LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 01 Oct 2017 04:43

ashishvikas wrote:MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXzcwC ... e=youtu.be

MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2FI3RL ... e=youtu.be


Thank you for these links! a lot of very useful data points could be found in those videos, related to the assembly line.

and 30 kgs of RAM is used to coat the Tejas!

Saw SP11 in one of the front and rear fuselage jigs and SP14 in the one of the rear fuselage jigs. SP11 is due to be delivered to the IAF by March 2018..5 months from now at most.

and its finally dawning on HAL that a Lead In Fighter Trainer variant should be developed from the trainer variant..had they or the IAF initiated that project 5 years ago, it would have seen service by now, since the LIFT variant wouldn't need a radar or weapons integrated ; with full envelope expansion of the trainer, work could have been initiated on synthetic training devices in the cockpit, to simulate any other IAF fighter's displays or to simulate radar and weapons delivery. we discussed this on BRF several years ago and now they're waking up to this possibility. Perhaps it has to do with the learning from the BAe HAL Combat Hawk program.
Last edited by Kartik on 01 Oct 2017 11:23, edited 4 times in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 01 Oct 2017 08:18

Gagan wrote:HAL, ADA
Why not make the LCA tejas Navy a twin engined F-414 beast?

A twin engined TD for the Navy can be attempted no?
Image

How about HAL/ADA we add a cloaking device to the LCA Navy?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 01 Oct 2017 08:37

Vivek beta,
You need to stop watching Star Trek and grow up

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Oct 2017 09:47

Gagan wrote:HAL, ADA
Why not make the LCA tejas Navy a twin engined F-414 beast?

A twin engined TD for the Navy can be attempted no?
Image

That pic is beautiful and hence the full repost. But the idea of a twin engined NLCA is absolutely spot on. If they had done this to begin with in the mid 2000s,right noow there woud be no needfor an MRCA or naval RFI. Forget 2 414s, even a base 404 would have been great.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby negi » 01 Oct 2017 10:46

When single engine is taking time why would one jump onto another science project ; walk and then run. Jumping onto a twin engine project will not make the existing problems disappear they will crop up in that project as well .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 01 Oct 2017 11:22

But the idea of a twin engined NLCA is absolutely spot on


They *just* sanctioned 230 crores specifically for such an effort + Ghatak.

It is called the AMCA. Which morphed from adding a second engine to the LCA, earlier appropriately called the MCA, to the now familiar and well researched/invested AMCA.

They (a few 100 people at the ADA) have been thinking about such a craft for about 17 years now. Nothing novel about the idea of adding another engine to the LCA. It has been a very natural progression. And, now, a done deal.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 01 Oct 2017 17:30

The problem in the AMCA has to do with the A=Advanced part, related to the 5th gen techs that have to be developed, proofed, ruggedized, and so a timeline of 2030 & beyond!
They did have a twin engined MCA concept several decades ago. HAL has built a twin engined Marut in the past, apart from decades of screwdrivergiri . The concept is not new to them
There is no single engine fighter on board a carrier now, ADA should have known this decades ago & they should have run parallel LCA & MCA programs
(Just as they should have deployed the indian designed radome hack a decade ago, but later went in for the AESA embraer, which is version 1 now. Similarly DRDO should have build a conventional TD submarine)

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 01 Oct 2017 17:32

The FA-18 & the Rafale are twin engined and still use the catapult, because those navies don't want to compromise on either payload or range

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 01 Oct 2017 17:37

Now alongwith with the AMCA program, they should have a single engined stealth plane development too. Or modify the LCA to incorporate 5th gen tech on it including 5th gen stealth.
Next step up the ladder has to be a medium & a heavy transport and a dedicated long range bomber

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7534
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 01 Oct 2017 17:43

Eh. We aren't even funding the amca & ghatak project properly. You want the netas and baboons to fund 3 programs in parallel?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 01 Oct 2017 19:22

Well, a lot of items to talk about.

Prasad wrote:Eh. We aren't even funding the amca & ghatak project properly. You want the netas and baboons to fund 3 programs in parallel?


They are, as we post, funding:
* the LCA Mk1,
* the LCA Mk1A (these two are the two sides of the same coin),
* the AMCA and
* the Ghatak

My observation:
* the AMCA + Ghatak funding seems to be the funds requested for just the AMCA in 2011 + inflation, and
* the AMCA and Ghatak have few/some/whatever (do not know the %age) techs in common. So, the funds can kill two birds.
* ADA has had a team for the LCA and another for the AMCA. So, *from what I can see*, both are funded

Gagan wrote:The problem in the AMCA has to do with the A=Advanced part, related to the 5th gen techs that have to be developed, proofed, ruggedized, and so a timeline of 2030 & beyond!


True.

But, it was a natural progression - they just had a LOT of time to think about these things. (I disagree with teh timeline - but that is a diff matter.)

They did have a twin engined MCA concept several decades ago. HAL has built a twin engined Marut in the past, apart from decades of screwdrivergiri . The concept is not new to them


They had a small, but dedicated team (from what I can see) for the MCA -> AMCA. It was the same group that dealt with the "MCA" and then regrouped as the "AMCA". So, while you seem to think of "MCA" and "AMCA" as two separate thoughts, it does not seem to be. It is one team that has thought it through and produced the "AMCA".

It is FAR more mature than if they have to add another engine to the current LCA. (Then how would you address the work already done for the AMCA - there is a list of techs in the AMCA thread?)

Gagan wrote:The FA-18 & the Rafale are twin engined and still use the catapult, because those navies don't want to compromise on either payload or range


The US dumped the ski jump long back - no IP, nor any experience there (for their naval people - MIC may have some).

France, I have no idea.

India has, actualy, lost her CAT experience and gained a lot for the ski. The IN will now have to recoup the CAT experience. Even for the steam CAT it is a jump, for the EMALS it is even more (where the whole ship would need a redesign).

Gagan wrote:Now alongwith with the AMCA program, they should have a single engined stealth plane development too. Or modify the LCA to incorporate 5th gen tech on it including 5th gen stealth.


I had suggested a single engine spin off from the AMCA. Not an easy task, for sure, but a natural one.

I do not think the LCA can be made into a "5th gen" plane, one on par with the AMCA. One can add some feature to the LCA to make it more LO, but that will not be the same as a ground up craft - as the AMCA seems to be.

I think some of the AMCA techs can and should see their way into the LCA. Sensors, especially flush mounted and the like.




In the second vid that was posted a few posts ago, the pilot has his own definition of a "5th" and a "6th" gen plane!!!! And, that is the issue - everyone has their own definition. IMHO India should standardize around the AMCA team's definitions - 5th/6th/whatever gen.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9814
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 01 Oct 2017 19:37

ashishvikas wrote:MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXzcwC ... e=youtu.be

MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2FI3RL ... e=youtu.be


https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914334236936593408 --> Tejas production rate is contingent on the order size, obviously. Especially for the module suppliers.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 01 Oct 2017 19:55

In whatever aircraft ambitions we have,to quote the good AM,we must list out the key tech./components reqd. for the same,and determine whether we can develop them at home or cannot in the reqd. timeframe for the programme,otherwise enormous delays-as we're experiencing with the LCA,will make the aircraft obsolete.As we still struggle with the (sub-std.) LCA MK-1 too,China has commissioned its first stealth bird the J-20.
The good AM,also drove home the point that the key factor for success was the engine.something he told Kalam repeatedly,who instead believed GTRE bullsh*t.

Therefore,it is quite clear that we cannot by any stretch of the imagination design,develop and build to perfection,series production ANY fighter engine given our miserable track record,which is like a needle stuck in the same groove of a record. We have to either import it completely,or get a suitable engine in a JV where we can build it at home later on.The rest is all secondary-composites,radars,el-op/IR sensors,weaponry,helmets,ejector seats,avionics,etc.The engines will determine the max thrust,operating specs at various alts.supercruising,and will determine the optimum weight of the aircraft. Putting the entire lot together in a suitable and efficient design,for easy servicing/maintainability,is where creative engineering skills are reqd. If we look around the world,barring the US,Russia and now China,almost al major aerospace OEMs collaborate as we've seen with the EF,Anglo-French Jaguar,etc. If you look at the innards of the LCA,we see a menagerie of bits and pieces from all over the world.Engine,radar,EW pod,some avionics,ej. seat,helmet,etc. and all missiles barring a possibility of ASTRA.What we never did though was to have a firang partner in a JV,which is why JVs like BMos have succeeded while the LCA has failed in the main.Arriving very late,and with abysmal rate of production.Even the MK-1A will have major firang components and also carry addl. weight.

In retrospective,we attempted to do too much with the LCA in a v.small airframe,trying to make it our mini-M2K .Had we developed a pure fighter variant and another variant for GA/CS/strike,like the MIG-23 and MIG-27,we may have succeeded much earlier even with the engine shortcomings.The US too is suffering hugely with the horrendously expensive JSF prorgamme,the most expensive in history,still labouring to get into full service capability. The one-bird suits all missions is mainly capable by heavy fighters as seen with the MKIs and to a lesser extent with the med. sized fighters.
AMCA will be another disaster if we do not get the concept.role right from the start.,esp weapons that it can carry in an internal bay.Given the huge cost of stealth,carrying a mere 4 AAMs and equiv. ordnance for the huge cost of the bird,at least double that of an equiv 4++ fighter,each of which could carry twice its payload,would be cost-ineffective!

However,there's still enough time to make the LCA relevant for the next decade+ by leapfrogging planned incremental MKs and developing on a war footing a "stealth version",LCA-S. Barring the very large JSF,there is no SE stealth bird on the horizon,a huge market.as a much smaller 5th-gen bird would be far more affordable than $100-120M fighters.One is confident that an LCA-S could be developed for around $35-40M,even with a TVC engine (say EJ-200) or an RU equiv.,provided we get an experienced partner for the same in a JV.

PS:Reason for confidence. Sev, 5th-gen tech already available with the FGFA,JSF,etc.TVC engines available.LCA dev. tech too for avionics,FBW,etc. Weaponry from various sources,some exg.,as well as internal key components like EJ seats,360 deg. sensors/conformal radars on other S-birds.Of course the profile,will have to undergo major changes and there must be provision for internal bay/bays.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Oct 2017 20:08

Philip wrote: LCA,will make the aircraft obsolete.As we still struggle with the (sub-std.) LCA MK-1 too,China has commissioned its first stealth bird the J-20.


LATE COMBAT AIRCRAFT

TO

SUB STANDARD LCA

Great going.

Nothing derogatory must be said against anything russian air brishit platforms ever.

That honour must be for indigenous platforms.

Waaah mazaa aa gayaa....
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 01 Oct 2017 20:15, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9281
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby brar_w » 01 Oct 2017 20:15

However,there's still enough time to make the LCA relevant for the next decade+ by leapfrogging planned incremental MKs and developing on a war footing a "stealth version",LCA-S. Barring the very large JSF,there is no SE stealth bird on the horizon,a huge market.as a much smaller 5th-gen bird would be far more affordable than $100-120M fighters.One is confident that an LCA-S could be developed for around $35-40M,even with a TVC engine (say EJ-200) or an RU equiv.,provided we get an experienced partner for the same in a JV.

PS:Reason for confidence. Sev, 5th-gen tech already available with the FGFA,JSF,etc.TVC engines available.LCA dev. tech too for avionics,FBW,etc. Weaponry from various sources,some exg.,as well as internal key components like EJ seats,360 deg. sensors/conformal radars on other S-birds.Of course the profile,will have to undergo major changes and there must be provision for internal bay/bays.


The problem with the said hypothetical approach is that a weapons bay, stealth features and design drivers such as re-arranging components, curved ducts, all internal mission systems, antennas, larger (relative to a non stealth aircraft) internal fuel capacity given a fixed range/payload requirement add size and weight. There is a reason that a primarily F-16C replacement in the F-35A weighs 50+% more when empty. All that design weight is on account of the requirements that come with survivability when other mission parameters are held constant.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Viv S » 01 Oct 2017 20:22

There is no light SE stealth bird because there's no such thing as a light SE stealth bird. You cannot put an internal bay in a light fighter and you cannot have a stealth fighter without an internal payload.

There is however some merit in the idea of switching the AMCA from a twin-engined F414 based fighter to designing it around a single F135 engine (similar to the F-35).

They both offer a similar thrust rating right now (2 x 98 kN vs 190 kN) but the F135's growth plan is already secure & funded.

By 2032, it'll have incorporated the three-stream adaptive cycle tech developed through the ADVENT & AETP programs - with fuel consumption improved by 25% (range/combat radius improving proportionately) and max thrust improved by 10-20% (210 kN+).

Also, Y-shaped ducts should enable a simpler aircraft design than the S-shaped ducts required by a twin-engined design, where pressure recovery & inlet-shielding becomes an issue.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 01 Oct 2017 22:15

Viv S wrote:
There is however some merit in the idea of switching the AMCA from a twin-engined F414 based fighter to designing it around a single F135 engine (similar to the F-35).

They both offer a similar thrust rating right now (2 x 98 kN vs 190 kN) but the F135's growth plan is already secure & funded..

wait till this gets copied on idrw

jahaju
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Apr 2008 18:40

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby jahaju » 02 Oct 2017 00:00

LSP-7 - GUN
LSP-8 - IFR


· 3593th flight on 27th Sep

TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3:333 LSP5: 352
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 187 LSP2: 314 LSP4: 308 LSP7: 199
NP1: 73 LSP8 : 201 PV6:105 NP2: 55

· 3538th flight on 31st Aug

TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3:328 LSP5: 352
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 173 LSP2: 314 LSP4: 301 LSP7: 189
NP1: 73 LSP8 : 182 PV6:105 NP2: 55

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Oct 2017 02:36

negi wrote:When single engine is taking time why would one jump onto another science project ; walk and then run. Jumping onto a twin engine project will not make the existing problems disappear they will crop up in that project as well .


With what they were trying to do with the LCA, it was neither walk nor run, it was more like fly.... Smallest, lightest and stuff. And that too on a stobar version.

A twin engined design is actually an easier path when adequately powerful engines are not available. Just like the ruffians did with the mig 29. Not as tfta as the f16 perhaps but serves the purpose quite well.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Oct 2017 02:41

NRao wrote:
But the idea of a twin engined NLCA is absolutely spot on


They *just* sanctioned 230 crores specifically for such an effort + Ghatak.

It is called the AMCA. Which morphed from adding a second engine to the .


The AMCA and the original MCA again are too ambitious. For once they might want to look at something less spectacular but rather effective and easily meeting the needs of the forces. The LCA MK2 should be a twin engined 4.5 gen bird delivered in double quick time. They have all the experience and required hardware from engines to composites and avionics.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 02 Oct 2017 03:44

Cain Marko wrote:For once they might want to look at something less spectacular but rather effective and easily meeting the needs of the forces. The LCA MK2 should be a twin engined 4.5 gen bird delivered in double quick time. They have all the experience and required hardware from engines to composites and avionics.

My thoughts exactly !

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 02 Oct 2017 05:19

Since we are at the could have, should have point in this thread, let me throw in my two cents.

1. Scrap IAF version of Mk2. Develop only one version the Naval version of Mk2 and make it work for both. We don't have manpower for both. The IN version will add both payload and an extra 22-30 minutes to the sorties.

2. Agree with brar! Start with AMCA instead of modding the CLAW when you change from 4.5 gen to 5th gen even if takes more time. Thats the right way forward. This way the amount of fuel, internal structures and all are designed for stealth from day one. Redoing a non stealth to stealth will add another 10 years.

3. COMPLETELY SCRAP AMCA for NAVY. I will get burned for this, but I really think thats the right thing to do. Ignore Naval requirements at the moment. IAF has requirement of over 200/250, whereas naval requirement after the 57 fighter RFI might be to exercise more options of the same type (FA-18/F35BC/Rafale). Naval requirement may be very limited for AMCA platform if the above RFI goes through and if LCA Mk2 is completed. LCA will pick up any remaining requirement for the next 30-40 years. Plus if they pull off F35B/C it will have stealth and be valid for next 40 years.

Navy will have 45 Mig 29Ks + 57 New type (+options) + 40 LCA Mk2 (+options) = 150-160 in total.

This will give us enough time and experience to create a naval version of AMCA after the IAF version makes it to production line if there is appetite and demand for it. But for now lets give this a pass.

4. Explore Ghatak for IN. Make that work. That will be easier to absorb and deploy and will be a game changer for IN.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2017 05:47

Cain Marko wrote:
NRao wrote:
They *just* sanctioned 230 crores specifically for such an effort + Ghatak.

It is called the AMCA. Which morphed from adding a second engine to the .


The AMCA and the original MCA again are too ambitious. For once they might want to look at something less spectacular but rather effective and easily meeting the needs of the forces. The LCA MK2 should be a twin engined 4.5 gen bird delivered in double quick time. They have all the experience and required hardware from engines to composites and avionics.


CM,

Please give me a rough date, cost, which team would address this effort ("MCA"?) and what do you mean by "too ambitious".

Thanks.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Oct 2017 08:15

NRao wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
The AMCA and the original MCA again are too ambitious. For once they might want to look at something less spectacular but rather effective and easily meeting the needs of the forces. The LCA MK2 should be a twin engined 4.5 gen bird delivered in double quick time. They have all the experience and required hardware from engines to composites and avionics.


CM,

Please give me a rough date, cost, which team would address this effort ("MCA"?) and what do you mean by "too ambitious".

Thanks.


The nlca and mk2 team would address this effort. Availability for production by 2027 or earlier, that should be the target. Although they should've been work on it in 2007.

Too ambitious = in the past. .. fighter without vertical stabs and based on tvc alone. At present. ..6 th gen tech whatever that is supposed to mean.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 02 Oct 2017 08:56

There is room for an Indian designed twin engined fighter, that is 4.5 gen.
5th Gen has not been produced in numbers by any power to date, and will unlikely to be the case given dwindling defense budgets in the western world, with the exception of the F-35. Even the F-35 numbers are not going to be too great, given the cost of the plane and its networking abilities.

The bread and butter task, including DPSA, SEAD, Ground attack etc etc still gets done by 4.5 gen birds. Legacy aircraft are being upgraded to 4.5 gen stds for this. Why not build a ground up 4.5 bird?
A twin engined LCA would have been DRDOs Rafale equivalent at a fraction of the cost, mass produced, with Indian tech. Navalized for Carrier use.

Let the AMCA be a separate program, the Ghatak is a separate program

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 02 Oct 2017 09:52

Gagan wrote:Vivek beta,
You need to stop watching Star Trek and grow up

Yes my baap!!!! Just though we should leap to 7th gen from 4.5

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby negi » 02 Oct 2017 10:56

Cain Marko wrote:With what they were trying to do with the LCA, it was neither walk nor run, it was more like fly.... Smallest, lightest and stuff. And that too on a stobar version.

Criticism of a decision to go behind lightest was right in the early stages right now we have passed that hurdle LCA is flying ; the best fighter out there is the one which you can field at earliest and LCA is our best bet anything which is not even on paper should not be proposed as a plan B it is a sign of 'dil mange more' mentality ; there are hundreds if not thousands of areas which we are yet to even master before embarking upon another fighter program. There is as much of a learning curve in taking a prototype and putting it into mass production and seeing it through teething issues as coming up with a new prototype.

I clearly see huge challenges which NLCA is yet to clear , IN's payload hauling and bring back demands notwithstanding for initial phase NLCA will have to prove that the even with nominal loads integrity of it's spine is not compromised due to arrestor landings , how many sorties will it be able to make after such landings on a carrier without a visit to the hanger ? These are not trivial aspects and by leaving the NLCA and embarking upon a parallel twin engine carrier based fighter we will be spreading the resources too thin and postponing these issues by another 10 years at a minimum.

Right now HAL here in Bangalore does not even have a SBTF we have one in Dabolim so that means NLCA has to fly there for relevant tests , such piece meal way of doing things can never meet objectives in a time bound manner . That is why I compare most of our MIL complex's work to science projects as timelines are not as important as they are when it comes to building a product for a 'customer' (in this case the forces) their needs if not met in time will obviously lead to change in requirements once a certain time window is not adhered to.

Right now even after recognizing the importance and critical nature of Tejas program look at the kind of resources we have thrown at it ; with this background I simply find talk of pursuing parallel fighter programs lacking any merit; with a risk of sounding condescending I also know that in PSUs more programs means more work to show on paper so more people can climb up the hierarchy and pretend to be busy (this is true in private too for humans everywhere are same ) however most important part is one system addresses this by firing people that do not deliver.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2017 12:26

CM,

Your response/s have been too nebulous. Difficult to engage.

A dual engine LCA will undoubtedly need some basic "5th gen" features. At the body level - perhaps a serpentine intake, a faceted body, a proper plane form (angles), etc. It will also be nice to have a next gen set of sensors, computers, high speed networks, what not. A better engine, radar, etc. The AMCA has all these things (outside of the radar, as I post, I guess).

Please take a hard look at the AMCA effort. A dual engined LCA would be a step backward (when compared to the work already gone into the AMCA). The AMCA has gone through some 10 design modifications, when about 2 years ago it was frozen!!!!! They were supposed to build a full scale model and send it to Hy'bad for spectral testing!!!! They have an engine in the works (thanks to a tweet, complaining about another foreign engine)(something I have been saying for a long time now).The AMCA may need some more infusion of techs, but it is far ahead of the LCA in pretty much every respect.

Think of that - a lot of work has gone into that plane.

Why would anyone restart with the LCA as a base? Perhaps a lack of knowledge of the AMCA or fear (due to a lack of experience)? Do not know. IMHO such a proposal would stunt the Indian MIC.

Anyhow, the Gov has recently released funds for a few AMCA prototypes. I expect a baseline prototype - bare bone - by 2021ish - they can use the extra F-414 INS6 engines out there. Flesh it out after that.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 02 Oct 2017 13:45

NRao wrote:
Anyhow, the Gov has recently released funds for a few AMCA prototypes. .

When? Where? How much? Last time I checked FSED is still pending approval.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2017 18:20

JayS wrote:
NRao wrote:
Anyhow, the Gov has recently released funds for a few AMCA prototypes. .

When? Where? How much? Last time I checked FSED is still pending approval.


The original post was in the AMCA thread. I just researched the story and here are the quotes:

Sept 24, 2017 :: https://twitter.com/ashishat763/status/ ... 5451339777 ::

@SJha1618 Hey, one question: I have read somewhere that MoD has approved full R&D funding for AMCA? Is that correct?


Sept 25, 2017 :: https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/912335455005286406 ::

At the moment, only Rs 231 crores have been sanctioned for a lead-in project for both Ghatak UCAV & AMCA together.


Which is what I was going by. In my research could not find any other source to back it up. So, ???????????. Do not know if I should back out of my position on this funding topic.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 03 Oct 2017 00:02

NP.
Last edited by NRao on 03 Oct 2017 01:38, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2017 00:48

NRao, While I appreciate your enthusiasm for a twin-seater conversion of the LCA, I think the focus of this thread is the current LCA and till it gets into quantity production and clears all trials we should stick to the topic.
Please transfer your post to another thread.

like Indian Military Aviation Thread
Thanks, for the understanding,
ramana

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 03 Oct 2017 02:46

Another thing mentioned in the video was that the first version of MK1A will fly in December 2017! If that's the case, then they should have already started upgrading an LSP plane to MK1A standards. Anyone heard that this has started? I thought that MK1A would be delayed because FOC is delayed and work on MK1A can only start after LSPs are freed from FOC duty.

Kartik wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXzcwC ... e=youtu.be

MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2FI3RL ... e=youtu.be


Thank you for these links! a lot of very useful data points could be found in those videos, related to the assembly line.

and 30 kgs of RAM is used to coat the Tejas!

Saw SP11 in one of the front and rear fuselage jigs and SP14 in the one of the rear fuselage jigs. SP11 is due to be delivered to the IAF by March 2018..5 months from now at most.

and its finally dawning on HAL that a Lead In Fighter Trainer variant should be developed from the trainer variant..had they or the IAF initiated that project 5 years ago, it would have seen service by now, since the LIFT variant wouldn't need a radar or weapons integrated ; with full envelope expansion of the trainer, work could have been initiated on synthetic training devices in the cockpit, to simulate any other IAF fighter's displays or to simulate radar and weapons delivery. we discussed this on BRF several years ago and now they're waking up to this possibility. Perhaps it has to do with the learning from the BAe HAL Combat Hawk program.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 03 Oct 2017 04:04

enaiel wrote:Another thing mentioned in the video was that the first version of MK1A will fly in December 2017! If that's the case, then they should have already started upgrading an LSP plane to MK1A standards. Anyone heard that this has started? I thought that MK1A would be delayed because FOC is delayed and work on MK1A can only start after LSPs are freed from FOC duty.



Even I was puzzled by that statement, but didn't pay much attention to it thinking they must've gotten the date wrong. Unless as you said, they're basically upgrading one of the LSP prototypes to become the Mk1A prototype. If true, it would be a good approach to validate the airframe, weight and CG changes and then begin the work on integrating the real AESA radar.

Sadly, not much information was provided on the Mk1A program.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 03 Oct 2017 04:09

Kartik wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXzcwC ... e=youtu.be

MAKE IN INDIA: NEW DEAL FOR DEFENCE- PART 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2FI3RL ... e=youtu.be


Thank you for these links! a lot of very useful data points could be found in those videos, related to the assembly line.

and 30 kgs of RAM is used to coat the Tejas!

Saw SP11 in one of the front and rear fuselage jigs and SP14 in the one of the rear fuselage jigs. SP11 is due to be delivered to the IAF by March 2018..5 months from now at most.

and its finally dawning on HAL that a Lead In Fighter Trainer variant should be developed from the trainer variant..had they or the IAF initiated that project 5 years ago, it would have seen service by now, since the LIFT variant wouldn't need a radar or weapons integrated ; with full envelope expansion of the trainer, work could have been initiated on synthetic training devices in the cockpit, to simulate any other IAF fighter's displays or to simulate radar and weapons delivery. we discussed this on BRF several years ago and now they're waking up to this possibility. Perhaps it has to do with the learning from the BAe HAL Combat Hawk program.


LIFT variant has been a missed opportunity, IMO. Majority of the fighter squadrons could have 2-4 LCA LIFT for training purposes. There could be a total of 80 units requirement for 40 squadrons @2/squadron.

More orders are needed to keep the lines running at full capacity for more than 3-5 years. Let's hope there is some sense to shift the 200* potential orders of single-engine import to the LCA instead.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 03 Oct 2017 04:43

Kartik wrote:
enaiel wrote:Another thing mentioned in the video was that the first version of MK1A will fly in December 2017! If that's the case, then they should have already started upgrading an LSP plane to MK1A standards. Anyone heard that this has started? I thought that MK1A would be delayed because FOC is delayed and work on MK1A can only start after LSPs are freed from FOC duty.



Even I was puzzled by that statement, but didn't pay much attention to it thinking they must've gotten the date wrong. Unless as you said, they're basically upgrading one of the LSP prototypes to become the Mk1A prototype. If true, it would be a good approach to validate the airframe, weight and CG changes and then begin the work on integrating the real AESA radar.

LSP 2.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 03 Oct 2017 05:06

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Even I was puzzled by that statement, but didn't pay much attention to it thinking they must've gotten the date wrong. Unless as you said, they're basically upgrading one of the LSP prototypes to become the Mk1A prototype. If true, it would be a good approach to validate the airframe, weight and CG changes and then begin the work on integrating the real AESA radar.

LSP 2.


LSP-2 last flown in July 2015. Been two years in the workshop ;)
https://www.ada.gov.in/images/flighttestnews-2015.htm

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 03 Oct 2017 05:18

Ah! thanks Indranil and Srai..:)

Any updates on the progress with that work, Indranil? Will it really fly by this December? That's just 3 months away at most.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 03 Oct 2017 08:00

I thought that LSP2 was undergoing ground integration with Uttam radar for Mk2 preparation, while Mk1A is supposed to use Elta's 2052 radar.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 03 Oct 2017 08:40

6 months have passed in FY 2017-2018, HAL has been whinning about lack of new (screw driver assembly import) orders of Hawk & Su-30MKI but TOTAL production of LCA is measely 2 from 2 production lines.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests