LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53980
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 19 Jul 2017 22:02

MAWS is no Karna's kavach but adds liability for LCA type light aircraft which do not intend to be in those type of situations.

If it were flying a transport aircraft yes MAWS is desiderata.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 19 Jul 2017 22:46

Well, any fighter would benefit from the presence of a MAWS. The MAWS can help in BVR, WVR, against SAMs - so highly useful. When tied to some automated defense system - say automatic triggering of RWR/Chaff/Flares/SPJ - it can be a real help. It is mostly passive. Only EF uses active RF MAWS so fighters can fly silent. However, it adds weight, volume & for compact aircraft aerodynamic concerns. For LCA, i believe last is the critical part. EMI/EMC is one thing, but you add four bulky boxes on the airframe, and suddenly drag, flight envelope will be messed up. If it can affect a bruiser the size of the Su-30, it will most certainly affect the LCA. Having said that, the F-16 pylon style approach may help. See page 6 (https://www.terma.com/media/286668/4346 ... ochure.pdf). Again, clearing the flight envelope and adding stores.

IMO - RWR is essential. Radar + Radar guided missiles
Chaff & flares - ditto for radar and IR guided systems. Some new techniques are emerging against even IIR units
SPJ -essential for an air to air fighter or one targeted by air to air. Over time, add wider band arrays.

Over and beyond this, one can add MAWS, towed decoys etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53980
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 19 Jul 2017 23:35

Good summary. Should put lurkers to sleep.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1730
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Zynda » 20 Jul 2017 00:09

Karan M wrote:Having said that, the F-16 pylon style approach may help. See page 6 (https://www.terma.com/media/286668/4346 ... ochure.pdf). Again, clearing the flight envelope and adding stores.

Sweet!!! Along with providing a housing for protection systems, full weapon carrying capacity is retained. Should be pursued once other EW systems are completed, up & running to a satisfactory level.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4907
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 20 Jul 2017 00:50

Karan M wrote:Well, any fighter would benefit from the presence of a MAWS. The MAWS can help in BVR, WVR, against SAMs - so highly useful. When tied to some automated defense system - say automatic triggering of RWR/Chaff/Flares/SPJ - it can be a real help. It is mostly passive. Only EF uses active RF MAWS so fighters can fly silent. However, it adds weight, volume & for compact aircraft aerodynamic concerns. For LCA, i believe last is the critical part. EMI/EMC is one thing, but you add four bulky boxes on the airframe, and suddenly drag, flight envelope will be messed up. If it can affect a bruiser the size of the Su-30, it will most certainly affect the LCA. Having said that, the F-16 pylon style approach may help. See page 6 (https://www.terma.com/media/286668/4346 ... ochure.pdf). Again, clearing the flight envelope and adding stores.

IMO - RWR is essential. Radar + Radar guided missiles
Chaff & flares - ditto for radar and IR guided systems. Some new techniques are emerging against even IIR units
SPJ -essential for an air to air fighter or one targeted by air to air. Over time, add wider band arrays.

Over and beyond this, one can add MAWS, towed decoys etc.


The FC-1/JF-17 features a MAWS, as does the Gripen E. So it can be installed on a light fighter despite the weight and volume restrictions. Drag can be managed IMO through careful placement, since these are small bumps on the aircraft's fuselage and wings.

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 20 Jul 2017 01:04

Kartik, it has to be designed for. Adding it later, is not easy. The Tejas is truly a compact light fighter. The JF-17, not so much.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 20 Jul 2017 01:16

There is literally no real estate space inside the Tejas to add an internal MAWS and adding additional MAWS apertures will worsen the aerodynamics.

For Su-30 MKI, CEMILAC, DARE, IAF etc went through huge effort to even find a schema to add the MAWS to it. Original plan to cut holes and add the boxes was quickly dropped. Same issue with LCA.

This is the reason why podded jammer is now being talked of for Mk1A. If you want to add internal EW suite, where will you fit it, without messing up maintenance, minimizing wire length (Tx to antenna wire = losses), EMI/EMC, avoiding hydraulics issues overlap etc etc.

Mk2 would have seen entire schema redesign plus 0.5 mtr plug. Extra space to move some avionics boxes around, reroute wires etc.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2017 02:37

Without the MK2's increase in size the most cost effective way would be the PIDS type approach linked above.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4907
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 20 Jul 2017 04:11

Is that MAWS sensor mounted on a pylon?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2017 04:18

Not sure what the graphic shows mounted (could be MAWS or other aperture) but there are MAWS out there that are compatible with the PIDS+ so it as a design can accommodate them on aircraft not designed to support them from the start (or if the operator does not want to engage in a redesign). Again something similar can be done on the LCA MK1 by working with more modern technology at a later date.

EDIT -

Image

Image

https://www.terma.com/media/105019/4868 ... screen.pdf

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 20 Jul 2017 05:32

I don't know what the plan of record is. But the above solution is a good one. I wish we don't go down that spiral of, "oh! but what percentage of LCA is indigenous". If DARE can't do this, import.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2909
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 20 Jul 2017 13:00

Kartik wrote:The FC-1/JF-17 features a MAWS

That is a Chinese/Pakistani propaganda prototype. Not sure if there is even anything under the blisters. :rotfl:

I'm yet to see a single production example with RWR or MAWS.

Even for IFR, they posted a fake mockup of South African style mid body probe for Nawaz Sharief Photo Op whereas the Chinese tested a more conventional nose probe. BTW Pak Block 2 still doesnt have IFR.
Last edited by tsarkar on 20 Jul 2017 18:49, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Jul 2017 17:53

But but won't the pylon mounted MAWS also result in aerodynamic issues....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2017 17:59

Given the trade off it is well worth the effort given that it is essentially a mount and can be taken off much like the external SPJ. If you want a completely clean install you have to commit to a pretty significant design change with all the cost, risk and schedule that it entails.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jul 2017 18:32

brar_w wrote:Without the MK2's increase in size the most cost effective way would be the PIDS type approach linked above.

Image

Seems like a pretty good approach. Looks like these pylons can carry bombs as well.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shaun » 20 Jul 2017 18:52

Issues that came up in installing MAWS on MKI , was weight of the sensors and Drdo lacking platforms . Issues were ironed out but don't know about it's present status.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2017 18:54

srai wrote:Seems like a pretty good approach. Looks like these pylons can carry bombs as well.


The interface and space is provided although there may be a restriction on certain types of weapons that could be carried when the MAWS is installed (PIDS+ configuration).

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4907
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 21 Jul 2017 00:04

Indranil wrote:I don't know what the plan of record is. But the above solution is a good one. I wish we don't go down that spiral of, "oh! but what percentage of LCA is indigenous". If DARE can't do this, import.


Agreed. But it won't be a simple install. The LCA's current pylons will need to be modified and studies will be needed to see the effect on drag and interference with other weapons. But definitely doable.

Like you mentioned, no idea whether there is any plan to install MAWS on LCA Mk1A or not..or even on Mk2. Any idea if the MAWS was considered a part of the EW suite?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 21 Jul 2017 09:30

^^^
Haven't seen any posters that mentions MAWS as part of EW suite for LCA. Integrated RWJ is the next upgrade to the current Mk.1 RWR EW suite.
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 21 Jul 2017 10:08

brar_w wrote:Without the MK2's increase in size the most cost effective way would be the PIDS type approach linked above.

Image


Similar MAWS approach being taken by DARE for MKI.

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Austin » 21 Jul 2017 10:14

The pylon mounter MAWS looks beefy and likely draggy too , Plus they would need power which I assume the current engine can provide but no harm in doing such studies , We need MAWS across all the platform else few lakh Rs MANPAD can take out aircraft worth crore just because the aircraft does not know its under attack

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shaun » 21 Jul 2017 10:50

srai wrote:
Similar MAWS approach being taken by DARE for MKI.

Image


The pod will be carrying all the 6 sensors , don't think so.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 21 Jul 2017 11:24

^^^
Well, the poster shows at least 4 being carried in that pylon interface (front and back for each outermost pylons). Missing are 2. Probably one on top (can see a blue spot) and one on the bottom of the main fuselage.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 21 Jul 2017 12:54

Can this be mounted in lieu of the LDP, on the inlet hardpoint?? Would free up the rest of the underwing and belly hardpoint for weapons carriage. Not​ sure how much disturbance will be induced in the air flow due to this.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Jul 2017 18:12

shaun wrote:Issues that came up in installing MAWS on MKI , was weight of the sensors and Drdo lacking platforms . Issues were ironed out but don't know about it's present status.


Not merely weight but installation. Cutting holes in MKI and putting them on airframe for full coverage affected aerodynamics.

The DARE pylon approach is better & can be adapted for the LCA.

But it needs to be tested.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Jul 2017 18:16

Bala Vignesh wrote:Can this be mounted in lieu of the LDP, on the inlet hardpoint?? Would free up the rest of the underwing and belly hardpoint for weapons carriage. Not​ sure how much disturbance will be induced in the air flow due to this.


MAWS are optic sensors. One for top coverage, one below, two below each wing, front and back.

So only two sensors wont work.

However, a pod with at least five sensors may help.
https://www.terma.com/media/324728/mase_pod.pdf

Your coverage above the aircraft will be reduced but a bubble for the rest may exist. Challenge is LCA has large wing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Jul 2017 18:21

In fact DRDO had released a pic of a SIVA pod with exactly such an arrangement of multiple apertures. I suspect it was a MAWS test

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1933
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby AdityaM » 21 Jul 2017 21:38

Not sure if this video has been posted before. If it has, then I will delete it.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4299
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Jul 2017 02:20

Mort Walker wrote:What we are seeing now is the cost of strategic neglect by successive governments. If today there an additional 400 LCA, 1000 extra pieces of 155mm guns, and 500 additional Arjuns - it would have made this situation much easier to handle.

My guess is that eventually the IA will withdraw from Dok La given the strategic constraints. The argument will be made to fight another day and then everyone goes back to sleep dreaming of the next 5th gen. fighter aircraft.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7989
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Mort Walker » 22 Jul 2017 02:32

Today the IAF combat aircraft should have been 400 LCA, 400 Su-30MKI, 200 Mig-29, and 40 Mirage 2000 (in the process of being phased out for an additional 200 LCA) and everything else sent to recycling.

Lifetime cost savings would have been considerable.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 22 Jul 2017 02:41

shaun wrote:
srai wrote:
Similar MAWS approach being taken by DARE for MKI.

Image


The pod will be carrying all the 6 sensors , don't think so.


Has this passed trials? What phase is this product in? This is pretty cool. Hope they do this for LCA soon.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2017 03:04

This was planned only for MKI per reports and it was a joint (or parts supplied by) DARE+Israel venture to build this.
BTW, did they resolve the oversize sensor issues (CAG/2015)?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 22 Jul 2017 10:07

Very nice

AdityaM wrote:Not sure if this video has been posted before. If it has, then I will delete it.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 23 Jul 2017 22:10

Tejas-LCA Admin on Facebook confirms no foreign AESA coming for MK1-A.

Is it true that Uttam will be integrated on MK.1A from day 1 and not a foreign AESA sir?
> Yes


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 9156428208

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 23 Jul 2017 22:18

ashishvikas wrote:Tejas-LCA Admin on Facebook confirms no foreign AESA coming for MK1-A.

Is it true that Uttam will be integrated on MK.1A from day 1 and not a foreign AESA sir?
> Yes


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 9156428208

Does this mean MK1a is due only in June 2018? Perhaps since the number of test points are lower, they could qualify the upgrades in a quicker manner. Would have been nice if we could learn if they have found space for the retracting mechanism or an alternative solution for the IFR while designing Uttam mount points.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 23 Jul 2017 23:43

Every negativity is true till we buy the F-16s or Gripen.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53980
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2017 00:45

Deejay What are the merits of the IFR for LCA right now?

Is it a must or a want?

Will the quest for a want further delay it further?

I think this MAWS is a red herring want.
Its needed on other planes but not on LCA which operates beyond MANPADs and carries BVR.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 24 Jul 2017 02:43

pl ignore if you have linked this earlier this month. If not, something positive to chew on.
http://www.dailydefencenews.com/nirbhay ... -material/

On the naval variant of Tejas–Mark II (light combat aircraft), Dr. Christopher said the prototype was ready and had fulfilled the parameters of ski-jump on board aircraft carriers. But the Navy had been insisting on twin engines and they were working on the power of the engines. “We are also looking for strategic partners and the partner may be a foreign firm that would provide back-end support,” he said.


perplexing statements, countering a twin engine requirement to the power of the engines, with a masala news laced later on backend support. it must be DDM

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Vivek K » 24 Jul 2017 06:13

Is insistence on IFR prior to FOC a red herring? Especially for a force with only 6 refuellers. I wonder what is the availability of the IL-78s. Since these are not your typical commercial aircraft, what is the uptime of the 78s - 50% or less? How many 78s would be available for LCAs tasked with homeland defence? Or will the refuellers be reserved for the MKIs, M2k, Mig 29 and Jags that would be performing deep strike. Wouldn't you want to use the LCA and its useful load to take on and destroy incoming aircraft?

What is the next production aircraft and has HAL established manufacture of 16 a/c per year?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5792
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Dileep » 24 Jul 2017 09:13

ashishvikas wrote:Tejas-LCA Admin on Facebook confirms no foreign AESA coming for MK1-A.

Is it true that Uttam will be integrated on MK.1A from day 1 and not a foreign AESA sir?
> Yes


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 9156428208


There is strong push for uttam from the top, so it is going to happen.

BTW, there is no news of the impasse being passe. No news here is not good news.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests