LCA news and discussion

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 13 May 2009 13:46

I guess another factor that should be factored in is the position of the arrestor mechanism on the deck? This I think will be mainly for a missed landing. I assume that the cables will be placed at a distance X of total length L, and L-X is calculated for the a/c type in use to take off. ?

vivtho · Post by **vivtho** » 13 May 2009 14:20

Neela wrote:I guess another factor that should be factored in is the position of the arrestor mechanism on the deck? This I think will be mainly for a missed landing. I assume that the cables will be placed at a distance X of total length L, and L-X is calculated for the a/c type in use to take off. ?

A carrier with an angled deck has the landing 'runway' at an angle from the centerline. So it can handle aircraft landing and taking off simultaneously. A 'bolter' or missed landing does not affect take-off operations and vice-versa. The arrestor wires are always located at the aft end of the carrier. The landing runway is designed to be long enough to give the aircraft conducting the bolter enough time to spool up its engines. Incidentally, piston powered aircraft are able to spool up much, much faster than jets or turbines.

Before the angled decks came into being post-WW2, the US Navy used to divide their carrier decks into three sections. Going from fore to aft these were a take off area, a parking area amidships (at the time, the belowdecks hangars were not very big and were intended for aircraft repair and maintenance, not storage) and a landing area. There was a barrier net between the parking area and the landing area. This method had its advantages as well as disadvantages. It allowed simultaneous take off and landing and also allowed for massed strikes (during which the landing area was also used for parking).
The major disadvantage was that in case of a poor approach, the pilot would have to be waved-off (i.e. told to abort the landing before his wheels touched the deck). There was no option for a bolter, i.e. if the pilot missed the arrestor wires, he did not have enough 'runway' to perform a go-around and would have to depend on the barrier net. The barrier net was made from steel cables, but could still sometimes fail causing the aircraft to run into the parked aircraft. Even if the net stopped the aircraft fully, it would still need repairs, usually on the forward control surfaces and definitely on the propellor.

Interestingly, the British Navy preferred the safer (if slower) method of only allowing 1 aircraft to take off or land at any given time and stored their aircraft belowdeck. The other major navy with carriers at the time was the Japanese navy, which I believe used the American approach (but I could be wrong on this. I am basing this opinion on the basis of photographs).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 May 2009 14:39

the british did not have big carrier hence could park them in limited spaces.
they also pioneered careers having full steel decks, not the wood panelled decks
us/ijn carriers used.

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 May 2009 14:58

The Brits invented EVERYTHING that makes modern carrier aviation possible. Namely the steam catapult , the ski jump, why the turbine engines both ,gas turbines for ships and aircraft, and also steam turbines for the ships, the optical landing system aka the "meatball" , the angled flight deck (which improves safety and also makes possible simultaneous launch and recovery) , radar.

When it comes to Naval Architecture, the Brits historically were easily the best.It is not for nothing Britannia ruled the waves for all those centuries.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 May 2009 15:07

we are going a bit OT here....... please re-locate.

vivtho · Post by **vivtho** » 13 May 2009 16:29

Rahul M wrote:we are going a bit OT here....... please re-locate.

I agree, we've gone off topic.
BTW, I was not trying to imply that the USN invented carrier aviation or that the Brits did'nt. I was only trying to respond to Neelas question about where the arrestor gear should be located.

With that we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 May 2009 18:38

I guess we are running in circles but it is FACT that for a given aircraft that operates on carrier if it were to operate from the land based airstrip for a given sink rate its approach speed can be varied over a wide window (depending on the bring back load);however in case of a carrier there is no such luxury (short strip) the aircraft has to hit/touch the deck at a prescribed length and at a given pitch (for allowing the tail hook to actually engage the arrestor cables) and more importantly when bringing back most of the payload they still have to maintain enough momentum to be able to take off from the deck not only when they miss the arrestor cables but when the tail hook actually engages and disengages or rather slips which further decelerates the aircraft .

If FA-18 or any carrier based aircraft could land with a similar approach speed as they do on the land based airstrips assuming that with that approach speed they would be able to take off (from the carrier) in case of a slip/miss (with a considerable bring back load) then they would not need a humongous CAT for a take off in the first place .

Pressure in the tires is kept low as the aircraft literally lands with a 'thud' rather than gliding on to the strip (this is true even for the Harrier ) and a steel deck in tropical conditions does not help either ; the tires would simply burst if inflated at normal pressure akin to a comparable land based aircraft . This is a compromise which carrier based AC have to make downside is during the takeoff a tire inflated at 50-55% of its normal pressure would mean longer distance required for AC to attain the same speed which it would have in case tires were at optimum pressure (CAT takes care of this).

Even the nose gear for a carrier based aircraft is slightly longer and obviously strengthened for the Catapult actually pulls the aircraft by the nose gear (via a shoe/adaptor).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2009 21:24

Jayram wrote: Why are we talking about the NLCA and the Landbased LCA in one breath? Some simple enlightment will be much appreciated.
-Jayram

Only in the context of "overdesign" and the competence or incompetence of Indian engineers vis a vis the opinion of a mysterious engineer who was quoted in earlier pages. The NLCA example is a "known, documented" example of possible overdesign. There may be others that we know nothing about.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 15 May 2009 23:38

This is sort of related, but I attended a presentation by a Boeing designer. When Boeing first built the 777 - their first FBW airliner - it was so heavily overdesigned that it wasn't all that successful (losing ground to the 340, also due to the fact that Airbus aggressively sold the 340 with its four engines as 'safer'). But once the concept was proven, they started shaving off systems and weight. Which is how we get the -200, -300, LR and ER variants that have blown Airbus' 330/340 offerings out of the water in the same market.

Won't be surprising to see HAL having made similar conservative calls. And if the Air Force gives them a large production run, no reason why successive iterations will not be better!

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 18 May 2009 11:13

http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/18/stories ... 041200.htm

The induction of first squadron of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to Indian Air Force (IAF) can take place by the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011 with regular persuasion and monitoring of the LCA programme, the Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 18 May 2009 11:45

andy B wrote:http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/18/stories ... 041200.htm

from the link:

An official release said that the Chief of Air Staff was affirmative that the ongoing LCA programme would further lead to LCA mark II, MCA and many other projects of self- reliance nature by sprinkling lot of patriotism around.

This is encouraging sign. They should support home products. Well better late then never.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 18 May 2009 11:50

^^^ On the face of it, it seems that the IAF is taking the IN

route and is being much more involved with the LCA. Fingers crossed for some good news...

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 18 May 2009 12:02

andy B wrote:^^^ On the face of it, it seems that the IAF is taking the IN ...and is being much more involved with the LCA...

Indeed.

Indian engineers always put forward the following ranking of user-developer cooperation and synergy: Navy, IAF and IA.

Now don't get me wrong: when I say the IA is behind the Navy and the IAF, it's not even closely so! You should see the scowls from the engineers when it comes to terms like "user-developer cooperation" and "Indian Army" inside a single sentence.

IAF has improved dramatically. Not sure why, but it has.

-Vivek

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 18 May 2009 12:20

vivek_ahuja wrote:
andy B wrote:^^^ On the face of it, it seems that the IAF is taking the IN ...and is being much more involved with the LCA...
Indeed.

Indian engineers always put forward the following ranking of user-developer cooperation and synergy: Navy, IAF and IA.

Now don't get me wrong: when I say the IA is behind the Navy and the IAF, it's not even closely so! You should see the scowls from the engineers when it comes to terms like "user-developer cooperation" and "Indian Army" inside a single sentence.

IAF has improved dramatically. Not sure why, but it has.

-Vivek

Wrong...no way Mr. Ahuja that's more like straight from the horse's mouth

The way its going now in a decade or two we'll end up with a situation where the IAF and IN will have tremendous desh content and thus will be showing top servicing/maintainence standards not to mention being at the forefront of technological innovations as it will cut down:

- Development time due to closer liason between developer and end user
- Cost due to more and most work done in-Desh
- Cost of Servicing and increase serviceability due to manufacturing of primary (product) and secondary (spare parts) beind done again in-Desh

As against the above the IA will end up being more soliditary due to depending more oh pharen goods.
Also at some point IMHO it will impact their ability to interact with sister services....

oh wait a minute thats not funny at all Ironic

definitely but not quite funny...JMT

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 18 May 2009 12:34

The induction of first squadron of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to Indian Air Force (IAF) can take place by the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011 with regular persuasion and monitoring of the LCA programme, the Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said.

This is really encouraging for HAL and DRDO. Myself welcomes more syndication of IAF, IN and IA with research institutions for enhancement of products under development. IMO this is beginning of new era for our defence forces who are gradually inclining towards Made In India tag. At the same time we should not forget there is still a long way to go in terms of product designing (ergonomics also), making, integration, testing and bringing some elegance, kind of more polished goods. I think its just matter of time before we see 3 of our defence forces involving themselves into more serious business with HAL, ADA and DRDO.

We are witnessing largely Ru dominated/focused, Indian defence sector being gradually shifted towards combination of Ru, Israel & India. Though, MMRCA bid winner will have significant impact on our future deals.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2009 17:34

Nitesh wrote:[..
An official release said that the Chief of Air Staff was affirmative that the ongoing LCA programme would further lead to LCA mark II, MCA and many other projects of self- reliance nature by sprinkling lot of patriotism around.

indeed.. mark II means a lot for engines, hopefully a breather for Kaveri get the required thrust, and perhaps an engine collaboration that would equip both mrca and lca in the longer run.

some exiting news should come from the radar segment.. lot of discussion happened with respect to israeli parts.. and they do so, with the latest and greatest for mark 2 [aesa?].

i'd like to also see astra being fired from lca, and hit the target by 2010/11. /jingo

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 May 2009 20:42

keep in mind ACM Fali Homi Major was pro-indigenous to a great degree and most of his pronouncements showed that. some of his predecessors were not so supportive and I'm hoping that Air Marshal Pradeep Naik, the incumbent ACM is as supportive or even more supportive of indigenous programs as Air Marshal Major was.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 18 May 2009 20:52

i am little skeptic on the whole Tejas Squadron by 2010-11

,it has been four years now, when LSP was ordered by IAF from HAL ,how many have been delivered 2 !!! if i am not wrong LSP Tejas will not form the First Tejas Squadron, and New airframes even if the first Squadron has only few jets may be 4 new Airframes i donot think there will be any Tejas Squadron even by 2012 way the HAL is manufacturing them

sivabala · Post by **sivabala** » 19 May 2009 00:22

After reading umpteen # of news reports on LCA and affiliated stories, the one thing that strike me is most of the supporting quotes are from officials of ADA, DRDO, IAF, Defence ministry. The one org. that is rarely/not giving overt support is HAL. I have not read much of their press releases in support of LCA. I hope I am wrong. Because the success of LCA ultimately rests in their hands.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 19 May 2009 02:55

Kartik wrote:keep in mind ACM Fali Homi Major was pro-indigenous to a great degree and most of his pronouncements showed that. some of his predecessors were not so supportive and I'm hoping that Air Marshal Pradeep Naik, the incumbent ACM is as supportive or even more supportive of indigenous programs as Air Marshal Major was.

Well said sir.

Also there is the case of "Casers wife should be above suspicion".

This is not the case in India today.

The previous CAS SP Tyagi made some comments which were in funny taste (bad) and his decisions were "surprising". The media now reports he has joined the Israeli arms firm which was marketing Israeli items to the IAF.

A recently diseased Admiral had a son heading Indias largest arms dealing firm

Another senior gentleman from the Navy Mr Nadkarni made a career out of baiting R&D people.

After previous cases where a serving General of IA was in charge of a helicopter deal where his brother was a marketing agent of the manufacturer (deal got cancelled) and several other such events, one has high expectations from Mr Naik that he rise up to the occasion, and do the blue uniform proud by not falling prey to such prejudice and behavior.

Chaffers · Post by **Chaffers** » 22 May 2009 03:14

The EJ270 can generate 27,000lbs of thrust in full reheat, might be just the ticket to get the naval version off the deck.

As I understand it the LCA will use STOBAR on the carriers so initial thrust is going to be a big determinant of the weapon and fuel loads that can be carried, especially in high temperatures.

Whilst I can't see it happenening for political reasons it really is a shame that some sort of collaboration with the UK isn't likely. We'll be getting the Lizzy and PoW in about the same timeframe as the naval version will become available, hopefully with an EJ powerplant in it.

Looking at the state of the F35 programme (in particular the F35B) and in particular the costs related to it I'd prefer to see a a couple of squadrons of Tejas on our carriers. I'm sure BAes could provide any technology or expertise required, especially as the Tejas looks set to be a real winner on the export market if the performance issues are solved. We recently spent £500 million on the first 3 F35s and a report in Janes defence weekly states that production models will cost between $200 and $350 million apiece. Did someone say white elephant?

Indeed all the Tejas design really needs is a long range BVR missile (meteor would be perfect) and you have a seriously capable high altitude interceptor. A2g weapons loads arn't huge (still better than the F35B on internal weapons!) though that is the trend anyway with PGMs with smaller numbers of smaller weapons becomming the norm.

Outside of the US there are over 2000 F16s which will need replacing some day. F35 will cover some of these but not at any price. Integrating western weapons would make the Tejas impossible to ignore for many foreign militaries. Why pay double for a Gripen?

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 22 May 2009 07:26

chaffers,

Welcome, and a very good first post.
You are correct; Indian defense industry needs to think big and long term.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 22 May 2009 09:15

What'll be the likely cost comparision of a Mk II LCA and a Grippen NG (Since both are supposed to be comparable aircraft)

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 May 2009 09:21

Chaffers wrote: A2g weapons loads arn't huge (still better than the F35B on internal weapons!) though that is the trend anyway with PGMs with smaller numbers of smaller weapons becomming the norm.....

Chaffers welcome mate good first post...the smaller weapons thing is spot on with Amrikhan getting the SDB french going for the AASM yada yada...wont be long before there is a paveway-lite that comes in and who knows DRDO in due time might conjure up a sudarshan-lite version too. Given the amazing accuracy of these weapons you dont need mass effect 1000/2000 lbs when this can do the job...depending on the target ofcourse!

As Mr. Saggu pointed out the Lca MKII will definitely go head-to-head with the Gripen NG...gonna be a helluva comparison! watch this space

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 May 2009 09:29

I might have missed this , but did DRDO come out with any specs for Tejas Mk2 ?
And on what basis is a comparison being made with Gripen-NG ?

Fundamentally speaking how well does Tejas mk1 with GE-404-IN20 compare with Gripen-C on range, payload,T/W, SFC and other parameter ?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 May 2009 10:15

^^ Check Wiki or any other source. The similarities of present Tejas with Gripen(with GE-404 engine) are fairly obvious.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 May 2009 10:17

Parijat Gaur wrote:^^ Check Wiki or any other source. The similarities of present Tejas with Gripen(with GE-404 engine) are fairly obvious.

I am aware of Wiki , but I would rather put more faith on what BR guru has to say on the subject , then those Wiki-Chiki data.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 May 2009 10:25

Good questions Austin. Currently, the Gripen A-C is old hat, numerous airforces in the world operate it, Tejas is still to achieve IOC. Let alone MKII.

But in the future who knows? A competition may be in the realm of possibility. The Gripen NG though attempts to set a pretty high bar -
10KN engines (decent SFC), Supercruise @ M - 1.2 with weapons, AESA, superb D-link, IRST, MAWS, Towed Decoy. Amazing airframe - internal fuel, range ~ 2500km+ on internal fuel alone, 3500km with one EFT

6000kg payload. Thats going to be a tough task for the Tejas.

And the damn prototype is flying as we write!

Frankly, I hope they focus on the A2A capabilities of the Tejas - point defence, CAP, and even air superiority to a degree. This bird has the potential and basics right - that tiny size and massive nose along with incredible wingloading. They need to keep the weight below 6500kg though. A solid TWR, TVC, recessed weapons, a 1100 module AESA, internal EW suite, meteor/R77M if possible, and IRST - it could give any MRCA candidate a nightmare. Great as air cover for CBG too!

In A2G, potential is limited, it should be able to replace the MiG-27 role. Tactical strike is definitely on the cards. But a 6 ton plus payload and deep strike seems doubtful. JMT

CM.

Chaffers · Post by **Chaffers** » 22 May 2009 11:11

Why compare them? Different aircraft do different jobs, theres never going to be one winner.

The Gripen offers a very different package to the Tejas, although a lot of the stats look to be similar. Effectively its more of a strike / recon asset with expeditionary features. Optimised for medium level combat with a highly agile airframe. If I had a criticism of it I'd say its maybe a little over engineered for the export market, those with the cash to splash going for larger and more capable 2 engined types. The initial blocks were more austere fighters and the later ones very sophisticated strike aircraft. Comes at quite a price for a small singled engined airframe, though reputedly with good through life costs and excellent industrial offsets from the Swedes.

The Tejas, whilst currently underperforming, is more of a pure fighter optimised for high level interception. With its wing loading I doubt theres much that could live with it above 30000 feet, somewhere that the Mirage 2000 used to be supreme. Small size and agility counts for a lot, as I recall the Ajeet was almost the first stealth fighter (though mainly by acccident).

The Tejas would be looking to dominate the high ground, getting big advantages in BRV launch range and tradeable energy against opponents. I see the strike mission as being a secondary one though anything that can integrate litening pods and PGMs is a useful mud mover these days. I'd be interested to see the hot and high performance as the big delta might allow it a useful load where most others struggle.

Fleet defence will be a natural role, the challenge is getting a good fuel fraction airborne along with TWR - supercruise would be a massive bonus.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 May 2009 11:18

The JPEG pic I have of the Tejas specs have this

Weights :

Take Off Clean - 9500 kg
Empty - 6500 kg
External Store > 4000 kg

So the internal fuel alone is around close to 3 tons (I would put it at approx 2850 kg) and the MTOW at around 13.5 tons .

So with a typical store 2 heat seeking missiles, 2 external tanks , LDP and 2 2000lb bombs, we will have around 4300 kgs of fuel out of the MTWO of 13.5 tons, a fuel fraction of around 31 to 33% (depending on exact numbers). With the IN 20, that will give it really really long legs. So dont worry , have curry. I think it will be very competitive wrt Gripen NG as far as range goes in Mk1 version.

Yeah, with the newer more powerful engine, the MTOW will increase and the payloads will go up as well. The MkII I think will be very competitive to the Gripen NG, especially if they can do what the swedes did by moving the undercarriage from the fuselage to the wing mounted blisters , giving more internal fuel.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 22 May 2009 17:14

Was there any talk about ADA increasing the internal fuel in Mk-2 ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 May 2009 20:30

Since we may have a squadron of Tejas by 2010 and it will receive the IOC by then with the projected FOC by 2012.

So my question to gurus , what are the benchmark that Tejas will go through to attain FOC for eg do they have to go through more rigorous flight testing program or IAF will have it own set of test points that it has to clear or more weapons testing ?

And what can possibly go wrong between IOC and FOC than can delay it or FOC by 2012 can be taken as done deal once Tejas gets the IOC.

Thanks in advance.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2009 04:55

Austin wrote:Since we may have a squadron of Tejas by 2010 and it will receive the IOC by then with the projected FOC by 2012.

So my question to gurus , what are the benchmark that Tejas will go through to attain FOC for eg do they have to go through more rigorous flight testing program or IAF will have it own set of test points that it has to clear or more weapons testing ?

And what can possibly go wrong between IOC and FOC than can delay it or FOC by 2012 can be taken as done deal once Tejas gets the IOC.

Thanks in advance.

FOC will not happen within 2 years of IOC. If you look at recent combat aircraft programs such as the Gripin, Rafale, Eurofighter, etc, you will notice that it took 4+ years typically before they were declared FOC after their IOC. FOC means it is is fully combat capable usage by the IAF which includes things like support infrastructure (technicians, part supplies, etc), tactics development, pilots with enough flying experience, cleared for all weapons and flying parameters, ability for IAF to sustain combat operations, etc. So there are a lot of parameters to achieve both from users perspective to ongoing development effort before a FOC can be obtained.

For IOC, the parameters are very limited such as 80% of flight envelope, limited combat capability (such as only WVR air-to-air), 80% avionics, radars, ecm, etc. and a squadron establishment by IAF with some basic infrastructure setup to train maintenance crew and pilots.

However, if IOC parameters are close to FOC ones, then it can be achieved quicker with less unknown risks.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 25 May 2009 06:47

This is just a yumble suggestion:

Fans of the LCA must read the below book I have just been through half of it (thanks to Shiv saar) and trust me the insight that this book provides is quite frankly amazing...jingos will be amazed as to what ze humble SDRE's have achieved...to put it simply the seeds have been sown...now we just need some good fertilizer (management) and water (regular funding) to watch this amazing plant grow and reap the benefits in due time...

Godspeed to the LCA!!!

http://www.anveshan.com/product_info.ph ... 2d9fe8fa6a

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 May 2009 09:23

Very true AndyB. This book is great and once i started reading it, couldnt stop it. Btw, what happened to you...did you visit China or something(they pronounce three as sreee)

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 25 May 2009 11:27

^^^ Suryag I dont quite understand the last part of yar post (chinese reference)

need a few more hints...cheers.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 25 May 2009 22:31

Came across this rendered image of Tejas. Its somewhat inaccurate but beautiful.
Hope this has not been posted before.
http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tejas.jpg

Added Later: You guys are right. Now that you have pointed out, it without a doubt is Mirage III. However, a friend of mine had found it under "lca" tag.
What is confusing is why a Mirage III is painted with IAF colors.

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 25 May 2009 22:45

^^^It does not look like tejas at all.

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 25 May 2009 22:48

marimuthu
Post subject: Re: LCA news and discussion

^^^It does not look like tejas at all.
^^^It does not look like tejas at all.

Yeap, its Chinna thambi (M2K) and Mirage III (?).

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 25 May 2009 23:01

Yes, its a very inaccurate attempt to render Tejas. Even the wing design is way off the mark. However, the image looked beautiful and I had never seen it before, hence I posted it.