LCA Tejas: 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.
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28108 » 01 Jan 2016 18:58

People in Bangalore can go to Adamya Chetana exhibit at national college grounds.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Picklu » 01 Jan 2016 19:13

In plain eye, the recent turns did appear tighter. I think lot of viewers commented on the same. So, I fully believe the 8G story.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 02 Jan 2016 08:47

Vina, Any stories of AVM Rajaram?

sbhatia
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sbhatia » 02 Jan 2016 12:28

first of all let me wish all the forum readers here a very happy and prosperous 2016... Now, about tejas-news... a few points reported elsewhere thought of sharing it here..BTW my name is changed my admin already though i prefered dr@gon :twisted: .

1.flight-envelope of tejas is gradually being opened up -- and that tejas is presently pulling beyond 8g and 24+ degrees of AOA maneuveres... You may expect these to be opened up still further as tejas now races towards its FOC

2. As reported elsewhere, SP2 is currently getting check-outs -- will be handed over to IAF soon...

3. As per reports, Mr Shuvana Raju, HAL chief, and Mr Sridharan, in charge of tejas assembly line, have been quoted to have confirmed that most (43 of 57, including IFR, Quartz radome, gun, BVR capability, multi-rack, pod-based EW suite, etc) ASRs have already been sorted out and will be incorporated from SP5/6 onwards... And, mk1A will additionally have ELTA2052, 800 kgs of weight-shedding and internal rearrangements for better maintainability...

4. The Elbit DASH-3 Helmet mounted display & ELTA2052 "combo" will help the tejas pilot to fire BVR-missiles at targets within most combat ranges just by merely seeing those by the preceding manner... mk1A will be a beast of fighter and would be able to take care of any ACs our potential enemies can field against us in near future...

5. Finally, let tejas fly non-stop to Bahrain from Bombay to participate in the 4th edn of the Bahrain Airshow...


Personally 800 Kgs of weight reduction i am skeptical but hopeful that it would work out as this would turn mk1A into a beast :)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2016 14:05

Dragon/sbhatia, that 800 kg reduction news report is yet to be confirmed. It's been reported as a proposal. Whether mk1a includes it, is a different issue.

sbhatia
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sbhatia » 02 Jan 2016 14:44

Karan,

Yes and its risky too at this stage as this would lead another round of flight testing as Center gravity /Flight logic would change.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2016 19:07

would that 800kg reduction without changing the wing dynamics, help in a slight increase on turn rates as well?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3495
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 02 Jan 2016 20:38

I am hugely skeptical of all these claims of 800 KG reduction effecting CG. How then LCA flies, the fuel itself is 2700kg reducing gradually to 100 of KGs (one can argue it is controlled so that it does not effect CG much), to asymmetrical firing/dropping of weapons (each can easily be of total weight of 500 kg), to battle damages where one side is more damaged then other....will that all require requalification? I suspect, LCA is tolerant to a large shift in CG and small changes will not effect its combat capability. Sure some config will be more agile, and the base config, you want to be the best, but test it every time for that?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2016 20:55

we should quickly move on to prototyping TVC with and without canards models before M2K designs are frozen.

member_29267
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29267 » 03 Jan 2016 19:31

The 8 F414s ordered by ADA for Mk2 PVs were supposed to arrive by end of 2015 right? Do we have any further cues on that?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Jan 2016 21:14

ADA sources said LSP-3 and LSP-4 of Tejas have been prepared for BIAS, one for flying duties and the other for static display. But test pilots flying Tejas are apprehensive. “We have problems with the undercarriage. A short-term solution has been found for this trip but it’s not a permanent answer,” a test pilot said. ADA officials are worried about further delay in Tejas programme due to the decision to participate in BIAS. They fear it will delay plans to get FOC by mid-2016. “2015 was a bad year for us. Flight schedule wasn’t followed in May, June, July and August due to technical issues. In November, we had bad weather and since then we have been focused on the Bahrain trip,” an official said. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... Bi6eX.dpuf



we don't make reasons.
we get them on board!

a cultural revolution is need of the hour. enough is enough.

