I doubt wig is a boy. be careful of those who may be posting on BR, very few are schoolkids !Venu wrote:This birdie has not yet been inducted and you are already drawing scenarios of it crossing the border..eh?
Wig, I wanna chiggy wiggy with you boy.
LCA news and discussion
Re: LCA news and discussion
Neela, better to ignore noise sans information in this thread. the psy-ops thread is a better place for those.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Nothing about LSP-3 and MMR ,same stuff about Akash and Tejas (PV-5 and LSP-2 flight) ,i have Hubli-dharward Issue of DH ,another thing was about Inauguration of Manufacturing Facility for Digital Flight Control computer (DFCC) for TejasPrint edition.
Re: LCA news and discussion
What were the other two names besides Tejas that were shortlisted for the LCA?
Re: LCA news and discussion
check the archives. there was a thread on LCA naming that had the details.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Willy wrote:What were the other two names besides Tejas that were shortlisted for the LCA?
There were not two, but 20names that were short-listed.. and ABV picked "Tejas".
And then rakall named his son too "Tejas" !!! At AeroIndia11 (yeah planning for that already) he will be old enough to see his namesake & appreciate it..
Re: LCA news and discussion
And nobody in HAL/ADA/IAF knew which one he has selected till he anounced it.rakall wrote:There were not two, but 20names that were short-listed.. and ABV picked "Tejas".
Cheers....
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Re: LCA news and discussion
It was Deccan Chronicle, not Deccan Herald. Sorry, I mixed up the names.karan_mc wrote:Nothing about LSP-3 and MMR ,same stuff about Akash and Tejas (PV-5 and LSP-2 flight) ,i have Hubli-dharward Issue of DH ,another thing was about Inauguration of Manufacturing Facility for Digital Flight Control computer (DFCC) for TejasPrint edition.
Found the online version of the story:
Finally, IAF will fly a ‘made in India’ fighter
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/national ... ighter-194
Nearly, all trials have been completed in some 1,290 flights.
Mr P. S. Subramanyam, the man spearheading the development of Tejas, said, “Only the Multi-Mode Radar needs to be flown on Tejas, and that we will do this month”.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: LCA news and discussion
I find Tejas pretty decent name wonder what's with Jingos . I have no time to research about Vikramaditya but what is wrong with naming an AC after a mythical character unless people were expecting Viraat and Vikraant theme to be continued in form of 'Vikraal' or some similar word.
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
- Contact:
Re: LCA news and discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrama_Samvattsarkar wrote:
Coins are a reliable proof, but don’t contain any mention of his actions that differentiate a mighty ruler from a mediocre one (unlike Ashokan edicts).
.
A calendar system would obviously not be based on a mythological or a mediocre king, and yes the URL is referenced in the wiki article amongst other things which would be the case given that wiki is a free edit resource.
It is the readers prerogative to pick and choose stuff to present one's case.
Re: LCA news and discussion
I named my son Tejas after his cousin was named Dhruv. They better not be changing it now.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Glad you did not choose Khalid or Zarrar.JTull wrote:I named my son Tejas after his cousin was named Dhruv. They better not be changing it now.
Re: LCA news and discussion
EDIT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 04 Feb 2010 09:32, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: merinews is not quite a newssite, more like a blog masquerading as one. IOW not kosher on BR.
Reason: merinews is not quite a newssite, more like a blog masquerading as one. IOW not kosher on BR.
Re: LCA news and discussion
^^ Left a comment. Hopefully they dont edit it out.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Ditto. I find the name Tejas to be a brilliant one.negi wrote:I find Tejas pretty decent name wonder what's with Jingos . I have no time to research about Vikramaditya but what is wrong with naming an AC after a mythical character unless people were expecting Viraat and Vikraant theme to be continued in form of 'Vikraal' or some similar word.
Re: LCA news and discussion
The photo in HIndu is showing a long lance like prob or something in front of the LCA Trainer version. I do not remember seeing that. I was not having glasses in the morning Am I wrong or what. I think there are nothing like that in the earlier models Is there any changes made in the Trainer version.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: LCA news and discussion
Kartik clarified on that earlier , basically some form of pitot tube for airspeed measurements .
Re: LCA news and discussion
Vikramaditya sounds pretty okay - regardless of its origin. Plus we did name one of our fighters "Vikram" at some point.
Not really shiv. Tejas in telugu means "Glow" somewhat more closer to Tsarkars explanation about it being Radiance in Sanskrit.The relationship between the word "Tejas" and "light", is the same as the relationship between the words "fragrance" and "odor".
Re: LCA news and discussion
Tejas actually means brilliance as the brilliance of the sun. Glow in English does not convey the intensity of "brilliance". "Light" again means any visible EM radiation and does not convey the intensity.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Really? The two pitot tubes are just below either side of the cockpit. Perhaps extra testing sensors?negi wrote:Kartik clarified on that earlier , basically some form of pitot tube for airspeed measurements .
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: LCA news and discussion
Tej==Radiant , Tejas==radiance.shiv wrote:Tejas actually means brilliance as the brilliance of the sun. Glow in English does not convey the intensity of "brilliance". "Light" again means any visible EM radiation and does not convey the intensity.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: LCA news and discussion
Yes there is a need for airflow measurements at different locations/parts of the fuselage hence multiple pitot tubes, most fighter AC have pitot tubes on the tip of the radome and around the inlet manifolds and the canopy and this being a PT might have even more for testing/validation purposes.ArmenT wrote:Really? The two pitot tubes are just below either side of the cockpit. Perhaps extra testing sensors?negi wrote:Kartik clarified on that earlier , basically some form of pitot tube for airspeed measurements .
Re: LCA news and discussion
So, the Multi-Mode Radar is already integrated and getting readied for test flight? Which prototype would be it?
SourceMr P. S. Subramanyam, the man spearheading the development of Tejas, said, “Only the Multi-Mode Radar needs to be flown on Tejas, and that we will do this month”.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Its actually the other way round. Tej stands for radiance and Tejas means Radiant.negi wrote:Tej==Radiant , Tejas==radiance.shiv wrote:Tejas actually means brilliance as the brilliance of the sun. Glow in English does not convey the intensity of "brilliance". "Light" again means any visible EM radiation and does not convey the intensity.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Well I guess the LCA will always be called the LCA like the F-16 is called the F-16 rather than the viper. "Tejas" just dosent have the punch or the depth.....
Re: LCA news and discussion
Sorry I didn't see this post of yours earlier, so the late reply. This info was provided years ago by none other than Harry in one of his ACIG articles. He mentioned that the twin-seater is the basis for the N-LCA and they share a common assembly jig, indicating almost similar front fuselage dimensions.putnanja wrote: Kartik, do you know by how much the trainer is longer than the single-seater?
The assembly jig for the N-LCA's front fuselage, is thus shared by the Trainer....At an overall length of 14.6 m, the naval version will also be quite a bit longer.
It will make some difference because head on the twin-seater has a larger cross-section than the single seater.. I can only extrapolate from a Luftwaffe pilot's observation that the twin-seat Typhoon with the large canopy and fairing behind it, was slightly draggier in close combat than the single seater with the smaller canopy. But surprising things can happen, such as the claim made by Saab that introducing fairings between wing and fuselage to fit the landing gear on the Gripen NG, actually reduced drag and improved performance slightly.Given that the trainer has a different profile compared to the single-seater, how much difference does it make to the aerodynamic behavior of the trainer? Will there be big differences in how the single and dual-seaters will behave?
Re: LCA news and discussion
Viper is a name given to the F-16 by its pilots. Its real name is "Fighting Falcon" which sounds lame at best.Willy wrote:Well I guess the LCA will always be called the LCA like the F-16 is called the F-16 rather than the viper. "Tejas" just dosent have the punch or the depth.....
I don't understand what problems people have with "Tejas". Doesn't even matter what it's names as long as it does its job.
Maybe we could stop this useless arguments about the name and move on
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4665
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: LCA news and discussion
Thanks Kartik. So compared to the single seater LCA at 13.2m, the naval/trainer version is almost 1.4m longer? If only Sanjay had side-by-side photos of single seater and trainer from the side profileKartik wrote:It will make some difference because head on the twin-seater has a larger cross-section than the single seater.. I can only extrapolate from a Luftwaffe pilot's observation that the twin-seat Typhoon with the large canopy and fairing behind it, was slightly draggier in close combat than the single seater with the smaller canopy. But surprising things can happen, such as the claim made by Saab that introducing fairings between wing and fuselage to fit the landing gear on the Gripen NG, actually reduced drag and improved performance slightly.
The assembly jig for the N-LCA's front fuselage, is thus shared by the Trainer....At an overall length of 14.6 m, the naval version will also be quite a bit longer.
I wish HAL/ADA would publish the specs for the trainer now that it is already flying. Specs for N-LCA would be great too, but I wonder what stage the design studies are at, given that construction has already started for the first N-LCA prototype.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Come on guys! This is LCA thread.
Re: LCA news and discussion
there are additional air data probes on 1 pitot tube. I'd mentioned this earlier. You'll find similar pitot tubes on most prototypes and once the data is validated, they remove the additional air-data probes and a regular pitot tube is fitted. I think the "two pitot tubes" you're referring to are the yaw sensor and the pitch vane on either side of the cockpit. They're sensors that feed data to the FCS.ArmenT wrote:Really? The two pitot tubes are just below either side of the cockpit. Perhaps extra testing sensors?
that straight rod is called a pitot tube. and those are additional air-data probes that are placed on the pitot tube, and will be removed on production twin-seaters.
Re: LCA news and discussion
So while people discuss the name for the LCA there is very little discussion going on over 2 exciting and major step forwards towards IOC.
First, the Elbit DASH HMDS that we knew was integrated to the cockpit in 2008, is now being used on test flights. For proof on that, please go back 3 pages and see the PV-3 picture Jagan posted.
So, its clear that they're moving to clear it for operational use, which is a big step forward for the LCA. It basically should negate any talk on the LCA's HUD not being frameless or having a lower Field of View than the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon. When display info is provided to the pilot's HMD no matter where he looks, its a big improvement. And in this regard, the Shikra when it enters service at IOC will be ahead compared to any other IAF fighter in service today (Su-30MKI and MiG-29 HMS is a full generation behind the DASH) and on par with the new IN MiG-29K with their Thales TopOwl-F HMDS. the Rafale even today doesn't have an operational HMDS, although to be fair to them its a question of priorities and funding available.
Both being Israeli in origin, I wonder if the Litening LDP can be controlled by the DASH. I remember an argument that I got into with someone when I claimed looking at the video of the first flight with the Litening LDP, that looking at the slewing of the sensor head it was clear that the pilot was controlling it and hence it was already integrated and those weren't just carriage trials. It now makes me wonder if its possible for a pilot to cue the Litening LDP onto a target by using HOTAS and DASH and then release a LGB..The question would be can a LDP possibly display pictures or video onto the HMDS visor or is that too much (I feel it may be too much)? We know that currently the pilot can lock on to an airborne target and assign it to the close-combat missile by a combo of DASH and HOTAS (LOBL mode or Lock On Before Launch) without needing to look inside the cockpit at all. So look out for news on R-73 test firing with DASH passing on the target parameters.
And so another interesting question comes up. We already have 2 different modern HMDS that we see with IN and IAF pilots today- the Thales TopOwl-F (some pics of the MiG-29K with pilots in Russia showed the new helmet) and the Elbit DASH. We could do a comparison of the two on price and capability to see which is a better HMDS for the IAF and IN to standardise on. Keep in mind that the Thales TopOwl-F is likely to be serial manufactured by Samtel Displays, an Indian company that has a JV with Thales. But OTOH, the DASH is going to be used for the Shikra fleet. For the IN there's the question of why have 2 different helmets for 2 different aircraft that it will acquire in such small numbers? 45 MiG-29K with TopOwl-F and approx. same number of N-LCAs with DASH. But I guess that looking at the variety of equipment, it won't be an issue. Also, we know that the N-LCA is going to be equipped with Derby (as per PS Subramanyam) and hopefully Python V, so integrating DASH will be that much easier.
Should the IAF adopt one of these two and ask manufacturers to integrate that particular HMDS or will we see the hotch-potch of different equipment continuing as the MRCA (definitely with HMDS mandatory) comes in? the Gripen NG has Cobra HMDS (though I'm sure they're flexible to fit another type), F-16 and F-18 have JHMCS, Typhoon has something I can't remember and MiG-35 as well as Rafale should be a natural fit for the Thales TopOwl-F (MiG-35 since the MiG-29K is already integrated with TopOwl-F). It might be cheaper in the long run to have 1 helmet from the point of view of training/maintenance. But if the IAF does ask the MRCA OEM to integrate either DASH or TopOwl-F it will need to pay for that.
And the second, more critical piece of news that's recieved very lukewarm discussion time is that the radar (MMR) will fly this month. That will silence those who cribbed about a radar-less Shikra attaining IOC. If it flies in Feb, that gives ADA/NFTC at least 8-9 months to test and validate the MMR before IOC to whatever level that is agreed to with the IAF. its a daunting task and with more airframes becoming available, I hope they retrofit the MMR on multiple prototypes for testing to go on in parallel. BVR related modes will likely not be targeted for IOC as the Shikra is supposed to be BVR capable by FOC. But there are plenty of other modes that need testing and more weapons testing that will follow.
First, the Elbit DASH HMDS that we knew was integrated to the cockpit in 2008, is now being used on test flights. For proof on that, please go back 3 pages and see the PV-3 picture Jagan posted.
So, its clear that they're moving to clear it for operational use, which is a big step forward for the LCA. It basically should negate any talk on the LCA's HUD not being frameless or having a lower Field of View than the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon. When display info is provided to the pilot's HMD no matter where he looks, its a big improvement. And in this regard, the Shikra when it enters service at IOC will be ahead compared to any other IAF fighter in service today (Su-30MKI and MiG-29 HMS is a full generation behind the DASH) and on par with the new IN MiG-29K with their Thales TopOwl-F HMDS. the Rafale even today doesn't have an operational HMDS, although to be fair to them its a question of priorities and funding available.
Both being Israeli in origin, I wonder if the Litening LDP can be controlled by the DASH. I remember an argument that I got into with someone when I claimed looking at the video of the first flight with the Litening LDP, that looking at the slewing of the sensor head it was clear that the pilot was controlling it and hence it was already integrated and those weren't just carriage trials. It now makes me wonder if its possible for a pilot to cue the Litening LDP onto a target by using HOTAS and DASH and then release a LGB..The question would be can a LDP possibly display pictures or video onto the HMDS visor or is that too much (I feel it may be too much)? We know that currently the pilot can lock on to an airborne target and assign it to the close-combat missile by a combo of DASH and HOTAS (LOBL mode or Lock On Before Launch) without needing to look inside the cockpit at all. So look out for news on R-73 test firing with DASH passing on the target parameters.
And so another interesting question comes up. We already have 2 different modern HMDS that we see with IN and IAF pilots today- the Thales TopOwl-F (some pics of the MiG-29K with pilots in Russia showed the new helmet) and the Elbit DASH. We could do a comparison of the two on price and capability to see which is a better HMDS for the IAF and IN to standardise on. Keep in mind that the Thales TopOwl-F is likely to be serial manufactured by Samtel Displays, an Indian company that has a JV with Thales. But OTOH, the DASH is going to be used for the Shikra fleet. For the IN there's the question of why have 2 different helmets for 2 different aircraft that it will acquire in such small numbers? 45 MiG-29K with TopOwl-F and approx. same number of N-LCAs with DASH. But I guess that looking at the variety of equipment, it won't be an issue. Also, we know that the N-LCA is going to be equipped with Derby (as per PS Subramanyam) and hopefully Python V, so integrating DASH will be that much easier.
Should the IAF adopt one of these two and ask manufacturers to integrate that particular HMDS or will we see the hotch-potch of different equipment continuing as the MRCA (definitely with HMDS mandatory) comes in? the Gripen NG has Cobra HMDS (though I'm sure they're flexible to fit another type), F-16 and F-18 have JHMCS, Typhoon has something I can't remember and MiG-35 as well as Rafale should be a natural fit for the Thales TopOwl-F (MiG-35 since the MiG-29K is already integrated with TopOwl-F). It might be cheaper in the long run to have 1 helmet from the point of view of training/maintenance. But if the IAF does ask the MRCA OEM to integrate either DASH or TopOwl-F it will need to pay for that.
And the second, more critical piece of news that's recieved very lukewarm discussion time is that the radar (MMR) will fly this month. That will silence those who cribbed about a radar-less Shikra attaining IOC. If it flies in Feb, that gives ADA/NFTC at least 8-9 months to test and validate the MMR before IOC to whatever level that is agreed to with the IAF. its a daunting task and with more airframes becoming available, I hope they retrofit the MMR on multiple prototypes for testing to go on in parallel. BVR related modes will likely not be targeted for IOC as the Shikra is supposed to be BVR capable by FOC. But there are plenty of other modes that need testing and more weapons testing that will follow.
Re: LCA news and discussion
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4665
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: LCA news and discussion
Check out this PAK-FA too for the probe
Re: LCA news and discussion
Local Paanwala told me that at least 3 Tejas will get MMR this year , Aur Kabaar Paki hai LSP-3/4 are confirmed other can be LSP-1 its been not flying for long time now ,coming to Tejas Name i could like it to be called with HF-XX Tejas any thing ADA-HAL come up
Re: LCA news and discussion
Ha! Never thought I'd live to see a day with this type of news item...
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12308
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12308
The IAF, long ridiculed as one of the world’s biggest air forces that has never flown its own indigenous fighters, could be flying a squadron of Tejas Light Combat Aircraft by the end of the year.
Re: LCA news and discussion
by the end of this year - how is that possible.
I thought serial production would only get the green light after the IOC is obtained.
I thought serial production would only get the green light after the IOC is obtained.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Will a full squadron be formed up when IOC is obtained? Or a partial one? If a partial one, is likely to be the 8 LSP craft. Because I don't think the initial IAF order of 20 will be ready by year end - maybe by next year end.
Re: LCA news and discussion
Long live your paan wala .karan_mc wrote:Local Paanwala told me that at least 3 Tejas will get MMR this year
Re: LCA news and discussion
while MMR is good news, can an integrated air launched Astra don the role of AAD? Astra's flight ceiling can be raised
Re: LCA news and discussion
What do you think LSP stands for? Limited Series Production. Those 8 were being series produced well before the IOC was achieved. What software limits are set can be updated as and when the aircraft join the IAF squadrons. Hardware changes may not be required or retrofitting is possible. After those 8, there are 20 more to be produced and now 20 more as well. thats 48 Series Produced LCA's that will be joining at least 2 squadrons.Nihat wrote:by the end of this year - how is that possible.
I thought serial production would only get the green light after the IOC is obtained.
BTW, Philip had posted in another thread that the LCA's piddly 8-12 per year production line pales in comparison to LM's nearly 1 F-35 per day production line. I wanted to comment on that and it basically relates to the order that is committed to by the IAF. If the IAF had placed an order for nealry 2000 LCA's HAL would've had no option but to go berserk trying to ramp up. We know that it's not possible for that to happen. But if the IAF places orders for 8+20+20 piecemeal wise, then HAL cannot do anything more than set up assembly lines that produce 8-12 per year. It makes no sense for HAL to produce more (like 15-20 per year) when that would mean that its possible that if the IAF doesn't order more, the line would go cold within 2 years itself. Why would HAL spend on so much tooling only for it to be used for 2 years ?? HAL will only spend as much as it economically feasible based on firm orders. if the IAF wants quicker deliveries, it'll cost more. Its the same logic that applies to the Dassault Rafale production line that produces just 12 Rafale's per year. They can easily produce more if required, but why will Dassault pay for the additional tooling and manpower if the Adl'A is happy with the rate at which its getting the current Rafales?