LCA News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jan 2012 10:42

Kartik, ofcourse I have seen that page ... as I said, I feel surprised too. May be you are right ... most probably my sense of perspective is failing me.

But I do feel that those missiles were fired, because:
1. I have not seen Tejas with the training rounds (read expendable for testing) ... I have always seen the R-73.
2. The video cameras are facing straight ahead. What else could they be recording?
3. This pics are from weapon trials, aren't they?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2012 11:35

uddu I don't believe those numbers for cep of dumb bombs 400m to 1000 m. Implies none of the avionics works!

Look at bomb damage pics of 1971 war. That guy posts any nonsense fed to him.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Jan 2012 11:49

indranilroy wrote:Kartik, ofcourse I have seen that page ... as I said, I feel surprised too. May be you are right ... most probably my sense of perspective is failing me.

But I do feel that those missiles were fired, because:
1. I have not seen Tejas with the training rounds (read expendable for testing) ... I have always seen the R-73.
2. The video cameras are facing straight ahead. What else could they be recording?
3. This pics are from weapon trials, aren't they?

yes that's a good catch- that it was carrying training rounds and not the dummy R-73 that replicates the weight/drag of the original. I don't know about the video camera- my guess is that whoever was in the chase aircraft took that picture, and the chase aircraft in that case was slightly ahead of the Tejas.

Those pics could be from the weapons trials, but they were in the different section on the webpage, so they may have been taken some other time as well. Maybe someone can verify the date on the pics and correlate that to the dates of the weapons trials to be sure.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 12 Jan 2012 11:57

Kartik wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Kartik, ofcourse I have seen that page ... as I said, I feel surprised too. May be you are right ... most probably my sense of perspective is failing me.

But I do feel that those missiles were fired, because:
1. I have not seen Tejas with the training rounds (read expendable for testing) ... I have always seen the R-73.
2. The video cameras are facing straight ahead. What else could they be recording?
3. This pics are from weapon trials, aren't they?
yes that's a good catch- that it was carrying training rounds and not the dummy R-73 that replicates the weight/drag of the original. I don't know about the video camera- my guess is that whoever was in the chase aircraft took that picture, and the chase aircraft in that case was slightly ahead of the Tejas.

Those pics could be from the weapons trials, but they were in the different section on the webpage, so they may have been taken some other time as well. Maybe someone can verify the date on the pics and correlate that to the dates of the weapons trials to be sure.

Different cameras. The one with the "centreline" aam doesnt have any exif on it except for the name which is a canon derived name.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Jan 2012 12:12

Prasad wrote:
Different cameras. The one with the "centreline" aam doesnt have any exif on it except for the name which is a canon derived name.

Thanks. It might mean that the pic was indeed taken from the backseat of the chase aircraft and not a video camera on board the chase aircraft.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 12 Jan 2012 12:23

Prithwiraj wrote:

can someone throw some light on the top most harrier in the background.. its 2 seater however it looks like more chikna then the rest..

That is one of the trainers that were purchased much later than the original harrier FRS-Mk51. I think it is called the T60.
The colour is different as the single seat harriers were painted the combat "Ghost Grey" low Viz paint scheme and the trainer is in the original grey scheme.

my 2 cents

chandrasekhar

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 12 Jan 2012 12:23

Kartik wrote:
Prasad wrote:
Different cameras. The one with the "centreline" aam doesnt have any exif on it except for the name which is a canon derived name.
Thanks. It might mean that the pic was indeed taken from the backseat of the chase aircraft and not a video camera on board the chase aircraft.

Generally exif isn't totally stripped off from a picture and in this case looks like it was put through some image processing software. If only they hadn't messed with it, atleast the sky would've retained a more natural hue

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2012 14:23

..

so, question on the gray side lobed color.. adjacent to nose cone? side lobe arrays? that would be awesome.. but I am dreaming.

and can someone read the KH number?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjipqf3rJt0/T ... 8865_n.jpg

then, in this it shows KH2005
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FDCAl_CWOto/T ... 0199_n.jpg

and I don't see the side plate painted on the left side.. so! I am be wrong.

may be it is KH2002 that shows the side lobe. Or is that KH2007?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YfDyzqtnFwo/T ... 8448_n.jpg

So, there is KH2002 (?), KH2005 in these pics. each livefist photo may be different LCAs. the weapons config for each pic is different.

this is a killer load:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CNVyiDumKfI/T ... 5632_n.jpg

calling experts to analyze weapons here in each of them, so that we can get to know what they are testing now.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 12 Jan 2012 18:40

SaiK wrote:..

so, question on the gray side lobed color.. adjacent to nose cone? side lobe arrays? that would be awesome.. but I am dreaming.

and can someone read the KH number? KH2002
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjipqf3rJt0/T ... 8865_n.jpg

then, in this it shows KH2005 Yes it is
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FDCAl_CWOto/T ... 0199_n.jpg

and I don't see the side plate painted on the left side.. so! I am be wrong.

may be it is KH2002 that shows the side lobe. Or is that KH2007? KH2002

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YfDyzqtnFwo/T ... 8448_n.jpg

So, there is KH2002 (?), KH2005 in these pics. each livefist photo may be different LCAs. the weapons config for each pic is different.

this is a killer load:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CNVyiDumKfI/T ... 5632_n.jpg

calling experts to analyze weapons here in each of them, so that we can get to know what they are testing now.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 12 Jan 2012 19:19

No expert,

1st pic, 2 dumb or gps guided free fall bombs and 2 R-73s first pic 2 R-73,

2nd pic, KH 2005 with R-73 or look a likes.

3rd pic, 1 Dumb bomb or GPS guided bomb with R-73's.

4th Pic 2 Isareli Griffin LGB, Litening Pod FLIR and 2 drop tanks with R-73's

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 12 Jan 2012 23:32

KH2002 was TD2, I dont think they reuse numbers may be it was KH2012 or KH2005(PV3). Some day during AI or elsewhere i would like to find out what is so special about PV3 that it is being flogged while the LSPs fly so infrequently.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2012 23:48

Where you getting GPS aided bombs from?

Any guided bomb needs fins and tail unit for error correction. So no kit, no guidance.

For other pics:
The fore fins indicate the Griffin for the LGBs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Jan 2012 00:19

suryag wrote:KH2002 was TD2, I dont think they reuse numbers may be it was KH2012 or KH2005(PV3). Some day during AI or elsewhere i would like to find out what is so special about PV3 that it is being flogged while the LSPs fly so infrequently.

Just guessing here but perhaps it is because the LSP's might eventually see squadron service while the PV's definitely won't. They might want to preserve the airframe lives of the LSPs.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 02:13

Kartik wrote: I don't know about the video camera- my guess is that whoever was in the chase aircraft took that picture, and the chase aircraft in that case was slightly ahead of the Tejas.

I don't mean the camera with which that picture was taken. It is definitely taken from a chase plane. I was speaking of the video camera in the pic. Look closely underneath the right intake, just in front of the canon.

You can see it more clearly here (red video camera):

That video camera must be used to record whether the R-73 leaves Tejas cleanly. It faces straight fordward. What else could it possibly be recording?

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 13 Jan 2012 04:14

nachiket wrote:
suryag wrote:KH2002 was TD2, I dont think they reuse numbers may be it was KH2012 or KH2005(PV3). Some day during AI or elsewhere i would like to find out what is so special about PV3 that it is being flogged while the LSPs fly so infrequently.
Just guessing here but perhaps it is because the LSP's might eventually see squadron service while the PV's definitely won't. They might want to preserve the airframe lives of the LSPs.

LCA's should be having airframe life of 5000 to 6000 hrs. All the aircraft sorties in total add in just over 1000 hrs. I dont see how they could be trying to conserve airframe life when you have used probably less than 5% of airframe life on any LCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2012 07:38

indranilroy wrote: That video camera must be used to record whether the R-73 leaves Tejas cleanly. It faces straight fordward. What else could it possibly be recording?

If you enlarge the image the black cylindrical lens housing seems to be facing the pylon to record clean separation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2012 07:40

Nick_S wrote: LCA's should be having airframe life of 5000 to 6000 hrs. All the aircraft sorties in total add in just over 1000 hrs. I dont see how they could be trying to conserve airframe life when you have used probably less than 5% of airframe life on any LCA.

On the contrary this is the phase where they will actually be trying to put a figure on airframe life by flying and examining the stress points.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2012 07:48

Kartik wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Well I am surprised too ... I havn't seen a R-73 on any station other than 5 and 6. But this one looks like 5 and 7 for me. It looks too low and too far forward for being on station 6. Also the placement of the camera ...
As per the Tejas page (and previous such weapons config images) the centerline hardpoint is not designed to carry an air-to-air missile. I'm pretty sure that its the angle of the aircraft that gives you the impression that station 7 is carrying the R-73.

Tejas weapons page

NRao, the numbers refer to the hardpoint stations as shown on the page above.

Understood, which is why I had a ?mark at the end.

However, if one assumes that the plane in question is the one in the picture with the three Harriers (1st pic on this page?), then we can see the location where the missiles are. It is quite clear.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 13 Jan 2012 08:43

shiv wrote: On the contrary this is the phase where they will actually be trying to put a figure on airframe life by flying and examining the stress points.

yep, i agree. Though, AFAIK, there is normally also a ground test airframe which is put through simulated stress tests. I think there is an Eurofighter test airframe which has gone through 12,000 hrs test.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2012 09:06

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote: That video camera must be used to record whether the R-73 leaves Tejas cleanly. It faces straight fordward. What else could it possibly be recording?
If you enlarge the image the black cylindrical lens housing seems to be facing the pylon to record clean separation.

Couldn't make out which is the lens housing ... the black one or the silver one

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2012 09:35

indranilroy wrote:
shiv wrote:
If you enlarge the image the black cylindrical lens housing seems to be facing the pylon to record clean separation.
Couldn't make out which is the lens housing ... the black one or the silver one

Could be two cameras?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 13 Jan 2012 10:13

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1764 Test Flights successfully. (10-Jan-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-327,LSP1-67,LSP2-196,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-58)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1762 Test Flights successfully. (06-Jan-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-327,LSP1-67,LSP2-196,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-56)

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 13 Jan 2012 11:31

suryag wrote:Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1534 Test Flights successfully. (03-Feb-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-193,PV3-258,LSP1-60,LSP2-162,PV5-22,LSP3-26,LSP4-29,LSP5-4)

suryag wrote:Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1764 Test Flights successfully. (10-Jan-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-327,LSP1-67,LSP2-196,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-58)

So the other aircraft could not have been KH2002 (TD2).

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 13 Jan 2012 11:58

Has the RWR been integrated on the tejas, IIRC it was done on PV1. Has it been integrated with the control system and the chaff/flare dispenser

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 13 Jan 2012 12:25

suryag wrote:Has the RWR been integrated on the tejas, IIRC it was done on PV1. Has it been integrated with the control system and the chaff/flare dispenser

yes.

go thro' these links -

sensors

Chaff and Flares

@indranil,

have not followed your discussion on R-73 test firing in goa trials but if you follow the ET link (2nd) above it confirms firing of R-73.

member_22512 · Post by **member_22512** » 13 Jan 2012 15:27

We came to know that, we haven’t succeeded in achieving designated thrust from our indigenous Kaveri engine designed to power our own Tejas aircraft. It was suppose to deliver 90-95 KN of thrust force but we could only generate near to 70-75 KN under all universal standard test conditions. Indeed we have gone for technical tie-up with 'Snecma' France to enhance the output and fine tune the results. But the question before us is? Under all STD test condition circumstances & many years of tired less, meticulous hard work, if at all the outcome was not up to the desired level, where lies the problem then?
1. Is it an accuracy of engineering profiles (contours)?
2. Is it lack of intermediate stage performance enhancer?
3. Is it multistage heat exchanger efficiency?
*4. Is it 'On-your mark' failure in system pre-preparation mode?
(* Noted is interesting point since systems were not ready by the time actual power stroke
trigger shots, then it is for sure the designated performance will not be met at any cost. - So need to energize all the nodes before actual start up)

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 13 Jan 2012 15:36

vmohan_agara wrote:We came to know that, we haven’t succeeded in achieving designated thrust from our indigenous Kaveri engine designed to power our own Tejas aircraft. It was suppose to deliver 90-95 KN of thrust force but we could only generate near to 70-75 KN under all universal standard test conditions. Indeed we have gone for technical tie-up with 'Snecma' France to enhance the output and fine tune the results. But the question before us is? Under all STD test condition circumstances & many years of tired less, meticulous hard work, if at all the outcome was not up to the desired level, where lies the problem then?
1. Is it an accuracy of engineering profiles (contours)?
2. Is it lack of intermediate stage performance enhancer?
3. Is it multistage heat exchanger efficiency?
*4. Is it 'On-your mark' failure in system pre-preparation mode?
(* Noted is interesting point since systems were not ready by the time actual power stroke
trigger shots, then it is for sure the designated performance will not be met at any cost. - So need to energize all the nodes before actual start up)

Thanks for asking vmohan, I've looked at some of the interoperability features incentivized by various program leadership within the AHASH systematics. Results are not encouraging despite up-drivers now getting closer to 20-25% for newer designs - notwithstanding propulsion over/under assessments normally trending in a downward roll versus pitch. But we have another three years on this contract and critical metrics could shift more favorably.

For great justice of course.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Jan 2012 17:03

Badar wrote:
vmohan_agara wrote:We came to know that, we haven’t succeeded in achieving designated thrust from our indigenous Kaveri engine designed to power our own Tejas aircraft. It was suppose to deliver 90-95 KN of thrust force but we could only generate near to 70-75 KN under all universal standard test conditions. Indeed we have gone for technical tie-up with 'Snecma' France to enhance the output and fine tune the results. But the question before us is? Under all STD test condition circumstances & many years of tired less, meticulous hard work, if at all the outcome was not up to the desired level, where lies the problem then?
1. Is it an accuracy of engineering profiles (contours)?
2. Is it lack of intermediate stage performance enhancer?
3. Is it multistage heat exchanger efficiency?
*4. Is it 'On-your mark' failure in system pre-preparation mode?
(* Noted is interesting point since systems were not ready by the time actual power stroke
trigger shots, then it is for sure the designated performance will not be met at any cost. - So need to energize all the nodes before actual start up)
Thanks for asking vmohan, I've looked at some of the interoperability features incentivized by various program leadership within the AHASH systematics. Results are not encouraging despite up-drivers now getting closer to 20-25% for newer designs - notwithstanding propulsion over/under assessments normally trending in a downward roll versus pitch. But we have another three years on this contract and critical metrics could shift more favorably.

For great justice of course.

I'll go with what you said. Entirely accurate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2012 21:52

Badar wrote:
vmohan_agara wrote: 1. Is it an accuracy of engineering profiles (contours)?
2. Is it lack of intermediate stage performance enhancer?
3. Is it multistage heat exchanger efficiency?
*4. Is it 'On-your mark' failure in system pre-preparation mode?
(* Noted is interesting point since systems were not ready by the time actual power stroke
trigger shots, then it is for sure the designated performance will not be met at any cost. - So need to energize all the nodes before actual start up)
Thanks for asking vmohan, I've looked at some of the interoperability features incentivized by various program leadership within the AHASH systematics. Results are not encouraging despite up-drivers now getting closer to 20-25% for newer designs - notwithstanding propulsion over/under assessments normally trending in a downward roll versus pitch. But we have another three years on this contract and critical metrics could shift more favorably.

For great justice of course.

In red color are the parts that i understood. Can someone explain the rest to me?

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 13 Jan 2012 22:07

Shiv, merlin, Can't really take credit for it. Found that gem on the interwebz somewhere.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 13 Jan 2012 22:46

Welcome back Badar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2012 22:54

Shiv said "I dont get it!"

The irony is neither do they!

However if one reads the Aeromag Dec 2011 issue pdf posted in thread, Dr A.S. Rao concurrent charge of GTRE says the Kaveri has undergone 57 hours of test flight. Once it does 100 hours it will be integrated on a LCA.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 13 Jan 2012 23:10

ramana wrote:Shiv said "I dont get it!"

The irony is neither do they!

ramana, oh I am sure Shiv did, so did merlin - They both got it. Or anyone else who has played buzzword bingo before. I just added the last line to tip-off anyone who might not get it.

Hi there JEM!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2012 23:13

IMO, In that case it would be just few of the PV/TDs that would be integrated with the final version matching the older thrust requirements for IAF. The Snecma-Kaveri plan is not open for public to read specifications at 50K feet too. So, it is all dark matter, as Uncle Sam with GE profiles will drive LCA. Uncle has already choked us on the el/m2052s.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2012 00:05

vmohan_agara wrote:We came to know that, we haven’t succeeded in achieving designated thrust from our indigenous Kaveri engine designed to power our own Tejas aircraft. It was suppose to deliver 90-95 KN of thrust force but we could only generate near to 70-75 KN under all universal standard test conditions. Indeed we have gone for technical tie-up with 'Snecma' France to enhance the output and fine tune the results. But the question before us is? Under all STD test condition circumstances & many years of tired less, meticulous hard work, if at all the outcome was not up to the desired level, where lies the problem then?
1. Is it an accuracy of engineering profiles (contours)?
2. Is it lack of intermediate stage performance enhancer?
3. Is it multistage heat exchanger efficiency?
*4. Is it 'On-your mark' failure in system pre-preparation mode?
(* Noted is interesting point since systems were not ready by the time actual power stroke
trigger shots, then it is for sure the designated performance will not be met at any cost. - So need to energize all the nodes before actual start up)

who told you that it was supposed to generate 90-95 kN of thrust?

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 14 Jan 2012 00:12

I strongly agree with Badar as well. Also, without going into the technical details, the incorporation of additional mission constraints effects a significant implementation of Kaveri engine for LCA in a discrete configuration mode. In respect to specific goals, any associated supporting element presents extremely interesting challenges to the probability of project success and flight worthiness of Kaveri-LCA concept.

This site provides an extremely detailed insight on Kaveri. Please type in "Kaveri based LCA", "Kaveri technical details" or similar strings, to get the result. I think it also backs up Badar's claim effectively. I am actually surprised that it is not part of the first post of this thread.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jan 2012 03:01

The GE 414 must be learning process for GTRE.. again, hopefully they sincerely reorg and work towards india-genization. For now, would it not be possible to add couple of more thrust increasing turbine stages perhaps 7 or 8 stages of Kaveri to deliver the 95kN? I know lot of re-engineering is required, and they think about SCs, and Blisks, etc. GE 414 has great technology for the team to learn.. of course we took the screw driver rout, but investments in turbine area is needed more. It is not a wasteful investment at all, rather giving it all to Snecma.

Instead, do it all by ourselves for the second Kaveri project for the 95kN.. till then we can work with GE 414s. I hate this snecma deal. It serves no purpose.. it is a bad idea to give into naysayers at this time when Kaveri 75kN wala is doing good.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Jan 2012 12:28

indranilroy wrote: http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Tejas/Tejas ... 105-XL.jpg

First time I'm seeing an AAM under the fuselage.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 14 Jan 2012 12:37

After Goa, they were supposed to have trails at Leh. Any news on that?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2012 13:08

abhik wrote:
indranilroy wrote: http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Tejas/Tejas ... 105-XL.jpg
First time I'm seeing an AAM under the fuselage.

its not under the fuselage..the centerline hardpoint most likely cannot even carry the pylon for the R-73.