Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2020 07:37

Then all the better no?

So what are the structural differences between Mk1A and NLCA?
Other than undercarriage and stiffened fuselage mid section.
I want to see that table so we can answer the mail.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Jan 2020 09:13

ramana wrote:Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.

In fact that is the only option that makes sense - 200 (or as many till MWF/TEDBF/ORCA/AMCA) start coming online. We are short currently by 240 of so palnes (12 sq from 42 authorized). We will loose another 120 (mIG 21) in few years. Short of 360 and getting only 36 Raf, 21 Mig 29 and another 20-30 SU30MKI - Some 70 planes. The 290 shortfall cannot be bridged only by Plan A plane. With economy not doing good, I don't think we will get more than 36 plan A aircraft.
There is IDSA study, that says we need some 65 sq now to face off chipak. If you believe in that number, we are short by 700 planes - that number may never get achieved, definitely not by imports.
People who argue that now 1 SU30MKI is more capable than 5 Mig 21 so need not replace 1 to 1, even opposing us is not Chinese Mig 21 knock offs but J31s that maybe superior to mkis. We need the bulk!! and LCAMK1ALCA FOC run of 83 +makes imminent sense.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 12:27

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 2426386433

And, up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky!! This video should inspire you - a cockpit view during the maiden ski-jump of #NLCA NP2 from #INSVikramaditya on Jan 12. More action planned today... and later depending on carrier availability

HUD camera view of the first takeoff

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2020 12:38

Sea Hawk : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Sea_Hawk

Sea Harrier : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British ... ea_Harrier

Mig-29K : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

NLCA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

NP-1&-2 are same as Mk1 with stronger undercarriage and fuselage. No 9tuer details here. Could he on page 1

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Jan 2020 12:39

As per the HUD, 63 kN is the engine thrust?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2020 12:47

Ok use this data for NLCA.

viewtopic.php?p=2404484#p2404484

naruto · Post by **naruto** » 16 Jan 2020 13:32

This view is the best I have seen till now:

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 4160763905

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 13:42

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 4160763905

#HOOKVIEW | And, just in case if you are not tired of all these updates flying out of this handle, here's a high-quality video captured from the hook of #NLCA NP2 during its 1st-ever historic arrested landing on #INSVikramaditya on 11 Jan 2020.

View from the wing

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 13:54

ashvin · Post by **ashvin** » 16 Jan 2020 14:34

Amazing!!!

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 14:50

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 14:56

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 0927656961

Two super pix by Deb Rana of the Naval LCA-- one over the mothership and one fractions of a second before touch down.

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 4502585344

Simply amazing photo!
Deb Rana-- we you

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Jan 2020 15:20

srin wrote:
sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.

The video doesn't conclusively show that. Because if that were true, you'd expect the Mig to have a quicker takeoff. I clocked both the Mig and NLCA takeoff time (brake release to both wheels leaving the ramp) to be roughly 7.2 seconds.

As per HUD video, take off speed is about 100 knots. Is there an equivalent video for Mig-29K off Vikky?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jan 2020 18:52

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 5651141632

#NLCAUpate

Confirmations now that #NLCA completed 6 cycles today taking the tally to 18 in last 4 days. Today NP1 & NP2 did 3 landings & take-offs each from #INSVikramaditya, continuing their stellar performances. 4 videos combined here for visual treat.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Jan 2020 19:10

ramana wrote:Then all the better no?

So what are the structural differences between Mk1A and NLCA?
Other than undercarriage and stiffened fuselage mid section.
I want to see that table so we can answer the mail.

The changes are of the order of 40%. They initially thought it would be 10-15% limited only to the mid fuselage but it turned out to be a grossly wrong estimate.

Nice that we have HUD video. I dont understand the whole symbology but from the data points
- Total TO role was ~7.5s
- TO Roll was ~200m
- Avg acceleration on the deck was ~0.6 ish
- Thrust was ~63kN
we can estimate the TOW must have been somewhere around 10.5T. Likely the Max clean TO or thereabout.

If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

Also the Serial production variant is very much likely to have optimized LG, so some freed up empty weight, adding to the payload capacity can be expected. I think anything above 2.5T payload capacity is great.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 16 Jan 2020 19:40

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 0927656961
Two super pix by Deb Rana of the Naval LCA-- one over the mothership and one fractions of a second before touch down.

These pics are from the pylon mounted telemetry/data equipment, right? How can these be attributed to a private individual? Or does he have a partnership with the agencies?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2020 20:09

He is not a private individual. He is the one wjonput those cameras there.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 16 Jan 2020 21:28

JayS wrote: If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... t-aircraft

The F404-IN-20 engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and has completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, which is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation

Its more than 85kN, but assuming 85: (85-63)/9.8 = 2.245 tons more thrust available at least. Adding instrumentation weight of ~0.5 ton, that is ~2.7 tons of payload at least.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Jan 2020 21:31

agupta wrote:
JayS wrote: The changes are of the order of 40%. They initially thought it would be 10-15% limited only to the mid fuselage but it turned out to be a grossly wrong estimate.

If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

Also the Serial production variant is very much likely to have optimized LG, so some freed up empty weight, adding to the payload capacity can be expected.

JayS: Thanks ! you follow this closely so a follow up question ... is that 40% in weight or structural components "touched" (i.e. a parts count) metric ?

20% more thrust - you mean like integrating a F414EPE or better... er, are we not in MWF territory now ?

Optimized LG - so a fresh round of (albeit faster) qualification...SBTF/carrier trials with the assumption that it is form-fit-function compliant - i.e., no other cascading changes - that's a big IF no? Or if cascading changes needed for this to be optimal e.g, wing needs changes to create wing-root-junction space... we perhaps are now in TEDBF territory?

Folks: If we assume that that "40%" translates to say 20% weight (pure guess), I would ask some of BRF "andhe-jingo" crowd who live to extrapolate "typical indian" or "import-loving XXX" memes to consider implications of your desire to declare a conceptual success of the desi - MIC. This is like non-alignment... a great debate club and paper victory that really only screws the country over in reality. What would a 20% overweight aircraft design - packaged in the 90s to meet a "light"/small goal for the IAF do to the mission capability of a 203X CAG ?

Like Indranil, I see these moves as a sign of maturity, confidence and ability to learn and deliver "good enough" on Try 2 vs. a "barely enough (for now, forget ~203X)

Most likely by part count or by drawings. There is a statement from Cmd CD Balaji somewhere saying this (article written by him). I am being lazy to find it again. But he doesn't specify by what matrix IIRC.

The HUD shows 63kN thrust, so assuming the 84kN rated F404 can put out at least 75kN in hot sea conditions with deterioration. 63 -> 75 ~ +20%

Plane to optimize LG is been there for years, what the ADA folks told me in one AI was they were planning to do it in two steps. NP5/6/7 was supposed to be the first step, Mk2 the second. A lot of work must be already done and I am pretty sure its doable for SP jets if IN orders MK1 config. Second iteration is always faster. The LG is supposed to be quite overweight. Without the changed attachment points, its not gonna shed all that weight but I think its possible to shed significant weight. Any weight loss there is a gain in the payload. Dont ask me a number, I will have to pull out of my musharraf.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2020 21:44

jayS and agupta don't forget the levcons.
I think mid fuselage, stronger undercarriage and adding levcons.
Then add the FCS changes to accommodate the levcons.
I would say 20% structural and 25% additional FCS and systems integration.
i.e. 10-15% original estimate + 5% more for levcons and wing changes.

I think the original estimate was for just structures.
Most engineers will give answers to the questions asked and not the total answer if not asked.

Sorry whats LG?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Jan 2020 21:52

I have a simple question. Why is thrust at @ 65 KN. The values of F404 are 49 K normal and 78 K reheat. The engine is of course in reheat and you need maximum thrust possible to take off- Why only 65 KN and not say 78 KN (or a little less, if you do not want to damage/wear tear the engine at max thrust, maybe like 70 KN?
Is that practical value of these thrust are in 65 KN in real life? Or it is @80% of Max thrust, because given the length of runway (the max roll possible), that is how much is needed. If this is true, we have additional 20% thrust remaining. The plane is at max internal load (full fuel), can that 20% extra translate into 2 BVR + 4 WVR missiles + external tank? OR 4 bvr, 2 wvr + some external tank? Removing telemetry and other optimization will also save us some 100s of kg weight. But radar and other things have to get in as well.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Jan 2020 21:52

LG = landing gear

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Jan 2020 22:07

It looks like my question has been answered above, Thanks!!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Jan 2020 23:23

ramana wrote:jayS and agupta don't forget the levcons.
I think mid fuselage, stronger undercarriage and adding levcons.
Then add the FCS changes to accommodate the levcons.
I would say 20% structural and 25% additional FCS and systems integration.
i.e. 10-15% original estimate + 5% more for levcons and wing changes.

I think the original estimate was for just structures.
Most engineers will give answers to the questions asked and not the total answer if not asked.

Sorry whats LG?

Landing Gear.

Exact words by Cmd Balaji

The LCA Navy team from the beginning was aware that it would be a challenging task
to develop a deck based aircraft that very few countries have successfully negotiated,
and which was being attempted for the first time in the country. At initiation, it was
anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific
attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and
development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were
almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.

The Preliminary Design/Feasibility study started sometime in 1995 time frame and was over by 2001-02. All the key design drivers and the changes needed were thought of by that time and FSED-1 was drawn based on it. The Russians provided the consultancy. Looks like they gave estimations based on MiG29K experience. LOL. The realization came within 3-4yrs after the kick off in 2003 I think and accordingly, FSED-2 was planned and approved in 2009 end.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2020 01:06

thanks for the follow-up.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 17 Jan 2020 12:25

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 1234971648

#NLCAUpdates to follow. Stay-tuned for a small report that summarises events in the 18 cycles so far. Must tell you folks that the success of the current mission and the attention #NLCA is getting seem to have created some flutter in few quarters.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 17 Jan 2020 12:37

srin wrote:
sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.

The video doesn't conclusively show that. Because if that were true, you'd expect the Mig to have a quicker takeoff. I clocked both the Mig and NLCA takeoff time (brake release to both wheels leaving the ramp) to be roughly 7.2 seconds.

The key difference between the two was the climb angle immediately after leaving the deck, that ultimately comes from thrust to weight ratio in association with stall speed (wing design has strong influence).

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 17 Jan 2020 13:59

As India rejoices, NLCA prototypes continue exciting sea party with INS Vikramaditya

The ADA-HAL-NFTC team is elated after the successful completion of the current campaign (probably a few more days to go).

“We are happy that we were able to beat the March deadline. As per our earlier plans, we had to factor in a possible software update. However
the approaches to the carrier were awless from handling point of view (during trials before the actual arrested landing). The modelling we had
done of the ship wake turned out to be very good. Hence, no software update was needed and we could the beat March deadline,” says an
engineer part of the mission

It is now confirmed that the current trails are meant only to put the platform for basic engagements.

“The target is to engage on each of the three wires. Also ship speed is being varied from maximum to minimum to check loads on aircraft and hook. This is a very systematic study to get data for design. These are not just random engagements,” he said.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jan 2020 15:11

Two key pointers from above article:

- Basic engagement envelop is being explored as of now. There likely will be no envelop expansion in terms of payload, but of course the data gathered will bolster the already available simulation data/refined simulation data to give a good graps on the dynamics with payload.

- No SW update was needed after the test campeign at SBTF, though they had accounted for it in case it was needed.

mody · Post by **mody** » 17 Jan 2020 16:09

The experience is going to be worth its weight in gold for the Carrier based naval aviation in India.
The design and production teams both will gain immensely from this, for the TEDBF.
Hopefully the order for the NLCA will be increased to 8 twin seater and 12 single seaters. The tween seaters can be used in the LIFT role for all future pilots, that till operate from aircraft carriers. The single seater can complement the Mig-29K on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant.If the plane can have a combat radius of 400-500 Kms with an on station time of 2.5 hours and a payload capacity of 4 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles, 1 EW pod and 1 centreline drop tank, it would be a very viable fighter to provide air cover to the fleet. A good enough point defence fighter to be used to gain experience, till the TEDBF comes along.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jan 2020 16:41

mody wrote:.If the plane can have a combat radius of 400-500 Kms with an on station time of 2.5 hours and a payload capacity of 4 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles, 1 EW pod and 1 centreline drop tank, it would be a very viable fighter to provide air cover to the fleet.

Thats quite a steep requirement. Forget NLCA, can MiG29K do that (Or any Naval fighter for that matter)..??

May be ony Sea Gripen could do it in brochures.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Jan 2020 18:39

more like 45 minutes to 1 hour; 200-300 kms from the carrier with 2 BVR, 2 AA and a central tank.
AEW or ship borne radar detects bogey at excess of 400 KMs (the AEW is ahead of the carrier by say 100-150 km) from carrier, LCA-N is launched (3-4 of them), they fly just with AA weapon, meets bogey at 200 Km from the carrier (avoid Exocet range - 180 KMs). Total flight time 30-45 minutes
CAP over flotilla, 2 LCA launched every few hours with 2 BVR, 2 WVR and external fuel. Flight time perhaps 90 minutes (with the external tanks)
Strike - Takes off with 2 WVR, 1 500-1000 kg ordinance, external tank, distance of say 500 km - This maybe tough to pull out by this NLCA. It can go up with just bomb and external tanks and strike something at 200-500 km distance. Hence we need TEDBF

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Jan 2020 18:52

mody,
Not possible to meet your specs for a light fighter.

nits · Post by **nits** » 17 Jan 2020 19:14

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 1234971648

#NLCAUpdates to follow. Stay-tuned for a small report that summarises events in the 18 cycles so far. Must tell you folks that the success of the current mission and the attention #NLCA is getting seem to have created some flutter in few quarters.

And who are this flutter flys

disha · Post by **disha** » 18 Jan 2020 01:01

Congratulations to IN and the NLCA team (incl. ADA/HAL/DRDO and all contributors big or small)

This is indeed an epoch and as a primary votary of NLCA, I received the news with immense satisfaction. A dream almost a decade in making. And this needs to continue.

I find it odd that there is discussions of TEDBF, which I think is premature. Cutting to chase, here is my wish list:

1. At least 12 NLCA-Mk1 with F404.
2. At least 2 squadrons of NLCA-Mk2 with F414, with a redesigned MLG and Vortex flaps.
3. TEDBF.

Point is that NLCA-Mk2 can fly in 2025 itself/ In parallel, TEDBF can move forward without the pressure. A delay in TEDBF will not jeopardize home-grown Naval airfighter plan.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2020 02:10

ramana wrote:jayS and agupta don't forget the levcons.
I think mid fuselage, stronger undercarriage and adding levcons.
Then add the FCS changes to accommodate the levcons.
I would say 20% structural and 25% additional FCS and systems integration.
i.e. 10-15% original estimate + 5% more for levcons and wing changes.

I think the original estimate was for just structures.
Most engineers will give answers to the questions asked and not the total answer if not asked.

Sorry whats LG?

N-LCA was designed off of the Tejas trainer and not the Tejas single seat Mk1 design. Should have about 60-70% parts commonality between the N-LCA and Tejas trainer.

Forward fuselage saw changes to the Outer Mould Line (OML) itself. This is due to the drooped nose for better forward visibility for the pilot. So essentially a different set of drawings for the forward fuselage to cater to that change.

Aft fuselage will see a lot of structural reinforcements and also an attachment point to attach the arresting hook and be able to transfer massive loads to the central keel. That would've added significant weight, with the entire arresting mechanism weighing a couple hundred kgs at least.

2 LEVCONS required 2 pairs of actuators that are an additional weight item.

Nose Landing Gear (NLG) is also totally different compare to the Tejas. Beefier and with a single wheel due to different "jitter" requirements.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Jan 2020 02:40

Kartik wrote: N-LCA was designed off of the Tejas trainer and not the Tejas single seat Mk1 design.

Interestingly, its the LCA Trainer which is designed from NLCA, not the other way round.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2020 06:10

I don't know about that unless you got that from an ADA source..Ajai Shukla had mentioned that Tejas twin seater was the basis for the Naval LCA. And that makes sense given that the Tejas trainer PV-5 flew first (Nov 26, 2009) well before N-LCA NP-1 did.

Tejas twin seat trainer's first flight today - Nov 26, 2009

The twin-seat Tejas is also important for the Indian Navy. The naval version of the Tejas, which will operate off aircraft carriers, will be based on the Tejas trainer; its higher cockpit allows the pilot a view of the carrier landing deck while descending steeply to land. In the naval Tejas, there is no second cockpit; its place is taken by an extra fuel tank and some avionics.

Naval LCA NP-1 flew first on April 27, 2012. it was in fact rolled out in June 2010.

LCA Navy prototype completes maiden flight

The naval prototype (NP-1) of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) completed a glitch-free 21-minute maiden flight here on Friday, after almost two years since its roll out on July 6, 2010.

Unless of course, the Naval LCA was delayed and the Tejas trainer that was based on N-LCA flew before it did.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jan 2020 11:13

NLCA Mk1 has aced the tests. It was not supposed to TO with full fuel in this round of testing, but it did. It seems like TO with full fuel, plus centerline fuel tank and 4 to 6 A2A missiles will be possible. WOW!!!

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Jan 2020 11:23

Indranil wrote:NLCA Mk1 has aced the tests. It was not supposed to TO with full fuel in this round of testing, but it did. It seems like TO with full fuel, plus centerline fuel tank and 4 to 6 A2A missiles will be possible. WOW!!!

Now to watch the flutters.....