LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

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.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 10 Jan 2015 21:00

^ Can the jammer be fitted in in-service aircraft? No point keeping such an important capability waiting to be operational.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_23694 » 10 Jan 2015 21:40

advanced electronic warfare suite (EW suite)

“New Generation Electronic Warfare Equipment Integrated on TEJAS Aircraft”. Ms J Manjula, OS and Director DARE said “LCA is the first fighter aircraft of India fitted with a Radar Warner and Jammer equipment. It has capability for both Radar warning and jamming using a Unified EW Technology


Great news.
However curious to know as to how does it compare with the Mirage 2000 Upgrade system. Please anyone ? Since the statement use the words advanced and new generation.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sivab » 11 Jan 2015 01:15

:D :D :D Good news from DMRL via Saurav Jha

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/553 ... 36/photo/1
Image

Don't miss the last line in picture.

:D :D :D DMRL now has SCB tech. BETTER than what is used in AL31!!! :D :D :D

This will now go into next gen Kaveri (~110KN) for AMCA and possibly LCA MkII.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sivab » 11 Jan 2015 03:16

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/DRD ... -ebook.pdf

Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar Uttam
DRDO has taken up the development of flight control radar for fighter aircraft with 100 km range
and multimode operation. Realisation and calibration of prototype Active Aperture Array Antenna Unit
(AAAU) has been completed with indigenous TR modules. Airworthy radar processor and exciter-
receiver have been realised and tested on a high rise platform in Mechanical Scanned Array (MSA)
configuration for validation of various algorithms and waveforms of the fire control radar. Software
development for air-air sub-modes has been carried out

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 11 Jan 2015 03:44

sivab, i owe you a beer. great!

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby uddu » 11 Jan 2015 07:05

Navy Chief pats NLCA team
Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/feature/all-war ... 18037.html

Admiral Dhowan met with the Naval LCA team from Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and congratulated them for the recent successful NP-1 trials in Goa. The NLCA had its maiden flight from the Shore-Based Test Facility (SBTF) in Goa, thereby crossing a critical milestone. The Navy Chief also interacted with Cmde C D Balaji (Retd) Project Director LCA (Navy) and Commodore Jaideep Maolankar, the pilot who undertook the historic ski-jump take-off from SBTF. Later speaking to OneIndia, Cmde Balaji (Retd) said that the second prototype of NLCA (NP-2) will soon have its maiden flight. "We are done with most of the tests barring a few. We are hopeful that the NP-2 will have its first flight within a weeks' time," Cmde Balaji (Retd) told OneIndia.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 11 Jan 2015 07:55

A big salute to Navy Chief! you all know what.. such a big pat on the back not only feels good for the public but actually gives an oomph drive to those who work on the project.

You all will see Sham No Varunah rain about a definite 250 nLCAs.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Jan 2015 08:24

EW Suite for LCA
Advanced EW suite for LCA is under development as a joint development programme between
DRDO and MoD, Israel. The suite is built around state-of-the-art Unified Electronic Warfare System
(UEWS)—An internal EW system consisting of a Unified Receiver Exciter Processor (UREP) with
advanced digital receiver/Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) concepts integrated with Microwave
Power Module (MPM)-based transmitter for LCA. The system has been installed in Tejas PV1 aircraft
and Ground Acceptance Test has been completed


https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/553912206606102528
Comrades, good news! Tejas PV-I today flew for the first time with a next generation electronic warfare suite which has both RWR and ECM.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Jan 2015 14:03

Details of Tejas's EW suite. MAWS, LWS and RWJS confirmed.
http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/01/tejas-lca-ew-suite-explained.html

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_23694 » 13 Jan 2015 09:39

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/01/lca- ... nd-in.html

LCA Mk-2 : A Long Wait for the IAF and the IN

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 13 Jan 2015 11:35

dhiraj wrote:http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/01/lca-mk-2-long-wait-for-iaf-and-in.html

LCA Mk-2 : A Long Wait for the IAF and the IN

I left the following comment (Actually, I am surprised that Thumkar thinks that he is not liked here!)

Hi,

I am a poster from bharat-rakshak, and I am guilty of feverishly supporting the LCA. Actually, I share your dissappointment on the slow rate of development of the Mk2. I expected prototypes to be at least in advanced stages of build by now. That said, I would like to point out some mistakes in your reporting. I wouldn't have cared otherwise, but I respect your work, and I hope you won't look at it as a case of panning your post.

The official fact sheet of GE-F404-IN20 engine can be found here: http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/military/datasheet-F404-Family.pdf.

The official fact sheet of the GE-F414-INS6 engine can be found here (also linked in your post): http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/military/datasheet-F414-Family.pdf

1. The increase is thrust is 16.67%
2. The GE-F414-INS6 is of the same length (391 cms) as the GE-F404-IN20
3. Hence, the lengthening of the fuselage has nothing to do with the engine. It is actually to do with reduction in wave drag. I had made this diagram many years ago based on a publication of AoA testing of Tejas:
Image

The upper part of the figure shows the cross-sectional area. As you know, this line should be as smooth as possible for less wave drag. The vertical lines in the diagram show the metre boundaries along the longitudinal axis. As you can see that there is a spike in the area between the 5m and 6m boundaries. In Mk2, there are trying to smoothen this part out by adding a plug of 0.5 mtrs. Basically the plug is just behind the cockpit. In Mk2, you will see the root of the wing join behind the canopy.

There is a similar change done for smoothening the kink near the end. The end of the wing-body strake has been smoothened. This has already be taken care of in Mk1. The fix first appeared in LSP-7, and is being retrofitted back to other LSPs and PVs. In this picture, you can see the fix at end of the strake (just in fornt of engine nozzle (in grey)).
Image

One can compare it with the abrupt end of the strake here:
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kartik » 13 Jan 2015 12:46

Thakur_B wrote:Details of Tejas's EW suite. MAWS, LWS and RWJS confirmed.
http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/01/tejas-lca-ew-suite-explained.html


would it be possible to post the entire article?

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kailash » 14 Jan 2015 12:58

Here you go Kartik. Just a long ramble..

LCA Mk2 is being developed for use by the IAF and the IN.

The decision to develop a Mk-2 version of the LCA was taken in September 2008, when it became clear that the Kaveri engine would not be ready in time for the LCA IOC, and the aircraft would have to be inducted into service with the lower thrust GE-F404 engine and consequent performance shortfalls.

LCA Tejas Mk-2 would be the aircraft that the IAF had sought with the LCA project and the IAF would have to make do with the under performing LCA Mk-1. Completely out of options, the IAF placed orders for two squadrons of LCA Mk-1, an aircraft that it didn't want, in the hope that the money paid would fund development of the LCA Mk-2.

Six years since the decision to develop LCA Mk-2, even the design of the aircraft hasn't been finalized. Ironically, the reason for the tardy progress of the LCA Mk-2 project is that ADA has been focused almost exclusively on pushing LCA Mk-1 through its IOC and FOC!

LCA Mk-1 has overshadowed LCA Mk-2. Will it continue to do so? Is the IAF once again going to be short changed by DRDO and HAL laid back work culture?

Hope is not lost, but the promise of LCA Mk-2 has a deju vu tinge reminiscent of sales pitch that we have been suckered into.

With the current rate of progress, even if we let our optimism run amok and completely ignore ADA/HAL past record, operational induction of LCA Mk-2 into the IAF is at least ten years away.

How good is that? Ten years from now, the PLAAF would be inducting J-20 stealth fighter bombers, and the PAF J-31 stealth fighters. What advantage would a small sized but easily tracked fighter with limited range give to the IAF then?

Maybe I am over-reacting. I admit to having written a blog post over ten years back suggesting that ADA treat the LCA project as a technology demonstrator, the way it was conceived, and focus on developing a more capable fighter. The post was panned by the folks at drdorakshak.com bharatrakshak.com, often with liberal use of expletives.

Since I do have dubious credentials, in the rest of the blog post I will just present what is officially known about the LCA Mk-2 project. Hopefully, that will leave readers in the same cheerful frame of mind that they are in when they start reading the post.


Project Progress

According to DRDO Chief Avinash Chander, preliminary design of LCA Mk-2 had been completed and ADA is now validating the design.

Last year ADA was known to be scouting for a consultant to help with design validation. I am not sure what became of that, but a DRDO official told IDP Sentinel that ADA was ready to proceed independently failing a satisfactory consultancy arrangement.

ADA-HAL are designing LCA Mk-2 using DFMA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly) methodology, which ensures that aircraft components are designed to ensure easy manufacture, without adversely impacting the ease with which they can be fitted on the aircraft. The first time use of DFMA methodology in designing an aircraft would ensure better quality and quick ramp up of serial production after IOC.


Powerplant
LCA Mk-2 will be powered by the GE-F414-INS6 engine, a variant of the GE-F414 engine developed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The 22,000 lb thrust class modular engine features a 35 percent increase in thrust over the GE-404 engine.

Advanced engine features include a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) for better operational characteristics and advanced materials and cooling techniques for improved performance and extend component life.





ADA is procuring 99 GE-F414-INS6 engines to power the Tejas Mk-2 and LCA Navy, for which a contract has been finalized and approved.

Under the contract, GE would ship 18 engines with the remaining being manufactured in India by HAL under transfer of technology [agreements]. The 18 engines will come by 2014-15.

India will have the option of ordering another 100 engines in the future.


Airframe Modifications

Minor modifications are being made to the LCA Mk1 airframe to accommodate the slightly larger E-F414-INS6 engine. The fuselage is being being extended by 500mm.

The dimensions of Mk2 would be as follows

Span : 8.20m
Length: 13.70m
Height: 4.52m

It is reported that redesign of the airframe to fit the lengthier F414 engine would eliminate the need for the dead weight lead plates fitted on the Mk-1 in order to ensure stability of the aircraft.

Upgrades

Besides a more powerful engine, Tejas Mk-2 will feature other improvements. Here is the complete list of planned upgrades:

1.Structural Weight Reduction
2.Aerodynamic Improvements
3.Upgrade of Flight Control Computer
4.Electronic Warfare Suite
5.Avionics Upgrade
6.In flight refuelling retractable probe
7.On board oxygen generation system
8.Increased fuel capacity.


Features Overview
1.Supersonic at all altitudes
2.15km service altitude
3.Tailless compound delta wing
4.Composite structure
5.Improved performance
6.Improved maintainability
7.Improved Survivability
8.Digital Fly by wire
9.Fuel dump system
10.Multi mode radar


Cockpit
It is proposed to have two 6x8 smart MFDs on LH, RH and one 5x5 MFD in center console in Tejas Mk2.








LCA Navy Mk-2 model at Aero India 2011. Photo Copyright © Vijainder K Thakur



LCA Navy
LCA Navy will be based on the LCA Mk-2 aircraft.

Initial development of the LCA Navy, using Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) at Goa, is being done using prototypes (NP1, NP2, NP5) developed from LCA Mk-1. Carrier trials would be done using prototypes developed from LCA Mk-2. Only LCA Navy Mk-2 aircraft will embark on a carrier.

Initially, ADA planned to develop one twin seater trainer (NP1) and one fighter (NP2) along with Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) at Goa.

IDP Sentinel members can track LCA Mk-2 developments on the page at

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Yagnasri » 14 Jan 2015 17:22

Mango questions alert:

N-LCA is using GE 414 Right? It started its first flight now. Is it possible to have mk1 to have GE 414 Engine with minimum modifications and enter into service in large numbers? I mean serious issue of "lack of power" will be solved. Right?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 14 Jan 2015 17:57

NLCA uses the 404.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 14 Jan 2015 18:20

there is no serious issue here on lack of power. the mission profile for IN is different compared to that of IAF. IAF was sleeping for a while, but when IN came with bang for the buck program to energize NLCA, IAF felt it and went behind IN specs (married well with their strategic delaying tactics or not-encouraging the lab boys enough tactic). IAF did not consider LCA serious enough earlier.. they learned a big lesson at a huge cost.

well there is nothing wrong in asking for the improved spec, but it has to come staged and phased. or it must be exactly planned. are we joking here?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby John » 14 Jan 2015 21:13

SaiK wrote:there is no serious issue here on lack of power. the mission profile for IN is different compared to that of IAF. IAF was sleeping for a while, but when IN came with bang for the buck program to energize NLCA, IAF felt it and went behind IN specs (married well with their strategic delaying tactics or not-encouraging the lab boys enough tactic). IAF did not consider LCA serious enough earlier.. they learned a big lesson at a huge cost.

well there is nothing wrong in asking for the improved spec, but it has to come staged and phased. or it must be exactly planned. are we joking here?


Difference in thrust between 404 and 414 will make huge difference in payload it can carry operating from a ski jump.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 15 Jan 2015 00:56

NLCA MK1 is a technology demonstrator in my opinion. IN doesn't have refuellers. And the Mk1 powered by F404 and weighed down by a heavier airframe and landing gear will probably not be able to carry much armament and fuel off the ski-jump. That is probably the reason why they don't plan to use the Mk1 on-board ships. If they do, they would probably fly it in defensive roles with A2A missiles only.

But NLCA Mk1 will be a true technology feeder for the Mk2. Landing gear, arresting hook, airframe changes, LRU repositioning, fuel dump system, FBW changes, anti-ship weapons integration, operating procedures, etc.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 15 Jan 2015 02:56

^^^ 29s can refuel each other, and little birds. There is nothing TD about NLCA Mk1. At only a dozen, the harrier also was a TD then.

In a trainer, fleet protector/interceptor role Mk1 has already demonstrated it is ahead of the harrier. Why shortchange it?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 15 Jan 2015 04:41

^^^ I am not shortchanging anything. I don't think you will find a stronger supporter of LCA elsewhere.

Operationally, they like to optimize deck space. Why would they have the a 29 to refuel a LCA? They would rather have another Mig-29 which will provide much longer legs and larger payload carrying capability while taking up almost the same deck space. Single engine light birds are not ideal for the Navy. IN has said on record that medium weight fighters like Rafale (Mig-29K) are ideal.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_23360 » 15 Jan 2015 05:18

if single engine fighter are not ideal for navy, then MK2 should be not useful to them ...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 15 Jan 2015 05:54

Single engined planes *increase the risk* of not being able to locate (in time) and rescue a downed pilot. To that extent such a plane is not desirable, as an example, over the Himalayas, way up north in Canada, etc. Two engines increase the chance of bringing a pilot home.

So, a single engined naval plane could be still rather effective close to the ships.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 890
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby nash » 15 Jan 2015 07:03

Does anyone has any idea about this? is this true?

https://www.facebook.com/IADnews/photos ... =1&theater

MINDBLOWING NEWS .... AESA radar for Tejas MK-II "UTTAM" been tested Air-to-Air mode ......................

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for Tejas is being developed under name "Uttam" . DRDO has already finished calibration of prototype AAAU with indigenous TR modules and is testing Air-to-Air Mode software .
Air-to-ground mode software is under development and will have capability of carrying out high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications.

Some Reports claimed that DRDO is taking Israels help in making this AESA radar which will have a range more then 420 Km

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 15 Jan 2015 07:21

akshat.kashyap wrote:if single engine fighter are not ideal for navy, then MK2 should be not useful to them ...

It is not the ideal. But Navy has always supported products and incremental growth. Mk1 speeds up Mk2 and Mk2 speeds up AMCA, which is what they would love.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Sid » 15 Jan 2015 07:47

NRao wrote:Single engined planes *increase the risk* of not being able to locate (in time) and rescue a downed pilot. To that extent such a plane is not desirable, as an example, over the Himalayas, way up north in Canada, etc. Two engines increase the chance of bringing a pilot home.

So, a single engined naval plane could be still rather effective close to the ships.


Super Étendard is also a single engine fighter. One of the most reliable aircrafts.

Its not the number of engine which counts but the platforms capability, i.e. what it can deliver.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby shiv » 15 Jan 2015 07:48

akshat.kashyap wrote:if single engine fighter are not ideal for navy, then MK2 should be not useful to them ...

Fact is, the Indian Navy has operated single engined carrier aircraft from the outset - Alize, Seahawk and the Harrier

The US Navy operated the A-5 Skyhawk and A 7 Corsair - both single engined

The French Navy operated the Dassault Etendard

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 15 Jan 2015 08:45

^^^^ So much common sense in the posters above, yet the most vocal here still bring up red herrings (partial to fish?) such as a)one engine, b)load carried, c)range. All meaningless in the used intended.

The sea is not teeming with "fish" like the air force or army's environment. With a smaller ship, the intercepters need to be smaller lighter birds, capable of sinking a ship or two in an emergency but mainly meant to fend off intruders with a2a and spare the heavier twin tubes for the main/ground tasks.

The ship is not going farther than 1k kms from base for fighting. Its not designed to fight in the atlantic. So if you want only twins, you get may be 12. Of which some will be intercepters, others tankers. Leaving you with may be 6?. What rates will you generate, and how much will you burn circling with two exhausts.

The twins only strategy is pure TFTA, meant to generate a great photo op. Not much more than that. If youcan get 6 nlca+10 29s. You may get 8 of them wandering off. All 10 if no tanking. Scale appropriately according to the total. 16 twins -> 12 twins+6singles etc.

The ship will last 30-40 years. Wont get any bigger as it gets older. There will be two under near 50 kt for next 30 years.

The NLCA is perfectly capable for what is needed. Re. the crashes, see 30Mki, 29 crashes. The 130 crash? Bigger red herring than I ever saw. On one hand you see the ejection seat debate over the trainer (and support for ejection seat not important), on the other this every car must have twin pipes argument (its going to fall out of the air with one tail). Totally divorced from reality.

Two squads of NLCA will do wonders for a fixed wing navy. And much more than two more squads of 29k.
Half the operating cost, total control over guts and mind. Can be over land or sea. Put one in A&N and kill two birds.
Last edited by Indranil on 15 Jan 2015 11:58, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Can you please stop the regional slur? It is not funny!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby shiv » 15 Jan 2015 08:49

The F-35B - the latest and greatest in carrier borne aircraft is single engined.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9261
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2015 08:58

shiv wrote:
akshat.kashyap wrote:if single engine fighter are not ideal for navy, then MK2 should be not useful to them ...

Fact is, the Indian Navy has operated single engined carrier aircraft from the outset - Alize, Seahawk and the Harrier

The US Navy operated the A-5 Skyhawk and A 7 Corsair - both single engined

The French Navy operated the Dassault Etendard


If one were to poll Naval aviators one would probably arrive to a strong consensus for twins, but then again these decisions are made by folks that have hard data in front of them over decades of operations for various platforms and access to future trends as far as component reliability are concerned. As mentioned by yourself, the A-5, A-7, Étendard and the Harrier all served just fine despite of being single-engined. Moreover there is enormous data from the F-16 for most air-forces and Navies to share to get a strong indication of the pro's and con's (as well limited data from the M2K performance with France, IAF and others for example). With thousands of reliable single engined fighters produced, that had a huge amount of flight hours between them the USN was finally "won over" and despite of having certain additions (such as the IPP providing backup power to the control surfaces) they were convinced enough to go in for the F-35C and the F-35B (between them and the USMC) to have it as their tactical workhorse for the next few decades.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby shaun » 15 Jan 2015 09:11

IN have fair idea what they are procuring i.e., LCA , Mig-29K and P-8I , they will be large in numbers and their area of responsibility is to sanitize and for power projection in IOR . The argument that single engine a/c have no place at high sea is completely neutralized by JSF . And one thing to remember although the marine environ do have considerable challenges , not a single LCA had engine flame outs ( my prayer it never happens because it will give chances to people against it , to disband the project ) through out its testing phase , till date.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 15 Jan 2015 09:17

Sid wrote:
NRao wrote:Single engined planes *increase the risk* of not being able to locate (in time) and rescue a downed pilot. To that extent such a plane is not desirable, as an example, over the Himalayas, way up north in Canada, etc. Two engines increase the chance of bringing a pilot home.

So, a single engined naval plane could be still rather effective close to the ships.


Super Étendard is also a single engine fighter. One of the most reliable aircrafts.

Its not the number of engine which counts but the platforms capability, i.e. what it can deliver.


Could be, I am not aware of that particular plane. But, it still stands that the risk is higher with a single engined plane under some circumstances. I know for sure that the Canadian AF prefers a dual engined plane. Again, the operative word(s) is prefers (risk) - does not mean that they will not settle for a single engined plane (USN with the F-35? There is a story there).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9261
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2015 09:25

It all boils down to having the data in front of you and spending a fair amount of time going over it, running the numbers and coming to the conclusion. This happened in the US in the early 90's when the USN was still on the fence and they spent a good few years going over F-16 operational data before signing up for another single engined aircraft. Same thing applies for Canada if they are open to seeing the analytics and resultant tradeoffs. Like I said in the other thread about 2 heads vs one, it is often an organizational culture thing and those barriers are sometimes tough to crack in a short period of time. Clearly the IN has no such issues given their support for the LCA, in line with the Navies in the US, UK, Spain, possibly Japan, Australia and Turkey (and previously the french).

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 15 Jan 2015 09:34

^^^^

If one were to poll ==> vast majority will also want 100kt, 12 of them. Are they getting that? I too would like everything James B gets (mainly on the side), even if my own profile is considerably smaller.

Again, given the "hard data", they wouldnt. See, now its one vote for the vast-majority thisway, one the other way. Unless such a poll is responsibly conducted (which still wouldnt solve the acrage issue), its another fish in the ocean (blue marlin? this time).

You are tied to the home you bought for another two generations. And the IAC vacation home is another 1BHK. Whats the point of garaging a rolls royce? Those realities are not up for voting. What hard-data makes them insignificant?
Last edited by Shreeman on 15 Jan 2015 09:35, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby shiv » 15 Jan 2015 09:34

One the general subject of single engined carrier borne jets that became enormously successful, helped win wars and the topic of not letting test flying accidents delay or stop a program needlessly here is a video I added uploaded 5 minutes ago. Maybe we have something to learn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNXazY3iJEo
Last edited by shiv on 15 Jan 2015 09:36, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9261
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2015 09:36

If one were to poll ==> vast majority will also want 100kt, 12 of them. Are they getting that? I too would like everything James B gets, even if my own profile is considerably smaller


I was going to add something very similar to that in my post :)..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9261
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2015 09:40

Shreeman wrote:^^^^

If one were to poll ==> vast majority will also want 100kt, 12 of them. Are they getting that? I too would like everything James B gets (mainly on the side), even if my own profile is considerably smaller.

Again, given the "hard data", they wouldnt. See, now its one vote for the vast-majority thisway, one the other way. Unless such a poll is responsibly conducted (which still wouldnt solve the acrage issue), its another fish in the ocean (blue marlin? this time).

You are tied to the home you bought for another two generations. And the IAC vacation home is another 1BHK. Whats the point of garaging a rolls royce? Those realities are not up for voting. What hard-data makes them insignificant?


What I said was when you go and ask you get a "preference" , but those that make decisions on programs do so based on actual data and in case of the current generation of single engined naval fighters, there has been a ton of data from the M2k, F-16 programs in various conditions on which one can base the decision to go or not to go for a single engined fighter. Additionally, you have actual single engined carrier aircraft data. Furthermore you look at long term trends and how your reliability is going to improve with technology.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 15 Jan 2015 10:00

Sorry, it read as if the poll was the emphasis. My mistake.

Frankly, all things being equal is never the case. Unless the aircraft in question was suspect for other reasons, the 1 vs 2 tail pipes is not going to figure in the equation one way or the other.

Like the initial batch of 30ks, the navy could fill up the assembly line while others are sleeping and catch itself a gift/treasure. It could give the navy resources that the inter-service rivalry would otherwise keep off its plate for another two generations. If its over the sea -- navy/CG can take care of it by themselves without askung for MKIs.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 15 Jan 2015 10:01

My comments with respect to the single engine had nothing to do with safety and redundancy. It has everything to do with TWR, especially when operating from a ski-jump where all the power is provided by the engine. Su-33/J-15 are twin-engined, but that does not make them ideal for STOBAR operations.

When I have more time, I will find an ex-Admiral's words on why Rafale M is the right solution. And the Admiral in question is one of the strongest supporters of NLCA.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 15 Jan 2015 10:10

^^^ Nope. Again, sentences out of context dont carry any weight. And one qualified individusls opinion doesnt change the ground realities either.

Re. thrust/weight, again it is dependent upon the role. NLCA as a multi role replacement for 29k comes with baggage. 29k as tanker, trainer, interceptor comes with its 2x costs, reduced numbers and availability.

Buying more from Russia or NLCA are the choices on the menu. Still want to overload the poor little donkey and call it a arabian workhorse? While workhorses are doing the work of the donkeys?

It is a mixed message, whichever way you want to look at it. The specifications re. TWR/load for some roles are not relevant here. The legs are only 500km at best and thats not taking you to any land from vik or IAC. Its not lifting pj10 regardless of TWR. So what is it going to be loaded with? Take off light --light as a rocket and refuel from 29k. Then wander around for 3 hours keeping watch on a2a. Land empty. The TWR doesnt play a role. Training from dega, again TWR doesnt play a role.

Fishes. I say, fishes.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sankum » 15 Jan 2015 10:47

NLCA mk1 empty weight over air force version will be reduced to 600kg from 1600kg present according to reports.

NLCA MK1 empty weight of 7.2 T can be expected and maximum take of weight from carrier will be restricted to 12.5T according to ADA website which reduces the payload to 2.3T as 3T goes to internal fuel 2.5T + pilot/ cannon ammo/pylons weight of 500Kg.

2.3T is enough to carry 2*BVR AAM+ 2*SRAAM=700kg + 2* 800litre tanks for CAP(50%increase in endurance).

The definitive version will be NCLA Mk2 and in my opinion should weight

empty 6.7 T+ 3 T internal fuel+ 0.5 T pilot/ cannon ammo/pylons + 3.3 T PAYLOAD= 13.5T MTOW for no increase in wing area.

ADA initial plan for NLCA mk1 was 6T empty weight+ 2.5T internal fuel+0.5T pilot/ cannon ammo/pylons + 3.3T payload= 12.3T MTOW but it got over weight.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests