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.
vivekmehta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 18:19
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vivekmehta » 28 Aug 2012 14:23

alot of noise of jet engines in last 30 mins in, can some one tell what was there...

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 28 Aug 2012 16:50

adityadange wrote:
tushar_m wrote:just thinking why did paf get j17 very quickly with rd33 engine which we have for 10 year or so with our mig29 & we go for ge404 & ge 414 engines & then take lot of time evaluating & improving.....

i realized we are to replace mig21 which was a superb fighter of that time & still is LCA is definitely gona go for mass production version don't matter & will be prime candidate for export by DRDO.

just my long term view


with all due respect to you sir and no offence, but please use punctuation marks in the posts. i had to read thrice to understand what you said. sorry OT.



ok will do it in next post .......... but you understand what i wana say na ????

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nakul » 28 Aug 2012 17:41

The LCA was never about being the first to hit production. It was our first attempt and the focus was on getting maximum content produced locally. That is why we waited for Kaveri instead of using the GE404 straight away. Moreover, LCA will have AG capabilities from day 1 unlike Rafale & F 22 which were introduced without it.

The availablity of French & Russian aircrafts to us allowed IAF to go more for a more demanding solution to replace the Mig 21s. The LCA with a high percentage of indigenous components was a necessary step ifor us to undertake more complex 5th gen designs independently. Think of it as a precursor to AMCA

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby adityadange » 28 Aug 2012 17:56

tushar_m wrote:ok will do it in next post .......... but you understand what i wana say na ????


i could understand following:
1. paf could get jf17 in short time because its engine is proven (coz its already in use with mig29 for long time)
2. we evaluated ge404 and ge414 for long time as we wanted to ensure its reliability.
3. tejas will be mass produced and exported as its engine (and overall the aircraft) is good.
4. we want to replace one legend of its time with other legend (and you believe tejas will become legend or at least successful in future)

am i missing anything?

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 28 Aug 2012 18:03

adityadange wrote:
tushar_m wrote:ok will do it in next post .......... but you understand what i wana say na ????


i could understand following:
1. paf could get jf17 in short time because its engine is proven (coz its already in use with mig29 for long time)
2. we evaluated ge404 and ge414 for long time as we wanted to ensure its reliability.
3. tejas will be mass produced and exported as its engine (and overall the aircraft) is good.
4. we want to replace one legend of its time with other legend (and you believe tejas will become legend or at least successful in future)

am i missing anything?


you got it adi

but

1. i was saying if jf17 & lca are same category fighters we could have gone for rd33 which was available at that time easily
& on use in IAF (but point 2)
2. ge404 & variants are one of the most mass produced engines of the world but by using these engines on LCA we want to increase the performance of our fighter
3. got it right tejas will be & should me mass produced & should be exported
4. again right LCA should become legend as it will make way for AMCA & other aircraft that India will produce in the future.

thanks for pointing out my post

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 28 Aug 2012 18:04

nakul wrote:The LCA was never about being the first to hit production. It was our first attempt and the focus was on getting maximum content produced locally. That is why we waited for Kaveri instead of using the GE404 straight away. Moreover, LCA will have AG capabilities from day 1 unlike Rafale & F 22 which were introduced without it.

The availablity of French & Russian aircrafts to us allowed IAF to go more for a more demanding solution to replace the Mig 21s. The LCA with a high percentage of indigenous components was a necessary step ifor us to undertake more complex 5th gen designs independently. Think of it as a precursor to AMCA




totally agree :)

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 28 Aug 2012 23:15

just thinking why did paf get j17 very quickly with rd33 engine which we have for 10 year or so with our mig29 & we go for ge404 & ge 414 engines & then take lot of time evaluating & improving.....

i realized we are to replace mig21 which was a superb fighter of that time & still is LCA is definitely gona go for mass production version don't matter & will be prime candidate for export by DRDO.

just my long term view


Sir I think the comparison here is just not justified, first of all JF-17 got delivered earlier than Tejas was because Pakistan didn't develop it. It was developed by China, and they had more experience than us in developing jet aircraft. JF-17 to Pakistan is what Su-30 MKI is to us (in-fact we developed quite a lot of sub-systems of MKI, but what Pakistan has built of it and tested is not known). Third IAF wants Tejas to be fully developed before entering squadron service, when Tejas gets FOC, it will be BVR, PGMs, LGB, and whole lot of systems qualified. As for JF-17 we do not know to what extent it has been tested, whether or not it is BVR, PGM and LGB qualified is not known, at least in public knowledge. So we can assume that JF-17 was rushed into service because of shortage with PAF and right now is a half-baked product and will need lot more hours of testing before reaching IAF standard equivalent FOC.

As for RD-33 not featuring in Tejas, I guess it could be past experience with Mig-29 and its share of spare part trouble that forced the developers to go for Ge-404, plus the requirement of FADEC which Tejas has but RD-33 did not (only developed in RD-33 MK in 2001), also developers would have wanted an engine which would be similar in dimension to Kaveri.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 29 Aug 2012 01:16

vivekmehta wrote:alot of noise of jet engines in last 30 mins in, can some one tell what was there...

The roar of the 4th leg?

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby member_23360 » 29 Aug 2012 06:34

ajay_hk wrote:FOC or IOC2?


I think FOC, don't know who coined this term "IOC2" :D

member_23657
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby member_23657 » 29 Aug 2012 10:25

Image

Though it is just an artistic impression, found this image of stealth LCA on the web interesting.
It seems to be a fusion of wing planform of the FGFA and fuselage of the LCA with a flat belly

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 29 Aug 2012 10:42

avinashpeter wrote:Image

Though it is just an artistic impression, found this image of stealth LCA on the web interesting.
It seems to be a fusion of wing planform of the FGFA and fuselage of the LCA with a flat belly



wow :D :D :D looking good LCA or silent LCA (SLCA) :D :D :D

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 29 Aug 2012 10:49

Image

Though it is just an artistic impression, found this image of stealth LCA on the web interesting.
It seems to be a fusion of wing planform of the FGFA and fuselage of the LCA with a flat belly


To me its wings look more like F-16 XL
Image

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 29 Aug 2012 10:53

the intake for LCA shown is two in no. or the serpentine intake F16Xl have intake similar to f16 i.e single straight forward intake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 29 Aug 2012 11:06

the intake for LCA shown is two in no. or the serpentine intake F16Xl have intake similar to f16 i.e single straight forward intake


I guess I said wings and not the entire aircraft.

member_23657
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby member_23657 » 29 Aug 2012 11:09

sharma.abhinav wrote:
Image

Though it is just an artistic impression, found this image of stealth LCA on the web interesting.
It seems to be a fusion of wing planform of the FGFA and fuselage of the LCA with a flat belly


To me its wings look more like F-16 XL
Image


I think its wing planform resembles Sukhoi T-50/FGFA more than the F-16XL.
Image
Pls take note, that it is only the wings and not engine air-intake/tail config/nose/cockpit/engine/exhaust config...
Rest all resembles the current LCA config with a modification on belly for internal weapons storage...

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 29 Aug 2012 11:13

nakul wrote:The LCA was never about being the first to hit production. It was our first attempt and the focus was on getting maximum content produced locally. That is why we waited for Kaveri instead of using the GE404 straight away. Moreover, LCA will have AG capabilities from day 1 unlike Rafale & F 22 which were introduced without it.

The availablity of French & Russian aircrafts to us allowed IAF to go more for a more demanding solution to replace the Mig 21s. The LCA with a high percentage of indigenous components was a necessary step ifor us to undertake more complex 5th gen designs independently. Think of it as a precursor to AMCA

The above bolded part is not true - actually the F404-GE-402, were ordered in 1987 itself, right at the conceptual stage and before detailed design etc were initiated - some claim as a quid pro quo for LM helping us on the FBW development.
These 11 engines were delivered by 1988 at the cost of approx $11m, but integrated into an LCA airframe (TD-1) only on 1997.
Pls also note, apart from the alleged quid-pro-quo part above, all over the world all de-novo aircraft development are done by having airframes designed around an selected and well-proven engine. If an engine is changed (as with LCA from F404-GE-402 in TDs, to F404-GE-IN20 for Mk1 and F414-GE-INS6 for MK2) later due to Scope (read MTBO, FADEC etc.) or Thrust or Weight creep etc., it's always done only after the newly designed/developed airframe and controls have been proven around an already proven engine.

But never with an unproven airframe (with unproven controls) around an unproven engine.

And F404 were the readily available proven engine at that point of time and IAF facing serious, serious spare availability and thus maintenance issues with FSU breakup impact on the newly procured 29s and their RD-33s (inducted to IAF in 1986).

And Tushar_m, this point of why not engine A and why engine B etc discussion appears cyclically in BRF (as if simply plonking an engine into an already designed airframe is easy and very doable) - it helps to read thru the archives where these RD-33 vs F-404 vs F-414 vs M-88 on LCA has been discussed and frankly beaten to death.

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 29 Aug 2012 15:24

maitya wrote:
nakul wrote:
this point of why not engine A and why engine B etc discussion appears cyclically in BRF (as if simply plonking an engine into an already designed airframe is easy and very doable) - it helps to read thru the archives where these RD-33 vs F-404 vs F-414 vs M-88 on LCA has been discussed and frankly beaten to death.



so the discussion of replacing m88 of rafale with kaveri doesn't have a point right maitya........

The thing is even rafale was initiated with f404 & later replaced when fully developed m88 came to existence.
i am not starting a very old discussion of why this or why that but just think in 1985 we got our mig29 which must have bring in new tech. for rd33 & integration of f404 took place only in 1997 (source you ) by the time we would have been familiar with rd33 maintenance & upto some point how it is integrated on mig29 also.

so all & all i was making a point that LCA with rd33 could have been a TD(1 - 10 ) anyone , we are researching on fighter aircraft's not producing them till now so it could have been a good learning experience for our designers & technicians , as all the engine tech was there.

no further discussion on the matter as you already said to go back in time & search archives n i will do so thanks

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 29 Aug 2012 16:52

Trouble is France budgeted USD 2 Billion for development and production of M88 is 1980s while we allocated US$ 100million for Kaveri. No wonder we are buying Rafale with M88s

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Aug 2012 17:08

vic wrote:Trouble is France budgeted USD 2 Billion for development and production of M88 is 1980s while we allocated US$ 100million for Kaveri. No wonder we are buying Rafale with M88s


WHat budget, I thought funds for LCA was released only in 1990's.

Apart from the fact France was aldready building and designing Jet engines in the 80's.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 29 Aug 2012 17:34

er I think they been designing and building jet engines since 50s itself.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Aug 2012 18:39

What I meant was by 80's they had a mature Industry while we had to start from scartch.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 29 Aug 2012 20:13

starting from scratch is fine.. but dropping it like a scratch or while scratching is a pain the rear!.. not acceptable to a nation like us.

hey.. we are successful in getting it up to 80% thrust. okay good. Now go ahead and get the rest 20% thrust. and that is the direction to chase after, and not begging and borrowing with Snecma. Sorry/

Those single crystals, blisks, coatings, or even A5 shield component as blade/engine is all fine.. but it has to be indigenous. This was the basic need.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby member_23360 » 29 Aug 2012 23:24

^^^

Shakti Engine powering HAL Dhruva is possible only because of "French" help.

Vikas Engine used in space launcher vehicle is based "French" Viking engines.

then why cant we take help in case of Kaveri ?????

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2012 06:12

akshat.kashyap wrote:^^^

Shakti Engine powering HAL Dhruva is possible only because of "French" help.

Vikas Engine used in space launcher vehicle is based "French" Viking engines.
then why cant we take help in case of Kaveri ?????



Err, ISRO was a project partner to France on Ariane design. As their contribution they provided the manpower to design the Viking engine. This was made in India as Vikas engine for PSLV.

I have this sneaky suspcion that the DRDO leaders chose American products as the measure of success/touchstone for LCA to lead to eventual collaboration which didnt happen.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Aug 2012 06:27

Actually, they came close with P&W., and there was a big gun-go ddm reports about how P&W considered Kaveri as a big leap, and job well done, but it was only few things here and there. After that, from DDM again, there was report saying P&W was NOT selected for various reasons. I am not sure if GE ever tendered to the partnership bid/may be I missed it.

If it was any reason for getting a better technology (viz to the needs and wants), it should have been EJ-200. They missed by only a fist full of $$moolahs. Now, that is all crappy, and neither the Cassadian [time and money] nor our lab process [needs and wants] was looking in a holistic manner, imho [It is a big deal they can't wait another few days to get Cassadian bids.. that is rubbish going by our process and metrics from GoI process]. BTW, EJ200 had more thrust, and much larger (T:W) than M-88-4E, and even offered a 20-30% boost with remodel and TVN as well.

Some, different kind of relationship with Snecma.. is driving all these. Snecma has to prove itself if it can deliver a 100kN wala, which is actually the need per IAF/op-ed. Unless, DRDO sees a big 1-1 relationship with snecma, with seeing everything on the blue-print, and documents, with additional onsite-desh works for a joing 100kN waala, then I can see a story being drawn better. However, it would still make that much shakti as they can, and with what they have.

I expected they have gone for EJ200s, but bad luck, actually for us, not the Euros. yes, it is a divergent view.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 30 Aug 2012 10:00

The Vayu Shakti 2013 will have AWACS controlling the whole show. So the LCA will be tested along with the rest of IAFs a/c and it will be interesting to see how it performs and this exercise probably will also indicate where it will fit in role wise, as per IAF's doctrine.

The rehearsals are due to start in November, so we can expect a busy time for the LCAs.

As an aside, the Embraerer will also be taking part.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 30 Aug 2012 10:10

tushar_m wrote:
maitya wrote:
this point of why not engine A and why engine B etc discussion appears cyclically in BRF (as if simply plonking an engine into an already designed airframe is easy and very doable) - it helps to read thru the archives where these RD-33 vs F-404 vs F-414 vs M-88 on LCA has been discussed and frankly beaten to death.


so the discussion of replacing m88 of rafale with kaveri doesn't have a point right maitya........

The thing is even rafale was initiated with f404 & later replaced when fully developed m88 came to existence.
i am not starting a very old discussion of why this or why that but just think in 1985 we got our mig29 which must have bring in new tech. for rd33 & integration of f404 took place only in 1997 (source you ) by the time we would have been familiar with rd33 maintenance & upto some point how it is integrated on mig29 also.

so all & all i was making a point that LCA with rd33 could have been a TD(1 - 10 ) anyone , we are researching on fighter aircraft's not producing them till now so it could have been a good learning experience for our designers & technicians , as all the engine tech was there.

no further discussion on the matter as you already said to go back in time & search archives n i will do so thanks

tushar_m, let me have the last word on this ...

With the benefit of hindsight, I can only thank all our gods and godesses, that RD-33 was not chosen for LCA in 1987/88 :roll: - with it's history of maitenance back then, it would have meant at best delaying an already delayed flight-test program due to lack of spares, piss-poor MTBO etc related various maintenance headache and serviceable engine availability, and at worst a crashed LCA TD which would have effectively killed the program (why so - for that you need to read thru the good surgeons (shiv) desi-piskological related posts scatted in BR).
Any program manager/designer worth his salt will never decide on such a risky venture when the primary end-user itself is struggling on these very points.

Integrating it to a TD in 1997 or 2027 or at some other time is a non-issue - the airframe design (and thus the unvalidated control law specification as well) is frozen on the dimensions (and performance parametrs to a lesser degree) of F404, so that's the engine that'll get integrated and not some new engine (with diff dimension and performance parameters).
Moving to a different engine can come only after the TD airframe (and control laws) design and preformance parameters have been validated and re-adjusted and baselined. That happened with Rafale, will happen with LCA, PAK-FA and with various other aircraft development efforts.

And regarding the last sentence of yours on "us having all the RD-33 technology" - a short and sweet answer would be "No, we don't - and will not be in a decade or so, if (a big if) ever".
Nobody is going to "give" any technology to us as firstly "technology" frankly can't be given (it can come only thru research and learning) and more importantly, nobody parts with the decades of hard-earned jet-engine-core-tech IP to any other nation no matter how "close" or "friendly" the dependent nation is.


On my next post I'll try to rehash some of the hard facts on Kaveri from very old BR discussions wrt unavailability of "money" being the factor for the Kaveri failure ... as, although it is a factor but not the factor for it's failure. :((

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 30 Aug 2012 10:28

afaik the prior vayu shakti also had phalcon directing the 100+ ac staging out of some 5 bases and live UAV footage including some nice clips where it tracks the aerobatics of the MKI from higher up.

the only I sadly missed seeing clearly due to the darkness at dusk was the carpet bombing by AN32....you guys know its a cause close to my evil yindu heart.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 30 Aug 2012 10:48

Singhaji,

In the 1960's, I had the pleasure of watching AN-12s practising carpet bombing on a grass strip off Begumpet airport! They had gunny sacks weighed to 500lbs and were dropping them off the ramp. And the beauty was that they were flying low and just above stall speed. Begumpet was then the Transport Training Wing (TTW), while Hakimpet was the Jet Training Wing (JTW)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2012 21:11

maitya, To add to your post if the choice was to be RD-33, thenit should have been the GTRE own turbojet which alteast they had full design control of. It was the requirement for the turbofan which was bleeding edge technology at that time that led the Kaveri down the river!

The plan all along was to prove the plane with a proven engine and later ingetrate the engine.

The SLCA should be named after Sleek Smitha

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Aug 2012 21:28

RD33 by size is 1 feet in length more and nearly 1/2 feet in dia more. So, we would have to do some leg cutting to fit the under powered then, and smokey shoe. Their seawasp version is supposed to get BLISK, and I am not sure they have already gotten the SCBs yet. Besides, Russkies would have chewed us to the core on this as well.

The mistake was to consider Kaveri as something doable within predetermined time. Another mistake is to take the user word by word on thrusts.. Always de-rate performance request by 50% - which is standard in any RTS and safety-critical systems.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5325
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 31 Aug 2012 04:59

tushar_m wrote:i am not starting a very old discussion of why this or why that but just think in 1985 we got our mig29 which must have bring in new tech. for rd33 & integration of f404 took place only in 1997 (source you ) by the time we would have been familiar with rd33 maintenance & upto some point how it is integrated on mig29 also.

so all & all i was making a point that LCA with rd33 could have been a TD(1 - 10 ) anyone , we are researching on fighter aircraft's not producing them till now so it could have been a good learning experience for our designers & technicians , as all the engine tech was there.


Basically, the F-404 was a reliable engine that was in use on the F/A-18 and the Gripen A/B. The LCA program benefited in having an engine that worked, and one that was known to be trouble-free. The RD-33 on the other hand had a lot of issues with serviceability and instead of going with it for the development period, the F-404 was a better option (at least till Pokhran nuclear tests and the consequent loss of support from GE and LM). LCA program officials were far-sighted enough to order quite a few spare engines so that the program didn't completely stall when GE withdrew support.

It was meant to be used till the Kaveri came online and since it was getting delayed and not meeting program requirements, the de-coupling of the Kaveri and Tejas occurred in the 2000s, which meant that the F-404IN20 became the engine for the Mk1. But why're you asking about the RD-33 now? Its not the engine (F-404 or F-414) that is causing any delays to the Tejas program anyway.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 31 Aug 2012 12:21

ramana wrote:maitya, To add to your post if the choice was to be RD-33, thenit should have been the GTRE own turbojet which alteast they had full design control of. It was the requirement for the turbofan which was bleeding edge technology at that time that led the Kaveri down the river!

The plan all along was to prove the plane with a proven engine and later ingetrate the engine.

