LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 07 Jul 2017 01:30

NRao wrote:Unless I missed it, what about the weight of the old radar?

The article Kartik posted seems to only trade the ballast for a radar + EW systems.

I believe it's from the time when the MMR wasn't ready and it was flying with ballast instead.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jul 2017 04:14

No, even after the MMR was ready it was flying with a ballast, but it was not 300 kgs as DDM was reporting.

Mk1A will not have any ballast. Mk1A will have almost the same weight as Mk1. LSP2 is being modified for testing Uttam.

Mk2s future is uncertain at the moment. You can thank the screwdriver in india fighter program for that.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 07 Jul 2017 04:25

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 07 Jul 2017 07:03

MK1A will happen, but a lot of "futuristic technologies for MK2" will not come to it. There goes some excitement for myself

The IFR probe on LSP1 shown at AI is a dummy. The real one is on LSP8 IIRC. It flew a few times, and apparently found some issues with the aerodynamics. Right now, testing of the probe and its function can go on, but the other flight regimes can't be made with the probe in place. That is what I guess.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 07 Jul 2017 07:17

It's depressing to see the impeding fate of LCA. I hope for our nation's sake, this does not happen.

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Jul 2017 07:21

^^ Seems like watching a accident happening right in front of eyes in slow motion.

Hope im wrong and things look up and roll into shape

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jul 2017 07:24

Dileep wrote:MK1A will happen, but a lot of "futuristic technologies for MK2" will not come to it. There goes some excitement for myself

The IFR probe on LSP1 shown at AI is a dummy. The real one is on LSP8 IIRC. It flew a few times, and apparently found some issues with the aerodynamics. Right now, testing of the probe and its function can go on, but the other flight regimes can't be made with the probe in place. That is what I guess.

Not possible to do an internal probe that sticks out only when needed like on the Jaguar?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2017 07:53

Zynda wrote:Karthik, a significant weight reduction number was definitely thrown around for Mk.1A...even then we had similar discussions about the challenges involved in achieving that number. Seems like a ADA person at AI 2017 has confirmed their intentions of significant Mk.1A weight reduction to JayS as well.

I am not aware of this Mk.1P variant...

JayS, I hope they can pull it off...will be awesome engg feat especially if they stick to the proposed schedules as well.

Iirc mk1a was initially called mk1p.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 07 Jul 2017 07:59

How many shifts does the LCA assembly line run? Can management use the possibility of action on the China front to run additional shifts?

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2017 08:02

sankum wrote:The LCA 16/year production line will not remain idle after 2025. It is just not economical to close the production line. Either LCA mk1a or mk2 production will continue.

While SE fighter production @12-20/year in 2020-30 timeline if 120nos-200nos is the likely order while Su 30 line will close down in 2020.

Arjun MBT line has been sitting idle for over 5 years now.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2017 08:03

Anyways, what's with all the rnd. At least 123 are on offer and once that line stays humming, more are bound to come.... Politically too this makes sense, imagine the bad press if smoothly functioning desi fighter is ignored for import. So cheer up, things could be worse.

Having said this, I think and dileep saars posts seem to confirm, that the mk1a development process is not as easy as thought. Along with hals lethargy, I can see why the SE acquisition becomes critical. Can't simply leave the AF nanga before increasingly aggressive neighbors.

I think the rnd will be a lot worse if a war suddenly starts and we get the short end of it. Time to give the air force some muscle.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2017 08:11

^^^
These single-engine MII are not coming overnight. It will be 2025 before they gain FOC in the IAF. These are new type. A whole lot of infrastructure, weapons and training needs to be built up as well on top of airframes delivery.

If India needs to prepare for a sudden war better bet would be more Su-30 MKIs at this point in time along with increasing serviceability rates of the fleet. More stocks of PGMs too.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2017 08:23

Fair enough, but what if mk1a takes just as long? Should the AF just let the numbers dwindle? I would have thought that the mk1 foc std could use some more orders but the IAF simply doesn't think it good enough to do the job hence the mk1a in the first place.

As far as mki is concerned, I think more orders are inevitable and possibly some fulcrum too.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2017 08:48

^^^
The IAF will have a lot of overhead in the next 5-10 years. They are trying to induct 3 or 4 new types (LCA Mk.1/A, Rafale, single-engine MII, possibly twin-engined MRCA) in that timeframe. Imagine the amount of new infrastructure, tactics, training and unique weapons that needs to be implemented!

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 07 Jul 2017 09:12

Cybaru wrote:
Dileep wrote:MK1A will happen, but a lot of "futuristic technologies for MK2" will not come to it. There goes some excitement for myself

The IFR probe on LSP1 shown at AI is a dummy. The real one is on LSP8 IIRC. It flew a few times, and apparently found some issues with the aerodynamics. Right now, testing of the probe and its function can go on, but the other flight regimes can't be made with the probe in place. That is what I guess.
Not possible to do an internal probe that sticks out only when needed like on the Jaguar?

There is no space. I actually wonder how they managed to squeeze the plumbing there. Also, the darn thing looks huuge for the size of the aircraft. It may not fit even in the empty shell it would seem.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 07 Jul 2017 09:51

Dileep wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Not possible to do an internal probe that sticks out only when needed like on the Jaguar?
There is no space. I actually wonder how they managed to squeeze the plumbing there. Also, the darn thing looks huuge for the size of the aircraft. It may not fit even in the empty shell it would seem.

If anything, this should have been a good reason for ADA to accelerate work on Mark 2.
Looks like RM/FM and MoF and HAL is happy with the slow strangulation. Sadly, the folks paying the price will be the end users and developers (not manufacturer who will get another screwdriver project).

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jul 2017 11:27

Maybe mk 1a which is seeing a shift in LRUs might be the perfect time to make space for the side popping probe. It's not going all in. It takes much less space than having something open on top and pop out .. the good thing is we have the Jaguar probe fully functional to try and retrofit on the LCA. The probe and mechanism doesn't need testing. Making space will be challenging but having a tested probe is one less piece of puzzle to solve. Plus the huge benefit is not having to tinker with claw and solve the horrendously hard problem of flight Dynamics, safety, stability and unteempteen requalification flights in all regimes.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 07 Jul 2017 13:31

Marten wrote:
Dileep wrote:
There is no space. I actually wonder how they managed to squeeze the plumbing there. Also, the darn thing looks huuge for the size of the aircraft. It may not fit even in the empty shell it would seem.
If anything, this should have been a good reason for ADA to accelerate work on Mark 2.
Looks like RM/FM and MoF and HAL is happy with the slow strangulation. Sadly, the folks paying the price will be the end users and developers (not manufacturer who will get another screwdriver project).

Marten Saar,
It's incorrect to put the blame on the ministries.
They have more than done their bit.
A grant of 50,000 crores for Mk1A when the Mk1 isn't ready yet is proof enough of their commitment.

Facts on the ground are, the vanilla mk1 isn't ready yet despite all their acceleration till date.
That they chose to go in for Mk1A instead of mk2 shows their understanding that mk2 won't necessarily be a faster effort.

Looking at the LCA program over the past decades there is one thing that bothers me when it comes to HAL.
The talk of viability of their production.
We as a country have sustained air India as a loss making venture for the longest of times and poured in hundreds if not thousands of crores.
Why then the incredible focus on HALs profitability or viability of the LCA lines ?

The cag report clearly stated that HAL didn't not setup the 8/yr line it was tasked with and funded with.
It resulted in slower production of LSPs which impacted the testing towards IOC/FOC..
Even for hiking the production rate to 16/yr, HAL took funds from mod,IAF and navy !
The navy for all practical purposes is out from the LCA for the moment.. still they are coughing up money.

The figure iirc was just 200million USD for enhancing production to 16/yr.

What would happen if HAL ploughs in another 200million to hike the prod rate by another 8/yr.

LCA cost might go up? Or HAL might incur a loss? None of the options are that bad considering it would enable HAL to supply faster and IAF to finally start standing up squadrons at a quicker pace.

It seems to me that our focus on lightest,state of the art and cheapest has cost us dear.
That too at our maiden attempt at building a 4th gen fighter.

End result is, it's not the lightest, not really that state of the art and warrants the ministry to sanction 50,000 crores for 83 Mk1A.. the worst part is,the danger of further timeline slippages still can't be ruled out.

It might make sense to write a blank cheque for money.
But a blank cheque for time !?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2017 00:09

Cybaru wrote:
Dileep wrote:MK1A will happen, but a lot of "futuristic technologies for MK2" will not come to it. There goes some excitement for myself

The IFR probe on LSP1 shown at AI is a dummy. The real one is on LSP8 IIRC. It flew a few times, and apparently found some issues with the aerodynamics. Right now, testing of the probe and its function can go on, but the other flight regimes can't be made with the probe in place. That is what I guess.
Not possible to do an internal probe that sticks out only when needed like on the Jaguar?

A Cobham exec had stated that the LCA was a very tightly packed aircraft and there wasn't enough real estate available to fit a retractable probe. A retractable probe would require hydraulics that would employ and then retract the probe. The issue seems more to do with flow over the probe causing unforseen issues in flight. CFD studies and wind tunnel tests ideally should have revealed any issues with the placement of the fixed probe.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2017 00:41

Dileep wrote:MK1A will happen, but a lot of "futuristic technologies for MK2" will not come to it.
.

Like what Dileep?

Thx.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Jul 2017 01:24

I assume he means the Safran reengineered Kaveri and the Uttam AESA...

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Jul 2017 02:43

Kartik wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Not possible to do an internal probe that sticks out only when needed like on the Jaguar?
A Cobham exec had stated that the LCA was a very tightly packed aircraft and there wasn't enough real estate available to fit a retractable probe. A retractable probe would require hydraulics that would employ and then retract the probe. The issue seems more to do with flow over the probe causing unforseen issues in flight. CFD studies and wind tunnel tests ideally should have revealed any issues with the placement of the fixed probe.

More like this, which probably may require less space to install and still be retractable. Another option would be to find another place for it on the plane, even on the body behind the cockpit or something. I personally think it will be easier to make place than to retest and change probe for aerodynamic issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx-vXUkDbT0

This seems almost tacked on top of the external portion of the body with minimal invasion on the inside.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Jul 2017 07:28

^that looks like an smt upgrade. I think it's a lot cleaner on the 29k. In any case these are much larger airframes than the tejas

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2017 07:44

Bala Vignesh wrote:I assume he means the Safran reengineered Kaveri and the Uttam AESA...

Hope there is more to that than just those two and one or two more.

The Safran Kaveri is the equivalent of the F404, if I am not mistaken. IF true, it cannot be used in a MK2.

The Uttam should fit into any LCA. Right? Or is there some power angle that only the F414 can address?

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Jul 2017 08:22

^^^

From what I read, Uttam has been designed to use the same "mountings and plug-ins" as the current MMR radar. That was done to minimize integration effort. There are some additional cooling/other systems though for Uttam and the plan is to use the spaces/weight that is occupied by empty ballasts currently.

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Jul 2017 09:38

Retractable IFr is not a show stopper ; Tejas's mission profile and mandate does not make it a must have . A fixed IFR is more than enough.

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Jul 2017 10:26

But as per Dileep saar, if probe is in place, flight regimes cannot be tested due to issues noticed . So wonder where that leaves the FOC dates?

It means our simulations with probe in place (i rem CFD snapshots of Tejas with probe in some older DRDO publications ) were not completely accurate?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2017 10:32

FOC is for Mk1.

IFR is for Mk1A.

Right?

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Jul 2017 12:20

sum wrote:But as per Dileep saar, if probe is in place, flight regimes cannot be tested due to issues noticed . ...
It means our simulations with probe in place (i rem CFD snapshots of Tejas with probe in some older DRDO publications ) were not completely accurate?

That's really the question? CFD, wind-tunnel, vibrations, etc not enough to highlight issues during design? What tools & process missing?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 08 Jul 2017 13:14

Can't say more about the probe, but there is no obvious and easy solution as I see it. If IFR is to be part of FOC, then FOC is going to be pushed out further than my own prediction.

We were all excited about multiple projects being talked about that involve brand new mission avionics, but all that has moved into stasis now. The chatter we hear are not at all encouraging. Hence my prediction that the MK1A will not have them.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 08 Jul 2017 13:18

Dileep saar, has there been any actual curbs in funding for ADA due to MII?

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Jul 2017 17:37

Dileep wrote:Can't say more about the probe, but there is no obvious and easy solution as I see it. If IFR is to be part of FOC, then FOC is going to be pushed out further than my own prediction.

We were all excited about multiple projects being talked about that involve brand new mission avionics, but all that has moved into stasis now. The chatter we hear are not at all encouraging. Hence my prediction that the MK1A will not have them.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 08 Jul 2017 18:11

Cain Marko wrote:Fair enough, but what if mk1a takes just as long? Should the AF just let the numbers dwindle? I would have thought that the mk1 foc std could use some more orders but the IAF simply doesn't think it good enough to do the job hence the mk1a in the first place.

As far as mki is concerned, I think more orders are inevitable and possibly some fulcrum too.

If what Dileep Saar has posted about further delay of FOC then it is serious indeed.
I find it baffling, the FOC deadlines keep slipping, new issues keep coming up, yet kind folks, management from HAL make bold announcements of converting the 20 mk1 FOC order to Mk1A !

It sucks to be in IAFs position.
Being made to run pillar to post for AJTs,using mig21s for training, losing numerous young pilots in the process to finally getting that AJT.then waiting patiently for that mig 21 replacement. If for whatever reason, the IFR probe issue doesn't get fixed within acceptable time, that too will end up as a permanent waivers.also running pillar to post for a BTA.no movement on IJT necessitating a two stage approach.to wanting roughly 150-200 M2k in 99-00 to being made to go through mrca and then mmrca circus, selecting raffle only to be told only 36 parvadable.
SE foreign fighter being opposed vociferously, meanwhile delivery of war worthy indegenous solution keeps getting pushed..

I think it's time to tell the airforce, till the time, we as a country get our act together, please change your mandate from fighting and winning a two front war to defending and somehow surviving in a two front war.

And oh, I forgot to add some people have the nerve and no shame to call them 'import pasand'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2017 19:34

Unrelated to the LCA, but an event of certain parallels. Would be an interesting event to keep an eye on.

Experts Doubt Elon Musk’s ‘Improbable’ Tesla Model 3 Plan

Here is the crux of the discussion:

Nearly 400,000 Tesla customers have pre-ordered the Model 3. But most won't get them soon. Following a "handover party" for the first 30 buyers later this month, Tesla says production for the $35,000-and-up vehicle will reach 100 vehicles per month by August, "above" 1,500 per month by September, and then a hefty 20,000 per month by December. However, given Musk's history of missing his own ambitious deadlines, some experts question whether Tesla will actually reach those figures without hitting speed bumps along the way.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Jul 2017 19:45

In the meantime, update on Tejas FB page:

Oscar Zulu
When will Lsp-7 commence airborne firing trials?
Hide · 3 July at 13:37

Tejas - LCA
Once the ground trIals finish in a month's time, sir.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Jul 2017 20:53

The biggest problem with most of the GOI projects (including LCA) is lack of transparency and no clear deadlines. Most of the people incharge of the programs/ projects state a delevery date that is post their tenure on the job and move on. As long as the following issues are not resolved LCA will be waiting for FOC for ever.

- People of India have no knowledge of true successes and failures (informs the people, for gods sake the work is being done on their behalf)
- What are the challenges to be addressed and time lines
- No concept of incrimental enhancements
- Every thing is a secret and cannot be discussed in public domain
- Two assembly lines or 2 1/4assembly lines (producing how many air craft per year ???)
- If LCA is going to be used by he IAF what are the plans to incentivize and hirer new poilets to train them
- While India's enemies know most of the information via their networks in India

The way things are going, by the time FOC is procured and manufacturing gains speed IAF will say the aircraft is old and they do not want LCA. It feels like dead on arrival (party to god that I am completely wrong)

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 Jul 2017 21:51

Indranil wrote:Mk2s future is uncertain at the moment. You can thank the screwdriver in india fighter program for that.