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 03 Jan 2016 22:48

ADA sources said LSP-3 and LSP-4 of Tejas have been prepared for BIAS, one for flying duties and the other for static display. But test pilots flying Tejas are apprehensive. “We have problems with the undercarriage. A short-term solution has been found for this trip but it’s not a permanent answer,” a test pilot said. ADA officials are worried about further delay in Tejas programme due to the decision to participate in BIAS. They fear it will delay plans to get FOC by mid-2016. “2015 was a bad year for us. Flight schedule wasn’t followed in May, June, July and August due to technical issues. In November, we had bad weather and since then we have been focused on the Bahrain trip,” an official said. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... Bi6eX.dpuf


An important data point in the above report is the stopover in Muscat for refueling flying from Jamnagar. Now aerial distance between Jamnagar and Muscat is about 1200 km. Does this in a sense confirm the ferry range of 1700 km talked earlier?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 04 Jan 2016 00:38

What is the undercarriage problem now? The old one or a new one?

BTW am sick of excuses from unnamed officials. Very brave to make excuse but not let their name be known! Hide behind anonymity and official cover.

Also why doesn't that test pilot ask for a transfer or better yet resign?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 04 Jan 2016 06:03

As per the quoted news FOC is mid 2016 and I was had March 2016 in my mind. Even this may be delayed. :(

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3495
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 04 Jan 2016 06:06

Undercarriage was copy paste from Mirage 2000. I wonder how HAL can screw it up.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 04 Jan 2016 06:16

It is time these afsars are regulated and are authorized to speak to DDM.

Authorized Media Badge [✓]
Afsar Badge contains a star at least [✓]
Afsar has a special Dork Media insignia [✓]

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby uddu » 04 Jan 2016 07:28

Are you sure that there is an afsar? We saw the video of Zee news reporter and that's for the Video they do all that. Now imaging if something need to be written, is there a requirement to go and ask details to anyone? So dont believe what's being written because it's written in some newspaper. These kind of articles can be ignored right away. :)

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 04 Jan 2016 08:00

deejay wrote:As per the quoted news FOC is mid 2016 and I was had March 2016 in my mind. Even this may be delayed. :(

We never had problems when MKIS were delayed several years or when Gorshkov was delayed 4-5 years and cost escalated from about a billion to more than 2 billion. If the undercarriage was a major problem, how could the aircraft have flown 3,000 sorties?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 04 Jan 2016 09:37

Vivek K wrote:
deejay wrote:As per the quoted news FOC is mid 2016 and I was had March 2016 in my mind. Even this may be delayed. :(

We never had problems when MKIS were delayed several years or when Gorshkov was delayed 4-5 years and cost escalated from about a billion to more than 2 billion. If the undercarriage was a major problem, how could the aircraft have flown 3,000 sorties?



I don't know about the undercarriage issue in detail Vivek K and what it is. Exactly what is wrong with the system, if any, is not out yet. Personally, my connect with Gorshkov or MKIs are remote and apart from adding teeth to our arsenal I do not think of them as our achievement.

If MKI and Gorshkov were delayed with cost over runs, it shows poor management of the Russians. That is my position on those. And I am not sure that we did not have problems when they were delayed. Only I was not on the forum to express those.

LCA is a special thing and it has been from very early. I hope we get it online and get it working well as early as possible. The delays makes me go :( . Just that. The dates, IIRC, were for Mar 16. Now this says mid '16. May extend further. Hope this is DDM.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 04 Jan 2016 09:40

SaiK wrote:
ADA sources said LSP-3 and LSP-4 of Tejas have been prepared for BIAS, one for flying duties and the other for static display. But test pilots flying Tejas are apprehensive. “We have problems with the undercarriage. A short-term solution has been found for this trip but it’s not a permanent answer,” a test pilot said. ADA officials are worried about further delay in Tejas programme due to the decision to participate in BIAS. They fear it will delay plans to get FOC by mid-2016. “2015 was a bad year for us. Flight schedule wasn’t followed in May, June, July and August due to technical issues. In November, we had bad weather and since then we have been focused on the Bahrain trip,” an official said. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... Bi6eX.dpuf



...


IMO, another example of poor journalism. Entire article is based on quotes attributed to "unnamed officials" with details and context lacking. Don't these guys ask follow-up questions? Wish these guys write a more balanced article where they find out what has been attained vs what remains. Need more details on technical issues and revised estimates.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 04 Jan 2016 11:06

Vivek K wrote:If the undercarriage was a major problem, how could the aircraft have flown 3,000 sorties?

The landing gear issue occurred recently. On two occasions, one in Bangalore & other at Jaisalmer, the landing gear did not retract. The flight testing program was delayed significantly in 2015 to diagnose the problem and find solution. A fix was found around October/November 2015. There are many news articles on this.

Vivek K wrote:We never had problems when MKIS were delayed several years or when Gorshkov was delayed 4-5 years

We did not induct Gorshkov until the boiler insulation material was changed and thereafter fresh sea trials held.

And if memory services right, Su-30MKI was grounded twice - once when engines showed FOD ingestion damage & greater engine wear & tear than expected, the other more recently because of un-commanded ejections.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2744
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 04 Jan 2016 14:52

IAF would be flying thru the undercarriage problem if it had occurred with their MKI's or Migs as the any support would take years to fructify. First the Russians would blame poor maintenance, then Indian weather. Over the years you'd find 5 such major problems and eventually the equipment service-life will be re-rated requiring frequent changes to keep fleet operational. Then the parts will start becoming scarce and CAG will have a field day.

Thanks God that the problem occurred with LCA Tejas. We can have a proper fix all done here!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2016 17:41

tarmak007

Mysuru, Jan 01: India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas cleared one of the most critical flight test parameters in the programme, when the pilots pulled 8 'g' (limit of envelope) during its ongoing test flights in Bengaluru.
By doing so, it has cleared a key point towards the Final Operational Clearance (FOC), as mandated by the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Sources told OneIndia that Tejas pilots pulled 8 ‘g’ and beyond a couple of times during trials held in the last fortnight of December.
Commodore Jaideep Maolonkar, Chief Test Pilot at National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) and Group Capt Rangachari, a Test Pilot of NFTC achieved this critical task taking the fighter closer to the FOC.
Interestingly, officials at the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) were tight-lipped about this major milestone achieved.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 04 Jan 2016 18:03

does anyone know what is the AoA required for Tejas in the ASR?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 04 Jan 2016 23:17

maxratul wrote:does anyone know what is the AoA required for Tejas in the ASR?

That will be close to max AoA (24-26 degrees for Tejas). Max-Gs are encountered in instantaneous turns wherein you come in fast and high and pull your nose up as high as you can in order to turn as fast as you can. In process you lose energy very rapidly and the pilot eases off the turn when he reaches the "corner speed" of the aircraft, where his thrust matches the drag. At corner speeds most fighter planes are pulling 4-5Gs.

fanne wrote:I am hugely skeptical of all these claims of 800 KG reduction effecting CG. How then LCA flies, the fuel itself is 2700kg reducing gradually to 100 of KGs (one can argue it is controlled so that it does not effect CG much), to asymmetrical firing/dropping of weapons (each can easily be of total weight of 500 kg), to battle damages where one side is more damaged then other....will that all require requalification? I suspect, LCA is tolerant to a large shift in CG and small changes will not effect its combat capability. Sure some config will be more agile, and the base config, you want to be the best, but test it every time for that?

Weight change does matter. Aircrafts are designed to be able to handle weight change while in flight. However handling the same affects the handling and performance of the aircraft. Such compromises have to be made during a mission, but the base plane cannot be designed that way. That is why Mk1 flies with a 300 kg ballast in its nose, so that the CG is exactly where it should be with respect to the center of pressure for maximum performance extractable from the plane (in its base configuration). Also even though fuel is being used, fuel proportioners are used so that the fuel is drawn proportionally from all the fuel tanks such that they run out simultaneously. This is very difficult to achieve in real practice, and so the C.G. does travel. In Mk1, this travel is restricted to within 1% of the MAC. I know this was achieved for internal fuel flow by 2010. At that time they wanted to so even with external fuel tanks attached. I don't know if that has already been achieved or not. I believe an active proportioner is planned for the Mk2, further restricting the travel. Whether the same will be incorporated into the Mk1A/SOP18 remains to be seen.

fanne wrote:Undercarriage was copy paste from Mirage 2000.

Seriously?!!! You have to show me literature to prove this.

Prima facie, doesn't look like it.
1. LCA MLG: rooted in the fuselage, slants outwards to reach the ground, retracts longitudinally into the fuselage.
2. Mirage MLG: rooted in the wing, extends straight down to reach the ground, retracts laterally into the belly on the aircraft.
I don't think they can be structurally the same!

member_29268
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29268 » 04 Jan 2016 23:44

Weight reduction with re-arrangement of some of the sub-systems (which is being planned) may result in insignificant change in CG at aircrafts dry weight (which will be lower finally). This might lead to removal of ballast as well (and hence 300 kg net gain :) ).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Jan 2016 00:28

On the LCA what is the biggest ordnance that can be carried? I mean the hard-point capability

Same with SU-30MKI.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2016 00:45

khedar wrote:Weight reduction with re-arrangement of some of the sub-systems (which is being planned) may result in insignificant change in CG at aircrafts dry weight (which will be lower finally). This might lead to removal of ballast as well (and hence 300 kg net gain :) ).


I think it is very unlikely. Removing 300 kg from the farthest extremity is difficult, because the entity at the other extremity (aka the engine) is not getting any lighter. Everything else is behind the cockpit and before the engine. A large part of this volume is fuel. So, I agree with Mk1A but don't believe HAL's marketing lines.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jan 2016 06:01

But the ballast could be replaced with some sort of a payload.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4517
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Jan 2016 08:36

^ Yes, I think the payload is called the EL-2052 AESA, which would weigh a lot more than the current set up. Net weight reduction would be negligible. Still, if they can manage to shave off a couple 100kgs, that would make some difference, every bit counts on a small bird like the Tejas. Can't wait till it does some dishum-dishum vs. other IAF birds, esp., the M2k-5/9.

member_29268
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29268 » 05 Jan 2016 08:57

ELM-2052 is 80-180 kgs depending on antenna size against that of 2032 which is 72-100 kgs according to the IAI brochure. So it should be taking 1/3rd of the ballast weight.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 05 Jan 2016 09:26

ramana wrote:On the LCA what is the biggest ordnance that can be carried? I mean the hard-point capability. Same with SU-30MKI.
On LCA the centerline and inner wing hardpoints are rated for 1200 kg and heaviest load carried are EFT followed by 450 kg LGBs. On Su-30, the heaviest load carried are Kh-59M (~900 kg) and Kh-31 (~600 kg). To be certified on Brahmos A (~2200 kg)

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 05 Jan 2016 10:28

Is the 300kg ballast still there? Are you sure? Positive?

Asking because it was there long time ago during the TD days, to bring the CG forward, to make the plane stable. I see no reason for it to be there currently. Any ballast present would be precisely substituting for a piece of equipment that is planned there, like a heavier radar. So, if they are planning the 2052, which is around 80kg heavier (assuming the numbers posted above), there will be an 80kg ballast to substitute.

OTOH, if they are actually still flying a 300kg ballast for nothing, other than for the reason they are incapable of using that weight for some productive purpose, I should stop following these threads. NAY... I should also stop pestering these entities to get a piece of the action into my KB.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 05 Jan 2016 10:37

OTOH, if they are actually still flying a 300kg ballast for nothing, other than for the reason they are incapable of using that weight for some productive purpose, I should stop following these threads. NAY... I should also stop pestering these entities to get a piece of the action into my KB.


Well, most designs will have some ballast to cater for future "growth" requirements. Nothing out of the ordinary here. There will always be some allowance that is needed, because a weight estimate will almost always never fully match what is delivered finally.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2016 10:43

Dileep wrote:Is the 300kg ballast still there? Are you sure? Positive?

Good point. I always took it as a gospel truth. Let me dig around.

Dileep wrote:OTOH, if they are actually still flying a 300kg ballast for nothing, other than for the reason they are incapable of using that weight for some productive purpose, I should stop following these threads. NAY... I should also stop pestering these entities to get a piece of the action into my KB.

Ballasts are extremely common!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 05 Jan 2016 11:25

^^Reference please? Which of the fighters (or even other aircraft) carry a ballast permanently, ie not as a substitute for a planned piece of equipment?

I am NOT talking about COUNTERWEIGHTs used in moving actuators. I am talking about deadweight ballast onlee.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2016 12:21

Just ask Google chacha.

Let's take F-15 for starters.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 05 Jan 2016 14:48

OK, so the F-15 have it, but apparently there is a specific reason for that. It is not a fly by wire plane, and it needed to balance the stability and maneuverability, so it has a type tuned ballast. Each type version have a different weight of ballast apparently (because I see weight figures all around the park).

Does any of the f teens have it? Can't find any ref on chacha. Does the euros have, except the legendary concrete block in the typhoon?

Anyway, it doesn't make sense, at least to me, that our 6.5 tonne craft with inherently unstable platform and digital FBW will need a ballast of 300kg. Also, we KNOW that the 300kg ballast was for the TDs, to make them deliberately stable.

member_29268
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29268 » 05 Jan 2016 17:03

Even though a platform has digital control system (which controls both the static and dynamics stability), the overall performance characteristics depends a lot on the plant (aircraft) dynamics as well. i.e. e.g. how does the aircraft behave (read handling characteristics) on a pitch control input also depends on the overall force/moment distributions. So it may be desirable for a statically unstable aircraft to have some kind of preferable weight distribution which leads to a preferable range of static margin. Weather the designer is able to achieve this with the available equipments could decide if some sort of ballast is required or not.
I think it to be unlikely that an aircraft designer will put a ballast for the purpose of future expansion in the initial design phase itself unless he knows for sure that the ballast would be replaced by that piece of equipment in near future. Why would anyone want to carry extra weight if it won't have any functional requirement say related to static/dynamic stability or due to unavailability of the planned system at the initial design/prototype phase.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2016 22:59

Yes, static margin management matters a lot.

Designers put in ballasts for missing hardware which they are somewhat sure of coming on board pretty soon. In other cases, ballasts are used on special purpose airplane to compensate for removed/replaced or added components. None of these is the case with LCA.

LCA designers were dealing with enormous uncertainties. They were learning to design and manage a project with no existent expertise. Imagine yourself in their shoes. You are trying to design and develop a plane which way out of your league. You have to learn on the job, as frugally as possible, where funding is at the mercy of a babu who passed an administrative exam. Nothing is sure: the engine, the radar, the landing gear, the fuel system, the structures, the environment control systems, nothing. What's more all you have is your resolve to learn with somebody else, who may be interested in building a complex part. You both learn together, till he reaches a maturity where he thinks he can manufacture the part. But there are 100s of such parts. Some you know will take a couple of decades to come through. Some you know is unlikely to happen. But then people surprise you. Not only have they come up with a part, but they are better than what you expected. In some cases you learn that your expectation was wrong. You re-calibrate. Can you imagine designing a 4.5 gen plane amongst all these uncertainties. What if only 10% of the components come out differently than what you expected? What do you do? The basic structural design was finalized a decade back! You have to go for ballasts.

It is more likely than not, that LCA is over designed. May be if the designers started today with the advantage of 20:20 hindsight, they would be able to shave 500 kgs off the plane. That is why they want to do the Mk1A and Mk2. And that is such an important difference in the LCA program today and 3-5 years back. Actually, I don't blame the UPA govt. on the support for LCA. Anthony did stick up his head against the IAF for LCA. Those were the days where the IAF-chief openly called it a 3-legged Cheetah on the day of certification of LCA. Can you imagine? The difference with Parrikar is that unlike Anthony, he cracks a whip. He understands that manufacturing is a necessity for the program and has forced IAF to oblige. To be fair to Anthony, Parrikar has the advantage of hindsight, a much more mature product, and a more cornered IAF.

By the way, as I dig deeper into the ballast issue on LCA, it seems like it has a 180 kg ballast placed ahead and below the feet of the pilot. Some of this will go with an heavier radar. A little more may be chipped away with the IFR probe. We may be left with almost no ballast on the Mk1A with rearrangement/optimization of the LRUs/LGs. Lets see.

Mk2 will definitely challenge Gripen NG. SAAB knows this and is doing everything to sabotage the LCA program.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests