LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Mar 2014 02:58

LCA Flights update:

2510th flight on 14 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 194 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 36 LSP2: 293 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 15 LSP8 : 74

2495th flight on 28 Feb
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 191 LSP5: 248
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 36 LSP2: 290 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 77
NP1: 12 LSP8 : 74

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Mar 2014 20:31

today there were few flights

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Mar 2014 22:40

So far some limited Indian radars were tested with Israeli help,” the official said.

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=20889

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Mar 2014 19:53

Flight update:

From: 2510th flight on 14 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 194 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 36 LSP2: 293 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 15 LSP8 : 74

To: 2520th flight on 24 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 198 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 37 LSP2: 294 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 18 LSP8: 75

Yay! PV5(trainer) joins the party along with LSP3. The only ones left to join are PV3, LSP1, (and may be PV-1/NP-2)?

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 25 Mar 2014 21:36

Great, so both the twin seaters PV-5 and NP-1 have started logging flights.

member_28482 · Post by **member_28482** » 26 Mar 2014 08:46

Lot of flying is happening on different variants of LCA,

Are all of them for Final operational clearance or just for Fun.

Why too much delay in Naval Variant IOC.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Mar 2014 08:58

delays are fine as long as we know exactly what it is for.. this is always a struggle from enough details to leak out to press vs. project loopholes that gets submerged under the defence project secrets pretext.

so, there should be a DDM committee that needs to setup, spin, alter and tailor for public consumption who has the right to engage the project management and cag. a quasi gov setup would be ideal to deal with the dorks of media, plus feedback to public on the progress of any defence project.

penny wise, all things are people accountable anyways. it should be all part of proper governance package, that we have failed to establish since ages.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Mar 2014 09:35

ashrivastava wrote:Lot of flying is happening on different variants of LCA,

Are all of them for Final operational clearance or just for Fun.

For fun only.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2014 09:53

indranilroy wrote:Flight update:

From: 2510th flight on 14 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 194 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 36 LSP2: 293 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 15 LSP8 : 74

To: 2520th flight on 24 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 198 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 37 LSP2: 294 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 18 LSP8: 75

Yay! PV5(trainer) joins the party along with LSP3. The only ones left to join are PV3, LSP1, (and may be PV-1/NP-2)?

Can we organize the listing like this for more clarity? All the TDs, PVs, LSPs and NPs in their own line and ordered by vehicle number.

From: 2510th flight on 14 Mar

TD1: 233, TD2: 305
PV1: 242, PV2: 222, PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74 , LSP2: 293, LSP3: 194, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 252, LSP7: 79, LSP8 : 74
NP1: 15

To: 2520th flight on 24 Mar

TD1: 233, TD2: 305
PV1: 242, PV2: 222, PV3: 381, PV5: 37
LSP1: 74 , LSP2: 294, LSP3: 198, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 252, LSP7: 79, LSP8 : 78
NP1: 18

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 26 Mar 2014 18:48

And a standard disclaimer line from what we know - PV3 is vehicle instrumented to test CLAW, PV5 is two seat trainer, LSP3 for Radar, LSP8 is definite production variant, LSP6 is for spin testing etc etc etc. That gives an idea of what is moving on.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Mar 2014 19:10

It seems HAL is taking 6 years to assemble LCA SP-1. The assembly started in 2009 and the aircraft is not expected to fly before end of 2014.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 26 Mar 2014 19:34

welcome to HAL where timelines are made up and deadlines still dont matter.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Mar 2014 20:11

The LCA SP-1 shell was manufactured in 2009. However, the configuration wasn't frozen till LSP-8. As mentioned in various news releases, LSP-8 is the final production variant. And LSP-8 came out last year. I guess they were waiting for it to be signed off on before starting work on SP-1. Thats why the deadline for SP-1 was by march 2014.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Mar 2014 21:15

welcome to HAL where timelines are made up and deadlines still dont matter.

I take it that you work in the aerospace space.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Mar 2014 05:12

vic wrote:It seems HAL is taking 6 years to assemble LCA SP-1. The assembly started in 2009 and the aircraft is not expected to fly before end of 2014.

LCA SP-1-20 are based on IOC-2 standard, which wasn't achieved until mid-December 2013. Until the IOC-2 was achieved there is no way they could have fully produced the LCA in serial production mode. While they were waiting, HAL would have started building the production infrastructure, shoring up suppliers and potentially building the plane partially based on what was known to be finalized.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Mar 2014 08:44

SP-1 and SP-2 are not based on IOC-2 standard and are prior thereto. SP-3 to SP-10 will be IOC-2 standard. Also, IOC-1 to IOC-2 did not involve any structural changes and airframe could have been completed ie kept ready.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2014 21:08

Well ,according to a gent very much in the know (discretion prevents me from giving more details for obvious reasons),the programme is doing well.Armament testing going on well,but no illiusions please, do not expect it to replace the Rafale.It is an excellent aircraft primarily meant to replace our fleet of MIG-21s.Due to his occupation,he was also well experienced in other birds too and issues regarding them.The SU-30 component problems with Russia are "over-hyped",combat capability,etc.not greatly affected,glitches do happen.The problems are being worked upon by the supplier,The Russians will always stand by us as they've done,it's in their strategic interest.

Smiles regarding HAL and the BT issue.Russian engines very powerful but less lifespan.If one wants more lifespan,they will derate it for you but lesser power results.Their concept is diff. from the western forces.simply replace an engine when needed,keeping a large inventory at hand of spares and components.Why do we not do the same? Our problem lies in the fact that negotiations are NOT done by the forces,who could order with the aircraft enough spares for 5 yrs. or so,but with bean counters in the MOD,therefore life-cycle costs factor in ,in the price war/negotiations.

The Rafale is sorley needed,126 aircraft will in all probability be the final number due to costs.FGFA programme also doing well,separate team for that.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Mar 2014 00:53

Philip sir,

Having more engines with each engine having a lesser life is okay, but there is a limit. The problem is 300 hrs before MTO for engines is abysmally low. Trainers need overhauls faster because they fly more often. With 300 hrs, the engines have to be overhauled every 6 months or so. That is way too low.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Mar 2014 01:17

IR,

I *think* his/Russian strategy is to simply replace an engine and not worry about "overhaul".

The Russians, IIRC, mitigated quality issues by quantity. So, they would suggest a lower life cycle - it does not matter to them.

member_28502 · Post by **member_28502** » 28 Mar 2014 06:49

Thats the typical Russian way of solving problem
Over engineer (in terms of factor of safety) and use for under rated purposes

Like design a V6 for a scooter and will never fail in two hundred years of life.

This philosophy is inherently flawed and can bankrupt even the richest of rich nations , and India can not efford this route. It was all fine and dandy when state owned everything and pays for everything and no accounting (least of all cost accounting)

No wonder that Sukhoi cant make a decent commercial civil jetliner.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Mar 2014 07:13

er, going way off topic, but Sukhoi does have a new sub-100 seater civil airliner Sukhok SuperJet 100. It seems to get good reviews from couple of customers in Mexico and Indonesia.

Anyway, this is LCA thread, so back to LCA status

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2014 07:25

russians went through around 300 nuclear submarines in the 30 years between 1960 to 1990!
they simply did not care about longevity and MLUable design.
Akulas and Su27 are probably their first products that have seen a long life and some MLU.
the SS18 and RSM24 also due to fund crunch have been MLUed.

member_28502 · Post by **member_28502** » 28 Mar 2014 07:26

The PowerJet SaM146 is a turbofan engine produced by the PowerJet joint venture (not to be confused with Power Jets) between Snecma of France and NPO Saturn of Russia.[2] Snecma is in charge of the core engine, control system (FADEC), transmissions (accessory gearbox, transfer gearbox), overall engine integration and flight testing.[citation needed] NPO Saturn is responsible for the components in the low pressure section and engine installation on the Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional aircraft and ground testing.[

Notice the French connection?
Now Back to LCA as you said

added this tid bit

The crew told me that the Tu-204 was at the time the most cost efficient aircraft in the TNT fleet. as for the dispatch reliabilty and workmanship, the aircraft looked ok to me. Generally Russian aircraft are built stronger than western aircraft and are easier to maintain, though they might look in places a bit "rustic".
As the crew told me, the weak points of Russian aircraft design were the engines (higher fuel consumption), which for the the Tu-204 was partially solved by using RR RB21 engines, and the avionics, which again was solved by employing a western avionics manufacturer, but for structures and aerodynamics the Russians are very much advanced.
Jan

Reference
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/310858/

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Mar 2014 08:13

An IJT flies around 30 hours per month when fully inducted and during test regime it would fly max around 10 hrs per month. Therefore HAL may be trying to shift the blame and keep focus on the engine even though that problem is NOW over.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Mar 2014 08:49

GD, dunno. Su, to me, seems to have had a ton of luck. Does not seem they planned anything. ?????

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Mar 2014 09:43

Nijalingappa wrote:
The PowerJet SaM146 is a turbofan engine produced by the PowerJet joint venture (not to be confused with Power Jets) between Snecma of France and NPO Saturn of Russia.[2] Snecma is in charge of the core engine, control system (FADEC), transmissions (accessory gearbox, transfer gearbox), overall engine integration and flight testing.[citation needed] NPO Saturn is responsible for the components in the low pressure section and engine installation on the Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional aircraft and ground testing.[

Notice the French connection?
Now Back to LCA as you said

...

A civil airliner is more than just engines. The airframe is quite good, and yes, they do have collaboration with French. Doesn't mean much. World over, no aircraft manufacture manufactures its own engines. And as mentioned, yes western engines are more advanced, no doubt about that. Today, Brazil manufactures and sells Embraer aircraft all over the world, as does Bombardier. And all of them use engines from either Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney or GE, the three major engine manufacturers. So, coming to your assertion, yes Russia can build a decent civil airliner.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Mar 2014 13:11

Philip wrote:Smiles regarding HAL and the BT issue.Russian engines very powerful but less lifespan.If one wants more lifespan,they will derate it for you but lesser power results.Their concept is diff. from the western forces.simply replace an engine when needed,keeping a large inventory at hand of spares and components.Why do we not do the same?

Western engines are more reliable, longer lasting and more powerful (compare the TWR of the under-development Saturn 117 and the P&W F135).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2014 13:33

Snecma is in charge of the core engine, control system (FADEC), transmissions (accessory gearbox, transfer gearbox), overall engine integration and flight testing.[citation needed] NPO Saturn is responsible for the components in the low pressure section and engine installation on the Sukhoi Superjet 100

mimic of the kaveri eco-core proposal. all the highest tech parts of the engine from france, some compressor sections and mounting cowl from saturn.

member_28482 · Post by **member_28482** » 28 Mar 2014 15:53

Congratulations to all of us

Naval LCA is supersonic now

https://www.ada.gov.in/adawebsitedev.html

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 28 Mar 2014 16:18

^ Congratulations everybody.

LCA flights over the years:

I guess NLCA would also get to be tested at just as fast a pace.

member_28482 · Post by **member_28482** » 28 Mar 2014 17:27

Is there any News for Mark2 Design completion this month.....

disha · Post by **disha** » 29 Mar 2014 06:26

Given the strong and heavy landing gear of Naval LCA,

I am naming NLCA as "Sunny" (as in Sunny Deol., like he does not have haath [hand] but hathoda [hammer]., or it could be Sunny Leone as well

).

So Sunny went supersonic today! Congrats.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 29 Mar 2014 07:25

disha wrote:Given the strong and heavy landing gear of Naval LCA,

I am naming NLCA as "Sunny" (as in Sunny Deol., like he does not have haath [hand] but hathoda [hammer]., or it could be Sunny Leone as well ).

So Sunny went supersonic today! Congrats.

hahaha....dishaji good one. Sunny leone new song can now also be rephrased as 'ye duniya pital di....aur mey super-sonic di'

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 29 Mar 2014 07:28

DELETED.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Apr 2014 23:10

Flight update:

From: 2520th flight on 24 Mar
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 198 LSP5: 252
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 37 LSP2: 294 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 79
NP1: 18 LSP8: 75

To:
2532th flight on 05 April
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 200 LSP5: 255
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 39 LSP2: 294 LSP4: 110 LSP7: 81
NP1: 19 LSP8 : 77

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Apr 2014 23:30

Cross-post from R&D thread.

Chat with Shri Tamilmani of CEMILAC on Tarmak FB page. Excerpts related to LCA :

LCA:
LCA is marching towards FoC.
All the design issues on lca navy has been completed. any issues arising out of flight testing will be addressed.
NP2 will be flying much before this year end.
SP1 is already for ground run ans SP2 in assemble stage. BVR trails will be much before end of 2014
In aeronautics many of the LRUs on LCA are indigenized. We continue to improve the indigenous content to 80 %. Efforts are on.
LCA MK2 design phase is completed. we are in the process of releasing drawings for production and the program is jointly progressed along with the users.
We have demostrated 1.6 M in LCA and the it is also the same for MK2
LCA Mk2- We will initiate first flight in 2017 and production in 2019
LCA Mk-2 is an EW platform.
AESA for LCA: The design phase is cocmpleted. Many of the past products like TR modules can be used here for realising the AESA. The flying test bed that drdo plans to acquire will accelerate the devlopment
Yes Astra on Mk-2. The work is on the fast track.
LCA Mk-2 is more a product improvement on Mk-1. We are not contemplating major design changes. The future products initiated will have the option of new flight control mechanism.
No prog yet called Mk-3.
Most of the electronic equipment are based on indigenous design However few of the hardware components depend on others

Rustom -Rustom is in the initial taxing test stage we may commencce develpoment flights this year by 2018 we hope to complete the certification for induction into service
2 taxi trails.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Apr 2014 07:57

LCA Mark-2 will enter production in 2019 which means squadron level entry around 2023, thats pretty slow for a product improvement. Rustom-2 FOC in 2018 also is not a lightening speed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Apr 2014 08:51

they said mk-2 prelim design will done by march end. one week gone in april now. of course, I am not talking which year though..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Apr 2014 09:01

SaiK wrote:they said mk-2 prelim design will done by march end. one week gone in april now. of course, I am not talking which year though..

Did you see the update that I posted above, where Mr Tamilmani says that the design is complete and they are in the process of releasing drawings to production?

nash · Post by **nash** » 09 Apr 2014 10:11

He also said tejas production line will be 16/year by 2016, going by their track record it is hard to believe that it will happen.