The SLCA should be named after Sleek Smitha

Absolutely - basically, trying to graduate from a 64kN class turbojet (GTX37-14U) to a 80 kN turbofan, and that too while being intrinsically linked to almost an ab-intio aircraft development program in the background of our very very poor industrial base, we aimed too high. Plus given our Orephus experience about an decade or so less back then, it certainly looks almost an unobtanium to aim for.

But that's all with the luxury of a hindsight of course. 8)

As the contrasting theory can be, if GTRE had aimed for say a 10% dry and wet thrust creep (so 45kN to 49kN dry and 64kN to 70kN wet) in a 3 stage LP, 7 stage HP setup of the same turbojet, and be successful in say 2001/3 timeframe, GTRE would may well have been blamed for creating a "bulky, very underpowered and 2 gen less useless" engine. :roll:
People would have bayed for their blood for being too SDRE and navel-gazing in their outlook/planning. :((
(shiv, can always back this above claim of mine up by his piskological analysis of a desi mindset). :rotfl:

So IMHO, GTRE didn't frankly have any option but to aim for the Kaveri specs back then. :(
And they did try to de-risk it as much as possible by building,

1. first a turbofan version (GTX37-14UB) around very similar core-layout (3 LPC, 7 HPC, 1 HPT and 1 LPT) and achieving the baseline wet thrust level (IIRC 88kN was achieved, need to check though) by increasing the frontal area and with a modest BPR of 0.215. This ofcourse required playing around with the core airflow vol, essentially compensating for the inherent drop in airflow vol/mass due to the introduction of by-pass of trying to go from a turbojet to a turbofan.

2. then in GTX-35, going back to enhance/improve the baseline turbojet by trying to reduce the weight of the core by eliminating the 2 HPC stages (so 5 from 7), and trying to compensate with the inevitable drop in core airflow by increasing the Turbine Inlet Temperature and, to a some extent, by improving the combustor efficiency.
Of course, like any other turbojet, this even though may have given very close thrust parameters, wouldn't have been acceptable as is, on the dry and wet SFC counts.

So, when they decided to aim for GTX-35VS (which later got called as Kaveri - and the core as Kabini), they were basically trying to emulate the GTX37-14U to GTX37-14UB migration on GTX-35 (plus ofcourse other modern add-ons like FADEC, Flat rating etc).

GTRE most probably thought, they will be able to manage the drop in core-inflow vol/mass (from trying to introduce BPR to a turbojet design) by increasing the HPC stage number (from 5 to 6) - which IMVHO, was not a various ambitious thing to plan for, given their earlier history/experience of migrations.

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 31 Aug 2012 14:33

i want to ask is f404 right now have the same configuration that it had in 1978 when it first run the answer is no they should have made fewer or may be lot of changes.

similarly kaveri now is giving say 70kn thrust & we expect it to give 90+ kn in few years to be able to fly LCA.

my point must have been taken wrong & a lot of very interesting discussion has been made till now

what i asked is that was there ever a possibility of LCA+RD33 as now mass produced jf17 will be problem for IAF in few years.

1600+ mig 29 were produced & now navy has ordered new mig 29k with the same engine which is not good for our own fighter but good for the primary fighter on our CBG (untill new types inducted) .

as f404 grew to f414 rd33 could also mature if we would have tried.

as people have told that engine was not the problem , then there must be SW/HW problems or mounting problem as in 1997 only f404 became part of LCA.

at that time when sanctions were imposed on India & no body knew when they are gona be lifted, it could be a better choice to go for our then best friend soviet union/russian at that time & ask for ToT or such in these SW/HW or engine fields .

we are still paying for ToT for fighters & other tech so don't tell me that they will want more money & Americans will give it for free there is no such thing called free. please remove the money part.

though i respect the people here they have more knowledge & experience than me so i agree with all of you.

thanks for such a brief & knowledgeable discussion .............

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 31 Aug 2012 14:55

one such experiment of Indian & Russian origin caught my eye

http://pilot.strizhi.info/2008/03/22/5256

sorry or language please translate .

it says that mig27 was fitted with al31

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nakul » 31 Aug 2012 15:01

The Soviet Union did not encourage India to indigenize our industry. Don't forget that any Indian aircraft would be competing with Soviet ones for orders from the IAF. There are some rumors that the first Mig 21s were sold to India under the promise that we would not produce Indian planes. These joint ventures are Russian endeavors and were a strict no no for the Soviets. So instead of helping our program, they would have stymied it further.

Added later: By Indian planes, I mean LCA & Marut. Not Migs & Sukhois which are essentially Russian planes.
Last edited by nakul on 31 Aug 2012 15:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 31 Aug 2012 15:03

I read the decision to go for an American Engine and Technology ( i.e. FBW etc ) was decided during RG-Regan accord of the mid 80's where US decided to help India build LCA and provide high technologies for it.

It was more of political decision at the highest level and was followed by technical colaboration.

One of the key reason why US Amb was present during LCA TD roll out by PVN. It continued till 99 POK-2 while rest is history

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 31 Aug 2012 15:14

Austin wrote:I read the decision to go for an American Engine and Technology ( i.e. FBW etc ) was decided during RG-Regan accord of the mid 80's where US decided to help India build LCA and provide high technologies for it.

It was more of political decision at the highest level and was followed by technical colaboration.

One of the key reason why US Amb was present during LCA TD roll out by PVN. It continued till 99 POK-2 while rest is history


austin sir i heard that US was trying to sell f-20 to us rather than helping in LCA why they change there mind i don't know
do you have some info. on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

tushar_m

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 31 Aug 2012 15:19

nakul wrote:The Soviet Union did not encourage India to indigenize our industry. Don't forget that any Indian aircraft would be competing with Soviet ones for orders from the IAF. There are some rumors that the first Mig 21s were sold to India under the promise that we would not produce Indian planes. These joint ventures are Russian endeavors and were a strict no no for the Soviets. So instead of helping our program, they would have stymied it further.



nakul sir nobody will like to give full ToT & start a production line in other country its like killing there own business

now i have heard that more rafale will be made on french production line rather than HAL (3-4 day old news)

the thing is nobody like to sell there own tech. its up to us that how we manage to get tech. without upsetting the owner

su30mki are made in India , mig21 were made in India , mig23-27 i have no idea . if soviet union didn't want production line for these fighter's could not have been started in India.

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nakul » 31 Aug 2012 15:34

Things have changed drastically after the Cold War such as the decrease of defence budgets worldwide leading many countries to rely on exports to fund their internal programs (Russia with Su 30 MKI, Sweden struggling to fund its Grippen NG). To get more exports, these countries are willing to export technologies which will fund their own funds.

During the Cold War, we could only licence manufacture these planes. The whole stigma about HAL being a screwdriver company stems from this. Every Mig 21, Mig 23, Rafale built in India had benfits for its OEM unlike LCA or Marut which were homegrown projects. The murder of Arjun scientists, DRDO AWACS team ending up in a plane crash are pointers to the powerful arms lobby.

Thanks to the delay in the LCA, we have more orders for the Mig 29 and its variants. We can directly see why a succesful LCA would have been a direct threat to the Soviets. The datelines of Marut and the large no of Mig 21s inducted are quite revealing. If the Marut and its predecessors were alive and kicking today, the IAF would have a greater share of indigenous planes.

As you said, no country would want us to be independent. During the heydays of LCA, the share of American crafts in the IAF was much lower than Russian ones. A tech sharing agreement with India did not hurt USA since it were not competing with US planes. Indeed, USA did help us till 1998 with FBW by allowing us to work with the likes of LM.

There are 2 things we need to discount while pointing India's choice of engines.
1) Collapse of Soviet Union
2) Pokhran nuclear sanctions

If you discount these 2 which were obvoiusly unknown beforehand, the choice of engine suddenly seems more sensible.

PS: I have edited my previous post to explain Indian planes are designed & manufactured in India and not merely manufactured like Migs & Su 30 MKI.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests