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.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kailash » 24 Nov 2009 14:11

Assuming we finalize the engine and successfully mate it with LCA, what will determine the amount of testing (# hours) to be done to reach IOC and FOC for the Mk-II?

Considering that we may get some help from the selected engine house, and the fact that most of the component systems have been tested on the Mk-I, any gyan on how they arrive at this magic figure (IOC/FOC)?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vina » 24 Nov 2009 16:00

Hmm. Shook Law says that our Babu Monkeys aka Baboons will pick an engine that is the "lowest priced" . I hope to god that the Baboons at least get their thumbs out of their bottoms and move the paperwork quickly.

Frankly I find this L1 fetish crazy. The EJ 200 by all references seem to be a more up to date engine with far greater growth potential and less prone to sanctions. If the difference between the two is like $100m or so , they should go for the EJ 200. Lighter engine, fewer stages, wide chord blades, contra rotating spool , etc. . More learning to be had if we actually want to do something in aero engines later at all.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RKumar » 24 Nov 2009 19:21

1 flight in 4 days .... :-o :evil:

LCA-Tejas has completed 1224 Test Flights successfully. (18-Nov-09).

LCA has completed 1224 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-226,PV2-128,PV3-177,LSP1-54,LSP2-101).
177th flight of Tejas PV3 occurred on 17th Nov 09.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 24 Nov 2009 19:44

shook low is only grabbing some information to say its nearing.. how many chais + biskoot he might gone shaken high to get this low info?

SC technology in itself provide a high hot-corrosion and gunk resistence., again depending on the alloy.. not sure what EJ-200 has, but it should not be a problem for them at all to provide that..it would not cost more or perhaps it might be tucked in to get the deal, since MRCA is hot!

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

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby KrishG » 24 Nov 2009 19:53

shiv wrote:
RaviBg wrote:Strange that there is no report of any ToT for the LCA engine contract. Shouldn't that be part of the package as well?


Yikes! :eek: And spend 20 years negotiating the terms of that! No just buy and be done with it while we develop. And perhaps take a leaf out of Barbora's book about reverse engg


Digged up this piece of info.

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/09/stories/2008050961481300.htm

Eurojet, which had made available sophisticated data on the EJ200 to the ADA, has offered to transfer all technology — including the key core technology — on the engine to India.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 24 Nov 2009 20:08

I guess its too late for EJ200 core tech.. -- in the sense, didn't we already sign up with M88-ECO core for Kaveri already for about $2b? or is it on hold?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 24 Nov 2009 22:30

Kailash wrote:Assuming we finalize the engine and successfully mate it with LCA, what will determine the amount of testing (# hours) to be done to reach IOC and FOC for the Mk-II?

Considering that we may get some help from the selected engine house, and the fact that most of the component systems have been tested on the Mk-I, any gyan on how they arrive at this magic figure (IOC/FOC)?


No need to assume. It will be finalised and it will be successfully integrated. again, using the Gripen NG as the template, one may be able to gain clues as to how much testing will be required to get the Tejas Mk2 to IOC and then FOC.

the Gripen Demo aircraft was modified rather quickly (which may or may not be the case with ADA/HAL considering how slow they've been in the past) from a Gripen D twin-seater, and has gone through some 100 flights till now. It has also spent a lot of time on ground, being integrated with the new sensors and avionics- and that indicates that concurrent testing is hindered with just one prototype available. If the Tejas Mk2 program gets multiple prototypes, it can be speeded up. Basically they'll need to re-validate how the engine performs at all points in the flight envelope. They'll do it with the aircraft clean, then with the aircraft carrying different stores, and that will only certify the engine, not the new aircraft variant, because it is meant to have a new radar, and will have to take care of obsolescence of old equipment on the Tejas Mk1. Keep in mind that even the DARIN I Jaguar upgrade program involved 840 test flights.

They hopefully won't require so many hours to validate all the parameters, because of Inflight refuelling, so that each sortie is longer, and more test points can be cleared in each flight. I have in fact been wondering for quite some time as to why they haven't added the IFR probe as yet, but I'm quite sure that the Tejas Mk1 will have IFR by the time it clears FOC. I've seen CAD images of the probe, so its obvious that plumbing and space for the IFR systems is already provided in the Tejas design. Maybe they're waiting for an OBOGS to be fitted.
Last edited by Kartik on 24 Nov 2009 22:37, edited 1 time 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 » 24 Nov 2009 22:35

kartik I thought the OBOGS was already fitted ?

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby jai » 24 Nov 2009 23:14

Would lack of corresion protection be a show stopper as far as the engine selection is concerned ? Is it applied to commercial jet engines that do long hours of service on jets flying in India ?

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 » 24 Nov 2009 23:38

jai wrote:Would lack of corresion protection be a show stopper as far as the engine selection is concerned ? Is it applied to commercial jet engines that do long hours of service on jets flying in India ?


Yes, it is a major consideration because of the NLCA.
Commercial aircraft don't take off or land from Aircraft Carriers or fly as low as the NLCA could/would be expected to (to fly under the radar for instance). Also, being a single engine A/C it become even more important that the engine be dependable and have demonstrated hours an hours of use in military application in a wide range of conditions including naval operations.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 24 Nov 2009 23:42

in addition to sea air, jets injest more salt ppm from the de-icing salts thats put on the aircraft carrier runways.

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 » 24 Nov 2009 23:44

SaiK wrote:in addition to sea air, jets injest more salt ppm from the de-icing salts thats put on the aircraft carrier runways.


Thank you for pointing that out Saik.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 25 Nov 2009 01:01

i was googling for info on marinization of EJ200s, and the only thing it hit was Brits trying to come of JSF F35B project, and considering EF2K.. but the interesting thing I found from that article about canards:-

The MOD appears to be internally considering the implications of converting its planned Tranche 3 batch of 88 Eurofighter Typhoon’s in to a navalised “Sea Typhoon” variant suitable for operation from CVF. However the likely costs and difficulties can not be underestimated, expected modifications include changes of materials to reduce corrosion, the addition of an arrestor hook, a larger and thicker wing with power folding, and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines. Even then, there would remain fundamental issues and risks such as the aircrafts canards restricting the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings.
http://frn.beedall.com/jca1-2.htm


so , sukhlaw is right from the sense, its expensive to have EJ200 marinized. but never know what is the deal after the product is ready, and when they want to create a bigger market, would have to come down on cost, and having a longer RoI, since order from India could span both MRCA and LCA, and its worth tucking the extra cost, to getting the market share.

shall take it MRCA thread

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2009 01:09

Rahul M wrote:kartik I thought the OBOGS was already fitted ?


I'm not sure..I remember an interview with some DRDO guy from AI-09 or maybe earlier, I'm not sure, where he said that the OBOGS was yet to be fitted..

astal
BRFite
Posts: 165
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

making a sea-worthy version of the EJ200

Postby astal » 25 Nov 2009 02:27

Regarding aircraft carrier based operation of the NLCA, I would expect that it is far out into the future. The EJ-200 in its current form, can be used for testing all non-carrier aspects of the of the NLCA. Given that we don't even have a flying prototype of the NLCA yet, I think Eurojet has plenty of time to make the engine robust for carrier operations.

It all depends on the schedule for NLCA. If they have more than a couple of years it should be within the realm of feasibility.

Also since many of the countries operating the EF-2000 are in the Northern Latitudes including UK, Germany and Austria, they probably use plenty of salt on their runways as it is. Improvement for marine operation is needed but likely not a big deal.

Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is sanction resistant. Any engine that cannot be used against Pakistan or must be subject to on site inspections is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% less.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 02:38

astal wrote:Regarding aircraft carrier based operation of the NLCA, I would expect that it is far out into the future. The EJ-200 in its current form, can be used for testing all non-carrier aspects of the of the NLCA. Given that we don't even have a flying prototype of the NLCA yet, I think Eurojet has plenty of time to make the engine robust for carrier operations.

It all depends on the schedule for NLCA. If they have more than a couple of years it should be within the realm of feasibility.

Also since many of the countries operating the EF-2000 are in the Northern Latitudes including UK, Germany and Austria, they probably use plenty of salt on their runways as it is. Improvement for marine operation is needed but likely not a big deal.

Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is sanction resistant. Any engine that cannot be used against Pakistan or must be subject to on site inspections is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% less.


As useless as an engine that will take multiple years and $$$ worth of development to fulfill one of the basic requirements of the LCA namely naval operations?

Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is sanction resistant. Any engine that cannot be used against Pakistan or must be subject to on site inspections is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% less.

Similarly, one can say:

Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is capable of doing what the LCA requires, we don't have time for LCA III. Any engine that cannot be used by NLCA or is subject operational restrictions is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% more!


Logically, the F414 has proven itself with thousands of hours of operational flights in more or less all conditions the IAF/Navy and HAL expect the LCA to work in; including but not limited to naval operations. Is cheaper (assumption), already produces more thrust and requires little or no development time to meet all expectations. Moreover the ADA and HAL have experience working with GE. All paranoid 'can not be used against Porkistan' talk aside (cause if that was true, then the LCA as it currently exists and as envisioned by thre ADA and HAL, including it's first 2 sqdn are already worthless!)
Last edited by Raveen on 25 Nov 2009 03:16, edited 2 times in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Nov 2009 02:51

Raveen wrote:Logically, the F414 has proven itself with thousands of hours of operational flights in more or less all conditions the IAF/Navy and HAL expect the LCA to work in; including but not limited to naval operations. Is cheaper (assumption), already produces more thrust and requires little or no development time to meet all expectations. Moreover the ADA and HAL have experience working with GE. All paranoid 'can not be used against Porkistan' talk aside!


Well, the EJ200 is cheaper, newer design and has much more potential than F414. The lower weight of EJ200 means more usable payload for LCA. And it meets the current requirements for LCA MkII. Given that the EJ200 is powering the typhoon, it will be around for a longer time and will have regular updates.

Plus if we order MRCA too from US, then having more than half the fleet dependent on the fickle-minded sanctions-prone US is a big risk!

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 » 25 Nov 2009 02:59

RaviBg wrote:
Raveen wrote:Logically, the F414 has proven itself with thousands of hours of operational flights in more or less all conditions the IAF/Navy and HAL expect the LCA to work in; including but not limited to naval operations. Is cheaper (assumption), already produces more thrust and requires little or no development time to meet all expectations. Moreover the ADA and HAL have experience working with GE. All paranoid 'can not be used against Porkistan' talk aside!


Well, the EJ200 is cheaper, newer design and has much more potential than F414. The lower weight of EJ200 means more usable payload for LCA. And it meets the current requirements for LCA MkII. Given that the EJ200 is powering the typhoon, it will be around for a longer time and will have regular updates.

Plus if we order MRCA too from US, then having more than half the fleet dependent on the fickle-minded sanctions-prone US is a big risk!


Sir, the F414 would has more thrust (which is why we are upgrading from the F404 to begin with) and is offering 20% growth potential on top of that and given that the F414 powers more than 1 type of aircraft and that GE is in the business of making and selling engines the F414 is no chump and is not going anywhere either!
In it's current for the EJ200 doesn't meet all the requirements (please refer to Ajai Shukhla's blog post).

So, as it stands today (not future promises) the F414 meets all requirements and offers more thrust while the EJ200 does not meet all requirements and will require some more development and testing to meet them while providing lower thrust. The F414 is battle tested and tried in all conditions we need it to perform in and is not tied to 1 aircraft type therefore will last long into the future (it helps when the manufacturer's only line of business is to make aircraft engines as is the case with GE Aero, that is thier bread and butter, they exist based on thier ability to sell engines to meet varied requirements). Considering our experience working with the F404 and the fact that more of these engines have been produced the learning curve for designers and users is likely to be flatter and the cost cheaper than the European counterpart which will only meet present requirements sometime into the future (in terms of re-ignition and naval operations).

As far as half the fleet being dependent on a fickle minded source; we already have living proof of that in the fact that the Russians are extremely fickle minded suppliers of spares and yet more than half of our fleet counts on them in almost all the three services.
Last edited by Raveen on 25 Nov 2009 03:18, edited 3 times in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Nov 2009 03:03

Ajai Shukla's post also mentions that the GE414 engine has some issues with thrust in certain profiles too. Both engines need some work. And EJ200 being lighter and newer design, and having good growth potential is a much better bet.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 03:10

RaviBg wrote:Ajai Shukla's post also mentions that the GE414 engine has some issues with thrust in certain profiles too. Both engines need some work. And EJ200 being lighter and newer design, and having good growth potential is a much better bet.


Sir, we can't argue opinions (we can state them, I have stated mine and you have stated yours, I respect yours as much as I respect mine); you have yours like I have mine. We can only argue facts. Yes, AS's blog mentions that, I concede that, but without knowing which profiles are being referred to we can only guess how important those are (or how extreme and unusual those are) and if we were to give the EJ200 a couple of years to meet existing requirements then we must take into account that GE is promising a 20% increase in thrust (which I point out again is already higher than the EJ200 and thrust is the main reason for switching engines) within a similar time frame (I assume this means some % if not a whole 20% increase in those profiles in question)+ increased MTBO on an engine that already meets the requirements. In any case, even in the profiles in question F414 would logically meet or exceed F404 performance.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Nov 2009 03:20

Raveen wrote:
RaviBg wrote:Ajai Shukla's post also mentions that the GE414 engine has some issues with thrust in certain profiles too. Both engines need some work. And EJ200 being lighter and newer design, and having good growth potential is a much better bet.


Sir, we can't argue opinions (we can state them, I have stated mine and you have stated yours, I respect yours as much as I respect mine); you have yours like I have mine. We can only argue facts. Yes, AS's blog mentions that, I concede that, but without knowing which profiles are being referred to we can only guess how important those are (or how extreme and unusual those are) and if we were to give the EJ200 a couple of years to meet existing requirements then we must take into account that GE is promising a 20% increase in thrust (which I point out again is already higher than the EJ200 and thrust is the main reason for switching engines) within a similar time frame (I assume this means some % if not a whole 20% increase in those profiles in question)+ increased MTBO on an engine that already meets the requirements. In any case, even in the profiles in question F414 would logically meet or exceed F404 performance.


Raveen, if you read Ajai Shukla's blog, he clearly states that both engines require minimum modification. I dont know where the two years for EJ200 that you are quoting is coming from. And while you are willing to take GE's promise of 20% higher thrust at face value, you are ignoring EJ's comments stating that the inflight re-ignition issue doesnt arise at all. And we don't know if GE's increase in thrust will accompany extra weight of the engine too. And these are all facts and not opinions. And as you gloss over the doubts raised over thrust in certain flight profiles of GE and harp on the 20% additional thrust. EJ says that their engines too are capable of growing to provide that thrust. These are all facts and not opinions.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 03:31

RaviBg wrote:
Raveen wrote:Sir, we can't argue opinions (we can state them, I have stated mine and you have stated yours, I respect yours as much as I respect mine); you have yours like I have mine. We can only argue facts. Yes, AS's blog mentions that, I concede that, but without knowing which profiles are being referred to we can only guess how important those are (or how extreme and unusual those are) and if we were to give the EJ200 a couple of years to meet existing requirements then we must take into account that GE is promising a 20% increase in thrust (which I point out again is already higher than the EJ200 and thrust is the main reason for switching engines) within a similar time frame (I assume this means some % if not a whole 20% increase in those profiles in question)+ increased MTBO on an engine that already meets the requirements. In any case, even in the profiles in question F414 would logically meet or exceed F404 performance.


Raveen, if you read Ajai Shukla's blog, he clearly states that both engines require minimum modification. I dont know where the two years for EJ200 that you are quoting is coming from. And while you are willing to take GE's promise of 20% higher thrust at face value, you are ignoring EJ's comments stating that the inflight re-ignition issue doesnt arise at all. And we don't know if GE's increase in thrust will accompany extra weight of the engine too. And these are all facts and not opinions. And as you gloss over the doubts raised over thrust in certain flight profiles of GE and harp on the 20% additional thrust. EJ says that their engines too are capable of growing to provide that thrust. These are all facts and not opinions.



Sir, I was using the 2 year quoted by another poster above (if you read the origion of this discussion on this page). I did not ignore EJ's claims that they can make thier engine capable of naval opertaions (I acknowledged that fact in my previous post when I say 'if you give EJ200 time to meet current requirements'); as far as the re-ignition case goes I clearly avoided mentioning it because either way either the ADA and HAL boys are wrong or the EJ200 team is wrong and I am no expert to be the judge and jury for them.

The opinion I was referring to was your prefference for the EJ200 and my preference for the GE offering (I am not sure why there was confusion about that). I am desperately trying not to gloss over anything; all I am saying is that in it's current for the EJ200 is not combat tried and tested and does not meet the requirements.

I am aware both teams promise increased thrust (but 20% more of y will always less than 20% more of x when x>y to begin with) and am not discounting the EJ200 or thier ability to deliver on those promises. My argument all along has been : in it's current form the EJ200 does not meet requirements and the F414 meets them; thats all!

Similar to your agument we don't know how much the re-ignitor and the naval rugedization would weigh in addition to the weight of increased thrust variants...maybe with the naval rugedization and re-ignitor (as desired by ADA and HAL) along with the additional thrust required to match the F414's current thrust the EJ200 would have no weight advantage at all.

OPINION: I would prefer the F414 just like I assume you prefer the EJ200.
Thank you, and have a wonderful day sir.
Last edited by Raveen on 25 Nov 2009 03:38, edited 1 time in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Nov 2009 03:37

Raveen wrote: My argument all along has been : in it's current form the EJ200 does not meet requirements and the F414 meets them; thats all! OPINION: I would prefer the F414 just like I assume you prefer the EJ200.
Thank you, and have a wonderful day sir.


Raveen, I am not questioning your opinion, but just stating that as per AS' blog, both the engines meet the requirement of higher thrust and they are similar. GE is promising higher thrust but it is not yet available in their current engines. Same with EJ200 too. If you go through the threads, or look up flight global website, there is an article which says that Boeing is looking out for a customer to launch is upgrade program for 414 engine. It isn't available today.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 03:43

RaviBg wrote:both the engines meet the requirement of higher thrust


That is one of the requirements (the BIG one), and even in that case the F414 has more thrust.
The other requirements of re-ignitor and naval rugedization are addressed by the F414 but not by EJ200 in it's current form.
Those are the facts as we both agree on (I assume). We just have different opinions (or should I say preferences) based on those same facts.

The weight advantage issue you brought up sir, is addressed in my previous post.

astal
BRFite
Posts: 165
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby astal » 25 Nov 2009 07:54

Raveen wrote:
As useless as an engine that will take multiple years and $$$ worth of development to fulfill one of the basic requirements of the LCA namely naval operations?
...
Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is capable of doing what the LCA requires, we don't have time for LCA III. Any engine that cannot be used by NLCA or is subject operational restrictions is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% more!


Raveen,

Honestly, I do not favour one engine over the other. I am just trying to say that unless we know the schedule for carrier based trials, we do not know when exactly the NLCA with a marine compliant engine is required. Therefore in my opinion this marine compliance is not that big an issue compared to the other issues such as:

1. Quick integration
2. Sanction resistance.
2. Transfer of technology
3. Upgrade path
4. Cost

The Navy does not have a carrier capable of testing NLCA, the numbers of NLCA orders will be relatively small compared to those of the Air Force and even if there is a higher rate of corrosion will that really affect testing of the first few NLCA's? Note I am asking a question here; How critical is marine compliance for the next few years?

As for sanctions I actually feel that the Germans and other European countries are just as prone to sanctioning as the US. What I said was the contract should be written in a way as to deter sanctioning in the future. This applies to any engine we choose. The bit about use against Pakistan and EUMAs are just examples of things we should take care of during the contract.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 08:42

astal wrote:
Raveen wrote:
As useless as an engine that will take multiple years and $$$ worth of development to fulfill one of the basic requirements of the LCA namely naval operations?
...
Just get the contract out fast. Make sure it is capable of doing what the LCA requires, we don't have time for LCA III. Any engine that cannot be used by NLCA or is subject operational restrictions is not worth using even if it costs 20-25% more!


Raveen,

Honestly, I do not favour one engine over the other. I am just trying to say that unless we know the schedule for carrier based trials, we do not know when exactly the NLCA with a marine compliant engine is required. Therefore in my opinion this marine compliance is not that big an issue compared to the other issues such as:

1. Quick integration
2. Sanction resistance.
2. Transfer of technology
3. Upgrade path
4. Cost

The Navy does not have a carrier capable of testing NLCA, the numbers of NLCA orders will be relatively small compared to those of the Air Force and even if there is a higher rate of corrosion will that really affect testing of the first few NLCA's? Note I am asking a question here; How critical is marine compliance for the next few years?

As for sanctions I actually feel that the Germans and other European countries are just as prone to sanctioning as the US. What I said was the contract should be written in a way as to deter sanctioning in the future. This applies to any engine we choose. The bit about use against Pakistan and EUMAs are just examples of things we should take care of during the contract.


Understood, although I don't believe ToT is part of the deal. As far NLCA goes, it is VERY important as we all know, hopefully we'll have a platform for it sooner rather than later one way or another. At the end of the day since the NLCA numbers will be limited it is important that we don't have to spend more money/time/resources on it than necessary as would be the case to invest money to get the engine modified and then modify the NLCA for the newly modified engine.

astal
BRFite
Posts: 165
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby astal » 25 Nov 2009 09:12

Raveen,

I absolutely agree with you about TOT. So far it seems like a way to extract extra money. No corporation or country is going to give us advanced engine technology unless their "B&LLS" are in a financial vice. I am still waiting for single crystal blade technology that was promised by Russia with the MKI (10 years ago). Even relatively low tech stuff like certain components of the T-90 have been delayed. Similarly France has also delayed critical manufacturing technology for the Scorpenes under one pretext or the other.

On the other hand good planning, a well thought of contract with deferred payments, some TOT and strategic advance purchase of critical components can help us to avoid the brunt of sanctions. For this engine in particular it may not be overkill to have 3-4 years of engines or components in stock at all times. Of course the question remains "Who will convince the bean counters"?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9865
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 25 Nov 2009 20:03

We are looking for TOT also. Will GE has that for 414 ? I don't think so. TOT is going to be a mojor issue even for MRCA (as for as US fighters are concerned). If we really need TOT then we may have to go for the Non US product.

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

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Baldev » 25 Nov 2009 21:21

now cost estimated for 99 engines for LCA either f414 or ej200 is 750 million or 7.6 million for each engine

and cost of 120 RD33-3 engines was 250 million with TOT or 2.1 million for each engine

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Katare » 25 Nov 2009 21:34

IN has put in hundreds of corer of its own fund for NLCA development, the new engine would have to meet the marine standards from day one.

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 » 25 Nov 2009 21:35

Katare wrote:IN has put in hundreds of corer of its own fund for NLCA development, the new engine would have to meet the marine standards from day one.

I do think that there's a possibility that IN is funding NLCA as a TD, so as to build up design capabilities for the future. for a long-term planner like IN that's not unthinkable.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2009 21:43

Narayana Rao wrote:We are looking for TOT also. Will GE has that for 414 ? I don't think so. TOT is going to be a mojor issue even for MRCA (as for as US fighters are concerned). If we really need TOT then we may have to go for the Non US product.


Ajai Shukla made it clear in the comments section of his blog that GE is ready to transfer the technology. Of course, their readiness doesn't mean anything if the US Govt. decides to impose ITAR restrictions.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2009 21:46

SaiK wrote:in addition to sea air, jets injest more salt ppm from the de-icing salts thats put on the aircraft carrier runways.


since when did IN carriers have to do this when they never operate in waters where it may snow and ice may form ? in the warm waters of the Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, ice on the runway is not an issue.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2009 22:08

Raveen wrote:Sir, the F414 would has more thrust (which is why we are upgrading from the F404 to begin with) and is offering 20% growth potential on top of that and given that the F414 powers more than 1 type of aircraft and that GE is in the business of making and selling engines the F414 is no chump and is not going anywhere either!
In it's current for the EJ200 doesn't meet all the requirements (please refer to Ajai Shukhla's blog post).


actually, the F414 EPE has not yet secured a launch customer, so its not yet in development- its a proposal by GE to increase the thrust by 20%, but it entails changes to the F414 dimensions and that would require another study to check whether or not its still as compatible as it was before. even if it is chosen, GE has to first get the changes incorporated, productionise it and the contract stipulates that the first engine be delivered within 3 years of contract signature. That may not give GE enough time to develop and then supply the EPE variant. And what it appears is that the F414 is nearing a period where it may not be possible to get any more thrust out of it without doing some major changes. the EJ200 OTOH is just beginning to see widespread service and hasn't yet been tapped fully. There is a possibility that if done correctly, GTRE or HAL could become a partner in some way with Eurojet for future upgrades. I guess I'm being optimistic though, given their performance.

So, as it stands today (not future promises) the F414 meets all requirements and offers more thrust while the EJ200 does not meet all requirements and will require some more development and testing to meet them while providing lower thrust. The F414 is battle tested and tried in all conditions we need it to perform in and is not tied to 1 aircraft type therefore will last long into the future (it helps when the manufacturer's only line of business is to make aircraft engines as is the case with GE Aero, that is thier bread and butter, they exist based on thier ability to sell engines to meet varied requirements). Considering our experience working with the F404 and the fact that more of these engines have been produced the learning curve for designers and users is likely to be flatter and the cost cheaper than the European counterpart which will only meet present requirements sometime into the future (in terms of re-ignition and naval operations).


Ajai Shukla said that it too requires some tweaking to provide adequate power at all points in the flight. the F414 and the F404 both had stellar safety records and so does the EJ200, which AFAIK hasn't yet had a single engine related accident, so neither has any advantage in this area. again, marinising the EJ200 is not that big a deal, and it could be done within the timeline by when they require an engine to test the N-LCA off a carrier.. the N-LCA is not yet ready for tests from any carrier, so the initial prototype can use a regular EJ200. and if Eurojet agrees to provide a marine version at no extra development cost, it should IMO be the preferred option, since it is lighter by a hundred kgs or more, and as it is the marine LCA version will be heavier than the land based one by at least 2-3 hundred if not more, kgs thanks to the much heavier landing gear, the strenghtened undercarriage with arrestor hook and LEVCONs.

anyhow, it appears that the fickle US policy is not a factor determining which engine will be selected, so unless Eurojet looks at the bigger picture, they'll likely lose the deal.

Aditya_M
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Aditya_M » 26 Nov 2009 03:07

Minor correction Kartik - one of the early prototypes crashed when it "all went quiet". It was a two seater, I remember.

Ah, found the incident: DA-6, in Nov 2002. Hopefully the issue is resolved.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2009 03:46

Kartik, wouldn't you consider for IN's future ADS (perhaps nuke powered) any role beyond our peninsula?

for example : launch from north-pacific ocean /bering sea / or somewhere near above japan.

shynee
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 11:31
Location: US

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shynee » 26 Nov 2009 07:02


Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 26 Nov 2009 10:12

Yay! Feels like sunshine after months and months of dark, agnising clouds. Good Luck to the Test Pilots, ADA, HAL.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Katare » 26 Nov 2009 11:27

Rahul M wrote:
Katare wrote:IN has put in hundreds of corer of its own fund for NLCA development, the new engine would have to meet the marine standards from day one.

I do think that there's a possibility that IN is funding NLCA as a TD, so as to build up design capabilities for the future. for a long-term planner like IN that's not unthinkable.


That's very unlikely, IN is smart and it doesn't make sense for a user to spend its precious capital on TDs. Even TD's would need marine standard engines for testing

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 Nov 2009 12:10

given that HAL/ADA may be called upon to create a naval FGFA in the foreseeable future I don't think that's too improbable.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests