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.
nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 26 Sep 2009 01:19

As I understand, we require a 90 KN class engine to power LCA which has payload of over 4000Kg. But does we still require 90 KN if payload is reduced to say 2000 kg

The only thing i want to understand is that whether LCA in purely interceptor role (Original role for which it was perceived) with all Air to Air missiles can be powered by Kaveri with 80KN

There are 7 + 1 Hardpoints on tejas. The AA missile which will be used are Astra (154 Kg) ,
R -77 (175/226 kg) and R - 73 (105 Kg)

Of 8 hard points (incl 1 for reccee/other pod) 2 hard points on the outer edge of wings can carry upto 150 kg i.e. R - 73. So total weight is 210 Kg

Rest 5 are equipped with say R 77M1 of 226 kg. Even then total weight for this 5 will be 1130 kg

Last one beneath port side intake trunk can hold 200 Kg. Assuming R 77 (since it is heavier than Astra), it is 175 Kg

Thus total paylaod is
R 73 2 @ 105 - 210 Kg
R 77 M1 5 @ 226 - 1130 Kg
R 77 1 @ 175 - 175 Kg
Total 1515 Kg

Does it require 90 Kn for 1515 Kg payload? If yes, than how will 90 Kn satisfy 4000 Kg? If No, why can't IAF induct such interceptors with Kaveri for say 100 numbers.

We will be phasing out over 200 Mig 21 by 2011. Even if we are able to produce 1 squadron of MKI every year, we will retire over 150 aircraft without replacement; not to mention to level of squadrons operational

In this scenario, we can induct LCA - Interceptor/tranche 1 to fill the gap of Mig 21 which is also a interceptor.
Moving ahead we can always update them to multirole aircrafts...

Is it possible or just one of my wildest dream?

-Nitin

Neeraj Bagga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Sep 2009 20:17

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Neeraj Bagga » 26 Sep 2009 02:15

nrshah wrote:As I understand, we require a 90 KN class engine to power LCA which has payload of over 4000Kg. But does we still require 90 KN if payload is reduced to say 2000 kg

The only thing i want to understand is that whether LCA in purely interceptor role (Original role for which it was perceived) with all Air to Air missiles can be powered by Kaveri with 80KN

There are 7 + 1 Hardpoints on tejas. The AA missile which will be used are Astra (154 Kg) ,
R -77 (175/226 kg) and R - 73 (105 Kg)

Of 8 hard points (incl 1 for reccee/other pod) 2 hard points on the outer edge of wings can carry upto 150 kg i.e. R - 73. So total weight is 210 Kg

Rest 5 are equipped with say R 77M1 of 226 kg. Even then total weight for this 5 will be 1130 kg

Last one beneath port side intake trunk can hold 200 Kg. Assuming R 77 (since it is heavier than Astra), it is 175 Kg

Thus total paylaod is
R 73 2 @ 105 - 210 Kg
R 77 M1 5 @ 226 - 1130 Kg
R 77 1 @ 175 - 175 Kg
Total 1515 Kg

Does it require 90 Kn for 1515 Kg payload? If yes, than how will 90 Kn satisfy 4000 Kg? If No, why can't IAF induct such interceptors with Kaveri for say 100 numbers.

We will be phasing out over 200 Mig 21 by 2011. Even if we are able to produce 1 squadron of MKI every year, we will retire over 150 aircraft without replacement; not to mention to level of squadrons operational

In this scenario, we can induct LCA - Interceptor/tranche 1 to fill the gap of Mig 21 which is also a interceptor.
Moving ahead we can always update them to multirole aircrafts...

Is it possible or just one of my wildest dream?

-Nitin


I think it is very much possible. Barring the engine capacity, this is exactly what was done for F-22 and EF. Their Tranche 1s were purely air to air. They did not change the engines though.
I think insufficient thrust is not the only issues with Kaveri. IIRC, there are other issues too. Its efficiency drops considerably at higher altitudes. (Gurus can shed more light on it).

I say for tranche 1. As soon as we can, we decide on an engine (F 404 or EJ2000). And get 50 - 100 LCAs by 2015-16 time. (Wishful thinking? ).

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 Sep 2009 02:40

RameshC wrote: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-33 bypass ratio is well higher than F414 and EJ200. So how there can be more IR? I wonder, it's against the physical logic. It could be rather less for RD-33.
mig-29 ovt same engine as the mig-35...shityy..so much smoke black smoke..far more than the EF, SH, rafale put together.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/253062/mig_29_ovt/

Not true. I have checked it: they used RD-33 ser. 3 basic engine for OVT demonstration, and they indeed smoked heavy. Otherwise if looking on these videos with MiG-35 and MiG-29K flying with RD-33MK, one cannot see a smoke with except a bit on the landing (it can happen with SH too):
[youtube]KG_EgwoEQdk&NR=1[/youtube]

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 Sep 2009 02:41

Kartik wrote: and the RD-33 with a weight of 1050 kgs (per wiki) has a max. thrust of 81 kN in AB. thats lower than what the current F-404 IN20 engine has. and the thrust to weight ratio of even the RD-33 MK is lower than that of the F-414 and the EJ200. both are better options as far as the LCA goes.

Before run to conclusion we need to know the lifetime. RD-33MK has 4000 h life, it's officially. And with such a lifetime it can be converted to a more thrust for sure by some raising of the gas temp. Unfortunately I cannot find the f414 and ej200 lifetime. They don't publish it officially for some reason (my guess).

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Raveen » 26 Sep 2009 03:46

Igorr wrote:
Kartik wrote: and the RD-33 with a weight of 1050 kgs (per wiki) has a max. thrust of 81 kN in AB. thats lower than what the current F-404 IN20 engine has. and the thrust to weight ratio of even the RD-33 MK is lower than that of the F-414 and the EJ200. both are better options as far as the LCA goes.

Before run to conclusion we need to know the lifetime. RD-33MK has 4000 h life, it's officially. And with such a lifetime it can be converted to a more thrust for sure by some raising of the gas temp. Unfortunately I cannot find the f414 and ej200 lifetime. They don't publish it officially for some reason (my guess).


Igorr the MTBO for the F404 was far greater than the original RD33
4000hrs vs 800hrs as far I remember
now the RD33 has finally caught up...the figures for the F414 are also 4000hrs or round about...remember reading it....will post the link as soon I can locate it...i believe it's on wiki as well and since you first linked to wiki articles you shouldn't have issues accepting wiki as a source for the ~4000hr MTBO for the F414

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Sep 2009 04:07

why are we talking about the RD-33 when its not in the competition ,IAF is not interested in it for LCA, its the least reliable between GE and EJ2000. so looking at possibilties, both EJ or GE should allow for sueprcruise, GE should allow for higher sustained supercruise with a very good combat load, if we keep the weight below that of the Gripen NG, we have ourselves an aircraft that can easily sustain mach 1.2 with a nearly full load. Please dont disrespect NRIs, lots of money comes in every year from them, secondly NRIs are the real pride of India, coz most NRIs all across the world are known to be decent, hardworking, law abiding citizens who generate economic value in every country they dwell in, cant say the same about local Indians. even in the US NRIs can be attributed with the inventions and breakthough technologies like thrust vectoring in the early 80s, intially built by a NASA sub-contractor. matter of fact some of the biggest contributors to US hardware have been Indians working in high end companies like Raytheon, LM, NG, Boeing etc. US is a land of oppourtuntity and many from India will still flok to it, whether you like it or not, the common Indian doesn't care about these strategic matters. the common indian has things like water, food and shelter to worry about, so any one obsession with strategic concerns are useless because being a democratic nation with so many defence deals in the pipeline, the US will win a lot of them on sheer grounds of capability, you dont expect a country we have had friendly ties with for the last 6 years to become best buddies forever, niether should you be naive enough to think that we can do any business without US, fact is we need eachother and in that spirit, all those worries are useless. US niether has the will or the ability to screw over India, its against their interests, they cant afford to have two potential threats both China and India in Asia, that will be a serious problem. Pak well its not only US that gives aid to Pak, china, France give cash too. sure they buy weapons with US money but those assholes who killed our jawans yesterday and on 26/11 victims died from the AK and not some 155 mm canon Pak got from the US as charity. And the AK is a Russian weapon...now i can say Russia is in-directly involved in killing Indian citizens and soldiers, cut this, not needed every story has many angles to it. may be the rifles were made in china or Bulgaria and are pure copies but thanx to Russian lack of keeping things to themselves, more than 500 million AKs exist and have resulted in massive genocides, more civilians have been killed by the AK than a nuke. so who is the bigger war criminal, Russia again with its lack of any mointoring policy well China has copied everything Russian, mass producued them and now threatens us directly. US had nothing to do with all this. its easy to play blame games all day. its ok if russia arms China with gr8 weapons , matter of fact they dont even care if Chinese have made copies of everything Russian, i mean everything, subs, missiles, SAMs, fighters, guns, atleast the US has inspections on pak, sure even then some tech was stolen. Its ok if our closest strategic partner sells to both sides with out any monitoring and now people are whining when some US fighters were sold with some weapons, some money given. wow, what a load of fecal matter.
Last edited by RameshC on 26 Sep 2009 04:10, edited 1 time in total.

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby khukri » 26 Sep 2009 04:09

Raveen wrote:[Igorr the MTBO for the F404 was far greater than the original RD33
4000hrs vs 800hrs as far I remember
now the RD33 has finally caught up...the figures for the F414 are also 4000hrs or round about...remember reading it....will post the link as soon I can locate it...i believe it's on wiki as well and since you first linked to wiki articles you shouldn't have issues accepting wiki as a source for the ~4000hr MTBO for the F414


Isn't there a difference between MTBO (Mean time before overhaul) and life of engine? Which figures are 4000 for each engine?

Deagel.com says 2000 hrs engine life for the RD33

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft- ... 09001.aspx

And 2000 hrs for the "hot section" and 4000 hrs for other components for the F414
as follows from Global Security:

"In addition to proven technology, more than five million flight hours of F404 operational experience were factored into the F414 design. As a result, durability, reliability, and performance have been enhanced. The F414 has a 2000-hour hot section life and a 4000-hour specification life for all other engine rotating components and structure. Critical rotating disks, shafts and engine structure have been designed using GE’s robust, damage-tolerant design practice. This delivers a three-fold improvement in low cycle fatigue compared to previously used design methods."

Subsequent references indicate that hot section life in the new EPE version developed for the SH was tripled - i.e. to 6000 hours, as follows from GE Aviation:

The EDE package includes a three-dimensional aerodynamic (3-D aero) high-pressure compressor, high-pressure turbine and exhaust frame, and lower-emissions combustor. The new compressor improves airflow and efficiency, and time between overhauls is increased from 4000 hours to 6000 hours. The 3-D aero turbine is more efficient, with higher temperature capability, while increasing fatigue life from 2000 hours to 6000 hours. These enhancements could be available for production F414 engines in 2009.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Gaur » 26 Sep 2009 05:00

RameshC wrote: Please dont disrespect NRIs, lots of money comes in every year from them, secondly NRIs are the real pride of India, coz most NRIs all across the world are known to be decent, hardworking, law abiding citizens who generate economic value in every country they dwell in, cant say the same about local Indians.

Sorry if we SDREs are not up to your standards sir. Sorry for being "indecent and lazy criminals who leach money from the country they dwell in". :evil:
RameshC wrote: US is a land of oppourtuntity and many from India will still flok to it, whether you like it or not, the common Indian doesn't care about these strategic matters. the common indian has things like water, food and shelter to worry about

Yes, we hungry, poor and naked Indians do not care about our own Strategic matters. The reason why we are in this forum is perhaps to beg food from other posters.

I would have said more concerning your delirious rant on Russia, but it would be wasted on you.
You do not deserve reply for your most insensitive post but I could not help myself. I have already reported you post.
Last edited by Gaur on 26 Sep 2009 05:19, edited 1 time in total.

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby munna » 26 Sep 2009 05:11

^^ Parijat relax, a lot of foreign citizens of Indian origin are stuck up with an image of India shaped by their personal experiences in the past and seek to justify their migration by taking the shadow of "what could we do? no opportunity onlee?". Let them be we are not to discuss their demerits or merits they have burnt their bridges and we are fine with it until they begin to pontificate! Let us focus on LCA and the news coming on the Kaveri front via Livefist blog of Shiv Aroor.

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby munna » 26 Sep 2009 05:13

On a serious note I am looking forwards to N^3 views on the higher than expected bypass ratio of Kaveri engine and the reports of Midhani and GTRE finally attempting to put something workable together.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby pravula » 26 Sep 2009 05:56

RameshC wrote: i have captured their IR signatures on my HD camera that has IR capability, the mig's IR is much higher because of the engine but also the way the nozzels are shaped


Please post the video. We would like to see how your IR enabled camcorder clearly shows that MiG-29's IR signature is higher than SH :twisted: :twisted:

viewtopic.php?p=744416#p744416

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6822
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby archan » 26 Sep 2009 07:40

pravula wrote:
RameshC wrote: i have captured their IR signatures on my HD camera that has IR capability, the mig's IR is much higher because of the engine but also the way the nozzels are shaped


Please post the video.

He probably won't have the chance to. By the time his HD camera is up to the task, he would have been banned. So.....now RameshC, I handed you not one but two warnings today for use of bad language and trolling/flame baiting. And now you came up with a post that says:
Please dont disrespect NRIs, lots of money comes in every year from them, secondly NRIs are the real pride of India, coz most NRIs all across the world are known to be decent, hardworking, law abiding citizens who generate economic value in every country they dwell in, cant say the same about local Indians.

hmmm...nice! you know what, I am a NRI and I got an issue with what you say.
For the rest, I let you have your opinions...cool. You don't like Russia? fine! you think average Indian is only concerned about food and water, more power to you. But you have discussed this in fair amount of detail in the LCA thread, a fact I am not cool with.
So I am inclined to hand you your third warning for the NRI business that you just did above. That warning will come with a 1 month ban. But I don't want to rob pravula of a chance to see your HD video, so I will hold the warning for a day and see if you oblige them. Otherwise, have a good time, hopefully a break will help you figure out how to behave on BRF, if you decided to return. Adios.

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

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 26 Sep 2009 07:47

Igorr wrote:
Kartik wrote: and the RD-33 with a weight of 1050 kgs (per wiki) has a max. thrust of 81 kN in AB. thats lower than what the current F-404 IN20 engine has. and the thrust to weight ratio of even the RD-33 MK is lower than that of the F-414 and the EJ200. both are better options as far as the LCA goes.

Before run to conclusion we need to know the lifetime. RD-33MK has 4000 h life, it's officially. And with such a lifetime it can be converted to a more thrust for sure by some raising of the gas temp. Unfortunately I cannot find the f414 and ej200 lifetime. They don't publish it officially for some reason (my guess).


actually, the F-414 has a 2000 hour life for its hot section and 4000 hour for

link

The F414 has a 2000-hour hot section life and a 4000-hour specification life for all other engine rotating components and structure. Critical rotating disks, shafts and engine structure have been designed using GE’s robust, damage-tolerant design practice. This delivers a three-fold improvement in low cycle fatigue compared to previously used design methods.


in addition
IHPTET technologies can reduce the F414 SFC by 4% and increase turbine life to 6,000 hours, providing a $2B savings in total ownership cost. These technologies could also be used to provide a 20% increase in thrust with a 2,000 hour turbine life.

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Baldev » 26 Sep 2009 07:58

Kartik wrote:actually, the F-414 has a 2000 hour life for its hot section and 4000 hour for

link

The F414 has a 2000-hour hot section life and a 4000-hour specification life for all other engine rotating components and structure. Critical rotating disks, shafts and engine structure have been designed using GE’s robust, damage-tolerant design practice. This delivers a three-fold improvement in low cycle fatigue compared to previously used design methods.


in addition
IHPTET technologies can reduce the F414 SFC by 4% and increase turbine life to 6,000 hours, providing a $2B savings in total ownership cost. These technologies could also be used to provide a 20% increase in thrust with a 2,000 hour turbine life.

also someone posted information about EJ-2000 engine that its first EJ2000 completed 1000 hours of flight and needs overhaul so i think MTBF(mean time between overhaul) for ej2000 is 1000 hours but they said they rather overhaul the ej2000 engine after 900 hours of flying so compare this to MTBF of rd33mk which is sited as 1000 hours by klimov this means rd33mk needs overhaul every 1000 hours of flight time

but in actual conditions MTBO of rd33mk should be close to 800 hours instead of 1000 hours because what the manufacturer says is not always true.

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Sep 2009 11:58

well archan saab, i am just posting what i percieve, obviously many have problems with facing the facts, thats the problem with us Indians, we dont let anyone talk bad about our country, may be i 've been away from India too long, may be its easy for me to post than to actually do something about, but facts remain facts, when half the country cant even read and write what do they care about strategic matters, i have always said no going for US platforms or parts till they give us full-tot but i also keep saying just because someone offended you in the past doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve a chance to make things right and when that person has no clue on how to makes things right we its upto us to let them know. i cant post that video because its too big a file and now you can ban me if you want, just shows how much people hate the truth. our love for our country often blinds us, the politics in the country is a sham, the citizens at grass root level still suffer. so ban me if you want.i am no body..just a voice. thats all you can do ban me or report me.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Sep 2009 12:35

well archan saab, i am just posting what i percieve, obviously many have problems with facing the facts,


For a guy who is remarkably stingy on relevant sources, that is another tall claim. Still, I am surprised at the amazing efficiency BR shows in weeding out this type - kudos to the mods and Archansaab.

CM.

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

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby PratikDas » 26 Sep 2009 12:44

RameshC wrote:well archan saab, i am just posting what i percieve, obviously many have problems with facing the facts, thats the problem with us Indians, we dont let anyone talk bad about our country, may be i 've been away from India too long, may be its easy for me to post than to actually do something about, but facts remain facts, when half the country cant even read and write what do they care about strategic matters, i have always said no going for US platforms or parts till they give us full-tot but i also keep saying just because someone offended you in the past doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve a chance to make things right and when that person has no clue on how to makes things right we its upto us to let them know.


RameshC, I do not mean to offend you at all by the following. It is only friendly advice which you may heed if you wish to have your opinions read and considered by more of the readers with whom you wish to debate. The quote above from your last post has 138 words, 9 commas, 1 full stop, and 3 words capitalised properly. When I see posts like this I typically don't even bother to read them. I'm very passionate about the LCA and this thread and yet I have no idea what your primary point of view is so far - because your longer posts haven't drawn my attention.

At this stage I can understand if you're literally or figuratively showing me the finger. Who cares about what I think, right? But if you care about more people reading what you write, and about your time being well spent on threads other than BENIS then please read on.

I can only guess from the degree with which you engage this forum that you genuinely care about the subjects you write about. Then please exercise the following skills when you write long posts so more of us can enjoy them:
1) Forming whole sentences,
2) capitalising where necessary, and
3) splitting different points into paragraphs.

In fact, this friendly advice applies to others frequently replying to you as well.

[/Grandfather]

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Sep 2009 13:12

No fingers to anyone das saab, i only show fingers to those who are impolite. I dont like using impolite language but will if i am pushed to. Sure, my punctuation goes out the window but hey i dont bother because this is a forum and not a english test, even without punctuation my english is far better than many here. But, if you insist will try to punctuate better.

Lets not deviate from the topic and who brought up the RD-33 anyways?? why again?? Its not in the deal for LCA engines hence no use discussing it. Now coming to the GE and the EJ, Gripen NG weighs around what 7 tons empty, now considering LCA mk-2 will weigh a bit lower than that with the GE engine it should have a higher sustained supercruise speed. Word has it that it NG can hit mach 1.2 with stores, well atleast SAAB claims it. Now question is will LCA mk-2 have lower weight than the Gripen NG or will it be slightly heavier. The RFP calls for local assembly, so what kinda TOT are EJ and GE offering for the engine?

LCA-mk-2 will have more weapons stations as well, how many more? I hope its design resembles the LCA trainer mk-1 or single seat N-LCA coz that design is said to be more aerodynamic, would allow for better agility and maneuvering.

How will the MRCA decision affect the LCA engine decision?? Will IAF look for engine commonality on the LCA and MRCA? If so then the MRCA is narrowed down to the Gripen Ng, SH and EF. Someone said that lowest price bid meeting all RFP requirements will win. When RFP calls for 2012 of first aircraft and mig wont begin production till 2013, Gripen wins by default thats if it meets all needs.

Now how good is the LCA, Gripen pair??? How well do they stack up??
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=67obo7&s=5

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby KrishG » 26 Sep 2009 13:20

Igorr wrote:
Kartik wrote: and the RD-33 with a weight of 1050 kgs (per wiki) has a max. thrust of 81 kN in AB. thats lower than what the current F-404 IN20 engine has. and the thrust to weight ratio of even the RD-33 MK is lower than that of the F-414 and the EJ200. both are better options as far as the LCA goes.

Before run to conclusion we need to know the lifetime. RD-33MK has 4000 h life, it's officially. And with such a lifetime it can be converted to a more thrust for sure by some raising of the gas temp. Unfortunately I cannot find the f414 and ej200 lifetime. They don't publish it officially for some reason (my guess).


The F414 EDE on offer to LCA has a service life of 6000 hrs. I am pretty confident of this figure. Here is the GE reference.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_2003616b.html

As for the EJ200, there is no official info. Various sources have quoted that the service life pf the EF to be 6000 hrs. So it would be logical to believe that the engine's service life be between 4000 hrs-6000hrs.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 26 Sep 2009 13:59

rameshC, you can post anything as long as it is within the regulations of the board and relevant to the thread.

posting OT stuff (like an observation of work ethics of Indians in LCA thread) is simply thread derailment, however interesting the observations may be. if that happens you will be duly notified as a mod has already done. repeat occurrences leads to board warnings and ban.

if you don't want that to happen please heed these requests to stay on topic.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 Sep 2009 14:04

khukri wrote:Deagel.com says 2000 hrs engine life for the RD33

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft- ... 09001.aspx

And 2000 hrs for the "hot section" and 4000 hrs for other components for the F414
as follows from Global Security:

Right, the engine life of RD-33 ser. 3 is 2000 h, officially. With these specs India has licensioned it. While for RD-33MK ('Sea wasp') is 4000 h officially with 1000 h MTBO. And the life of a turbine engine is always limited by the hot section, of course...

OK let's do some summation. From the pure tech POV F414 is the best for LCA with some intakes redesign needed for higher airflow, has the highest thrust, however the political risk is high too. EJ200 needs some structural change for its lesser dimension and probably intakes redesign too, it's totally new engine in India. RD-33MK needs both intakes and structural redesign, but logistically compatible with the growing fleet of RD-class engines in India (MiG-29, MiG-29K, probably MiG-35), in technological aspects it's more close to already produced (or will be produced soon) RD-33 ser. 3 and AL-31FP.


KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby KrishG » 26 Sep 2009 14:31

Igorr wrote:
khukri wrote:Deagel.com says 2000 hrs engine life for the RD33

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft- ... 09001.aspx

And 2000 hrs for the "hot section" and 4000 hrs for other components for the F414
as follows from Global Security:

Right, the engine life of RD-33 ser. 3 is 2000 h, officially. With these specs India has licensioned it. While for RD-33MK ('Sea wasp') is 4000 h officially with 1000 h MTBO. And the life of a turbine engine is always limited by the hot section, of course...

OK let's do some summation. From the pure tech POV F414 is the best for LCA with some intakes redesign needed for higher airflow, has the highest thrust, however the political risk is high too. EJ200 needs some structural change for its lesser dimension and probably intakes redesign too, it's totally new engine in India. RD-33MK needs both intakes and structural redesign, but logistically compatible with the growing fleet of RD-class engines in India (MiG-29, MiG-29K, probably MiG-35), in technological aspects it's more close to already produced (or will be produced soon) RD-33 ser. 3 and AL-31FP.


But, the whole issue of RD-33MK for LCA comes down to the fact that as of now, Klimov hasn't been issued an RFP by ADA (or atleast there is authoritative source to be able to claim the contrary).

nrshah wrote:There are 7 + 1 Hardpoints on tejas. The AA missile which will be used are Astra (154 Kg) , R -77 (175/226 kg) and R - 73 (105 Kg)


As an Israeli radar (or Indo-Israeli) is being integrated with the LCA, isn't it possible to integrate the Python-5 and Derby AAMs on the LCA ?? It could be real possibility as there will not be any major compatibility issues. Python-5 might be a serious possibility instead of comparitively older R-73.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 Sep 2009 14:52

KrishG wrote:But, the whole issue of RD-33MK for LCA comes down to the fact that as of now, Klimov hasn't been issued an RFP by ADA (or atleast there is authoritative source to be able to claim the contrary).
It's changeable, you know. When the question is about so long term and critically important program like an engine adoption, they will not be stuck with formalism, I think. We just don't know some important things, like for example whether US Adm is ready to allow India re-export LCA with F414, do we. My feeling India's tops have awaken and want now LCA program at least in China's FC-1 framework (the signs of this is the last visitin Russian RD-33 plant). Thus Delhi could support its allies and the satellites with a decent fighting aircraft. So the issue of export rights can be more prominent now.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 26 Sep 2009 15:05

KrishG wrote:As an Israeli radar (or Indo-Israeli) is being integrated with the LCA, isn't it possible to integrate the Python-5 and Derby AAMs on the LCA ?? It could be real possibility as there will not be any major compatibility issues. Python-5 might be a serious possibility instead of comparitively older R-73.


Right KrishG, But my point was different. Even if you are using Python 5 or Derby or hypothetically all BVRAAM in 200 km range class, total payload with 7/8 Air to Air missiles will not exceed 2000 Kg. Now can LCA with payload of 2000 Kg fly with Kaveri /F 404 engines both in class of 80KN?

If yes, why not induct them (In pure interceptor role - only armed with air to air missiles) to replace aging fleet of Mig 21?
If no, will even 90KN engine will be sufficient for full payload capacity (4000Kg) as for incremental thrust of 10 KN, weight has increased by 2000Kg not to mention the diameters of Air to Ground missiles and ammunition tends to be higher than AAMs.

And with LCA Mk 2 with larger wings and increased no of hard points, I hope we are not heading towards yet another bottleneck between weight and thrust (90KN). I hope, again IAF doesn't start feeling 90 KN is short of what is needed to power LCA Mk 2.

-Nitin

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 26 Sep 2009 15:15

Igorr wrote:We just don't know some important things, like for example whether US Adm is ready to allow India re-export LCA with F414, do we.


Ya we do. They will not allow it to be re exported to any country unless congress approve it, something which will never happen. Why boeing consultancy was terminated and instead awarded to EADS?

-Nitin

vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vishwakarmaa » 26 Sep 2009 15:17

RameshC wrote:Please dont disrespect NRIs, lots of money comes in every year from them, secondly NRIs are the real pride of India, coz most NRIs all across the world are known to be decent, hardworking, law abiding citizens who generate economic value in every country they dwell in, cant say the same about local Indians.


Interesting.

I am not surprised that you are not banned here for saying that.
Last edited by vishwakarmaa on 26 Sep 2009 15:51, edited 4 times in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 26 Sep 2009 15:33

good post. I like people who talk numbers rather than vague qualitative arguments.
just added my comments.

nrshah wrote:As I understand, we require a 90 KN class engine to power LCA which has payload of over 4000Kg. But does we still require 90 KN if payload is reduced to say 2000 kg
{no need to assume anything. from ajai shukla's reports. LCA max T/O weight with IN20 engine is 13 tonnes.
LCA empty weight is around 7 tonnes and equipped weight (full internal fuel, canons armed and pylons fitted) is 10 tonnes. that leaves 3 tonne for payload, as against the target of 4 tonne}

The only thing i want to understand is that whether LCA in purely interceptor role (Original role for which it was perceived) with all Air to Air missiles can be powered by Kaveri with 80KN
{probably yes but with performance limitations. to carry a robust combat load LCA would need to loaded close to its max T/O weight, that inherently reduces performance. you have to understand that aircrafts are not designed to be loaded to their max for regular operations, it is rather used as a capability in rare situations. if your fighter needs to be max loaded for regular CAP and point defence operations, that's not a very good situation to be in. anyway all this is moot unless we have an working radar}
There are 7 + 1 Hardpoints on tejas. The AA missile which will be used are Astra (154 Kg) ,
R -77 (175/226 kg) and R - 73 (105 Kg)

Of 8 hard points (incl 1 for reccee/other pod) 2 hard points on the outer edge of wings can carry upto 150 kg {typo : should be 105 kg}i.e. R - 73. So total weight is 210 Kg

Rest 5 are equipped with say R 77M1 of 226 kg. Even then total weight for this 5 will be 1130 kg {is the R-77m in service ? I don't think even development is complete.}

Last one beneath port side intake trunk can hold 200 Kg. Assuming R 77 (since it is heavier than Astra), it is 175 Kg {it's meant for instrument pods, not sure its wired/pyloned for missiles}

Thus total paylaod is
R 73 2 @ 105 - 210 Kg
R 77 M1 5 @ 226 - 1130 Kg
R 77 1 @ 175 - 175 Kg
Total 1515 Kg
{just one point, given the # of our AAR assets LCA would probably need to be in the air without the chance of a top-up. IOW, that means figure in those 1200l and 800l fuel tanks}
Does it require 90 Kn for 1515 Kg payload? If yes, than how will 90 Kn satisfy 4000 Kg? If No, why can't IAF induct such interceptors with Kaveri for say 100 numbers.

We will be phasing out over 200 Mig 21 by 2011. Even if we are able to produce 1 squadron of MKI every year, we will retire over 150 aircraft without replacement; not to mention to level of squadrons operational

In this scenario, we can induct LCA - Interceptor/tranche 1 to fill the gap of Mig 21 which is also a interceptor.
Moving ahead we can always update them to multirole aircrafts...

Is it possible or just one of my wildest dream?

-Nitin


IMHO LCA would make an excellent replacement for mig-21 but it has to have a working radar first.

vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vishwakarmaa » 26 Sep 2009 15:54

Cain Marko wrote:
well archan saab, i am just posting what i percieve, obviously many have problems with facing the facts,


For a guy who is remarkably stingy on relevant sources, that is another tall claim. Still, I am surprised at the amazing efficiency BR shows in weeding out this type - kudos to the mods and Archansaab.

CM.


NRI's are highly educated so he must be more credible. We local Indians are poor and naked.

Also, BRF Mods belong to same highly educated category I guess.
Last edited by Rahul M on 26 Sep 2009 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: warning issued for irrelevant flamebait. and I did note the original post before you hastily edited it.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shravan » 26 Sep 2009 15:59

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 26 Sep 2009 16:01, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: OT post.

vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vishwakarmaa » 26 Sep 2009 16:04

shravan wrote:edit.


If his post was OT, then what about that guy's post who is abusing local Indians?

Why this biased-ness?

So, following is not OT?

RameshC wrote:
Please dont disrespect NRIs, lots of money comes in every year from them, secondly NRIs are the real pride of India, coz most NRIs all across the world are known to be decent, hardworking, law abiding citizens who generate economic value in every country they dwell in, cant say the same about local Indians.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 26 Sep 2009 16:08

I don't edit/moderate a post after another mod has already done his bit. different people do things differently. the "biased-ness" is in your imagination.
how do you know if he received warnings or not ? it takes an incredibly blind and biased person to miss archan's post above or even my own cautioning to rameshC.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 Sep 2009 16:15

nrshah wrote:
Igorr wrote:We just don't know some important things, like for example whether US Adm is ready to allow India re-export LCA with F414, do we.
Ya we do. They will not allow it to be re exported to any country unless congress approve it, something which will never happen. Why boeing consultancy was terminated and instead awarded to EADS?
-Nitin
OK, it's representative for they. They dont like an additional competitor on the market. By this logic they have killed the Israeli 'Lavi' project, thus Israel could only sell 'Lavi' technology for China to compensate its R&D spending...

If so, I still think what I though a couple years ago, when the issue of 'insufficient Kaveri engine' and ' foreign help for Kavery' was raised: better to follow with F404 till it's possible and than to make the final decision according to MMRCA results and political development.

Your remarks about current LCA configuration are very valuable. It's indeed must be pretty enough for initially planned LCA function - MiG-21 replacement as a pure air-to-air fighter. If the ambitions of IAF & politicos were grow, sorry but they must to offer an additional solution instead of breaking what already has be done.

My personal feeling (although my hermeneutics can be mistake as well) that they were jerked by the last Chinese success with FC-1 program, demonstrating how effectively Beijing can use the arm export arguments to win the allies from Bangla and Myanmar to the oil-reach African Countries. Till Delhi could not offer for such countries something as valuable for national security, the Delhi geo-political pretensions cannot be taken seriously. And if India chooses F414 for LCA mark2, it will need the Washington's permit each time it wants to export LCA to an additional country.

santoshs
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 17:58

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby santoshs » 26 Sep 2009 16:30

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 26 Sep 2009 17:29, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I understand this is an emotive issue but please don't respond to flamebaits.

santoshs
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 17:58

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby santoshs » 26 Sep 2009 16:46

Igorr wrote: My personal feeling (although my hermeneutics can be mistake as well) that they were jerked by the last Chinese success with FC-1 program, demonstrating how effectively Beijing can use the arm export arguments to win the allies from Bangla and Myanmar to the oil-reach African Countries. Till Delhi could not offer for such countries something as valuable for national security, the Delhi geo-political pretensions cannot be taken seriously. And if India chooses F414 for LCA mark2, it will need the Washington's permit each time it wants to export LCA to an additional country.


Igorr, I feel its a long time before India will be in a situation to offer LCA as its own current need is too urgent. HAL will be busy supplying to IAF and Navy for years. So we will be in a position to export arount 2018 only. Just take a look how much time it took for ALH to be exported.

By that time Kaveri will get the desired performance....will grow to 90KN or maybe more. So we will be able to offer completely indigenous LCA free frm any royalty by that time. See now when we are exporting ALH, shakthi is ready. Kaveri is there, its just a matter of time. It will be good for export to other sovereign countries who can not afford uncle's stuff or do not want his stuff.
EJ-200/GE-414 fits our need perfectly at this moment.

abhi.enggr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 11:57

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby abhi.enggr » 26 Sep 2009 18:05

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 26 Sep 2009 20:25, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please don't respond to flamebaits.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 827
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Shameek » 26 Sep 2009 18:46

^^ He has been warned by more than one mod now. Please lets ignore him and carry on with the actual thread. A request to you is to please type using normal sentences or paragraphs.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 26 Sep 2009 20:13

Thanks Rahul,
I have noted few of my observation and belief in bold black.

Rahul M wrote:
nrshah wrote:As I understand, we require a 90 KN class engine to power LCA which has payload of over 4000Kg. But does we still require 90 KN if payload is reduced to say 2000 kg
{no need to assume anything. from ajai shukla's reports. LCA max T/O weight with IN20 engine is 13 tonnes.
LCA empty weight is around 7 tonnes and equipped weight (full internal fuel, canons armed and pylons fitted) is 10 tonnes. that leaves 3 tonne for payload, as against the target of 4 tonne}


This effectively means with F 404 IN 20 tejas can (with some stretch) fly with payload of 3 tonnes


The only thing i want to understand is that whether LCA in purely interceptor role (Original role for which it was perceived) with all Air to Air missiles can be powered by Kaveri with 80KN
{probably yes but with performance limitations. to carry a robust combat load LCA would need to loaded close to its max T/O weight, that inherently reduces performance. you have to understand that aircrafts are not designed to be loaded to their max for regular operations, it is rather used as a capability in rare situations. if your fighter needs to be max loaded for regular CAP and point defence operations, that's not a very good situation to be in. anyway all this is moot unless we have an working radar}

Exactly my point sir. A/cs don't fly with full load in normal (most of) time. However, the engine is assessed for full load only. Thus while an engine might not be sufficient for full load, it will have enough thrust to handle partial load.

The above two conclusion leads me to believe that Tejas with F 404 IN 20 can very well fly in a point defense / interceptor role with a pay load of around 1500 Kg (half for what IN 20 can carry). Of course the bottleneck is radar.

In this context, it is important to note MMRCA was originally MRCA and was meant as replacement of Mig 21 after it was clear LCA was not available on time. Only recently it was made MMRCA and a replacement of M2k, Jaguars, and Mig 27. Now, if we can purchase 125 fighters for 10-12 Bn USD, why can't we purchase radar off the shelf. Israel's Elta 2052 is available and now even Zhuk AESA. Igorr, will be able to tell us whether the same can be fitted in Tejas or not.
Why cant we induct LCA with phoren engine and radar (to be replaced with indigenous) in point defense role. We will be phasing out over 250 Mig 21 bu 2011. If we can induct Tejas in even half of those numbers, think of the boast it will give to indigenous efforts.
Meanwhile continuing to develop LCA MK 2 as Air Superiority Multirole fighter. Also the benefit which will be available to MK 2 as there are always some issues which surfaces only when in operations status. Not to mention arresting falling squadron numbers


Of 8 hard points (incl 1 for reccee/other pod) 2 hard points on the outer edge of wings can carry upto 150 kg {typo : should be 105 kg} 150Kg was the total weight that those plyons can carry. R 73 is 105 Kg as you rightly stated i.e. R - 73. So total weight is 210 Kg

Rest 5 are equipped with say R 77M1 of 226 kg. Even then total weight for this 5 will be 1130 kg {is the R-77m in service ? I don't think even development is complete.}
As such I am not aware of status, i took it from ADA website from weapons for LCA section to highlight the heaviest missile will also not result in total payload more than 1515Kg

Last one beneath port side intake trunk can hold 200 Kg. Assuming R 77 (since it is heavier than Astra), it is 175 Kg {it's meant for instrument pods, not sure its wired/pyloned for missiles} Again same. Just to highlight max paylaod

Thus total paylaod is
R 73 2 @ 105 - 210 Kg
R 77 M1 5 @ 226 - 1130 Kg
R 77 1 @ 175 - 175 Kg
Total 1515 Kg
{just one point, given the # of our AAR assets LCA would probably need to be in the air without the chance of a top-up. IOW, that means figure in those 1200l and 800l fuel tanks} Agreed, But I am asking for interceptor / point defense fighter. It will have around 2000 Kg of internal fuel. Will it still require refueling / external fuels? Please guide me

-Nitin

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Sep 2009 20:47

Nitin, high power 90kn (or whatever) is required in 3 situations:-

Take off, low powered engine will reduce MTOW and/or increase take off length

Acceleration, for instance before lauching AAM (Note LCA configured for A to A will in any case not be carrying much external load)

Get away, LCA is designed for slash attack. fire missiles, turn and get away. at get away, the plane is already light but perhaps still needs that 90kn which IAF wants.

I think the if IAF is serious about LCA then they should order 100-150 LCA trainers as AJT with 65kn (?) Kaveri engine

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6822
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby archan » 26 Sep 2009 22:22

RameshC wrote:well archan saab, i am just posting what i percieve, obviously many have problems with facing the facts, thats the problem with us Indians, we dont let anyone talk bad about our country, may be i 've been away from India too long, may be its easy for me to post than to actually do something about, but facts remain facts, when half the country cant even read and write what do they care about strategic matters, i have always said no going for US platforms or parts till they give us full-tot but i also keep saying just because someone offended you in the past doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve a chance to make things right and when that person has no clue on how to makes things right we its upto us to let them know. i cant post that video because its too big a file and now you can ban me if you want, just shows how much people hate the truth. our love for our country often blinds us, the politics in the country is a sham, the citizens at grass root level still suffer. so ban me if you want.i am no body..just a voice. thats all you can do ban me or report me.

Good, now hopefully a month away from the forum will be helpful. What to do, I am an Indian and like you said..
thats the problem with us Indians


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests