LCA News and Discussions

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 26 Oct 2010 22:37

How would the Tejas MK-I compare against the Mirage – 2000 upgrades ? How would they perform in a hypothetical dog-fight ? May be the Gurus can enlighten us on this.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 26 Oct 2010 23:23

LCA Mk-1 would have a lower RCS and would detect M2k before being detected itself. LCA Mk-1 would therefore get the first missile off.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2010 23:26

Mirage upgrade is not clearly known. Its still under wraps. There is some noise about it, but most of it is hidden away, whatever it maybe.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Oct 2010 23:45

Regarding Mr Das' accusation that people just fell for FBW and thought that it was "The" thing to have till the MiG-29 came and showed what a non-FBW equipped fighter could do, a read through this paragraph will be illuminating

I levelled at 25,000ft and slowed to 150kt. There were no noticeable pitch changes on airbrake selection in or out at any speed. Maintaining speed with power, I pitched 60° nose-up, closed the throttle and released the controls. The aircraft basically flew itself out by pitching gently nose down to reduce the angle of attack (AoA). HUD indicated airspeed fell to zero during the manoeuvre, but this had no effect. Slow-speed flight at 25° AoA (as set by the FBW control laws) was easily achievable and resulted in a stable airspeed of around 120kt.

In the simulator I had previously evaluated a 250kt, 90° nose-up pitch release, airbrake out and with full pro-spin controls applied and held at the zenith of the zero-speed zoom. Even at this extreme, the aircraft remained completely docile and essentially just gently flew itself out by ‘flopping’ to about 60° nose-down. It was another validation of the FBW control-law design, which is student friendly while replicating how a fourth-generation fighter will behave.

This is one huge benefit of FBW equipped fighters that Mr Das will not mention, since he doesn't seem to be too familiar with operational aspects from a pilot's point of view (advocating 2nd gen fighters in huge numbers as he does). There is more and one just needs to read Peter Collins' fligh t test of the T-50 for FlightGlobal to understand that, or his flight test of a Rafale.

This is what a FBW equipped fighter allows the pilot to do- forget about the flying aspect and concentrate instead on the mission tasks. As it is, the pilot work load is nowadays so intense, that for complicated air-to-ground missions especially, a 2 man crew is considered a big benefit because 1 pilot alone cannot handle all the tasks while doing the flying, prosecuting the target and keeping an eye out for threats from both SAMs and aerial threats.

As a Viggen and Gripen pilot said about the difference between Draken, Viggen and Gripen, there are huge differences between the three simply because of how different their flying qualities are. The Draken pilot spent 90% of his attention flying the aircraft and being careful not to exceed limits. These were fighters that could easily exceed limits and without adequate modern (very audible and very visual with cues displayed on HUDs) warning systems or a computer controlled FBW, the threat of stalling or becoming part of the landscape while being saturated with both flying and trying to attack a target were all too real. Viggen pilots spent 60% of their attention flying the jet and 40% on other mission tasks at hand. With the Gripen and its FBW, the pilot spends less than 10% of his attention on flying the fighter and all the rest on the mission tasks and how to achieve them. Which means that for the same mission and with the same resources at hand, the Gripen pilot is the most likeliest of all to achieve his tasks without being an exceptional pilot (and most pilots are average and designs have to cater for this).

For a multi-role single seat fighter like the LCA then, it becomes imperative that the pilot's flying workload be minimised and chances of the pilot exceeding the airframe or aerodynamic limits should be next to nill. FBW makes sure of this. To make it seem that we could've designed a LCA with no FBW and expected the IAF (the user) to be happy with it in a decade when all new inductions are mostly FBW controlled fighters is really far fetched. And to further ridicule it as being just a fad or fancy that Westerners thought up before being shown the truth by the MiG-29 is fallacy.

After all, the basic MiG-29 had other flaws too..for instance, I read somewhere about how the MiG-29 pilot would need to go through a lot more motions before being able to fire a BVR missile. F-16 pilots who flew in the MiG-29 in the Luftwaffe commented on this fact. Very little automation meant more tasks at hand and less efficiency and in a hurry it would just be exasperating. One can fully understand why pilots would've wanted HOTAS and more digitised systems to help them in these matters. One cannot just brush all these facts aside as just being fads or gimmicks that Western pilots or designers made fashionable. These were drawbacks which have since been corrected. If they weren't issues then why were they corrected? Just to conform to fads?

The problem with Mr Das' commentary is he believes only HE understands facts as they are and the rest of aircraft designers, pilots (who lay down ASRs) and tacticians are just duds who follow latest trends without assessing how useful they are. I must ask the same question that others have- what is his claim to fame to be able to diss others? I remember vaguely that a friend (Mihir Shah?)once mentioned that he worked in L&T or somewhere like that..what makes him such an authority on aircraft design compared to those who work on it?

Oh and the para also mentions another interesting aspect- that the LM/KAI T-50 Golden Eagle has a design AoA limit of 25° alpha. It weighs 6620 kgs empty, doesn't have a radar, has a max speed of Mach 1.5, has a max design factor of 8.5G/-3G and has a T/W ratio of 0.92. In all parameters it compares with (airframe weight) or is below (max speed, max design factor, lower T/W ratio) and yet the ROKAF is looking for the F/A-50 version of it to replace F-5s in service. No stinging criticism of the T-50 just for the sake of it, which is what Mr Das is indulging in.

the Tejas Mk1 approaches IOC and he makes gratuitous remarks about that aspect as if it is just eyewash. If it didn't approach IOC, he'd be making stinging criticism of that as well. Basically, he's made up his mind that the Tejas is to be torn down and facts (and many are just plain falsehoods, like the airframe weight argument) that support it are taken up and those that don't are conveniently ignored. The true hall-marks of a hack-job article.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Oct 2010 23:51

^ Yes in fact Air Marshal Harish Masand made similar points about the ease of flying a M2K vs the Baaz .

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Oct 2010 00:12

shiv wrote:
vina wrote: Looking back, that could be a reason for the "slow" rate of release /development of the FBW and the ultra cautious testing.

Vina I am sure you are 400% correct. This is why AoA testing and spin tests as far as I know have not occurred and we are still looking at some assistance for complete expansion of the envelope. I may be mistaken and am willing to stand corrected.

PS This is not chaiwala info. It is my own guesswork from tidbits of public news.

I agree too. WIth no Calspan VISTA F-16 to "flight-test" improved software and thereby ready it for implementation on the LCA, the process would have to be unduly strict with slow and tedious opening up of the flight regime. On the VISTA F-16, they would have been able to test it a lot more with the secure knowledge that even if it fails, the F-16's backup FBW would rescue the jet.

It was during that stage of cooperation, that the comment that the F-16 was easier to land with LCA FBW software than its own, was made.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Oct 2010 01:55

Cybaru wrote:Mirage upgrade is not clearly known. Its still under wraps. There is some noise about it, but most of it is hidden away, whatever it maybe.

According to various news reports, IAF's Mirage-200H/TH are getting deep upgrades to -5 Mark 2 standards.

In March 2010, India and France finalized the long delayed deal to upgrade all of India's Mirage-2000H to Mirage-2000-5 Mk 2 variant with new radar systems, a new weapon suite, missiles, electronic warfare system etc. French claim that the combat-proven aircraft will be upgraded to next-generation fighter level.[17]
The first four to six Mirages will be upgraded in France, with the rest 50 or so being upgraded in India by Hindustan Aeronautics under transfer of technology.

Under the upgrade, the entire airframe will be stripped down to be re-wired and re-equipped with new avionics, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites and of course weapon systems to extend and enhance the operational life of the multi-role fighters by around 20 years.[18]

Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2

Dassault further improved the Mirage 2000-5, creating the Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 which is currently the most advanced variant of the Mirage 2000. Enhancements to offensive systems included a datalink for the targeting of MICA ER missiles, the addition of the Damocles FLIR targeting pod, and a newer, stealthier Thales RDY-2 all-weather synthetic aperture radar with moving target indicator capability, which also grants the aircraft improved air-to-ground capability. The avionics were further updated with higher resolution color displays, an optional Topsight helmet-mounted display, and the addition of the Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) designed for the Rafale. A new Thales Totem 3000 inertial navigation system with ring laser gyroscope and GPS capability was added, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time than the older ULISS 52 navigation system which it replaced. Other upgrades included the addition of an on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) for the pilot and an ICMS 3 digital countermeasures suite.

Further planned upgrades will include Thales AIDA visual identification pod, a GPS receiver, MIDS datalink, new long-range sensors, and the Topsight E helmet-mounted display. Other technology developed for the Rafale will also be integrated into the Mirage 2000, including infrared and optical sensors for IFF and targeting.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000

IMO, IAF should go for additional 20-40 "retired" airframes from the Armée de l'Air (available 2012+), or from the Qatar AF (12 available immediately), or from the UAE AF (available 2015+) and upgrade them to the new common standards. UAE airframes would require the least amount of upgrade work. With another 20-40 airframes, IAF can raise another one or two Mirage-2000 squadron(s) by 2017 (bringing to a total of 4-5 squadrons @ 18 a/c each). Perfect interim solution to bridge the shortfall gap in the force levels as the Mirage-2000s won't be retired until close to 2030+ when AMCA start coming online (or enough numbers of MRCA/FGFA/LCA).

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Oct 2010 03:03

srai, if we are dumping 30 million dollars per plane, it doesn't make any sense to do that to an airframe that may have exhausted its life. The Qatari UAE's make a lot of sense. They are the ones currently available and it makes a lot of sense to acquire those and raise another sqaudronwitha bout 20 aircraft each.

Since we are in the LCA thread, we perhaps should discuss this elsewhere and while here, I would love to point out, for 30 million, we get a brand new LCA which is same or better than the current mirages with its head mounted display and ergonomic layout etc. It should be able to carry R-73 and LGB and a reasonably decent ECM load in its first avataar.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Oct 2010 06:43

Cybaru wrote:srai, if we are dumping 30 million dollars per plane, it doesn't make any sense to do that to an airframe that may have exhausted its life. The Qatari UAE's make a lot of sense. They are the ones currently available and it makes a lot of sense to acquire those and raise another sqaudronwitha bout 20 aircraft each.

Since we are in the LCA thread, we perhaps should discuss this elsewhere and while here, I would love to point out, for 30 million, we get a brand new LCA which is same or better than the current mirages with its head mounted display and ergonomic layout etc. It should be able to carry R-73 and LGB and a reasonably decent ECM load in its first avataar.

You have to remember that LCA Mk.2 will start joining IAF from 2016/17 onwards. MRCA will join around the same time (2014/16). FGFA will also start coming post 2020. As with any new fighter plane, it takes around 3 to 5 years to induct multiple squadrons, establish a full support infrastructure and develop complete combat tactics.

Whereas with Mirage-2000, IAF has more than two decades of experience, including war operations. For these reasons, IAF would not have too much trouble (other than costs) to quickly raise combat operational squadrons with additional Mirage-2000s by 2016/17. I am mentioning this option as a stop-gap measure to address shortfalls and as a smooth-transition into the new combat aircraft types like the LCA, MRCA and FGFA between 2015-2025/30 timeframe.

With LCA Mk.1, it will reach FOC around end-of-2014 as per reports. It is still unknown as to whether IAF will be fully "comfortable" (as much as it is with Mirage-2000s) with the LCA Mk.1 version to put into combat by 2014/15 timeframe. Even if the IAF gets to the desired "comfort-level" by 2014, production switch to 5-squadrons of Mk.2 version will be occurring at HAL. This would mean there will be a production overlap ... IAF would be inducting new Mk.1 versions ordered (past the 40 ordered) at the same time as the Mk.2 versions.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 08:19

For all the critics of LCA program, please remember that SU27 took more than 15 years to come into production and the production variant had to go through 3 engine upgrades and 4 radar changes to become what it is today in the russian airforce. let the production of LCA start, there will be design changes which will evolve the aircraft into one of the greatest assets of the armed forces.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 09:06

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:For all the critics of LCA program, please remember that SU27 took more than 15 years to come into production and the production variant had to go through 3 engine upgrades and 4 radar changes to become what it is today in the russian airforce. let the production of LCA start, there will be design changes which will evolve the aircraft into one of the greatest assets of the armed forces.

I don't think anyone on here is a critic of the Tejas as it has turned out. I think the meaning is getting lost in semantics. The whole discussion started with the semantics used by Prof Prodyut Das.

The explanation is that you need to differentiate between the Tejas which is one variety of "Light Combat Aircraft" and other varieties of Light Combat Aircraft like Northrop F-5, Folland Gnat and MiG 21. This is where Das starts from.

He says "LCA" (Light Combat Aircraft) could have meant so many different shapes or designs but its ultimate form ended up being the cranked double delta which we call Tejas. Das goes backwards from here and asks if this choice was one of the fundamental reasons for delay and lays down his views on that question. Of course he frames the question and answers it to suit his views. As I have said several times before - there is no public information on how the choice of cranked double delta was made and whether any of Das's 2010 criticisms could have been anticipated in the 1980s.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Oct 2010 09:12

Folks - the LCA like the Arjun will be deadly. Look to the future and not to your behind which only gives out ....!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Oct 2010 09:23

srai wrote: Whereas with Mirage-2000, IAF has more than two decades of experience, including war operations. For these reasons, IAF would not have too much trouble (other than costs) to quickly raise combat operational squadrons with additional Mirage-2000s by 2016/17. I am mentioning this option as a stop-gap measure to address shortfalls and as a smooth-transition into the new combat aircraft types like the LCA, MRCA and FGFA between 2015-2025/30 timeframe.

Even though IAF may have two decades of experience, it will be a new plane, with new capabilities, new avionics, new mission profiles, new weapons and will require new tactics/re-certification of pilots and supporting ground crew to use this new tool. This won't be any different than what the LCA/MRCA/FGFA will go through. It may perhaps be slightly less as the crew is used to the handling characteristics but, all other stuff will require hours in the air, which won't happen overnight.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 27 Oct 2010 09:47

vina wrote:
geeth wrote:If that was the case, then the question remains as to why they had gone all the way to U.S and tested the FBW software on an F-16 testbed. They could very well have got one of the fighters of IAF and done it here itself.
That Calspan F-16 Vista was a variable stability test bed, that was readily available to us as we were developing the FBW with their help anyway, so why not use it and go and jury rig a brand new test bed, which itself will have to be first validated ?.

The "collaborations" were supposed to fill in capability gaps that we had. The 1998 tests put a huge spanner in the works. That is all.

The flight envelope of the aircraft under test can be tested within the flight envelope of the testbed aircraft only. So a testbed is required with higher/equal flight envelope to test the target aircraft. Gnat would have been an inappropriate choice as a testbed since it was subsonic and g limited to 7 gs only (same with MiG-21 except speed). So they chose F-16 Vista since it was an already established testbed which was available and on top of that had a wider/equal envelope as compared to the aircraft in question.

Cheers....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2010 10:37

Vina is right about the Gnat (not) being the ideal AJT.In fact AdmTahiliani writing in Vayu said the same thing,that the Gnat AJT could've arrived "20 years earlier than the Hawk"! Why on earth did were we so short sighted? What the IAF should've also insisted is that both the EJ and GE engines should've been used on two prototypes to see which was better.In the USA,for almost every major project,two engines are always pitted against each other and made to fly so that the US gets the best,both capability and competitiveness in the deal.If we now go by the LCA engine yardstick,that GE was faniliar with the project,etc.,etc.,then the Jaguar upgrade should also be given to Adour and Raythoen's offer should be dumped!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Oct 2010 10:47

Philip wrote:What the IAF should've also insisted is that both the EJ and GE engines should've been used on two prototypes to see which was better.In the USA,for almost every major project,two engines are always pitted against each other and made to fly so that the US gets the best,

That would have delayed the project if they did competitive testing with both engine , since they found both engine suitable , they just had to choose which bid the lowest.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 Oct 2010 11:00

srai wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Mirage upgrade is not clearly known. Its still under wraps. There is some noise about it, but most of it is hidden away, whatever it maybe.
According to various news reports, IAF's Mirage-200H/TH are getting deep upgrades to -5 Mark 2 standards.

Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2

Dassault further improved the Mirage 2000-5, creating the Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 which is currently the most advanced variant of the Mirage 2000. Enhancements to offensive systems included a datalink for the targeting of MICA ER missiles, the addition of the Damocles FLIR targeting pod, and a newer, stealthier Thales RDY-2 all-weather synthetic aperture radar with moving target indicator capability, which also grants the aircraft improved air-to-ground capability. The avionics were further updated with higher resolution color displays, an optional Topsight helmet-mounted display, and the addition of the Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) designed for the Rafale. A new Thales Totem 3000 inertial navigation system with ring laser gyroscope and GPS capability was added, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time than the older ULISS 52 navigation system which it replaced. Other upgrades included the addition of an on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) for the pilot and an ICMS 3 digital countermeasures suite.

Further planned upgrades will include Thales AIDA visual identification pod, a GPS receiver, MIDS datalink, new long-range sensors, and the Topsight E helmet-mounted display. Other technology developed for the Rafale will also be integrated into the Mirage 2000, including infrared and optical sensors for IFF and targeting.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000

IMO, IAF should go for additional 20-40 "retired" airframes from the Armée de l'Air (available 2012+), or from the Qatar AF (12 available immediately), or from the UAE AF (available 2015+) and upgrade them to the new common standards. UAE airframes would require the least amount of upgrade work. With another 20-40 airframes, IAF can raise another one or two Mirage-2000 squadron(s) by 2017 (bringing to a total of 4-5 squadrons @ 18 a/c each). Perfect interim solution to bridge the shortfall gap in the force levels as the Mirage-2000s won't be retired until close to 2030+ when AMCA start coming online (or enough numbers of MRCA/FGFA/LCA).

Srai sadly India is getting less capable RDY 3 radar not the RDY 2 which is most capable radar on any mirage, here a link by Juggi G:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... dy#p966023

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Oct 2010 11:30

one can compare the specs of RDY3 and RDY2 here
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/De ... uct_RDY-3/
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/De ... uct_RDY-2/

is not clear from even the PDF brochures what is the differences between these two. RDY3 is a new product, 120kg and 4 LRUs.

someone one livefist claims RDY-3 is the RC_400 the pakis wanted on the bandar and basically a radar developed for small nosed planes while RDY2 is the best available radar in the M2K.

methinks maybe for cost reasons and if the A2G modes were comparable we went for RDY3 - the M2K with current engine would find it hard against a block52 in a2a mode probably...so M2K may now be relegated to a2g strike role for rest of their service span.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 27 Oct 2010 12:11

Hi
Any expert here can compare the Gripen Jas with LCA(on the empty weight) ? I was more worried about the weight ? how is gripen so low in weight when compared to LCA (I assume Professor is right)

Cheers

vina · Post by **vina** » 27 Oct 2010 12:55

neerajb wrote:The flight envelope of the aircraft under test can be tested within the flight envelope of the testbed aircraft only. So a testbed is required with higher/equal flight envelope to test the target aircraft.

Very true.

Gnat would have been an inappropriate choice as a testbed since it was subsonic and g limited to 7 gs only (same with MiG-21 except speed). So they chose F-16 Vista since it was an already established testbed which was available and on top of that had a wider/equal envelope as compared to the aircraft in question.
Cheers....

However, my point on the Gnat was not to use it as a testbed for the LCA, but rather a bit different. I meant that we should have an Experimental FBW development program in the late 70s/early 80s BEFORE the LCA program and have developed a largely working FBW system like the Brits , French and Americans did before fielding them in production platforms. The Gnat or Mig 21 would have been an ideal aircraft for such a program. It is a pity we didn't do that.

An AJT developed from the Gnat with FBW and new home grown engine would have been the perfect launching pad for the LCA. We didnt do that Gnat AJT /FBW project and we are having to do everything on the LCA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2010 13:50

Austin,the re-design of the wings,fuselage,etc. have not been done for either engine,therefore we cannot say that A or B is "better" until it is flying.A "testbed" evaluation is imperfect.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Oct 2010 14:54

Philip wrote:Austin,the re-design of the wings,fuselage,etc. have not been done for either engine,therefore we cannot say that A or B is "better" until it is flying.A "testbed" evaluation is imperfect.

Agreed , but its a trade off between time to do a full test evaluation between two engine and to get something that is good enough , ADA would perhaps not waste time in doing such evaluation if the gain is not much and if the tender is L1 , they would be more interested in getting the Mk2 in the air as quickly as possible with any engine they get via L1

For deal like re-engining of Jags it makes sense to do complete evaluation as things out there are not in total black and white with many claims and counter claims to go by.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Oct 2010 20:15

prabhug wrote:Hi
Any expert here can compare the Gripen Jas with LCA(on the empty weight) ? I was more worried about the weight ? how is gripen so low in weight when compared to LCA (I assume Professor is right)

Cheers

a) this thread is not for comparison of aircraft A with B etc, also known as 'my missile is bigger than yours'. read first post.

b) gripen is heavier than the 'overweight' tejas.

replies, if there are any should be in newbie thread.
thank you.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 21:20

Gnat would have been an inappropriate choice as a testbed since it was subsonic and g limited to 7 gs only (same with MiG-21 except speed). So they chose F-16 Vista since it was an already established testbed which was available and on top of that had a wider/equal envelope as compared to the aircraft in question.
Cheers....

However, my point on the Gnat was not to use it as a testbed for the LCA, but rather a bit different. I meant that we should have an Experimental FBW development program in the late 70s/early 80s BEFORE the LCA program and have developed a largely working FBW system like the Brits , French and Americans did before fielding them in production platforms. The Gnat or Mig 21 would have been an ideal aircraft for such a program. It is a pity we didn't do that.

An AJT developed from the Gnat with FBW and new home grown engine would have been the perfect launching pad for the LCA. We didnt do that Gnat AJT /FBW project and we are having to do everything on the LCA.

I am not sure we can do that to a folland gnat without authorization, just like we cant go ahead and put our own avionics on mig 29 or its components on lca. When we have license production of a/c some limitations come along with them . We cannot go on using licensed aircrafts for our own R&D officially. Thats why MIG23/21/ folland gnat cannnot be developed into AJT''s or test bed for fbw's. Its part of license production system

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 21:33

We must be good boys. We must listen to what massa says. We must belong in the comity of nations and abide by the rules that set up proud nation states like Pakistan and India. And respect the power and dignity that the US security council represents.

Pah!

If we do what we want with the Gnat wtf is anyone going to do about it?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Oct 2010 21:49

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
I am not sure we can do that to a folland gnat without authorization, just like we cant go ahead and put our own avionics on mig 29 or its components on lca. When we have license production of a/c some limitations come along with them . We cannot go on using licensed aircrafts for our own R&D officially. Thats why MIG23/21/ folland gnat cannnot be developed into AJT''s or test bed for fbw's. Its part of license production system

I am guessing you are totally unaware of the Ajeet?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Oct 2010 22:48

Philip wrote:Why on earth did were we so short sighted? What the IAF should've also insisted is that both the EJ and GE engines should've been used on two prototypes to see which was better.In the USA,for almost every major project,two engines are always pitted against each other and made to fly so that the US gets the best,both capability and competitiveness in the deal.If we now go by the LCA engine yardstick,that GE was faniliar with the project,etc.,etc.,then the Jaguar upgrade should also be given to Adour and Raythoen's offer should be dumped!

Its not Raytheon that is offering an engine. Its Honeywell. the GE engine won fair and square on the basis of L1 (not on the basis of being familiar with the LCA program) and there was nothing wrong with that, as much as it frustrates you. If the Honeywell bid will be L1 and it will meet all requirements, then it will win. As simple as that. Your dislike of the US will not factor in.

The idea of developing Tejas Mk2 with both Ej-200 and F414 engines (each with different thrust, weight, CG, different engine attachment points, airflow requirements, etc.) is ludicrous to be polite! If the IAF insisted on that, then they would be Grade A morons who don't deserve to get a fighter on time or on cost.

Earlier you were the one who was looking for conspiracies in the delay in choosing an engine for the Tejas Mk2 on the part of whoever. And now that it has been selected and it’s the US engine, you come up with this new idea.

It would double the effort, cost, and there aren't that many idle engineers sitting around to just try out one engine to see it being discarded later. This double effort will ensure that timelines are not adhered to, and then you are the first person to crib about the LCA (complete with taglines like "Late" Combat Aircraft) not being on time. Comparing our situation to that in the US is comparing apples to oranges. They have 2 indigenous engine manufacturers of their own and want to keep them both in the business of making military engines. They have powerful lobbies and incentives for it to stay that way. We have no reason to support Eurojet. Its not our own indigenous firm and the Ej-200 is not our desi engine for God's sake!

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 02:22

nachiket wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
I am not sure we can do that to a folland gnat without authorization, just like we cant go ahead and put our own avionics on mig 29 or its components on lca. When we have license production of a/c some limitations come along with them . We cannot go on using licensed aircrafts for our own R&D officially. Thats why MIG23/21/ folland gnat cannnot be developed into AJT''s or test bed for fbw's. Its part of license production system
I am guessing you are totally unaware of the Ajeet?

I am guessing you are totally unaware of the license production... HAL Ajeet was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under licence in India by HAL. You cant do whatever you please when a country agrees to give you their defense resources. Thats why no dassault upgrades the mirage and not just any other domestic company. Be realistic

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 05:56

Sandeep_ghosh wrote: I am guessing you are totally unaware of the license production... HAL Ajeet was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under licence in India by HAL. You cant do whatever you please when a country agrees to give you their defense resources. Thats why no dassault upgrades the mirage and not just any other domestic company. Be realistic

Can you state what would happen if we broke the rules for old, obsolescent aircraft?

Have you ever visited the "IAF Base repair Depot" stall that is invariably present at Aero India and looked at what they do?

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 07:30

An aircraft becomes obsolescent when the airframe completes its life cycle. I am not sure which design engineer would consider using such a testbed for technology demonstrator. When you were implying using older airframes for AJT or FBW testbed, logically i thought you meant a/c's which still have some juice in them ... yeah if you mean to procure a/c's which are "obsolescent" that completely changes the concept of building prototypes. I am in no way trying to put you down . the idea seems to be very noble but still using a subsonic airframe from gnat which was not meant for FBW will need changes in it to make it unstable. putting in new components in an old assembly can cause serious trouble to the stability of a system.

The solution :i think is to build additional airframes and sub-sytems for pure test purposes. Like building 4 additional air frames for SU30 MKI and the MMRCA winner to test it with different sub-sytems for evaluation. or getting 10 more of fg414 Al31F and rd33 and testing it on tejas and the MCA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 07:44

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:An aircraft becomes obsolescent when the airframe completes its life cycle. I am not sure which design engineer would consider using such a testbed for technology demonstrator. When you were implying using older airframes for AJT or FBW testbed, logically i thought you meant a/c's which still have some juice in them ... yeah if you mean to procure a/c's which are "obsolescent" that completely changes the concept of building prototypes. I am in no way trying to put you down . the idea seems to be very noble but still using a subsonic airframe from gnat which was not meant for FBW will need changes in it to make it unstable. putting in new components in an old assembly can cause serious trouble to the stability of a system.

You are sidestepping the question. I have said nothing about using old airframes. We can have a new build if needed. My question was in response to your statement:

Sandeep_ghosh wrote: I am guessing you are totally unaware of the license production... HAL Ajeet was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under licence in India by HAL. You cant do whatever you please when a country agrees to give you their defense resources. Thats why no dassault upgrades the mirage and not just any other domestic company. Be realistic

I can see that you are well intentioned and do not mean to put anyone down and are merely pointing out that someone is "totally unaware" of licence production in an innocent and friendly manner. Could you please answer the question that I put to you?

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 11:14

shiv wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:An aircraft becomes obsolescent when the airframe completes its life cycle. I am not sure which design engineer would consider using such a testbed for technology demonstrator. When you were implying using older airframes for AJT or FBW testbed, logically i thought you meant a/c's which still have some juice in them ... yeah if you mean to procure a/c's which are "obsolescent" that completely changes the concept of building prototypes. I am in no way trying to put you down . the idea seems to be very noble but still using a subsonic airframe from gnat which was not meant for FBW will need changes in it to make it unstable. putting in new components in an old assembly can cause serious trouble to the stability of a system.

You are sidestepping the question. I have said nothing about using old airframes. We can have a new build if needed. My question was in response to your statement:

Sandeep_ghosh wrote: I am guessing you are totally unaware of the license production... HAL Ajeet was a development of the British Folland Gnat fighter that was built under licence in India by HAL. You cant do whatever you please when a country agrees to give you their defense resources. Thats why no dassault upgrades the mirage and not just any other domestic company. Be realistic
I can see that you are well intentioned and do not mean to put anyone down and are merely pointing out that someone is "totally unaware" of licence production in an innocent and friendly manner. Could you please answer the question that I put to you?

My response was to your "totaly unaware" was a mere mirror of your comment..

As far as your question is concerned, we are a responsible military power and violations of licenses mean endangering the military relationships with that country. its not a question of ignoring license production guidelines, Try putting yourself in the suppliers shoes. Would you like your technology to be proliferated by a third party.

Your comment was about my ignorance ajeet which was lead up to posts suggesting usage of gnat / 21 airframes for tech demonstrators for FBW or AJT's. So what exactly were you refering to .. building a new ajeet airframe to be used as what????

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Oct 2010 14:10

Vivek K wrote:Folks - the LCA like the Arjun will be deadly. Look to the future and not to your behind which only gives out ....!

Just like the Arjun it will be made to undergo 10 years of use trials to prove it self superior to some latest IAF import. Once it does that the IAF will scream for a FGFA juat like the Arjun.

Wait, it is already doing that.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 14:11

Well growing up in HAL nasik division, i think i have a pretty good understanding of what 11 BRD exactly does. I am also aware of the 21/27and 29s that they maintain. Discussing BRD's which i didn't really think was that relevant to Gnats to speak with, so i didn't divulge into that. if there is a connection i am missing plz let me know.

Build a brand new Folland Gnat (ajeet) air frame and do what????? Use a subsonic aluminium framed aerodynamically stable airframe to do what sir?

as far as "No one will do anything to us. No one can do anything to us. I think you are just making up things as you go along."

Let me get this right.... are you referring to build obsolete expired licensed aircrafts ... or ignoring license production for current military hardware altogether???????

If you are referring to building obsolete airframes ... I am not sure if any one really wants to do that. but I am not sure what we will achieve by doing that.

if you are referring to current license productions .... and you think what i am saying doesn't make sense... then i cant argue.... i dont believe india will ever do that.

But please do answer what would be the objective of building old ajeet airframes and what kind of purpose you think they will serve ????????????

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 14:22

shiv wrote:
I can see that you are well intentioned and do not mean to put anyone down and are merely pointing out that someone is "totally unaware" of licence production in an innocent and friendly manner. Could you please answer the question that I put to you?

"totally unaware" was a response to nacheket not to you... i just copies the comment above and wrote on that ... didn't realis it wasn't you who wrote it ... apologies shiv

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Oct 2010 14:32

Guys,

It is the attitude we must be the good boys that delayed the LCA. Had we been playing arround with designs provided to us for screw driver tech. Our learning curve may not have been as steep as it was for the LCA. I am quite sure that it would have been in squadren service by 2004/5.

The ADA must have spent at least 5 years developing the compitence for the LCA project and then they actualy started doing things. At least this is how I look at the LCA project. To me the approx 27 years of the project till date from 1983 are divided in diffrent phases. From my torlling the web I am able to define the following stages and them being completed in diffrent time lines.

Stage one:- Competence building 5 years, From 83 to 87 the design agency was created and diffrent skills were acquired by it.
Stage two:- Using the competence acquired the design was finalised and fabricated 8 years, from 87 to 95.
Stage three:- Ground testing, from 95 to 2000. add the post 98 sanctions and we can see where the delay actually took place.
Stage four:- Flight testing, 2001 till date over approx 1500 flights with approx 1000 hrs of flight hours. The process was justifiably over cautious. Just imaging what would have happned if one of the LCAs had crashed while testing. It will end in Dec 2010. With the AC entering service with the IAF.

I dont consider the project to be delayed. As in the 80s the state of domestic industry was such that the project was a leap of faith for the nation.

Now that the project is nearing completion. It will be disaster if it is not followed up with the next gen combat aircraft.

Let the next gen aircraft just become a flying prototype but get it in the air. That is what this jingo is beging for.

Please do that.

kvraghavaiah · Post by **kvraghavaiah** » 28 Oct 2010 18:53

I am frequently seeing the news that LCA completes IOC by this year end (only 2 more months).
There was no radar guided missile firing till now. NO heavy bomb(and LGBs) dropping.
No cannon firing.
Does IOC not need these? or will they do these complex tasks in just 2 months?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Oct 2010 19:37

Missile testing with radar seems to be the one area of concern.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Oct 2010 19:45

Why? If we can integrate russian missiles with M2k FCR without having source codes, then why is that a problem with our own FCR and all the source codes? Are we sure the integration is not done already say on a JAG or the hack?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Oct 2010 19:53

No i meant something else, there is no news about the integrated testing of radar and missiles. We only know about the initial R-73 test.
A news report from the month of April 2010
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2010/04/ ... radar.html
India’s most ambitious military program to build an indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) reached a major milestone on 23rd April; Friday when it first test flew a radar onboard. The LSP-3 model of the aircraft carried a radar inside its nose for the first time. This comes more than 9 years after it first took to skies. The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) described the radar as Multi-mode radar.

Defence Aviation has learnt that the radar was a Hybrid version of Israel’s Elta EL/M-2032 which is currently in service with Indian Navy on its Sea Harrier fleet. The radar is mechanically steered and most components are of Indian origin. The processor of the radar is of Israeli origin similar to that found on the EL/M-2032. There was some confusion regarding the type of radar but it has now been confirmed that it is Doppler pulse radar.
The achievement is significant as this bring the LCA-Tejas closer to receiving the Initial Operation Clearance (IOC). All the necessary tests to receive the IOC are done and now only tests related to the radar remain. It’s expected that these will be completed in 6 months and after that the LCA will enter service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) which has ordered 40 units of LCA’s in IOC configuration. The first aircraft is expected to enter service during the second quarter of 2011.

Meanwhile the LSP-4 is undergoing ground trails and will start flying in a month followed by LSP-5 which should start flying a week later. The recent test flight also had a new air data processor, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and a communication and navigation system. The flight lasted for some 52 minutes of which the LSP-3 cruised at Mach 0.8 for some 40 minutes.

The Hybrid MMR won’t be seen on the future versions of the aircraft apart from the first 40 as the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) is working on a much advance Active Electronically Scanner Array radar (AESA) which be much superior to the Hybrid MMR. The new AESA radar is necessary for the Tejas to receive the Final operations clearance (FOC).