LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Jan 2018 06:03

Kartik wrote:
deejay wrote:
Not updated on the MOFTU status Sir.

Training is part of every Sqn duties.

At MOFTU, syllabus flying in CAP etc role are completed. I do not have more details to write with authority on this.
Deejay sir, MOFTU closed in 2007, with the last MiG-21FL flight from Tezpur.

link

GUWAHATI: The magnificent MiG 21 aircraft will fly no longer from the Indian Air Force Station at Tezpur. The Air Force station on Thursday conducted a farewell ceremony to mark the occasion.

According to official statement, it was on February 27, 1986 that the first MiG 21(FL) , also known as MiG-21(T-77), landed at Tezpur Air base, thus marking the beginning of the supersonic era.

Since then, the Air Force station at Tezpur has been a home to this aircraft, and over a period of time, has become synonymous with MiG-21(T-77).

..

On December 15, 1986, the MiG Operational Flying Training Unit (MOFTU) was thus born at Air Force Station, Tezpur.In 2003, MOFTU, because of its huge size, was bifurcated into two independent units, ‘Alpha’ and ‘Bravo’, or aggressors and bravehearts, for administrative efficiency.

Over the last four years, both these squadrons did a splendid job of imparting quality training to budding pilots. However, last year, Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and MOFTU ‘Bravo’ were relocated from Tezpur to other bases in the Eastern Air Command.

Now in September, MOFTU ‘alpha’ will also get relocated to another base within the command. With this, Tezpur Air base will fade into history as the cradle of young fighter pilots and bastion of type 77 operations.

The programme will include various ceremonial activities to be conducted by the Air Warriors, KV school children, cultural groups from Tezpur and the Army unit of 4 Corps. This will be followed by a goodbye flypast by the MiG 21(T-77) aircraft.
..
And MiG-21FL fighters were retired in 2013. So that, the MiG-21FLs that served at MOFTU and then were relocated to another base, would have also been retired.

Thanks mate.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Jan 2018 06:04

deejay Sir,

So presumably the MOFTU type of training for rookies joining a SU or LCA squadron is done in the squadron itself?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2018 07:25

ramana wrote:I said on Twitter, Sitharaman is the best peacetime RM India uas had. And hoped they don't test her to see how she does in war.

Very close to the best for sure. We had some good ones right after independence and then it frittered away till George Fernandes came along. Then rubbish until Parrikar. I think Sitharaman is even better than Parrikar in three ways:
1. She knows to keep her mouth shut. Parrikar worked a lot and talked a lot. Got him into trouble a few times.
2. She knows when and where to open her mouth for sure. Her interacting with the Chinese troops at Doklam. That was a spontaneous masterstroke. A sign of a true diplomat. It immediately resonated with both sides. I think it played a role in the backdown as well. It was very well received among the Chinese population.
3. I think she is even more efficient than Parrikar. The sheer speed at which things are moving is refreshingly fresh. May be Parrikar cleared the way for her, but even then...
4. She is more swadeshi leaning for sure. The rate at which LCA, Arjun, ATGMs have suddenly found favour with the armed forces is VERY far from typical.

And I will always hate Parrikar for one thing: He put party before country in such agonizing hurry.

If Sitharaman every stood as the PM candidate, she will have my vote IMMEDIATELY.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Jan 2018 08:40

Indranil,

Has there been any changes in the MoD bureaucracy (Sec, Dy Sec)? I firmly believe that it takes two to tango. A minister is only as effective as the bureaucrats who serve them. Equally a good minister will also try and get the best of the bureaucracy to work for them.

Ta

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2018 09:11

On my earlier thought about CFT version [in lieu of drop tanks], if Mk2 is extending space to tuck in a those extra fuel-tank space needs (space mgmt), then CFT may not be required. However, we could still consider a conformal but still internal for a growling deep strike ver(this weird thought entered me after I read about none liking the current wing-body joints

) that should make the wing-body blending of LCA look more sexy [of course if it doesn't hurt the aerodynamic gurus].

Who would like those grotesque CFTs anyways (all about looks onree). But providing space for Brahmos - priceless

Caveat: please don't go OT on my thoughts. Pl. feel free to del.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Jan 2018 09:28

Indranil wrote:Generally, pot and drag are associated more together.

Let's store this post for eternity.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Jan 2018 09:31

ArjunPandit wrote:
Kartik wrote: They're being flogged alright. The video of NO.45 Squadron has one of the pilots mentioning that over 4000 flights have occurred and that video was a while ago..it implied that over 400 squadron flights had occurred, that too with a fleet size that incrementally has grown to just about 5.
Nobody here notices it anymore, compare that with the fact that 1000-2000 flights were completed from 2009-2013 (i understand that the number of planes doesnt make it comparable) and every flight count was tracked here by which plane flew culling info from ADA website...those were days.
Thin

Test flight and line flying are different. Most line flights are well known profiles repeated over and over again. Test flights have unique profiles and need more planning.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 10 Jan 2018 09:45

1. When I want to smooth out the join between two orthogonal surfaces, I want to go with a concave join. On the LCA it is near convex.
2. Why is the wing body blending so extravagent on the top and near non existent at the bottom. Why don't they redistribute it more evenly?

The top junction has not only reduce interference drag but also what can be thought of as the camber for the root airfoil section. They probably did a bunch of studies to get the right span-wise lift distribution to reduce induced drag. My guess.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2018 11:27

Yes, that too. One can be very sure of that.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jan 2018 11:27

ramana wrote:Jays,

If you read AM Wollen"s article, the entire ADA design team was from HAL.

Ramana Sir, ADA was formed by taking crème de la crème from HAL/ISRO/DRDO/NAL. HAL of coarse contributed the most. But even after that as a separate entity HAL has had been given responsibility of design of many modules. Without that HAL Chairman wouldn't claim to have designed majority of the LCA modules. Also a quick take over of LCA suggests that HAL is deeply involved in the design of LCA. A mere production agency wouldn't know head from tail (sorry for exaggeration) of the product just from production drawings supplies. ADA is too small to do full detailed design of complete aircraft.

FWIW, when I asked an ADA employee about HAL's claim of 800kg weight shave during AI-17, he said HAL is very confident about it, that they can do it. HAL couldn't do it in given time frame unless they have been involved in the designs from starting. This guy was from LCA program management team. Though its very much possible that he merely read Shuk-law ji's article over the internet and didn't really have any first hand info.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2018 12:42

In terms of parts, HAL has designed and manufactured many. But in terms of aero design FCS etc. HAL has not done much. Those are mostly shared between ADA, NAL, ADE and some academic institutions. I mean there is a big gap between not been able to recover IJT from flat spins and artificially stabilizing an unstable platform at negative CnBetas under asymmetric loads. You and I have discussed quite a few papers here related to aerodynamic design of LCA. Remember any from HAL?

I think 400 kgs is doable and even that is very impressive. It would mean that by using composites and modern avionics, HAL would have beaten Saab, LM/KAI, AVIC, the Israelis, the Taiwanese and all others who have designed comparable aircrafts by more than half a ton in empty weight. 800 kgs savings from MK1 means that HAL would have designed a plane which is 1 full ton lighter. I don’t think that the others are that inept.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 10 Jan 2018 14:16

800 kgs weight shaving with aesa, spj jammer and ifr probe seems like a pipe dream. Not all the ballast can be removed. It was put in the first place for a reason. My guess is total 200 kg weight shaving. They might reduce more but the rest of the saving will go towards compensating the weight of additional equipment.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jan 2018 14:21

Indranil wrote:In terms of parts, HAL has designed and manufactured many. But in terms of aero design FCS etc. HAL has not done much. Those are mostly shared between ADA, NAL, ADE and some academic institutions. I mean there is a big gap between not been able to recover IJT from flat spins and artificially stabilizing an unstable platform at negative CnBetas under asymmetric loads. You and I have discussed quite a few papers here related to aerodynamic design of LCA. Remember any from HAL?

I think 400 kgs is doable and even that is very impressive. It would mean that by using composites and modern avionics, HAL would have beaten Saab, LM/KAI, AVIC, the Israelis, the Taiwanese and all others who have designed comparable aircrafts by more than half a ton in empty weight. 800 kgs savings from MK1 means that HAL would have designed a plane which is 1 full ton lighter. I don’t think that the others are that inept.

No arguments there on first part. I am only talking about aero structure modules and some avionics packages and that too for detailed design part. And I don't want to take anything away from ADA. They are too small to handle entire design workload. Neither were they supposed to. In fact its almost funny that despite being so much involved in LCA project HAL had a step-motherly attitude towards LCA until recently.

Also please keep in mind, structural life of LCA is less than half of the other 4+ Gen western jets. So either, LCA would have higher life ultimately at current weight or it will be significantly lighter at optimized weight for current life. Second factor is use of composites in LCA is significantly more than any of the other 4Gen jet. So few 00kgs shaving off on that account. So even if LCA turns out lighter than say Gripen, its not necessarily because SAAB were inept. I am pretty sure if we try and compare F35 with LCA (if a common base could be found somehow) we will notice significant difference in performance and quality of Composites of the two jets.

Also, I am not saying/claiming anything. Just conveying what I heard from ADA folks in AI. I personally don't trust this 800kg reduction thinggy. I personally don't trust half the things told by ADA folks. One thing I learnt in Aero India is most of the ADA folks know lesser than some BRFites about the LCA at program level. (I also have had some colleagues who had worked in ADA previously, similar experience from them too). Their exposure is limited to their part of the project. Which is what one would expect from any such engineering team (I wouldn't know very many things about the project I am working on despite best of my efforts to learn as much as I can). Most folks are just happy to do their bit and not interested or not exposed to other parts of the program. So anything coming from someone who doesn't have first hand info, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jan 2018 14:32

Trikaal wrote:800 kgs weight shaving with aesa, spj jammer and ifr probe seems like a pipe dream. Not all the ballast can be removed. It was put in the first place for a reason. My guess is total 200 kg weight shaving. They might reduce more but the rest of the saving will go towards compensating the weight of additional equipment.

SPJ is external for Mk1A. And IFR must have already been accounted for in MK1. Its not a separate addition to MK1A. AESA is the only addition.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2018 16:10

Trikaal wrote:800 kgs weight shaving with aesa, spj jammer and ifr probe seems like a pipe dream. Not all the ballast can be removed. It was put in the first place for a reason. My guess is total 200 kg weight shaving. They might reduce more but the rest of the saving will go towards compensating the weight of additional equipment.

Now with Mk1 LRUs fully accounted for and known quantity (i.e. fully developed & tested with dimensions/weights known) it would make it possible to get rid of those excess ballast as part of substantial internal maintenance rearrangement being done for Mk1A. Some LRUs are being combined and reduced too.

How much did the telemetry and other test-related equipment weight? That would account for some weight savings in SP.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 10 Jan 2018 18:44

srai wrote:
How much did the telemetry and other test-related equipment weight? That would account for some weight savings in SP.

Was there telemetry and other testing equipment on LSP? Afaik, no.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jan 2018 19:53

Indranil wrote:I don't think anybody likes the wing-body blending on LCA . Something makes it not sit pretty with my eyes either. If F-16s/F-15s/F-18s are the benchmark, then LCA's blending is pretty okay. But if the benchmark is Rafale/Mirage 2000/F-22 then there is lot left to be desired.

We had discussed this at length earlier. At that time I had a few problems.

1. When I want to smooth out the join between two orthogonal surfaces, I want to go with a concave join. On the LCA it is near convex.
2. Why is the wing body blending so extravagent on the top and near non existent at the bottom. Why don't they redistribute it more evenly?
3. If the MLG is rooted at the wing join and retreated straight up into the bulgier wing-body join (aka Su-30), wouldn't that give structural simplicity to the MLG, aka less weight?
4. Wouldn't the above config allow an MLG door that opens sideways, decreasing drag?

But these are elementary fixes. What is stopping ADA/NAL scientists from enacting these? I think the answer lies in three parts:
1. Underneath the upper wing-body join lies Tejas's main fuel tank. So convex = more volume. Functionality wise, it does the job.
2. Tejas's wing is mid-set and there is considerable interplay between the airflow around the payload on the inboard pylon and the keel of the fuselage. If they increase the bulge there, the airflow becomes more constricted, i.e. more drag.

I love the LCA Navy Mk2 design. The bottom part still needs some work, but it is halfway there. I don't know why they don't design LCA IAF Mk2 as LCA NAvy Mk2--. Would greatly ease workload!

Good post.
For Point 1, a lot of Tejas internal design defined the outer lines. The initial designers came from MiG-21/Jaguar background and that was carried forward. For Point 2, if they slightly increased the wingspan like Gripen C to E, could possibly be achievable.

Going forward from my understanding -

There is no LCA Mk2 Navy. Navy Mk1 was completely unsuitable for carrier operations. The proposed Navy Mk2 design changes gave some but not complete performance improvements required for the naval role. The decision not go go ahead with LCA Mk2 Navy was a joint decision by ADA & IN.

What will go ahead - NP1 & NP2 will be used to validate the control laws for naval flying - that is much more complex than air force flying. This will be a decade long process. Navy will fully fund and support it.

Navy is now the lead agency for AMCA. It will hopefully be designed around Naval Requirements from Day 1 and not a conversion from IAF version to IN version.

IAF wanted only Rafales, and when cost became prohibitive, wanted a mix of Rafale & F-16. Given that F-16s wont be cheap and time consuming, what the IAF will probably end up with is 20% Rafales and 80% Tejas Mk1/Mk1A.

This can be possible if HAL increases production, maintains quality and timely supply of spares from subcontractors. And gives up foolish projects like Hawk-i and Combat Hawk. Instead of twisting a trainer to a fighter, its better to improve the fighter it has.

PAKFA/FGFA is a non-starter - IAF considers Rafale with Spectra suite to be more stealthy than PAKFA. The engines are not revolutionary as P&W or GE engines. Electronics too are poorer than Elta 2052 or Thales. And the Chinese J-20 is the MiG-1.42 design that Russia rejected in favor of PAKFA.

Instead of PAK-FA, IAF has suggested investing the money for AMCA.

ADA is happy - its got a new design project in AMCA.

Any further evolution of LCA will be driven by HAL - whether Mk1A or B or C or Mk2. The ADA Mk2 looks unlikely to be taken forward by HAL given the designs were never completed and taken to SOP for manufacturing.

Remains to be seen if jumping from Mk1/A to AMCA is a wise step instead of an intermediate Mk2.

Disclaimer: One problem of forecasting like above is that situations change dramatically and these forecasts change with situations. 5-6 years ago, I commented IN wants multi role nuclear submarines with less BM tubes and not SSBN that are single role and mostly useless in conventional conflict. However, with a belligerent China on both land and sea, building a sea based massive second strike capability has taken precedence and we're building SSBN on priority.

So if Trump or Swedes give a F-16 or Gripen line like the Russians established MiG Complex at Nashik, then its F-16 & Gripen all the way.

The biggest test for any Defence Minister would be HAL Nashik after 2019 once Su-30MKI production is completed. It was initially planned to switch the line to PAKFA/FGFA. With that not happening, switching the line to F-16/Gripen/Tejas will define the future of Indian Aviation.

If 16-20 Tejas are manufactured at Nashik in addition to 16 at Bangalore, it can rapidly recapitalize IAF and save money for some more Rafale silver bullets.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2018 20:28

...
There is no LCA Mk2 Navy. Navy Mk1 was completely unsuitable for carrier operations. The proposed Navy Mk2 design changes gave some but not complete performance improvements required for the naval role. The decision not go go ahead with LCA Mk2 Navy was a joint decision by ADA & IN.

What will go ahead - NP1 & NP2 will be used to validate the control laws for naval flying - that is much more complex than air force flying. This will be a decade long process. Navy will fully fund and support it.
...

It’s wasn’t a joint decision. It was IN’s decision alone. ADA chief at that time Balaji was deeply disappointed.

Added later:
Tejas FOC points on the verge of completion: ADA Chief

...
When asked about any regrets he had as he prepares to hand over the baton of ADA, Cmde Balaji (Retd) said: “While significant lead up activities towards arrested recovery has been done (NLCA), the actual arrested recovery is yet to take place. I would have liked to have seen it happen in my tenure, but got delayed due to a few failures of aggregates. Further, the apparent rejection by the Indian Navy is hurtful.”
...

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 10 Jan 2018 21:09

tsarkar wrote: What will go ahead - NP1 & NP2 will be used to validate the control laws for naval flying - that is much more complex than air force flying. This will be a decade long process. Navy will fully fund and support it.

Navy is now the lead agency for AMCA. It will hopefully be designed around Naval Requirements from Day 1 and not a conversion from IAF version to IN version.

IAF wanted only Rafales, and when cost became prohibitive, wanted a mix of Rafale & F-16. Given that F-16s wont be cheap and time consuming, what the IAF will probably end up with is 20% Rafales and 80% Tejas Mk1/Mk1A.

This can be possible if HAL increases production, maintains quality and timely supply of spares from subcontractors. And gives up foolish projects like Hawk-i and Combat Hawk. Instead of twisting a trainer to a fighter, its better to improve the fighter it has.

PAKFA/FGFA is a non-starter - IAF considers Rafale with Spectra suite to be more stealthy than PAKFA. The engines are not revolutionary as P&W or GE engines. Electronics too are poorer than Elta 2052 or Thales. And the Chinese J-20 is the MiG-1.42 design that Russia rejected in favor of PAKFA.

Instead of PAK-FA, IAF has suggested investing the money for AMCA.

ADA is happy - its got a new design project in AMCA.

Any further evolution of LCA will be driven by HAL - whether Mk1A or B or C or Mk2. The ADA Mk2 looks unlikely to be taken forward by HAL given the designs were never completed and taken to SOP for manufacturing.

Remains to be seen if jumping from Mk1/A to AMCA is a wise step instead of an intermediate Mk2.

Tsarkar Sir, what you have posted about Mk.2 is in direct contradiction to what IR has posted about "approval" (again) of Mk.2. Why isn't HAL interested in Mk.2? IMHO, Mk.2 should serve as an intermediary platform before stepping on to AMCA, at least in terms of development.

Interesting to find out IAF's perception about PAK-FA. I mean, PAK-FA is definitely a looker but it seems like somehow India was not on board fully once they realized that India's MIC participation would be extremely limited. Is there a possibility of buying a few airframes for Indo-Rus strategic ties alive?

It seems like IAF is confident that Rafale F3R will be enough to contain J-20.

Thanks for sharing the above. Certainly made this person happy

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jan 2018 21:12

srai wrote:It’s wasn’t a joint decision. It was IN’s decision alone. ADA chief at that time Balaji was deeply disappointed.

Going by the logic stated by you above, Manohar Parrikar was either incompetent or influenced by Natashas to allow this unilateral decision and wasted existing investment of taxpayer's money.

The reality is it was a decision taken by then Defence Minister along with ADA and IN. You need to save this link and quote for future reference on the process followed. The Head of DRDO is also Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/09 ... -navy.html

“The issue of LCA (Navy) was initially debated at the Naval Headquarters and then in the DRDO HQ wherein both teams [that of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and that of the Indian Navy] made their points. Based on the discussions, the DRDO senior leadership forwarded their recommendations to the then Defence Minister. The case was then presented to the Ministry of Defence. Those who participated in the meeting included senior representatives from the Indian Navy, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), DRDO and the Ministry of Defence. All those who attended made their points and an eventual decision was arrived at by the Defence Minister. To refer to this decision in a trifle manner is highly inappropriate and does no good to the nation. It was only after the Minutes of the Meeting were approved by the Ministry of Defence that the Chief of the Naval Staff announced the decision on the Navy Day (04 Dec) last year.”

From your link

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1832969

On LCA Navy Mk2, he said the concept design for an optimised deck-based aircraft, has been completed and detail design is in progress

The concept & detail design did not pass review of fulfilling performance specifications referred in the Livefist post.

Balaji's disappointment (expressed in a meeting with livefist) was not allowed to work on more options. For example, he talks about a wingspan stretch that was never ever in earlier Mk2 development plan.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02 ... -back.html

For starters, the team plans to move the wings outboard by about 350mm, increasing the space significantly between the fuselage and the wings.

This was the same wingspan stretch I referred in my earlier post in response to Indranil.

The disappointment is like every aspirant for India's cricket team wanting to be allowed one more over & one more match to play.

When asked about any regrets he had as he prepares to hand over the baton of ADA, Cmde Balaji (Retd) said: “While significant lead up activities towards arrested recovery has been done (NLCA), the actual arrested recovery is yet to take place. I would have liked to have seen it happen in my tenure, but got delayed due to a few failures of aggregates. Further, the apparent rejection by the Indian Navy is hurtful.”

These activities will still take place as a part of developing core technologies for AMCA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2018 21:26

^^^
According to Balaji at the time NLCA Mk.2 was still on.

Aircraft carrier version of Tejas still alive, despite navy opposition

Friday, 30 December 2016
...
Balaji confirmed to Business Standard that the Naval Tejas development was under way. “ADA believes that we have a good configuration for the LCA Navy Mark II, which will meet the operational requirements of a deck-based aircraft, as specified in the cabinet clearance in December 2009.”

The navy, however, is now demanding far greater capability from the Tejas than what the cabinet clearance of 2009 had specified. At a defence ministry meeting in August, the admirals cited a significantly more challenging operational environment.
...

ADA intends to customise it into a naval fighter in Phase-2, which has been allocated Rs 1,921 crore. Like the IAF version, this will involve comprehensive redesign, including replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a more powerful F-414 engine. But other important changes will optimise the fighter for carrier operations. Weight will be shaved off the undercarriage, which will be accommodated inside a lengthened wing, freeing up space in the centre fuselage for an additional 700 litres of fuel. This will give the fighter an extra 20-25 minutes of flight endurance. In addition, the tail hook will be engineered afresh.

The ADA chief has argued forcefully in the defence ministry, and Parrikar has accepted the need for a step-by-step approach to naval fighter design, rather than attempting a huge technology jump by designing a fifth-generation Naval AMCA. They believe that first designing an optimised naval fighter --- the Naval Tejas Mark II --- would develop capabilities realistically and incrementally.
...

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2018 21:50

tsarkar wrote:...

The reality is it was a decision taken by then Defence Minister along with ADA and IN. You need to save this link and quote for future reference on the process followed. The Head of DRDO is also Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/09 ... -navy.html

“The issue of LCA (Navy) was initially debated at the Naval Headquarters and then in the DRDO HQ wherein both teams [that of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and that of the Indian Navy] made their points. Based on the discussions, the DRDO senior leadership forwarded their recommendations to the then Defence Minister. The case was then presented to the Ministry of Defence. Those who participated in the meeting included senior representatives from the Indian Navy, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), DRDO and the Ministry of Defence. All those who attended made their points and an eventual decision was arrived at by the Defence Minister. To refer to this decision in a trifle manner is highly inappropriate and does no good to the nation. It was only after the Minutes of the Meeting were approved by the Ministry of Defence that the Chief of the Naval Staff announced the decision on the Navy Day (04 Dec) last year.”
...

Well, your quote does not say the ADA was on board at all. It says they were allowed to make their case. The IN also made their case. Then the defense ministry made the final decision. All indications suggest ADA made a pitch for continuing with NLCA Mk.2 while the IN made the case they needed an import to meet their requirements. The DM gave both something: ADA to continue development on Mk2 with IN support while the IN got their wish for foreign 57 fighters procurement process greenlight.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Jan 2018 22:26

I would believe srai’s Version. ADA was at the table pleading their case with the IN making the case for imports. The decision went against ADA.

SiddharthS · Post by **SiddharthS** » 10 Jan 2018 22:31

tsarkar wrote:
The disappointment is like every aspirant for India's cricket team wanting to be allowed one more over & one more match to play.

The correct analogy would be: Indian cricket team ( the only organisation that plays international cricket) asking to play another match (or series) so that they can win (or improve themselves).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2018 23:30

Trikaal wrote:
srai wrote:
How much did the telemetry and other test-related equipment weight? That would account for some weight savings in SP.
Was there telemetry and other testing equipment on LSP? Afaik, no.

Yes, 200 kgs saved from LSPs to SPs

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 10 Jan 2018 23:40

ks_sachin wrote:Indranil,

Has there been any changes in the MoD bureaucracy (Sec, Dy Sec)? I firmly believe that it takes two to tango. A minister is only as effective as the bureaucrats who serve them. Equally a good minister will also try and get the best of the bureaucracy to work for them.

Ta

Most ministers give far too much deference to Bureaucrats, particularly if they are new to the issues in the ministry. And Bureaucrats know how to behave with every kind of minister, especially at the higher levels.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jan 2018 23:44

Guys stop quibbling about non existent things.

TSarkar & JayS, Thanks.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Jan 2018 00:48

tsarkar wrote:Navy is now the lead agency for AMCA. It will hopefully be designed around Naval Requirements from Day 1 and not a conversion from IAF version to IN version.

This is great news.

IAF wanted only Rafales, and when cost became prohibitive, wanted a mix of Rafale & F-16. Given that F-16s wont be cheap and time consuming, what the IAF will probably end up with is 20% Rafales and 80% Tejas Mk1/Mk1A.

This can be possible if HAL increases production, maintains quality and timely supply of spares from subcontractors. And gives up foolish projects like Hawk-i and Combat Hawk. Instead of twisting a trainer to a fighter, its better to improve the fighter it has.

This is hopeful news

PAKFA/FGFA is a non-starter - IAF considers Rafale with Spectra suite to be more stealthy than PAKFA. The engines are not revolutionary as P&W or GE engines. Electronics too are poorer than Elta 2052 or Thales. And the Chinese J-20 is the MiG-1.42 design that Russia rejected in favor of PAKFA.

This is uncertain news. The izd 30 engines are currently being tested and it won't surprise me if the IAF ends ordering a few off the shelf pakfa based on strategic ties and hals need because of the line staying idle. Customizing the sensors especially radar should not be an issue considering the experience Hal gas with the bars and the uttams progress. As far as China rejecting the pakfa in favor of the mfi goes, it makes little sense. Both designs were evaluated for performance by the vvs and the mig was found inadequate iirc. You don't choose a bird/design that finds no favor in native air force over something that has been approved. Unless of course the first deal had lesser involvement/benefits for you keeping in mind more criteria than just performance.

Any further evolution of LCA will be driven by HAL - whether Mk1A or B or C or Mk2. The ADA Mk2 looks unlikely to be taken forward by HAL given the designs were never completed and taken to SOP for manufacturing.

This is good news again. I can't see ADA burdened with the mk2. Unless resources are made available.

Remains to be seen if jumping from Mk1/A to AMCA is a wise step instead of an intermediate Mk2.

What choice is there? Unless IAF thinks that it can manage fifth gen threats with fourth gen assets, they are going to have get onboard sometime, especially since they seem to find the pakfa so inadequate. And sooner the better. Unless the Rafale is truly what dassault markets it as....a fifth gen equivalent.

The biggest test for any Defence Minister would be HAL Nashik after 2019 once Su-30MKI production is completed. It was initially planned to switch the line to PAKFA/FGFA. With that not happening, switching the line to F-16/Gripen/Tejas will define the future of Indian Aviation.

Interesting take, but I I'm not sure about this estimation. The sef was never intended for a psu. From the very beginning it was about getting private industry involved and evolved.

If 16-20 Tejas are manufactured at Nashik in addition to 16 at Bangalore, it can rapidly recapitalize IAF and save money for some more Rafale silver bullets.

My guess is that Hal will make do with some pakfa and mki upgrades along with LCA spinoffs until the AMCA comes along.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2018 00:57

Indranil is saying ADA is heading Mk2. I don't know where this new funda that only HAL will do Mk2 is coming from?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Jan 2018 00:59

Yeah, seems conflicting... My take is that mk2 would be doable with resources poured in but I'm not sure if there are enough for both projects.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2018 01:01

JayS,

Not shooting you for being the messenger from AI'17. In fact, thank you.You know that I will be as happy as you if 800 kgs could be shed. But I am skeptical.

As I have said before I don't know what is the benchmark. If the benchmark is Mk1 LSPs, it is remotely plausible. If it is Mk1 SPs, I have no clue how 800 kgs can be shed! That would make Mk1A empty weight a good 1 ton lighter than Gripen C/D, KAI T-50, JF-17, Boeing's TFX entry, AIDC F-CK-1A all which weigh 6.5 tons empty.

Can the use of composites + new electronics shave off 1 ton. It is a little difficult to digest. Isn't it?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jan 2018 01:24

Indranil wrote:JayS,

Not shooting you for being the messenger from AI'17. In fact, thank you.You know that I will be as happy as you if 800 kgs could be shed. But I am skeptical.

As I have said before I don't know what is the benchmark. If the benchmark is Mk1 LSPs, it is remotely plausible. If it is Mk1 SPs, I have no clue how 800 kgs can be shed! That would make Mk1A empty weight a good 1 ton lighter than Gripen C/D, KAI T-50, JF-17, Boeing's TFX entry, AIDC F-CK-1A all which weigh 6.5 tons empty.

Can the use of composites + new electronics shave off 1 ton. It is a little difficult to digest. Isn't it?

Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Jan 2018 01:29

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:JayS,

Not shooting you for being the messenger from AI'17. In fact, thank you.You know that I will be as happy as you if 800 kgs could be shed. But I am skeptical.

As I have said before I don't know what is the benchmark. If the benchmark is Mk1 LSPs, it is remotely plausible. If it is Mk1 SPs, I have no clue how 800 kgs can be shed! That would make Mk1A empty weight a good 1 ton lighter than Gripen C/D, KAI T-50, JF-17, Boeing's TFX entry, AIDC F-CK-1A all which weigh 6.5 tons empty.

Can the use of composites + new electronics shave off 1 ton. It is a little difficult to digest. Isn't it?
Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.

most mil aircraft don't even complete 2000 hrs in a twenty year time frame.

I have seen choppers which have not even touched 2000 hrs in 20 years.

when the hans copy built their first shenyang MiGs which they even exported to the pakis, the total airframe life was only 120 hrs. The pakis nursed them along for another 30 hours to barely complete 150 hrs before it was scrapped.

The hans copied almost everything but at that time, they just couldn't hack the russian metallurgy.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jan 2018 01:30

JayS wrote:
Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.

How do you arrive at 3000 hours given that work is still ongoing from all conversation few pages back?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2018 01:32

HAL is in charge of Mk1A. AFAIK, they are only planning to make structural, avionics and panel changes. They are not going to undertake anything that changes the CG/CP or the external aerodynamics (which is a pity).

ADA is in charge of Mk2 and AMCA. No sanction has been provided for NLCA Mk2, although its studies are the furthest along.

The pull back on the NLCA is unilateral from Navy's side. There is some truth to what Karnad was reporting. There are Matheswaran equivalents everywhere. And when they reach positions where they can affect decision making .... However, I wish Karnad was a little more nuanced in his reporting. Well meaning as it might be, a public hyperbole makes reconciliation much more difficult.

In Navy's defense, their hands are much more tied than IAF's. Their space and performance requirements are much more tight. They can't increase the size of the hangar or use a longer runway. So asking for a medium fighter with about 20 tons of thrust is very understandable. I am happy that they did not go for the snake oil which is Sea Gripen which shows that they are walking the talk.

The current state is that Navy has not released any more funds towards NLCA for the last few months. Not even for flight testing. You can check when the last NLCA prototypes flew for yourselves. I don't know how much it is true, but I heard that the Navy wanted ADA to complete Mk2 with the money it had sanctioned for Mk1 itself. The justification was you promised us a viable fighter for certain money. WE gave you that money. Give us your viable fighter, aka Mk2.

On the other hand, Mao sir is a very competent test-pilot-cum-designer. A little like a modern day Capt. Bhargava. Very knowledgable about the design of most naval aircrafts and pragmatic to the core. Scientists at ADA respect him a lot, inspite of him being the outside man. So much so, that he was one of the candidates for the chairman's post. But now, Navy has essentially tied his hands and walked him down the plank.

The good news is that very recently, I have heard murmurs that IN will fund further development. The pen has not met the paper yet. But I hope and pray that it will.

Lastly, AMCA is very much driven by IAF. IAF strongly backs it over PAKFA/FGFA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2018 01:34

JayS wrote: Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.

That number is a very conservative estimate. Not tested out yet. Pretty similar to the 3.5 ton payload and 500 km combat radius.

nam · Post by **nam** » 11 Jan 2018 01:37

Zynda wrote: Tsarkar Sir, what you have posted about Mk.2 is in direct contradiction to what IR has posted about "approval" (again) of Mk.2. Why isn't HAL interested in Mk.2? IMHO, Mk.2 should serve as an intermediary platform before stepping on to AMCA, at least in terms of development.

It is too late for MK2 to be a stepping stone. If MK2 arrives in 2025, then AMCA will not arrive in squadron service till 2035 or 2040?

Even if we had a TD available today and applying a 15 year development cycle, we are looking at 2032 squadron service!

I have this feeling AMCA will become the LCA of 2035. Capable, cheap and late by 5-7 years.

Here is my very personal view.

HAL should take over MK2 as a iteration of MK1/MK1A. Build it for IAF and exports.
ADA should funnel it's resources on "exotic" tech. Instead of working on AMCA, ADA should concentrate on stealth UCAV (subsonic & supersonic) & 6th gen tech. By the time it arrives in 2030 it will contemporary with the time.

In place of AMCA we either go with Pak-FA or F35. If we go with the US, give them 200-300 F35 order and ask them to build part of it in India with a private player instead of those silly F-16s. If Pak-Fa, HAL gets to do it, with outsourcing.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jan 2018 01:46

tsarkar wrote:
Indranil wrote:I don't think anybody likes the wing-body blending on LCA . Something makes it not sit pretty with my eyes either. If F-16s/F-15s/F-18s are the benchmark, then LCA's blending is pretty okay. But if the benchmark is Rafale/Mirage 2000/F-22 then there is lot left to be desired.

We had discussed this at length earlier. At that time I had a few problems.

1. When I want to smooth out the join between two orthogonal surfaces, I want to go with a concave join. On the LCA it is near convex.
2. Why is the wing body blending so extravagent on the top and near non existent at the bottom. Why don't they redistribute it more evenly?
3. If the MLG is rooted at the wing join and retreated straight up into the bulgier wing-body join (aka Su-30), wouldn't that give structural simplicity to the MLG, aka less weight?
4. Wouldn't the above config allow an MLG door that opens sideways, decreasing drag?

But these are elementary fixes. What is stopping ADA/NAL scientists from enacting these? I think the answer lies in three parts:
1. Underneath the upper wing-body join lies Tejas's main fuel tank. So convex = more volume. Functionality wise, it does the job.
2. Tejas's wing is mid-set and there is considerable interplay between the airflow around the payload on the inboard pylon and the keel of the fuselage. If they increase the bulge there, the airflow becomes more constricted, i.e. more drag.

I love the LCA Navy Mk2 design. The bottom part still needs some work, but it is halfway there. I don't know why they don't design LCA IAF Mk2 as LCA NAvy Mk2--. Would greatly ease workload!
Good post.
For Point 1, a lot of Tejas internal design defined the outer lines. The initial designers came from MiG-21/Jaguar background and that was carried forward. For Point 2, if they slightly increased the wingspan like Gripen C to E, could possibly be achievable.

Going forward from my understanding -

There is no LCA Mk2 Navy. Navy Mk1 was completely unsuitable for carrier operations. The proposed Navy Mk2 design changes gave some but not complete performance improvements required for the naval role. The decision not go go ahead with LCA Mk2 Navy was a joint decision by ADA & IN.

What will go ahead - NP1 & NP2 will be used to validate the control laws for naval flying - that is much more complex than air force flying. This will be a decade long process. Navy will fully fund and support it.

Navy is now the lead agency for AMCA. It will hopefully be designed around Naval Requirements from Day 1 and not a conversion from IAF version to IN version.

IAF wanted only Rafales, and when cost became prohibitive, wanted a mix of Rafale & F-16. Given that F-16s wont be cheap and time consuming, what the IAF will probably end up with is 20% Rafales and 80% Tejas Mk1/Mk1A.

This can be possible if HAL increases production, maintains quality and timely supply of spares from subcontractors. And gives up foolish projects like Hawk-i and Combat Hawk. Instead of twisting a trainer to a fighter, its better to improve the fighter it has.

PAKFA/FGFA is a non-starter - IAF considers Rafale with Spectra suite to be more stealthy than PAKFA. The engines are not revolutionary as P&W or GE engines. Electronics too are poorer than Elta 2052 or Thales. And the Chinese J-20 is the MiG-1.42 design that Russia rejected in favor of PAKFA.

Instead of PAK-FA, IAF has suggested investing the money for AMCA.

ADA is happy - its got a new design project in AMCA.

Any further evolution of LCA will be driven by HAL - whether Mk1A or B or C or Mk2. The ADA Mk2 looks unlikely to be taken forward by HAL given the designs were never completed and taken to SOP for manufacturing.

Remains to be seen if jumping from Mk1/A to AMCA is a wise step instead of an intermediate Mk2.

Disclaimer: One problem of forecasting like above is that situations change dramatically and these forecasts change with situations. 5-6 years ago, I commented IN wants multi role nuclear submarines with less BM tubes and not SSBN that are single role and mostly useless in conventional conflict. However, with a belligerent China on both land and sea, building a sea based massive second strike capability has taken precedence and we're building SSBN on priority.

So if Trump or Swedes give a F-16 or Gripen line like the Russians established MiG Complex at Nashik, then its F-16 & Gripen all the way.

The biggest test for any Defence Minister would be HAL Nashik after 2019 once Su-30MKI production is completed. It was initially planned to switch the line to PAKFA/FGFA. With that not happening, switching the line to F-16/Gripen/Tejas will define the future of Indian Aviation.

If 16-20 Tejas are manufactured at Nashik in addition to 16 at Bangalore, it can rapidly recapitalize IAF and save money for some more Rafale silver bullets.

Sir, some of things you said about future projects are not inline with current known things. As per my understanding:

1. IN is going to fund NLCA Mk1 and MK2 till its fully carrier capable. Even MP has corroborated this much. Only thing is NLCA (any version) will not be productionized as of now. But things are moving too slowly on NLCA front now. Perhaps because its pushed down the priority list. NP3 was in manufacturing stage as per ADA. ADA's plans for NLCA MK2 are very much there.

2. LCA MK2 is ADA's baby right from starting and it will continue to be so. Meanwhile HAL will tweak MK1 for MK1A version. MK1A was HAL's proposal to keep their lines humming as MK1 was not acceptable for IAF beyond the 40 on order and MK2 was too far in future. MK2 is now sanctioned by GOI. ADA will design it and HAL will produce just like MK1. MK2 preliminary design is done and this recent project sanction must be for FSED. Now we can expect MK2 prototype to be made and flown in coming years.

3. As per last ADA annual report, by end of 2015-15, while IAF's SQRs for AMCA were already finished, IN was in stage of talking to ADA about NAMCA on preliminary aspects. IN's SQRs were not formulated. We know that AMCA's Preliminary design is done already for quite some time now. Its highly unlikely given these things that AMCA is designed as per IN SQR ab initio. As such NLCA will have to be successful first for NAMCA to be be designed properly. It looks like unfortunately it will be AMCA first and NAMCA later. Do you have any source for "IN will be lead agency for AMCA"..? I at least have not seen any such indications so far in public domain.

PS: I see IR posted on this while I was typing. I suppose we should see a news in coming days confirming AMCA and MK2 approval. I got unofficial corroboration too. AMCA was eminent anyway.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 11 Jan 2018 01:47

Indranil wrote:HAL is in charge of Mk1A. AFAIK, they are only planning to make structural, avionics and panel changes. They are not going to undertake anything that changes the CG/CP or the external aerodynamics (which is a pity).

IIRC they were trying to reduce drag as well - nothing as major as the plug, but minor tweaks to reduce drag (which seems to be the biggest issue with the LCA).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jan 2018 01:55

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote: Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.
That number is a very conservative estimate. Not tested out yet. Pretty similar to the 3.5 ton payload and 500 km combat radius.

Nitpicking. Its not a "estimate" per se. Its the number used for LCA's design. That number dictated LCA's weight and not vice-versa. What I mean is they didn't make LCA of so and so weight and estimated its life would be 3000h. Subtle difference. If LCA is designed today for the same number we should indeed see lesser airframe weight due to advances in design methods and composite tech. I am not sure about the number, ow much less. I will ask a couple of Structures guys.

Cybaru wrote:
JayS wrote:
Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.
How do you arrive at 3000 hours given that work is still ongoing from all conversation few pages back?

LCA is designed for 3000h. If we consider LCA is overdesigned, which it is in all probability, we have two possibilities.

1. LCA has much higher life at given weight. (will be proven by Full scale fatigue testing)

OR

2. LCA would have significantly lower airframe weight for 3000h life if its optimized for it using newer methods.