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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 24 Apr 2014 18:42

Lalmohan wrote:viv with respect, don't underestimate how active the french are globally


None of these players come with a free card.

They *all* expect something in return. In the case of the French it is perhaps paying twice the amount for a plane.

But, IMHO, India needs to explore what else can be battered away. The costs associated with the Rafale is too much.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 24 Apr 2014 18:46

the strategic advantage with the french (as opposed to the many disadvantages) is that they are more interested in a multi-polar world order than the UK and Germany (US, Russia and China - are too busy being the poles) and also have good strategic technology and are very active in the terrorism intelligence field - which initially may not have been of interest since it was maghreb centric, but as the movement has gone global the interests are converging

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 24 Apr 2014 19:08

Those are a given.

The issue, as I see it, is one of evolving priorities.

So, from an Indian PoV, the LCA, a few years ago was perhaps nto even on the table - when India was deep into MMRCA meditation. There was no LCA-MMRCA link or even a thought.

Today, I would think, that dynamic has changed. And, I would also think the French understand that change. So, IMHO, would think the Rafale needs to be replaced with something else - perhaps subs?

For sure, India cannot afford to neglect the LCA and anything that comes after. I think we all can agree on that.

This is not a big deal IMHO.

Or even a Rafale + an engine core tech for $20 billion. ??????

Horse trade.

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

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

Postby SaiK » 24 Apr 2014 21:57

The vulnerabilities of external depdendencies are equal-equal for rafale-lca only to keep them viewed as a black box parameter. With LCA we are only dependent on 30-40% import content whereas Rafale will be all 100% vulnerability. On cost factor alone, Rafale will chew us especially for parts during war time.

The vulnerability offset of LCA is by producing the engines locally. This is exactly what has been done by the agreement with GE to produce these engines locally.

So, saying LCA depending on made in USA parts is more vulnerable to Rafale which is entirely depending on French supply is not fair comparison of vulnerabilites.

Assumption: that our agreements are well written for local manufacturing of parts.

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

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

Postby vic » 24 Apr 2014 22:48

If we invest the savings from canceling the Rafale into LCA and AMCA then we will eventually outgrow import dependency but if we buy Rafale then we will always be dependent on somebody or the other.

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

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

Postby SaiK » 24 Apr 2014 23:01

And there is an eventuality that you guys are forgetting! Getting Kaveri onboard! that will nail all vulnerabilities to only internal factors. :)

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

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

Postby member_23694 » 24 Apr 2014 23:19

To all the proponent of AMCA with IAF (including me) :
With $10-15 billion on the table what is the best case possible timeline for :
- first flight of AMCA
- IOC
- FOC
- Induction to IAF in significant numbers.

For an early timeline lets exclude the use of indigenous engine , even though many would not like to have any import dependency.
For me best case for "Induction to IAF in significant numbers" is ~2030 .
So the question , did the purchase of Su 30 in 1998 in anyways impacted the development of LCA Mk.1. If NO, then I don't see why Rafale purchase rather than benefiting would harm the AMCA development.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 24 Apr 2014 23:25

30% vulnerability is better than a 100% vulnerability, any day.

Wonder if it will work to simply ignore Rafa and Put the money into:

1) Two versions of AMCA one with a Russian engine Mk-A and another with a western engine Mk-B; and

2) Order LCAs for a good 300-400 examples of Mk-1 and Mk-2, using the Mirage2k and Mig29 sparingly while buying off the excess spares from the market; and

3) Stock larger number of engines from all suppliers for LCAs and AMCAs.

4) Restrict the full foreign jets to Mirage2k, Mig 29, Su30MKI and FGFA. Mirage2k & Mig 29 to be used only to buffer the decline in numbers expected in next 10-15 years and essentially meant to be phased out as fast as possible. Eventually leaving only 2 foreign and 2 Indian fighters in the inventory.

Probably too aggressive.

Can somebody enlighten us by putting up a chart showing how many of what types of aircrafts would be available in any given year for next 20-25 years (various presumptions).

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_27581 » 12 May 2014 06:40

Is there any inside scoop on how LCA is inching towards FOC or how is IAF finding it...the silence about these items is becoming unbearable day by day

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

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

Postby merlin » 12 May 2014 12:31

US puts less sanctions on Russia as the threat of retaliation is more. From India, the threat was non-existent for a UPA regime and miniscule for an NDA one, so that comparison is laughable.

To get numbers and diversity I see no possible alternative except the Rafale, as outrageous and ridiculous its costs may be.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 12 May 2014 17:06

Any news about SP1 and SP2?? SP1 was supposed to come out by the end of March.

There has been very few updates about the progress of LCA over the last couple of months....the wait is heart breaking for us jingoes

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4505
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 15 May 2014 22:22

Flight update:

From:
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 [/quote]

To:
2573th flight on 13 May
TD1 : 233 PV1: 242 PV3: 381 LSP1: 74 LSP3: 200 LSP5: 267
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 41 LSP2: 294 LSP4: 117 LSP7: 97
NP1: 22 LSP8 : 78

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

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

Postby member_23694 » 15 May 2014 22:55

where is SP1 and SP2 . Its May 2014.
Did someone mention of new production line built by HAL that will churn out 200 LCA's in very quick time :wink:

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

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

Postby vic » 15 May 2014 23:38

Jaldi Kya hai, metal cutting for SP-1 started only in 2009, it has been only 5-6 years.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

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

Postby P Chitkara » 16 May 2014 10:34

In our country only the service chiefs are expected to be accountable and have been upholding this principle admirably. It is a free for all for the rest. :(

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 May 2014 20:50

This is first time I have seen an LCA on the runway or in the air with a fuel tank on the central pylon.

Image

P.S. This is other picture with a fuel tank on the central pylon, but we don't know whether it was a test flight or not (most probably was).
Image

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4505
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 16 May 2014 22:40

Good find Indranil, and it is LCA-N to boot!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 18 May 2014 01:32

The LCA was always meant to be the "workhorse" of the IAF,replacing the MIG-21 as enunciated by a former air chief. Therefore,even in humble MK-1 avatar,it can and should be built in large numbers,at least another 40 MK-1s in addition to the 40+ ordered.
The vulnerability to sanctions as expressed by some members can very easily be offset by the strategy I've been advocating for aeons,to build more prototypes using the EJ TVC engine,and /or a French or Russian equivalent for the MK-2 prototypes,so that we have alternatives,choosing the best. Even the US has had P&W and GE build competing engines for their combat aircraft.Depending only upon the GE 404/414 is highly suspect.It was obviously thrust upon us to make us dependent upon the US,as part of the "contain India" strategy .

That LCA production needs to be ramped up is no secret.It appears that we have been following a conservative acquisition process.Reaganomics: A "Fly before you buy" mantra. Anyway,that mantra is passe,as the LCA MK-1 has had its IOC last year and due for its FOC this Dec. Once that hurdle/milestone is achieved,an order for at least 200 should be announced and provisions for another production line made.Existing HAL assets now being used to build smaller aircraft,etc. should switch to LCA production,not to mention the MMRCA when it finally arrives,which needs to be built by HAL. A "leap of faith" in the LCA is required and hopefully the new dispensation about to take charge in Delhi will give the required impetus to to the same.

NR has been advocating the "affordability factor" in any MMRCA decision,with Rafale costs escalating.This is going to be the trickiest decision to be made.Such a large sum earmarked for the IAF will beggar it just as the JSF is cannibalising funding for other US def. programmes.

tushar_m

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

Postby tushar_m » 18 May 2014 12:44

One small thing i know about GE engines are that it's a mature engine & their MTBO is high .

so rather than changing to EJ200 we can just buy a large quantity of Ge F414 right.Since at one point we are expected to change it to kaveri or some future kaveri XX engine .

Second is that we need to solve the AMCA engine problem now. Let's select Ge F414 now for testing & other purposes & change it to kaveri XX when we get our hands on that.The commonality of engine with LCA could mean we could hit two birds with one stone.

While i cannot neglect the point that AMCA would need a super-cruise engine with maybe more power than F414, but for now for rapid development the mega engine problem should be entertained first(it will consume most of the development time).Don't know whether GE has any special super-cruising engines we could use & what technical parameters are required by a jet engine for that capability.

+ Gripen with same engine & has super-cruise capability so there may not be any technical changes required for that.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 28 May 2014 07:24

TEJAS FLIGHT TEST: LESSONS LEARNED SO FAR

Wg Cdr (Retd) PK Raveendran SC
Wg Cdr Malteesh Prabhu

National Flight Test Centre, Aeronautical Development Agency
Bangalore 560 015, INDIA


Abstract

The Indian Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) programme has successfully completed the Full
Scale Engineering Development (FSED) phase and is presently in the Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) clearance phase. Tejas programme is the country’s finest example of
national effort in pursuit of technological excellence in the field of military aviation.
Accordingly, the programme has been a great learning experience for all groups and
individuals involved. The paper focuses on some of the lessons learned from this challenging
programme.
...

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 » 28 May 2014 08:10

tushar_m wrote:One small thing i know about GE engines are that it's a mature engine & their MTBO is high .

Let me make a "generally related" comment. I have been watching engine development over a couple of decades - mainly in the media and aviation journals. The "west" (GE, Snecma, CFM International, Rolls Royce) are so far ahead of everyone else that India cannot "catch up" for a long long time.

We will need to simply develop a "good, reliable" engine. It is unlikely to be as light, efficient and reliable (in terms of MTBF) as the engines by the above named companies. But it will be ours to develop, improve, and make in hundreds or thousands.

My only hope is that when India gets this type of engine, Indians will not be sneeringly comparing it with GE, Snecma, CFM International and Rolls Royce engines and cursing other Indians for continuing to be decades behind. Let me also point out that in the 15 odd years I have been on BRF engine hardware technology has moved from powder metallurgy, to single crystal, to blisk, to composite fan blades and geared turbofans. Some of these don't have fighter applications but the newest engines are simply marvelous. We need to admire and try to emulate - but not fret if we remain a bit behind - which is an absolute certainty for some time to come.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Postby chackojoseph » 28 May 2014 08:14

shiv wrote:My only hope is that when India gets this type of engine, Indians will not be sneeringly comparing it with GE, Snecma, CFM International and Rolls Royce engines and cursing other Indians for continuing to be decades behind.


Very sentiments!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 28 May 2014 09:44

Hakim ji,

I agree with your sentiments but not the methods.

Fighters are all about efficiency. You can't make an efficient fighter without an efficient engine. For example, they can't put a bigger engine into PAKFA to provide the necessary power. To make it comparable to the F-22 they have to develop an engine with comparable efficiency.

The problem is simple and it is not the IAF. It cannot be asked to be accountable for life of its men and the security of the nation with inferior machines. The problem is with us, who as a nation have not been willing to pay the price of developing this expensive technology. We cannot create another problem (military preparedness) while trying to solve this one.

Solution is also simple! Researchers need equipment and airframes for testing their machines. Let there be no confusion left in developers' minds that the development will be supported on a war footing. If the Kaveri team says they want 5 LCA airframes, 5 extra airframes would be built just for them. At the same time let their be no doubt left in their mind that they will be held accountable for their word (within the limits of variability of research results). If this is done Indian planes will start flying with Indian engines within 10 years and would be the staple engines in another 10-15 years.

This way you would bridge the gap without compromising on your military preparedness.

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 » 28 May 2014 09:55

indranilroy wrote:Hakim ji,

I agree with your sentiments but not the methods.

Fighters are all about efficiency. You can't make an efficient fighter without an efficient engine. For example, they can't put a bigger engine into PAKFA to provide the necessary power. To make it comparable to the F-22 they have to develop an engine with comparable efficiency.

No dispute. All I am pointing out is that our tech levels will take a very long time to equal the west.

In the meantime we then have only two choices
1. Make at home and manage with less efficient while we try and improve it. We are currently "managing" with 60s and 70s (and some 1980s) tech engines. We still haven't deigned and made anything even to equal that in house
2. Import and never develop in house skills needed.

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

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

Postby maitya » 28 May 2014 10:29

^^^^^^
Shivji, as usual, is right!!

It's a true stmt that we are atleast 2 gen behind contemporary military turbofans - broadly (and at a very high level) as follows:
1) Graduate to a turbofan tech of 1700deg C and 32 OPR resulting in TWR > 1.3 or 1.4 etc, with a reasonably "efficient" SPR
2) Move to the next step of "optimized" turbofan tech where-in you get the best of both the worlds of an efficient "cruising" attributes of a civilian turbofan and the other extreme of supreme TWR based "emergency" performance postponing the afterburning aspect as much as possible.


Problem is, to reach there we need to have a flying turbofan clocking high-thousands of hours of military engine raw performance. As the above two graduating steps are very empirically dependent on almost as aspects of rotary CFD, manufacturing tech and material tech - which nobody will share, and we can't "collect" these empirical parameters and derivations, until those number of hours operations are under the belt.

And for this IAF needs to be hugely supportive - and this current attitude of asking (copy-pasting actually) for the besttest of best performance parameters and, when it finally arrives, rejecting it because an advanced western engine design house has a better performing engine to offer, won't work.


Pls note, with Kaveri, we are trying to baseline the 360deg tech required for an advanced mitiary-turbofan (a F404 level, which, as Shivji rightly points out is 90s tech) - pls refer to an old post of mine to put these engine-gen aspects into perspective here.

But once that technological maturity is obtained graduating to F414 level etc (and options pointed above) are atleast possible - on the other hand, if we continue to strive for a some other high-fi level, the perpetual R&D will continue at a snail’s pace, as those empirical parameters and derivations will not be known - and without which these advanced levels are impossible to achieve.

As an example, I've asked earlier and I ask again, :?:
what exactly is the technological jump/advancement required for graduating for a 3rd gen DS turbine blade manufacturing tech to a 2nd Gen SCB blade tech? If you refer to the Kaveri thread, you'll notice there's a decade gap between the two.


Question is should we also require a decade to do the graduation - certainly not as,
1) Some level of publications of the basic R&Dfor this graduation is already available (so no need to re-invent the wheel)
2) In that decade, a lot of time was spent in collecting the above-mentioned empirical data and derivations (some, not all, of which can be obtained by choosing a suitable consulting partner).
3) There are other related/allied technological advancements happening which helps in directly "harnessing" them.


All of these (and many such interlinked aspects) are supposed to be outlined in the Kaveri thread - which I must shamelessly admit haven't contribited to for almost 2 mths now :oops: . So much to think, research and write-about - so little bandwidth (Sigh!!) :(


But in all of these, the basic fundamental bottleneck remains i.e. no shortcut towards painstakingly long and persistent flight ops of a baselined engine the core technology of which is indigenously designed and, more importantly, manufactured. :|

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

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

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 11:45

indranilroy wrote:Fighters are all about efficiency. You can't make an efficient fighter without an efficient engine. For example, they can't put a bigger engine into PAKFA to provide the necessary power. To make it comparable to the F-22 they have to develop an engine with comparable efficiency.


Thats not a straight forward comparision , You cant get comparable effeciency on PAK-FA if you put bigger engine or if you put a lower power engine compared to F-22.

Aerodynamics Design , NTOW/MTOW , Design Goals are some of factors would play a key role.

Efficiency of engine is also a broad factor if you consider T:W ratio of F-119 engine then its around ~ 8:1 . compare that with says EJ 10:1 or 117 of PAK-FA at 10.5:1

So which is a better and efficient one with higher thrust or better T:W Ratio , or Better Fuel Consumption , Higher MTOW could be the combination of all these along with the Aerodynamics to compliment

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

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

Postby P Chitkara » 28 May 2014 11:56

Adding to Shiv's point, look at cheen. For more than a decade, they have been pouring funds, trying by hook or by crook but still haven't been able to get one engine out that has comparable efficiency or MTBF as the western ones.

Having said that, we will get there but it will take some time along with lots of funds from the govt. and support from the IAF by means of moving away from brochuritis.

Obviously, the first tranche of engines will need to have performance closer to the ones out there - they may not match them but will need to be at an acceptable level for the AF till the time technology matures to the desired extent.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 28 May 2014 12:38

Austin wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Fighters are all about efficiency. You can't make an efficient fighter without an efficient engine. For example, they can't put a bigger engine into PAKFA to provide the necessary power. To make it comparable to the F-22 they have to develop an engine with comparable efficiency.


Thats not a straight forward comparision , You cant get comparable effeciency on PAK-FA if you put bigger engine or if you put a lower power engine compared to F-22.

Aerodynamics Design , NTOW/MTOW , Design Goals are some of factors would play a key role.

Efficiency of engine is also a broad factor if you consider T:W ratio of F-119 engine then its around ~ 8:1 . compare that with says EJ 10:1 or 117 of PAK-FA at 10.5:1

So which is a better and efficient one with higher thrust or better T:W Ratio , or Better Fuel Consumption , Higher MTOW could be the combination of all these along with the Aerodynamics to compliment

Efficiency of an engine is always expressed in terms of TWR or SFC. MTOW depends on thrust and many other parameters and is not a measure of engine efficiency.

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

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

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 14:19

^^ If that is true then i know of two engine better than F-22 engine may 3 if i add M88-2 , EJ-200 and 117.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 29 May 2014 00:02

Austin wrote:Efficiency of engine is also a broad factor if you consider T:W ratio of F-119 engine then its around ~ 8:1 . compare that with says EJ 10:1 or 117 of PAK-FA at 10.5:1

So which is a better and efficient one with higher thrust or better T:W Ratio , or Better Fuel Consumption , Higher MTOW could be the combination of all these along with the Aerodynamics to compliment


The maximum thrust of the F119 has never been disclosed AFAIK. I'd be very skeptical of the 8:1 thrust-to-weight ratio in circulation. That's less than the TWR of the later variants of the F100 & F110 engines.

The F135 employs the same core as the F119 and yet the F135 has a TWR of 11.5:1 IIRC. Its stands to reason that the TWR for the F119 wouldn't be much lower.

Its possible however that the figure for the latter includes the TVC, LO shroud and the radar blocker increasing the base weight and lowering the TWR... which doesn't change the level of engine technology employed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2014 08:22

From what I understand thrust to weight ratio while a valuable indicative is not the best for a comparison between engines in varying thrust class and with different fans. The F-119 for example has the capability to produce as much dry thrust as the F414 does in full afterburner. There is also no definitive information on the F-119 max thrust in after burner. Its generally referred to as 35,000 pound class. 37,000 pounds (9.5 is to 1) has been cited, and so has 39,000 pounds (10 is to 1) and the F-135 though delivers 43,000 lb of thrust has been shown to be able to handle upwards of 50,000 pounds of thrust. These are engines that are quite new and as such have been designed with LO in mind and with a lot of growth built into the design. That the F-135 has already demonstrated a near 7000 pounds of thrust increase even before the jet has become operational shows that there is quite a bit of room built into the design (over designed). From what I understand a same technology engine designed for lower thrust would generally have better thrust to weight ratio. It has something to do with the size/weight of the fan chosen for the application that determines the overall weight of the engine. The GE F414EPE for example has a thrust to weight that is better than the F119, while it is hardly considered by any expert as a superior engine.


Pratt Raises Stakes In JSF Engine Battle

By Guy Norris

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification.

The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb.,
and follows results from the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team earlier this month that indicate the F136 alternate engine has in excess of 15% margin against the same specification.

Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Warren Boley says the F135 result proves “we have demonstrated margin” and that “we have the right core size.” Thrust growth is not a specific requirement for the Lockheed Martin F-35; however, the provision of additional margin — either for trading for longer operating life or for future growth — is considered an important bargaining chip by the contenders.

Nevertheless, Boley says even though Pratt has demonstrated measured thrust with the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) engine variant well in excess of the F135’s advertised 43,000-lb.-thrust capability, the focus remains on providing a systems-level solution to the F-35 thrust requirement. “So when someone says an engine can produce more thrust, if the lift fan can’t produce more, then you can’t use that thrust,” he says.

Another thrust-limiting factor is the Pratt-developed exhaust duct, Boley adds. As a result, “if someone says their thrust module can produce more thrust, it is interesting but not applicable,” he says.

Overall F135 thrust margin also varies depending on engine variant and altitude. For example, tests show that the CTOL engine has around 12% excess against specification at higher Mach numbers, and the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) variant has “demonstrated much less margin” owing to configuration limitations placed by the lift fan.

Although Boley outlined plans at the recent Farnborough air show to start tests of a higher-thrust F135 in January 2011, and later next year starting rig tests of a “growth” fan, he says this strategy is aimed at 5-10% thrust growth for later F-35 development “if needed.” Questions remain over what thrust will be needed, and when, because the baseline thrust assumption for the F-35 “is that it is not going to grow and grow like the F-16.”

The F-16 thrust requirement, like other fourth-generation fighters such as the F-15, has grown in lockstep with heavier weapons and stores payloads. This is not the case with the F-35, Boley says, which for stealth reasons is designed to accommodate the majority of its payloads and future growth internally. “Fifth-generation fighter optimization is different from the optimization used for the fourth generation. Requirements drove the 43,000 lb. thrust to begin with, and it’s not one that is going to grow from 24,000 to 29,000 to 32,000 lb. thrust,” he says. This is one reason the GE-Rolls “great fighter engine war” argument is irrelevant, Boley asserts.

Boley spoke at Pratt’s facility here, where the engine maker is closing on the final set of initial service release (ISR) tests for the F-35B Stovl engine. “We’re at the end of the development cycle,” he says.

ISR clearance work is focused on accelerated mission and crosswind tests on two engines at West Palm Beach, and inlet operability tests on an engine at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tenn. With the completion of these, “we will write 3,000 verification reports to the JSF Program Office, and late in the fall the system program office will stamp off the ISR for the F-35B engine,” he adds. Actual clearance is expected around Dec. 1.

The tests mark the conclusion of the F135 development phase, the CTOL engine having achieved ISR clearance in early March.


The changes (5% increase in operational thrust for the production engine) should be coming very soon however the Navy that is funding the upgrades is more interested in maintaining the same thrust levels but getting better fuel efficiency (Like the trade-offs the Pratt rep spoke about).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 29 May 2014 08:31

Excellent news from the New Ind.Exp.,the LCA has completed all weapons test trials and should now be fast tracked to replace the MIG-21s,"200" at a poss. rate of 20/yr eventually says a spokesman. The LCA will now go to Gwalior for "all-weather tests",etc.

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

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

Postby Austin » 29 May 2014 08:37

The F135 employs the same core as the F119 and yet the F135 has a TWR of 11.5:1 IIRC. Its stands to reason that the TWR for the F119 wouldn't be much lower.


Similar core design yes but identical one no considering there is about 1.5-2 decade difference between the two engine.

They may use the same design which is six state compression and single stage turbine but would be using materials with higher inlet temperature according to P&W it has also new low pressure spool and lower weight achieved due to materials gain.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4505
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 29 May 2014 08:41

Tarmak007 has the story on his blog...

Tejas completes advanced weapon trials in Jamnagar

...
"We have fired all the new weapons in all possible release modes and the results have been satisfactory. We have also completed the integration of a new drop tank as part of the FOC activity. With this, we have successfully completed the carriage, fuel transfer and jettison trials," an official, who was part of the Jamnagar trials said. It took three Tejas aircraft (LSP-3, LSP-5 and LSP-7) over 30 sorties to complete the weapon trials.
...
...
"The first SP-1 is in advanced stages of equipping and we will have the ground run by end of June. The SP-1 should start flying by August. The second, third and fourth production aircraft are in various stages of structural build and we hope to deliver four aircraft in the current year to the Indian Air Force (IAF)," Tyagi said.
...
...
Tyagi said that HAL will be pushing for more Tejas orders to be placed on the company. "We as a nation should mandate the use of this aircraft as a replacement of MiG-21. We should go ahead and manufacture around 200 aircraft. That will be a huge boost to India's indigenous manufacturing effort. I am confident when the production rate picks up in future, HAL should be able to manufacture 20 aircraft every year," he said.
The IAF has so far placed confirmed orders of 40 Tejas aircraft, with the first 20 to be built as per the IOC standards.

...

Ahead of the FOC, crucial milestones that the project needs to complete include, integration of the missiles with the radar, integration of Russian-made 23 mm GSH gun, air-to-air refuelling probe, better braking system and change of nose cone radome from composite materials to quartz for an improved range.
...


Photo of LCA with centerline drop tank...

Image
Last edited by putnanja on 29 May 2014 08:45, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2014 08:43

Philip wrote:Excellent news from the New Ind.Exp.,the LCA has completed all weapons test trials and should now be fast tracked to replace the MIG-21s,"200" at a poss. rate of 20/yr eventually says a spokesman. The LCA will now go to Gwalior for "all-weather tests",etc.


Thats awesome news. Hopefully they look at opening another production line. I wonder if the private companies can step up and assist in a 2nd production line. 20x2 would solve a lot of our squadron strength concerns rather quickly

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 29 May 2014 09:12

Does "Advanced Weapons Trials" include BVR Missile, say Derby Firing?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2014 09:38

Interesting, no supersonic tanks before FOC?

Probably sharper pylons have been pushed out to Mk2.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

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

Postby merlin » 29 May 2014 09:43

No Derby firing as far as I can tell. But perhaps a supersonic drop tank because the article says drop tanks of a new design.

SP1 is delayed, HAL should stop giving out dates.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2014 09:59

first picture of NP-1 with a single pilot?

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2014 10:13

merlin wrote:No Derby firing as far as I can tell. But perhaps a supersonic drop tank because the article says drop tanks of a new design.

SP1 is delayed, HAL should stop giving out dates.

Would be extremely happy if true. But I think it is the certification of the 725 ltr drop tank in the centerline position.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests