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.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 09 Feb 2011 17:13

the increased range should also be a pointer as to where the chief threat comes from?

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sancho » 09 Feb 2011 18:18

vishnu.nv wrote:Who is letting down whom my friend? The ADA Letting down IAF?

The IAF is not operating a single AESA Fighter radar as of today. It will be at-least 2015 when one enters in IAF. There is a AESA fighter radar being prepared at LRDE.

The ADA has done a good thing by delinking AESA radar from MK2. They could offer it as a Upgrade to MK2


But LCA MK2 is also planed only around 2015, so an AESA radar is important for an upgraded version for sure., Moreover the lack of IRST and additional weapon stations (at least at this presentation) is more than surprising.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabhug » 09 Feb 2011 18:39

Ooh No looks like we have ended up cloning mirage when we wanted to clone mig21 .

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gurneesh » 09 Feb 2011 19:07

^^^ That would be mainly because the role or aircraft changed from Point Defense (hence Mig 21 category) to true Multirole (hence M2000 category only wrt role and not weight or load carrying capacity).

It would be wrong to call them (Mk1 & Mk2) clones as they are different aircraft, only in similar class (might even turn out to be better performers wrt to their predecessors).

If they are able to reduce the drag (by lengthening the fuselage) while atleast maintaining the weight then even the 404 would provide good performance, and with 414 performance should be stellar.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 09 Feb 2011 19:18

Subramanium of ADA clearly said that LCA Mark-1 is 1500kg heavy and the weight will be reduced by 500kg in LCA Mark-2. He added that 6600 (?) kg weight is reasonable for fighter of this class. So I think that all lungi dancers should take into consideration that LCA Mark-1 is 7000kg (achieved or targetted?) and LCA Mark-2 will be 6600kg (but would the weight increase due to increase of length?) So the lungi dancers should be prepared for 7000-7200kg combat empty weight. But even then considering that F414 INS6 would be around 98kn to 114kn, the TWR ratio would be super excellent. Due to internal fuel increase, I think that normal combat range will also go upto 1200-1500km as in Gripen NG or F-16 Block 50/60 range. There is lot of reason for lungi dance but it should be well informed lungi dance :)

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 09 Feb 2011 20:35

vic wrote:Subramanium of ADA clearly said that LCA Mark-1 is 1500kg heavy and the weight will be reduced by 500kg in LCA Mark-2. He added that 6600 (?) kg weight is reasonable for fighter of this class. So I think that all lungi dancers should take into consideration that LCA Mark-1 is 7000kg (achieved or targetted?) and LCA Mark-2 will be 6600kg (but would the weight increase due to increase of length?) So the lungi dancers should be prepared for 7000-7200kg combat empty weight.

Not long back, only two months back, P.S. mentioned the weight of Mk1 as ~6500kg. Why don't we ask those guys who are visiting AI to clarify this part?

Second, there was a discussion on the service life of the LCA. Ada website mentions "designed for fatigue life of 3000 flight hours.". Those interested can validate this.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 09 Feb 2011 20:45

LCA Mark-2 will be 6600kg (but would the weight increase due to increase of length?) So the lungi dancers should be prepared for 7000-7200kg combat empty weight.


You kidding? Mk2 will be <= 6800 kg.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11213
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 09 Feb 2011 20:59

OK so I ask this question once again to the jirga.

Do you want more MK-1s or should HAL go in for rapid induction of MK-2?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11213
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 09 Feb 2011 21:01

One word of caution though,
The model is a small one, and it might not be 100% accurate. Notice that they have not shown the small air intake at the root of the tail, just a vague bulge there.
Assessments of shape changes must be made once a more detailed design is available and comparable to MK-1

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 09 Feb 2011 21:07

Kanson wrote:
LCA Mark-2 will be 6600kg (but would the weight increase due to increase of length?) So the lungi dancers should be prepared for 7000-7200kg combat empty weight.


You kidding? Mk2 will be <= 6800 kg.


Kanson, the point is that we would love it if the Mark-2 is only 6800kg but "even if" it is say 7200kg, even then also it is a fantastic aircraft

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 552
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sumshyam » 09 Feb 2011 21:09

Gagan wrote:OK so I ask this question once again to the jirga.

Do you want more MK-1s or should HAL go in for rapid induction of MK-2?


I think Mk 2 is in development mode....so HAL/IAF should go with more and more Mk1....After that all being upgraded to Mk2.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby kmc_chacko » 09 Feb 2011 21:37

Is this is what actually IAF looking for ? or is just DRDO/HALs plans ?

Major items are changing engine & avionics, EW suits and upgrading computer that all ? and they need 4 years for that ? :-o :-o :-o

If Tejas upgradation had given BRF member we would have done all these it in 2 years :lol: :lol: :lol:

either MoD have gone mad or DRDO now i will not blame IAF if they don't want this plane.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 09 Feb 2011 21:48

Gagan wrote:OK so I ask this question once again to the jirga.

Do you want more MK-1s or should HAL go in for rapid induction of MK-2?


Whatever that keeps the line busy in order to retain the people skills. A gap of 90 days is usual to kill any high impact technology mfg center. From US experience over the many years. So 18 month gap is a deal breaker. So some sort of slow rate production of the old for DRDO test platforms would be good.

rajghosh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 01 Feb 2011 04:38

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajghosh » 09 Feb 2011 21:55

I seen a lot of comments about rectangular vs. circular intakes. I am more of a controls person, so can some of the aerodynamics experts tell me the about the advantages and limitations of each?
Best.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Drishyaman » 09 Feb 2011 22:02

Can someone clear the air on empty weight of Tejas MK-1 ? Is it 7000 kg or 6500 kg ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 09 Feb 2011 22:09

Can some gurus bring up the discussion about the turn rates that IAF had issues in Mk1, for the new Mk2 design?

--
On the internal fuel enhancement, Mk2/amca could really think on the lines how they have explosion resistant flexible kevlar fuel tanks that can take various shape within the fuselage [la formula one cars].? some thing really doable and not rocket science.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 09 Feb 2011 22:15

re air intake shape: from memory, its to do with transonic shock wave management and flow choking at certain speeds; but that might be just musharraf output

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 09 Feb 2011 22:24

I guess flight test will have to be done to re-certify a modified air-frame. But the certification details may not be the same, for example there may be many internal parts that is already certified, and those shall remain certified. Only changes needs to be certified again.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby kmc_chacko » 09 Feb 2011 22:26

India's Tejas dazzle participants at Aero India

Bangalore . India's own first supersonic multi-role combat aircraft Tejas and light combat helicopter (LCH) dazzled participants at the Aero India 2011 on Wednesday with their breathtaking aerobatic manouveres at Air Force Station Yelhanka.

It was for the first time that India's indigenously developed fighter, including a trainer variant and a naval variant, were on display in a combat-related role on the outskirts of Bangalore.

The Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) has been on view at two previous editions of the biennial international trade exhibition, but either on the ground or as part of a fly-past.

The light combat helicopter is a multi-role chopper being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for use by the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army.

The light combat helicopter is considered to be the world's smallest military aircraft with a single seat, and is among top eight aircraft in the world in technological design and performance terms.

Tejas, which was under development for nearly 28 years and beat US sanctions, is a state of the art indigenous combat aircraft, and could go a long way in enhancing national security and pride.

The state-run Aeronautical Defence Agency has developed the LCA.

The F404-GE-IN20 engine from the US-based General Electric powers the fighter, as the indigenously developed Kaveri engine is still undergoing advance trials.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 463233.cms

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby kmc_chacko » 09 Feb 2011 22:33

IAF's negative attitude towards Tejas continues

Some more improvements needed in Tejas for IAF: Antony

Bangalore: Defence Minister A K Antony on Monday said some more improvements will have to be incorporated in the home grown Light Combat Aircraft Tejas to meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force.

"The Air Force wants some more improvements to be incorporated and I am sure DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) will be able to address these concerns too," he said, inaugurating the eighth edition of Aero India 2011 International Seminar here.

Noting that Tejas has often been criticised for long delays, he said in most parts of the world, technological development precedes product development.

"However, in case of Tejas, we attempted both at the same time. The reasons are not far to seek. Due to denial of some necessary technologies, we had to find solutions the hard way," he said.

Despite all odds, engineers of DRRO and HAL finally handed Tejas over to IAF. Given the technology and time constraints, this has been accomplished in a reasonable time-frame, particularly comparison to other similar class of combat aircraft in the developed world, he said.

He said the recent Initial Operation Clearance of Tejas was a "proud moment". Tejas is a system of systems product and it just cannot be developed in isolation or manufactured without help from others", he said.

On January 10, India joined a select group of nations manufacturing war planes with 'Tejas', moving a step closer to its induction into the IAF after getting its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) here.


http://www.sify.com/news/some-more-impr ... jdedi.html

what improvements then need is not explained

Is MoD toying with IAF ?
since MRCA deal is expected to be signed around March 2012, is MoD giving DRDO/NAL/HAL a chance to push Tejas Mk2 instead of MRCA for replacing its old fighters instead of buying from abroad.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1983
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby AdityaM » 10 Feb 2011 02:01

Flighteditor Murdo Morrison
India's Tejas fighter, pictured in flight at Aero India, will be stunning cover image in 15 Feb Flight International. Read our show report

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Avid » 10 Feb 2011 03:37

Aero India pics from Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/air-shows/Aero-India/

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Avid » 10 Feb 2011 03:44


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2011 04:55

kmc_chacko wrote:Is this is what actually IAF looking for ? or is just DRDO/HALs plans ?

Major items are changing engine & avionics, EW suits and upgrading computer that all ? and they need 4 years for that ? :-o :-o :-o

If Tejas upgradation had given BRF member we would have done all these it in 2 years :lol: :lol: :lol:

either MoD have gone mad or DRDO now i will not blame IAF if they don't want this plane.



Delusional much -eg "we BRF members" doing it in two years etc & "changing engine & avionics, EW suit and upgrading computer" being that all?? The four years include certification for the LCA MK2 (Naval version). Listen to the presentation by the Naval test pilot on the certification process - he notes "this is a very ambitious program with a very aggressive timeline", in other words, given the amount of work that needs to be done, 4 years is a tough target.

Also, in the next four years for even the baseline AF version, MK2 development apart, they need to add weapons, finetune the airframe, recertify new systems and modify production plus complete flight testing. Each of these requires safety clearances and detailed workup plans. A rough thumbrule was a few months for each weapon type, if all data is available and complete OEM support is guaranteed. The only time there was an exception was at wartime, when for Mirage operations, several rules were bypassed and weapons validated with quick fixes and clearances. In our case, even integrating third party systems is not that easy. AM Rajkumars book mentions both how a Russian missile & radar had issues with LCA integration. Former was integrated purely on Indian effort, latter was dropped after the Russian export house had bureaucratic hurdles.

Looking at comparable programs, eg The Eurofighter for instance is produced in Tranches, with each production Tranche then having individual blocks, 1,2 etc which are capability blocks. It has taken years for the Eurofighter to incorporate different weapon systems and even release production ready software for each avionics item. Even today, the aircraft has systems which are still receiving software & going forward more systems will need to be funded and modified.

It would be useful, before you make such comments to read how time intensive & complex the aerospace industry really is. On a typical note, it takes around a decade plus to develop a technology, around half the time to mature it for production & then it goes into series production. In our case, as the RM AK Antony said, we are doing both simultaneously, which makes the task all the more complex. For instance, in the Naval LCA, there was no tech feeder program developing local tech and capabilities plus experience for ski jump aircraft etc before the LCA. Instead the LCA is being developed in parallel.

what improvements then need is not explained


Again, where have you been & have you been unaware all this time?

The IAF wants the LCA to meet what has been required of the ASRs in terms of areas like acceleration at sea level & better STR (more engine power). This will be achieved by MK2 version.

Also, they want the LCA to be ready FOC wise - includes wake penetration, all avionics fully qualified including autopilot, defensive aids, full weapons certification etc. This will all be done by MK1 itself.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Feb 2011 07:21, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2011 05:14

Austin wrote:Its good to see ADA improved upon what was sub-optimum in Tejas MK1 design and incrementally upgraded what was good in MK1 , there are not many changes and not many surprises that would lead to any delays or prolonged flight testing regime , the risk has been mitigated quite well in the design stage of Tejas Mk2

I think this is what the IAF wants in Tejas Mk2 ,Good Job ADA !


Exactly. The MK2 redesign pics are a BIG relief!! Glad to see they are not having to aim for a trip to the galaxy, and the design modifications appear to be very workable without radical revisions to the structure, design and flight testing!! This is a big deal. Canards, huge increases in wing area or radical changes elsewhere would have surely added more work, and probably unecessary at that!

Wah, wah! I am almost doing lungi dance right now. To go on about this Mk2 version: Consider a comparison vis a vis the M2k:

1) If they can manage to achieve their goal of weight reduction, the empty weight on the bird will be around 6200kg! Realistically, even if they can manage to keep it at around 6500kg, we are looking at a truly powerful single engined a/c - no other comes close! That allows a TWR far above an underpowered M2k (7600 kg empty with 10 ton engine).

2) As Vinaji was saying the endurance on this bird will be excellent. Assuming they manage to keep 3000kg fuel internally, the FF will be better than that of the M2k, albeit marginally. And the mirage always had excellent fuel fraction.

3) Now keep in mind that the 414 engine has a better SFC than the 404 IN20, and that the IN20 has a much better SFC than the M53 on the Mirage. IOWs, we are looking at a bird with a truly potent combat endurance.

4) Only place the M2k-5 will be ahead is external payload - but who cares, 5000kg+ will be more than enough on an a/c the LCA's size.

All in all, this is a saalid improvement over its "role model". One thing that really pleased me re. this design is the fact that the cranked delta design remains. It so validates the ADA's decision to drop the canards! Sure shuts up all those chootiyas saying that it needs canards and whatnot to be a better design - STFU, wot?


Good points.

This is why I was saying all the while - including the focus on the EW suite, that the LCA MK2 will have several changes which add significant combat punch which compare well to what we have.

saurav.jha wrote:No mention of AESA on MK-II is a kind of let down.


Who says there will be no AESA on the MK-II or for that matter, mentions which exact radar will be on it?
The pic only says multi mode radar. An AESA FCR will be a multi-mode radar.

Currently, the LCA AESA is being developed, either it, or another off the shelf set can be used for the MK-II as necessary. Selex for instance has the Vixen series for light fighters, and with purely European TRM modules made at an European fab, they are not sanctionable that easily.

Another thing to note is the current mechanical MMR. After reading some more about it - a good place to start is B Harrys article on the Tejas, some interesting points emerge. For instance, the LCA radar, with an average power of 600W+, and a dish dia of 650 mm, & with released details on antenna type & performance, clearly has the hardware to be a very respectable performer in air to air. The comparable RDY3 for instance, with a smaller or even comparable dish, has reportedly only got 400W average power. While other factors also come into play, this does indicate the LCA has the basic systems available, which if matured properly can give pretty good results.

Another issue to consider is scan angle. With a mechanical MMR, against a single odd target, the LCA may be a better performer with mechanical radar than with fixed AESA. Eurofighters USP is their focus on MSA which gives better scan angle than first gen AESA on competing systems. Basically, in a one versus one BVR fight. Ultimately, its all around what the IAF wants.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Feb 2011 06:17, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2011 05:38

Cain Marko wrote:Karan, the bottomline, the way I see it is that altogether 41 IN20s were ordered, and now 99 414s. Ideally, and this is what much of the speculation (from media and jingoes alike) suggests: there would be 40 Mk1s based on the IN20 and of course a good 100 Mk2s based on the 414s. All in all 140 birds and perhaps the LSPs (148 units).

Now in my book, this in itself is rather paltry. This bird was not too long ago the primary replacement for a fleet of 300 odd MiG-21s, and possibly even floggers. Now that number looks rather unlikely. Even now, when the inventory looks rather top heavy (MKI + Pakfa = 500), there surely is room for a much larger LCA production run, but no such noises. However, this is beside the point. Even at a project 45-50 sqds (1000 a/c), one would think that the bulk would be made of LCAs, but otoh, it is diametrically opposite of that logic. The IAF intends to have more twin engined heavies in its fleet (proportionally) than any other AF in the world save perhaps the VVS at its prime.


Yes, but what exactly is the point of hoping for 300-400 planes? See, its a well known fact - or at least should be by now - that the IAF is drastically retooling its forcemix. Most of the guys who keep harping on light fighters eg Jasjit Singh et al, are not making the decisions for the IAF which has long since decided to focus on building high end combat capabilities versus China or Pakistan - former is estimated to ultimately have more 4G planes than entire size of current IAF, and latter is re-arming. Simply put, the era of the MiG-21 is over. Hence talk of 300-400 LCAs is unrealistic, it just won't occur. The original estimates for the LCA were always at 220 aircraft, hoping for one to one replacements of most (not all) MiG-21s estimated to remain at time of induction. But today, the IAF has moved on.

What is evident from various statements by those in the know (Nayak/PS) is that
a) 8 LSPs and 20 Mk1s (2005 order) will be based on the IN20s.
b) 6 Naval prototypes will also be based on the IN20s
c) 83 Mk2s are likely.
c) The second order of 20 Mk1s will in fact be powered by 414s. To quote PS again,
We plan to use the F404 engines to power the first 20 aircraft the IAF has ordered and the enhanced GE-414 engines for the second order of 20 aircraft, which will be the Mark-2 version,


I would not take that quote attributed to PS as definitive, as it is the only one that exists currently, and it is entirely plausible the journalist misheard & mistranscribed!

Forget the engines for a while - they are irrelevant to the numbers per se.

Right now what we do know is - 40 LCA MK1s have been ordered already (repeated references by HAL & IAF Chief), 83 MK2s are indented for by IAF (as is usual for HAL to do their planning and Capital allocation), 8 LSPs have also been ordered and will continue as test beds. Thats 131 LCAs for the IAF. The Navy has asked for some 6 Naval prototypes & has indented for around 50 odd aircraft to HAL. Thats 137+50 coming to 187. Even without Navy orders, the usual practise is for the IAF to order some 2 squadrons of a type before production ends.

Case in point:
Mirage 2000 - 10 procured, another bunch in negotiation with Qatar, broke off over price
Jaguars - 37 ordered
Su-30 MKI - 190 ordered, then top up batches of 80 more aircraft

So basically, we are looking at a production run of around 120 (minimum) to around 200 aircraft for the LCA. Thats pretty much in line with original estimates from the IAF end (as versus ADA hopes of replacing even MiG-23, 27 and 29s) - which is now the job of the AMCA and MMRCA.

Rest of your post about #'s snipped as I addressed the above.

The above is hopeful, and perhaps I am just being inordinately negative. But that 220 number was IAF projection alone, not IN. As things stand, they'll be lucky to manage that many with IN orders. Still, fingers crossed. As Kansonsahib as noted, now is not the time to be speculative/negative.
CM


My point is it really does not matter who picks up what as long as the production orders are at 100 aircraft plus!! For instance, Look at ALH - orders are split heavily between IAF and Army, and even LCH is supposedly to be picked up by Army even after initial orders by IAF

A 100 aircraft order from the IAF is huge! Till the additional Jaguars were procured, that was the level the Jaguar fleet was at. The Mirage 2000 production line in India was being negotiated at around 120 planes!! For which the French were willing to transfer assembly rights to HAL and maintenance rights for other Mirage 2000 operators. Till date, we have not gone above 3 squadrons of MiG-29 either & even the MiG-27 squadrons are around 5, correct me if I am mistaken, with a few here and there with TACDE.

So basically, the LCA will serve at five to six squadron level, at very minimum which is fairly more combat punch than we have had from either Mirage 2000 (3 squadrons, understrength somewhat I think at 50 planes) and MiG-29 (3 squadrons).

Only exception to the rule has been the Su-30 MKI which has become our new MiG-21, with it becoming the dominant aircraft in matrix. Even there, more orders have been placed to forestall requirements before production ends.

My estimates are reasonably conservative, because I dont even factor in the use of LCA for alternate roles, eg training, even with Hawks, the requirement for training aircraft is substantial. Its possible, that the IAF may pick up an additional squadron of LCAs in that role as well.

The conservative design improvements to the MK2 give me substantial hope now that the aircraft is achievable & will meet IAF requirements to a large degree. It also puts all the rumors of radical redesign etc mostly to rest.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2011 06:06

tsarkar wrote:The plane based jammer, it would be in wing leading edge, shoulder or even vertical tailfin leading edge, but not in the nose or under the cockpit, that is slab-sided.


Nowadays, multiple/multichannel Tx/Rx systems are available - systems have matured to the extent that miniaturized power supplies, better transmitters, tx/rx apertures with multi band capability, specialized controllers using commercial protocols/equipment are all available, so EW systems can have considerable flexibility in placement of their transmitters & cuers provided space/volume constraints of platform dont impinge. Key issues are of course, field of view, blanking & masking, along with EMI/EMC problems.

For S Band and L Band, one can carry a pod. However, jamming ground based radars is very difficult for a standard fighter given the high radiated power and high computing power available in a ground based radar. That is the job of specialized jamming planes like EF-18.


Depends! The cat & mouse game has long continued and will do so for the conceivable future! Many earlier gen radars, including ones used in famous AD systems are vulnerable to "low power" self protection jammers which carry out deception jamming! The aim is to not jam the entire radar by swamping its recieve path, but merely mislead it, using a combination of techniques to introduce error, in the tracking schema & ensure the fired missile is really a miss-ile! Hence, even "low band" podded additions to the internal "high band" systems focused on fire control are available, and which are not as high power as support jammers.

However, noise jammers remain highly relevant today & are to some extent making a re-appearance as the brute force approach is still considered to have advantages against some kinds of radars, or in situations where detailed mission planning/threat evaluation is not available. With advances in electronics, and highly populated PCBs, the jammers of today are far more compact yet offer substantially more capability than those of but a decade and a half back!

And even AESA is making an appearance on jammers as well - because at the end of the day, the efficiency factor for AESA, with the proportion of input electrical power, available at the RF side, without inner tx/rx chain losses, is fairly better than several TWT/-tron based systems! In that milieu, internal AESA mounted jammers are estimated to put out enough ERP as some of the original dedicated pod mounted systems! With the shift to GaN as and when that technology matures, internal jammers will become all the more effective. Suffice to say, India is not exactly unaware of these aspects as well!

All said & done, the trend worldwide, is more & more towards mission flexibility with the ability to add capabilities as required, but with the host aircraft having a very robust self defence capability to begin with, including EW (SPJ - high band)/MAWS/LWS + for strike fighters - towed decoys, capability for podded additions for additional/niche bands, additional ESM, and in certain cases, even highly accurate direction finders with limited field of regard for SEAD operations! Add additional modes, network centricity with the ability to share positional and even sensor fused data from your own mission computer or EW controller & satcom for beyond line of sight network coverage & the modern fighter is an information soak, which is but a node in a much larger network! All modern day fighters are now increasingly being designed keeping all such considerations in mind, including antenna/EMI/EMC issues in particular, as versus earlier, when such specialist subsystems were considered a luxury, as versus todays battlefield where they are but essential.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2011 06:26

Karan M wrote:...

My estimates are reasonably conservative, because I dont even factor in the use of LCA for alternate roles, eg training, even with Hawks, the requirement for training aircraft is substantial. Its possible, that the IAF may pick up an additional squadron of LCAs in that role as well.

...


The IAF has/had 3 MiG-21FL squadrons (48 + 6Us in MOFTU A, MOFTU B, OCU) for advanced operational fighter training. The IAF would mostly likely replace the MiG-21FL with the LCA Mk.1 variants in the future. The 8 LSPs + 20 LCA Mk.1 + 20 LCA Mk.1 could all potentially end up going to the OFTU when the Mk.2 variant is inducted. Depending on when the Mk.2 achieves IOC/FOC, there is room for a follow-on order of 10 to 20 more Mk.1 variant.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Feb 2011 07:27

^^ Srai, thanks for the data!
Only addition is that doubtful those 8 LSP will be transferred to IAF. Probably only the last three.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 10 Feb 2011 08:14

If we have to maintain the strength and for smooth transition, new aircraft which is suppose to replace the existing one must be inducted before phasing the existing one. Any decision to augment the strength has to be taken well ahead in time.

If suppose we fast forward to 2025 - 2030 period. What will be the scenario ?

1. Jags must have been retired in 2020, except for the few.
2. MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 start retiring at that period and process could have been started.
3. That leaves only Su-30MKI, MMRCA and LCA. LCA and MMRCA by that time must have completed their production run, if we assume the no. 126 for MMRCA and 123 for LCA.
4. Reg. PAK-FA, we have just started PD phase. Assuming some delay and being optimistic, lets say production begins by 2020, depending upon the production rate @ 12/yr or @ 24/yr, we will be looking at 60 to 120 a/c at that period.
5. If we apply std timeframe of 15 yrs for development, that is big if, AMCA might enter production, or better we skip that timeline to 2030.

Potentially our strength at that time looks like

1. Su-30 - ~200 ( I'm not adding latest 40 a/c ordered which could be for SFC)
2. MMRCA - ~126
3. LCA - ~123 (or whatever)

Total = ~ 450 a/c + adding another 100 a/c from PAK-FA, Total a/c = ~ 550. Or take that as ~600 ( Is this an optimal strength?)

Again fast forward to 2035 - 2040...

Su-30 starts retiring....while AMCA will be in the thick of production.

It is AMCA which will be replacing the Su-30.
Currently the induction and replacement is bit skewed though, it is MMRCA which is replacing part of MiG-23/27 and LCA replacing MiG-21 and part of MiG-23/27.
PAK-FA will be replacing MiG-29/Mirage-2000/Jags.

Even to retain the 39.5 strength we have to try hard, manage things properly.

So in this scheme of things....when we are going to achieve the Sq strength of 44, leave alone 55 ?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 10 Feb 2011 09:43

Marten wrote:Pardon the stupid questions and humor me if you would:
Will/can the form changes be applied to Mark 1 to improve flight performance? The change in tests should not be drastic, right? A C/D or Mk 1.5 Tejas, if you please.

As in, the overengineered sections can definitely sorted out when the 20 are built, same goes for structural changes. Am discounting all other changes (Probes, intakes, etc.). Will the flight tests have to be run from scratch? Will changes to the FCS take a lot of effort? Will the re-certification process be unduly delayed?

fwiw, might as well ask: Will it help in any manner at all?


Mk2 going to make its first flight in 2014 dec and production starts in 2016 dec. Thats two years for testing. If we have to apply same changes(structural changes for performance improvement) to Mk1, will it not involve similar time for testing ?

Without reducing the weight, extending the fuselage will not further increase the weight ? and affect performance ? Will IAF be interested in that.

PS did mention clearly that there wont be structural modification to Mk1 and weight reduction will happen only in Mk2.

But there will be Mk1.5 which is the second 20 lot ordered. It will be more of internal modification and some fine tuning to the structure based on inputs from IAF as feedback with their experience from the first lot.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2011 09:54

Kanson

Even though SFC wants special planes I don't like the idea as commingling increases the uncertainty for a challenger. He has to monitor and strike more places.

On the other hand it clearly differentiates between conventional and special weapons strike system.

Since the chances of the latter are remote I would go with the logic of earlier construct.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5376
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 10 Feb 2011 10:10

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroindia11/texas-lca-80899.aspx
:lol:

I hate spell check

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 10 Feb 2011 10:17

Ramana

I'm not sure about the peace time use, but during wartime, those a/c automatically comes under SFC. Any future war that we are going to fight with Pak or China is going to be under Nuclear hangover whether we like it or not.

And deploying these a/c is the first step in the escalation.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabhug » 10 Feb 2011 12:42

deleted ......
Last edited by prabhug on 10 Feb 2011 14:37, edited 1 time in total.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1191
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 10 Feb 2011 13:05

Prabhug- :eek:

How will it be advantageous? Am sure that the costs in terms of loads, aerodynamic penalties will surely outweigh the benefits. Were you even awake when you wrote this?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 10 Feb 2011 13:20

imo any AF in modern era that has ever gone beyond 1000 fighters has a cheap low end a/c thats produced in the 100s - Mig21/mig19 for Rus, F-solah for America and before that Sabre, F-6 and F-7 for china.

Tejas has to be our Mig21 and got to be produced in high 100s not low 100s if we are ever to make the 45 sqdn mark (45*16 = 720) ... MKI and MRCA are far too complex and costly to ever hit those numbers...AMCA/FGFA will surely be atleast 50% costlier.

we need to bring the Mk2 in at around $50 mil and produce atleast 300 of them in tranches going upto Mk3 in 2018 and Mk4 in 2021. high rate production of say 30 planes/annum stretching over 10 yrs.

as it stands, we will have a hard time maintaining numbers let alone see the desired increase :rotfl:

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabhug » 10 Feb 2011 13:31

It was a crazy suggestion .Deleted .
Last edited by prabhug on 10 Feb 2011 14:36, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Feb 2011 13:32

have you checked the relative sizes and weights of lakshya and tejas?

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabhug » 10 Feb 2011 13:47

It was a crazy suggestion deleted .
Last edited by prabhug on 10 Feb 2011 14:37, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests