LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:38

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Oct 2016 05:39

So this Mk1A is same as Mk1P. In effect there is no 1P.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:42

So Mk1A

Basically, landing gear weight reduction + 210 kg ballast in nose = excess weight.
AESA + external jammer will add 50 kg over ballast removal. So weight optimization elsewhere still possible - lets see.
43 changes in terms of maintainability improvements as well.
Plus more Mk2 avionics (DFCC, DFC etc) and possibly the Mk2 avionics suite (if it was the same weight).

In some ways, this is but Mk2 without a new engine..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:42

Cy the proposal was for a proto called 1P.
Once approved, became Mk1A

P in the LCA-I P stands for prototype, but once accepted by IAF, it could be designated LCA-MkI-A or whatever.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 05:43

The proposal was accepted and became the new SOP.

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 18 Oct 2016 05:52

Where did you see the 600 kg weight reduction claim? What I had read on IndiaStrategic was that the overall weight gain would be ~50 kgs, since 200 kg ballast in the nose would be gone and a 250 kg AESA radar and its back end would go there in its place

You need to consider weight removed as 200(ballast) +150(current radar). In its place goes 250 kgs aesa. So 100kgs from front & similar counterbalancing weight from rear to keep cg in place. That is a quarter or a third of target weight savings based on which reports you believe. In addition you have landing gear mentioned, and i assume that there are probably a few more things like that.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Oct 2016 06:12

btw anyone knows if the OBOGS is going to be on MK1A? that might give some weight savings too(remove the O2 cylinders carried by the pilot). As far as switch from 2032->2052 goes my feeling is it will be less resource intensive as most manufacturers tend to have the same set of software & peripheral interfaces when going from one generation to its successor. One thing that has always eluded me is if we could change the material of the skeleton(dont know what specific term) under the composite skin to reduce weight.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Oct 2016 10:08

Karan M wrote:http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.

From this Article:

HAL Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) T Suvarna Raju told India Strategic in an interview that HAL shared the technology concerns of the user – IAF – as well as the urgency for production of the aircraft in view of the falling numbers of IAF combat squadrons due to obsolescence. The AESA and EW suite will make the new LCA variant more advanced than the supersonic MiG 21s in capability, even though it will be a subsonic aircraft compared to the ageing aircraft of the Soviet vintage.

What the F***..!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 10:13

typo..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Oct 2016 10:58

That's one hell of a Typo...

May be we should send someone from BRF to interview HAL/ADA folks. There are many here who can produce excellent quality articles, far far better than what these duffers can write. Can we do that?? Like BRF representative asking for interview for an article on BRF.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 18 Oct 2016 11:04

BRF does have amazing writers, but do not discount ex-HAL folks such as Anantha Krishnan or the other defense journos. Even Shukla is quite good when he wipes off the froth, bile and vomit from his mouth.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 11:16

Jays, indiastrategic's gulshan luthra is one of the better folks out there.. despite some severe personal tragedies which were reported in the mag itself, he continued the mag.. and its mostly unbiased and doesn't usually needlessly slag indian programs. I'll take their occasional mistake and typo or misunderstanding anyday over the "froth, bile and vomit" of the pandits, thapars, and other journos who take delight in running down indian achievements. JMHO.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Oct 2016 11:33

Let me stick my neck out and do some speculation on MK1A.

- Weight.. Existing front end removed, AESA radar added .. Net wt increase of around 75 to 100 Kg. Ballast taken out of the nose - 200 kg. Net savings in nose 100 kg (approx).
-- Equivalent weight removed in the rear (component wt optimisation) / replacing steel/metal structure with composite / --> 100 kg savings
-- Replace LOX tanks with OBOGS -- > Approx 150 kg.
--> Optimise the landing gear. To my eyes ( a wild guess), it looks like that HAL took the Jaguar landing gear and plonked it on the LCA . Wiki Chacha says the original Jaguar had a 15.7 ton MTOW . The Tejas has similar roughly a two ton MTOW less and roughly some 0.5 ton less empty wt. So I guess, some optimisation possible from the landing gear. Shall we say around 100 kg ?

Additions.. EW & Towed array decoy (at the wing tips I hope like the Eurofighter) . Some 125kg each --> 250 kg.

So all in all, looks like the MK1A should not see much gains from the Mk1 and indeed might come in lighter by some 100 to 150 kgs or so.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Oct 2016 11:43

That is the ball park figure in my mind too.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Oct 2016 13:25

In my views since IAF has accepted to Tejas MK1A and if the french really help ready Kaveri with 90KN, most of the current issues in Tejas will be solved

So ADA should consider Redesigning the LCA Mk2 from just being a bigger Mk1 to a semi 5th generation aircraft. With new intake, wider fuselage, Smaller Twin all moving vertical stabiliser (like PAK FA) and if possible limited internal weapons

If ADA's manpower is increased and private companies are involved for components development from the design and prototype development stage there should be no problem in simultaneously developing both LCA Mk2 and AMCA. In fact LCA Mk2 will aid AMCA development

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Oct 2016 14:42

Karan M wrote:Jays, indiastrategic's gulshan luthra is one of the better folks out there.. despite some severe personal tragedies which were reported in the mag itself, he continued the mag.. and its mostly unbiased and doesn't usually needlessly slag indian programs. I'll take their occasional mistake and typo or misunderstanding anyday over the "froth, bile and vomit" of the pandits, thapars, and other journos who take delight in running down indian achievements. JMHO.

Thanks for the info, Karan. I'll keep in mind.

@Marten
Of coarse there are good folks out there but they are vastly outnumbered by bad ones. And Desi programs can always use some positive coverage. The more the better. I was thinking of B Harry's article on Tejas. Something like that would be great every once in few years.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 18 Oct 2016 16:56

vina wrote:Let me stick my neck out and do some speculation on MK1A.

- Weight.. Existing front end removed, AESA radar added .. Net wt increase of around 75 to 100 Kg. Ballast taken out of the nose - 200 kg. Net savings in nose 100 kg (approx).
-- Equivalent weight removed in the rear (component wt optimisation) / replacing steel/metal structure with composite / --> 100 kg savings
-- Replace LOX tanks with OBOGS -- > Approx 150 kg.
--> Optimise the landing gear. To my eyes ( a wild guess), it looks like that HAL took the Jaguar landing gear and plonked it on the LCA . Wiki Chacha says the original Jaguar had a 15.7 ton MTOW . The Tejas has similar roughly a two ton MTOW less and roughly some 0.5 ton less empty wt. So I guess, some optimisation possible from the landing gear. Shall we say around 100 kg ?

Additions.. EW & Towed array decoy (at the wing tips I hope like the Eurofighter) . Some 125kg each --> 250 kg.

So all in all, looks like the MK1A should not see much gains from the Mk1 and indeed might come in lighter by some 100 to 150 kgs or so.

What about LRU optimization?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 18 Oct 2016 17:10

Karan M wrote:The proposal was accepted and became the new SOP.

Karan saar, would you know when the SOP was finalized. Basically one would expect 30 months lead time for HAL to produce the item from that date (assuming the funding was also approved at the same time).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Oct 2016 17:13

What do people make of the comment by Air Cmde.(r) Muthanna in teh Shekhar Coupta video about having underestimated the Tejas? Any kaaments?

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 18 Oct 2016 17:24

Marten wrote:
Karan M wrote:The proposal was accepted and became the new SOP.
Karan saar, would you know when the SOP was finalized. Basically one would expect 30 months lead time for HAL to produce the item from that date (assuming the funding was also approved at the same time).

SoP-18 was finalized on Sep 23rd 2015, as per Shukla:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 749_1.html.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 18 Oct 2016 18:31

Shiv,

Re underestimating they are just saying they were conservative. So more envelop expansion is possible. But I'm not an aviation expert so hard for me to guess which regimes and parameters we could expect good news. Seems AOA and hot and high take off load. So engine is stronger / wings generate more lift that thought ?

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 18 Oct 2016 18:31

Indranil your comments ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2016 19:53

HAL begins integration of Mid-Air-Refueling probe on LCA Tejas
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=8734

Similar to Mirage, Tejas too will have a fixed aerial refueling probe. “The modification of LSP-8 is under progress. The structural modification for the attachment and load is under way. We also have to undertake fuel system and software modifications,” says V Sridharan, General Manager, LCA. The pressure refueling process on LSP-8 and SP-1 have already been demonstrated. Last year, the naval LCA (NP2) underwent hot refueling at HAL facilities. Both were mandatory tests ahead of fixing the fuel probe. "Once the probe is fixed and structural integration is done, then we will have the ground tests, which will be followed by flight trials. The efficiency of the Flight Control System will also be tested", says Sridharan.

I did not know what hot refueling was. So I googled it and this is what came up...

Hot Refueling means the fueling of a turbine helicopter by qualified service personnel while the engine(s) is running. Qualified Service Personnel” means those fuel technicians who are specifically trained in the hazards of refueling helicopters with engines running.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Oct 2016 20:06

Yes, if I recollect correctly, hot refueling was also tested at some point on NLCA.

Here, found the link: http://www.oneindia.com/india/lca-naval ... 07949.html

The hot-refueling concept, widely tested in Bengaluru, was continuously been carried out in Goa on NP-2. This is an activity wherein the aircraft after its sortie, instead of switching off, is refueled with the engine running and pilot in the cockpit. It then immediately takes off again.

"This is thus a game changer as the sortie productivity is enhanced. This has given two sortie worth of test point coverage in a single sortie. This is currently the only fighter aircraft in the country with this capability. We could incorporate this feature on the IAF version (Tejas) also," adds the official.

jahaju · Post by **jahaju** » 18 Oct 2016 20:14

"However, if the IAF wishes, then it could enter into a separate contract with HAL, to retro-fit even the first 20 series production variants with these probes" says an official.

Read more at: http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.924537

so was a refueling probe not an original requirement?

^ from above post

and hot refueling also not an original requirement?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Oct 2016 20:24

First 20 a/c are of IOC-2 config. There was no IFR in that, but it seems hot refuelling was there. Thus SP1 is compliant of Hot refuelling.

LCA is only aircraft in IAF that can do hot refuelling..!!

How many of our fighters can be reconfigured mid-air for various roles like change from A2A role to A2G role like LCA can?? Anyone knows??

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2016 20:27

Rafale. Dassault advertises it as an omnirole fighter.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Oct 2016 20:51

^I didn't count that one since its not inducted in IAF so far.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Oct 2016 21:30

jahaju wrote:
"However, if the IAF wishes, then it could enter into a separate contract with HAL, to retro-fit even the first 20 series production variants with these probes" says an official.

Read more at: http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.924537
so was a refueling probe not an original requirement?

Desperately searching for a photo I thought I had - it was an LCA mock up from maybe Aero India 1996 or 98 - it had a refuelling probe. But back then it was 36 exposure photo film- so maybe I need to search through my paper albums

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Oct 2016 21:46

JayS wrote:First 20 a/c are of IOC-2 config. There was no IFR in that, but it seems hot refuelling was there. Thus SP1 is compliant of Hot refuelling.

LCA is only aircraft in IAF that can do hot refuelling..!!

The Gripen during the MMRCA trials showed the hot refueling. Pressure refueling (like civilian airliners at airports, allows for faster and quicker fuel transfer) was not there original requirement. The "normal" way is gravity filling, sort of like filling your car in a gas station. My guess is that the IAF after seeing these features on the Gripen during the MRCA trials would have asked for these on the lca.

How many of our fighters can be reconfigured mid-air for various roles like change from A2A role to A2G role like LCA can?? Anyone knows??

Probably none. What we have are "legacy" fighters that dont have the "control configured vehicle" features of the Tejas. The Jags and Mirages wont have them as wont the SU-30. They were simply not designed that way and our upgrades wont touch their FCS and critical flight controls that would remain a black box. You will have to push mechanical switches after they land to reconfigure them for the next mission.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 18 Oct 2016 21:48

vina wrote:Let me stick my neck out and do some speculation on MK1A.
--> Optimise the landing gear. To my eyes ( a wild guess), it looks like that HAL took the Jaguar landing gear and plonked it on the LCA

The jaguar landing gear is very different from the Tejas landing gear. If there is any similarity at all, Tejas's design is like the hornet landing gear, but with a shorter trailing arm.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Oct 2016 00:17

Honestly speaking ..... no effort should be put in retrofitting the older ones with mid-air refuelling probes.
Those airframes are the seed airframes that will end up getting flogged like the Su-30K and should be treated as such.

For Operational Validation of Squadron and Theatre level tactics.
With a number of these destined for TACDE ..... don't slow down the momentum by making these go through an upgrade.

Move forward..... ensure that these are Class V'ed out in time ..... get the 1A to replace them.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Oct 2016 00:24

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Indranil your comments ?

I couldn't find where Air Cmde (R) Muthanna said that Tejas was underestimated.

I will also say that the people should realize the difference between hot refueling and pressure refueling. All aircrafts capable of in flight refueling are capable of hot-refueling, i.e. refueling when the engine is on. The contention during MMRCA trials wrt to Gripen was that Indian handlers did not want to carry out hot refueling on the ground as it is not part of their standard procedure. The SAAB engineers were adamant of showcasing that capability as a demonstration of its short turn-around time. Frankly, I am not so sure of the utility of such a capability in the Indian context.

Anyways, Tejas is capable of hot refueling and pressure refueling. Pressure refueling is when the fuel tank is filled up at a much faster rate by pumping fuel at higher pressure. This shortens the turn around time without incurring the risks of hot refueling.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Oct 2016 00:33

vina wrote:
JayS wrote:How many of our fighters can be reconfigured mid-air for various roles like change from A2A role to A2G role like LCA can?? Anyone knows??
Probably none. What we have are "legacy" fighters that dont have the "control configured vehicle" features of the Tejas. The Jags and Mirages wont have them as wont the SU-30. They were simply not designed that way and our upgrades wont touch their FCS and critical flight controls that would remain a black box. You will have to push mechanical switches after they land to reconfigure them for the next mission.

I'm not sure what Jay means by mid air reconfiguration but IAF aircraft have routinely carried and fired A2A and A2G armament.

MiG-21s have carried and fired S series rockets, FAB/OFAB bombs and R-60/Magic missiles in the same sortie

Jaguar IS have done the same.

Jaguar IM have fired Sea Eagles and Magic missiles in the same sortie.

Sea Harriers could drop bombs and fire Derby/Magic in the same sortie

MiG-23BN/MiG-27M were configured to fire R-60 though I'm not sure whether IAF MiGs ever fired them routinely.

Mirage 2000 carried Thomson CSF ATLIS pod for Matra BGL LGB and could drop them along with Matra Beluga dispensers and fire Super 530D BVRAAM and Magic CCAAM. More recently with Litening, Paveway/Griffin and MICA.

MiG-29K and Su-30 too can do A2A and A2G simultaneously.

So what is this mid air reconfiguration all about?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Oct 2016 00:53

Ofcourse older generation planes could drop bombs and take care of themselves. The only difference is that the pilots of those generation of the planes had to memorize/calculate the envelop of the plane based on the remaining fuel and its location and the different stores. This is difficult the envelop changes after each store separates. Therefore, pilots maintained a margin of safety. However, in modern planes like LCA, the computer takes care of the envelop and allowing the pilot to only worry about the mission or A2A engagement. Also, he can be carefree and throw the stick around, knowing that the computer will allow the plane all the way to the edge of envelop, but not beyond. In fact, the best FBWs allow the plane go slightly past the allowable limits for a very short time, providing the pilots the off-the-pants feeling. Pilots seem to love it.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Oct 2016 01:11

^^ I'm not sure about the older MiGs but Mirage 2000 in 80s, Su-30MKI and MiG-29K came before Tejas with FBW, flight control computers and stores management systems. Need to check for Jaguar and Sea Harrier, but I don't recall any SHAR pilot doing any such mental calculations.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... e.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... s.jpg.html

These images show the full set of Mirage 2000 armament on 7 hardpoints. From right to left -
Remora jammer pod on port wing outer hardpoint
EFT on port wing inner hardpoint
Matra Belouga munition dispenser on the port wing root hardpoint
Matra BGL 2000 lb bomb on the under fuselage hardpoint
Thomson CSF ATLIS pod on starboard wing root hardpoint
Super 530D on starboard wing inner hardpoint
Matra Magic 2 on starboard wing outer hardpoint.

This is as asymmetrical as it gets.

The Mirage could carry all these weapons in the same sortie and the stores computer and flight by wire system would manage the weapons and aircraft just fine...

Photos of ATLIS & BGL are quite rare. The first LGBs of IAF, much before Kh-29L entered service with MiG-27. As is the Matra Belouga dispenser.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLIS_II
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe_Guidée_Laser
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLG_66_Belouga

And this was the old Mirage 2000H and not modernised Mirage 2000I

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Oct 2016 01:20

Mirage 2000H, MKI and 29K all have FBW to take care of these. I am not sure of the Indian SHARs. I think not. You are better placed than me to find that out.

Another thing that others have discussed here is the Tejas's supersonic capability at all altitudes. I am not completely convinced that Mk1A with an external SPJ can maintain supersonic flight, flying level at sea level. AFAIK, even Mk1s lose altitude to get supersonic at sea level. I will confirm both of these and get back.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Oct 2016 01:22

tsarkar wrote: So what is this mid air reconfiguration all about?

Indranil has already explained it well enough.

For older aircrafts you would have to reconfigure the jet's systems for A2A config or A2G config or something else before taking off for the mission. This takes time too and increases turn-around time. But if they aircraft can do it on the fly, that time is saved. Just attache weapons and the jet know s automatically what weapons load is attached, you don't have to specify all the details.

Changes in the weapons load during sortie also taken care of automatically. For example, if there is G limiter of 6G when aircraft is carrying Fuel tank, once the tank is jettisoned the aircraft automatically switched to 9G limit without the pilot having to do anything. Also as the weapons are dropped/fired, the change in stores automatically is taken into account and the FCS does required changes in control output commands such that the pilot does not feel any difference whatsoever in the stick movements he is making and the response of the aircraft. For example if its carrying two heavy bombs and one bomb is dropped, there is asymmetry. An aircraft which has capability to reconfigure itself in the air will automatically compensate for the asymmetry. But if the jet does not have the ability the pilot has to trim the jet differently (using some rudder or aileron deflection may be).

I am not sure about all the parameters that change in aircraft systems with A2A, A2G, CAP, Recce etc modes. But in newer jets all the changes are taken care automatically by the aircraft systems themselves.

Gripen and Rafale publicize it big time as USP. Rafale people call it "Fight and Forget"

I can imagine that in M2K like jet with FCS, you can manually feed the load config on ground before sortie and then the jet can take care of asymmetry or change in weapons load. But in new jets I suppose this manual data feed also not needed. Its like "Plug and play". That's my understanding.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Oct 2016 01:53

Just attache weapons and the jet know s automatically what weapons load is attached, you don't have to specify all the details...
...I can imagine that in M2K like jet with FCS, you can manually feed the load config on ground before sortie and then the jet can take care of asymmetry or change in weapons load. But in new jets I suppose this manual data feed also not needed. Its like "Plug and play". That's my understanding.

Jay, plug and play does not happen in any aircraft, like a aircraft self detecting whether it's R-77 or Astra or Derby or Paveway. The Flight Computer, Mission Computer, StoresManagement System , Datalinks needs to be configured, before flight, whether Tejas or Rafale. I saw the MiG-29K and Tejas at Goa and both of them definitely don't have this feature.

Changes in the weapons load during sortie also taken care of automatically. For example, if there is G limiter of 6G when aircraft is carrying Fuel tank, once the tank is jettisoned the aircraft automatically switched to 9G limit without the pilot having to do anything. Also as the weapons are dropped/fired, the change in stores automatically is taken into account and the FCS does required changes in control output commands such that the pilot does not feel any difference whatsoever in the stick movements he is making and the response of the aircraft. For example if its carrying two heavy bombs and one bomb is dropped, there is asymmetry. An aircraft which has capability to reconfigure itself in the air will automatically compensate for the asymmetry. But if the jet does not have the ability the pilot has to trim the jet differently (using some rudder or aileron deflection may be).

This happens on older Indian Mirage 2000 and F-16s of the 80s. The pilots don't have to do any manual trimming.

I am not sure about all the parameters that change in aircraft systems with A2A, A2G, CAP, Recce etc modes. But in newer jets all the changes are taken care automatically by the aircraft systems themselves.

Gripen and Rafale publicize it big time as USP. Rafale people call it "Fight and Forget"

Advertising spin of old wine in new bottle, I guess. Just like cars today come with multiple modes, I'm sure fighters too.

However aircraft FCS of the 80s could handle asymmetrical loads without pilots bothering about trimming.

There are photos on BR of Mirage flying with Magic 2 and Remora ECM pod and SHAR with Magic 2 and 8222 pod and the pilots don't bother about trimming.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Oct 2016 02:18

Elaborate test pilot description of Mirage 2000 flight control system including managing heavy loads (Page 5)

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS19 ... -4.5.1.pdf

The Mirage 2000 "had it" in the 80s.