A lawyer, acting as an economist is pretending to be a Defence Minister. The babus, who run the show, successfully conned Modi that imported 1970s screwdriver-giri is a shining Make In India project. Foreign OEMs have been encouraged to play this tune. The likes of Rajat Pandit in media have been bought over to diss everything Indian. IAF gets its foreign toy. Average Indian is clueless. BRF gets an aneurysm.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 08 Jul 2017 21:58

Standing ovation for the above post.
IAF gets their foreign toys.
Let's all put in our applications and see if we get to play too.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Jul 2017 04:41

nirav wrote: It sucks to be in IAFs position.
Being made to run pillar to post for AJTs,using mig21s for training, losing numerous young pilots in the process to finally getting that AJT.then waiting patiently for that mig 21 replacement.

Is the Mig-21 equipped with IFR? No. Does the LCA outdo the Kig in every area without the IFR probe? Yes. Can the IFR be added on post FOC? Yes. Then why the insistence on adding this to the aircraft pre FOC right at the finish line? To help the Rafael? Probably.

If for whatever reason, the IFR probe issue doesn't get fixed within acceptable time, that too will end up as a permanent waivers.also running pillar to post for a BTA.

The IFR impact on aerodynamics and Flight ControlLaws cannot be completed overnight and will be completed in due course. But of course it can be used as an excuse to whip local efforts.

I think it's time to tell the airforce, till the time, we as a country get our act together, please change your mandate from fighting and winning a two front war to defending and somehow surviving in a two front war.

Interesting take - the LCA has been ready for some time barring the Chobham redone and the IFR issue. Both last minute add one - remember IAF took off these from M2Ks and has only 6 refuellers. Of these maybe only 50% are available at a given moment. So why this pretense of rona dhona for IFR? How capable is the Kopyo on the Mig? Is the MMR more capable than it in the old radome? Probably!

And oh, I forgot to add some people have the nerve and no shame to call them 'import pasand'.

What else would you call them?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 09 Jul 2017 05:00

Vivek K wrote:
nirav wrote: It sucks to be in IAFs position.
Being made to run pillar to post for AJTs,using mig21s for training, losing numerous young pilots in the process to finally getting that AJT.then waiting patiently for that mig 21 replacement.
Is the Mig-21 equipped with IFR? No. Does the LCA outdo the Kig in every area without the IFR probe? Yes. Can the IFR be added on post FOC? Yes. Then why the insistence on adding this to the aircraft pre FOC right at the finish line? To help the Rafael? Probably.
If for whatever reason, the IFR probe issue doesn't get fixed within acceptable time, that too will end up as a permanent waivers.also running pillar to post for a BTA.
The IFR impact on aerodynamics and Flight ControlLaws cannot be completed overnight and will be completed in due course. But of course it can be used as an excuse to whip local efforts.

I think it's time to tell the airforce, till the time, we as a country get our act together, please change your mandate from fighting and winning a two front war to defending and somehow surviving in a two front war.
Interesting take - the LCA has been ready for some time barring the Chobham redone and the IFR issue. Both last minute add one - remember IAF took off these from M2Ks and has only 6 refuellers. Of these maybe only 50% are available at a given moment. So why this pretense of rona dhona for IFR? How capable is the Kopyo on the Mig? Is the MMR more capable than it in the old radome? Probably!
And oh, I forgot to add some people have the nerve and no shame to call them 'import pasand'.
What else would you call them?

Vivek ji,
On one hand we have people calling the BLK 70 outdated.and arguing that Mk1A,which for the moment is no where in sight is enough rather than BLK 70.

The Mk1 inspite of all composite usage is hugely overweight.
A permanent waiver for its ASR on speed had already been granted. the increased weight impacts its range.

The question we should be asking is, on what basis are dates given for FOC ? They are repeatedly missing them and are affecting induction !
The IFR is not something that was added yesterday.
ADA/HAL knew what they were required to do.

You say, why IFR,it beats the mig21s as is.

The time for mig21s replacement has long gone ! There is doubt of a full squadron of FOC jets being equipped in 2020 if this IFR issue is not fixed ASAP.

Either it's a mig21s replacement or a Solah BLK 70 beater.. for the former coming in @ 2020 is unacceptably late and there's no chance of even the Mk1A matching up to the BLK 70..

@what would you call them. Indian airforce is just fine.
You can't call them names for ADA/HAL failures.