LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Sanjiv · Post by **Sanjiv** » 21 Oct 2017 19:32

Gagan that image was originally shown in India today in late 1985 with a comment from Dr Arunachalam we are going for the close coupled canard

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 21 Oct 2017 20:12

PS - Even if SP-5 and SP-7 fly tomorrow morning, my enthusiasm and tracking of SP deliveries or FOC achievements has taken 1000 kills in recent times. There used to be days (for years) when I used to wake up in morning and search "LCA Tejas" on FaceBook, Twitter, Browsers. HAL - Thank you for this. Regards, Jingo-Abdul.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Oct 2017 20:24

Gyan wrote:Re Indranil

The two production lines of HAL has capacity of 8+8 = 16 or rather 4+3=7? As per my understanding the project to enhance capacity from total 8 to total 16 has not take off, though Hal does like to talk about its "potential" Rs. 1200 crore investment for enhancing production from total 8 to total 16?

My guess for HAL production capacity

2017-18 is 4
2018-19 is 6
2019-20 is 7
2020-21 is 8
2021-22 is 8
2022-23 is 8
2023-24 by which time HAL would have produced 38 LCA, 3 more NLCA and 2 MK1A and would be ramping up MK1A in its true Babu style ie very slowly to 16.

My projection of MK1A is that major contracts to be awarded by 2018, delivery of long lead items by 2021, roll out of first MK1A by 2022. Substantial production 8? by 2025-2026. The production run will last upto 2032-35 of MK1A.

Philip wrote:Gyan,your prod. figs indicate why the IAF/MOD are in such a hurry to seal the SE req.I have always been v.sceptical of the grand prod. figs that have been touted by HAL,etc.at this rate it will only be by around 2030 that we will get the 120+ MK-1s and MK-1As delivered with another 20-40 max.While LCA prod. is taking place, remember that by 2023 or so even the SE prod. will kick start in and if the MK-1A/MK-2 don't foot the bill,the SE bird will fly off the prod. lines compared with the LCA and knowing The IAF's lust for firang birds, claimed to be superior! The LCA will then be unceremoniously dumped in favour of India's "new stealth fighter the AMCA" (!) which the poor taxpayer,the ignored stakeholder, will be told is the "next best thing",futuristic,blah,blah.

I said a decade ago,let's see if we build as many or more LCAs than the HF-24.It looks ominously true as the firang sharks have started circling in number from both east and west.

Basic ability to count on your fingers will show you guys wrong. But hey, you guys have an axe to grind. So carry on!

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 21 Oct 2017 22:36

Sanjiv wrote:Gagan that image was originally shown in India today in late 1985 with a comment from Dr Arunachalam we are going for the close coupled canard

I wonder if such a design would have been better? Instead of huge draggy wing and insufficient STR.

Sanjiv · Post by **Sanjiv** » 21 Oct 2017 23:02

Those days I used to be really up to spec
Studied all the designs presented by MBB ,
Dornier, BAE P108, Dassault Like a single engine Rafale , Mig Design with a Mig 29 like Wing Plan
The team which helped ADA with LCA was the Alpha jet design team
The Dornier design was like a single engine ND 102
I had a line drawing of the MBB design but I think I got rid of a lot of my papers moving house
We should have taken the offer of the Northrop F -20 Tigershark in 1982 or joined the Gripen programme when offered and then progressed with our own design now we will be 20 Squadrons short by 2025 unless something changes rapidly

Sanjiv · Post by **Sanjiv** » 21 Oct 2017 23:03

Those days I used to be really up to spec
Studied all the designs presented by MBB ,
Dornier, BAE P108, Dassault Like a single engine Rafale , Mig Design with a Mig 29 like Wing Plan
The team which helped ADA with LCA was the Alpha jet design team
The Dornier design was like a single engine ND 102
I had a line drawing of the MBB design but I think I got rid of a lot of my papers moving house
We should have taken the offer of the Northrop F -20 Tigershark in 1982 or joined the Gripen programme when offered and then progressed with our own design now we will be 20 Squadrons short by 2025 unless something changes rapidly

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2017 00:30

Maybe for some program, the ADA should partner with one or two foreign partners for an aircraft program
They should be non Russian of course.

Western European / SoKo / Japan /Israel etc
sorry OT

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Oct 2017 03:48

Gyan wrote:
Sanjiv wrote:Gagan that image was originally shown in India today in late 1985 with a comment from Dr Arunachalam we are going for the close coupled canard
I wonder if such a design would have been better? Instead of huge draggy wing and insufficient STR.

Indian scientist like huge draggy wings with insufficient STR. That's why they chose that configuration over "less draggy wings with canards and sufficient STR" configuration after doing wind tunnel studies of all configurations.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Oct 2017 03:59

Gaganullah, no canards. They have not found any distinctive advantage with the canards with LCA config.

LCA navy MK1 will soon have active LEVCONs to increase control at lower landing speeds. Whether they port it to the the AF version needs to be seen. It might help with CnBeta and marginally better L/D.

The best thing about LCA is its flight control software. It is really really good. The mission computer needs more work. But that is what is going on these days and will continue as long as LCAs will be flying. The good thing is that these things easily port from one plane to another as long as you know the math and physics behind why a control law is written that way.

The surprise is something else.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 22 Oct 2017 13:02

Indranil wrote:Gaganullah, no canards. They have not found any distinctive advantage with the canards with LCA config.

LCA navy MK1 will soon have active LEVCONs to increase control at lower landing speeds. Whether they port it to the the AF version needs to be seen. It might help with CnBeta and marginally better L/D.
<snip>
The surprise is something else.

Well there are following three major aerodynamic areas that was under consideration in 2010-2016 or thereabouts:
1) Nose cone extension using a Plug to reduce wave drag (major component of overall drag at higher speed).
Circa 2012 or thereabouts, a detailed analysis of this design and its implementation plan was being worked out - and maybe it has finally reached a productionising stage.

2) Using active Levcon for STR improvement: Though not available in any open literature, it's safe to assume the current STR achieved is about 1deg/sec less than what was specified in SQR.
(which itself was a multi-brochure cut-paste job, but that's a topic well detailed in various pages, so not going there)
STR being a thru-and-thru aerodynamic-efficiency factor, and since in LCA wind-tunnel testing, it was found that "active" Levcons do provide higher L/D (for a given CL), this was a very high priority item.
Do note, achieving 20+ deg/sec levels, would be unheard of for a delta-winged fighter.

3) Improving the directional stability (Cn Beta), at the onset of vortex breakdown at high AoA (say at 30deg AoA) without compromising pitching co-eff, by increasing the strength of the wing vortex - this was being extensively simulated, initially using simple strakes and then with nose-strakes (chine). The simplicity of the structural modification required for productionising this, is almost trivial, in the scheme of things.

Of course, there were other improvements that were under active consideration like Trailing Edge Extension, Pylon re-shaping, fuel proportioner (to limit the CG travel) etc - but these wouldn't provide the dramatic improvements that Indranil just mentioned.

So my guess would be they are close to implementing both 2 and 3, and that is what is Indranil is alluding to.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 23 Oct 2017 04:16

maitya wrote:
Indranil wrote:Gaganullah, no canards. They have not found any distinctive advantage with the canards with LCA config.

LCA navy MK1 will soon have active LEVCONs to increase control at lower landing speeds. Whether they port it to the the AF version needs to be seen. It might help with CnBeta and marginally better L/D.
<snip>
The surprise is something else.
Well there are following three major aerodynamic areas that was under consideration in 2010-2016 or thereabouts:
1) Nose cone extension using a Plug to reduce wave drag (major component of overall drag at higher speed).
Circa 2012 or thereabouts, a detailed analysis of this design and its implementation plan was being worked out - and maybe it has finally reached a productionising stage.

2) Using active Levcon for STR improvement: Though not available in any open literature, it's safe to assume the current STR achieved is about 1deg/sec less than what was specified in SQR.
(which itself was a multi-brochure cut-paste job, but that's a topic well detailed in various pages, so not going there)
STR being a thru-and-thru aerodynamic-efficiency factor, and since in LCA wind-tunnel testing, it was found that "active" Levcons do provide higher L/D (for a given CL), this was a very high priority item.
Do note, achieving 20+ deg/sec levels, would be unheard of for a delta-winged fighter.

3) Improving the directional stability (Cn Beta), at the onset of vortex breakdown at high AoA (say at 30deg AoA) without compromising pitching co-eff, by increasing the strength of the wing vortex - this was being extensively simulated, initially using simple strakes and then with nose-strakes (chine). The simplicity of the structural modification required for productionising this, is almost trivial, in the scheme of things.

Of course, there were other improvements that were under active consideration like Trailing Edge Extension, Pylon re-shaping, fuel proportioner (to limit the CG travel) etc - but these wouldn't provide the dramatic improvements that Indranil just mentioned.

So my guess would be they are close to implementing both 2 and 3, and that is what is Indranil is alluding to.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/20 ... EMILAC.pdf

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2017 06:06

These will come in later.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 23 Oct 2017 06:36

Indranil wrote:These will come in later.

Indranil - I presume a LSP will be modified for FT.

- which one.
- then plan to retrofit existing ac in 45 sq?

thanks

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2017 08:46

They are not modifying the airframe in any way. It has been frozen for Mk1. They are only clearing test points.

One of the test points relate to a feature which was seen on early wind tunnel models but not in real flight testing. This led to somebody proposing that the said feature was never implemented in the aircrafts, and we all jingoes went with it. You will soon realize that the feature was implemented all along.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Oct 2017 10:45

Indranil wrote:They are not modifying the airframe in any way. It has been frozen for Mk1. They are only clearing test points.

One of the test points relate to a feature which was seen on early wind tunnel models but not in real flight testing. This led to somebody proposing that the said feature was never implemented in the aircrafts, and we all jingoes went with it. You will soon realize that the feature was implemented all along.

Interesting. I am totally clueless on this.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 23 Oct 2017 10:48

Indranil wrote:They are not modifying the airframe in any way. It has been frozen for Mk1. They are only clearing test points.

One of the test points relate to a feature which was seen on early wind tunnel models but not in real flight testing. This led to somebody proposing that the said feature was never implemented in the aircrafts, and we all jingoes went with it. You will soon realize that the feature was implemented all along.

front or back or on the side?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Oct 2017 10:48

Indranil wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:
@Indranil - Do we have both the lines which can do Equipping in parallel ? OR all fighters needs to go to Main line 1 for some work.

From your earlier updates, i understand its taking 90 days in equipment stage which HAL wanted to optimize to ~45 days.
The first line is streamlined. It is currently running at around 5 aircraft per year. It should come up to 8 by middle of next year. The second line is not stable yet. It should stabilize by middle of next year and should come up to speed of 8 aircraft per year in 2019.

Kartik wrote: Was the 'great guns towards FOC' pun intended?
No pun intended Kartik. It would have been a great one though.

I shouldn't reveal the nature of the tests. I will just say that they were trying a world-class target and easily achieved it. So, they are going to go up one and make the target even tougher. They have to do some sims before that is tested. So in the meantime, they are going for some detachments for armament delivery. After that, you will hear a great news (something that was always seen in windtunnel models), but was believed to have been dropped in final product). I think that is a good enough hint for you. Keep it to yourself. When they come back, they will continue the test for the enhanced objective and then gun trials.

Everything is currently going very well with testing. The avionics is getting better everyday. I have just two things on my wishlist that I have not heard anything about. A dual rack for 500 lb LGB and another dual/triple rack for BVRs

IAF and HAL has not shown any interest in Mk2. HAL now has two excellent AESA radar options to chose from. I think 2052 still has the edge thanks to commonality. If Mk1A gets all the refinements like canopy reshaping, weight optimizations, other aerodynamic optimizations like airbrakes, active Levcons, slimmer pylons, pinched tanks etc., that in itself will be quite good. It will beat Gripen C/D in almost everything but transonic drag I think. And many of these upgrades will be back portable to the Mk1.

I don't like the bolded part.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Oct 2017 11:48

Would like to see these ...

Mid-wing external fuel tank:

Supersonic external fuel tank:

New aerodynamically optimized external tank:

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Oct 2017 12:13

But we hear nothing about the work being done on Mk2. All indications are it is in cold storage now.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Oct 2017 12:22

Indranil wrote:They are not modifying the airframe in any way. It has been frozen for Mk1. They are only clearing test points.

One of the test points relate to a feature which was seen on early wind tunnel models but not in real flight testing. This led to somebody proposing that the said feature was never implemented in the aircrafts, and we all jingoes went with it. You will soon realize that the feature was implemented all along.

Is it internal cannon? Why this suspense saar?

nash · Post by **nash** » 23 Oct 2017 12:34

Nice work Indranil, you have set cat among pigeons and we are up for show

I don't think this thread will go down any time soon.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Oct 2017 12:35

Yagnasri wrote:But we hear nothing about the work being done on Mk2. All indications are it is in cold storage now.

Yes. Hopefully it comes back on.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2017 12:42

Full details in the Intl.Aero td. For those who feel that the F-35 is the "bees knees",etc. and must be acquired.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... or-combat/
Nearly 200 of America's F-35s May Remain Indefinitely Unfit for Combat (Updated)

has there been any talk of leveraging the LCA prog. with that of the AMCA? If AMCA has to arrive 2030+,work on it has to sart asap which will make it a parallel prog. along with the LCA MK-2. Do we have the technical /human resources for the same?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Oct 2017 13:33

Philip wrote:Full details in the Intl.Aero td. For those who feel that the F-35 is the "bees knees",etc. and must be acquired.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... or-combat/
Nearly 200 of America's F-35s May Remain Indefinitely Unfit for Combat (Updated)

has there been any talk of leveraging the LCA prog. with that of the AMCA? If AMCA has to arrive 2030+,work on it has to sart asap which will make it a parallel prog. along with the LCA MK-2. Do we have the technical /human resources for the same?

Ball is in GOI's court. Let them first approve FSED. If there are some technical issues, they could have given conditional approval or TD phase approval instead of FSED. The wheels would have started rolling while issues are being sorted. But they will take their own sweet time.

Re F35. I don't see it as a big deal. The jets will be utilized in Training and flight testing. Lets not forget, there is going to be huge training requirement for thousands of pilots in coming decades. Majority of the type conversion can be done on these non-upgrades versions perhaps. There is of coarse price to be paid for concurrency. Its a balance the program management has to strike. If it costs more to upgrade and they can be utilized effectively in other lesser demanding roles, why not skip upgrade..? Its not like they are getting wasted. The media is obviously putting in lot of masala in headlines to grab eye-balls.

PS: Just saw VivS' post. I didn't read this particular news item as I have seen other reports already, so missed it. So the issue is resolved now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2017 13:37

Philip wrote:Full details in the Intl.Aero td. For those who feel that the F-35 is the "bees knees",etc. and must be acquired.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... or-combat/
Nearly 200 of America's F-35s May Remain Indefinitely Unfit for Combat (Updated)

Those with passable comprehension skills will notice the article concludes with an update -

Update: A U.S. Air Force official tells Popular Mechanics that, "the Air Force plans to upgrade all aircraft in question to Software Block 3F."

JayS wrote:Re F35. I don't see it as a big deal. The jets will be utilized in Training and flight testing. Lets not forget, there is going to be huge training requirement for thousands of pilots in coming decades. Majority of the type conversion can be done on these non-upgrades versions perhaps. There is of coarse price to be paid for concurrency. Its a balance the program management has to strike. If it costs more to upgrade and they can be utilized effectively in other lesser demanding roles, why not skip upgrade..? Its not like they are getting wasted. The media is obviously putting in lot of masala in headlines to grab eye-balls.

Exactly. Its actually just 90 odd aircraft in Blk 2B config, some of which are currently forward deployed in Japan.

All fighters ordered after 2013 are to receive the full Blk 3F software package.

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Oct 2017 15:52

maitya wrote:STR being a thru-and-thru aerodynamic-efficiency factor

AND, excess installed thrust. You put huge excess installed thrust (like F15 and Mig 29), even with a less efficient (ie, statically stable airframe vs an F16 like relaxed stability), you can power your way thru a turn.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Oct 2017 20:02

Indranil wrote: ... I have just two things on my wishlist that I have not heard anything about. A dual rack for 500 lb LGB and another dual/triple rack for BVRs

...

From Tejas - LCA Facebook

20 June at 01:23 · Priyanka Sharma Admin
Gripen is of same class as Tejas but still Gripen can carry more missiles and bombs for a particular mission type, is this is due to hardpoints design??? And Saab increased one hardpoint in Gripen-E by redesignig/relocating landing gear, are thereany such plans for mk2?? And do u know the reason why IAF is not asking for multiejector pylon???

20 June at 02:05 · Tejas - LCA
Hardpoint design is exclusive and needs to be done during conceptual stage. Later on it becomes difficult to redesign and re qualify the pylons as they take enormous time. MK2 program should primarily address these design improvements. IAF's thought process for multiejector pylon for Tejas is not yet clear. Proposal has to flow from the designers for approval.

20 June at 05:52 · Oscar Zulu
Is there any multi ejector pylons being designed for air to air missiles for Tejas mk1?

24 June at 18:28 · Tejas - LCA
No

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Oct 2017 20:17

JayS wrote: Re F35. I don't see it as a big deal. The jets will be utilized in Training and flight testing.

The point is that this is internal US services related matter i.e. how many aircraft do they want to take out of combat service/training/tactics-development etc and send to depots for conversion. For combat-coded jets with USAF, it doesn't matter since ALL of their combat-coded fleet is carrying 3I or 3F requiring only a software update to take them to 3F. Those aircraft won't require hardware changes till block 4. The Marines have IOC jets @ 2B and will have to balance there needs to keep those forward deployed in Japan with the need to send them to the depot and have them brought at par with the SDD standards.

The remaining are test and training aircraft. A subset of the test fleet is going to get priority for 3F conversion, since 2 dozen or so aircraft are to be handed over to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation as he supervises the OT&E for the program prior to Full Rate production milestone. The remaining will only be upgraded if needed as part of their block 4 test activity.

Upgrading conversion training aircraft is not an immediate necessity. It is a nice to have, but priority will go to those that absolutely need it as part of their obligation to the test-program.

None of this matters for a prospective customer however, as 100% of the aircraft currently being built, and delivered are in the block 3 configuration.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2017 23:07

time for some LCA pics on this thread

From Tejas LCA FB page

The LCA Tejas SP-1 performing at the 85th Air Force Day parade infront of Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa, Army Chief General Bipin Rawat and senior officials of our armed forces..

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Oct 2017 03:45

We can see on the SPs that the Trailing Edge Extension (TEC) has been applied. Refer to Figure 15 and 16 in the document below.

CEMILAC: Aircraft Performance Improvements-A Practical Approach

...
Trailing Edge Extension (TEC)

From the Fig. 12 it is seen that there is a sudden variation in cross sectional area at the rear end of the fuselage also. This can be minimized by the modification in the trailing edge using TEC. Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 shows the rear fuselage before and after modification. The drag reduction predicted is around 1 dm2.
...

Compare the rear (look at the extension between the wings and engine) between SP and LSP/PV:

LCA - SP

LCA - LSP/PV

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Oct 2017 03:51

They have been part of LCAs from LSP 7 onwards. They have also changed the scoop at the base of the rudder.

They will incorporate less draggy pylons later on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2017 07:07

srai wrote:We can see on the SPs that the Trailing Edge Extension (TEC) has been applied. Refer to Figure 15 and 16 in the document below.

Thanks. I had not noticed that. Looks like chaff/flare dispensers have been placed underneath these trailing edge extensions

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Oct 2017 08:19

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:We can see on the SPs that the Trailing Edge Extension (TEC) has been applied. Refer to Figure 15 and 16 in the document below.
Thanks. I had not noticed that. Looks like chaff/flare dispensers have been placed underneath these trailing edge extensions

Correct about CMDS. Its there on at least one and perhaps more LSPs as well. It could be seen on LSP1 kept for static display in AI.17

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Oct 2017 09:50

As I said, was part of LSP 7 onwards.

Frankly, I don't like that positioning of the dispenser canister. It doesn't fit in there completely and a fairing is added just in front of the the extra part that juts out. I hope they refine it further.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Oct 2017 09:54

Kartik wrote:time for some LCA pics on this thread

From Tejas LCA FB page

The LCA Tejas SP-1 performing at the 85th Air Force Day parade infront of Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa, Army Chief General Bipin Rawat and senior officials of our armed forces..

Hi Kartik, Thank you for sharing these beautiful photos. A great start to the day. Lovely to see the beautiful plane become a deadly fighter.

This second photo is interesting. Remember this is what the enemy will see or tries to lock on to, when trying to attack a Tejas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2017 10:08

Indranil wrote: Frankly, I don't like that positioning of the dispenser canister. It doesn't fit in there completely and a fairing is added just in front of the the extra part that juts out. I hope they refine it further.

What is your exact objection?

The interesting part to me is that an IR seeker directly at the back locking on to the exhaust will start seeing hot spots diverging away from the very hot spot (the exhaust) it was centered on and if the plane manoeuvres away only the flares will be left visible.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Oct 2017 10:09

Great plane! The best!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Oct 2017 10:13

Vivek K wrote:Great plane! The best!

Absolutely. There should have been at least 200 LCA MK-1 birds today. No need for Rafale or SE competition. Build Indian industry and manufacturing first.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Oct 2017 10:26

Kalam promised us in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 in the air! Anyway,the good Dr.Das in VAYU has done an evaluation of the JF-17 and says that it is a better bird than LCA MK-1. he gives his technical reasons in depth. The telling point he makes about both programmes and gives datelines for both,is that 5 sqds. of JF-17s are flying,gives data about availability,accidents,etc. and says that at low cost Pak is rapidly finding not just replacements for its Chinese MIG clones but an aircraft that with some tweaking would be a decent F-16 replacement. Gives some solutions as to how to improve the LCA from an eng. standpoint.

Some other titbits,extra 36 Rafales will come in at approx. 60% of the cost of the first batch say some,which would make it around $125M a pop,still hugely expensive,why the SE bird is being pursued as the interim solution to falling numbers and capability.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Oct 2017 10:32

Philip wrote:Kalam promised us in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 in the air! Anyway,the good Dr.Das in VAYU has done an evaluation of the JF-17 and says that it is a better bird than LCA MK-1. he gives his technical reasons in depth. The telling point he makes about both programmes and gives datelines for both,is that 5 sqds. of JF-17s are flying,gives data about availability,accidents,etc. and says that at low cost Pak is rapidly finding not just replacements for its Chinese MIG clones but an aircraft that with some tweaking would be a decent F-16 replacement. Gives some solutions as to how to improve the LCA from an eng. standpoint.

Some other titbits,extra 36 Rafales will come in at approx. 60% of the cost of the first batch say some,which would make it around $125M a pop,still hugely expensive,why the SE bird is being pursued as the interim solution to falling numbers and capability.

The good Dr Das should go back to KINDERGARTEN.