Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 27 Aug 2017 10:20

What else do you think AMCA is?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Aug 2017 10:26

Indranil wrote:What else do you think AMCA is?

A far more ambitious program imho. There has been talk of 6th gen tech associated with it, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 27 Aug 2017 15:16

I agree. ADA should get a "one miracle per plane" guy.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 27 Aug 2017 17:48

I think that we need a completely new design for a Single Emgined aircraft after LCA MK 1&2. We should look at EADS MAKO a design concept with F136 engine as our LCA Mark 3 for production in target period 2035 - 2045.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Aug 2017 18:40

del
Last edited by UlanBatori on 27 Aug 2017 19:09, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Aug 2017 19:09

By 2035 India will be facing hordes of chinese Hong Shin VACUs so human-piloted craft will be obsolete. This whole business of dragging out defense development, production and deployment is killing Indian defense and innovation. Modern concepts of concurrent engg etc seem to have not improved the thinking any. Look at the last 18 years and see how far the leading edge of technology - and weapon systems- have moved since 1999 - and the rate is accelerating exponentially.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 27 Aug 2017 19:33

Multiple strategies needs to be followed. If by that time Manned aircraft are obsolete then only unmanned UAV can be used. Almost 90% of the work and technologies of manned and unmanned aircraft will be similar, in same weight class.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 27 Aug 2017 20:32

A full stealth attack UAV capable of air to air and air to ground missions should be worked on on the Aura Platform

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 27 Aug 2017 21:27

Gyan wrote:I think that we need a completely new design for a Single Emgined aircraft after LCA MK 1&2. We should look at EADS MAKO a design concept with F136 engine as our LCA Mark 3 for production in target period 2035 - 2045.

Your first and second statements are contradictory. F136 is too fat for both LCA Mk2, Mako.

My wishlist is ADA decide on an engine quickly based on the AMCA's requirement (F136 will be too big there as well). Then design a limited stealth single engine aircraft using the same engine. Lean on the LCA Mk2/AMCA for systems. Stealth shaped with very good fuel fraction. Very limited (2-4 AAMs) to no internal weapon carriage capability. In the later case design a small stealth stealth pod for the AAMs. The idea is the plane is stealth only in point defense roles only. Otherwise, it is 4.5 generation onlee.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Aug 2017 21:52

OT here I am sure, but.. designing "stealth" for present radar frequencies may be a totally misguided proposition. How "stealthy" are the F22 and F35 to say, high-frequency mmwave? laser conversion efficiencies are coming up nicely, so that detection systems based on much higher frequencies can be expected.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 27 Aug 2017 22:50

I was referring to layout of EADS MAKO not its size. Just like China adapted Lavi design as J10 with AL31, similarly we should go for much bigger single engined plane using F136. Also AMCA is neither here nor there. Also It's specifications seem to be too ambitious. 9tons empty weight (really?) and 4 tons internal fuel with 110x2=220 kn engines would make its range shorter than LCA. We need F35/F22 size aircraft/s.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Viv S » 28 Aug 2017 00:06

UlanBatori wrote:OT here I am sure, but.. designing "stealth" for present radar frequencies may be a totally misguided proposition. How "stealthy" are the F22 and F35 to say, high-frequency mmwave? laser conversion efficiencies are coming up nicely, so that detection systems based on much higher frequencies can be expected.

MMW radars have outstanding resolution but limited range. And at mid-to-low ranges, IRSTs are arguably more useful than LIDAR or MMW.

The real question has been the efficacy of stealth against long wavelength i.e. low frequency radars. And while nothing is known for certain, the F-35's CNT-based Fibremat is believed to have wide-spectrum absorption capability.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby brar_w » 28 Aug 2017 01:36

In the short to medium term the prospects of shared aperture radars utilizing micro-fluidic cooling processes probably have better prospects in providing some relief on the ground based radar side of the equation against low to extremely low RCS configuration on aircraft, missiles and UAVs..allowing fairly mobile, light-medium weight, highly mobile sensor setups to generate "radar complex" level threat pictures at a lower cost. Some of these concepts are emerging now yet others are at relatively low technological and manufacturing readiness and will require a decade or two to fully mature to a point where they can be fielded. The problem also comes form mass since LO shaping and materials are proliferating and are no longer just a part of the highest end, most sophisticated silver bullet fleets.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Aug 2017 01:51

Gyan wrote:I think that we need a completely new design for a Single Emgined aircraft after LCA MK 1&2. We should look at EADS MAKO a design concept with F136 engine as our LCA Mark 3 for production in target period 2035 - 2045.


Single engine AMCA will be LCA Mk3

Maybe with FGFA engine or F136

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Aug 2017 03:44

UlanBatori wrote:OT here I am sure, but.. designing "stealth" for present radar frequencies may be a totally misguided proposition. How "stealthy" are the F22 and F35 to say, high-frequency mmwave? laser conversion efficiencies are coming up nicely, so that detection systems based on much higher frequencies can be expected.

UB, that's why I said stealth only for the point defence role where the threat is from airborne radars only.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3324
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Aug 2017 03:49

Is India on the Verge of Building a Super Jet Fighter?

Deleted by poster in the interest of preserving safe harbor protection for forum. Inadvertently posted entire article instead of fair use extracts.
Last edited by Cosmo_R on 28 Aug 2017 21:58, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 28 Aug 2017 07:06

But the Indian Navy hasn’t given up entirely on the Tejas; it is considering a Mark 2 variant under development, which will be powered by the same F414 turbofan engines as the U.S. Navy’s Super Hornet fighter.


I do NOT think so.

IN is funding the Mk2 NLCA, but I think they have been up front that they will NOT induct it.

My understanding is that the IN has moved to the NAMCA (among Indian efforts).
Last edited by NRao on 28 Aug 2017 07:20, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Aug 2017 07:09

Same failed idea repeated ad nauseam doesn't make it more viable. Increase in thrust would be useful only if there is no corresponding increase in weight. But still it might work for the AF, which ironically might not need it if the the mk1a is successful.

ADA needs to come up with a better idea than a mk2 with piddly engines. Maybe the f136 like posters are suggesting. Or better still, a twin engined model. If they had started work on this in 2006 when the weight issue came out, by now we could have had a mirage 4000 or even rafale type bada Bhai of the tejas. But even now they want to stick to the same smallest lightest stuff. Phuck it.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5078
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 28 Aug 2017 07:25

I can confirm that "Eight by twelve" glass cockpit for MK2 is BS. There is no space.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Aug 2017 07:31

NRao wrote:
But the Indian Navy hasn’t given up entirely on the Tejas; it is considering a Mark 2 variant under development, which will be powered by the same F414 turbofan engines as the U.S. Navy’s Super Hornet fighter.


I do NOT think so.

IN is funding the Mk2 NLCA, but I think they have been up front that they will NOT induct it.


My understanding is that the IN has moved to the NAMCA (among Indian efforts).


Seems to me....This is simply a result of some face saving activity or fig leaf for for the psus involved and forced upon the Navy by it's political Masters. The Navy doesn't want it because it knows it is unlikely to work. It's playing along because ultimately it makes everybody look good. ADA doing some research, Navy supporting Desi effort and politicians keeping all stakeholders in line and happy. Screw the taxpayer.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2574
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 28 Aug 2017 07:49

In my very humble opinion this is what Navy is doing vis a vis NLCA
1. It is supporting the effort and funding LCA from its own budget, why because every year Navy is unable to use all it's budget and have to forfeit it by returning to the finance ministry. What better way to support indigenous effort by investing some 100 cr per year of the 1000s of carore that will be eventually returned each year.
2. Navy has a in house design/development team that is used to long gestation periods and evolutionary design process. For them a project 5-10 years in the future and not 100% up to current world standard is not a failure, but a stepping stone to eventual success. When they need an indigenous aircraft, they know it will not come in few years and it will fall short. In their mind, NLCA is the necessary step, that's why they have personnel and money involved
3.They have succeeded in the above. They have the two crowning glory of Navies around the world - Air craft carriers and N sub. It is equivalent to IAF having it's own B-2 and F-22. We know where IAF stands on that.
4. They are very clear that the NLCA will not meet their immediate or mid term need. They announced that and are going for some 57 planes (so that fools in DRDO do not torpedo their armament planning, unlike IAF, that is down to 33 SQ, not either able to induct LCA or reject it.
5. I have a feeling that in 10 years, Navy will fly a very capable India build naval planes from the deck of Vikrant

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Marten » 28 Aug 2017 08:07

Cosmo_R wrote:I don't recall this article being posted. So here goes

Is India on the Verge of Building a Super Jet Fighter?

"In 2016 the Indian Navy rejected the domestically built Tejas jet fighter—or Light Combat Aircraft—after a troubled thirty-three years of development in which the maritime fighting branch had invested significantly. However, the Indian Navy argued that the Tejas weighed too much, and produced insufficient thrust for takeoff from the ski-jump ramp of its forthcoming aircraft carrier.

<SNIPPED>

By investing in the Tejas Mark 2, the Indian Aeronautical Development Agency hopes to recoup more from the substantial time and money devoted to the Tejas fighter program in previous decades. If the new engines and radar perform as hoped, the Mark 2 may finally provide India with a decent domestic fighter jet that improves upon the Mark 1’s shortcomings.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-21880

This is technically an extract since I have not pasted the subsequent pages.

We're wasting time on some f*rticle written by a Peace Corps activitst/instructor. Unless he's a specialist who should not be criticized or is a BR certified Tier 1 contributor, safe to ignore. Wasted good time on reading this tripe.
Last edited by Marten on 28 Aug 2017 09:32, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2017 08:46

Cosmo_R wrote:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/india-the-verge-building-super-jet-fighter-21880

This is technically an extract since I have not pasted the subsequent pages.

You inadvertenly posted the entire article, with the exception of the last para and the bio of the author which was on the subsequent page. Please try to avoid doing that. All it takes is one over zealous legal junkie to shut the forum down. If you must, one to two paras should suffice to make your point. At best, please post the title and the link.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2017 08:47

Marten wrote:We're wasting time on some f*rticle written by a Peace Corps activitst/instructor. Unless he's a specialist who should not be criticized or is a BR certified Tier 1 contributor, safe to ignore. Wasted good time on reading this tripe.

Marten Saar, can you please edit your post based on mine above? Much appreciated.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2017 08:54

LCA Tejas MK-II absolutely on right trajectory and getting better
http://www.defencenews.in/article/LCA-T ... ter-283884

Indranil / Karan M: if you are reading this, can you kindly advise if the claims in the above article are true?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16226
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rahul M » 28 Aug 2017 18:53

regarding 2-engine LCA, AMCA is definitely the way to go. with the caveat that AMCA Mk1 should not have any dependency on tech we don't possess right now.
just re-size the LCA to accept 2 engines (F-414 if that's all we have) and re-use whatever subsystems you can from LCA.
forget all unobtainium tech, at most stealthy form factor and internal hardpoints. that's what the original MCA was
Image

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby samirdiw » 28 Aug 2017 19:11

Rahul M wrote:regarding 2-engine LCA, AMCA is definitely the way to go. with the caveat that AMCA Mk1 should not have any dependency on tech we don't possess right now.
just re-size the LCA to accept 2 engines (F-414 if that's all we have) and re-use whatever subsystems you can from LCA.
forget all unobtainium tech, at most stealthy form factor and internal hardpoints. that's what the original MCA was



Rahul, what about using Kaveri instead of 414 for a specific version in numbers? It wouldn't supercruise and all that shit but wouldn't it be comparable to Rafale?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 28 Aug 2017 20:21

samirdiw wrote:
Rahul M wrote:regarding 2-engine LCA, AMCA is definitely the way to go. with the caveat that AMCA Mk1 should not have any dependency on tech we don't possess right now.
just re-size the LCA to accept 2 engines (F-414 if that's all we have) and re-use whatever subsystems you can from LCA.
forget all unobtainium tech, at most stealthy form factor and internal hardpoints. that's what the original MCA was



Rahul, what about using Kaveri instead of 414 for a specific version in numbers? It wouldn't supercruise and all that shit but wouldn't it be comparable to Rafale?



RM,

What is your goal?

Who would build an AF around it? And why?

IMHO it would be *relatively* worse than the current LCA Mk1, forget Mk1A.

Sami,

With the Kaveri that the French are assisting with, as far as I can tell, it would not even takeoff.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16226
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rahul M » 28 Aug 2017 22:19

>> What is your goal?
create an aircraft that plugs LCA's obvious shortfalls, short legs and less real estate for doodads.

>> Who would build an AF around it? And why?
IAF, one hopes. something that would be available in the near future, be relatively cheap and still be able to perform 90% of the roles the IAF demands of its fighters. moreover, being our own design it will be adapted for a variety of roles, from EW to recce. a near perfect replacement for M2k's. it would approach rafale's capacity at the very least but likely surpass it.

>> IMHO it would be *relatively* worse than the current LCA Mk1, forget Mk1A.

how so ? better weapons load, range, more LO characteristics. MOST importantly something that can be flight-tested by 2021 & inducted by 2025 as against heaven knows what tech AMCA that will be inducted sometime in 203X.

holding out for a pie-in-the-sky engine reminds me too much of the marut story, thank you very much.

_______________________________________
samir, the kaveri is not ready now. by the time project spec is frozen developer should go by whatever engine is actually available. if that is unlikely to be kaveri, then we should go with F414, while at the same time allowing for a future kaveri (mk2 ??) to be added to the aircraft.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 28 Aug 2017 22:41

LCA MK3 with F136 engine will also address the size and range issues of Navy.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16226
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rahul M » 29 Aug 2017 01:12

^^ where does this come from ? is the F136 development complete ? who is going to pay for ~ 1 Bn $ required to complete it ?
does it fit the LCA ?
when the answer to all of those questions are -ve why create these fantasies ?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Aug 2017 04:12

Rahul M wrote:>> What is your goal?
create an aircraft that plugs LCA's obvious shortfalls, short legs and less real estate for doodads.

>> Who would build an AF around it? And why?
IAF, one hopes. something that would be available in the near future, be relatively cheap and still be able to perform 90% of the roles the IAF demands of its fighters. moreover, being our own design it will be adapted for a variety of roles, from EW to recce. a near perfect replacement for M2k's. it would approach rafale's capacity at the very least but likely surpass it.

>> IMHO it would be *relatively* worse than the current LCA Mk1, forget Mk1A.

how so ? better weapons load, range, more LO characteristics. MOST importantly something that can be flight-tested by 2021 & inducted by 2025 as against heaven knows what tech AMCA that will be inducted sometime in 203X.

holding out for a pie-in-the-sky engine reminds me too much of the marut story, thank you very much.

_______________________________________
samir, the kaveri is not ready now. by the time project spec is frozen developer should go by whatever engine is actually available. if that is unlikely to be kaveri, then we should go with F414, while at the same time allowing for a future kaveri (mk2 ??) to be added to the aircraft.


Not just AFs needs but also the Navys. Even without the 414 and just the existing 404in20. They should be able to scale up the LCA to about 11 tons Max and with thrust of about 18 Tons, it'll be much more powerful than the rafale and more like a typhoon.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Aug 2017 04:24

If two turbofan engines are of same power, would it mean that their SURGE POWER will also be same?

I don't know if I am able to put question properly, but will try!

Often I see in advertisement of Hi fi German / Italian cars that such an such latest car does 0 to 100 in 9 seconds.

So if
GE 414 is 90Kn Dry and 100Kn Wet
EJ200 is 90 Kn Dry and 100Kn Wet

Would it mean that the SURGE POWER of both engines will be same? Or it could be a possibility that GE414 is able to provide same power but is LAZY compared to EJ200 which takes to full power OR reduce power much faster than GE engine. If there is a UNIT through which one can compare this aspect of Engines?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 243
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Aug 2017 04:30

Gyan wrote:LCA MK3 with F136 engine will also address the size and range issues of Navy.


Gyan, brar-w in a previous post has categorically stated that the F136 is dead.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Aug 2017 04:44

Manish_Sharma wrote:If two turbofan engines are of same power, would it mean that their SURGE POWER will also be same?

I don't know if I am able to put question properly, but will try!

Often I see in advertisement of Hi fi German / Italian cars that such an such latest car does 0 to 100 in 9 seconds.

So if
GE 414 is 90Kn Dry and 100Kn Wet
EJ200 is 90 Kn Dry and 100Kn Wet

Would it mean that the SURGE POWER of both engines will be same? Or it could be a possibility that GE414 is able to provide same power but is LAZY compared to EJ200 which takes to full power OR reduce power much faster than GE engine. If there is a UNIT through which one can compare this aspect of Engines?


I think in the world of cars at least, the concept of torque would fit your definition of surge power. For example a 3 series bimmer has less or same hp than a mazda6, but being awfully torquey, she does 0-60 much better.

Dunno if this applies to fighters though since I'm not sure there are any rotational components involved. Jmtp... I'm no aero engineer. Wiser folk can please educate.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 29 Aug 2017 04:48

well RM,

regarding 2-engine LCA, AMCA


The "2-engine LCA" and teh picture you posted WAS the MCA, which morphed into a totally diff beast called the AMCA. They are NOT the same.

* The AMCA, relative to the MCA (the one you posted), is more mature. They have done some work on the AMCA (spent some $300 million IIRC?), while they have spent $0 on the MCA (which I am assuming to be a scaled up, twin engined version of the LCA)(and they have done no work on the tail-less, TV model, which is what that picture you posted shows).

So, just adding an engine and re-configuring the LCA to result in a twin engine plane would/could work. BUT then they will need another team to re-start the work on the AMCA (as we know it today).

* I very much doubt that either the IAF or the IN would even niff at this "MCA" (twin engined LCA). Why would they - if they will get the AMCA (which is supposed to fly by 2024ish (I expect it earlier).

* The AMCA (as I have posted many a times) can do with the GE F414 INS6 engines. And, I bet that is the engine they will use to test the tech demos, etc (2 of these engines have been already delivered, 6 more will be within the year - enough for 4 AMCA test articles)

* I would be more concerned about sensorS and networking capabilities, along with "stealth" techs. I read that the French have provided India with RAM (no idea what that means - I hope the know how) as part of the Rafale deal!!!!

* I bet it will take them much less time to develop the AMCA - as we know it, than to scale the LCA up to a twin engine version (they will have to go through the entire design/dev cycle - one which the AMCA has already gone through)

* It is my understanding that the LCA and AMCA teams are two separate teams (can anyone confirm that please?). IF so, then there is no way to make one sit idle till 2025



______________________________________

F136? Where did that engine surface within India? BR only I hope.

As far as I can see, it is the GE F414 INS6 that will form the core for either the LCA Mk2/AMCA

_______________________________________

I had floated this long back: IF a single engined craft, why not a single engine based on the AMCA? These two can have plenty of commonality and yet be good.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Aug 2017 04:52

Well they need something delivered in quick time and powerful enough to manage stobar. Unfortunately this would leave out both the AMCA and quite likely, the LCA mk2. Hence the simplistic 4.5 gen twin engined design as an LCA mk2.

It's like the russki model. They couldn't come up with a single engined bird as nimble and powerful as the solah, so did a twin engined fulcrum instead. Basic, barebones and effective.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 29 Aug 2017 05:37

Cain-ji: Let's come back to earth :) Focus on completing Mk.1 production, move on to Mk.1A production and then on to completion of development of Mk2 and commence production. Leave the twin engine to AMCA.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Aug 2017 06:12

NRao wrote:well RM,

regarding 2-engine LCA
I had floated this long back: IF a single engined craft, why not a single engine based on the AMCA? These two can have plenty of commonality and yet be good.


A single engine stealth AMCA would need more powerful engine than 414ge , either 117S or f136

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Eric Leiderman » 29 Aug 2017 06:55

Hi Manish sharma

Larger engines have a governor, which now a days this is electronic, It controls a selonoid which controls fuel depending on factors like torque, rpm and exhaust gas composition. to name a few parameters.
I am flying by my pants here but FADEC in a gas turbine could do this and more.
Coming to your query on a EJ200 and and GE414 working in tandem it can be managed theoritically, However the controls would start getting complicated, as each engine will have different charasterics at same throttle settings this could be managed with softwear. However why complicate things , I am not delving into supply chain, air intakes, physical dimensions , auxilary mountings and a whole lot of other physical chaacteristics.
Hence it would be uncommon to find this configuration unless it is a test bed for checking out a new engine.
These test beds have a whole lot of embedded sensors and softwear. that fighters in squadron service do not need.
Do not take this explanation to the bank as a lot of it is deductable by common sense ,a wee bit of experience and educated guess work.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, ashishvikas, nash, ravikr, sanjayc and 60 guests