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.
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nits » 12 Sep 2013 13:33

Lalmohan wrote:its not a simple numbers game, you have to adjust for increased capability also
otherwise we'd still be looking for 20,000 spitfire replacements


But sir i believe LCA is Equal \ greater then MIG 21 in terms of Capability and in that sense replacement # should suffice ?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 12 Sep 2013 13:35

My estimate

2013-

2014 IAF 2 + LSP6

2015 IAF 3 + Naval NPs

2016 IAF 5

2017 IAF + Naval 6

2018 IAF + Naval 8

2019 IAF + Naval 10

2020 IAF + Naval + LCA Mark-2 Prototypes 12

2021 IAF + Naval + LCA Mark-2 Prototypes -4 and switch over to LCA Mark-2 production

2022 LCA Mark-2 production retooling + testing of Mark-2

2023 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 12

2024 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 16

2025 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 20 + AMCA TD flies

2026 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 24

2027 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 30 + AMCA PV flies

2028 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 30

2029 LCA Mark-2 t Naval + IAF 30 + AMCA LSP flies

2030 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 30

2031 LCA Mark-2 Naval + IAF 30 + AMCA SP flies

2032 LCA Mark-2 + AMCA Naval + IAF 30

2033 AMCA Naval + IAF 30

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 12 Sep 2013 14:26

Lalmohan wrote:its not a simple numbers game, you have to adjust for increased capability also
otherwise we'd still be looking for 20,000 spitfire replacements :rotfl:


It was described as a Mig21++

So I think each plus is 20%? so we need 60% of the mig21 numbers for LCA. And the availability will be more in terms of airworthiness. So the pilots:aircraft ratio can be more in the case of the LCA.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby karan_mc » 12 Sep 2013 16:24

@Vic , Only Two years Gap between TD-PV-LSP-SP ? For AMCA !!! , If this happens then we have matured in production of aircrafts .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 12 Sep 2013 17:22

Lalmohan wrote:its not a simple numbers game, you have to adjust for increased capability also
otherwise we'd still be looking for 20,000 spitfire replacements


Now that you let that cat out of the bag there is an RFP for 20K Supermarine Spitfires. India is seeking complete and deep ToT, especially engines and prop end-to-end design documents.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 12 Sep 2013 18:58

yeah but HAL wont be able to deliver :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 12 Sep 2013 21:34

^^^^^

Party popper.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xPosting from teh JSF thread.

I hate to compare two very different environments, but provide the following only as an example as to what can be done without IOC/FOC. Suggest it be used as a data point, FYI. What is possible even with a total Turkey.

Sept 11, 2013 :: F-35 training unit set to start training with upgraded software

Pilots at the Pentagon's first Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter training unit at Eglin AFB, Florida, are gearing up to start an updated training syllabus that incorporates more of the jet's advanced avionics.

While F-35 students and instructors at the base currently use the rudimentary Block 1B configuration in their aircraft, later this year, the 33rd Fighter Wing will transition to operating the more advanced Block 2A configuration.

"We are going to transition to a Block 2A syllabus here in the late fall and early into next spring as we get the jets upgraded," says US Air Force Col Stephen Jost, commander of the 33rd Operations Group. The upgraded aircraft also means that the base's F-35 simulators and academic course have to be updated to incorporate the new systems.

As such, the F-35 Block 2A transition course will include flying three additional sorties over the current syllabus, which includes six flights. Those additional sorties will focus on using the F-35's Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), which will enable pilots at the base to conduct more realistic tactical training in the F-35 for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.

"That will become operational with the 2A software, and so that is one of the key enablers that allows us to expand our mission set," Jost says.

Jost says that the Block 2A software is also expected to allow the F-35 fleet at Eglin AFB to operate at night. Pilots at the joint USAF, US Navy and Marine Corps operated fighter wing are also hoping for the release of additional flight envelope clearances. "We are hoping to get some relief on the flight controls," Jost says.

The expanded flight envelope - which will be released as test pilots put the three versions of the F-35 through its paces - should allow operational pilots to fly at higher angles of attack and possibly greater g-forces. The flight envelope currently released for training is severely restricted.

Jost could not offer any specific information on exactly how much of the F-35's flight envelope will be cleared for the pilots at the wing to use because such releases are often varied and incremental in nature.

The updated Block 2A syllabus will start clearing the way for the USMC to declare the short take-off and vertical landing(STOVL) F-35B variant of the jet operational in July 2015 with a Block 2B configuration. The USAF will declare the F-35A operational a year later in 2016 with the Block 3i configuration - which is the same software as Block 2B, but hosted on an upgraded computer system.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3038
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 12 Sep 2013 23:48

Karan M wrote:Don't judge initial numbers as equal to the final orders. IAF started ordering more Jaguars, more Sukhois once they were available and the funding was there. There is a good chance that once the LCA proves itself, more will be ordered.

Two reasons why that may not happen:-
1) At the time the IAF gave follow-on orders for the MKIs(and the Jaguars?) there were no other aircraft being actively inducted. So it was the default choice. But the LCA will have competition from the Rafale(if it actually goes through) and the FGFA.
2)The Chinese are well on their way to building stealth fighters and the Americans are probably a decade away from unveiling their 6th gen fighter. LCA being a 4+ gen fighter will not look like a very attractive proposition 10-12 years from now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2013 00:04

Abhik,

The point is that the IAF generally tends to increase aircraft numbers from the initial orders. Even with the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000, that would have happened, but for each group fighting each other, indecision at AHQ and the lack of funds thereafter.
Its sound sense. An aircraft for which logistics are set up, is in production, order more to build up inventory before it closes.

The LCA is actually better placed than the Rafale and FGFA in one key area - operational costs. The IAF has a chain of tactical AFB with basing and infrastructure for the MiG-21s, for which the LCA is ideally placed. Plus the cost per unit is also lower, so overall cost per airframe will be lower.
The IAF simply cannot go to all medium and heavy aircraft, it cannot afford them. The majority may be heavy-medium (~70%) but there will be a substantial component of the light segment.

Please also note that the current IAF squadron limit (combat) is 39.5, which has been relaxed to 42, which will only be achieved in theory by 2022. At that time, the IAF will be looking at another exodus of older airframes.

Coming to the LCA vs stealth fighters, the bulk of the Chinese fleet will be 4/4+ fighters - J11s, J11 variants, J10, J10 variants and only then the J-20, perhaps the J-31. The IAF will have the FGFA and the AMCA at that segment. The thing is that people usually look at aircraft versus aircraft. But the aircraft cannot do anything against each other just because they are stealth. Its like two people both walking around in an unlit room with low power torches and both armed. Thing is that to fight stealth aircraft, the IAF will have to start looking at different technologies, hence the talk of the AWACS India program leveraging bistatic radar, IAF sensor fusion and AESA radars (better performance against low profile targets). Once a stealth aircraft is detected, a 4G/4G+ aircraft can intercept it. The LCA per se will remain pretty relevant. Only thing is that the aircraft have to start getting out into the hands of the IAF, and that creates a positive buzz.

Besides which - both FGFA and J-20, I expect them to come in only around 2020. In fact the J-20 might pip our FGFA by a couple of years, because it is a much simpler aircraft and our FGFA is more complex than the standard PAK-FA. The IAF has reportedly asked for 45 improvements to the proposed version by Russia. We'll typically have the Su-30 MKI type staggered induction.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14491
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pankajs » 13 Sep 2013 00:58

^^^
To add (Of course reliable data on China is hard to come by and is usually not up to date)
People's Liberation Army Air Force - wiki
With ongoing modernisation, all older aircraft types in service are quickly being phased out and emphasis being placed on developing modern 4.5th generation fighters to replace them - along with 5th generation fighters in the near future.

<snip>

Predictions of the PLAAF's future aircraft fleet indicate that it will consist of large quantities of Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 as its main force, and JH-7A as the PLAAF backbone precision strike fighter. Future stealth fighter projects such as the Chengdu J-20 will be inducted into the air fleet in small numbers, assigned to elite PLAAF selected pilots.

Chinese military aircraft
J-10(200), J-11(140), JH-7(72),J-8(180),J-7(389),Q-5(240)

Chinese Defense website- FWIW
The PLAAF currently continues to replace older aircraft with the next generation aircraft in order to continue to modernize itself into a reputable modern air force. At present, it continues to induct fourth generation aircrafts into its arsenal and replace the third generation of aircrafts that were inducted in numbers.{Insync with Wiki on J-7/J-8/Q-5 making way for J-10 and J-11 mostly}

So if the current timelines on LCA are met, it can be inducted in large numbers and server the country well far into the future. If Rafale falls through go for additional SuMKI+LCA. In such an event scrap FGFA and buy an equal quantity of PAK-FA off the shelf. Redirect the funding to LCA-MK3 leading to AMCA. We should be good against Chinese for the foreseeable future as far as fighters are concerned.

I would dearly hope that out air-defense network is simultaneously being beefed-up and Nirbhay and its variants come online soon.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2013 02:58

Well if the MRSAM program is delayed, time to accelerate Akash MK2 and purchase a few more squadrons of them asap. Thats the one weak point in our AD network - our old SAMs.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 14 Sep 2013 11:55

karan_mc wrote:LCA-Tejas has completed 2309 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Sep-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-213,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)


My day is made. At 11:27 I saw the beautiful sight of an LCA banking south, thunderously roaring, at high speed, the delta wing silhouetted perfectly for my line of sight.

I notice that the LSP8, after a flurry of flights seems to be involved in some sort of on the ground activity. I wonder why, because from what I know, this is going to be the template for the SP series.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3038
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 14 Sep 2013 13:38

Karan M wrote:...
The LCA is actually better placed than the Rafale and FGFA in one key area - operational costs...

This should have meant a larger larger order or at least a projection of larger numbers(the 120 Mk2 is just a projected figure) in the first place. That the LCA will have to prove itself, i.e jump through more hoops while Rafale and FGFA get a free pass is unacceptable.

The IAF simply cannot go to all medium and heavy aircraft, it cannot afford them. The majority may be heavy-medium (~70%) but there will be a substantial component of the light segment.

For the benefits of a lower cost fighter to accrue it would have to make up a larger proportion of the inventory, something like 60-70%. If the heavy/medium fighters make up ~70% of the force then the IAF would have to spend 85-90% of the budget on them. This lopsided force structure will be further exacerbated as our future fighter programs, FGFA and AMCA, are both heavy/medium. The situation would have been different had the Gripen won over the Rafale. The IAF was ready to consider the Gripen(an analogue of the LCA) for the MRCA but it lost out because it wasn't mature enough. Now that we know the Rafale is not coming any faster than the LCA the case for cancelling it in favour of the LCA is undeniable.
Coming to the LCA vs stealth fighters, the bulk of the Chinese fleet will be 4/4+ fighters - J11s, J11 variants, J10, J10 variants and only then the J-20, perhaps the J-31. ...
Besides which - both FGFA and J-20, I expect them to come in only around 2020....

I remember reading that as per current projection the LCA production will stop in around 2027. I'm not very optimistic of the LCA getting orders after this just because it will be seen to be obsolete. Yes, a 4th gen fighter will still be useful but will the IAF think it is prudent to go for new built LCA which will have to soldier on till ~2060?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 14 Sep 2013 20:21

getting the baseline assembly line for lca is so vital for the various versions to happen down the future.

so, i am not concerned after that but would be on the look out for any babooze trying to scuttle programs.

planning for upgrading and newer requirements will come based on first use kinda helps and goes a long way to building capabilities from both being a producer and a consumer nation.

the amca will definitely be a super duper realization, only when kaveri takes shape. till then, there is a slight chance lca might seek marut future, and down the drains if we don't think ahead in the game plan. engine engine engine mantra must be planted in all brains.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2013 21:47

abhik wrote:This should have meant a larger larger order or at least a projection of larger numbers(the 120 Mk2 is just a projected figure) in the first place. That the LCA will have to prove itself, i.e jump through more hoops while Rafale and FGFA get a free pass is unacceptable.


Rome was not built in a day. A decade back, the IAF had literally no complex systems from the DRDO in its stables. Today, its ordering a bunch of missiles, electronics etc. Trust was built after Indian made gear started proving itself. Similarly, for a force which has grown up mostly on foreign aircraft, has limited development culture or institutional involvement (no engineering management or design influence/procurement organization) - we can't expect it to radically change its outlook and move to Indian made aircraft overnight. This especially when the organization which owns most of the aircraft development so far, HAL, due to a variety of reasons, has mostly been providing license made aircraft. And is periodically in the IAF's black book for low productivity etc.

For the benefits of a lower cost fighter to accrue it would have to make up a larger proportion of the inventory, something like 60-70%. If the heavy/medium fighters make up ~70% of the force then the IAF would have to spend 85-90% of the budget on them. This lopsided force structure will be further exacerbated as our future fighter programs, FGFA and AMCA, are both heavy/medium. The situation would have been different had the Gripen won over the Rafale. The IAF was ready to consider the Gripen(an analogue of the LCA) for the MRCA but it lost out because it wasn't mature enough. Now that we know the Rafale is not coming any faster than the LCA the case for cancelling it in favour of the LCA is undeniable.


The benefits of a lower cost fighter exist even if it is in smaller numbers. Yes, they may not scale up to record breaking amounts but they exist even so, and hence allow for more significant utilization at the same cost as heavier fighters or save money at similar utilization that can be used for other procurement like force multipliers , munitions etc. The main point is that the new platform should prove itself. The other reason our force structure is lopsided is because of the 2 front war scenario. With PLAAF loading up on heavy, medium fighters (Flankers and J-10s), the PAF having a bulk of light (J-7) with a core of mediums (F-16s), the IAF with more restricted numbers is doing two things - buying heavy and mediums, and those too, of the best possible kind. It is this which killed the Gripen, not that it was not mature enough. Simply put, if you put a LCA or a Gripen up against a heavier fighter, the former do not compare across many key parameters, since they were not designed for that. The Rafale for instance can carry a much larger warload across much larger ranges, but may be overkill for Pakistan. Its a capability that will be used for some scenarios and not all. This is where the LCA is useful, but the Rafale will be seen by the IAF as a Su-30 MKI equivalent (weight class apart) with some pros/cons versus the Flanker, but from another source (risk hedged).

remember reading that as per current projection the LCA production will stop in around 2027. I'm not very optimistic of the LCA getting orders after this just because it will be seen to be obsolete. Yes, a 4th gen fighter will still be useful but will the IAF think it is prudent to go for new built LCA which will have to soldier on till ~2060?


Whatever is projected to be the LCA production now or not, is speculative. The LCA may well survive in another reduced RCS form as a MK3 as well. It all depends on one key thing - does the IAF get the product and start operating it and liking it. Another thing is that a future Govt may well relax the artificial cap of 42 squadrons and take it to the required 55 level or partly there, if the Indian economy performs to its potential (as versus under the corrupt jokers currently controlling it). A few years of proper growth, and the IAF was able to afford Flankers, at a scale which would not have been believed earlier. Then, a couple of squadrons of these would have been deemed enough.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3038
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 15 Sep 2013 12:22

Karan M wrote: The other reason our force structure is lopsided is because of the 2 front war scenario. With PLAAF loading up on heavy, medium fighters (Flankers and J-10s), the PAF having a bulk of light (J-7) with a core of mediums (F-16s),

I think the concept is really a Hi-Low rather than light/medium/heavy. One man's light may mean another man's medium.
the IAF with more restricted numbers is doing two things - buying heavy and mediums, and those too, of the best possible kind.

If you're talking about the sanctioned strength then thats not really a constraint. IAF could have easily got the numbers up citing the 2-front threat, just like the IA got all the Mountain divisions. At the end of the day the real restriction is the monethe IAF gets to buy and maintain these squadrons.
It is this which killed the Gripen, not that it was not mature enough. Simply put, if you put a LCA or a Gripen up against a heavier fighter, the former do not compare across many key parameters, since they were not designed for that.

If that were true nobody would be buying anything but the heaviest, most top end fighters. But most are either choosing a Hi-Low compliment or sticking to a single fighter. The Gripen/LCA would have been our Low to complement very large number of MKI.
The Rafale for instance can carry a much larger warload across much larger ranges, but may be overkill for Pakistan. Its a capability that will be used for some scenarios and not all. This is where the LCA is useful, but the Rafale will be seen by the IAF as a Su-30 MKI equivalent (weight class apart) with some pros/cons versus the Flanker, but from another source (risk hedged).

To be frank I think all this talk of IAF looking for a Medium weight fighter, hedging risk etc are just motives being ascribed post facto the decision. The IAF laid out a set of parameters to test each of the competing fighters and followed the tested them meticulously without and prejudice or favour. This everybody including the losing sides seems to agree. Then to say that the IAF was looking for a Medium fighter which was not Russian would mean that these parameters were defined on paper. So did SAAB and Mig not get the memo or did the IAF not hold a fair trial. Its been reported by multiple sources that the IAF was impressed but failed at because it was too risky. Again if the IAF were ready to accept the Gripen, then it should be ok with the LCA too.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Sep 2013 13:16

Abhik, before debating please look up the details yourself. The IAF has long had a heavy, medium, light strategy ever since the Flankers came in. Parliamentary submissions also mention it. It really doesn't matter what everyone else thinks or is doing because the IAF has long followed its own path, and will continue to do so. If they wish to replace medium weight fighters with mediums, light with light. While adding LCAs to replace Bisons it's their choice to make.

Coming to light versus heavy, the problem with debating positions like yours are that they come with opinion but havent researched the details. Look at a comparison of the LCA class platforms and Rafale. Look at payload, look at combat radius and debate. Ask actual pilots at shows, seminars etc or on forums, look up what happens when a heavy fighter force needs to be combated by light ones. The support aids required increase radically. Hence why an offensive AF like the IAF concentrates on such issues.

MiG is a medium weight fighter in its -35 iteration, albeit a reworked MiG-29 and the Gripen was included to round out the competition as the original plan was merely for the Mirage 2000. Citing it as risky was clearly not the full issue as it falls behind both the L1 competitors in many areas, and even their tech development in some areas was equally risky, eg EFs AESA radar.

Last, you are thoroughly underestimating the scale of effort it would have required for the IAF to push for more squadrons or raise the squadron limit. The Combat sq limit has been pegged at 39.5 for several decades now and the IAF has struggled to even replace the existing squadrons. Unlike the IA, the IAF is far more capital intensive in terms of reliance on external vendors and its spending of forex in that manner always incites opposition from the Govt. Currently, even the IAF proposal to add essentials like 2 more Phalcons and additional MRTTs is hanging fire, what to talk of new squadrons. And please don't come back about a rejoinder that if forex etc is an issue, the LCA makes more sense. Yes it does, provided overall combat capability is taken into account. Which is why the IAF intends to order the same number of MMRCA as it plans, number wise from the LCA. Six squadrons each. Both deals will have options for around half that number built in as well. If the heavy Flanker force was smaller, these two segments would rise. But the PLAAFs growing strength and the availability of the Flanker now, has made the IAF double down on that fleet.

Fact of the matter is that the IAF has been reacting to its unique challenges, based on a variety of factors- comparing them to other countries and drawing on flawed premises will lead to equally dodgy conclusions. To compensate for its short legged fighters, the IAF created tac AFB located close to the border, it created a tactical SAM force of 30 squadrons and so forth. All these were driven by country specific doctrine and strategies, to extrapolate what the IAF did or will do based on data from other nations is not an accurate way to judge local issues.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby symontk » 15 Sep 2013 19:35

rajanb wrote:
karan_mc wrote:LCA-Tejas has completed 2309 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Sep-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-213,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)


My day is made. At 11:27 I saw the beautiful sight of an LCA banking south, thunderously roaring, at high speed, the delta wing silhouetted perfectly for my line of sight.

I notice that the LSP8, after a flurry of flights seems to be involved in some sort of on the ground activity. I wonder why, because from what I know, this is going to be the template for the SP series.


I sighted LCA thrice last week, all grey ones

Tuesday - 5.45PM, one took a circle and landed from the Marathahalli side. I saw this one twice when it took the circle, had white tanks
Friday - 1.15PM, came very low and showed her underbelly and land thru Marathahalli, , had white tanks
Saturday (yesterday) - 11.45AM, came to land from Marathahalli, had white tanks

NB: for the Saturday one, while I was watching it and walking, a blonde who came walking opposite to me seemed offended as I was looking at the airplane and not her

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 15 Sep 2013 19:40

symontk wrote:NB: for the Saturday one, while I was watching it and walking, a blonde who came walking opposite to me seemed offended as I was looking at the airplane and not her


:rotfl: :rotfl:

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3775
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 16 Sep 2013 11:12

Flight test update

FRom

LCA-Tejas has completed 2309 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-213,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2318 Test Flights Successfully. (13-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-370,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-217,LSP7-56,NP1-4,LSP8-26)

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 16 Sep 2013 11:21

At the rate the test program is proceeding, Tejas will complete more flights in 2013 than the previous two years combined.
http://www.ada.gov.in/awards.htm

Code: Select all

TOTAL FLIGHTS      
2001      12
2002      34
2003      95
2004      180
2005      159
2006      105
2007      213
2008      191
2009      281
2010      238
2011      251
2012      204
Sep-2013   355
TOTAL      2318

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4486
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby putnanja » 16 Sep 2013 11:29

Slight correction below :)

suryag wrote:Flight test update

FRom

LCA-Tejas has completed 2309 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-213,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2318 Test Flights Successfully. (13-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-370,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-217,LSP7-56,NP1-4,LSP8-26)

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 16 Sep 2013 12:30

symontk wrote: NB: for the Saturday one, while I was watching it and walking, a blonde who came walking opposite to me seemed offended as I was looking at the airplane and not her


Lucky mate Symontk. On top of that a blonde? Was the blonde, by any chance, Hafeez Sayeed in drag? Her orange beard would have been a giveaway. :rotfl:

Sorry for the OT and said in pure jest..

Isn't PV3 checking out all the ECM and electronics?

Regards,

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 16 Sep 2013 13:14

As LCA matures and we see even more powerful engines like F414EPE + CFT say in Mk-3 then LCA will straddle both the light and medium category.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4486
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby putnanja » 18 Sep 2013 21:52

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2318 Test Flights Successfully. (13-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-370,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-217,LSP7-56,NP1-4,LSP8-26)

LCA-Tejas has completed 2321 Test Flights Successfully. (18-Sep-2013).
• (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-370,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-218,LSP7-57,NP1-4,LSP8-27)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54685
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 18 Sep 2013 22:02

I know the number of test flights keeps increasing but have the significant tests like wake penetration test etc completed or even scheduled?

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 19 Sep 2013 02:35

The flight tests for wake penetration are already underway as confirmed (timestamp 1:40 and onwards) by this video posted on Youtube on February 7, 2013:



Today I'm confident that we have a decent model which we are validating against flight tests, by systematically doing flight tests. Again, this is a fairly large amount of work because you could enter this wake from multiple orientations of the follow-up aircraft in relation to the lead-in aircraft and you have to make sure that the systems, the sensors and the flight control laws work adequately well even under these conditions.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby raj-ji » 19 Sep 2013 04:07

abhik wrote:
Karan M wrote:Don't judge initial numbers as equal to the final orders. IAF started ordering more Jaguars, more Sukhois once they were available and the funding was there. There is a good chance that once the LCA proves itself, more will be ordered.

Two reasons why that may not happen:-
1) At the time the IAF gave follow-on orders for the MKIs(and the Jaguars?) there were no other aircraft being actively inducted. So it was the default choice. But the LCA will have competition from the Rafale(if it actually goes through) and the FGFA.
2)The Chinese are well on their way to building stealth fighters and the Americans are probably a decade away from unveiling their 6th gen fighter. LCA being a 4+ gen fighter will not look like a very attractive proposition 10-12 years from now.


Disagree like others that the LCA is in competition with the Rafale. If its competing for a bigger piece of the budget then can see the comparison between the two, otherwise it is not a fair comparison. And it's in the LCA's interest not to be compared against the Rafale. Forget size, combat radius etc, comparing a fighter in production and battle proven to one that isn't won't fare well for the LCA. So again, the comparison is not valid.

Agree with others that once inducted it is very likely the numbers ordered will go up. This is bound to happen unless there are techinical issues with the fighter that will require more fine tuning. This is expected to happen with a new fighter, the degree to which this happens is the unknown. Either way its an anticipated increase in mk1 or mk2 numbers, so more LCAs will be inducted than mentioned.

Would disagree with the point that a 4+ generation fighter will not be as attractive a decade from now. Apart from the obvious export potential of this aircraft, the benefits of this small and capable fighter could keep it relevant for a long long time. I base this assumption on the interesting and entertaining comments from the USAF pilot from the IAF in Red Flag 08. I'm sure many have seen the video clip.

This pilot was clearly overcompensating for something in his description of the MKI. And anyone who knows enough Americans will understand his need to push down the MKI. But the part that is relevant to the LCA discussion were his comments about the MIG 21's performance. To paraphrase his comments, big jammer on a little MIG 21 made it hard to see on radar. One can see how this can play out with the LCA.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Sep 2013 05:20

From the above,the development of the MK-2 asap is what will decide the future numbers of the LCA.The IAF can live with 40+ underpowered MK-1s,but Mk-2 is the serious business.As far as replacements go,eventually apart from MIG-21s, even the Jaguars will have to be replaced and surely the Mk-2 could in part fit the bill.The big Q is production rate.The slower it is ,the less attractive will it be post 2020 once more advanced aircraft like the Rafale start coming off the production lines.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2013 05:55

good to know they have modeled the wake penetrations.. so, nice to get the scope of discussions narrowed to three important areas - dog fight, refuelling and close formation.. except for the first one, rest of the scenarios are not that dynamic in terms of sensor variance... or can i say, more predictable model can be arrived at.

again, if the \delta t is all that we need to tolerate, then only that much corrections/feedback need to be factored in.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2013 07:12

Philip wrote:From the above,the development of the MK-2 asap is what will decide the future numbers of the LCA.The IAF can live with 40+ underpowered MK-1s,but Mk-2 is the serious business.As far as replacements go,eventually apart from MIG-21s, even the Jaguars will have to be replaced and surely the Mk-2 could in part fit the bill.The big Q is production rate.The slower it is ,the less attractive will it be post 2020 once more advanced aircraft like the Rafale start coming off the production lines.


This from April 19, 2013:

pragnya wrote:
Philip wrote:What depresses one is the apparent lack of progress on LCA MK-2.This the aircraft which is supposed to meet the IAF's parameters and most urgent requirement.


btw LCA mark 2 was basically for IN. (revealed by none other than Maolankar - check kartik's post sometime back on his visit to AI 2013). IAF latched on to that and is sticking to it now.

LCA in mark 1 avatar is still more than good as a replacement for the Mig 21s incl Bisons. they can easily order atleast 4/5 squadrons. it helps to streamline and stabilise the production. IAF benefits in terms of squadron strength which is depleting fast.



The LCA Mk-I is NOT underpowered for the IAF. IF it were not for the IN, the IAF would have been happy enough with the MK-I. (I think this is the 4th time it is being pointed out!!)

...............................................

Sorry, do not know how to land at a particular post: In the following: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6475&start=400 scroll down to Kartik's 2nd post: (Feb 11, 2013):

Kartik wrote:Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”..:D Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:


- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Sep 2013 07:47

NR,there are enough reports about the underpowered MK-1 not being able to meet specs,etc.Why was a MK-2 with a more powerful engine advocated, chosen and supposedly being developed if MK-1 was good enough?

This is not against inducting MK-1 at the earliest for the IAF to familiarise itself with the aircraft and establish SOPs and support.If the IAF is so happy about MK-1 why haven't they ordered a whole batch of 120+? Let's accept the fact that Tejas MK-1 is underpowered.It certainly won't do for the IN which requires about 40.There have been several calls for reducing the scope of MK-2 ,retaining the MK-1 engine and improving other features (because considerable redesigning and testing of a MK-2 with a new engine will result adding to the time factor) so that a large production run can be established.While this is an option that is less problematic,the Q will still remain as to the eventual number that the IAF will want of a fighter that has not met its full expectations/requirements post 2020,esp. The Tejas might suffice as a replacement for vintage MIG-21,but as said before,MK-1 will certainly be found wanting when far superior aircraft start coming off the production lines,or are entering service with our enemies even an underpowered Mk-2 too.The IAF will in the first few years of induction will want to evaluate the aircraft against current and future threats and then decide upon its future development,which is probably why they are reluctant to place orders for more MK-1 numbers.

One quote:
What is needed then is an immediate IAF order for at least three squadrons of Tejas Mark I, which would galvanize HAL and the supply chains into activity. While releasing Rs 1,500 crore to HAL, instructions must be issued that the production line must deliver six Tejas Mark I fighters in 2014, and hit its production target of ten fighters per year in 2015. Meanwhile the Tejas Mark II must be fully developed by 2016. This would require it to be less ambitious, restricting itself to modernizing avionics; fitting an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar; mounting more advanced air-to-air missiles; developing an onboard oxygen-generating system; and equipping the fighter with a mid-air refuelling system to increase its range.


However,I don't fully support the above idea ,which really would be a MK-1B .What harm is there in not developing a MK-2 with a more powerful engine? Surely a more capable avatar would be more attractive to the IAF,which could then increase its eventual orders to 200+? Tejas development should be to exploit the programme to the max.,even perhaps a version with stealth features that would serve as a sounding board for a more ambitious twin-engined fighter,AMCA,whatever.It would also come in at a far lower cost than the FGFA and complement it .Other nations are toying with a similar idea,a single-engined stealth fighter,more affordable and easier to achieve.

For an example,let's look at the SU-30 acquisition.There was a clear roadmap.The first lot where acquired ,without canards,then improved to MKI std. ,with significant improvements.A further upgrade is planned to enhance the capability even further.Unless we also have a similar concept of improving the LCA in stages,including a more powerful engine,it may suffer the same fate as the HF-24 which never reached its full potential.

After two years of evaluation and negotiations, India signed a US$1.462 billion deal with the Sukhoi Corporation on 30 November 1996 for the delivery of 50 Su-30MKI aircraft in five batches. The first batch were eight Su-30MKs, the basic version of Su-30. The second batch were to be 10 Su-30Ks with French and Israeli avionics. The third batch were to be 10 Su-30MKIs featuring canard foreplanes. The fourth batch of 12 Su-30MKIs and final batch of 10 Su-30MKIs aircraft all were to have the AL-31FP turbofans. These 50 aircraft were made by Sukhoi in Russia.
Last edited by Philip on 19 Sep 2013 08:08, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2013 07:54

Philip wrote:Come on NR,there are enough reports about the underpowered MK-1 not being able to meet specs,etc.


Where?

Why was a MK-2 with a more powerful engine advocated, chosen and supposedly being developed if MK-1 was good enough?


I am confused. The answer is right there in Kartik's quote.

Why MK-II: For the IN. The IAF was OK with the less powerful engine.

Right there P.

F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant


And, THAT is from one of the horse's mouth. :roll:

Not mine.

Not Kartik's.

But from Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program.

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Sep 2013 08:29

Let the good Cdr. speak for the IN.As stated above,if the MK-1 with its current engine is good enough for the IAF ,then by all means induct a far larger number.This is what the IAF chief said in May this year,in a report which alleged ,quoting both AKA and the air chief,
There have been serious glitches like Tejas being underpowered (there is a mark 2 version being developed with a more powerful engine)
that India’s indigenous defence research and production capabilities have not kept pace with the country’s military requirements.

http://www.hindu.com/fline/stories/2013 ... 809600.htm
Failing to deliver

Air Chief Marshal Browne, who has frequently called for restricting imports and increasing indigenous content, is of the view that penalties should be imposed on designers and production houses if they do not deliver on time. He explained: “We need to get our project management right before we embark on programmes. Many of our key projects have faltered because of poor management.” He spoke of “a disconnect between design houses and the production agency” and added that “production houses must also have their own design centres so that quality specifications can be maintained”. He wanted the user to be enmeshed in the project management team and closely connected at various levels of the project in all indigenous programmes, as in the Tejas programme, where, after decades of resistance by the DRDO hierarchy, an air vice marshal was appointed “Director, IAF Project Management Team”, a sort of IAF pointsman for the programme. He also wanted user groups working full time at the factory level so that the user’s inputs and work patterns could be taken into consideration. The user would be aware of the project’s progress and any delays could be immediately communicated back to service headquarters.


Here is another report ,though dated which sheds more light on the matter.I would like to see a recent statement anywhere from the IAF that it is happy with the MK-1s engine and performance.

Air Force alleges DRDO of stalling Tejas fighter engine
30 06 2010

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its aging MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine as IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.

Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.

For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.

The IAF will buy two squadrons (42 fighters) of Tejas Mark 1, which use older GE F-404 engines. In addition, five squadrons (110 fighters) of Tejas Mark 2 are planned, which will be powered by a new engine. Given that each Tejas could go through 2-3 engines during its lifetime, the LCA Mk 2 will actually need 200-300 of the new engines.

Contacted by Business Standard, the DRDO declined to comment on the subject.

Business Standard has already reported (December 12, 2009, “Kaveri engine comes alive; will power Indian fighters”) that the MoD is backing Kaveri-Snecma as a new engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). That report was corroborated on May 13 by Defence Minister A K Antony, who told Parliament that the Kaveri “requires to be optimised for lower weight and higher performance so that it can be used for the Tejas and possibly for Indian next generation combat Aircraft.”

But there are mixed signals from the establishment. In the same statement, Antony also talked about the possibility of engine import. And the ADA chief, P S Subramaniam, has told Business Standard: “There are many Tejas already flying that will soon need new engines and we will use the Kaveri-Snecma engines for those. The Tejas Mark 2 will be powered by either GE F-414 or the EJ200.”

According to ADA sources, both the GE and Eurojet engines have fully met the technical requirements for the Tejas Mk 2. The Eurojet EJ200 is the more modern, lighter, flexible engine and has impressed the IAF. The GE F-414 is significantly heavier, but provides more power. The Indian tender for 99 engines (plus options) demands that all engines after the first 10 be built in India.

-via Business Standard


PS:Pl. note that the IOC was expected that Dec.,in 2010! We are still waiting for it to be inducted ,IOC in late 2013.secondly,it is clear that the IAF has been serious and wanting to induct the aircraft asap,not as some would like to make out that it is indifferent.The point I'm repeating is that if one keeps on delaying on promises,eventuallly inordinate delays will result in a faster obsolescence of the type and a demand for a more capable aircraft from the user..

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Sep 2013 08:56

Some hiope for Kaveri on UAVs.


Kaveri flops, LCA-Tejas to fly on US engines
Bangalore, Jan 25, 2013 (PTI):


The dream of fitting Kaveri engine being developed indigenously into the home-grown Light Combat Aircraft LCA-Tejas appears to be as good as over.

"Kaveri engine as such will never come into LCA", P S Subramanyam, Director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO lab, which is the nodal agency for the design and development of LCA with HAL as the principal partner, told PTI here.

Noting that LCA-Mark 1 and Mark 2 will have engines from GE, he, however, said the LCA would support Kaveri engine's flight tests and demonstrations and certification.

"As and when there is support required by the Kaveri engine, LCA will give support of its flying test facilities", Subramanyam said. He expected flying tests of Kaveri engine to lead to its fitting into unmanned air systems.

Subramanyam said Kaveri engine-fitted LCA would not go into the Services. "In the production aircraft (LCA) going into the Services, Kaveri engine will not be there". Kaveri engine, originally intended to power the LCA, was taken up for development by Bangalore-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) about two-and-half-decades ago but the project has been dogged by delays, with the DRDO lab not being fully able to overcome technical challenges and development snags.

Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister and DRDO Director General V K Saraswat said unmanned air systems would see the integration of Kaveri engine for different applications. Kaveri engine will be demonstrated on board an Indian origin aircraft, added Saraswat, also Secretary in the Department of Defence (R&D).
Meanwhile, Subramanyam said the first LCA produced by HAL would be ready in the third quarter of this year.


The foll. is being posted just to show the desire of the IAF for several years now for an improved Tejas,engine et al. and the sliding timescale of IOC,delivery of the first sqd. which led to the Def. MIn and Air Chief's statements at Aero-India this year.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 389203.ece

IAF insists on changes to Tejas
Ravi Sharma

It does not meet minimum air staff requirements

IAF will consider acquiring 125 more Tejas’ when Mk2 variant is developed
Mk2 will take a few years because a new powerful engine has to be chosen


BANGALORE: The Indian Air Force has categorically ruled out placing further orders for the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas, with its current configuration.

[b]In 2005, the IAF placed an order with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for 16 fighters and four trainers.
The then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said a decision on an additional 20 aircraft was under consideration. But that plan has come a cropper since the overweight, under-powered Tejas does not meet the IAF’s minimum air staff requirements (ASR)[/b].

The IAF decision though is not the end of the road for the Rs. 6,000-crore LCA programme. It will consider acquiring 125 more Tejas when an improved — Mark 2 (Mk2) — variant is developed. As indicated by an IAF committee in 2004, any further order will be subject to the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the designer and developer of the LCA programme, showing “firm visibility that the aircraft will meet the ASR.”

Recently, the IAF even made a few suggestions on improvements in Tejas Mk2, including a more powerful engine, optimisation of the aerodynamic qualities and weight of the aircraft and “dropping and replacing” certain parts to take care of obsolescence.

Tejas Mk2 will take a few years to fructify, the biggest challenge being choosing a new powerful engine. In December, the ADA is expected to issue a request for proposal to General Electric for its GE F414 and to the European consortium Eurojet for EJ200, in a bid to procure 99 engines (with an option to buy another 49).

Once the engine is chosen, fuselage modifications will have to be carried out, flight tests started and evaluation undertaken. All trainer aircraft even after Tejas Mk2 rolls out will continue to have the present GE F404 engines.

Cold weather trials

On the LCA programme, the ADA is getting ready for ‘cold weather trials.’ They were to have been conducted in 2007 but were not because of questions about the aircraft’s reliability.

Two or three aircraft are scheduled to leave for Leh on December 8. Cold weather trials include landing the Tejas at Leh, one of the most challenging airfields in the world, and ‘cold soak’ when temperatures are around minus 15 degrees C to see if the systems on board function normally.

Slow pace

The IAF is also worried about the slow pace and quality of work at HAL. More so, because it will not be able to deliver by 2013, as scheduled, the 20 aircraft for which orders have been placed. Defence Minister A.K. Antony recently said the Tejas would enter squadron service by 2011, which date, according to officials, is highly optimistic as hardly 10 or 12 test sorties are now being undertaken. The IAF expects the final operational clearance for the Tejas only after 2012.
Last edited by Philip on 19 Sep 2013 09:13, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 19 Sep 2013 09:06

I think GTRE & DRDO are now concentrating on new speculated 75/110 kn engine, which may be derived from Kaveri by improving the bypass ratio, increasing the dia and increasing number of stages.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Sep 2013 09:28

I'm sure that Kaveri has a future in UCAV powerplants and marine applications.Some time ago we were told that a marine version was being developed.The IN,which is the most forward of the services in using indigenous systems,could surely use the Kaveri-M if it is available.GE engines are to power the IAC-1,the new Vikrant.

Here is the IAF (AM Pandey retd.) "horses mouth",on the LCA/engine search.The good IN Cdr. should study the history of the LCA project in greater detail.

Finally F414
By Air Marshal (Retd), B.K. Pandey

http://www.spsaviation.net/story_issue.asp?Article=585

The programme to design, develop and manufacture indigenously a light weight fighter aircraft designated as the light combat aircraft (LCA) and subsequently rechristened as “Tejas”, was launched in 1989 with a view to replace the ageing fleet of MiG-21 aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF). The Indian aerospace industry at that time did not have the capability to produce an aero engine to power the LCA and there was no option but to look for a solution abroad. The choice fell on the GE F404 after burning turbofan engine of weight lower than other contemporary engines. However, the GE F404 was capable of delivering dry thrust of only 53.9 kilonewtons (kN) and 82 kN with afterburner, which was considerably lower than the 100 kN desired by the IAF. The decision to employ the GE F404 engine was regarded as an interim measure and was to be limited to the prototypes in the development phase. With the ultimate aim of total indigenisation of the LCA, as a long-term solution, an ambitious programme to develop a fourth generation engine called the Kaveri was sanctioned in 1989 and was assigned to the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a facility under the DRDO. Intended to power the first batch of production models of the Tejas, the cost of the project was estimated at launch to be Rs. 382.81 crore and was to be completed by the end of 1996.

However, 14 years after the initially stipulated date of completion and investment of nearly Rs. 3,000 crore, the Kaveri project was formally delinked from the LCA programme in September 2008. ADA, however, continued with the Tejas programme with the underpowered GE F404 and a somewhat dissatisfied IAF rather reluctantly ordered 40 aircraft in the first batch to constitute the first two squadrons. There was an imperative need to find a new power plant close to the required level of performance to give the IAF sufficient confidence to place orders for another 100 aircraft that would meet the stipulated performance requirements. Thus began the search for a new engine.

The Contenders

GE responded to the request for proposal (RFP) floated earlier this year for the new engine with the offer of the GE F414-400, a derivative of the highly reputed and widely used GE F404. Employed on the Boeing F/A 18 Super Hornet and the Gripen from Saab of Sweden, the GE F414 has established a credible record of reliability. Incidentally, F/A 18 and the Gripen are both contenders for the mega deal for 126 medium multi role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender for the IAF which is also expected to be finalised in a year or so from now. The GE F414 engine is fitted on naval variants of combat aircraft.

Employing the latest technologies and featuring a dual channel full authority digital engine control (FADEC), the GE F414 operates at a pressure ratio of 30:1, which is significantly higher than the contemporary engines. While the high pressure ratio provides higher level of efficiency, it also produces greater heat stress on the engine. To cope with this, the GE F414 employs single crystal low-density blades fused with disks. Called “blisks”, these are lighter but stronger compared to conventional blade designs. With reheat, the GE F414 is capable of delivering a maximum thrust of 98 kN which is only marginally short of the qualitative requirements spelt out by the IAF. Heavier by 50 kg compared to the GE F404, the GE F414 has an identical maximum diameter which is 35 inches and is of a similar length of 157 inches. However, its inlet diameter is 32 inches as against 31 inches of the GE F404.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3775
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 19 Sep 2013 15:22

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2318 Test Flights Successfully. (13-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-370,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-217,LSP7-56,NP1-4,LSP8-26)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2322 Test Flights Successfully. (18-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-371,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-218,LSP7-57,NP1-4,LSP8-27)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 20 Sep 2013 12:28

Turkey is looking at an indigenous single-engined stealth fighter to complement the JSF,confident that it can achieve results.
In earlier posts I've asked the Q as to why we can't further develop the LCA/LCA experience into something similar, a larger stealth Mk-3 perhaps. This would be a more cost-effective solution to achieving a desi stealth bird before we graduate to a twin-engined AMCA whatever.The Turkish birds are larger though,but one option to keep air dominance as the primary role ,simplifying the aircraft is worth examining.Some of the 5th-gen tech we expect from the FGFA programme could supplement whatever we have developed on our own.Of course it behoves that MK-2 is developed first.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 580487.xml

Turkey Looks Into Fifth-Gen Complement To JSF
By Tony Osborne
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

Turkey's aviation industry has come a long way since it began building F-16 Fighting Falcons in the 1980s. Now it is confident that it can produce an aircraft in-country that will not only replace the F-16 but complement the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in years to come.

Turkish Aviation Industries (TAI) has been working quietly on ideas for a fifth-generation fighter, dubbed the F-X, for several years, but 2013 represents a critical year in the decision-making process for the project. A $20 million two-year concept phase, started in August 2011, will end this September, and a meeting of Turkey's Defense Industry Executive Committee, which takes place at year-end, will define how the program will begin to take shape.

At the IDEF defense show in Istanbul last month, TAI displayed three potential single-seat design concepts for the aircraft: two conventional monoplane layouts, one with a single engine, not dissimilar to the F-35, and one with two engines, while the third featured canard foreplanes and a large delta wing. Each of the concepts features elements of design associated with fifth-generation fighter aircraft, such as faceted fuselages to reduce radar cross-section, internal weapons bays, super-cruise capability as well as advanced avionics and an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system. Engineers have received input from Saab, which was drafted to consult on the program.

TAI officials suggest that the two single-engine concepts will have maximum takeoff weights (MTOW) of 50,000-60,000 lb., while the twin-engine version will have an MTOW of 60,000-70,000 lb. Diagrammatic drawings of the twin-engine aircraft show two weapons bays, one located between the air intakes that can house a pair of small short-range air-to-air missiles, and the other in front of the engines housing four larger missiles around the size of the AIM-120 Amraam.

According to industry officials, the requirements defined by the Turkish air force have changed at least three times, with the specification narrowing to what TAI and Turkish industry will be able to achieve in the coming years. Of the designs shown at IDEF, the twin-engine concept meets the requirements set by the air force, say industry officials, but the service prefers a single-engine aircraft to reduce cost and complexity. Although envisaged as a multirole fighter, TAI officials say the air force may give the resulting aircraft more of an air-to-air/air-dominance role as a primary mission.

Under the current timetable, Turkey will develop the aircraft at the same time as it is paying for the F-35. TAI wants to achieve a first flight for the F-X within 10 years. While the F-35 is set to replace the F-4 Phantoms and early F-16s in the air force inventory, the service sees the F-X replacing later models of the F-16 fleet purchased through various iterations of the Peace Onyx program. The last F-16 produced by TAI was delivered to the air force in December as part of the Peace Onyx IV program.

A number of technologies are being envisioned for the aircraft. Ozcan Ertem, executive vice president for aircraft at TAI, tells Aviation Week, “we are looking at options for two crew to zero crew members.” He suggests that in aircraft with two crew, one pilot could be working separately as a mission commander in control of a fleet of unmanned combat air vehicles, for instance.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the aircraft's development will be finding a powerplant, particularly if the air force sticks to its single-engine requirement. TAI began talks at last year's Farnborough air show with major engine manufacturers from the U.S., Europe and Russia

“We are looking for the next generation up in performance and we are in contact with all the major engine suppliers,” says Ediz Tarhan, program manager for F-X at TAI. “It might be possible to develop something jointly with TEI,” he notes, referring to Tusas Engine Industries.

Tarhan adds that the company is exploring a number of development models, including teaming with a foreign partner that could help fund the program based on a common baseline set of requirements. A second model could be a partnership with a country that has similar goals in producing a fifth-generation aircraft and would be willing to cooperate in developing, building and ultimately marketing the aircraft for export. South Korea was named in the Turkish press as being interested in joining the project when the concept phase began in 2011. The third model could involve a country or a company partner with experience in fighter design and development to provide technical assistance with the project, in a similar way as Saab is doing at the concept stage.

Turkey has a long way to go before it can realize its ambitions, but the resulting investment and spin-offs from the program could give the country's aviation industry significant credibility in the coming years as well as a product that could be widely exportable to nations unable to join the Joint Strike Fighter program.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2013 20:05

Cross posting, as a FYI on "FOC", actually on any "OC":

Kartik wrote:RSAF F-15SG's attain FOC 3.5 years after first deliveries

RSAF F-15SGs achieve FOC


God! Are they late!!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests