LCA News and Discussions

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Mar 2011 15:13

No, poor spelling

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 18 Mar 2011 15:49

All thumbs. no fingers. Hence poor spelling! Apologies

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Mar 2011 22:38

LCA-Tejas has completed 1599 Test Flights successfully. (11-Mar-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-204,PV3-272,LSP1-63,LSP2-169,PV5-28,LSP3-35,LSP4-34,LSP5-14)

To

LCA-Tejas has completed 1606 Test Flights successfully. (16-Mar-2011)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-204,PV3-272,LSP1-64,LSP2-170,PV5-30,LSP3-35,LSP4-34,LSP5-17)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 10:36

they are doing night takeoff at 8.25pm like clockwork these days. one can almost adjust the watch by hearing the growl.

must have carefully worked out transit time to the test flying area and sticking to it so that everyone has a predictable schedule.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Mar 2011 23:33

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/03/i ... ng-of.html

Ignis Aerospace working on meshing of LCA Mk-II; inks pact with Lectromec, Radel

Ignis Aerospace is partnering with Lectromec of the U.S. and India’s Radel to analyze the safety and effectiveness of aircraft wiring systems. Developing or maintaining a wiring system involves more than just ensuring all aircraft components are connected; it is also about minimizing the number and weight of wires, addressing routing needs and determining co-location and arc hazards.
“A cohesive examination of these areas can ensure the safety and reliability of the aircraft systems,” Raj V. Gopal, Ignis vice president for sales and marketing, tells Aviation Week. “This advanced analysis is now available through the Radel, Ignis and Lectromec partnership.”
“This partnership significantly improves the knowledge and experience of each of our companies,” says Michael Traskos, president of Lectromec. “I believe that this will be able to provide a comprehensive engineering, design and risk assessment [capability] for both new and existing aircraft.”
LCA Mk-II: Ignis is currently working on the meshing for LCA Mark-2 and looking into getting computational fluid dynamics pressure distribution over aircraft configuration. “There are other teams working on aircraft structures, axis machining, software development and independent verification and validation process. We also work with aircraft OEMs, part manufacturers, and engineering service providers in India, the US, Europe, UK and in the Middle East,’ says Nihar, Nihar Ranjan Samantara, founder director, Ignis Group and a former DRDO scientist.Some of Ignis’ customers include Nex-Tech Aerospace, Eclipse Aviation, Piper Aircraft, SA Mena, Aeronautical Development Agency and Northwest Engineering. It is also involved in the design and analysis for empennage section of a business jet aircraft including weight optimization, computer numerical control programming and fixture design for aerospace components for part manufacturers, generating 3D models, designing and manufacturing of box assemblies, sheet metal design and fabrication, wire harness design and manufacturing and validation of software for flight-critical applications.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Mar 2011 04:48

vvv Indeed

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Mar 2011 05:57

nope.. they are dipperant!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 22 Mar 2011 14:27

Antony, pull the plug on the MMRCA

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Mar 2011 15:29

^^^

Just to proove that you cant please all, I will say that the author is not calling for the replacement of the MRCA wil LCA. He is selectively pointing out issues with the Typhoon. While ignoring the mature teens and nearly mature Rafeal.

Having said so, it would have been much more helpful. Had he asked for the MMRCA to be replace the Tejas.

Also keeping in view the Indian R&D infrastructure and the educational capabilities. It is not clear that an investment as called for by the author will bear fruit in a timely fashon.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Mar 2011 17:49

I'm guessing that IAF will be in a better position to say how many fighter squadrons they need than someone not from the IAF. Having said that one can agree on the sentiment expressed in that article - spend more on AMCA. But to arrest decline in numbers, the MMRCA is a necessary evil. Tejas Mk2, which is what the IAF really wants - the Mk1 being ordered just for show, won't be ready and mature in the timeframe MMRCA will come in. And you can only flog existing MiG 21s, 27s and Jags for maybe a decade more.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2011 19:00

Absolutely Merlin. The air force is like pregnancy. Once you are pregnant the clock ticks and in 40 weeks give or take a few days you will be unpregnant. If you have X aircraft - they are going to become unusable by some date. At that date you cannot be buggering about with prototypes. You have to be ready - full strength with new aircraft. According to the latest Vayu - the IAF's squadron strength will be about the same as Pakistan by 2015. We need those MMRCAs and need them soon. No two ways about it.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 22 Mar 2011 19:22

How many fighters are there in a squadran of PAF & PLAAF

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Mar 2011 23:29

As I read on one chinpanda website

470 PK - Mostly old, only decent are

42 F-16,
currently under induction 100-150 JF-17/FC-1 (will take more then 5 years and replace older ones)
later 36 J-10B (2015-2020)

2300 CH - Again mostly old ones (JF-6/7 updated sometime in 2000),

290 -J10 and variants
100 Su-30MKK
76 Su-27SK

It is only my speculation, I am calling lotz of heat
So I really don't see any problem on PK side. For chinpanda, it will be equal if not better as those old planes are virtually for display or increasing the fighter count. I think our Su-30, Mig-21 Bis and in future LCA are good enough for A2A. Sooner we add more LCA, it will free Su-30 for other roles. And LCA Mk2 will free Su-30 from point defense roles and then we can use these for offensive roles.

Yes, we are currently week on offensive be it Navy, Air force or Army except missiles where are crossing the huge learning curve. We will have offensive capability only post 2017 era. I don't think MMRCA will make a huge difference,it will give only quick boost for short time 2015-2025 but at what cost 11 billion is only out right payment ... at least another 15-20 billion on infrastructure and weapons package etc.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 22 Mar 2011 23:39

Ajai has made a very sound point here, none of the MMRCA contenders offer any significant capability jump. Most of the incremental capabilities advertised will be developed & built only if India pays for it - and their home countries get it for free.

My view would be to go for a split buy of 126 new Su-30 & T Mk1/2, achieved via ramp up of both production lines. This would be simpler, faster & cheaper than setting up MMRCA new assembly line. FGFA can replace the Su-30 line 2020 onwards & AMCA can replace the T Mk2 line 2025 onwards.

Even China is just inducting J10 & these will be in service 2030.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Mar 2011 23:55

Well we have already ordered another 42 Su-30 and I think that should be the last one. As post 2017, we will have 5th gen on cards... remember 50 planes similar to RuAF and post 2020 (~2022) FGFA start rolling on local production lines and post 2025 AMCA will start rolling in limited numbers.

I dont agree with this as they have it already inducted J-10 and variants, with considerable Russian help.

Even China is just inducting J10 & these will be in service 2030.

You might mean J-20

manum · Post by **manum** » 23 Mar 2011 00:03

So that rings the bell anyways...LCA production will start with first squandron to be established in early 2013, and MK-2 to fly in 2014...with FGFA and AMCA...LCA must replace MRCA. and the money should go expedite the process.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2011 00:12

manum wrote:So that rings the bell anyways...LCA production will start with first squandron to be established in early 2013, and MK-2 to fly in 2014...with FGFA and AMCA...LCA must replace MRCA. and the money should go expedite the process.

LCA will have a different combat profile from MRCA. It cannot replace the former.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Mar 2011 01:04

tsarkar wrote:Ajai has made a very sound point here, none of the MMRCA contenders offer any significant capability jump. Most of the incremental capabilities advertised will be developed & built only if India pays for it - and their home countries get it for free.

My view would be to go for a split buy of 126 new Su-30 & T Mk1/2, achieved via ramp up of both production lines. This would be simpler, faster & cheaper than setting up MMRCA new assembly line. FGFA can replace the Su-30 line 2020 onwards & AMCA can replace the T Mk2 line 2025 onwards.

Even China is just inducting J10 & these will be in service 2030.

I think we have been screaming that for years, pretty much since the first MRCA thread came out. Pretty much from the time 7 squadrons of M2000 were slated for strategic air command. Shalav had wonderful spreadsheet which compared M2000/M2000-5/LCA etc.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Mar 2011 01:05

Nihat wrote:
manum wrote: LCA will have a different combat profile from MRCA. It cannot replace the former.

Like what ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 04:41

OT China is neither "inducting" J-20 nor is there any news saying that they will be inducted by 2030. J-10s are already in service and induction of increased numbers continues.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2011 05:25

Honestly, the ONLY Chinese air craft I really fear is the J-30. Internet chatter claim it looks part Rafale, part PAK-FA.

BTW, when is the Mk-II supposed to get FOC?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Mar 2011 07:49

I would have preferred for ADA to start an MCA project 7 years ago, and by now we would have a PV almost flying, if all bottlenecks were cleared. However, looking forward, the best thing to do would be to get access to western technology in terms of engines, avionics, missiles, stealth and ensure success of AMCA. I know we tried this with LCA and got screwed after Shakti. However, time to reboot and move forward.

As for squadron strength, we should take a risk for a few years. TSP is not an issue and PRC can be managed in other ways.

Reinvest every penny budgeted for the MRCA to build local industry. We are about 20-30 years behind and we need these products and technologies to be built locally, even if the route is impure.

What scares me about PRC is their ability to produce in numbers. We need similar capabilities to produce in numbers by local industry. We cannot afford a drama like the one on LCA between IAF/ADA/MoD again with AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2011 08:19

ST,

7 years ago the LCA, itself, was perceived as a risk. Among other risks. Which is why the MCA did not get the attention we now feel it deserved.

Recall that when the IJT was proposed they had also proposed (to the GoI) to design an AJT. The prior got funded, but the risk was considered too high - at that time - for the latter.

I feel that things will get better. Matter of managing - PMers should be in great demand. The rest will fall in place now that the nation has sufficient funds and politically others are falling apart, which seems to be helping India (watch the Libyan circus)!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 09:29

ShauryaT wrote: What scares me about PRC is their ability to produce in numbers. We need similar capabilities to produce in numbers by local industry. We cannot afford a drama like the one on LCA between IAF/ADA/MoD again with AMCA.

Shaurya - not questioning that but again, the latest issue of Vayu adds one more dimension to the vision of "5th Gen" that I have tried to stess on defining clearly. As discussed so often "All aspect stealth" and "Sensor fusion" are two characteristics. Supercruise seems to be desirable, but the titbit thrown in by the Vayu article was "unprecedented levels of reliability and availability". This seems to be something that is less discussed in jingo circles. If you look at the size of Gadhafi's air force - it is huge. But unserviceability makes most planes unflyable. The big issue with 3 gen aircraft is that. Huge numbers of course makes even 50% availability seem good, but in a complex system better design and materials bring along superior reliability - like comparing a Maruti AStar with Premier Padmini

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 10:12

even the NATO AFs are able to muster up a bare 6-12 airframes to send south for the fight, plus a few tankers and transports each. only the French AF has pulled out all the stops and remember they have around 300 of Mirages and Rafales and are using around 30.

makes me think there is no AF which has 500 airframes and can get into a state where 450 are available for a sustained war 24x7 basis. the larger #airframes help to keep a certain good number available for peacetime training and wartime ops, but I suspect if we can get around 70% availability in a no-holds-barred war that is a excellent benchmark.

so we need numbers, because the topline defines the bottomline of how many will be available when we need it. the 5th gen reliability thing maybe a req to bring the capex and opex down by making availability time higher , reducing time to repair ... given the huge cost of each airframe nowadays. also electronic systems have gotten very dense, complex and costly.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Mar 2011 10:34

I was wondering if the above explanations can hold true for PLAAF. When ShauryaT talks about PLAAF (I am refering to a particular part of his post), he talks about a country which has the capability to maintain those numbers too. Libya is a bad example. Its is just a consuming state. If similar ratio is maitained, the Taiwan and japan won't need additional US support.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2011 10:43

@ Cybaru

Like what ?

Only a short look at the contenders should give you the answer to your clarification. Most of the MRCA birds are middle-heavy weight aircrafts, only one I can think of in the lite-mid category is Gripen IN.

You can contrast LCA against a Rafale on a payload parameter. While the LCA is a single engine bird capable of carrying 4T payload, Rafale is a twin engine bord that can carry 9.5T in payload. This makes it quite obvious as to what are the role of different aircrafts in combat.

While the Rafale may need more turn around time, maintanence etc , the LCA is more of a rapid action jet which can intercept fast and quick , can provide quick CAS (when needed) and can be turned around quickly but will find itself limited if asked to perform deep penetration bombing missions in hostile territory which incidentially is the Rafale's job.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 12:46

the serviceability and uptime of PLAAFs inventory is not open to debate. it is to be assumed 101% and work backwards from there.

in reality, I will bet any hard use in less than main base env will literally have a lot of stuff collapse and fray at the seams. they can get by with showpiece exercises where a few carefully selected airframes are used and lavishly looked after. just let them bring forward 700 a/c into airbases into tibet for a four week campaign and see what happens.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 14:03

Its not that simple with several 100 3 gen "legacy" aircraft

For example when you design something for ease of maintenance from the word go you put in features that were just absent in 3rd gen. For India Mirage 2000 was the first aircraft to be like that.

One simple thing is self diagnostics. If some electronic item goes phut the self diagnostics tell you whether you need to replace the item, or look at the cabling, or the power supply. Secondly - the placement of cables etc are designed so that items can be replaced "online" without moving the aircraft to the hangar, removing the engine to access and check power supply cables to the radio that can be accessed only by removing the engine (This is an example onlee). Or you may need to hoist the plane up, lower the landing gear and shine a light in the armpit to manually inspect a line that you need to check which would have sent a signal in a self diagnostic check to say "I am OK" . Gripen and Rafale are said to be like this onree and can maintain high sortie rates and uptime.

With this kind of issue you find that out of 500 aircraft, Only 250 are working full time. 100 are occupying the service areas for minor problems which need to be diagnosed before being or set right and 150 are unserviceable or waiting for a place in the workshop or are being used with some things not working - say HUD or radio altimeter or some such thing.

4th and 5th gen are not 4th and 5th gen for nothing. Our Su 30s had 100% availability rates in Lal Jhanda. That says a lot about both team and aircraft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 14:07

I have heard sea harrier engine overhaul means taking apart entire rear end of a/c. more modern have some kinda mounting rails for the engine to slide in and out.

but I have also heard that usaf/richer AFs tend to replace or RMA engines back to factory for every little problem, while we are forced to attempt repairs for such things onsite due to lack of money for so many engines floating around.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Mar 2011 14:12

NRao wrote:Honestly, the ONLY Chinese air craft I really fear is the J-30. Internet chatter claim it looks part Rafale, part PAK-FA.

BTW, when is the Mk-II supposed to get FOC?

Sorry, have I missed something? J-30? or did you mean J-20?

Also, mods, I didn't really know where to post this bit, so please move it wherever you think works best...

If it's the J-20, then yes, it's the one Chinese plane I do worry about. If (as per that Russian analysis) it's meant to be an anti-shipping platform, then it's pretty damned scary. Where are we on developing anti-stealth defences (sensing, tracking, weapons etc), especially ones small enough to be used on ships or in the air?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 14:16

vardhank wrote:
NRao wrote:Honestly, the ONLY Chinese air craft I really fear is the J-30. Internet chatter claim it looks part Rafale, part PAK-FA.

BTW, when is the Mk-II supposed to get FOC?
Sorry, have I missed something? J-30? or did you mean J-20?

Also, mods, I didn't really know where to post this bit, so please move it wherever you think works best...

If it's the J-20, then yes, it's the one Chinese plane I do worry about. If (as per that Russian analysis) it's meant to be an anti-shipping platform, then it's pretty damned scary. Where are we on developing anti-stealth defences (sensing, tracking, weapons etc), especially ones small enough to be used on ships or in the air?

I am not NRao but he means J-30 not J-20. It was a dig at the hype around the J-20, which was not even called J-20 officially.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Mar 2011 14:44

Actually, the F-7's should be simpler to service. Assuming 70% avalibility PLAAF will have around 700 - 1000 aircrafts avaliable.

Also, by the libyan logic, some 40 MKI's are enoguh to shut up PAF.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 15:10

No Chackoji. More modern aircraft ar designed to be more easy to service simply because they are designed around self diagnostics and LRUs- Line Replaceable Units. The F-7 does not even begin to fall in that class although it was probably easier to maintain than and F-4 Phantom among the aircraft of its era.

As an aside AM Philip Rajkumar has an article about DARIN I upgrade in the latest Vayu and as a test pilot he says that making a Jaguar take off in Bangalore carrying 4 x 1000 lb bombs and 2 drop tanks in Bangalore summer at 37 deg C and Bangalore altitude (about 1000 metres above MSL) was a hair raising experience. That Jaguar would only just make the take off. Will scan and post the quote.

Now imagine F-7s in Tibet at 5000 meters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 15:15

the USSR designed the Mig21 to be used hard for 2 weeks of WW3 and then thrown away

the "modern" F7 has nothing going for it, its usually not the airframe skin or bones that packs up but avionics, hydraulic systems, engine...on the +ve side its fitment in these aspects is really bare bones.

so unless its operating from a situation overwhelming advantage, it really stands little change of survival against any a/c equipped with a decent radar and AAM fit. its role in paki/chini service is likely a daylight+good weather interceptor to face off against 3rd gen strike a.c (no good radar or aam) , fire a couple AAMs and then retreat back or press in with guns.

against a rafale/f15/mki it will be painted by multiple radars at long range, swatted down like flies as the strike pkg blows through the debris.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Mar 2011 15:48

Shivji and Singhaji,

Its good to hear the views. I have not quoted Tibet in my post. I am looking at more of Taiwan situation (which I mentioned along with Japan). IMPO, Chinese will be able to not just service their planes, but, also produce additional in case of attrition. IMO, Chinese will be able to duplicate West and Russia in terms of production and modifications during war (may be not R&D and new product). Otherwise, For allies, flying over china will be like a cakewalk.

Besides, Chinese will be able to field more sophesticated technology unlike Libya.

As I was saying, Libya is a bad example to give in this situation. Also, Libya (and iraq and others) couldn't fly airforce as the communication was hit. I don't think its the serviceability problem.

jai · Post by **jai** » 23 Mar 2011 16:14

RKumar wrote:As I read on one chinpanda website

470 PK - Mostly old, only decent are

42 F-16,
currently under induction 100-150 JF-17/FC-1 (will take more then 5 years and replace older ones)
later 36 J-10B (2015-2020)

2300 CH - Again mostly old ones (JF-6/7 updated sometime in 2000),

290 -J10 and variants
100 Su-30MKK
76 Su-27SK

It is only my speculation, I am calling lotz of heat
So I really don't see any problem on PK side. For chinpanda, it will be equal if not better as those old planes are virtually for display or increasing the fighter count

Apart from J10, SU 30 MKK and Su27 SK/UBK, the other numbers are roughly 298 J 11, 700+ J -7, 192 JH7, 500 Q5's, and about 130 H6's - most of these already further modified and still undergoing more upgrades. What can be a concern with this 3+ generation fleet is their superior range, better payload capacities and sheer numbers - with which, they can create swarming raids, which may well be able to overwhelm our flimsy air defences (as of now).

With the kind of money at their disposal, given where they are right now in terms of technology, and their willingness to "get at any cost - beg, borrow or steal, it will not be long before Panda makes significant advances in both radar and engine technology. Once that happens, you can expect them to create another generational filip to their aircraft. They will modify what they can from the existing fleets, and build more J10, 11's, 15's and others.

They already also have more tankers and early warning aircraft, and may well pick up a good number of SU 35's also, given the Russian willingness to sell them to Cheena. If this happens, its a matter of time before the same also gets reverse engineered. They seem to be competing with the US now, and will not stop till they sport equal/better numbers and technology as the US, even if it takes them the next 20 - 30 years.

In a nutshell, we should not make the mistake of taking them lightly - not that we should be shivering in our dhoti's, but ramping up IAF as well. The Panda of the 50's has now morphed into a dragon, so our focus should be on how best to slay it.

jai · Post by **jai** » 23 Mar 2011 16:35

shiv wrote:
Now imagine F-7s in Tibet at 5000 meters.

Shiv ji, expect the dragon to be the most treacherous it can get in a war, and use its equipment smartly. Apart from their Su30's, J 10, J11's, modified J/F 8 II's, JH7's and H6's can be used - with air to air refueling. we can expect these guys to try our every thing - take off from plains, mid air refuel and the cross over at high altitudes over the plateau, or try low level incursions from the Kunming side. I will also not be surprised if they also try to come from the western side from Paki bases; who will be only too happy to host the Cheenees.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2011 17:45

And be toasts to Akash Mk2 or 3.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Mar 2011 17:48

please take this discussion to china thread.
Rahul.