LCA news and discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby K Mehta » 26 Apr 2010 22:30

Kanson,
earlier when they integrated the new adc, there were issues which at that time were thought to be related to software, debugging was done and finally after changes in software it was found that these issues persisted, then it was understood that there were hardware issues and then they were addressed, i think here too two to three versions had to be tried.
BTW this doesnt mean there werent any issues with MMR integration, they in all probability occurred imho, however the last component that held it back was adc, and a few other components were also installed in lsp-3. i did not discuss the timeline of delay, why flog dead horses! beet gayi so baat gayi. in a way its better to talk of future ahead in such a program.

Tejas LSP-3 First Flight Successful- avaiation week
It is almost in its final configuration, including new air-data computers, MMR, new communication and navigation equipment and a radar warning receiver.


with this kind of a change, i think cmds is one of the last things needed to be integrated.

putnanja,
no dates are being shifted for IOC even in recent media reports, the dates are consistent and even if overshot will not be by more than a few months IMHO! The envelope for IOC has been opened and that has been reported in media long back. If the testing was over IOC would be achieved no? How can there be testing be completed without the radar being integrated or installed?

chaiwala said the target is December both for IOC as well as NP1 first flight and achievable!

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 27 Apr 2010 07:52

some Reading material for new members here

First flight of LCA -Tejas: History revisited


http://idrw.org/?p=1419#more-1419

Ron
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 14:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Ron » 27 Apr 2010 15:44

Hi,

Its really nice to here LSP 3 is in air these days..

ppl say even a newly developed nuke weapon can be simulated in computers and there is no need of physically testing it.. So can any one comment if it is possible to test a combat jet using these kind of simulators and if yes we are doing atleast a part of the LCA testing using simulations for improving the timelines?? :)

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Venu » 27 Apr 2010 18:23

Ron,

An aircraft is very different from a nuclear bomb. Comparing a bomb and figther jet is like comparing an apple and an orange.

As for your query about testing Tejas on simulator, I am not an expert though but can hazard a guess. Simulation in aircraft is essentially used for training the pilots on how to use it, let them know the aircraft behaves while flying. But for this, first the aircraft's parameters have to be calibrated and its data feeded into the system first. Only after having all the parameters and its values ready that one goes by developing a simulator. Now tejas is in the process of that calibration. Once all the required data is collected during this process of obtaining IOC and FOC will a simultor be in a position to actually simulate the real Tejas and only then training pilots on simulator will be useful.

Coming to a bomb, you don't have to train some one. All you need to know is whether a certain mixture of fuel and certain design will explode and generate expected energy or not. That can be easily calculated from already present calculations.

Just my 2 cents on this. Will wait for experts to answer more clearly.

And oh, btw, Welcome to BR!

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby neerajb » 27 Apr 2010 20:38

Ron wrote:and if yes we are doing atleast a part of the LCA testing using simulations for improving the timelines?? :)


Yes. IIRC Tejas's CLAW was test flown on Iron bird, DAIR and CEF before the first flight of TD1 inaddition to IFS at Calspan, USA on F-16 vista, T-33 and Learjet :?:

Cheers....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2010 21:09

Ron wrote:Hi,

Its really nice to here LSP 3 is in air these days..

ppl say even a newly developed nuke weapon can be simulated in computers and there is no need of physically testing it.. So can any one comment if it is possible to test a combat jet using these kind of simulators and if yes we are doing atleast a part of the LCA testing using simulations for improving the timelines?? :)


A lot of simulation is done - but ultimately it must be flown

These 2 videos will give you some info (about 9 minutes each)
http://www.youtube.com/cybersurg#p/u/26/755G4aqQ9mk
http://www.youtube.com/cybersurg#p/u/25/9jPh930A1FA

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 27 Apr 2010 21:33

Ron wrote:Hi,

Its really nice to here LSP 3 is in air these days..

ppl say even a newly developed nuke weapon can be simulated in computers and there is no need of physically testing it.. So can any one comment if it is possible to test a combat jet using these kind of simulators and if yes we are doing atleast a part of the LCA testing using simulations for improving the timelines?? :)


Ron, the LCA's Flight Control Software law (Control Law or CLAW) was extensively tested on Real Time Simulators, both in the UK (Warton, BAE's site) and in India as well..The primary reason was to see if the pilots liked the handling qualities it bestowed upon the LCA during flight simulation in simulators when the CLAW code was used. the LCA test pilots were quite unhappy with the RTS's graphics quality in India when compared to that in the UK and they felt that they couldn't do a good job of assessing the handling qualitites without that. So they imported some really quick computers from the US to get the kind of fidelity that the LCA TPs would be happy with..

Neerajb wrote:Yes. IIRC Tejas's CLAW was test flown on Iron bird, DAIR and CEF before the first flight of TD1 inaddition to IFS at Calspan, USA on F-16 vista, T-33 and Learjet


yes that was in-flight simulation of the LCA's CLAW..and as per AM Rajkumar, the LCA's test pilots felt that it was easier to fly an F-16 during the crucial landing and take-off phase with the LCA's FCS than with the original FCS of the F-16 itself !

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 28 Apr 2010 01:20

I hope that IAF inducts Tejas in good numbers......

Once Tejas is inducted, how will it be as compared to F16 or Mirage 2000 in terms of capability?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2010 06:20

aditya.agd wrote:I hope that IAF inducts Tejas in good numbers......

Once Tejas is inducted, how will it be as compared to F16 or Mirage 2000 in terms of capability?

I am sure it will compare favorably if not better, provided we stick with it. India does have a history of "sticking with it" and making better use of an original design than envisaged by the country of origin. You can add the Gnat and the MiG 21 to this category.

While we need to have faith in what we have achieved those who design and plan should be realistic about our own capabilities to manufacture hi tech. We are still behind the latest by about 10-20 years. But being behind does not mean that the Air Force is going to get weaker as long as we invest in what we have and make up in numbers what we do not have in the latest tech.

But if we try to say "OK we are 20 years behind the world, but we will close that gap in 10 years" - the IAF cannot wait. It needs to be strong and ready 100% of the time.

And that is what has happened to India. At a time when we wanted to replace MiG 21s - we Indians said "OK we will close the tech gap and get an LCA ready by the time MiG 21 is retired". We bit off more than we could chew, and in order to prevent the Air Force from becoming weak ("depleted strength, decreased operational readiness/capability") we had to go for MiG 21 upgrade and life extension, and now we are ordering MRCA.

All because we tried to close a tech gap in an period of time in which it was not possible to close the tech gap. These are 2 different issues - i.e closing the tech gap and operational readiness.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Apr 2010 06:57

Shiv: There is one more thing that is often overlooked. A reliable manufacturing base and supply chain that can produce in numbers and consistent quality, even after the tech challenges have been overcome. India is in its nascent stage in this area.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2010 07:20

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv: There is one more thing that is often overlooked. A reliable manufacturing base and supply chain that can produce in numbers and consistent quality, even after the tech challenges have been overcome. India is in its nascent stage in this area.



True. But only in the last 10-15 years - automobile companies, perhaps using the Japanese model have managed to move forward in this area. Applying it to slothful defence related industries is the challenge. The typical government run factory is set up in a backward area and a percentage of employment is often on the basis of reservation. There is so much competition for that reservation that there is a parallel industry of middlemen who help employment of those who are better able to grease hands than others from within the same community.

Even when a given candidate belongs to the right reserved category, the person selected is only the one who can pay the bribes. I am not sure if this applies to rank and file factory floor employees but to ancillary clerical and support staff - plumbers, electricans, gardeners, cleaners, drivers, but I am sure factory floor has its share of bribers with false certificates. Breaking the existing corrupt system is a political issue that will be fought by the local politician of a particular caste/community. Naturally, every party will have a representative from that community, and the man who wins will be the man who makes it easiest for his supporters to get jobs in the local PSU (among other employers). Since this ultimately affects numbers in both the state house and the parliament at the center, there is no willpower to correct the low-level corruption.

Ultimately - only a dedicated "clean" party may do the trick - or the gradual overrunning of PSUs by more and more capable private companies.

Sorry. OT

RonyKJ
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 30 Jan 2001 12:31
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RonyKJ » 28 Apr 2010 08:09

India needs to provide continuity in fighter aircraft development so that the lessons learned and the technologies developed do not go to waste and we don't lag behind again. I am sure the authorities recognize this. Hopefully the airforce will have more faith from now on in the capabilities of the DRDO.
Right now we need to start funding development of UCAV technologies. The F-35 is the last manned fighter that will be developed by the US and it will be in service for 2-3 decades. The Kaveri program needs to be continued with vigor and it has to produce an indigenous engine for the LCA and MCA and for UCAV's to follow.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Dileep » 28 Apr 2010 09:00

The 2052 antenna system is modular, so you can arrange the 'bricks' into a circular or oblong profile. This was so from the beginning. So, don't look too much into the oblong profile of the published images.

About 'simulations', what you see as a 'flight simulator' is not the design simulation. EVERY part of the aerodynamics, in every point in the flight envelope is simulated in great detail as part of the design process. A Param is used for that. My bro was on that team, and he did mention 'crashing the model to the ground at mach 2.4' once. Of course, everything came as text readouts, not flashy graphics. The finished digital model would of course be used to drive the 'user level simulator'

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2010 09:08

RonyKJ wrote:India needs to provide continuity in fighter aircraft development so that the lessons learned and the technologies developed do not go to waste and we don't lag behind again. I am sure the authorities recognize this. Hopefully the airforce will have more faith from now on in the capabilities of the DRDO.
Right now we need to start funding development of UCAV technologies. The F-35 is the last manned fighter that will be developed by the US and it will be in service for 2-3 decades. The Kaveri program needs to be continued with vigor and it has to produce an indigenous engine for the LCA and MCA and for UCAV's to follow.

My response is OT for this thread

it is here
viewtopic.php?p=863763#p863763

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 28 Apr 2010 16:48

LCA must be quickly deployed and bought in large numbers by the IAF. Indian Airforce must support it to make this project viable just the way indian navy is embracing indeginous technology.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kersi D » 28 Apr 2010 22:11

I just came across a couple of interesting articles on TSR 2

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/tsr2.php

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... 2long.html

Interesting ehh ! I do find a few similarities with our Tejas program

K

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby ramana » 28 Apr 2010 22:14

Please elaborate what you find common to Tejas?

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kersi D » 28 Apr 2010 22:18

ramana wrote:Please elaborate what you find common to Tejas?


How NOT to run combat aircraft projects.

K

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 01 May 2010 00:01

Give Tejas ToT to Tatas or L&T... Government should fund the project for IAF and most value .... just like US Govt style ....

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 May 2010 21:18

Can someone tell what the size of the LRDE's MMR is, particularly vis a vis the Elta EL/M-2032?


I don't understand why we're integrating it on the Tejas. As I see it, we should've integrated the 2052 AESA on the Tejas, and integrated the MMR with the Jaguar and MiG-27 as a part of their upgrade programmes. That would have led to a more potent Tejas as well as a larger order book for the MMR, and the IAF's would have got its first AESA equipped fighter.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 02 May 2010 01:35

Viv S wrote:Can someone tell what the size of the LRDE's MMR is, particularly vis a vis the Elta EL/M-2032?

Antenna = 650mm, weight for the whole kit ~ 180kg?

I don't understand why we're integrating it on the Tejas. As I see it, we should've integrated the 2052 AESA on the Tejas, and integrated the MMR with the Jaguar and MiG-27 as a part of their upgrade programmes. That would have led to a more potent Tejas as well as a larger order book for the MMR, and the IAF's would have got its first AESA equipped fighter.
[/quote]

It might have also led to a LOT more delays. We simply don't have enough info that the 2052 is available. And if it is (quite possible), integrating an AESA can mean a number of changes in parameters of the original design - increase in weight is definitely likely (change in COG?); so is the need for cooling that beast, then there is the integration - SW-HW interface. All this could mean testing, testing and some more testing! Plus there are tradeoffs - with a puny engine what kind of power could you get from an AESA, would it be substantially higher than a mech? Hence the MMR. In the meanwhile, the patience should pay off because the 2052/AESA will integrate that much more smoothly on Mk2. Integrating the MMR on the Jags might delay their upg. too since integration with the 2032 is already done and known.

The 27s won't be upgraded any further than the current 40 iirc. But IF there is an engine upgrade (AL-31), then perhaps a small radar/ or MiG-23 type nose cone could be managed?

CM.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 May 2010 02:20

Cain Marko wrote:
It might have also led to a LOT more delays. We simply don't have enough info that the 2052 is available. And if it is (quite possible), integrating an AESA can mean a number of changes in parameters of the original design - increase in weight is definitely likely (change in COG?); so is the need for cooling that beast, then there is the integration - SW-HW interface. All this could mean testing, testing and some more testing!


The IAI site puts the 2052 weight upwards of 130kgs. That's roughly in the same bracket as the MMR and 2032. All in all, it was designed to be retrofitted to aircraft operating the 2032. And given that the MMR uses software and signal processors from the 2032, it shouldn't have been a stretch.

Hence the MMR. In the meanwhile, the patience should pay off because the 2052/AESA will integrate that much more smoothly on Mk2. Integrating the MMR on the Jags might delay their upg. too since integration with the 2032 is already done and known.

The 27s won't be upgraded any further than the current 40 iirc. But IF there is an engine upgrade (AL-31), then perhaps a small radar/ or MiG-23 type nose cone could be managed?


Of course, most of my whine post isn't relevant today. Too late to switch to the 2052 now. But, ideally speaking the MiG-27 or Jaguar would have been safer options to integrate the 2032 on, and the Tejas would have better off with the 2052. BTW do you have any link confirming that the MkII will fly with the 2052. They may just decide the desi factor is more important and continue with the MMR or decide that it should wait for an AESA to emerge from LRDE instead.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nachiket » 02 May 2010 02:25

Viv S wrote:The IAI site puts the 2052 weight upwards of 130kgs. That's roughly in the same bracket as the MMR and 2032. All in all, it was designed to be retrofitted to aircraft operating the 2032. And given that the MMR uses software and signal processors from the 2032, it shouldn't have been a stretch.



Its not just the weight that we have to be concerned about. The cooling requirements of an AESA are notoriously high. It is quite possible that the LCA Mk1 does not have the power available to take care of the cooling requirements.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 02 May 2010 02:37

Viv S wrote: BTW do you have any link confirming that the MkII will fly with the 2052. They may just decide the desi factor is more important and continue with the MMR or decide that it should wait for an AESA to emerge from LRDE instead.


No confirmed source - thats why the 2052-slash-AESA, meaning some other AESA possibility. However, I dare say it is likely that India has had some part to play with the 2052 - ample noises about that since 2007 including a test/evaluation and possible purchase of 15 units. Then of course there is the tie up with Isreal on radar matters including the 2032, MMR, Greenpine, Phalcon, MF-STAR etc. IOWs, India is quite conversant with Israeli radar tech, as such this could be a factor in favor of the 2052. But NO absolutely certain source, iirc - AI 09 - suggested an LRDE developed beast

CM

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Pratyush » 03 May 2010 15:44

CT time guys,


A little bird tells me that the MMRAC competition is just a cover for the framing of GSQR for and Tejas MK 2 and the proposed AMCA/ FGCA.

Why you ask??


Because it allows the Indian Mil Industrial complex a good hard long look at what is relative state of the art in the Combat aviation today. How the same can evolve in the future etc.

Else how do you explain the presence of “Light Grippen ”

CT time off

Back to lurking.

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby narayana » 03 May 2010 15:49

what a pity!!! ADA website doesn't even mention about successful flight of LSP 3 :(,its more than a week now.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bhavik » 03 May 2010 18:37

Pratyush wrote:CT time guys,


A little bird tells me that the MMRAC competition is just a cover for the framing of GSQR for and Tejas MK 2 and the proposed AMCA/ FGCA.

Why you ask??


Because it allows the Indian Mil Industrial complex a good hard long look at what is relative state of the art in the Combat aviation today. How the same can evolve in the future etc.

Else how do you explain the presence of “Light Grippen ”

CT time off

Back to lurking.


This is exactly what happened to Arjun.
Should'nt IAF start replacing Mig21's with tejas with huge orders by now. Mk2 upgrade can happen later like Jag/Mig29/Mirage Upgrades....?

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 03 May 2010 20:22

How is tejas as compared to Mig 21? Is it better or same performance or worse?

If it is better then why is IAF not inducting Tejas in large numbers?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 03 May 2010 20:33

The MKII, it seems, will have to be structurally modified to accommodate the new engine.

Modifying a used frame does not seem to be a good idea.

Besides that one important point, a larger engine (MKII) would mean other components (radar) would be larger too - we should expect that. So, "upgrading" a MKI to a MKII would mean a major re-haul. I am not sure if that is worth it - the time spend to upgrading a MKI could be spent in making new MKII or even perhaps IIIs.

Also, why this request to induct en-mass? Is there a fear that the LCA would die in some way?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sid » 03 May 2010 20:36

aditya.agd wrote:How is tejas as compared to Mig 21? Is it better or same performance or worse?

If it is better then why is IAF not inducting Tejas in large numbers?


saari ji... this question can cause serious heart-burns and behind-burns to majority of population on BRF.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bhavik » 03 May 2010 20:52

NRao wrote:The MKII, it seems, will have to be structurally modified to accommodate the new engine.

Modifying a used frame does not seem to be a good idea.

Besides that one important point, a larger engine (MKII) would mean other components (radar) would be larger too - we should expect that. So, "upgrading" a MKI to a MKII would mean a major re-haul. I am not sure if that is worth it - the time spend to upgrading a MKI could be spent in making new MKII or even perhaps IIIs.

Also, why this request to induct en-mass? Is there a fear that the LCA would die in some way?


1. Why?
Economies of scale! Established product like LCA would do wonder for exports.
If you have not realised we are far away from sanctioned squadron strength.

2. Mk2 changes
Do we know for SURE that structural changes are required? I any sane designer would avoid them.
Benefit can be derived for other stuff planned in Mk2, Leaving apart engine ?
I guess 100 odd LCA's MK1 engine are still better choice than mig21 defending our border.
Enlighten me on why would bigger engine require bigger radar?

3. Moving target / specs
If product specs change what can be done to what has been built already.
e.g in 2004 who thought of a new engine and Mk2? and Why could not IAF see that they would have needed a better engine?
IAF is surely acting like kid spoit for choices ...Like for PAKFA .. it will fund and wait few more years for 2 seaters PAKFA rather than single seaters.

I am sure one day will come
LCA MK3 = MCA MK1
and still it would not be inducted on some pretext - e.g the components are doing well better than LCA (oops MCA). That is the biggest hogwash. Then why invest the weapon system we could just keep developing components.
Last edited by bhavik on 03 May 2010 20:57, edited 1 time in total.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Bharadwaj » 03 May 2010 20:55

aditya.agd wrote:How is tejas as compared to Mig 21? Is it better or same performance or worse?

If it is better then why is IAF not inducting Tejas in large numbers?


The IAF has something called air staff requirement which probably does not revolve around the Tejas being better than a capable but pre historic aircraft. The Tejas mark1 is certainly more capable than the bison given that its a modern unstable fbw compound delta airframe. This however does not mean the IAF has to take it in sufficient numbers if it does not meet its requirements completely. The Mark 2 will hopefully do this and could be taken in large numbers.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bhavik » 03 May 2010 20:58

Why could not IAF see that they would have needed a better engine in 2003 or 4?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 03 May 2010 22:03

bhavik ji,

The answers to all your questions are there on earlier pages of this thread or in earlier threads. It would be nice if you could spend a wee bit of time scanning them.

1) The topic was about "upgrading" MKI to MKII when MKII is ready. Till then, it was suggested, induct as many MKIs as possible or certainly more than the 40 ordered. So, economics and exports, although very valid topics by themselves, do not fit into this particular discussion. The question is (to my mind at least) what is the best path for a great ROI. At this point in time, I just happen to feel that upgrading MKIs to MKIIs is not as good a ROI. Comments?

2) Structural changes: please google and find out for yourself and come to a conclusion. GE vs. EADS seem to be the two options.

The rest of your post seems to be out-of-bounds for this (MKI to MKII) discussion.

On bigger radar for a bigger engine, an engine is a constraint when it comes to what other components can be installed. Electrical power, cooling, etc are governed by the size/power of an engine. So, with a more powerful engine in a MKII one would expect a more powerful radar (than the one in the MKI), and a more powerful radar could mean a larger antenna, etc. The whole ball of wax changes - missiles, testing, integration, weight of the air craft, distribution of weight within the air craft ............ With the fun comes a bunch of headaches. Way before exports, etc.

arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby arya » 03 May 2010 23:07

aditya.agd wrote:How is tejas as compared to Mig 21? Is it better or same performance or worse?

If it is better then why is IAF not inducting Tejas in large numbers?

:eek: WTH is this

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 May 2010 01:47

Xposting. As a FYI only:

Development of Kaveri Engine

Not terribly informative, yet ..................

May 03, 2010:

Kaveri Aero Engine being developed by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) requires to be optimised for lower weight and higher performance so that it can be used for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas and possibly for Indian next generation combat Aircraft.

The Government also proposes to import foreign engines for LCA. Technical evaluation of proposals received from two short listed vendors, i.e. M/s Eurojet (NETMA), Europe and M/s General Electric Company, USA is in progress.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Dr. M Thambidurai and others in Lok Sabha today.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby PratikDas » 04 May 2010 02:32

Major DRDO Projects / Programmes which are yet to be completed

Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Full scale Engineering Development (FSED) Programme – Phase – II
Date of Sanction: 20 Nov 2001
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC): 31 Dec 2008
Revised PDC: 31 Dec 2012
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes: More than 1330 flight tests have been completed utilizing 8 Tejas Aircraft. Maiden flight of the first two seater (trainer) version Prototype Vehicle (PV5) – Tejas carried out. Air – to ground weapon drop, air to air close combat missile release, sea level trials, cold weather trials, night flying trials and crosswind take off and landing have been completed successfully.

Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Programme of Naval Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy)
Date of Sanction: 28 Mar 2003
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC): 27 Mar 2010
Revised PDC: 27 Dec 2014
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes: Equipping of LCA (NP-1) fuselage is in progress.

Kaveri Engine for LCA
Date of Sanction: 30-Mar-89
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC): 31-Dec-96
Revised PDC: 31-Dec-10
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes: About 1880 hrs on engine test has been completed on various prototypes of Kaveri Engine. A total of eight Kaveri Engines and four core engines have been manufactured, assembled and tested. High Altitude testing on core engine has been completed successfully.

Interception, Monitoring, Direction and Finding and Analysis System (IMDFAS)-Divyadrishti
Date of Sanction: 27 Aug 2002
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC): 26 Feb 2008
Revised PDC: 26 Aug 2010
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes: Limited integration configuration demonstration has been completed at production agency site successfully and ten stations have been installed at designated sites so far.

Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP)
Date of Sanction: 26 Jul 1983
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC): 30 Jul 1995
Revised PDC: 31 Dec 2010 (Projects for development of Prithvi, Agni, Dhanush, Aakash and Trishul missiles have been completed, whereas PDC for only Nag missile has been extended upto Dec 2010)
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes: Prithvi, Agni and Dhanush missiles have been inducted into Services whereas, Akash missile system is scheduled to be inducted in 2012 and user trials of Nag missile has been completed. Development of Trishul missile has been completed as Technology Demonstrator.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Gagan » 04 May 2010 12:04

Pratyush wrote:A little bird tells me that the MMRAC competition is just a cover for the framing of GSQR for and Tejas MK 2 and the proposed AMCA/ FGCA.

it allows the Indian Mil Industrial complex a good hard long look at what is relative state of the art in the Combat aviation today. How the same can evolve in the future etc.

I had thought as much.

What ever the end of the MMRCA saga may be, one fact comes out. The IAF has had a good dekko at all frontline fighter aircraft really nicely - Chaaro Dhaam ki yatra, Kashmir se kanyakumari tak - ulta taang ke chek kar liya hai :lol:

Everything from Radar capabilities, to MTOW to sensors etc will be known to the IAF (In addition to radar signatures that'll be nicely added to the desi IFF equipment - Thank you!)

AoA to that.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bhavik » 04 May 2010 12:17

NRao wrote: So, economics and exports, although very valid topics by themselves, do not fit into this particular discussion. The question is (to my mind at least) what is the best path for a great ROI. At this point in time, I just happen to feel that upgrading MKIs to MKIIs is not as good a ROI. Comments?


I guess you mean ROI has got nothing to do with economics. Also MKI is different bird altogether. Here we discussing the squadron stength and fit for purpose stuff.

NRao wrote:2) Structural changes: please google and find out for yourself and come to a conclusion. GE vs. EADS seem to be the two options.

The rest of your post seems to be out-of-bounds for this (MKI to MKII) discussion.


I went thru previous posts and GE Vs EADS atleast 2 articles point out that one of them shall not need structural changes.
Also since it is not been finalized it is only in dreams to expect major structural changes in MK2

Thats what I say MK2 stuff is diversion tactic. Rather we should discuss why has IAF ordered only 40 LCA's?
Of course we should get MK2 when it is available.
Whole point of MK2 / MK3 leads to believe there planes with different calibre and not the orginal intelligent visionary ASR
hence one day
LCA MK3 = MCA MK1

My predicament is
You asked for "apple" you shall get an "apple" (quite delayed though)
Now since you wanted an "orange" you want me to stuff / change this apple enough to make it "orange" or atleast look like one.
If I had had known that you wanted apple first and orange later . It would have been easier to design my apple to make it an orange quickly.

NRao wrote:On bigger radar for a bigger engine, an engine is a constraint when it comes to what other components can be installed. Electrical power, cooling, etc are governed by the size/power of an engine. So, with a more powerful engine in a MKII one would expect a more powerful radar (than the one in the MKI), and a more powerful radar could mean a larger antenna, etc. The whole ball of wax changes - missiles, testing, integration, weight of the air craft, distribution of weight within the air craft ............ With the fun comes a bunch of headaches. Way before exports, etc.


I don''t quite agree.
Bigger engine does not mean necessarily bigger radar you could still carry smaller one if it fits your purpose.
For e.g many Jags still dont have any radar. recently heard some jags were fitted with radar.
Last edited by bhavik on 04 May 2010 13:00, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Indranil » 04 May 2010 12:40

Gagan wrote:
What ever the end of the MMRCA saga may be, one fact comes out. The IAF has had a good dekko at all frontline fighter aircraft really nicely - Chaaro Dhaam ki yatra, Kashmir se kanyakumari tak - ulta taang ke chek kar liya hai :lol:

Everything from Radar capabilities, to MTOW to sensors etc will be known to the IAF (In addition to radar signatures that'll be nicely added to the desi IFF equipment - Thank you!)

AoA to that.


HA HA ... WHAT A POINT!!! VERY TRUE :)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests