LCA News and Discussions

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 12 Jan 2011 10:23

Has everyone forgotten about Russian Zuke AE ? or is it overweight for LCA ?

Also what AESA is there in Eurofighter? is it based on Khan technology as well?

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 12 Jan 2011 11:02

The news say ban on el2052 radar but not about selling transmit/receive units or going in for consultancy and co-develop

radars

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 12 Jan 2011 11:46

Found this link on EF Typhoon's wake penetration test procedures.

http://www.ukintpress-conferences.com/c ... schwab.pdf

This might give insight on how these test might happen for LCA. If EADS is consulting here for tests then this is what we should expect.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Jan 2011 11:52

shiv wrote:
manojks wrote:I tried to create a response of Pandit's article on TOI. I will request experts to correct it if there is any mistake and post it to as many places as possible.

--

Never respond to articles like this. When a person writes a negative article he is waiting for suckers to put up responses to tear down. Wait for another opportunity to respond - and at that time - quote this article and say why it is bullshit.

Newspapers are not like web forums infested by people showing such troll like behaviour. Posting feedback will very likely force their authorities to make some changes.

Last post on this topic here

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 12 Jan 2011 11:55

prabhug wrote:The news say ban on el2052 radar but not about selling transmit/receive units or going in for consultancy and co-develop radars

if unkil Sam sayz no export that means total ban on AESA tech. Because they (unkil Sam) partially funds Jewish defense budget and tech, it should be no surprise. Its their tax payer money after all.

Earlier (during early 2000) they forbid them for pitching AAMs (pythons) for official F-16 upgrade packages. They cannot even upgrade radars on F-16I sufa with their own products due to the same reason. They claimed current SAR mode on F-16I was inferior to what they have in their radars or something like that.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Jan 2011 12:00

suryag wrote:from the lca before ioc link on livefist, 7 hardpoints occupied
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 708507.jpg

Making guesses only
1st is R-73
2nd is a dumb bomb
3rd is fuel tank
4th Litening pod
7th ??

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 12 Jan 2011 12:07

Was doing a calculation and something very interesting came up

Initial allocation for LCA in 1983 >> 530 Cr which is approx. $5.5B at exchange rate of 1983
Today's total program cost >> 17,000 Cr which is approx $3.7B assuming an exchange rate of 45

So, voila! the total cost has been less that the initial fund that was released and the 3000% etc can be treated as the work of some retards in the DDM.

Although the actual calculations will be very complex but this is just a ballpark figure for the 3000% trash.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Jan 2011 12:39

Initial allocation of 560 crores will not be 5.5 billion USD but 560 million USD going by the 1983's exchange rate of ~10.

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 12:54

looks like wake penetration clearance is a must for combat formation flying as also operating in vicinity of large commercial/transport a/c which can leave strong wakes. one of this wake from a 747 is claimed to have caused the A300 crash in brooklyn 2 mins later.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Jan 2011 13:50

Massa asking the Israelis not to export the 2052 AESA means that:
1. Massa's Ist gen export version AESA might be inferior to the 2052, and with that premium tech out of the export markets massa can release inferior tech to the rest of the world, and maintain its and Israel's military superiority.
2. DRDO/ LDRE's AESA still has some way to go. Usually videshi tech gets released to India the moment the comaparitive desi tech is about to mature, in an attempt to styme the desi project.

Hence MMRCA comes along when the LCA program is about to produce a comparable fighter, etc etc.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jan 2011 14:21

Singha wrote:looks like wake penetration clearance is a must for combat formation flying as also operating in vicinity of large commercial/transport a/c which can leave strong wakes. one of this wake from a 747 is claimed to have caused the A300 crash in brooklyn 2 mins later.

for any flying - wake turbulence is a very dangerous thing, especially for a smaller aircraft following a larger one. this is why they have to allow 1-2 mins between takeoffs to allow the wake to disperse

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 12 Jan 2011 15:22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_ ... to_the_USD

In 1980's the xchange rate was 7.8, so 5300MRs will make 630M$~, so it has grown to 250000M Rs which is now $ 5.5B, so its not that bad, around 9 times the increase

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 12 Jan 2011 15:40

You also have to consider the time value of money. based either on interest rates or inflation. for 27 years (since 1983) at approx 10% per annum multiply the base number by (1.1)^27 which comes to around 13.1 times. for $630m , it converts to $8260M. so it isnt so bad after all

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 12 Jan 2011 16:01

Kartik wrote: SAAB cannot help in the AESA radar aspect completely since they are not the makers of the Raven ES-05A. Its Selex that has responsibility for the front end. Its the software and backend processing of...

Well, both you and I know that SAAB has an extensive experience in AESA technology. So that is not entirely correct statement.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2011 18:19

India is currently weak in front end of radars (the RF part) . the inability to make the MMR front end work and needing to glue the EL2032 front end is proof of this. now LRDE RFP looks like it again plans to "outsource" the front end to whoever will sell us. the front end of Bars is imported in SKD condition from NIIP there is no ToT there.

I dont think we can make the leap to a fighter aesa radar player without a thorough understanding and manufacturing infra for pulse doppler front ends first. I think we should make all efforts to establish the required RF manufacturing tech and production for SV-2000, XV-2000 and MMR-2 (fully yindu) in parallel with searching for partners to tide over the aesa situation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2011 18:59

Vikram Can you do backwards projection of the Rs 17,000 crores to 1983 Rupees? So we can see what was allocated and how much was actually spent?
And some one can list the scope changes between the 1983 version and the 2011 version.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 19:51

Perhaps IITs and other institutions should play more in partnership with private industries to pump in money for such production engineering setup while LRDE does the basic research, and provides the institutions the guidance and help. What is lacking here is a right approach. If we have found the weakness, we should be able to resolve it. I am guessing we are still groping in the dark for finding the exact defect, or it is all muddled in a messed project management/work distribution issue. Whatever, time is now to rectify and find the defects. If defects are found, then solutions are plenty.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 12 Jan 2011 20:05

SaiK wrote:Perhaps IITs and other institutions should play more in partnership with private industries to pump in money for such production engineering setup while LRDE does the basic research, and provides the institutions the guidance and help. What is lacking here is a right approach. If we have found the weakness, we should be able to resolve it. I am guessing we are still groping in the dark for finding the exact defect, or it is all muddled in a messed project management/work distribution issue. Whatever, time is now to rectify and find the defects. If defects are found, then solutions are plenty.

It should be the other way round, I think education institutions should help in research, LRDE should also assume the role of management in oversee investment in radars, encourage private partnership and pump money for setup.

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 12 Jan 2011 20:29

Regarding CFT drag
Thanks Shiv and Neerajb for your lucid explanation. I now understand very well what induced drag is.
The question remains whether CFT's can generate lift to compensate for the drag created by their weight.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 21:03

Well, you just recently heard through drdo chief that research is not a problem but production engineering and setup technology is a big problem. This is where we must concentrate now. Pool all best talents from where ever it may come. I was just mentioning IITs just for keeping a "reputed" institution thought flow.

Apologies for me being the lone warrior in trying to create a public opinion that Snecma-GTRE or Elta-HAL venture is not necessary and we can do it all by ourselves.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 12 Jan 2011 21:21

ramana wrote:Vikram Can you do backwards projection of the Rs 17,000 crores to 1983 Rupees? So we can see what was allocated and how much was actually spent?
And some one can list the scope changes between the 1983 version and the 2011 version.

You can still use the same factor of ~13.1 ..( assuming 10% discount rate based on inflation/cost of capital etc for 27 years --> 1.1^27)

comes to about Rs. 1297 crs in 1983 rupees (Rs. 1300 cr ballparked)
hmm.. thats not quite the 3000% increase that the scribe has been talking about , more like 250%-ish

converted to 1983 dollars though at Rs 7.8 to a USD thats about 1.6B

QED

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Jan 2011 22:08

Adjusting the LCA cost to inflation yields 2078.9 crores in 1983 rupee with 17000 crores as the starting point. Inflation data is taken from here. Disclaimer : There could be data entry mistakes etc, so take it with FWIW.

Cheers....

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 12 Jan 2011 22:11

...and for dollar terms we can add depreciation against the USD to that model !

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2011 22:13

Can you guys write an article comparing the costs as we know and rebut the claims of DDM?

Thanks, ramana

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Jan 2011 22:17

RonyKJ wrote:The question remains whether CFT's can generate lift to compensate for the drag created by their weight.

Again you didn't get it. If CFT is going to generate LIFT for it's weight (instead of the wing) then it itself will produce the induced drag (instead of the wing). No matter what lifts the weight (wing and/or CFT) there is always going to be a corresponding/proportional drag.

Cheers....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 22:56

On CFTs, would not a slight redesign to increase the internal space for fuel be the lowest drag option? why go for CFT if the ops requirement always wanted it by default for extended range?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jan 2011 23:19

neerajb wrote:
RonyKJ wrote:The question remains whether CFT's can generate lift to compensate for the drag created by their weight.
Again you didn't get it. If CFT is going to generate LIFT for it's weight (instead of the wing) then it itself will produce the induced drag (instead of the wing). No matter what lifts the weight (wing and/or CFT) there is always going to be a corresponding/proportional drag.

Cheers....

Yes that is right.

Though induced drag would remain the same whether you put it under the wing or over the wing, the parasitic drag is decreased a lot. I am not sure about wave drag. However I can't see any reason why wave drag would increase. I can see reasons why it can decrease ( see how the tanks are wasp-waisted whereas as under-slung tanks are not). However, I won't comment till I am sure about this.

For induced drag alone, it might be noticed that conformal tanks are generally lighter than the under wing tank. Also the structural strength required above the wing join that Kartik was speaking of is much lesser than an equivalent underwing hard point for the same load.

At cruise speeds, the F-16-Sufa suffers only a 1 percent increase in drag from the conformal tanks. At supersonic speeds the drag supposedly increases proportionally to speed.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article781.html

Rony, I will get back to you about whether the CFTs generate lift. I am not sure of it at the moment. Also, I want to analyse a bit more at various flight envelope sections. Whatever I read so far has always said that they free up two pylons for two big ammunitions. I am not sure if this is accompanied by a simultaneous increase in payload. Most probably yes (but let me make sure). If yes, I presume that the CFTs must be providing some lift, otherwise this increased payload would increase the wing loading of the plane, needing structural changes within the wing and the wing join (or adversely affecting the fatigue life as Kartik pointed out). Also the flight characteristics would be severely modified. However this is not the case with CFTs.

However, I must admit that I can't see how the CFT on the F-15 would generate lift (unless ofcourse if it is of the lifting-body design philosophy). However I can see how the ones on the Gripen would.

There seems to be a consensus out their that CFTs are a good add-on for existing fighters. The EF/Rafale/Gripen/F-16/F-15 are all going for CFTs in their latest versions.

P.S. Ofcourse, whether the Tejas needs extended range and or ammunitions is debatable and call only come out after the IAF designates a role for it.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 12 Jan 2011 23:37

symontk wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_ ... to_the_USD

In 1980's the xchange rate was 7.8, so 5300MRs will make 630M$~, so it has grown to 250000M Rs which is now $ 5.5B, so its not that bad, around 9 times the increase

symontk-ji, Ramana-ji
Also note that people talking about cost escalation are pulling the figures from their musharraf and doing madrassa mathematics.

Midway through the project, PVs and LSPs were mandated and money released for them. Note that the figure that is quoted includes the cost of *manufacturing* the birds that are flying and setting up factories & jigs to do that. IIRC the first bag of money was to design the plane and given a sound design & wind tunnel model talk about further steps. So the final cost is not comparable to initial allocation.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jan 2011 00:15

Singha wrote:looks like wake penetration clearance is a must for combat formation flying as also operating in vicinity of large commercial/transport a/c which can leave strong wakes. one of this wake from a 747 is claimed to have caused the A300 crash in brooklyn 2 mins later.

How important the wake penetration testing is can be fathomed by looking at a Gripen crash which occurred when the trailing Gripen entered into the wake of another Gripen during air combat training, and lost control and crashed.

But the Tejas will not be so lucky if a crash like that occurs. There will be too much rona-dhona from media and aam janta on forums and pressure on the govt. to cancel the program if a single Gripen-esque crash occurs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jan 2011 00:19

Wickberg wrote:
Kartik wrote: SAAB cannot help in the AESA radar aspect completely since they are not the makers of the Raven ES-05A. Its Selex that has responsibility for the front end. Its the software and backend processing of...
Well, both you and I know that SAAB has an extensive experience in AESA technology. So that is not entirely correct statement.

I'm not saying that they have no experience whatsoever- they do with programs like NORA. But NORA ended up being a demonstrator and nothing more. The Gripen NG is using a Selex front end and swashplate design and Ericsson PS-05A backend processing software and algorithms. So what I said is true. They cannot assist "completely" like Elta or EADS can. Which is why they weren't even sent an RFI for assisting LRDE.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 13 Jan 2011 00:41

Kartik wrote:
I'm not saying that they have no experience whatsoever- they do with programs like NORA. But NORA ended up being a demonstrator and nothing more. The Gripen NG is using a Selex front end and swashplate design and Ericsson PS-05A backend processing software and algorithms. So what I said is true. They cannot assist "completely" like Elta or EADS can. Which is why they weren't even sent an RFI for assisting LRDE.

NORA, Erieye, ARTHUR, Giraffe. And just like Gripen Demo is an demonstrator so is NORA. But the work continues.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2011 00:51

whoever (anyone from BR?) updated the wikipedia on the hybrid lca mmr, can they point to a reference link?

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 13 Jan 2011 04:14

SaiK wrote:Apologies for me being the lone warrior in trying to create a public opinion that Snecma-GTRE or Elta-HAL venture is not necessary and we can do it all by ourselves.

I agree with you on this one. I think it is just one of feeble attempts by foreign companies to milk money from us. They know we will be going ahead with development, so they're just trying to "partner" so they can transfer some already existing technology.

thammu · Post by **thammu** » 13 Jan 2011 07:45

Can somebody point out the link to Comparision of Light Combat Aircrafts available round the world. How does Tejas compare?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 13 Jan 2011 08:53

thammu wrote:Can somebody point out the link to Comparision of Light Combat Aircrafts available round the world. How does Tejas compare?

I think you should read the first post of the thread.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Jan 2011 09:18

The inflation adjustment is not simple. I think we should work it out rigorously into a paper.

We should consider that:

1. The scope of work for each block of allocated funds.
2. Normalized value for each of the blocks at the time of allocation/spending.
3. NRE v/s Fixed cost v/s production cost.

Need to collect the data and do crunch..crunch..crunch..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2011 09:30

thammu wrote:Can somebody point out the link to Comparision of Light Combat Aircrafts available round the world. How does Tejas compare?

Please state what comparison you want from the following list:

1) Aircraft using 100% artificial stability and fly-by-wire
2) A simple comparison of which plane has wings and pointy nose
3) Comparison by wing loading
4) Less than ten tonne class
5) Percentage of composites in airframe
6) Aircraft with open architecture and modular LRU that can be upgraded easily for decades
7) Aircraft designed to use Indian, Russian or Western weapons and/or avionics

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2011 09:44

>70% Indian components
9) 100% Indian software controls
10) Made In India

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Jan 2011 10:10

>>>The question remains whether CFT's can generate lift to compensate for the drag created by their weight.

In simple terms, take it like this:

a) If you add weight INSIDE the aircraft (i.e., no exposure to outside airflow), then you increase the INDUCED DRAG only.
b) if you add weight externally (i.e., exposed to the outside air flow), then you increase the INDUCED DRAG, SKIN FRICTION DRAG and PRESSURE DRAG (plus WAVE DRAG as the case may be)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jan 2011 11:15

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/01/ia ... lares.html

It gets more bizarre. At Monday's press conference in Bangalore, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal PV Naik said he wished he had a fleet full of air superiority fighters (ASF), but the problem was funds -- here he made that unmistakable gesture rubbing his thumb and forefinger together to denote money. But if the acrimony over the Tejas's generation wasn't enough, what the Chief probably didn't know is that HAL has gone ahead and declared the LCA an air superiority fighter. See the placard above, which stood next to one of the static aircraft displays.

If anyone cared, ASR describes LCA as "Multi role air superiority fighter". HAL placards displays what was asked for from IAF. Such is the brilliance of reporters we have.