LCA News and Discussions

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Nov 2010 10:45

Willy wrote:Wasnt FOC supposed to be end 2012?

I guess 2017.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2010 11:17

2017 for FOC? Any idea how many will be in service by that time. Also are they taklkng of Mk2 as well by that time. Cause, if its only mk 1 they how many will be ordered by the IAF. willl they be 40 with 404 or 99 with 414. or any combination of the 2.

Also what will be the status of the Mk 2 by that date?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 11:24

chacko, correct me if I'm wrong, what you are saying is that FOC after the aircraft is inducted is mostly upto the air force. as long as the aircraft gets inducted and operates decently FOC is more of a formality ?
2017 should be enough to get FOC for whole LCA project, including Mk2.

it does take sometime for an aircraft to go from induction to FOC. if the MRCA comes in 2014, it would be 2016 before it is declared fully operational in IAF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2010 11:27

yes by the IAF yardstick EF is probably not FOC ready ... it was first testing dropping LBGs in *July 2009* but that didnt prevent it from doing a psyops growling run in Farnborough with 8 LGBs as if it had been doing it for years!!

Tejas IOC is a lot more than EF/Rafale IOC probably because they used guerilla mkting tactics to talk of future capabilities as present ones.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Nov 2010 11:46

Hmm. The lil baby was woken up by a snarling Tejas flying low on it's landing approach this morning around 1.30 hrs ago.. I think yellow primer , not sure though, just caught a quick glance.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Nov 2010 11:48

Pratyush and Rahul M,

Why are you surprised? Its a new engine. The airframe is going to be modified. It will take some time.

Why should servicing be a problem? 40 ac orders are good for that.

Mk2's are going to be progressively inducted into the IAF. The mk2's flying will contribute to the FOC flying hours.

Rahul M, yes, its not iron clad that FOC is required to form sqn's. Isn't MK-1 forming a sqn?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 11:52

chacko, not surprised. just that people are getting confused and thinking that Mk1 will reach FOC in 2017.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Nov 2010 11:53

neerajb wrote:Saar, I would be more than happy if my intuition is wrong but this time it is from the horse's mouth. Had it been our beloved DDM, I wouldn't even have bothered to read it. TOW is commonly used term but the guy added clean to it to emphasize clean configuration. Now that would only mean without stores because if Shivji's definition of clean is to be taken here i.e. no flaps, landing gear etc then Clean is very dynamic, changing with flight conditions so why would anyone term any take off weight as clean? So going by this even if we reduce further 200 Kgs for pylons ( assuming no missiles) then also it comes down to 7000 Kgs.

Added later : I have seen pics of operational MKI flying with 2 pylons (others removed) and no stores.

Cheers....

I think this "clean" business is what ShookLaw talked about .. It is not the "clean" as in "airshow config", but really is all pylons included (but no stores), fully fuelled, all fluids , pilot etc included, and maybe 2 air to air missiles . So basically. This is the useable plane as is and if you know MTOW, you can "vary" the remaining weight possible with a mix of weapons/drop tanks to arrive at a config as per mission demand (A2G , put three drop tanks , put in the Litening pod in the 8th pylon under the intake, and two racks of LGB/ dumb bombs, A2A, put one big centerline tank and 4 radar guided missiles). Makes life easy, once you isolate the "fixed" weight and "variable" weight from mission planning perspective .. Oh, if you want to take of from Amritsar / close by and want to drop love candles in La-Hore, load em' all up with the candles.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Nov 2010 12:00

Rahul M wrote:chacko, not surprised. just that people are getting confused and thinking that Mk1 will reach FOC in 2017.

Sorry. No, MK1 will contribute to both IOC and FOC. MK2 will be the FOC speck. Unless they come up with MK3

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Nov 2010 13:13

Hmm. Got buzzed again, 2nd time today, flying dirty /undercarriage down, like going in to land.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2010 15:14

Saw an YellSeeYay coming into land at about 2-00 PM. Vayusena grey. Very heavy downpour soon after. Could be LSP 5. The weather was sunny and beautiful just before that.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2010 15:22

chackojoseph wrote:
Sorry. No, MK1 will contribute to both IOC and FOC. MK2 will be the FOC speck. Unless they come up with MK3

Chacko / Rahul,

I wish they come up with a Mk 3 using a lot of 5th gen technologies and a supercruising Kaveri. Beyond 2017.

JMT

vic · Post by **vic** » 18 Nov 2010 18:45

Re kanson

I am critical of Indian R&D set up but not critical of DRDO. They have not been given the funds to be effective. With whatever funds that have been given they have done a reasonable job. The point is that DRDO needs way more funds!!!!!!!

Second we must realise that our engineering and manfactering base is limited therefore IAF should have realistic aims. The aims and specifications for AMCA seem toooo demanding, hence IAF should set the bar lower, production figure and budget higher!

Re Geeth

If you are feeling sick, then you are welcome not to read the post.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 18 Nov 2010 20:16

Tejas the Platform's Composites
Live Fist

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 18 Nov 2010 20:33

what could be the reason for delay? everything was going well, Dec 26 (or 27) was deadline for IOC

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Nov 2010 20:54

shiv wrote:You can wait for AMCA in 2080.

Well you have seemed to have convinced your self about that.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Nov 2010 21:03

abhik wrote:
shiv wrote:You can wait for AMCA in 2080.
Well you have seemed to have convinced your self about that.

While 2080 may be an exaggeration, with wet dreams like Fly By Light, Helmet displays eliminating HUDs etc., etc. included in the AMCA configuration, do you expect to see the AMCA flying around in the next 20-25 years?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Nov 2010 21:08

And why is no one blaming IAF for this? On a far more reasonable Arjun Mk II everyone takes such news as a chance to hammer and tongs at the IA?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 21:09

babbupandey wrote:what could be the reason for delay? everything was going well, Dec 26 (or 27) was deadline for IOC

there is no delay according to the article. the author seems to have got confused.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2010 21:27

vic wrote:Re kanson

I am critical of Indian R&D set up but not critical of DRDO. They have not been given the funds to be effective. With whatever funds that have been given they have done a reasonable job. The point is that DRDO needs way more funds!!!!!!!

There is no two ways about it. If the GoI emphasize on indigenous products then it should back up that plan accordingly including more funds. Here, the problem is we are discussing & making assumption based on what happened 20 or 10 yrs before, whereas current establishment policies are moving on or already moved on. We are now talking about defence commission like DARPA/space commission, separate marketing arm, and the idea of funding for the basic research. So with this kind of setup the development agency can approach for projects like AMCA after developing confidence in the tech that goes in this project. While you are talking about lack of funds, one of the marketing technique of drdo seems to highlight the low cost of development.

The truth is if you ask me, we could have done better, if GoI allocated more funds for developing infrastructure. Brain drain in 60s and 70s happened becoz having created institutions like IIT to develop such brains, GoI didn't created enough infrastructure adequate enough of such brains to be utilized in pursuing hi end research in India. So all the brains left. Only way of inducing & encouraging more research is by developing infrastructures & other things. Its happening; may be not to our taste, but its happening. Ex. Hypersonic wind tunnel project in Hyd. In fact one of the sad story is when one of such brain which did hi end research in videsi land came back with the intention of developing a high end wind tunnel was shocked to realise no takers for his proposal. If i'm not wrong, one of first wind tunnel developed in India was done with his inputs and he is currently holding a highest possible rank in an institution.

Second we must realise that our engineering and manfactering base is limited therefore IAF should have realistic aims. The aims and specifications for AMCA seem toooo demanding, hence IAF should set the bar lower, production figure and budget higher!

It is a gross mistake in advising IAF to be realistic as they came with proposal from their own calculation however flawed it could be. Correct way is to specify how far it can met in the time frame and how much time needed for the realizing the remaining requirement under what circumstances. It is upto the development agency to say that is too demanding or not. They know the pulses of the manufacturing base by default with the experience of developing LCA. So it is not prudent for us to comment on the difficulty of the task. Second, it is happening in phases, some of the 5th gen can be seen fist implemented in LCA Mk2, and then FGFA and finally in AMCA. So when we are going into AMCA, we know exactly where we are standing. One more highlight here is we are straight way starting with foreign collaborations in areas which proved insurmountable during the LCA development phase. And then we are having tech flows from PAKFA and MMRCA programme. In my view, development agency for AMCA project is well positioned to deal with the challenges whatever it could be with much more confidence.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 21:33

nachiket wrote: While 2080 may be an exaggeration, with wet dreams like Fly By Light, Helmet displays eliminating HUDs etc., etc. included in the AMCA configuration, do you expect to see the AMCA flying around in the next 20-25 years?

I really think this is a very silly way of going about AMCA. they should have focused on getting AMCA Mk1 with mostly existing items with the space age thingies planned for Mk2 and onwards. develop those as separate projects and integrate them with AMCA when mature. that way the aircraft will not get held up for a few 'good to have' items.

unless they know something we have no inkling about there is a very real danger that we will see serious delays on account of these uber sophisticated tech.

Second we must realise that our engineering and manfactering base is limited therefore IAF should have realistic aims. The aims and specifications for AMCA seem toooo demanding, hence IAF should set the bar lower, production figure and budget higher!

if aroor's previous reports are correct IAF didn't ask for a death star, they asked something within capabilities that would come on time.
this time it is DRDO that is guilty of over-specification.
* again, assuming aroor's reports are correct.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Nov 2010 21:41

A newbie question.

I thought DRDO/HAL developed the fabricating machines for the composite parts, and they kind of make these parts layer by layer, like a printer (for lack of better word).

How difficult it would be to change the fab machines, if HAL decides to make a different fighter parts (need not be LCA)? This question came up in NJ-Jirga meeting and I am curious to know that whatever DRDO/HAL learned/developed in the process can be reused >50% in any new fighter

I understand that the new assembly has to be tested for thousands of hours.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2010 22:19

with wet dreams like Fly By Light, Helmet displays eliminating HUDs etc

Before tagging them as wet dreams, why don't someone list out and highlight the benefits of such devices and techs and possibly why they have selected or possibly needed for the 5th gen fighter like AMCA ?

Do keep in mind that those listed these requirements are professionals with adequate experience and not part time junkies who thrown their hat in.

That will be a good exercise rather making any political statements.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Nov 2010 22:28

Despite looking like a list pulled out of a hat, I don't see why it should be derided. Sure, it sounds like vapourware today but a good plan agreed on by both parties after a feasibility study should be a good starting point. The AMCA could be developed with existing tech for now and as each of these items listed is developed, they can be incorporated into the fighter. The PAK-FA today flies with the older AL engine while the new engine is being developed. Why not do the same with Fibre-optic transmission? Sure the bandwidths are different between copper and optic transmission. So is shielding etc. But taken in steps, alll these items can be parallelised with options that we have today to make the fighter fly! Pano displays with touchscreens? We have a MFD maker today that we can use till that company develops the pano super duper touchscreens which work with gloves etc. Put out a competition sort of thing to get more than one company for this purpose and lower risk by banking on one company alone.

Sensors and architecture are greater bugbears and will need greater time for development and refinement. And like the MMR for the LCA end up as misses when the other parts of the AMCA get into some sort of shape and hence need greater guidance and funding. With proper project planning and funding, these are doable. And tech can be incorporated as and when they come online while the fighter makes use of current tech where possible. imho of course.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Nov 2010 22:51

^^^ +1.

I don't think that avionics will hold up the AMCA. What seems vapourware is mostly an interface. The team has put it in the right vein (in one of Shiv Aroor's response to one of the comments), "it is overarching but not unachievable".

There will be huge challenges in stealth technology and radar and data fusion. Those are the real learning curves here.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 22:58

I'm extremely intrigued how they are going to tackle the internal bays. guess that's where lessons from FGFA will be invaluable.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 18 Nov 2010 23:27

Shouldn't even start on the AMCA till the FGFA is well on its way. Rightly said--- the lessons learned from the FGFA will be worth their weight in diamonds.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Nov 2010 00:54

RamaY wrote:A newbie question.

I thought DRDO/HAL developed the fabricating machines for the composite parts, and they kind of make these parts layer by layer, like a printer (for lack of better word).

How difficult it would be to change the fab machines, if HAL decides to make a different fighter parts (need not be LCA)? This question came up in NJ-Jirga meeting and I am curious to know that whatever DRDO/HAL learned/developed in the process can be reused >50% in any new fighter

I understand that the new assembly has to be tested for thousands of hours.

It’s a tape or fabric laying machine. Basically the machine (computer controlled) goes about laying the composite prepreg tape or fabric in the order (or layup as we call it) and pattern that was developed for that part. If not a machine, even humans can simply lay out the prepreg. Its basically reels of composite that have a peel-off like layer which is peeled off and then laid on top of one another. It just has to be done very carefully to avoid any air bubbles being trapped and since it cannot be smoothened out once laid out, these will be defects if one is not careful during the layup process. If a honeycomb core is required to be put for the part, then it is also put in (manually). The development that is required is the tool surface - that defines the outer surface of the component. The layup always builds upwards from that surface onwards, so the tool surface remains constant for the part. That way you get parts consistently having the same Outer Mould Line surface.

So, in one word, HAL can simply re-program the computer controlled tape laying machines to lay the prepreg in any particular order or pattern it wants it to. No big deal about that. And for those parts that require humans to do the layup, simply developing the required tooling should suffice. As long as the part fits in HAL's existing autoclaves, and I think that they have large enough ones, since they manufacture large composites for the LCA.

I don't quite get the "tested for thousands of hours" part. Why tested separately? The part/assembly is designed after thorough analysis and it doesn't generally require any separate testing. These are after all quite costly to manufacture.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Nov 2010 00:59

Willy sahab,

I understand that FGFA will be a good learning curve. But I don't understand why the AMCA shoudn't be designed till then. From the FGFA one would learn the finesse. But the broad stealth knowledge is out there. Take for example the intake design. What is to be achieved is well known. What has to be done is optimization, Look at PakFA for instance. A big problem with serpentine air intakes is that you your weapons bay cannot be a long continuous berth which provides which provides much more flexibility with the missile sizes etc. This seems to have been a major consideration for the PakFA design. I don't believe the Russians can't up with serpentine intakes. It is a deign choice. However some official slides (provided by Shiv Aroor) show renditions of serpentine intakes on the AMCA. So how do we build the internal weapons bay around it? Besides we have to do all the CFD analysis for the air intake etc etc. This can certainly go about in parallel.

Body shaping for optimizing stealth and performance are known physics. It would be interesting to see what body shapes and optimizations ADA comes up with. This can gain go on without inputs from FGFA.

Once that shape is fixed, the internal layout can be fixed and all the structural elements have to be done and optimized. Again, not dependent on FGFA.

Similarly, since we seem to be going for TVC engines on the AMCA, we have to develop the control logics. Again, not dependent on the FGFA.

So I don't think we should wait on the designing part till FGFA is well on the way.

Having said that FGFA is going to be the harbinger of 5th gen tech. It is not just the designing part of it, I think FGFA will be a huge learning curve for the testing and optimization of the techs developed.

I am filled with enthusiasm to see what the AMCA will ultimately look like. Can't express my eagerness well enough.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 19 Nov 2010 01:18

^^
Choice of airduct design will also depend upon the dimensions of AMCA. One of the main job of airduct is to slow down the air to subsonic speed. To do that, the airducts have to be of significant length. However, most aircrafts are not lengthy enough to accommodate this length. Hence they have to resort to s-shaped airducts to increase the length of intakes. The obvious plus side of this approach is increased stealth. The downside is that the bends create turbulence in the air. This in turn reduces the engine performance and consequently the thrust. This is why lengthy 4 gen fighters like F-15 and Su-27 use straight airducts while F-16 uses double s airduct.

So, IMHO, AMCA's airduct will primarily depend upon:
1> Length of AMCA.
2> The effectiveness of FGFA's radar blocker.

Of course, weapon's bay will also play a role but you have already covered that.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Nov 2010 06:20

There are several ways to build the AMCA to its full specifications. Here is my version of it divided into three 5-7 years Phases with successive realization of key technologies. R&D related to IOC completed by 2030. Full FOC by 2035.

Phase I (2011-2018)

First build 2 Technology Demonstrators using the F-414 engines (being licensed produced) plus 4th-Gen LCA technologies, such as its FBW, Avionics, Controls, Computers, EW, Composites etc. This way the AMCA TDs will be flying by 2018 and start the flight testing program to verify the airframe flight characteristics and to test the "Advanced Airframe" design with its Serpentine Air Intakes, Internal Weapon Bays, Advanced Radomes, Low IR and Stealthy Airframe design

.

Phase II (2018-2023)

TD 1/2 (Airframe Technology)
PV-1 (Advanced Control) -> GTRE/Snecma Kaveri engines replacing the F-414 with advanced engine controls and Supercruise
PV-2 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control, Active CG Mgmt, Brake Controls
PV-3 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control, Active CG Mgmt, Brake Controls
PV-4 (Aero-Flight Dynamics) -> Control of High Asymmetry, Re-Configurable Control System, Internal Weapon Bay opening/closing in supersonic flight
PV-5 (Advanced Avionics) -> Integrated Modular Architecture, Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods, Advanced Comm, AESA radar
PV-6 (Materials for Stealth) -> Radar Absorbing Composites & Paints
PV-7 (Advanced Manufacturing) -> Jigless Manufacturing & Static Tests

Phase III (2023-2030)

PV-1 (Advanced Control) -> GTRE/Snecma Kaveri engines w/ TVC
PV-2 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control w/ Kaveri engines and Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods
PV-3 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control w/ Kaveri engines and Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods
PV-4 (Aero-Flight Dynamics) -> Internal Weapon Release in supersonic flight
PV-5 (Advanced Avionics) -> Situational Awareness (Sensor Data Fusion), Decision Support System, Advanced Sensors, Net Centric Warfare
PV-6 (Materials for Stealth) -> Advanced Composites & Materials, Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS)
PV-7 (Advanced Manufacturing) -> Superplastic Forming, Micron Surface Finish
LSP-1 to LSP-8 (Advanced Manufacturing) at HAL

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Nov 2010 06:37

This is the LCA thread and AMCA discussions are OT. In any case I have an OT response to AMCA which is here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 17#p980817

Someone please shift the AMCA discussion elsewhere. I invite people to post AMCA discussion the the "Design your own fighter thread" If you wish.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 19 Nov 2010 09:40

Guys some update on lsp5 from tarmak007, lucky ones near blore airport get to see the first flight of lsp5

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/11/b ... -5-to.html

Tejas LSP-5 is ready for its maiden flight. In all probability it would be between 10 am and 11.30 am today. Commander Ankur Jain will be at the controls and the flight is expected to be for 20-25 minutes, as per the initial reports. As this piece goes live, I am being told in Hyderabad that the pilot is ready for the P-BIT test (engine run).
The flight is for sure today, if there are no sudden showers and last-minute glitches. Stay tuned.

Hope wait for lsp5 is over

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Nov 2010 09:44

Well the weather is sunny today in Bangalore. Wish I could resume my game that got washed out yesterday and see the LSP5 to boot.

vina · Post by **vina** » 19 Nov 2010 10:29

shiv wrote:Well the weather is sunny today in Bangalore. Wish I could resume my game that got washed out yesterday and see the LSP5 to boot.

Just got buzzed by a bad as*ed Tejas (10:54 am), making a turn towards HAL , flying with undercarriage up. Normal gray camo. Is it LSP 5?. Timing seems right, weather seems fine.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Nov 2010 10:32

OUCH! It hurts not be in Bangalore

.

Between I have a question about the auxiliary intakes on the LCA. Why shouldn't we put the auxiliary intake at the bottom of the intake like slits on the Su-30, PAK-FA. At high AoA, this position makes far more sense than the intakes at the side.

any gyan?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 19 Nov 2010 11:35

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/11/b ... flies.html

Hyderabad: Tejas LSP-5 finally had its maiden flight at Old Bangalore Airport today. It took off at 10:55 am and landed safely at 11.35 am. It went up to 8 km at a mx speed of .8 Mach and pulled up to 4 G. IRC and full after-burner were used. "We have done all test points. It flew for 40 minutes. It's a great day for us," Tejas Program chief P.S. Subramanayam tells Tarmak007 from Bangalore.

Vina ji super btw what is IRC?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 19 Nov 2010 11:37

great newj,
jahaj e kufr ij in in the air today,
i was blanning to bost jame newj

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 19 Nov 2010 12:00

Added later on Tarmak007.

It would be wonderful if someone can get their hands on new cockpit layout.

suryag wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/11/b ... flies.html
Hyderabad: Tejas LSP-5 finally had its maiden flight at Old Bangalore Airport today. It took off at 10:55 am and landed safely at 11.35 am. It went up to 8 km at a mx speed of .8 Mach and pulled up to 4 G. IRC and full after-burner were used. "We have done all test points. It flew for 40 minutes. It's a great day for us," Tejas Program chief P.S. Subramanayam tells Tarmak007 from Bangalore.

DRDO chief Dr V.K. Saraswat told Tarmak007 said during the Aerospace Conclave in Hyderabad that, the scientists and engineers couldn't have asked for more. "I am being told that the LSP-5 was a dream flight," Dr Saraswat said.
LSP-5 was piloted by Lt Cdr Ankur Jain of LCA Navy Team at NFTC and the chase aircraft was a PV-3 piloted by Gp Capt Thomas.
Stay tuned for more.
Vina ji super btw what is IRC?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2010 12:06

is LSP-5 the final IOC config ? there is no more time left until Dec end IOC.

does it sport radar ?

has any of the LSP/PV done night flying tests yet to check the cockpit lighting or only LSP5+ will have it?