LCA News and Discussions

[Lalmohan]

you think it might be to keep the fuselage boundary layer energised and attached, particularly at high alpha?

[RoyG]

Why isn't the LCA able to pull 9g and what about the design doesn't permit it to have a higher AoA or >1.8 Mach speed? The viper and mirage I believe can do all these things and they are much older designs. Going by the pace of things it doesn't look like its going to be mass produced within the next 5 years.

[SaiK]

denial of higher AoA (at lower speeds) perhaps is the stall aspect - may be possible with TVC. >1.8M <- t:w, wing design, and fuselage/canopy shape.?

[Indranil]

I didn't say trailing edge. I said tail section (of fuselage).
As I understand, the canting up of 3deg is to the tail part of fuselage (i.e. the part which contains engine) This one would create problem when the fuselage was lengthened. It should not affect the trailing edge of wing at all.

I have been trying to find any reference which says, F-16XL uses reflex camber airfoil. So far no luck. All i could find is, it uses NACA 64A003.2 airfoil for root part and NACA 64A005 for tip part. All I was asking you is, are you sure F-16XL (and LCA) has used reflex camber and you have a reference to which you can point? Just want to be sure, you know.

Ah! I see my oversight. But are you sure about the airfoils (though 6A series looks right for the tailless delta). The airfoils you have listed are symmetric. The root aerofoil is from the 6A series (i.e. the camber line is similar to the 6 series, except that the cusp has been removed from 0.8 of the chord to the trailing edge and replaced by straight lines). It's minimum pressure is at 40% of the chord. It has 0 CL and a maximum thickness of 3%. They have uniform loading till 20% of the chord, following which the load linearly drops to 0. But you are right, I can't prove that wings have a reflex camber from this information.

Why isn't the LCA able to pull 9g and what about the design doesn't permit it to have a higher AoA or >1.8 Mach speed? The viper and mirage I believe can do all these things and they are much older designs. Going by the pace of things it doesn't look like its going to be mass produced within the next 5 years.

Because the structures were designed for a certain weight, say X kgs. Therefore, the structures were designed so that they would not fail up to 1.5 * 9 * X * 9.8 kgs of force. But Mk1 became over weight. So at 8 Gs, the force on the structures is already 1.5 * 9 * X * 9.8 kgs. That is why. This will be corrected in Mk2.

I don't know what you mean by does not allow higher AoA.

You can't have speeds much higher than 1.6 M without variable geometry air intakes. Fact of life. We have to live with it. as Europeans are living with it on their Euro-canards and the Americans on their F-35.

[Philip]

Indra,I agree.I salivated when I first saw the F-16XL pics.I'm sure that had it been produced,we would've seen a few hundred of them bought by fireign air forces alone.

Interestingly,veteran aviation expert Bill Sweetman has in a recent AWST written a fine piece that is very relevant to us."Knife Fight"-Air Combat thinking needs open minds.In it,he quotes the greatest air ace of all time,the "Red Baron", Baron Manfred Von Ricthofen,who said: " A fighter pilot patrols the area allotted to him in any manner he sees fit.When he sees the enemy he attacks and kills." Sweetman adds the next sentence that he said,"Alles undere ist Unsinn"..."everything else is nonsense".

Sweetman says that the Soviets/Russians did not design the Flanker or SU-35S recently displayed at the Paris Air Show, for "show tactics" as derisively described by some western "experts",they were not to "thrill showgoers,but to kill people and break their stuff".
It was the Soviets he says, who gave us the last big tech. breakthrough during the Cold War with the R-73 missile and the helmet clued sight,how quickly it could decide a fight.Incidentally,I was just watching an NDTV special on the MIG-21,repeated at 10.00hrs today,a must watch and a pilot's explanation of the Bison and its similar helmet .When the R-73 appeared,the speed with which the AIM-9X emerged could only be described as "panic"!

The importance of close air combat has been downgraded by western air forces,esp. the US who think that stealth will accomplish all,with the F-35,which has little air combat capability in comparison with other fighters.BVR combat has dominated western thinking,but new software programmes like the GUS-D,"Guidance in Uncertain Shooting Domains",has appeared because of the deficiencies in the AIM-120 AMRAAM,when facing the Super Flanker,which could "outrun" the missile,and its performance drastically fell below "brochure maximum" against the Sukhoi in simulated scenarios.The Metoer missile has thus been developed to overcome the AMRAAM's shortcomings.
Sergey Bogdan,the SU show pilot when explaining the aircraft's capabilities at Paris, sees long range combat deteriorating into low speed "knife fights",where super-manoeuvreability decides who gets in the first shot.This is why as I've often said,the Israeli air force insist on cannon/guns for their aircraft with an emphasis on close air combat from their long years of experience of air combat.
Sweetman says that the US has no non-painful option other than its stealth-reliance (manoeuvreability irrelevant doctrine),and that the other side always has "a vote", and that it is never wise to dismiss his thinking out of hand..."Alles endere ist Unsinn."

We fortunately seem to think differently,and in our choice of the Flanker,Rafale and LCA,appear to be playing it very safe using both BVR and air combat options.It would be most interesting to see-but would of course be classified,the comparative "knife-fighting" capabilities of the LCA against the Bison and other current aircraft in the IAF's inventory,esp. the M-2000 and MIG-29.However,given its small size ,extensive use of composites and equipped with both BVR and short-range AAMs,it is going to be a very formidable fighter,provided that the engine has enough power for the role.A TVC LCA would have been even more deadly,a pity that the EJ-TVC engine wasn't chosen.

[prabhug]

The weapon package is going to be interesting.In formation , it can have r73,derby,python and astra .Now it's going be nightmare for the opponent to decide the engagement area.Sometimes we can proudly claim nobody on the world has that flexibility.

[Lalmohan]

mach 2 is not necessarily all that useful, and most a/c that can do it, can only do it for a short time (before they run out of gas)
most a/c that do M=1.6-1.8 can maintain that speed for longer and have other advantages like simplified structure, weight, etc.
its all about design objectives and trade-offs

[Indranil]

Philip sir,

That fights on knife-edge only happens with equals. I don't believe that stealth gives you a first-look-first-kill capability especially against adversaries like Su-27 (and all siblings). But it does give you a first-look-first-shoot capability. But this allows you to do is to enter the knife-edge duals in an advantageous position.

Also, the Americans are not fools. The F-22 is one of the best fighters out there, even if you forget the stealth. Have you seen its maneuvers even at airshows. Only the Su-35 would come anywhere close to it now. The Su-30's maneuvers are beautiful but look very sluggish compared to the F-22s (no wonder there, the TWR of the F-22s is a benchmark now).

The Mig-29OVT is the best knife-edge fighter in my opinion. It can do stuff which no other plane can do. Alas, it won't see much light of day.

Back to LCA discussions

[JayS]

Ah! I see my oversight. But are you sure about the airfoils (though 6A series looks right for the tailless delta). The airfoils you have listed are symmetric. The root aerofoil is from the 6A series (i.e. the camber line is similar to the 6 series, except that the cusp has been removed from 0.8 of the chord to the trailing edge and replaced by straight lines). It's minimum pressure is at 40% of the chord. It has 0 CL and a maximum thickness of 3%. They have uniform loading till 20% of the chord, following which the load linearly drops to 0. But you are right, I can't prove that wings have a reflex camber from this information.

I read those airfoil numbers somewhere on some line diagram. Let me see if i can find it again.

Meanwhile this is more info I got:

The F-16XL wing is a double-delta configuration with 0° dihedral. The leading-edge sweep is 70° from butt-line(BL) 41.5 to 136.1, and the airfoil is a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 64A. Outboard of BL 136.1, the sweep is 50° , and the airfoil is a modified biconvex.

Ref: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/ ... H-2055.pdf

IIRC, the outboard section falls in supersonic zone, outside nose shock cone, so use of thin, biconvex airfoil.

Also many US fighters has similar airfoil: 64A00X Ref: http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html like F-15, F-18 and others. Though F-16 has 64A204.

How about LCA? Which airfoil LCA uses? Any data on that?? I don't think LCA also used reflex camber (correct me if I am wrong).

[geeth]

IIRC F16XL was a joint research project with Japanese. Ultimately Japanese ended up holding the wrong end of the stick, though most of the money was poured in by them
Yankees were not forthcoming and later I understand the wings started developing cracks.Project shelved thereafter..so much for collaborations between strategic partners..

[Philip]

That's why IRST and other techniques are being used for detecting stealth fighters.Here are a few thoughts.

1.'Passive radar' could render stealth planes obsolete (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... h-aircraft)

The system Cassidian proposes, however, wouldn't be fooled by standard stealth cloaking techniques because it takes advantage of a range of signals which surround us constantly. There's no need to fire out signals and look for their reflections -- instead, the detector system looks at a host of signals floating in the atmosphere already (like aforementioned radio and mobile phone signals) and looks for how they're blocked or altered by having to pass through or around objects. Triangulating several different sources can build up a picture of a landscape or airspace, with stealth planes and ships just as visible as everything else.

2. Will Stealth Survive As Sensors Improve? (http://breakingdefense.com/2012/11/27/w ... -at-stake/)

Others are more cynical about stealth. Argued Norman Friedman, a noted analyst who’s worked for the Navy, “the Air Force went hot on stealth because it was a way of showing that pilots could survive” in the face of improving anti-aircraft defenses known as “dougle-digit SAMs,” the highly capable air defense systems that the Soviet Union began developing in the 1980s.

“A lot of this is about whether pilots stay in business,” Friedman went on. Especially outside the Air Force, he said, “I would suspect that people worry about stealth not being nearly as good as people claimed it was. The CNO in Proceedings said as much.”

No less a figure than the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, a submariner, wrote in the nation’s most prestigious naval publication, the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute that “sensors will start to circumvent stealth” in the future.

“The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain,” Adm. Greenert wrote in July. “It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth.”

So while the Air Force has bet on stealth to hide its planes from hostile radar, the Navy is still buying electronic-warfare aircraft to neutralize radar the old-fashioned way, by jamming it. Those Navy jammers also support Air Force operations and are even crewed, on occasion, by Air Force personnel – but the Air Force has no jamming aircraft of its own.

[Note: After this article went online, several astute readers brought up the Air Force's EC-130 "Compass Call" aircraft (see the comments section below). While the EC-130 was primarily designed to jam enemy communications, it does have some capability to jam enemy radar as well, at least in later versions -- the Air Force is naturally cagey about its exact capabilities. But there are only 14 EC-130s in the entire Air Force; by contrast, the Air Force had 42 EF-111 Ravens before those were retired, while the Navy has 79 of a planned 114 EA-18G Growlers today and, together with the Marine Corps, retains about sixty of the older EA-6B Prowlers, though more are being retired every day. Compared to Ravens, Growlers, and Prowlers, the EC-130 also lacks the speed and agility to accompany strike fighters into hostile airspace. All told, "Compass Call" is impressive, but it's a niche capability in this context.]

Performance specs for stealth versus radar remain a carefully kept secret, for obvious reasons. But Breaking Defense did speak to (among others) two of the leading experts on the subject: F-35 booster Deptula, a retired three-star general with decades of experience planning and flying combat missions; and long-time stealth skeptic Friedman, an award-winning military analyst and author with a degree in theoretical physics. The two men have very different takes on the future viability of stealth – but both agreed, to start with, that it’s not the magic invisibility cloak from Harry Potter.

“People need to understand stealth is not invisibility,” Deptula told Breaking Defense. As current sensor technology improves, he said, “you’re going to be able to detect aircraft with current levels of low-observability at further distances.” That said, non-stealth planes are much bigger targets, he said: “It’s a piece of cake for an adversary with a sophisticated air defense system to engage and kill a 4th generation aircraft; it’s very difficult for them to do that with a 5th gen aircraft. Will it get easier in the future? Possibly.”

“You can’t make something disappear, all right?” echoed Friedman. “What you can do is reduce the signature you get back [on the enemy's sensor screens]. More powerful processors buy you back part of the signal” – and thanks to Moore’s Law, the processing power available to do that doubles every 18 months. The more powerful the processors and the more sophisticated their algorithms, the more effectively they can sift meaningful data out of the static. And no matter how stealthy an aircraft is, it still makes some noise, it still emits some heat as infra-red radiation, and – most critically – it still reflects back some portion of an incoming radar beam.

Not that all radars are created equal. Even back in the 1980s, author Andrew Cockburn warned that, ironically, the Soviet Union’s oldest, crudest radars might detect stealth bombers that newer systems missed. Stealth aircraft rely on carefully designed shapes and thin surface coatings to baffle incoming radar beams. But the lower the frequency of the incoming radar, the longer the wavelength, which means the less it reflects such subtleties at all: It’s essentially too stupid to be tricked.

*Here is our very own IDSA on the same subject.

3.Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

http://www.idsa.in/journalofdefencestudies

Stealth and Counter-stealth
Some Emerging Thoughts and
Continuing Debates
V.K. Saxena

Disadvantages of stealth.

Speed and Maneuverability
Firstly, stealth aircraft can neither fly as fast as conventional aircraft nor
are these as manoeuvrable. For example, the F-22 aircraft may be fast and
manoeuvrable, but it cannot go beyond Mach 2 and cannot make turns
like SU-37.
Payload
Another serious disadvantage with the stealth aircraft is the reduced
payload that these can carry. This is primarily due to the fact that most of
the payload is to be carried internally, in order to reduce radar signature.
Comparative Cost
Stealth machines are comparatively much
costlier than their conventional
brethren. Experts opine that stealth aircraft cost their weight in gold
(Phantom Ray UAV—$50 million, F-117—$70 million, F-22—$100
million). The Russians are trying to break this cost barrier. Great designers
like Mikhoyan Gurevich and Sukhoi are designing stealthy frames with
price tags in the affordable range of Third World countries

l
Latest advances in counter-stealth.

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) Technology
10
In the field of counter-stealth, another very interesting radar is called the
LIDAR. The key technology of LIDAR detecting stealth targets is based on
two methods: Multi-Band and Multi-Static anti-stealth technology. Laser
radar can detect stealth targets effectively because it has short wavelength,
high beam quality, strong directionality and high measuring accuracy,
which aids functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbat
recording.
11
In addition to the above, LIDAR possesses higher resolution
and anti-jamming ability due to its coherence property and extremely
high frequency.
12
This attribute indicates that LIDAR has a huge potential
in target-detection, track and range. Research proves that LIDARs can
be very useful in stealth aircraft detection with proper coverage region
when the range reaches 20–30 km and the angle of precision exceeds 0.3
mrad.
13
The emerging technology calls for a combination of visible, infra-
red (IR), and LIDAR to enhance detection probability of stealth targets.
Multi-Band 3D Radar
14
This is a recent technology, developed by Russia in late 2008. This radar
system is a package of three to four discrete radars and a single Processing
and Command Post. Each of these radars operates on different frequency
bands. One of such existing radar system is the Nebo Radar (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
NEBO-M
Capability of Nebo-M
The Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt stealth aircraft. The VHF-
Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions
of low RCS targets, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing

Stealth and Counter-stealth
25
a fine track capability. By proper deployment of the radars relative to the
threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming
target from angles where the target RCS is sub-optimal. Attempts to jam
the Nebo-M will be problematic, since a large amount of power is required
for jamming all these radars. All of them have a passive angle tracking
capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits
passive triangulation of the target using three-angle track outputs.
Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO)
15
Radar
MIMO technology is a variation of the Multi-Static concept. It is a radar
technology of a new generation, which has received widespread attention
in the last few years. Its core thought is using spatial diversity gain of the
signal, partially or completely, to replace coherent gain used in traditional
the Phased Array Radar.
MIMO Radar (see Figure 5) employs multiple transmit waveforms
and has the ability to jointly process signals received at multiple antennas.
The receiver enjoys the fact that the average (overall information
streams) Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is more or less constant, whereas in
conventional systems, which transmit all their energy over a single path,
the received SNR varies considerably. The terms ‘Input’ and ‘Output’
refer to the radio channel carrying the signal, not to the devices having
antennas.

Passive Anti-Stealth Measures
Faced with the prospect of aerial stealth proliferation, states in the 21st
century are looking for anti-stealth defence options using cost-economic 26
Journal of Defence Studies
means. One such alternative is the ‘Passive Anti Stealth Radar’ concept.
These systems do not exploit reflected energy and, hence, are more
accurately described as Electronic Support Measure (ESM) systems. Well-
known examples of passive radars include the Czech TAMARA/VERA
system and the Ukrainian Kolchuga system (see Figure 6)

26
Journal of Defence Studies
means. One such alternative is the ‘Passive Anti Stealth Radar’ concept.
These systems do not exploit reflected energy and, hence, are more
accurately described as Electronic Support Measure (ESM) systems. Well-
known examples of passive radars include the Czech TAMARA/VERA
system and the Ukrainian Kolchuga system (see Figure 6).
Figure 6
Kolchuga and Vera Passive Radar System
Cellphone Radar (CELLDAR)
16
This is the most recent and promising technology—still at the conceptual
stage—in the detection of stealth aircraft. This was conceptualized by
Stealth and Counter-stealth
27
Roke Manor Research Group (UK). A prototype is under construction in
collaboration with BAE Systems. The concept (see Figure 7) is described
briefly below:
(a)
When a target enters the detection region, cell phone reflected
signals are detected by the cell phone radars.
(b)
The collected data are then sent back in real time to a central
control system via a communication network.
Fusion takes place, and this passive system is able to determine the
position and the speed of the target objective.

[SaiK]

there is a big advantage in having mig-25ish foxbat point to point missions, interdictions and return at ~3mach.

[NRao]

All you need is a technology + strength in numbers (funds), that is slightly better than the other guy and the ability to maintain that lead as technologies improve.

[JayS]

All you need is a technology + strength in numbers (funds), that is slightly better than the other guy and the ability to maintain that lead as technologies improve.

All it includes is "everything under the sun" my friend.

[SaiK]

All we need is operational capabilities.. technologies may come and go.

[Philip]

AWST July 22nd issue has a feature on the "reduced" SoKo stealth fighter concept by KAI,a single-engined ,single tail bird that seems to be a development of its T-50 supersonic/light attack trainer.This bird differs from the more ambitious KF-X-E twin-engined,single tailed version by its ADD (Agency for Defence Development),limited stealth above the Typhoon,F-18SH,but below the JSF and f-22.In addition,the ongoing F-X fighter contest is in its third stage,Boeing,Lockheed and EF are in the race for 80 fighters,the winner expected to introduce limited stealth features into its bird.

EADS sweetens KF-X offering
With South Korea edging closer to deciding on a contractor for its $7.3 billion KF-X fighter program a European competitor is dangling a new carrot to its bid.

Offering $2 billion in development aid for the KF-X stealth bird.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... z2apE2ENAG

The KAI single engine version is similar to what I earlier mentioned as a further development of the LCA,a stealth MK-3,which would demand less engineering input and development time and cost far less than a full-fledged AMCA. This would be far easier to achieve and be an interim step towards a larger fighter should the need arise given that the FGFA programme is underway,with definite target dates fixed,the first prototype to come to India in 2014.This way the LCA team could seamlessly continue development work in synergy with those earlier working on the AMCA. It would be a logical development of the LCA and add to further orders thus ensuring a considerable amount of guaranteed work for the next two to three decades for spares and logistic support.It would also be very difficult for the IAF to reject due to a far lesser cost than an FGFA,plus being a further development of an aircraft already inducted (LCAs MK1 and Mk-2) and would actually complement it as an affordable light-weight stealth option given that the numbers of the FGFA have come down to 144.In fact,the aircraft might even come in at a lesser cost than the Rafale (with better stealth capability) and be a cost-effective option should either the FGFA and/or Rafale become exceedingly expensive to acquire in very large numbers.

Earlier report on the KF-X

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf- ... am-010647/
SoKo's KF-X fighter.

South Korea has been thinking seriously about designing its own fighter jet since 2008. The ROK defense sector has made impressive progress, and has become a notable exporter of aerospace, land, and naval equipment. The idea of a plane that helps advance their aerospace industry, while making it easy to add new Korean-designed weapons, is very appealing. On the flip side, a new jet fighter is a massive endeavor at the best of times, and wildly unrealistic technical expectations didn’t help the project. KF-X has progressed in fits and starts, and became a multinational program when Indonesia joined in June 2010. As of March 2013, however, South Korea has decided to put the KF-X program on hold for 18 months, while the government and Parliament decide whether it’s worth continuing.

Indonesia has reportedly contributed IDR 1.6 trillion since they joined in July 2010 – but that’s just $165 million of the DAPA’s estimated WON 6 billion (about $5.5 billion) development cost, and there’s good reason to believe that even this development budget is too low. This article discusses the KFX/IFX fighter’s proposed designs and features, and chronicles the project’s progress and setbacks since 2008.

Unrealistic early visions of an F-35 class stealth aircraft developed on the cheap produced some attention-getting models, but they appear to have given way to the idea of a fighter with slightly better kinematic performance than an F-16C/D Block 50, along with more advanced electronics that include a made-in-Korea AESA radar, the ability to carry a range of new South Korean weapons under development, and a better radar signature. The Jakarta Globe adds that the plane is eventually slated to get the designation F-33.

The project goes ahead, the 1st step will involve picking a foreign development partner, and the next step will involve choosing between 1 of 2 competing designs. The C103 design’s conventional fighter layout would look somewhat like the F-35, while the C203 design follows the European approach and uses forward canards in a stealth-shaped airframe. It’s likely that the choice of their foreign development partner will determine the design choice pursued.

Either aircraft would be a twin-engine fighter weighing around 10.4 tonnes, with stealth shaping. In order to keep ambitions within the bounds of realism, KFX Bock 1 fighters would only have to meet the radar cross-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Sources have used figures of 0.1 – 1.0 square meters.

Note that even this specification amounts to developing a plane similar to or more advanced than the JAS-39E/F Gripen, from a lower technological base, with less international help on key components, all for less development money than a more experienced firm needed to spend. South Korea’s own KIDA takes a similar view, questioning the country’s technical readiness for something this complicated, and noting an overall cost per aircraft that’s twice as much as similar imported fighters.

KFX Block 2 would add internal weapon bays. Present plans call for Block 1 would be compatible with the bays, and hence upgradeable to Block 2 status, but Block 1 planes wouldn’t begin with internal bays. The fighter’s size and twin-engine design offer added space compared to a plan like the Gripen, but this feature will still be a notable design challenge. Additional tolerance and coating improvements are envisioned to reduce stealth to the level of an F-117: about 0.025 square meters.

KFX Block 3 would aim for further stealth improvements to the level of the B-2 bomber or F-35.

No timeline has been discussed for Block 2 and Block 3 improvements, and at this stage of the program, any dates given would be wildly unreliable anyway.

[Prem Kumar]

Philip-ji: I am sure a few countries are researching counter-stealth. But the technologies are in their infancy. Maybe someone will have something operational in 20 years.

Even if you somehow successfully track a stealth aircraft with multiple ground based radars, guiding a missile to that aircraft is another serious challenge that needs to be overcome. Not to mention the fact that the radars themselves will be under jamming/SEAD-attack

[Philip]

While stealth features are a definite plus,there are already several anti-stealth technologies available now,as illustrated.If you read the above reports,passive triangulation of the target using three-angle track outputs,(MIMO),IRST,etc.,when combined aids detection.As Friedman and Adm.Greenert.CNO of the USN have said,there is no such a thing as an "invisible aircraft".While the USN has invested heavily in aerial jamming aircraft,Prowlers and Growlers,the USAF has been negligent .latest JSF news add to the gloom.

Latest reports on the JSF from the Pentagon's test chief Michael Glimore,indicate that the "Integrated Master Schedule" (IMS) is at risk because of the foll:

*Radar and el-op snags have delayed weapons integration.

*Buffet and transonic wing drop "continue to be a concern to achieving operational combat capability".

*Flight testing way behind schedule for Block 2A,(35% only),Block 2B delayed till Aug 2014,which have to be completed for an operational evaluation in 2015 for the USMC IOC by Dec.2015.

*Sacrificing Block 2B capabilities is not an option because even with full Block 2B,"likely need for significant support from other (fighters)...unless air superiority is assured" !

*Block 3i is also under severe pressure,meant for the USAF by Dec. 2016.Lot 6 cannot fly without this software.Maturing Block 3i within the enxt 12-18 months ...a "significant challenge" says Gilmore.

*"Most significant source of uncertainity" is what combat capability the JSF will provide in 2018,is that without an operational Block 3i,Bock 3F cannot be developed,meant to meet key parameters set in 2001.

*The helmet (HDMS) tests are "mixed".

*Weapons integration "very slow",SAR modes provided inaccurate coordinates,El-Op targeting systems had dificulty in maintaning tracks.Unless these are remedied,weapon testing cannot take place.Thus operational testing of Block 3F in 2018 a challenge.

*Buffet and transonic roll-off----wing drop in high-speed turns,still affect all variants of the JSF despite control law changes.Further change would "degrade manouevreability or overload the structure" says Gilmore.

*Earlier reports indicate that the F-35s ability to tolerate accidental or combat damage have been critical.Lightning tolerance testing yet to be done because it does not use LT fasteners.On ground,crews will purge the parked aircraft's fuel systems with nitrogen as often as once every 24 hrs.

*Finally,the prognostic and health monitoring system is "unable to provide timely detection of combat damage to the lift-fan system,which might fail catastrophically before the pilot can react" during transition to vertical landing.In such a 'remote' case.Lockheed say that the pilot would "auto-eject"!

With the price of this turkey on the menu as of now estimated to be between $125m -$150m,it is going to be a brave air force that will buy it...when it arrives in 2001 parameter form sometime after 2020.This gives the anti-stealth league another 7 years more to further develop their systems.

[SaiK]

Some of the advanced technologies that we are talking here, JSFish and AMCAish are quite a candidate technologies for development on the LCA platform.. However, it should be taken up on the need to establish the capability on the way to enhancing the platform.. firstly, we need to develop LCA into MCA type medium combat category with twin engines subsequent to LCA Mk2 variant. That is when, we get energerized to test all subs sytems on a modified MCA platform, where these can be materialized.. but, somethings can start ahead.. like wind tunnel models and perhaps RC model for AMCA.. then, the rest can be plugged in. we need to freeze on aerodynamics and combat profile scope ahead... so that subsystems are built with those specs.

[Philip]

Though I am not a great fan of the AMCA in its current avatar,since we are developing the FGFA in a JV,there have been many posts on the work already done.We saw at Aero-India one wind tunnel model supposed to be the final design.My view is that before we embark upon such a major venture,far more challenging than the LCA itself,we should improve LCA Mks by inserting into them some of the stealth tech that is/was intended for the AMCA,even bringing out a MK-3 lower stealth version as SoKo are contemplating,being easier and less expensive to achieve.Thus incrementally,we will be able to achieve our goals.

[SaiK]

absolutely the way to go.

[member_23360]

sometimes designing new product is less complicated/successful rather than modifying an old one ...

[SaiK]

yes... it is not about modifying platforms we are talking, we are talking about staging components that has wider use.. the platform profile must be separated out from common components.

[abhik]

Though I am not a great fan of the AMCA in its current avatar,since we are developing the FGFA in a JV...

One thing to keep in mind is that the IAF has committed to only 144 FGFAs. So its production should tentatively come to an end around 2030-32. We can expect AMCAs full rate production at around the same time i.e. they will not overlap for the most part.

[Philip]

Yes,production of the FGFA,desi production may start only by 2020,and with a low rate of 10-12 per yr.,it will take a decade at least to build the lot.The problem is what are we going to do in the interim,between 2015-2020? Numbers will drop when the MIGs are pensioned off,the Bisons too will be in their last 5 years of service,and Rafale production-if the deal goes through will start only by 2017 at the earliest! The LCA cannot fill the huge gap,as MK-1 is only expected in FOC by 2014 or thereabouts and at the HAL production rate of 8-12 a year,we can expect only the first 40 to be completed by 2020.With over 200+ aircraft being retd.,and an optimistic max of about 80-100 replacements,we will have a shortfall of about 5-6 sqds.What is the solution?

[srai]

^^^

We can expect squadron numbers to drop further for the next 5 to 7 years. After the MiGs (21/27) retire by 2018-2020, all other older types (MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage-2000) will remain in service till around 2030 (or longer). That is around 10 squadrons plus 14 Su-30MKI squadrons for a total of 24 squadrons. Two squadrons each of LCA Mk.1 and Rafale by 2020 would stabilise the squadron number at 28. But post 2020, squadron numbers will steadily begin to go up with the induction on new types: LCA Mk.2 (4 to 6), Rafale (4 to 7) and FGFA (7). Post 2030, FGFA, AMCA and UCAV will replace MiG-29/Mirage-2000/Jaguar and expand the fleet.

[ajay_hk]

India Expects Tejas Induction by Late 2013, Early 2014

nothing new just the old rehash from Vivek Raghuvanshi!

[Austin]

Tejas

वतन के रखवाले : एक फौलादी परिंदा 'तेजस'

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/watan- ... 5743?hphin

[Austin]

Increase in Operational Cost of Tejas LCA
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=97831

Initial Operational Clearance (IOC-1) for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas has already been obtained in January 2011. Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) are working towards meeting planned schedules for IOC-2 by end of 2013 and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) by end of 2014 to make Tejas fully combat worthy.

Project Definition Phase (PDP) for development of LCA was sanctioned in August 1983 at a cost of Rs. 560 Cr. After completion of PDP, Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Programme Phase-I was sanctioned in April 1993 at a cost of Rs. 2188 Cr (including PDP cost Rs. 560 Cr) with increased scope. FSED Programme Phase-I was successfully completed in March 2004 and technology was demonstrated. FSED Programme Phase-II was sanctioned in November 2001 at a cost of Rs. 3301.78 Cr to build 3 prototypes, 8 Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft and establish infrastructure for producing 8 aircraft per year. Additional sanction of Rs. 2475.78 Cr was given to meet the financial requirements of FSED Programme Phase-II for induction into Indian Air Force by obtaining IOC and FOC. The total sanctioned cost for development of LCA, Tejas (PDP + FSED Phase-I + FSED Phase-II) is Rs. 7965.56 Cr.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri S. Thangavelu in Rajya Sabha today.

[Indranil]

There is a video of LCA Tejas during the recent outstation trials in the month of July 2013 on Facebook. I don't see it yet on the Tejas website.

[Philip]

The "F"mag's 10th anniv. issue has a lot of content,covering all three services,India's foreign relations,etc.One feature is :"Such a long wait"..on the LCA saying that MK-1 and MK-2 "will stretch the capabilities of HAL and the ADA to the hilt".

Some points:

*Most pressing issue is "rate of production" for the first sqd. to field an operatonal sqd. (FOC 2015) only by 2017.

* Plans calling for induction of 6 sqds. by 2022 are a "pipe dream now".IN and IAF "unlikely to order more sqds. of the underperforming Mk-1 and extensive work needs to be done on MK-2 to ensure that the servcies have aviable operational capability into 2030-2040".

*A Catch-22 situ exists,as HAL will be unwilling to invest in stae-of-art production (with a resultant impact on quality) and the IAF and IN reluctant to place further orders of Mk-1s unless "armtwisted" .

*Low quantum of flying ."In 13 years,just 2,2270+ test flights". (?)

*Adm.Prakash on the MK-2 timeline."Difficult to predict..given ADA's past performance,5-7 years from selection of engine to IOC would be an optimistic guesstimate". The maiden flight of mk-2 was originally to have been Dec. 2014 with series production commencing by Dec. 2016.

*As recently in 2010,it was claimed that MK-1 's weight could be "reduced by 300-500kg.on the MK-2".
With a bigger engine,additional features required by users,fuelage plug for the larger engine,COG changes,extra eqpt.,"it is hard to imagine that MK-2 will be lighter than MK-1 by a significant margin"!

*PDP for the LCA was completed in 1988.The IN recd. much support from Dr.Kota Harinarayana for an NLCA around 1990.FSED planned for phase 1 completed only in 2004.Phase -2 fixed for 2008 has been "pushed back to 2015"! Reasons:

ADA.US sanctions led to a 2 yr. delay.Not singing on a "hand hold" major aircraft house led to another 10 yr. delay.Dual control between HAL and the ADA with the HAL "refusing to own the programme has led to another decade of delay".

*Funds have never been a constraint!."11,845 crores sanctioned by now,with less than half that been used up." $1 billion spent on setting up the infrastructure and learning,endorsed by AM P.Rajkumar,"the most positive aspect as well as the skilled workforce."

*In a separate interview with Adm.Arun Prakash,former CNS,he says that ,"If the LCA project was to fail,India would never be able to produce a combat aircraft and would remain dependent upon foreign suppliers for all times.The IN is the only service to have invested 900 crores on the project,the only service to do so."

It's why the issue demands "all hands to the pumps" to make sure that the LCA MK-1 and Mk-2 succeed.Forget about future indigenous fighters like the AMCA for the moment.The LCA is the current critical need of the hour.

[Avinandan]

There is a video of LCA Tejas during the recent outstation trials in the month of July 2013 on Facebook. I don't see it yet on the Tejas website.

It is there in Youtube though .

[suryag]

Thanks a lot for the video @1:06 is it an aborted landing ?

[krishnan]

Yes, aborted landing, also what are those 2 white things that drop before the dumb bombs , why are they needed ???

[Sagrawal]

Yes, aborted landing, also what are those 2 white things that drop before the dumb bombs , why are they needed ???

I think they are External fuel tanks.

[krishnan]

dont think so, they seems to be some cover for the dumb bombs

[marimuthu]

krishnan, The white things are drop tanks. They are actually testing the interference in dropping the weapons by simultaneously dropping the bomb and drop tanks.

[Adrija]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-23-c ... 013-8?op=1

LCA is on the list

[Indranil]

Thanks a lot for the video @1:06 is it an aborted landing ?

Looks like a planned aborted landing, a test.

[Avinandan]

Noob Pooch : What was that small puff of smoke @0.22 ? Burning Rubber from left Tyre ?