LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Apr 2017 10:02

The IDRW report seems to be extrapolation of wrong input.

Yes, there was scheduled missile tests these days, and yes, there was some snag that caused a lot of angst among the technical team at ADA. But I don't think it was python (unless a chaiwala delebrately fed misleading info), and definitely not the vibration issue. The vibration issue was known for more than an year, so it can't be a show stopper now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Apr 2017 14:33

^^^

IDRW is known to pick up things from BR discussions. This is one of those cases where they also saw last annual report from ADA posted on BR and wrote an article about it. They didn't quite realize that that annual report is one year old (i.e. April 2015 - March 2016)!

To sound as if they have "inside" info, they say it's from a secret source ("industrial sources close to idrw.org") -- I guess that would be members of BR

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Apr 2017 21:18

What are the chances that you go for looking an apartment and the existing tenant turns out to be an LCA Pilot from 45th Sq..??

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Apr 2017 21:29

^^^^ JAyS ji this will also appear on IDRW as part of the stories from informed sources

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Apr 2017 21:38

Dileep wrote:The IDRW report seems to be extrapolation of wrong input.

Yes, there was scheduled missile tests these days, and yes, there was some snag that caused a lot of angst among the technical team at ADA. But I don't think it was python (unless a chaiwala delebrately fed misleading info), and definitely not the vibration issue. The vibration issue was known for more than an year, so it can't be a show stopper now.

Dileep sir, please check PM.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Apr 2017 22:39

Dileep wrote:The IDRW report seems to be extrapolation of wrong input.

Yes, there was scheduled missile tests these days, and yes, there was some snag that caused a lot of angst among the technical team at ADA. But I don't think it was python (unless a chaiwala delebrately fed misleading info), and definitely not the vibration issue. The vibration issue was known for more than an year, so it can't be a show stopper now.

Dileep, Read page 13 of the ADA 2015-16 report. It definitely says the Python 5 firing test was aborted due to vibrations at Mach 0.9.

Maybe the mounting fixture was not stiff for the Python loads vs R 73?

viewtopic.php?p=2145240#p2145240

Why do you say the vibration issue was known for a year or so before?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Apr 2017 23:40

The fix has to come from Rafael, not ADA.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Apr 2017 00:20

ramana wrote:
Dileep wrote:The IDRW report seems to be extrapolation of wrong input.

Yes, there was scheduled missile tests these days, and yes, there was some snag that caused a lot of angst among the technical team at ADA. But I don't think it was python (unless a chaiwala delebrately fed misleading info), and definitely not the vibration issue. The vibration issue was known for more than an year, so it can't be a show stopper now.

Dileep, Read page 13 of the ADA 2015-16 report. It definitely says the Python 5 firing test was aborted due to vibrations at Mach 0.9.

Maybe the mounting fixture was not stiff for the Python loads vs R 73?

viewtopic.php?p=2145240#p2145240

Why do you say the vibration issue was known for a year or so before?

Ramana, the report itself is one year old. So what Dileep is saying fits the time line. Whats the confusion..??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Apr 2017 01:47

JayS, Was that info public or known to folks working there?

I don't recall any reports about this from that time.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Apr 2017 02:05

Oops! Wrong thread!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Apr 2017 02:15

And please answer in the Naval LCA thread. Thanks, ramana

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Apr 2017 04:28

Another tidbit from the annual report. Hope this shuts up the entire water ingress speculation that was being spread by a certain poster.

Tejas (PV6):

Rain Water Protection Schemes and Lightning Protection Schemes have been complied on aircraft to obtain All Weather Clearance.

ALL WEATHER CLEARANCE. End of topic.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Apr 2017 04:29

ramana wrote:JayS, Was that info public or known to folks working there?

I don't recall any reports about this from that time.

The 31st ADA annual report is last fiscal year April 2015-March 2016. That is where the Python-5 vibration issue at 0.9M is mentioned. So that is one year old information.

The 32nd Annual report (April 2016-Mar-2017) will be released to the public next year in April 2018. There seems to be a policy of releasing government documents to the public after a one year waiting period.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Apr 2017 04:36

Auto Recovery modes being tested on the Tejas, for achieving full carefree handling capability. Extremely useful for several scenarios, since controlled flight into terrain is one of the bigger causes of pilot fatalities. Will make it a lot safer for rookie pilots and in night time flights or flights over water.

