LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Feb 2017 18:06

tsarkar wrote: IAF has already set it in motion getting bandits many years back. Since 2005

We all know India doesn’t allow foreign militaries to base ships, tanks and aircraft in India. There is an exception to that rule.
.
.
.

I did not know this interesting piece of info. Thanks for that.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 20 Feb 2017 18:34

shiv wrote:The Air Force test pilots flew a fighter aircraft in Russia for a total of less than 6 hours and felt that its flight characteristics were good but weapons inadequate. Their bosses felt that these details were not important enough for New Delhi to be informed. So less than 6 hours of flying was considered adequate and differences of opinion were suppressed.

Dear Sir, the performance specifications and certification data is given to test pilots days before the flight. Since the certification data is available - max AoA, turn rates, etc, it can be validated in a few hours.

It is incorrect comparing it to development test flight effort - where determination of AoA, etc, goes into thousands of hours.

Thomas Alva Edison spent years finding out the right filament for the light bulb.

We spend less than a minute to test the filament when buying a light bulb by putting it in a socket at the shop.

Hope it explains the significant difference between development flight testing of a R&D project and evaluation flight testing of a certified end product.

Its not equal=equal

Going by the flawed logic put forward by forum members, we should also spend years testing when buying a light bulb.

shiv wrote:From pages 19 & 20 of the IAF's 50 years of the MiG 21 commemorative book - in a chapter written by Air Marshal Partha Dey: about MiG 21 testing in Russia by Indian pilots in 1962

The aircraft could carry only 2 x K-13 air to air missiles and did not have a gun. I flew five sorties totalling 2 hous and 50 minutes and I think Wg Cdr Das flew the same number of sorties and hours. The aircraft had excellent performance and good handling qualities but was handicapped by its limited range and payload. We felt the Operational Command in New Delhi should be apprised about these limitations and their views obtained. Air Vice Marshal Ranjan Dutt and others thought this was not necessary.

Sir, IOC depends on the aircraft performance. In this case, your reference cites "excellent performance".

Tejas too has excellent performance. Only thing is we did not finish validating, fine tuning and certifying that performance before December 2013.

Just like Virat Kohli has excellent performance, its just that when he was 12 years old, we had not yet evaluated him completely. After he underwent evaluation of his performance over multiple matches, the selectors made him Captain. What forum members are asking is Virat Kohli be made Captain at age 12.

You repeatedly bring up missiles and gun. Those are FOC criteria, and can be added later, like Derby on Sea Harrier or Magic 1 on MiG-21.

Even the 20 Tejas Mk1 IOC standard entering service without certified gun or BVR missiles. Those would be certified later like your MiG-21.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2017 18:36

MP in VAYU.The MOD has accepted the IN's evaluation that the NLCA will not make the grade,hence the global; request for the required 57 new carrier fighters. The NLCA however,will be developed as a "tech-demonstrator" along with the LCA MK-2. Frankly if the NLCA is being dumped,why spend good money on a failed programme? One would rather have an LCA advanced combat trainer developed ,both for the IAF,close-support/GA,and for export.
Good news however elsewhere is that the prod. at HAL Blr. is being ramped upto 16 with two units each capable of producing 8/yr. Imagine if a 3rd line in the pvt. sector was also given the opportunity,we could have this line just for the export market!

The good Prof. Das ,also writing in VAYU ,comments on the req. for the new second line of fighter.His pref. in the MMRCA contest would've been the MIG-35,but it was obvious that a non-Russian bird was a pre-requisite (prob. Snake-Oil's promise to Uncle Sam,derailed by the IAF's decision,why the US ambassador resigned immediately after both Yanqui birds were dumped!).If single-engined,he prefers the Gripen.but warns of sanctions regime applying here as well (engine) as with any US bird. The good Prof. also recommends sev. LCA variants,a simple basic one,porobably the MK-1/1A,with more advanced avatars for specific tasks,this way the large numbers of fighters required by the IAF can be built faster. If you look at the MIG-21's history in the IAF,with the new CoAS flying the oldest type,the MIG-21M recently,one can see the enormous improvements made from type to type as the service demanded.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Feb 2017 19:11

Philip wrote:MP in VAYU.The MOD has accepted the IN's evaluation that the NLCA will not make the grade,hence the global; request for the required 57 new carrier fighters. The NLCA however,will be developed as a "tech-demonstrator" along with the LCA MK-2. Frankly if the NLCA is being dumped,why spend good money on a failed programme? One would rather have an LCA advanced combat trainer developed ,both for the IAF,close-support/GA,and for export.

As MP stated, they will get good data out of this NLCA, which can be used in the next naval craft.

Good news however elsewhere is that the prod. at HAL Blr. is being ramped upto 16 with two units each capable of producing 8/yr. Imagine if a 3rd line in the pvt. sector was also given the opportunity,we could have this line just for the export market!

Watch the Suvrna Raju wid (with NitinG). Says 16+. They have already farmed parts out to pvt sector.

The good Prof. Das ,also writing in VAYU ,comments on the req. for the new second line of fighter.His pref. in the MMRCA contest would've been the MIG-35,but it was obvious that a non-Russian bird was a pre-requisite (prob. Snake-Oil's promise to Uncle Sam,derailed by the IAF's decision,why the US ambassador resigned immediately after both Yanqui birds were dumped!).If single-engined,he prefers the Gripen.but warns of sanctions regime applying here as well (engine) as with any US bird. The good Prof. also recommends sev. LCA variants,a simple basic one,porobably the MK-1/1A,with more advanced avatars for specific tasks,this way the large numbers of fighters required by the IAF can be built faster. If you look at the MIG-21's history in the IAF,with the new CoAS flying the oldest type,the MIG-21M recently,one can see the enormous improvements made from type to type as the service demanded.

Does Das say why the MiG-35?

LCA with the Kaveri would be a great export product.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2017 19:33

tsarkar wrote:
We spend less than a minute to test the filament when buying a light bulb by putting it in a socket at the shop.[/b]

Hope it explains the significant difference between development flight testing of a R&D project and evaluation flight testing of a certified end product.

Sir I request you not to move the goal post and make rhetorical arguments. When my bulb blows no one dies and when I show the receipt I get a replacement bulb. Did that happen with any MiG 21s? I don't expect you to answer. Please sir. You are a senior man. So am I. Please get of these diversionary arguments comparing bulbs to MiG 21s. Stick to known facts about the aircraft. Rhetorical comparisons only make for good fun but are a waste of space. Since it is easier fro me to reply to you in separate posts I will do exactly that

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2017 19:52

tsarkar wrote:
shiv wrote:From pages 19 & 20 of the IAF's 50 years of the MiG 21 commemorative book - in a chapter written by Air Marshal Partha Dey: about MiG 21 testing in Russia by Indian pilots in 1962

Sir, IOC depends on the aircraft performance. In this case, your reference cites "excellent performance".

Tejas too has excellent performance. Only thing is we did not finish validating, fine tuning and certifying that performance before December 2013.

Just like Virat Kohli has excellent performance, its just that when he was 12 years old, we had not yet evaluated him completely. After he underwent evaluation of his performance over multiple matches, the selectors made him Captain. What forum members are asking is Virat Kohli be made Captain at age 12.

You repeatedly bring up missiles and gun. Those are FOC criteria, and can be added later, like Derby on Sea Harrier or Magic 1 on MiG-21.

Even the 20 Tejas Mk1 IOC standard entering service without certified gun or BVR missiles. Those would be certified later like your MiG-21.

Sir - could I ask you to refrain from pointless diversionary arguments about Virat Kohli. Do you really need all that to make your point? You are filling up space with metaphorical non replies to facts. Please stick to the MiG 21 and let me get back to facts

Sir the MiG 21 is a fighter aircraft. Filament bulbs and Virat Kohli are not fighter aircraft. I hope you have no objection to that statement.

A fighter aircraft performs as a fighter aircraft because of its weapons capability. An aerobatics aircraft may have excellent performance in terms of climb rate and turn rate. But it is not a fighter

What you sir, are doing on this forum is claiming that less than 6 hours of testing a fighter aircraft without a gun was perfectly adequate to declare it as a fighter good for the Indian Air Force. You are also asking people not to make insulting remarks about the Indian air force and have wasted much effort in explaining to people about filament bulbs and Virat Kohli. And you are telling us to show respect for an Air Force establishment that declared a fighter as worthy of equipping the Indian air force after less than 6 hours of testing when it had no cannon armament and the senior officer declared that it was not necessary to bother Delhi about those details.

That sir is the most shameful thing I have heard. As a long term supporter of the Indian Air Force I am disgusted with the disgraceful negligence in aircraft selection. Your attempts to support that testing with specious arguments about bulbs and Virat Kohli sound profoundly distasteful to me sir. I think you are single handedly making the IAF the laughing stock of this forum. You are adding to the Air Force's poor reputation by making such arguments. If you have something to say please keep off the irrelevant comparisons with bulbs and Cricket players. Stick to the Indian Air force and what appears to be its astonishingly pathetic record of selecting faulty foreign fighters while making all sorts of demands about Indian made things. If I did not feel deeply for my brothers and sons in the IAF I would be laughing at the ludicrous cricket and bulb defence you are attempting on here. Cease and desist sir. At least I admire the air force. Those people who think the IAF is incompetent are only going to laugh and be encouraged by your attempts at comparisons with bulbs and cricket. Do you really want to be taken seriously sir?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Feb 2017 21:33

Met Kota Sir first time at AI-17. Today he came to our KB to take things further. I honestly wanted to touch his feet, but that is not kosher in these parts of the desh.

Looks and laughs like a little kid. Makes you feel that you can actually fly if he asks you to. No wonder ADA folk worship him.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 20 Feb 2017 22:30

Dileep wrote:Met Kota Sir first time at AI-17. Today he came to our KB to take things further. I honestly wanted to touch his feet, but that is not kosher in these parts of the desh.

Looks and laughs like a little kid. Makes you feel that you can actually fly if he asks you to. No wonder ADA folk worship him.

Dileep saar, You should have been leading one of these research units, to be honest. It is this country's gain that people like you are working on amazing leading edge concepts. Honestly. I can predict that twenty years from now, people will see you in similar light.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 20 Feb 2017 23:13

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2017 23:37

tsarkar wrote:
Cybaru wrote:That doesn't mean Tejas has to worry about end game pk of a missile that it does not manufacture. The purpose here is to mate, make sure the missile is slaved to the right co ordinates and the launch doesn't destabilize the platform. The onboard computer will either provide a lock or no lock before the pilot fires and that takes all this into account (The computer will compute all the required parameters: heading, altitude, speed of both target and source before providing a solution). Sure you will need to complete the end to end testing, but like shiv asks, a target will need to be provided and the missile/radar manufacturers team/IAF based assets will need to be present to ensure all goes well unless its fired at a simulated target. Feel free to correct me.
The missile envelope comes from manufacturer.

Tejas’s weapons engagement envelope - that is a mix of aircraft plus missile performance - that would show the 3-D zone where Pk is maximum - needs to come from ADA/HAL.

This is also dependent of aircraft radar tracking, which is why the quartz radome from Cobham was critical since the indigenous radome had high losses.

Target Aircraft Data will come from IAF, as explained below.

I am not sure you explained me anything. Here is the missile tests required when mating an existing type of missile with new platform.

"Loading
In-flight carriage
Target acquisition by the aircraft, passing a target cue to the missile on the rail
Missile target acquisition and track
Launch initiation
Safe separation
In-flight guidance
Impact/proximity fuzing at target intercept." - http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... e-testing/

A lot of these activities are already done for a variety of missiles on the LCA. Some refinements to PK will be required but it should by and large work as designed by the manufacturer. Manufacturers don't advertise Derby 100 kms on F16 and 90 kms on F15 etc. They advertise a general number and yes they fine tune the radar software to support the new missile. Testing is required, but it isn't like certifying a weapon for the first time. It is verifying that the weapon works as advertised. The latter requires far less time than the earlier.

There is a huge difference in the tests for ASTRA on MKI vs Certifying Derby/Derby-ER on LCA.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2017 23:41

All the interviews with MP, one thing that comes out is the effort towards Kaveri. He is pretty tight lipped on whats cooking there, but there is stuff cooking for sure. For safran as well, if they mate the M-88 core to Kaveri and work on an expanded engine for AMCA, it would mean continuous revenue for their engine line as well. Won't be as much as making the whole engine, but it would still be significant especially if india makes 300-400 engines.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Feb 2017 00:17

Kartik wrote:That 'Clay bar" has something to do with the IFF antennas, AFAIR.

These white antennas are mounted just aft of the radome.

IFF is mounted on the radar in the case of the Tejas.

In this image, it is visible as a tiny blue antenna, immediately aft of the radome.

didn't find the details on the transponder/interrogater IFF for the Tejas, but those "clay bars" or "Soap bars" are located exactly where the F-16's "bird slicer" IFF antennae are placed. My guess is that they're related to the IFF.

F-16 Bird Slicer antenna IFF

And in this pic of the Tejas, one can see wires leading to the white antennae- "clay bars" or "soap bars"- just in front of the cockpit canopy.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Feb 2017 04:59

srai wrote:Aero India 2017 highlights:

NDTV: Vishnu Som Flies the Tejas

Srai, Thanks for compiling those pics!

3:12 Commodore CD Balaji, Director:
We are moving the wing outwards by about 350 mm on either side (1.14ft on either side?)

We are stretching the fuselage by about 1 meter (it helps in creating space between fuselage and wing, where the landing gear can be easily retracted. We have a simpler lighter landing gear that can go in).

We are freeing up center fuselage space and allows extra fuel (700 kgs)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Feb 2017 06:53

^^^ alongwith GE 414, on NLCA MK2, and LCA MK2 will make it really competitive.
For the NLCA it will give it an additional 22 mins air time.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 21 Feb 2017 07:24

arshyam wrote:

If this where how to make dosa video:
Dosa batter that I have in the front was two days in the making, you take it put it to on a tawa and after few minutes flip it around. It is exciting!

Hope there is more drooling stuff like we see with phoren fighters

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Feb 2017 07:29

pandyan wrote: If this where how to make dosa video:
Dosa batter that I have in the front was two days in the making, you take it put it to on a tawa and after few minutes flip it around. It is exciting!

Hope there is more drooling stuff like we see with phoren fighters

I think Sanjay Simha (who appears briefly in that video) has done a better job. he has gone beyond taking selfies and has images of other aircraft from the cockpit of both the Tejas and Suryakirans. I expect a few will soon appear.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Feb 2017 11:43

Pics from Prasun Sengupta.

Pinched DFTs. Very interesting.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Feb 2017 11:50

The 13.7 length listed in the chart is probably incorrect. Older length was 13.2. Should be 14.2. This may be from AeroIndia 2015. That is when the length was estimated to be 13.7

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Feb 2017 12:02

No. AF version was always to be lengthened by 0.5 mtrs and the naval version by 1 mtr.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Feb 2017 12:09

They have to test two different types? Ugh, that makes no sense. Are you sure about this?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 21 Feb 2017 13:04

Indranil wrote:No. AF version was always to be lengthened by 0.5 mtrs and the naval version by 1 mtr.

I think that extension to the fuselage of both versions is similar but with Naval LCA, the tail end some additional extensions (sic?) Technical terms??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Feb 2017 14:39

Cybaru wrote:They have to test two different types? Ugh, that makes no sense. Are you sure about this?

Indeed they seems to have two different external aero config for NLCA and LCA AF. I also do not understand why. They could have used NLCA's external config which would have given them commonality as well as better area ruling, more internal space for fuel and avionics. They could even have used same MLG layout going in the wings rather in the fuselage. Some redesign of MLG would have needed, but should be easily doable given the timelines.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 21 Feb 2017 15:28

NRao wrote:
LCA with the Kaveri would be a great export product.

SirJi,

Please have a little bit mercy. I am just a UP bhaiyya who drinks Rs7 tea in a kulhad (clay cup containing arsenic). I spilled my tea with such sharp sense of humor that you possess. Please rahem Kare.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 21 Feb 2017 17:16

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Feb 2017 17:46

^^ It is only me or LCA did have less aggressive air display as compared to the one from BIAS..?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Feb 2017 19:06

JayS wrote:^^ It is only me or LCA did have less aggressive air display as compared to the one from BIAS..?

Not more than 5G

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Feb 2017 19:07

Rishi Verma wrote:
NRao wrote:
LCA with the Kaveri would be a great export product.
SirJi,
Please have a little bit mercy. I am just a UP bhaiyya who drinks Rs7 tea in a kulhad (clay cup containing arsenic). I spilled my tea with such sharp sense of humor that you possess. Please rahem Kare.

I have no problems, so apologies. I owe you a cup of tea I guess.

But, Safran/Snecma seems to have promised it around 2019. As part of the Rafale offset.

I think they can deliver. They are perhaps the closest to the Kaveri project as any foreign company has been.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 21 Feb 2017 19:10

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:^^ It is only me or LCA did have less aggressive air display as compared to the one from BIAS..?
Not more than 5G

Less aggressive than even the practice or last Aero india display. Still gathered more cheers than the Gripen.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Feb 2017 19:59

Is that a Gripen NG cockpit next to the LCA MK2 cockpit in Prasun Sengupta's pic?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Feb 2017 00:15

It's Elbit's proposal for Sukhoi upgrades.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2017 02:59

Indranil, SO this Aero India was a damp squib visavis LCA. No new capabilities or knowledge revealed.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Feb 2017 03:44

Nothing, other than Uttam development and competition for EW/jammer for MK1A.

I am not convinced that Kaveri has turned around, but I loved the customer/dignitary flights.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Feb 2017 08:27

LCA brochure materials (over the years):

Make in India

LCA Structure

LCA Avionics and Integrations

LCA AESA

LCA EW

LCA cutout

LCA payload & capability

LCA Mk.2

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Feb 2017 09:08

Any information on Mk1A? It is surprising that obogs is for mk2. If you have aar, makes sense to have obogs and get rid of the heavy oxygen bottles.

viveksonkhla · Post by **viveksonkhla** » 22 Feb 2017 13:37

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 22 Feb 2017 14:38

HAL's Tender for "Supply of AESA Radar for Light Combt Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme" & "Supply of EW suite for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme" have been extended till 31st March.

Now, Technical Bid will open on 1st April.

http://hal-india.com/Common/Uploads/Ten ... ndum01.pdf

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 22 Feb 2017 19:35

So MK1A initiative is led by HAL and MK2 by ADA? And is the selection of AESA/EW Suite is an interim solution until Uttam/DARE products come online?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Feb 2017 03:02

ramana wrote:Indranil, SO this Aero India was a damp squib visavis LCA. No new capabilities or knowledge revealed.

Uttam flight testing moving ahead + HAL RFP for track-2 AESA/EW suite were big reveals IMHO. The Uttam fully populated prototype is a beauty.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Feb 2017 03:04

Sid wrote:So MK1A initiative is led by HAL and MK2 by ADA? And is the selection of AESA/EW Suite is an interim solution until Uttam/DARE products come online?

ADA has to support MK1A as well. And second, yes - AESA/EW suit availability should not hold up LCA production.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2017 05:32

As a FYI.

Feb 15, 2017 :: SAAB OFFERS WORLD CLASS SENSOR PACKAGE FOR INDIAN TEJAS LCA

Defence and security company Saab offers a fighter sensor package for the Indian Tejas LCA Mk1A fighter aircraft. The package consist of a state-of-the-art Saab AESA fighter radar closely integrated with a compact electronic warfare suite using Gallium Nitride based AESA technology.