the program. We took pains to develop every thing without Americans as far as possible. Only engine continued to be American... Not to mention deliveries blocked following Pok II and everything else is documented thousands of time and hence not required to be retrieved again

-Nitin

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 17:58

nrshah wrote: As I always say, all those using American equipments don't have in house R & D for whatever reasons. The only exception being Isreal.

-Nitin

Cannot agree more with you, Nitin. Indeed, somebody should explain us why all Indian programs with Western countries tech input are in deep delay, limbing or deleted at all (Arjun, LCA, Bhim) while the joint Indo-Russian projects or the project with Russian input (Brahmos, Arihant, shipbuilding program) are all moving ahead? Is it only a fortuitousness?

BTW, the first thing the new US administration did, it prevented Israel from participation in MMRCA as a sub-partner. Could be said that their intentions are very clear, couldn't it?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Sep 2009 18:15

Igorr wrote: Cannot agree more with you, Nitin. Indeed, somebody should explain us why all Indian programs with Western countries tech input are in deep delay, limbing or deleted at all (Arjun, LCA, Bhim) while the joint Indo-Russian projects or the project with Russian input (Brahmos, Arihant, shipbuilding program) are all moving ahead? Is it only a fortuitousness?

It is not. It is a derivative of what was once called as gun boat diplomacy

Igorr wrote: BTW, the first thing the new US administration did, it prevented Israel from participation in MMRCA as a sub-partner. Could be said that their intentions are very clear, couldn't it?

It is crystal clear. It also speaks of defacto level of TOT we will be getting

-Nitin

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 24 Sep 2009 18:55

Igorr wrote: Cannot agree more with you, Nitin. Indeed, somebody should explain us why all Indian programs with Western countries tech input are in deep delay, limbing or deleted at all (Arjun, LCA, Bhim) while the joint Indo-Russian projects or the project with Russian input (Brahmos, Arihant, shipbuilding program) are all moving ahead? Is it only a fortuitousness?

Had USA not placed sanctions on India after POKII we would probably be flying LCAs today and not need an expensive MRCA deal. The amount of money saved could have gone into modernising our other armed forces or even for better social causes. Sigh, that is not to be!