Novel auto recovery modes like Automatic Low Speed Recovery and Disorientation Recovery Mode will also be flight tested towards attaining Carefree Maneuvering capability.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Apr 2017 05:11

One thing about the French fighters is their ability to carry extra large external drop tanks: subsonic (1700ltr, 2000ltr) and supersonic (1300ltr).

Would be good to see larger drop tanks on an LCA as well beyond the 1200ltr. How much more range will two 2000ltr tanks provide?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Apr 2017 07:21

They are not planned. By the way, the extension of range of a Rafale with two 2000 ltr tanks, and LCA with two 1200 ltr tanks will be similar. LCA could do with larger supersonic tanks though.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Apr 2017 07:42

srai wrote:...

Older reports are here:

ADA 30th Annual report 2014-2015

...

srai wrote:^^^
Bombs

25 lb Practice bomb

3Kg Practice bomb

1000 lb Mk-11- (w/ Griffin LGB kit as well)

250 kg HSLD

450 kg HSLD

PB-500 (w/ Griffin LGB kit)

This gives an idea as to why weapons qualification takes a long while. Lots of combinations between various sensors and modes. Add to that altitude, speed and other variables like environmental conditions.

...
Avionics software upgraded for release of Air to Ground weapons with sensors (Radar, Radio Altimeter, litening Pod, Baro inertia) in different modes (Level, Dive & Toss). Air-to-Air missions using HMDS & MMR conducted and found satisfactory. Continuously Computed Impact Point (CCIP) weapon delivery accuracies were validated in all modes and sensors. Data was gathered for Continuously Computed Release Point (CCRP) mode of delivery as well as stick bombing. Performance test points with Carrier Bomb Light Store (CBLS) were completed.
...

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 22 Apr 2017 07:46

Indranil, thanx for the PM. Did the things settle yet?

Yes, the one year old info is purely based on the date of the document. Nothing else. There is no chaiwala info there.

Those who are used to testing stuff will know how complex it is to cover all corners, even for a simple, commercial gizmo that sits at a corner and do just one thing right. Then imagine what it would take for the stuff we casually discuss here.

Food for thought: How many test points would be there for a simple toaster?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Apr 2017 09:40

The ball is not in ADA's court. Not every problem is technical

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Apr 2017 09:48

I checked R73 vs Python5. On paper it should be a cinch. Yet the report says vibration encountered at Mach 0.9. Shows how tough it is!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Apr 2017 21:48

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
But wasn't the IN talking of a next gen carrier based fighter for years now?
What exactly is a "next gen" carrier based fighter?

Me not know but this is Navy requirement according to shiv aroor. But I do recall similar noises a few years ago when this idea first came out. My layman guess is a raffle.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2017 22:02

Dileep wrote:Indranil, thanx for the PM. Did the things settle yet?

Yes, the one year old info is purely based on the date of the document. Nothing else. There is no chaiwala info there.

Those who are used to testing stuff will know how complex it is to cover all corners, even for a simple, commercial gizmo that sits at a corner and do just one thing right. Then imagine what it would take for the stuff we casually discuss here.

Food for thought: How many test points would be there for a simple toaster?

Getting hold of this book might help:

Introduction to Aerospace Engineering with a Flight Test Perspective by Stephen Corda
John Wiley & Sons © 2017 (1024 pages)
ISBN: 9781118953365
An introductory level text in aerospace engineering with a unique flight test perspective, this exciting and illuminating book provides a solid foundation in many of the fundamentals of aerospace engineering, while illuminating many aspects of real-world flight.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2017 22:12

srai wrote:^^^
Bombs

25 lb Practice bomb

3Kg Practice bomb

1000 lb Mk-11- (w/ Griffin LGB kit as well)

250 kg HSLD

450 kg HSLD

PB-500 (w/ Griffin LGB kit)

A question for Abhibhushan saar,

How representative is to qualify the LCA with those 25 lbs and 3 kg bombs?

The weight is so low that they have low beta (Weight/surface Area * Cd) when compared to the real ordnance.

Is this a way to teach the pilots to hit with a pebble when they really use a rock?

Second question to tsarkar,
How useful is it to have a PB-500(essentially a pellet bomb) equipped with a Griffin kit? Are they planning to release it from very far?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 25 Apr 2017 07:52

ramana wrote: Second question to tsarkar,
How useful is it to have a PB-500(essentially a pellet bomb) equipped with a Griffin kit? Are they planning to release it from very far?

PB 500 is a penetration bomb made by IMI.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-659236

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2017 08:24

ramana wrote: How representative is to qualify the LCA with those 25 lbs and 3 kg bombs?

The weight is so low that they have low beta (Weight/surface Area * Cd) when compared to the real ordnance.

Is this a way to teach the pilots to hit with a pebble when they really use a rock?

Ramana - I am not the air warrior you have addressed but the ballistic profile of any bomb will be pre-loaded (or otherwise factored in) on the bomb aiming computer (or manual release algorithm).

That still leaves the pilot with the need to approach the target , prepare to release and release the munition under a wide variety of conditions - high speed, low speed, varying altitudes, diving approach, approach after turn climb to get away etc. Those practice bombs - if released appropriately will hit designated targets but not destroy them - allowing pilots to hone their flying and bomb aiming skills.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Apr 2017 08:49

^^^
LCA can drop those practice bombs pretty accurately. Images below show few meters accuracy. Imagine a 1000lb bomb hitting that target with that much accuracy.

Breaking on Tarmak007: Tejas 'bombs' Chitradurga test range

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2017 08:59

srai wrote:^^^
LCA can drop those practice bombs pretty accurately. Images below show few meters accuracy. Imagine a 1000lb bomb hitting that target with that much accuracy.

Yeah if they use a 1000 pounder then approach to the target area will require a tracked vehicle/earthmover

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Apr 2017 11:09

I just realised that all the specs we have of the LCA Mk1 in wiki and ADA brochures are in "normal" operating conditions. The brochures that all OTHER manufacturers quote and are bandied about are "maximum" performance.

For e.g., the Gripen C official brochure, says a payload of 5.5 tons and an MTOW of 14 tons, and an empty weight of 6800kg and fuel of 2400kg internal.
ADA official brochure says, LCA MK1A empty wt of 6560kg , internal fuel of 2436 kg , but a payload of ONLY 3500Kg. Obviously this will set off huge

, about Gripen C far far better than LCA Mk1 AF version etc.. Rhona & Dhona & shedding copious tears and a huge round of self flagellation.

Also notice the idiocies about the LCA being "overweight" . It is actually 300KG LESS than an equivalent fighter of exactly similar size and specs and same engine!

However, look deeper, from this IDRW article, where they look at a tender floated by HAL for tyres for the Tejas , the following data is available.

The LCA MK1 Max Take off Mass is 15 Frikkin TONS, which is a FULL 1 Ton more than the Gripen C in ISA + 20C condition! If you factor that in, the Max payload of the Tejas MK1 is 6 TONS . So go figure.

Typical SDRE mentality. Self effacing and under stating the capabilities and being "engineers" and very sorry to be casteist "Brahminical" . The ADA actually needs to hire the a more extroverted sales and marketing , corp communications agency to put out it's stuff . This "truth telling" self effacing mentality give an opening to all sorts of charlatans to take pot shots at them , citing marketing brochures which have little bearing in how it will perform in real world situations or if they are an actual apple to apple comparisons or if they are comparing apples and oranges.

Gripen Does NOT specify the take off roll length for Max payload , nor do they specify the payload at "Normal" (SDRE) operating take off runs 1000 metres ! The LCA takes 1400 m (roughly 300m extra) run to get to the air with max payload. I am sure the Gripen numbers are for a take off run of 1500m !

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Apr 2017 11:39

The only LCA problem,apart from improving performance with 1-A onwards,is rate of prod. Looking at prev. Jag production,our rate at HAL has been a miserable 6+ /yr. MKI prod. around 12/yr is the max we've be able to achieve. When the broadcast prod rate of 16 will be achieved is anyone's guess.With hundreds of MIG-21/27s to be phased out very soon,the replacement issue is critical. Picking up stray legacy MIG-29s from Malaysia,etc.,is a pathetic solution.Negotiating a brand new SE fighter will again take another 5 years before these ancient Yanqui birds (unless it is the Gripen) arrive at a time when the rest of the world is casting them into the dustbin!

Given the huge amt. of time and moolah spent on the LCA,supposed to be the longest ever in history for a type, we have to shorten prod rate/yr. Best way? Add yet another prod. line in the pvt. sector.This way with 3 lines,even in the first yr. prod. will be 18 at least,going up to 24,32,etc. progressively. Within a decade,we would've then had around 180-200+ LCAs in service,saving a massive amt. of money in the process.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Apr 2017 14:46

vina wrote:I just realised that all the specs we have of the LCA Mk1 in wiki and ADA brochures are in "normal" operating conditions. The brochures that all OTHER manufacturers quote and are bandied about are "maximum" performance.

For e.g., the Gripen C official brochure, says a payload of 5.5 tons and an MTOW of 14 tons, and an empty weight of 6800kg and fuel of 2400kg internal.
ADA official brochure says, LCA MK1A empty wt of 6560kg , internal fuel of 2436 kg , but a payload of ONLY 3500Kg. Obviously this will set off huge , about Gripen C far far better than LCA Mk1 AF version etc.. Rhona & Dhona & shedding copious tears and a huge round of self flagellation.

Also notice the idiocies about the LCA being "overweight" . It is actually 300KG LESS than an equivalent fighter of exactly similar size and specs and same engine!

However, look deeper, from this IDRW article, where they look at a tender floated by HAL for tyres for the Tejas , the following data is available.

The LCA MK1 Max Take off Mass is 15 Frikkin TONS, which is a FULL 1 Ton more than the Gripen C in ISA + 20C condition! If you factor that in, the Max payload of the Tejas MK1 is 6 TONS . So go figure.

Typical SDRE mentality. Self effacing and under stating the capabilities and being "engineers" and very sorry to be casteist "Brahminical" . The ADA actually needs to hire the a more extroverted sales and marketing , corp communications agency to put out it's stuff . This "truth telling" self effacing mentality give an opening to all sorts of charlatans to take pot shots at them , citing marketing brochures which have little bearing in how it will perform in real world situations or if they are an actual apple to apple comparisons or if they are comparing apples and oranges.

Gripen Does NOT specify the take off roll length for Max payload , nor do they specify the payload at "Normal" (SDRE) operating take off runs 1000 metres ! The LCA takes 1400 m (roughly 300m extra) run to get to the air with max payload. I am sure the Gripen numbers are for a take off run of 1500m !

Vina, that's MK2's MTOW not MK1's. We have discussed this tire tender here. I think Indranil posted it. From the look of it they are looking for single type tire for entire fleet thus the max specs are that of MK2.

Also NLCA MK2 to have 16.5T MTOW.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Apr 2017 18:22

JayS wrote: Vina, that's MK2's MTOW not MK1's. We have discussed this tire tender here. I think Indranil posted it. From the look of it they are looking for single type tire for entire fleet thus the max specs are that of MK2.

Also NLCA MK2 to have 16.5T MTOW.

Looks like it is for the same plane to me and that is Mk1A. Otherwise the take off runs are different for Mk1 and Mk2 by a big margin, as are also the landing distances. if "normal" and "maximum" means two different planes, but funnily enough altitude performance will remain the same. And it makes sense. More take off distance, more MTOW. The limits on MTOW are usually undercarriage and take off length and min climb performance and obstacle clearance heights after take off.

The Gripen C and LCA MK1A can't have such a big diff in MTOW, given that the MK1A has larger wing area and hence higher wing loading and an engine with higher thrust than the Gripen C. The only thing that will differ to account for lesser MTOW has to be take off run length.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Apr 2017 18:52

vina wrote:
JayS wrote: Vina, that's MK2's MTOW not MK1's. We have discussed this tire tender here. I think Indranil posted it. From the look of it they are looking for single type tire for entire fleet thus the max specs are that of MK2.

Also NLCA MK2 to have 16.5T MTOW.
Looks like it is for the same plane to me and that is Mk1A. Otherwise the take off runs are different for Mk1 and Mk2 by a big margin, as are also the landing distances. if "normal" and "maximum" means two different planes, but funnily enough altitude performance will remain the same. And it makes sense. More take off distance, more MTOW. The limits on MTOW are usually undercarriage and take off length and min climb performance and obstacle clearance heights after take off.

The Gripen C and LCA MK1A can't have such a big diff in MTOW, given that the MK1A has larger wing area and hence higher wing loading and an engine with higher thrust than the Gripen C. The only thing that will differ to account for lesser MTOW has to be take off run length.

No no. Not two different plans. Same plane. I mis-wrote it. I meant they gave specs for heaviest of all config out of the three, i.e. MK2. I might have a copy of the tender. I will post it, if I find it. But I remember it, since it came as "Tires for MK2" but the numbers show MK1A actually + spares or MK2 prototypes perhaps.

Just shooting off the hip, Gripen might as well have lesser TO roll for similar TOW under near-identical conditions, given it has canards which can help it rotate earlier. I won't be surprised if it does. Also it depends on how the TO distance is specified. Because the number without parachute for LCA most probably is larger than the same number for Gripen since it uses the Canards as air breaks (should be more effective than LCA's airbreaks owing to size and position) (In fact it doesn't even need parachute for breaking I think).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2017 19:09

JayS wrote:
vina wrote:
Vina, that's MK2's MTOW not MK1's. We have discussed this tire tender here. I think Indranil posted it. From the look of it they are looking for single type tire for entire fleet thus the max specs are that of MK2.

Also NLCA MK2 to have 16.5T MTOW.

Oh! They plagiarized this too! They even used the exact image that I posted here (I checked the url)!

I think it is time to write to them.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2017 19:30

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote:
Oh! They plagiarized this too! They even used the exact image that I posted here (I checked the url)!

I think it is time to write to them.

Better to also stop posting links from journalists and/or editorial boards that practice such behavior. This is not the first time these chaps have done it and you have similar serial offenders in the western press as well, the two that come to mind are Tyler Rogoway and Dave Majumdar.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2017 19:32

Let them do what they want. We too can lift freely from them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Apr 2017 22:50

Thakur_B wrote:
ramana wrote: Second question to tsarkar,
How useful is it to have a PB-500(essentially a pellet bomb) equipped with a Griffin kit? Are they planning to release it from very far?
PB 500 is a penetration bomb made by IMI.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-659236

My mistake. I thought it was the Russian made bomb with pellets/ball bearings.

PB-500 with Griffin kit makes very good sense.
Also explains the recent DRDO tender for penetration studies of HSLD with Griffin kits.

Thanks, ramana

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2017 23:11

shiv wrote:Let them do what they want. We too can lift freely from them.

I know. I don't want to put watermarks on pictures derived from public tenders. But they don't even take the effort of finding the tender. They take my picture, add their watermark. They copy the posts from here and change the language a bit and present as their report. Whatever masala they add is horrible and often untrue. And then they add a legal notice of intellectual property at the end

. I mean how dishonest and shameless can you be?

I think I am at the end of my patience. I have already stopped posting the links to the tenders (let them do their work). I will start watermarking my pictures. I will find out if I can use BR's watermark. I also probably adopt a BENIS like solution, and we can have a good laugh once a month.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Apr 2017 23:13

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote: Oh! They plagiarized this too! They even used the exact image that I posted here (I checked the url)!

I think it is time to write to them.
Better to also stop posting links from journalists and/or editorial boards that practice such behavior. This is not the first time these chaps have done it and you have similar serial offenders in the western press as well, the two that come to mind are Tyler Rogoway and Dave Majumdar.

Indranil, Suggest they should acknowledge BRF as source.
Plagiarism is unethical especially when knowledge is being freely given.
Second brar_w idea to not link such content. Sort of informal boycott of knowledge stealers who put disclaimer after their handiwork!!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Apr 2017 23:14

vina,
Some Paki Fizzile ya chief had lamented in the 90s that Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has a heavy bomb load.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2017 23:41

What is so great about carrying more loads. I will share something again that I had shared before. LCA's TO capabilities are amazing. It takes off so easily at Leh, that it has surprised all test pilots, and even the design team.

They don't want to load a light plane with a medium weight fighters load. They shouldn't. It makes sense for countries which don't have medium and heavy fighters. That is not the case with IAF. The light fighters shouldn't do what heavy fighters should do and vice-versa.

All I care for is subsonic and supersonic endurance. On the first, they have not done test sorties. But they have flown non-stop from Bangalore to Gwalior with operational loads and without inflight refueling. So, go figure. On the supersonic endurance though, the delay in the development of supersonic tank of different sizes has disappointed me badly.