LCA News and Discussions

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.
vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vishnu.nv » 03 Oct 2010 14:42

What is happening in the Sea level trials happening in GOA? are they also doing some weapons testing? any news on that side?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2010 17:40

A disastrous decision long term in my view.I can only suggest that the long gestation period of the LCA with a GE engine tipped the scales in its favour.That is if there was no political interferenceinthe decision.However,MMS's statements about AKA delaying defence decisionsin his press conference indicates that he is trying most energetically to tie up a host of defence deals for Obama whatever the cost to Indian indigenisation,sanctions,etc.We are fast becomning a US satellite.If there is no worthwhile TOT,then we will have been shafted.This engine deal is to facilitate the awarding of the MMRCA to the F-18.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 03 Oct 2010 18:02

Initial F404-j were 78kn

Then Swedish F404 were 80kn

Thereafter Indian F404 IN20 were 83-84kn

So I am assuming that as Swedish F414 are 96-98kn, then Indian F414 would be around 99-105kn or so. This may also be a major reason for its victory as 414s are clearly more powerful and available immediately

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 03 Oct 2010 18:38

This may also be a major reason for its victory as 414s are clearly more powerful and available immediately



plus single engine clearance plus commitment for next couple of decades

meanwhile the euros are shrinking fast

alas all this is not commonsense :)

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabir » 03 Oct 2010 22:23

Philip wrote:A disastrous decision long term in my view.I can only suggest that the long gestation period of the LCA with a GE engine tipped the scales in its favour.That is if there was no political interferenceinthe decision.However,MMS's statements about AKA delaying defence decisionsin his press conference indicates that he is trying most energetically to tie up a host of defence deals for Obama whatever the cost to Indian indigenisation,sanctions,etc.We are fast becomning a US satellite.If there is no worthwhile TOT,then we will have been shafted.This engine deal is to facilitate the awarding of the MMRCA to the F-18.


MMS will not succeed in his misadventures. Please note that GE has to demonstrate how it is going to transfer technology and also get clearances from US Govt. I think, this is just a ploy to go with EADS after denial of crucial technology. Americans do not have a "nut" of their own. So, they will be easily out-manouvered by AKA and Pranab Mukerjee. Take the case of nuclear deal, who will benefit more from nuclear contracts France + Russians or US ?
This is how it is going to play. Also, Congress will never want to be seen openly supporting American agenda given the possible "naraazgi" as pseudo-secularists say of "muslims" after "secular" Ayodhya verdict. So, the deal goes to European Consortium.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 03 Oct 2010 22:54

I, for one, am very glad to hear (on BR Only!!) that MMS has delivered the LCA MkII engine to the US. A PhD in economics from the LSE is not enough now a days to do business. That, from here:

Eurojet sources also said that the EJ 200 is a new generation and better engine, and indeed after ToT and other aspects, it could be more expensive than the competition but worth the futuristic technology.


Never mind .............................

Initial F404-j were 78kn

...........................

So I am assuming that as Swedish F414 are 96-98kn, then Indian F414 would be around 99-105kn or so. This may also be a major reason for its victory as 414s are clearly more powerful and available immediately


From the same article:

the requirement of 95 to 100 kilo newtons, being offered by the GE 414.


____________________________________

More out of curiosity, I was googling for research funds for EADS and came across this article. Seems like EADS has just about the same R&D budget that GE alone has!!!! A US $Billion. And with the US armed forces a lot more active WRT R&D, and the partners within EADS sinking rather rapidly ........................ do not know, but, to me GE seems a lot more stable from a R&D PoV. ?????????

____________________________________

A few observations of note:

The US Government will also have to lift some more restrictions to facilitate the flow of engine technology to India, but given the recent statements coming from the US Administration in the buildup to President Barack Obama’s visit to New Delhi in November, there should be no problem.


Notably, GE has offered to upgrade the engine in future with newer innovations for better thrust and optimum fuel utilization also for the US Navy, which has just placed a new US$ 5.297 billion order with Boeing for 66 F 18 E/F Super Hornets and 58 E/A 18 G (Electronic Attack Super Hornets designated Growlers) for delivery from 2012 through 2015.


The final price for the GE 414 for LCA (Mk-II) and the roadmap for technology transfer is yet to be worked out. It may be noted that it is a general practice to seek the best possible rates or technical advantages even after a winner has been declared the lowest bidder to fine-tune requirement and supply arrangements.

An official statement issued Sep 30 said that the Government would finalize the contract with GE after “further price negotiations.”


Thanks.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 04 Oct 2010 07:50

Technically and Financially GE414 is a good deal they would have wealth of experience working with ADA/DRDO for LCA Mk1 and 404 engine. Life is much simpler if you work with known people whom you have been working for more than a decade.

The only caveat is sanctions which is better handled at political level and is outside the mandate of ADA/DRDO.

I think we should be all happy that finally they have selected an engine and what they think is the right one for Mk2.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2010 08:13

I am not sure if anyone thinks this is the "right" engine.

Seems to me that the decision - supposedly - is based on "L1".

There were some rules. And, we have to believe that the rules were followed - MMS notwithstanding or until someone writes a book in 10 years time.

However, good that they made a decision.

Let us ALL move on.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 04 Oct 2010 08:20

In competitive bidding in India for GOI projects L1 is the way to choose thing if it meets the criteria laid down , GE engine met the criteria laid down by ADA/DRDO which is what matters and proved to be less costlier then rivals.

Without L1 it opens it self to charges of corruption , underhand dealing etc etc . L1 is the straight forward way to put a lid on it.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Paul » 04 Oct 2010 10:27

Hornets flying over my house every morning at 7 am are my morning alarm. They are impressive looking aircraft. Only thing is Typhoons and Rafales will be equally good..in looks and performance..I haven't seen them though.

Saw a C17 flying over the other day at 6pm on the way back from work...this machine was truely impressive, so smooth that it looked like it was standing still in the glow from the evening sun.

The N-LCA will most likely follow the career path of the superbly designed single engine Super Etendard which gave nightmares to Western fleets (in Iran-Iraq wars) and during the Falkland conflict.

vcsekhar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vcsekhar » 04 Oct 2010 15:00

Does anyone here know if the LCA's are still flight testing in Goa?
I am going there this weekend and was hoping to catch them flying there :)

chandrasekhar

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Willy » 04 Oct 2010 16:54

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Come the MMRCA decision and if either the F18 or the Gripen dont win, everyone will be clapping and saying what a great decision it was to go in for the 414 as now there will be access to tech from two engines. If either of the two win then we all will cry bloody murder :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2010 03:22

I am very glad that there are some Indians that are not living in the 1970s:

India's fighter-jet program soars past Japan's

(I did not give this article too much weight until I saw who wrote it. It should actually go in the MRCA thread too.)

On the face of it, India has strong political reasons to favor one of the two US suppliers - Boeing and Lockheed Martin - as ties between Washington and New Delhi continue to warm. President Barack Obama will stress these political incentives when he doorsteps India, model planes in his briefcase, in November. Yet sources close to the competition suggest that the American aircraft did not shine in the Indian Air Force's technical evaluation, that they compare poorly on cost, and that their promised level of technology transfer is underwhelming. ''We need to get full technology transfer: India will not budge on that issue,'' says Arun Sahgal, of India's United Services Institute. ''Some of the bidders need to bring their prices down and offer a lot more than license manufacturing''.

America's rivals are fighting hard. Sahgal describes Swedish company Saab's offering of full technology transfer as ''phenomenal''; the Eurofighter Typhoon is understood to be highly rated by Indian decision-makers; and Russia, a long-time Indian defense partner, is also seen as a safe backup option with its MiG-35. The point is that the US - just like other hopefuls - must offer India a genuinely excellent deal if it wants to secure this contract, not merely hold out vague prospects of American friendship.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby dinesha » 05 Oct 2010 08:08

X-post

India to spend over $25 billion to induct 250 5th-gen stealth fighters
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 685002.cms

Along with 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft, which India plans to acquire in a $10.4 billion project, 270 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion and 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, the FGFA will be the mainstay of India's air combat fleet for the foreseeable future.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 05 Oct 2010 10:58

I wouldn’t worry too much about the 120 figure. LCA will form the lo part of hi-lo mix and it is bound to increase, maybe cross the 200 mark.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 05 Oct 2010 12:20

dinesha wrote:India to spend over $25 billion to induct 250 5th-gen stealth fighters
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 685002.cms


$25 billion (+ $ 6 billion ) is a huge amount to spend on 5th Gen Fighter , they can cut that number and funding to half and fund the MCA , we can get better numbers with MCA with the same amount

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 05 Oct 2010 12:30

Austin wrote:
dinesha wrote:India to spend over $25 billion to induct 250 5th-gen stealth fighters
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 685002.cms


$25 billion (+ $ 6 billion ) is a huge amount to spend on 5th Gen Fighter , they can cut that number and funding to half and fund the MCA , we can get better numbers with MCA with the same amount

It is a carrot dangled not to feel disgruntled over MRCA deal.

It is also reported that AMCA will get ~250 a/c. By 2025 or 2030 we will be looking at 60 Sqd strength.JMT.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2010 18:10

Where is the AMCA? All that we've seen so far is a wind tunnel model at the last air show,wheras the 5th-gen PAK-FA fighter is already flying and is undergoing its flight testing regime so that by 2015 at least production will start for the Russian variant.The IAF is faced with a unique problem in that it has to have a qualitative edge over both China and Pak,as well as having enough numbers to deal with both nations simultaneously.China's numbers cannot be matched and as they deliver even more advanced versions of their homebuilt aircraft,the tech gap between the IAF and PAF/PLAF as far as the multi-role medium sized aircraft goes will get narrower.Just 120 LCAs delivered by the end of the decade will not provide the IAF with a really worthwhile capability.The need is for larger aircraft than that of the LCA with greater range,endurance and heavier paylaod with LR stand-off ASMs in the light of more modern SAM and other air defence systems ,plus MANPADs making it even more difficult for aircraft to conduct air strikes in enemy airspace. The existing Flankers,MMRCA and the 5th-gen fighter will hopefully provide us with the required firepower to dela with the Sino-Pak thread.I only hope that in the light of the threat,we choose the best all-rounder "with a view to a future" tech-wise of the lot for the MMRCA.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 05 Oct 2010 19:07

We will have to build the AMCA and give it equal importance, if not more, if we want to ever compete with panda.

PAK-FA may provide us with a 5th gen fighter but the way panda is building it's capabilities being dependent on Russia may not be good enough. We will be kept out of critical/cutting edge area anyway. There will be nothing that we contribute and Russia will not be able to replace and export to panda. We are merely subsidizing their cost of building the a/c. One wouldn’t mind it but there is absolutely no substitute to AMCA.

The sooner we start with it, the better it is.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2010 21:09

$25 billion (+ $ 6 billion ) is a huge amount to spend on 5th Gen Fighter , they can cut that number and funding to half and fund the MCA , we can get better numbers with MCA with the same amount


Says who? The "huge" part that is.

First of all that should be over some years (5-10). And, if one were to compute it as a %age of the economy it does not matter.

All A/C start at the wind tunnel model stage!!!!! The PAK-FA started there too 10+ years ago.

And, just BTW, the FGFA has not flown yet. It is not even on the drawing board. IIRC they still have to nail the details on paper.

Since I have not kept track - which other AF has the MKI class of air crafts in the strength that the IAF has and plans on having?

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby dinesha » 06 Oct 2010 09:33

Eurojet pays dearly for engine re-bid delay
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_eu ... ay_1448246
European aerospace firm Eurojet missed being declared the lowest bidder — L1 — by a whisker for the engine deal of the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mark-II being developed by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

The European consortium is engaged in a fierce battle with the American GE Aviation for providing technology and consultancy for the manufacture of 99 engines for the LCA Tejas Mark-II.

An official with knowledge about the bid, on the condition of anonymity, said Eurojet had submitted its revised bid on September 28 and it reached the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on September 29.

“Eurojet marred its chance by submitting its bid a day before the announcement (of L1 biddder) was made — September 30. And so their revised bid was not considered,” he said.

He said Eurojet’s revised quotation for manufacturing of its EJ200 indigenously is lower than GE’s F-414 by $80-100 million.

According to sources, after reworking the bid and providing the details soughtby the price negotiation committee, the European consortium’s tender price is around $900 million while that of GE is $980 million. In the initial round, Eurojet’s bid was reportedly lower at $666 million compared with GE’s $822 million. It is learnt Eurojet’s price had shot up because it had not clearly specified certain items in its bid.

One of them was the $65 million cost of tools, which it is giving on ‘free on loan’ - meaning the tools would be returned on completion of the project.

GE, on the other hand, is providing the tools totally free.


“This and other costs, which were specified more clearly in response to queries from the price negotiation panel has closed the gap between Eurojet and GE but European engine maker’s bid is still lower than GE,” said a source.

Though, another source, who did not want to be named, said initially Eurojet’s bid had shot up to over $1000 million after they clarified certain expenses in the tender.

“They rushed to correct that (their bid climbing higher than GE’s) but by the time they came back with a revised bid, it was too late,” he said.

Price negotiation committee chairman and chief controller - R&D - of DRDO Dr CK Prahlada could not be reached for comments.

The LCA Tejas Mark-II is an upgraded version of the current Mark-I, which uses GE’s F404 engine.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 06 Oct 2010 09:47

Lifafa journalism is alive and well :)

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 06 Oct 2010 12:03

I think that EJ wanted to do a Gorky on us after the deal was signed but were stopped by Negotiating committee. Just imagine that they had kept almost US$ 400 million dollars of cost hidden :-( Now they are being cry babies. Honest negotiations will have lot of benefit in future contracts. US will have to stick to its cost and schedule as they know that EJ is waiting in the wings

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Juggi G » 07 Oct 2010 09:34


Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Avid » 08 Oct 2010 02:32

For some time I have been following the comments about F414 being much heavier than F404, and different in dimensions, requiring major rework, etc. etc.

F414 was and is a next generation F404. It was developed specifically with that in mind. F414 dimensions are near exactly same as F404. Its weight is closer to 404 than EJ200. In fact, it is only 100 lbs more (<50 kg) than 404!! So much for ill-informed panic "OMG! We will have to start design all over".

In fact it would do well to study the history of 414 development. The paper shows cross-section of the two engines in comparison, and you will how misinformed are the opinions about it being a completely different animal than F404
History of 414 Development:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 008-46.pdf

F414 bid - if it is the F414-GE-EPE, its weight might actually be similar to F404. In the EPE, the thrust has been increased, and one compressor stage reduced.

The major element that would rework on LCA would be intakes. But that would have to be done irrespective of the choice of EJ200 or F414. If you want more thrust, you need more air flow, and so you need intakes designed according the air flow.

The F414 is identical in dimensions to F404, and 50kg heavier (the EPE would be less).

F404-GE-IN20:
Length: 154 inches;
Inlet Diameter: 31 inches;
Max Dia: 35 inches;
Weight: 2335 lbs;
Thrust: 10,250 lbf dry / 19,250 lbf (84kN) with reheat
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power: 0.81 dry; 1.8 w/reheat



F414:
Length: 154 inches;
Inlet Diameter: 32 inches;
Max Dia: 35 inches;
Weight: 2445 lbs (http://www.voodoo-world.cz/hornet/info.html -- hard to come by the number)
Thrust: 14,770 lbf dry / 22,000 lbf (98 kN) with reheat
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77.1 kg/sec)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power:
Compressor:
Axial Compressor with 3 Fan and 7 compressor stages (F414-GE-400)
Axial Compressor with 3 Fan and 6 compressor stages (F414-GE-EPE)
The EPE is also lighter, and has greater thrust the the F414-GE-400

Compare the cross-sections of cutaways in the PDF publication posted above


EJ200
Length: 157 inches;
Inlet Dia: ?
Max Diameter: 29 inches;
Weight: 2200 lbs (Approx)
Thrust: 13,500 lbf (60kN) dry thrust / 20,000 lbf (89 kN (reheat);
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77 kg/sec) (source: http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power: 0.75 dry / 1.65 with reheat
Compressor: 3-Stage LP; 5-Stage HP


From all indications -- F414 actually minimizes the risk for MK-II than increase it.

Please produce relevant hard data about the factors in your arguments.

NOTE: corrected the Air Flow Rate for EJ200
Last edited by Avid on 08 Oct 2010 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2010 02:48

Avid wrote:For some time I have been following the comments about F414 being much heavier than F404, and different in dimensions, requiring major rework, etc. etc.

F414 was and is a next generation F404. It was developed specifically with that in mind. F414 dimensions are near exactly same as F404. Its weight is closer to 404 than EJ200. In fact, it is only 100 lbs more (<50 kg) than 404!! So much for ill-informed panic "OMG! We will have to start design all over".

In fact it would do well to study the history of 414 development. The paper shows cross-section of the two engines in comparison, and you will how misinformed are the opinions about it being a completely different animal than F404
History of 414 Development:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 008-46.pdf

F414 bid - if it is the F414-GE-EPE, its weight might actually be similar to F404. In the EPE, the thrust has been increased, and one compressor stage reduced.

The major element that would rework on LCA would be intakes. But that would have to be done irrespective of the choice of EJ200 or F414. If you want more thrust, you need more air flow, and so you need intakes designed according the air flow.

The F414 is identical in dimensions to F404, and 50kg heavier (the EPE would be less).

F404-GE-IN20:
Length: 154 inches;
Inlet Diameter: 31 inches;
Max Dia: 35 inches;
Weight: 2335 lbs;
Thrust: 10,250 lbf dry / 19,250 lbf (84kN) with reheat
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power: 0.81 dry; 1.8 w/reheat



F414:
Length: 154 inches;
Inlet Diameter: 32 inches;
Max Dia: 35 inches;
Weight: 2445 lbs (http://www.voodoo-world.cz/hornet/info.html -- hard to come by the number)
Thrust: 14,770 lbf dry / 22,000 lbf (98 kN) with reheat
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77.1 kg/sec)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power:
Compressor:
Axial Compressor with 3 Fan and 7 compressor stages (F414-GE-400)
Axial Compressor with 3 Fan and 6 compressor stages (F414-GE-EPE)
The EPE is also lighter, and has greater thrust the the F414-GE-400

Compare the cross-sections of cutaways in the PDF publication posted above


EJ200
Length: 157 inches;
Inlet Dia: ?
Max Diameter: 29 inches;
Weight: 2200 lbs (Approx)
Thrust: 13,500 lbf (60kN) dry thrust / 20,000 lbf (89 kN (reheat);
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
Specific Fuel Consumption at Max Power: 0.75 dry / 1.65 with reheat
Compressor: 3-Stage LP; 5-Stage HP


From all indications -- F414 actually minimizes the risk for MK-II than increase it.

Please produce relevant hard data about the factors in your arguments.


Avid, as some of BRF's members would like to have it, it isn't about hard facts anymore. F-414 is a product of evil Americans, hence a sell-out by MMS and AKA. The fact that the first 2 squadrons of Tejas Mk1s were going to fly with the F-404 IN20 engine was lost on those who were critical of the decision to go with the F-414 purely because it was an American engine.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 08 Oct 2010 04:55

Avid wrote:For some time I have been following the comments about F414 being much heavier than F404, and different in dimensions, requiring major rework, etc. etc.
...

The major element that would rework on LCA would be intakes. But that would have to be done irrespective of the choice of EJ200 or F414. If you want more thrust, you need more air flow, and so you need intakes designed according the air flow.
...

F404-GE-IN20:
...
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
...



F414:
...
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77.1 kg/sec)
...


EJ200
...
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
...


From all indications -- F414 actually minimizes the risk for MK-II than increase it.

...


Just looking at the "Air Flow Rate" from what you posted about the 3 engines, F-404 and EJ200 are exactly the same at 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec). So would this have meant no air-intake changes necessary if EJ200 was selected?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 08 Oct 2010 09:42

Re Avid

We are NOT getting EPE as press reports does give the model no. But more interestingly if you notice that press reports say that EJ cost went up when we added the cost of "extra" technology transfer (read transfer of single crystal technology) but GE cost did not go up as much. This means that cost of "lot of technology transfer (perhaps) including single crystal is tied up with GE.

Second GE is more powerful than EJ, My guess 100-105kn. Vs 90-93kn

Perhaps with wider inlet ii may be more suitable for high altitude take offs/landings ?? (layman alert!!)

GE is available here and now, and work for integration of GE will/can start immediately unlike EJ where wait of 2 years is warranted for optimizing it for single engine operations.

I believe that US is ahead by 10 years compared to Europe in military engine tech. Lets us EJ is 20 years later design. Again lets us say that GE is massively upgraded. We land up with +10-20+5, so say only max 5 years tech difference between EJ & GE with better future potential for GE (layman alert!!). We must not forget that GE is a big engine and in future it will be way more powerful and perhaps lighter.

Also regarding weight there is issue of dry weight vs wet weight and weight of related items like Gearbox, fuel injection system, etc which are also relevant but we don’t know the figures to compare them.

I think that a decision has been taken and it seems like a reasonable decision. Though I hope that there might be formal and informal understanding that GE will help with Kaveri also. Snecma deals smacks of being dishonest.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 08 Oct 2010 11:43

Snecma deal is a desperate attempt to get Kaveri into LCA. Needless to say, it wont work and we will simply be throwing away money to the French with zero benefit arising out of it.

On another note, what structural changes are expected in the MK-II?
1. Inlets
2. Wings (What kind of changes :?: )

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3678
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Neela » 08 Oct 2010 13:52

Kartik,
Thank you for the last post.

Nirmal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 05 Jul 2005 15:51
Location: London, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Nirmal » 08 Oct 2010 14:06

vic wrote:Re Avid

We are NOT getting EPE as press reports does give the model no. But more interestingly if you notice that press reports say that EJ cost went up when we added the cost of "extra" technology transfer (read transfer of single crystal technology) but GE cost did not go up as much. This means that cost of "lot of technology transfer (perhaps) including single crystal is tied up with GE.

Second GE is more powerful than EJ, My guess 100-105kn. Vs 90-93kn

Perhaps with wider inlet ii may be more suitable for high altitude take offs/landings ?? (layman alert!!)

GE is available here and now, and work for integration of GE will/can start immediately unlike EJ where wait of 2 years is warranted for optimizing it for single engine operations.

I believe that US is ahead by 10 years compared to Europe in military engine tech. Lets us EJ is 20 years later design. Again lets us say that GE is massively upgraded. We land up with +10-20+5, so say only max 5 years tech difference between EJ & GE with better future potential for GE (layman alert!!). We must not forget that GE is a big engine and in future it will be way more powerful and perhaps lighter.

Also regarding weight there is issue of dry weight vs wet weight and weight of related items like Gearbox, fuel injection system, etc which are also relevant but we don’t know the figures to compare them.

I think that a decision has been taken and it seems like a reasonable decision. Though I hope that there might be formal and informal understanding that GE will help with Kaveri also. Snecma deals smacks of being dishonest.

It has been speculated in the Aviation week article quoting Prominent defense Analyst that US government will definately not give permission for single crystal blade tech to be transferred to India.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 08 Oct 2010 15:17

We have had so much of delay in decision making that we could've developed two prototypes flying with a different engine.It would've been an interesting learning curve for us.Commercial aircraft of same type fly with European and US engines depending upon the airlines choice.Both US and European def. manufacturers have in the past studied engine alternatives,so do the Russians.From details being made public,it appears that EJ shot itself in the foot with its late bid and were outmanoeuvred by GE.Had both engines been flying ,it would've also given us some input into the engine requirements for the AMCA.

I wonder whether this precedent-going in for the same manufacturer who provided the original engine,will hold good for the Jaguar upgrade too,where Honywell and RR are contesting the same.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby saje » 08 Oct 2010 20:03

P Chitkara wrote:Snecma deal is a desperate attempt to get Kaveri into LCA..

This comment somehow stirred a thought which had been brewing in my mind for quite sometime, so I would invite members to confirm/dismiss my line of thought... I suspect that the attempt to get the Kaveri into the LCA is purely an export-oriented gamble. I mean, think of how uncle will frown on us trying to export a GE-engined LCA. Also, will the IAF ever fully trust a kaveri-engined LCA? In that case isn't it much easier/better to palm off a kaveri-engined LCA to the Latin Americans and Africans and try to recover our investment?

P Chitkara wrote:we will simply be throwing away money to the French with zero benefit arising out of it.

If we are throwing some money now in the hope of others throwing money back at us in the future, I think we should go for it don't you think?

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Avid » 08 Oct 2010 20:48

srai wrote:
Just looking at the "Air Flow Rate" from what you posted about the 3 engines, F-404 and EJ200 are exactly the same at 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec). So would this have meant no air-intake changes necessary if EJ200 was selected?


Thanks for pointing it out. I have corrected the error.

EJ200 the air flow rate for max thrust is identical to F414.

F404-GE-IN20:
Air Flow Rate: 146 lbs/sec (66 kg/sec)
F414-GE-400:
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77kg/sec)
EJ200:
Air Flow Rate: 170 lbs/sec (77kg/sec)


From my perspective,
F414 is near identical in dimensions, marginally higher in weight (max of 50kgs). Produces 19.5kN more thrust (dry) and 15kN more thrust (reheat). Thus requires redesign of air intake, and very likely no redesign of the fuselage. The thrust numbers for EPE would be higher (and lower specific fuel consumption).

EJ200 is 3 inches longer, 3 inches less in dia, weighs 61 kgs less. Produces 16kN more thrust (dry), and 5-6 kN more with reheat. The design requires redesign of air intake, and and likely redesign of fuselage because of the engine dimension changes.

The thrust numbers with reheat are not entirely as critical as the dry thrust.

So the question is with 3.5kN additional dry thrust, and near identical dimensions of the engine, 50kg more of weight - is F414 worth it?

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Avid » 08 Oct 2010 20:58

vic wrote:Re Avid

We are NOT getting EPE as press reports does give the model no.
....



We are getting modified version of 414 (F414-GE-INS6), just like the 404-IN20
Their press release says it is the highest thrust version of 414, and so it likely the EPE variant. The EPE is claimed to have 20% higher thrust than the 414-400, and with focus on greater durability. The most significant part of the EPE (according to my 2c worth opinion) is the reduced specific fuel consumption. This would yield greater range.

Second GE is more powerful than EJ, My guess 100-105kn. Vs 90-93kn
...
GE is available here and now, and work for integration of GE will/can start immediately unlike EJ where wait of 2 years is warranted for optimizing it for single engine operations.
...
Also regarding weight there is issue of dry weight vs wet weight and weight of related items like Gearbox, fuel injection system, etc which are also relevant but we don’t know the figures to compare them.


The thrust number is definitely in favor of the 414, and I completely agree that GE poses significantly less risk in development of MKII.
Last edited by Avid on 08 Oct 2010 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2010 21:00

saje wrote:
P Chitkara wrote:Snecma deal is a desperate attempt to get Kaveri into LCA..

This comment somehow stirred a thought which had been brewing in my mind for quite sometime, so I would invite members to confirm/dismiss my line of thought... I suspect that the attempt to get the Kaveri into the LCA is purely an export-oriented gamble. I mean, think of how uncle will frown on us trying to export a GE-engined LCA. Also, will the IAF ever fully trust a kaveri-engined LCA? In that case isn't it much easier/better to palm off a kaveri-engined LCA to the Latin Americans and Africans and try to recover our investment?


The Gripen is being marketed globally with a GE engine. I doubt if the US would actively try to restrict India from re-exporting the GE engine, unless we were selling the Tejas to the likes of Iran, Myanmar or Zimbabwe.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Wickberg » 08 Oct 2010 21:31

Viv S wrote:The Gripen is being marketed globally with a GE engine. I doubt if the US would actively try to restrict India from re-exporting the GE engine, unless we were selling the Tejas to the likes of Iran, Myanmar or Zimbabwe.


Or a Volvo Aero engine...Whatever. This is so OT, but has´nt India exported helicopters to Myanmar? If the LCA comes up for export discussion I am however sure that India will gladly not export any military arms to such countries if it favors the export of LCA.

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SanjibGhosh » 09 Oct 2010 22:58

India to develop its own futuristic computer operating system
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/n ... 96216.html


Meanwhile, Saraswat said many countries have evinced interest in buying Akash, Nag missiles and light combat aircraft 'Tejas' developed by India.There is possibility of export of many things, including the LCA whose performance and capability matches with the best aircraft in the world in that category[/b[b]]."Many countries are approaching us for Akash missiles, Nag missiles and LCA," he said but declined to name them, saying "it's premature".Saraswat, however, stressed that DRDO's main role is to meet the indigenous requirements of the armed forces."Export is only incidental," he added.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gurneesh » 10 Oct 2010 09:37

Any Chaiwala news on LSP-5 flight ?

On a different note, according to data provided by Avid EJ200 actually consumes lesser fuel compared to 404 while producing more thrust.

As mentioned in the aviation week article, GE would not provide tot for single crystal blades. And this is not in the scope of the RFP as said by the Eurojet official in this link:
http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... india.html
Eurojet management today confirmed that if required they are willing to transfer single crystal turbine blade technology. This is currently not under the scope of the LCA engine RFP and a separate commercial agreement would have to be signed.


Though fairly OT, GE winning this bid could actually be a pointer towards Eurofighter winning the MMRCA (India could get single crystal TOT and all other TOT through that route also). And GE is made happy with this order, Boeing with c17 and additional P-8, LM with c-130, Russia with numerous stuff, France with Insanely overpriced Mirage deal (plus Kaveri development). That only leaves the Eurofighter (Excluding Gripen for lack of political clout).
Last edited by archan on 12 Oct 2010 19:55, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed from GSJ to Gyanesh. If unacceptable, send email to gentleman.cadet at gmail

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 10 Oct 2010 13:41

Regarding the "insanely overpriced" Mirage upgrade, please check the latest F-16 Block 15 upgrade price for Thailand. 18 F-16 Block 15s upgraded at $39 million per unit. No weapons included in the upgrade.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests