LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 07 May 2012 15:02

koti wrote:I wanted to make a point that maybe the Army has a point in preferring a more proved system to a potential one. Like T90; not about its operational history but its parent organization.
Same with the IAF and LCA saga. Most of the opinion here about the JSF is against its time delay and cost for value. I can't help to think on similar terms wrt Tejas too.


Your point is right. Hence some of us have an opinion that they have not supported the projects.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 07 May 2012 23:40

vina wrote:I am not sure if the Mig-35 is an unstable layout. If you have details I will stand corrected. The short range of the Mig-29 is due to the low fuel fraction. It carries proportionally less fuel in the first place, needs thirstier engines and compounds the problem. It comes to the fundamental design choice.

s
Yes, AFAIK the 35, which is based on the MiG-29M does have a relaxed stability. They started this with the MiG-29M by moving the COG slightly aft.

The Mig29M has addressed many of the fighters shortcomings. Unfortunately due to the economic position in Russia, Mig-Mapo didn't get any orders for this excellent aircraft. The internal fuel storage has been increased dramatically; is controlled by quadruple fly-by-wire; glass cockpit; new terrain following Zhuk radar; improved engines with reduced smoke trails, better efficiency and more power; new IRST, added TV; longer canopy, a wider, longer and less curved dorsal spine; bulged wing tips with fore and aft Radar Warning Receivers (RWR), eight under wing hardpoints (as opposed to six on earlier versions); aluminium-lithium center section; and finally larger, sharper, repositioned wing roots which create stronger vortices and modifications to extend back the center of gravity limit for relaxed stability which increases the max angle of attack giving more manoeuvrability and better efficiency. As you can see the Mig29M is a much improved aircraft.


This comparison of Mig-29 with F-16 sizewise and to deduce that it was inferior because it did not have FBW sounds naive to me.
Facts are facts. A smaller , lighter plane has more range, payload and maneuverability (mostly evenly matched, slightly better in some areas) than a bigger plane with higher T:W ratio.


ACtually this argument is debatable imvvho. The main reason for the original fulcrum's poor range vis a vis the F-16 was not due to a) it's larger size, b) higher TWR or even c) a poor engine that guzzled gas, in fact the RD-33 is v.economical and its SFC at mil power is v.good or d) less sophisticated design (lack of relaxed stability, fbw etc).

The biggest reason for MiG-29's poor range in those days was an awful fuel fraction. The F-16A, which weighed around 7000kg, carried 3200kg of fuel. Otoh, the 29, which weighed 11000kg carried almost the SAME amount of fuel i.e. only 3200kg of fuel!

IOWs, the range of 1500km on internal fuel was pretty good for a fighter with a sad fuel fraction. And aerodynamic design or poor engines had little to do with it. When the fuel fraction is increased to match that of the M2k or F-16, rest assured, irrespective of its less sophisticated design, the fulcrum has excellent range ~ 2000km+.

The Roosis simply didn't find a need for a battlefield/tactical interceptor that was purely directed by GCI to carry more fuel. It was inherently designed to take out Tornados, Jags, 16, M2ks etc at short ranges, and for the most part would have done so with ease thanks to its TWR, acceleration, exceptional lowspeed characteristics and the HMS. Unfortunately they never thought of export customer needs, esp. India, which sought a more, multirole need for it.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 00:12

pragnya wrote:CM,

In the above case of the DFBW, I was specifically refering to the incident where Dassault's "hybrid" proposal, which was supported by the IAF,was disregarded by the ADA in favor of Marietta's DFBW.


i am afraid that is not true. if you are referring to the conference in 1982 where tks also made a presentation (among other groups) - it is very clear it was only a forum called by AOC for obtaining field opinion. and it was tks group's opinion - as you have rightly pointed above 'but' it was one among many groups who had different opinions - certainly not that of IAF. infact tks mentions it himself -


Actually, no - I am referring to the debacle around 1993, when the above incident happened. I believe you can find it in AM Rajkumar's book. I referred to this incident as an example of how IAF recommendations were ignored by ADA. Rest assured the decision to hook the LCA to LM/Marietta and not Dassault (whose engineers were already working in Bangalore) was clearly ADA's. And it did cost the program in terms of time. Even AM Wollen, whose article you point out, suggests this.

The other two major stations of the SWAC, Jodhpur and Bhuj, had kept their presentations simple. They functioned on the premise that the DRDO would deliver what ever was being promised. They just asked for a few additional items like laser ranger.


t
here is absolutely no evidence that suggests to which inputs were incorporated in the final ASR in 1985 and from which groups from the conference. but if you closely look at the aspect of ACM Idris latif walking out at tks presentation, it becomes (IMHO only) amply clear that tks inputs were not taken seriously by the chief/AHQ - as borne out by the later development of the programme which is known to all - and if you put the ACM's action in a larger context of LCA programme being part of a much broader idea of creating a future MIC for aerospace needs of india, you would agree that IAF went along with GOI/DRDO. it was a must/right - otherwise it would have been another 'missed' opportunity. i for one commend the ACM for being a visionary. my salute to him.


Good, if the IAF was all supportive of this ambitious program, then why all the R&D about IAF not being supportive by forumers. I always said IAF was supportive wonlee :twisted:

LCA - i repeat, was never about 'only' building a replacement for Mig 21 'but of bridging' the lost ground in terms future aerospace needs of india and being self reliant.


WHich again, brings me to my last conclusion - while the goal of "bridging the gap' was achieved, the equally critical one of providing the AF with a fighter in reqd. time was not. Which takes us back to TKS's original point - IAF operational requirement for 21 replacements should not have been tied to R&D/Infrastructure goal of LCA. They should have been two separate goals. Because essentially one is in conflict with the other: you can't catch up with 25-30 years of lost time in terms of tech and R&D in the timeframe the IAF needed its fighter replacement.

your point may be straight forward but unfortunately the road is not.from air marshal wollen's article -

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out.

Ya, but there is nothing in the article to suggest that the listed criteria REQUIRED tech such as FBW, composites etc.

now see that requirement in the context of the confernce in 1982 and ACM's action thereon which makes it crystal clear to me that 'AHQ went with the outline DRDO' sent them and also added some more like LDP. in summary IAF was in the know of the systems, performance and timelines and went along. your point i am afraid is not correct atleast to me.


Rexamine that article. Again from the same article, it is clear that after the program definition phase (1988), the IAF did not want to proceed - it was too ambitious for it's requirement.

After examining the PD documents, the IAF felt that the risks were too high (likely shortfalls in performance, inordinate delay, Cost over-run, price escalations) to proceed further.


also if you look at LCA in a narrow perspective of the programme being just a replacement for Mig 21 and nothing more than that, then i won't be able to answer you as i have stressed on the point of a broader context on which, IMO - IAF, DRDO/ADA, GOI were on the same page.

Again, you are missing the point - one goal was achieved, and I am damn proud of it. But the other was clearly missed. TKS's whole point is why mix the two? And it is eminently pragmatic.

ex ACM PN described it is Mig 21++ at the IOC function!! so what was meant as Mig 21 replacement has outgrown that!!! so where is the problem?? infact if they had followed Gripen it would have been inducted @IOC and improvements would have happened concurrently. atleast IAF is happy now and they are participating in the programme in a big way which is good and needs to be appreciated.
[/quote]

Where is the problem? It has been inordinately delayed - that is where the problem is. IAF was hoping to get the 21s replaced in the mid/late 90s. It is 15 years later that the bird will see FOC!
Last edited by Cain Marko on 08 May 2012 00:55, edited 2 times in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 00:25

vina wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Vinaji's argument otoh is different - his point is that without these technologies, the end product would have been useless suggesting the MiG-29s loss in the MRCA as proof of this. However, it remains that the F-16, which had all of these qualities also lost in the race.


Ok. Let me explain that in detail. To get the equivalent performance of a innovative break through plane like the F-16 (which it was at that time) which was all about maximizing efficiency, a conventional layout plane has to do it with massive excess installed thrust. The Mig-29 has far higher installed thrust (as does the F-15) to get the equivalent Air to Air performance . It really is a Rafale /Eurofighter class airframe ,in terms of installed thrust and size but with the performance of only an F-16 ! The Mig-29 loses out due to the larger wing area than it would have otherwise needed if it were FBW and also the resulting higher induced drag and trim drag.

Since I am not so well versed in aerodynamics, I will not argue this with a resident expert. It is probly correct.

Net result, the F-16 has a far higher range and payload than the Mig-29 which is notoriously short legged. The Mig-29 simply would not have been able to do the nearly 2000km round trip Osirak strike that the F-16 managed , even if the Mig 29 had ground attack capabilities back then .

Disagree here. I pointed out in an earlier post that the 29's range issues were mainly a result of the poor fuel fraction.

The Mig29 by the IAF purchase in response to the Pakistani F-16s was the equivalent of the "T-90 " purchase the Army made when the Pakistanis acquired the T-84 UD. It was meant for pure air defense/superiority role.. more point defense in reaction to an immediate threat.

Not necessarily, the Mirage 2000s were already being inducted as Air superiority birds. The 29 came as a result of cheap price, possible arm twisting by the FSU, and of course the performance surely helped.

The F-16 as it is today a grand old man doddering on it's last legs. The wing loading has increased with increased weight over the ages and it is no where the lighting rod in terms of field performance that it was when it was in it's teens like the Blk-15.No wonder it lost the MRCA contest when it was decided purely on performance.

Remove the conformal tanks, you will see the inherent absolute beast revealed, but then it wont have the range anymore compared to the others.

Actually, range is hardly it's issue - the greatest problem lies in the fact that even without the CFTs it would have problems vs. the E'canards and probably the 35.

The Pakistani Blk-52s indeed are a pretty serious threat as of today (they dont have the conformal tanks I think), now that they too have the full BVR and night capabilities that the versions during Kargil lacked. If the F-16 XL had been picked over the F-15E, it would still be competitive today . But the USAF wanted to keep the F-15 line open and hence was killed.

Yes, the XL was a beauty - unfortunate that the Block 60 was not an XL variant.

Coming back to the point. If you wanted to have competitive fighter with a conventional layout , it run up against our Achilles heel, engines! So if with a Mig 21 engine, you wanted to match the maneuverability of an F-16, you would need a smaller and lighter airframe than the Mig-21 and probably end up with less range and payload as well! The best you could have done is taken an existing engine and enhance airframe efficiency via technology, ie FBW and composites, and not seriously trade off range and payload in the pursuit of maneuverability.


But that solution might have worked wonderfully for a low-end MiG-21 replacement. As it is the even the MiG-21 is quite a menace after decent (not comprehensive) upgrades. The Roosis had in fact stuck a RD-33N in the MiG-21, and it's performance (range + acceleration) was supposedly remarkable. More importantly, there is little to suggest that the IAF wanted a Mig-21 sized bird with F-16 maneuverability, why would you want to? Increasingly maneuverability is somewhat overshadowed by BVR requirements - and the newer F-16s are a testament to this - not as maneuverable but certainly more in demand. If they could have started replacing the 21s in the late 90s, have a production run for 15 years with improved variants every 5 years, they could have learnt enough to move on to a more sophisticated design around 2015 ala AMCA. No loss to anyone, least of all the IAF.

The inherent problem in this reasoning is - the end goal (of user requirements) is completely being missed in a need for fancier technology. Vinaji, as backwards as the 29 was/is, it almost always would have had the upper hand vs. the Solah as the USAF found out against derated Luftwaffe fulcrums. As the years have gone by, the Solah has only "doddered" as you yourself put it, otoh, the Fulcrum has only improved.

If you pit the early models of F-16 vs. the MiG-29, the fulcrum comes out on top thanks to its HMS, one small addition to an otherwise less sophisticated design, throws a wet blanket on the entire F-16's "sophisticated electric jet" reputation. Kya fayda? It is all great on paper, but the IAF couldn't care less.

If you pit the F-16C (BVR capable) with a MiG-29SMT, again the fulcrum has certain v.clear advantages - IRST, more powerful radar. Again, the fancier technology will NOT save the day!

If you pit the F-16blk60 vs. a MiG-35, while the 60 might be evenly matched BVR, it flies like a brick and all it's original super-duper, unstable, electric FBW can't compensate for this. Otoh, the 35 has an even better TWR than the original, is now unstable itself, carries a 4 X DFBW, FADEC engines and yes, even shows a better range! It is simply better performing than its original.

Tell me saar - where lies the advantage of pursuing technology for it's own sake? There is a broader perspective that the engineering mindset needs to be aware of - and I daresay the LCA folks missed this, at least to some extent. It is the same efficiency vs. efficacy argument.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 02:27

Cain Marko wrote:Heh heh, there is the IN's pitch for the Rafale - fly Navy! Seriously though - the technocrats have been a little overambitious before too. In any case, it'd have to be a miracle of sorts to have a single engined bird, that too with a some what anemic TWR to take of from a STOBAR carrier. But who knows.


Hmm...seems like I was not too far from the mark (assuming this story has any truth to it):

“The naval variant of the LCA will require the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine [EPE] providing up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, a 20-percent boost,” an Indian Navy official told AIN. General Electric and Boeing have proposed the EPE for future versions of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, with a new fan, compressor and turbine, but it is still in development. India has ordered 99 F414-INS6 engines to power Mk2 versions of the Tejas, but they are believed to offer the standard 22,000 pounds of thrust. The prototype and limited series production Tejas Mk1s–including the naval prototype–are powered by GE F404-IN20 engines that produce 17,700 pounds. India ordered 41 of these after development problems with the indigenous Kaveri engine that was supposed to power the LCA.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... more-power

What will this entail? More dependence on the US (not that this is bad in itself, but one can't help worrying) more chances of sanctions if independent decisions are to be taken (e.g. jhapad to TSP or nuke test).

The Naval variant seems a radical design - would it be possible to elongate it further and stick an AL-31 in there? IIRC, India can build this engine from raw materials. A NLCA at around 8.5 tons with 13 tons AB thrust would fare decently in STOBAR ops. Slightly better TWR than MiG-29K.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Craig Alpert » 08 May 2012 05:12

Time for a new thread!

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 08 May 2012 07:52

Cain Marko wrote:Disagree here. I pointed out in an earlier post that the 29's range issues were mainly a result of the poor fuel fraction.

Well, if you agreed with the earlier point, you need to agree with this as well.Go to the root cause. Why is the Fuel Fraction low in the Mig29 ? The Mig-29's low fuel fraction is not an accident, it is inherent to the configuration choice made. With twin engines (because it want to got the excess thrust route), the empty weight as a percentage of a comparable single engine plane is higher and that cuts into the fuel fraction. For eg, the F-18 A/B , another twin engine plane similar to the F-16 again has a low fuel fraction and small legs compared to the F-16 , though it is has FBW controls. F-18 is understandable because it needs two engines for carrier and open sea operations and reliability.

Cain Marko wrote:Not necessarily, the Mirage 2000s were already being inducted as Air superiority birds. The 29 came as a result of cheap price, possible arm twisting by the FSU, and of course the performance surely helped.


The problem with the Mirage 2000 is that it is 35KN under powered. The M-53 engine, a single spool engine is obsolete, despite the tech infusions from the M-88 giving it a 1 ton thrust increase from earlier in the later versions. There is no getting away from that fact, whatever you avionics upgrade you do with it. Fine as an interceptor , but in a sustained turning fight with an F-16 or Mig29, it will lose. You did need a pure air superiority bird and that is where the Mig29 came in.

Actually, range is hardly it's issue - the greatest problem lies in the fact that even without the CFTs it would have problems vs. the E'canards and probably the 35.

Without the conformal tanks, it will be seriously competitive. The Mig-35 in the MRCA would have come behind the Eurocanards (Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen NG), behind the F-16 without conformal tanks (but i doubt that config was an entry at all in the MRCA, so it is theoretical) and F-18 bringing up the rear in terms of pure field performance.

But that solution might have worked wonderfully for a low-end MiG-21 replacement. As it is the even the MiG-21 is quite a menace after decent (not comprehensive) upgrades. The Roosis had in fact stuck a RD-33N in the MiG-21, and it's performance (range + acceleration) was supposedly remarkable.


This is looking back in hindsight and projecting 1997 to 1982. Back then, there were no off boresight missiles (okay the R-73 and HMS was the first, but no one knew of it ), and that was not factored into the equation. So yes, today, sustained turning ability like in the the early 80s is not critical, because of this and a less maneuverable platform like the Mirage 2000, the Bison etc are competitive.

The sticking the RD-93, with FBW and metal airframe is ta.da.. the JF-17 Bandar, and the Russians put the Mig-29 engine in the 21 only in 1997. That plane was obsolete right then and made sense only if you wanted an engine upgrade in addition to the avionics upgrade. Didn't make sense in 97/2000.

More importantly, there is little to suggest that the IAF wanted a Mig-21 sized bird with F-16 maneuverability, why would you want to? Increasingly maneuverability is somewhat overshadowed by BVR requirements - and the newer F-16s are a testament to this - not as maneuverable but certainly more in demand.

That is sorry not wisdom, but a Sanku-esque whizz-dumb of projecting 1994 with active radar R-77 and high off bore sight R-73 to 1982 when you needed to get into the 6'0' clock of your opponent to shoot and at best you had SARH missiles. The IAF ASR would have reflected that need to get into the enemy's 6.

Even if that is the case, no air force will let go of field performance and go purely for a missile truck. If that were the case, the plane with the absolute best avionics and weapons in the MRCA contest, the F-18 would have won hands down.

Vinaji, as backwards as the 29 was/is, it almost always would have had the upper hand vs. the Solah as the USAF found out against derated Luftwaffe fulcrums.

Yes, what they found out was that within visual range, the HMS+R73 combo of off bore sight is so changes the game that the WVR game is different now and they came up with the AIM-9X and JHMCS program. Need to keep that in perspective.

If you pit the early models of F-16 vs. the MiG-29, the fulcrum comes out on top thanks to its HMS, one small addition to an otherwise less sophisticated design, throws a wet blanket on the entire F-16's "sophisticated electric jet" reputation. Kya fayda? It is all great on paper, but the IAF couldn't care less.

It does! That is why it plonked for more maneuverable platforms (Eurocanards) and threw out the F-18 (best avionics and sensor) and the Mig-35 (middling in avionics and sensor and airframe) !

Tell me saar - where lies the advantage of pursuing technology for it's own sake? There is a broader perspective that the engineering mindset needs to be aware of - and I daresay the LCA folks missed this, at least to some extent. It is the same efficiency vs. efficacy argument.


Well unless you wanted to take off in a plane smaller than the Mig-21 with the same R-25 engine and carry 2 heat seeking and 2 radar guided missiles only , take off form Bangalore, do 9G turns over Hosur, 2 loops and then the fuel warning goes woot..woot and you turn tail and land back in HAL :lol: :lol: and that is ALL you could do ,(not that the Mig 21 does much better as is, it can go just to probably Salem and do what I told now and turn tail) , the Mig-21 derived conventional layout was a dead end. And no, you didn't have the RD-93 in 1982.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 09:19

vina wrote:Well, if you agreed with the earlier point, you need to agree with this as well.Go to the root cause. Why is the Fuel Fraction low in the Mig29 ? The Mig-29's low fuel fraction is not an accident, it is inherent to the configuration choice made. With twin engines (because it want to got the excess thrust route), the empty weight as a percentage of a comparable single engine plane is higher and that cuts into the fuel fraction. For eg, the F-18 A/B , another twin engine plane similar to the F-16 again has a low fuel fraction and small legs compared to the F-16 , though it is has FBW controls. F-18 is understandable because it needs two engines for carrier and open sea operations and reliability.

That is very debatable, and your stats are incorrect. In fact, the F-18 had excellent internal fuel volume (almost 50% of empty weight), more than the F-16 and far better than the MiG-29. It carried 50% greater internal fuel than the MiG-29 did. Again, if we look at the flanker - great TWR and great internal fuel capacity = exceptional range. The whole premise that single engine + small = greater range is counter intuitive. There are enough examples to refute that thought.

The problem with the Mirage 2000 is that it is 35KN under powered. The M-53 engine, a single spool engine is obsolete, despite the tech infusions from the M-88 giving it a 1 ton thrust increase from earlier in the later versions. There is no getting away from that fact, whatever you avionics upgrade you do with it. Fine as an interceptor , but in a sustained turning fight with an F-16 or Mig29, it will lose. You did need a pure air superiority bird and that is where the Mig29 came in.

Fair enough.

Without the conformal tanks, it will be seriously competitive. The Mig-35 in the MRCA would have come behind the Eurocanards (Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen NG), behind the F-16 without conformal tanks (but i doubt that config was an entry at all in the MRCA, so it is theoretical) and F-18 bringing up the rear in terms of pure field performance

Again, doubtful. The 16 might tip it in STR but otherwise, it'll be hard up in almost every parameter. IIRC, the CFTs are removable and are mission specific but despite that the empty weight of the bird is 10 tons! There was a gent on F-16.net who had flown both the 29 and the solah (at Laage), and found that the Solah was ahead in STRs, and these were East German 29s that had derated engines. Here is what a Luftwaffe pilot had to say:

"They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.


The 35 or the MiG-29M otoh, does have relaxed stability, and much better TWR as well. Still, I doubt any fulcrum can match a viper blk 30.



This is looking back in hindsight and projecting 1997 to 1982. Back then, there were no off boresight missiles (okay the R-73 and HMS was the first, but no one knew of it ), and that was not factored into the equation. So yes, today, sustained turning ability like in the the early 80s is not critical, because of this and a less maneuverable platform like the Mirage 2000, the Bison etc are competitive.

I could be wrong, but by the time ASRs came out, such things were definitely around, at least the HMS was.

The sticking the RD-93, with FBW and metal airframe is ta.da.. the JF-17 Bandar, and the Russians put the Mig-29 engine in the 21 only in 1997. That plane was obsolete right then and made sense only if you wanted an engine upgrade in addition to the avionics upgrade. Didn't make sense in 97/2000.


My point was that engine upgrades were possible and engines available for small single engined designs. Why wouldn't a MiG-33 type be doable by say, 1999?

That is sorry not wisdom, but a Sanku-esque whizz-dumb of projecting 1994 with active radar R-77 and high off bore sight R-73 to 1982 when you needed to get into the 6'0' clock of your opponent to shoot and at best you had SARH missiles. The IAF ASR would have reflected that need to get into the enemy's 6.

But surely, IAF ASRs would take into consideration some projected, future needs. And why in the world do you need to get in the enemy's 6 if you want to fire a SARH unless it is purely IR missile?

Even if that is the case, no air force will let go of field performance and go purely for a missile truck. If that were the case, the plane with the absolute best avionics and weapons in the MRCA contest, the F-18 would have won hands down.

Not having FBW or composites does not make a fighter, a "truck"; again the 29 is a good example. So is the the flanker even though it did use FBW.

It does! That is why it plonked for more maneuverable platforms (Eurocanards) and threw out the F-18 (best avionics and sensor) and the Mig-35 (middling in avionics and sensor and airframe) !

But then it threw out the fabled F-16 too, and even the Gripen! Fact is, the E'canards are newer designs and are bound to perform better. Plus, this race was for the medium category and not for MiG-21 replacements - uber performance was critical here.

Tell me saar - where lies the advantage of pursuing technology for it's own sake? There is a broader perspective that the engineering mindset needs to be aware of - and I daresay the LCA folks missed this, at least to some extent. It is the same efficiency vs. efficacy argument.


Well unless you wanted to take off in a plane smaller than the Mig-21 with the same R-25 engine and carry 2 heat seeking and 2 radar guided missiles only , take off form Bangalore, do 9G turns over Hosur, 2 loops and then the fuel warning goes woot..woot and you turn tail and land back in HAL :lol: :lol: and that is ALL you could do ,(not that the Mig 21 does much better as is, it can go just to probably Salem and do what I told now and turn tail) , the Mig-21 derived conventional layout was a dead end. And no, you didn't have the RD-93 in 1982.

Funny. But even the Bandar can do a LOT better than that.....and why exactly should it be smaller than the MiG-21. IIRC, TKS talks of a 7ton limit for the fighter - v.close to early Solah models. In any case, the Tejas is hardly lighter than the 21.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 08 May 2012 09:27

In fact, the F-18 had excellent internal fuel volume (almost 50% of empty weight), more than the F-16 and far better than the MiG-29

Oh boy. I give up now. I am talking about fuel FRACTION and you are talking about fuel weight. Yes. The F-18 A/B had a piss poor fuel fraction and was quite short legged , just like the Mig29. The Mig-29 has despite the higher thrust has also had big weight growth, precisely to remedy the fuel fraction problem,negating the increased thrust.

Everything that is "counter intuitive" becomes very intuitive if you start taking non dimensional measures like fuel fraction.

The 35 or the MiG-29M otoh, does have relaxed stability, and much better TWR as well. Still, I doubt any fulcrum can match a viper blk 30

It has FBW, probably replacing the fire and leak prone hydraulics, but I doubt it is a big configuration change to unstable, if you find anyone saying that they went to unstable, I will stand corrected. Wiki still states the thrust to weight of the Mig-35 as 1:1 or so, similar to the original Mig-29A. Nothing else new there.

I could be wrong, but by the time ASRs came out, such things were definitely around, at least the HMS was.

Huh! Are you suggesting that India should have instead locally developed the HMS + R-73 equivalent instead and that would have been the end of all things ? Why we don't have that even today and are putting an Israeli HMD in the Tejas ! I think the IAF would have taken a very very dim view of things if that was what was proposed.
Funny. But even the Bandar can do a LOT better than that.....and why exactly should it be smaller than the MiG-21. IIRC, TKS talks of a 7ton limit for the fighter - v.close to early Solah models. In any case, the Tejas is hardly lighter than the 21.


Bandar does a lot better than that because it uses a high thrust to weight ratio engine and is smaller than the F-16 and probably has less range and payload as well . The early F-16s had a 115 KN/22,000lbs or so engine. Pray, where would you have found a 120KN engine. There is none available TODAY with the T:W ratios that go around today, unless you say GE-414 EPE . As for a 7 ton empty weight platform, with a Mig21 class engine that was available, it sure will have the performance of well, a barn door and go from Bangalore to Hosur and back, if it needed to do any better.

There are no magic bullets. Given your state of technology, the engineering trade offs are made. With better tech, you can have your cake and eat it too to a greater extent, or you will have to sacrifice an arm and a leg in areas like payload and range to get performance in one attribute like maneuverability. So talking about doing some magical things with without serious trade offs using obsolete technology is simply crazy.

To put things in perspective, the Tejas with an empty weight of 6.5tons, a nearly 85KN and HMDS and off boresight heat seeking and active radar missiles still gets whines from IAF because it does not meet the Sustained Turn Rate requirements of the IAF ASR and the call for GE414 engines! The air force gives a grudging IOC, given that in sustained turn is not so critical anymore.

Think kind of reception a 7ton empty weight fighter with R-25 engines with 60KN engines and no HMD/off boresight and active radar weapons would have got as an air defense fighter.
Last edited by vina on 08 May 2012 10:08, edited 3 times in total.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 08 May 2012 09:38

Cain Marko, pls understand the following (as vina-ji has so succintly detailed):
MiG-29s were designed to be a pure air-superiority fighter with emphasis on excessive thrust (like F16s) - but due to a gen or so engine-technological gap between the then USSR and US, that kind of thrust requirement (for meeting the TWR) could only be obtained from two engines.

There-in lies the issue - two engines will have to compromise on fuel-fraction (irrespective of whatever level of engine-technology involved e.g. F18).

Betw, Reliability is also another factor for choosing twin-engine config, but that's a diff discussion.

But it still met the requirement of a superb interceptor carrying 2 WVR and 2 BVR (so around 750Kg of external store - ok maybe back then around 1ton class) missile combo and still retain that kind of TWR ratio - the deficiency in range is not an issue as an pure interceptor the 15-20min flight time (including say around 2 min of afterburner) is all you need to perform the pure intercepting role (with some loitering time as well).
And, hats-off to the Russians, they came-up with the IRST, HMS (rudimentary, but still mostly adequate, with around 60/70deg azimuth coverage back then) and the R-73 combo. A real game changer, back then - though soon to adequately responded to by the 9X and JHMCS within a couple of years time, ending that advantage then and there.

But the requirement for LCA was it to be multi-role (back then, IIRC, another term called swing-role used to be used).
Irrespective of the nomenclature it needed to do ground-attack as well and that too quite efficiently - for which it needed storage-capacity of somewhat equivalent of a jaguar/27s (and don't forget that will mean and a min of centerline tank/twin smaller tanks on wings maybe) plus 2WVR and maybe even 2BVR (or a combination of them) combo - and then, on the field, switch to an loitering interceptor role with something like 4 BVR/2BVR/1 tank or 2BVR/2WVR/4tanks.
To achieve all of that, it required handling hi-hi, hi-lo-hi and lo-lo profiles all in the same airframe.

All of these required an aircraft similar to M2K profile and not the 29s - so that comparison is not proper.

So the choice of the most optimized (but compromised as well) of a delta-profile (catering to both hi and lo flight profiles), which not only required a FBW controls (to address the maneuverability issue) but also lightweight materials as the weight penalty of the larger wing-area of a delta needed to be minimised.

Those, IMHO, are the design constraints of LCA which could have been only addressed by composites, digital FBW and a delta config (betw the avionics needed to be cutting-edge irrespective of the airframe design, so it's more of a constant).
Plus ofcourse, we failed on the engine front.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 08 May 2012 10:39

vina wrote:
The 35 or the MiG-29M otoh, does have relaxed stability, and much better TWR as well. Still, I doubt any fulcrum can match a viper blk 30

It has FBW, probably replacing the fire and leak prone hydraulics, but I doubt it is a big configuration change to unstable, if you find anyone saying that they went to unstable, I will stand corrected. Wiki still states the thrust to weight of the Mig-35 as 1:1 or so, similar to the original Mig-29A. Nothing else new there.

Vinaji, actually the interesting thing to find out will be what prompted MiG to introduce FBW in the non-thrust-vectoring 29Ks - not sure if the added internal fuel and armaments capability would have pushed the CoG away from the CoP. Not sure though!!

On the 35s, with the thrust-vectoring introduced, it's given that a FBW will be mandatory.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 11:25

vina wrote:Oh boy. I give up now. I am talking about fuel FRACTION and you are talking about fuel weight. Yes. The F-18 A/B had a piss poor fuel fraction and was quite short legged , just like the Mig29. The Mig-29 has despite the higher thrust has also had big weight growth, precisely to remedy the fuel fraction problem,negating the increased thrust.

The F-18A/b/c had excellent range and equal to that of the F-16 on purely internal fuel - and the proportion of fuel:weight was just about the same (3250:7000 for the f-16 and 4900:10600 for the f-18). It lost out on range mainly because of some design flaws such, which added considerable drag once they were loaded! And no, the F-18 clean had much better range than the MiG-29, which carried a proportionately smaller amount of fuel.

A good example and one which has caused much embarrassment to its users is the F/A-18A/C. Development F/A-18s with a better fuel fraction did indeed outrange the early F-16, but production aircraft with a much draggier pylon design fell short by a solid margin.


As for "big" weight growth on the MiG-29, it allowed for a much better internal fuel capacity, increased thrust and even better range. And TWR advantage would be negated (and that too barely) only if both a/c were loaded to full internal capacity. Otoh, the M/35 would achieve similar range of the 29 with much less fuel and thereby have a better TWR.

Everything that is "counter intuitive" becomes very intuitive if you start taking non dimensional measures like fuel fraction.

You are probly right, I am no aero guru - for me FF is v.similar to fuel weight:empty weight. Do explain the difference, gyan is appreciated.

It has FBW, probably replacing the fire and leak prone hydraulics, but I doubt it is a big configuration change to unstable, if you find anyone saying that they went to unstable, I will stand corrected. Wiki still states the thrust to weight of the Mig-35 as 1:1 or so, similar to the original Mig-29A. Nothing else new there.

ARe you suggesting that unstable a/c require less TWR? But then you point out that the M2K, despite having unstable config, had poor TWR. What is your point here cause obviously I am missing it. Seems to me that your whole argument is that the F-16 is the best, and it is actually what the IAF secretly wanted as a MiG-21 replacement, that too a lot smaller, and anything otherwise would never have been acceptable. Total conspiracy theory, and I am not buying it without some v.clear evidence/logic.

I could be wrong, but by the time ASRs came out, such things were definitely around, at least the HMS was.

Huh! Are you suggesting that India should have instead locally developed the HMS + R-73 equivalent instead and that would have been the end of all things ? Why we don't have that even today and are putting an Israeli HMD in the Tejas ! I think the IAF would have taken a very very dim view of things if that was what was proposed.[/quote]
Uhh no, what I am suggesting is that a simpler way could have been taken, and TKS is suggesting the same. Cannot specify details obviously since we don't even have ASRs. IAF was not looking for LCA sized F-16, which is what you are insisting - there is little proof to this. That would be plain dumb.

Bandar does a lot better than that because it uses a high thrust to weight ratio engine and is smaller than the F-16 and probably has less range and payload as well . The early F-16s had a 115 KN/22,000lbs or so engine. Pray, where would you have found a 120KN engine. There is none available TODAY with the T:W ratios that go around today, unless you say GE-414 EPE . As for a 7 ton empty weight platform, with a Mig21 class engine that was available, it sure will have the performance of well, a barn door and go from Bangalore to Hosur and back, if it needed to do any better.

Why would you stick a MiG-21 class engine in a 7 ton frame? The RD-33 was surely available, hell even the AL-31 might have been for a slight weight penalty to empty weight.

There are no magic bullets. Given your state of technology, the engineering trade offs are made. With better tech, you can have your cake and eat it too to a greater extent, or you will have to sacrifice an arm and a leg in areas like payload and range to get performance in one attribute like maneuverability. So talking about doing some magical things with without serious trade offs using obsolete technology is simply crazy.

Precisely - since there are no shortcuts, IAF was not demanding fancy doodads - something simpler would have worked!

To put things in perspective, the Tejas with an empty weight of 6.5tons, a nearly 85KN and HMDS and off boresight heat seeking and active radar missiles still gets whines from IAF because it does not meet the Sustained Turn Rate requirements of the IAF ASR and the call for GE414 engines! The air force gives a grudging IOC, given that in sustained turn is not so critical anymore.

How bad is the performance shortfall - anyone know? Btw, if you follow my posts, I'd already said that around 2000s is when IAF mistakes become rather clear, they should have ordered more of the mk1s.

Think kind of reception a 7ton empty weight fighter with R-25 engines with 60KN engines and no HMD/off boresight and active radar weapons would have got as an air defense fighter.

Instead why don't you think of 6.5 ton fighter with RD-33s (8.5 ton engines) + HMS OR 7.5 ton fighter with AL-31s + HMS and active weapons. Radar, engine etc could have been imported in initial batches and slowly been manufactured from raw materials as in the case of the AL - 31 or BARS. IMVHO, this could have been possible by 2000, and the IAF would have jumped on it, even as late as that.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 08 May 2012 11:44, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 11:39

maitya wrote:Cain Marko, pls understand the following (as vina-ji has so succintly detailed):
MiG-29s were designed to be a pure air-superiority fighter with emphasis on excessive thrust (like F16s) - but due to a gen or so engine-technological gap between the then USSR and US, that kind of thrust requirement (for meeting the TWR) could only be obtained from two engines.

Possibly.

There-in lies the issue - two engines will have to compromise on fuel-fraction (irrespective of whatever level of engine-technology involved e.g. F18).

Define fuel fraction please. I ask because I am quite confused about this. Also, please tell me why a twin engined bird necessarily has to compromise on FF. Does the flanker have a poor FF? I mean there is reason to believe that at one point F-18s did have better FF than Solah. I was under the impression that a larger internal fuel load (in proportion to empty weight) would contribute to greater FF. And in this regard, I see no such rule that two engines have to compromise on FF, MiG-31 is supposed to have excellent FF.

But it still met the requirement of a superb interceptor carrying 2 WVR and 2 BVR (so around 750Kg of external store - ok maybe back then around 1ton class) missile combo and still retain that kind of TWR ratio - the deficiency in range is not an issue as an pure interceptor the 15-20min flight time (including say around 2 min of afterburner) is all you need to perform the pure intercepting role (with some loitering time as well).
And, hats-off to the Russians, they came-up with the IRST, HMS (rudimentary, but still mostly adequate, with around 60/70deg azimuth coverage back then) and the R-73 combo. A real game changer, back then - though soon to adequately responded to by the 9X and JHMCS within a couple of years time, ending that advantage then and there.

Just a data point: the R73 was in service by 1984, the upgraded version by 1994. The Aim 9X with JHMCS came within a couple of decades (not years) - 2003.

But the requirement for LCA was it to be multi-role (back then, IIRC, another term called swing-role used to be used).
Irrespective of the nomenclature it needed to do ground-attack as well and that too quite efficiently - for which it needed storage-capacity of somewhat equivalent of a jaguar/27s (and don't forget that will mean and a min of centerline tank/twin smaller tanks on wings maybe) plus 2WVR and maybe even 2BVR (or a combination of them) combo - and then, on the field, switch to an loitering interceptor role with something like 4 BVR/2BVR/1 tank or 2BVR/2WVR/4tanks.

From what is open source, air superiority and point defense were the LCA's main objectives. Ground attack was secondary. Not unlike a MiG-21, but much more comprehensive to be sure.

All of these required an aircraft similar to M2K profile and not the 29s - so that comparison is not proper.

Perhaps, but the Mig-29 has evolved into a bird that CAN do all the above profiles, and that is my point. It can start off limited but then move on to greater things so long as it comes close to the time frames required/indicated. Hell even the Rafale and Tiffy started out A2A and A2G was slowly added.

So the choice of the most optimized (but compromised as well) of a delta-profile (catering to both hi and lo flight profiles), which not only required a FBW controls (to address the maneuverability issue) but also lightweight materials as the weight penalty of the larger wing-area of a delta needed to be minimised.Those, IMHO, are the design constraints of LCA which could have been only addressed by composites, digital FBW and a delta config (betw the avionics needed to be cutting-edge irrespective of the airframe design, so it's more of a constant).


Debatable that the requirements were of such a nature - especially to begin with. In fact, evidence suggests that the IAF felt the program was too ambitious.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 08 May 2012 11:56, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 11:50

maitya wrote:
vina wrote:It has FBW, probably replacing the fire and leak prone hydraulics, but I doubt it is a big configuration change to unstable, if you find anyone saying that they went to unstable, I will stand corrected. Wiki still states the thrust to weight of the Mig-35 as 1:1 or so, similar to the original Mig-29A. Nothing else new there.

Vinaji, actually the interesting thing to find out will be what prompted MiG to introduce FBW in the non-thrust-vectoring 29Ks - not sure if the added internal fuel and armaments capability would have pushed the CoG away from the CoP. Not sure though!!

On the 35s, with the thrust-vectoring introduced, it's given that a FBW will be mandatory.


Just a note: 35s don't have TVC! FBW was introduced because of relaxed stability iirc of the M airframe (again no TVC here). TVC is an option though but so far only the OVT (another M airframe) has demoed it.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby RKumar » 08 May 2012 12:58

Tejas Heads to Goa for Weapons Trials

Sources close to idrw.org have informed, that Tejas is all set to land in Goa to carry out weapons trails in next few days , another source close to idrw.org has mentioned that Indian air forces Il-76 aircraft with crew and technicians from Bangalore have already landed in Goa today (07/05/2012) in evening and aircrafts should be arriving soon .

Tejas after Goa trails will be heading to Pokhran, Jaisalmer, and back to chitradurga. To complete it weapons trials to achieve the IOC-2, Final LSP-8 is also ready and will be carrying out Taxi trials soon and first flight is expected in Next month of June.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 08 May 2012 13:25

Cain Marko wrote: and the proportion of fuel:weight was just about the same (3250:7000 for the f-16 and 4900:10600 for the f-18)


Well, this kind of calculation assumes that the fuel is sitting on the ground and the plane is feeding from a very long pipe connecting it in the air! :shock: . How about something more sensible that acknowledges that the fuel it self has wt.. so fuelwt /(fuel+empty weight).. or better still, at the extreme total fuel possible /MTOW ? I think if you do the last, it will show up that the F-18 A/B has some 4 to 5% less than the F-16 and those are the kind that is relevant to real world mission planning to seeing how much armament you can carry to what range and to plan for aerial refueling!

Also, factor the better tsfc of the F-16 engine (higher by pass ratio) it works more in the F-16 favor.

Anyway, my last post on this. It is way OT here. But do the same math for the LCA (around 2850kg internal fuel I estimate) and around 13 tons MTOW and find out how it will compare in range with the F-16 and the Mig-21!

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby koti » 08 May 2012 13:25

OT Please...
About Chitra durga
Chitradurga features bold rock hills and picturesque valleys, huge towering boulders in numerous shapes. It is known as the "stone fortress" (Kallina Kote). According to the epic Mahabharatha, a man-eating Rakshasa named Hidimba and his sister Hidimbi lived on the hill. Hidimba was a source of terror to everyone around while Hidimbi was a peace loving rakshasa . When the Pandavas came with their mother Kunti in the course of their exile, Bhima had a duel with Hidimba in which Hidimba was killed. Thereafter Bhima married Hidimbi and they had a son named Ghatotkacha who was gifted with magical powers. Legend has it the boulders were part of the arsenal used during that duel. In fact, the boulders on which major part of the city rests belong to the oldest rock formation in the country.

During the reign of Madakari Nayaka, the city of Chitradurga was besieged by the troops of Hyder Ali. A chance sighting of a woman entering the Chitradurga fort through an opening in the rocks led to a clever plan by Hyder Ali to send his soldiers through the hole. The guard on duty near that hole had gone home for lunch. The wife of that guard, Obavva was passing by the hole to collect water, when she noticed soldiers emerging out of this opening. Obavva was not perturbed. She was carrying with her an Onake (a long wooden club meant for pounding paddy grains). She killed Hyder Ali's soldiers one by one as they attempted to enter the fort through the opening and quietly moved the dead. Over a short period of time hundreds of soldiers entered and fell, without raising any suspicion. Obavva's husband, upon his return from his lunch was shocked to see Obavva standing with a blood stained Onake and hundreds of dead bodies of the enemy around her. The opening in the rocks still remains as a historical witness for the story, beside the Tanniru doni a small water source which holds cold water all round the year. Though her sincere and brave attempt saved the fort on that occasion, Madakari Nayaka could not repel Hyder Ali's attack in 1779. In the ensuing battle, the fort of Chitradurga was lost to Hyder Ali. Obavva, like Kittur Rani Chennamma remains a legend, especially to the women of Karnataka.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6938
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 08 May 2012 14:04

Sources close to idrw.org have informed, that Tejas is all set to land in Goa to carry out weapons trails in next few days , another source close to idrw.org has mentioned that Indian air forces Il-76 aircraft with crew and technicians from Bangalore have already landed in Goa today (07/05/2012) in evening and aircrafts should be arriving soon .

Tejas after Goa trails will be heading to Pokhran, Jaisalmer, and back to chitradurga. To complete it weapons trials to achieve the IOC-2, Final LSP-8 is also ready and will be carrying out Taxi trials soon and first flight is expected in Next month of June.

Sweet! In all this gloom and doom on this thread, some good news.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 08 May 2012 14:12

Hope Derby trials soon!

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby KiranM » 08 May 2012 16:12

Cain Marko wrote:
But the requirement for LCA was it to be multi-role (back then, IIRC, another term called swing-role used to be used).
Irrespective of the nomenclature it needed to do ground-attack as well and that too quite efficiently - for which it needed storage-capacity of somewhat equivalent of a jaguar/27s (and don't forget that will mean and a min of centerline tank/twin smaller tanks on wings maybe) plus 2WVR and maybe even 2BVR (or a combination of them) combo - and then, on the field, switch to an loitering interceptor role with something like 4 BVR/2BVR/1 tank or 2BVR/2WVR/4tanks.

From what is open source, air superiority and point defense were the LCA's main objectives. Ground attack was secondary. Not unlike a MiG-21, but much more comprehensive to be sure.

All of these required an aircraft similar to M2K profile and not the 29s - so that comparison is not proper.

Perhaps, but the Mig-29 has evolved into a bird that CAN do all the above profiles, and that is my point. It can start off limited but then move on to greater things so long as it comes close to the time frames required/indicated. Hell even the Rafale and Tiffy started out A2A and A2G was slowly added.


Cain ji, please define 'comprehensive'. Unless done so, this line of debate does not hold. If the aim was just secondary ground attack (assuming rocket firing, dumb bomb dropping abilities), IAF would not have asked for a LDP. Requirement of LDP brings the role of Jaguars/ Mirage into picture which supports Maitya ji's premise.

IMHO all details need not be black and white in ASRs. Many details would have been fleshed out before/ during Project Definition Phase in the discussions between IAF and DRDO. IAF may not have used the words 'composites', 'FBW', etc. But using 'manoeuvrable', 'interceptor', 'LDP' and 'ground attack' would have led to such design choices.
And your example of Mig-29 and Eurofighter does not hold good because they were primarily designed as Interceptors (corrected later Air superiority Fighters and not Interceptors) (EF being called Flanker killer for no other reason). Their 'multi-role' ability was discovered or worked upon only later after their design was frozen.
Last edited by KiranM on 08 May 2012 17:13, edited 2 times in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 08 May 2012 16:29

Mig-29/Eurofighters were Air Superiority fighter not interceptors.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby KiranM » 08 May 2012 17:12

Austin wrote:Mig-29/Eurofighters were Air Superiority fighter not interceptors.

Thanks for the correction. However, the point stays the same.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36345
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 08 May 2012 19:25

I am happy with weapons trial, and wish for everything goes smooth to completion. We have already good experience with Elta systems and israeli missiles along with russkie ones being fired from Jags. So, I am expecting the learning from there be transfered here.

thumbs up!

I would like to see Mk2 in some real form soon!

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 08 May 2012 20:05

Cain Marko wrote:Actually, no - I am referring to the debacle around 1993, when the above incident happened. I believe you can find it in AM Rajkumar's book. I referred to this incident as an example of how IAF recommendations were ignored by ADA. Rest assured the decision to hook the LCA to LM/Marietta and not Dassault (whose engineers were already working in Bangalore) was clearly ADA's. And it did cost the program in terms of time. Even AM Wollen, whose article you point out, suggests this.


i have not read 'tejas story'. even if one were to agree with your contention, point is IAF went with it!! remember they knew it in 1982 itself and was debated - as told by tks tales article. besides from the same article he clears mentions IAF desired 'modern' fighter from DRDO.

The other two major stations of the SWAC, Jodhpur and Bhuj, had kept their presentations simple. They functioned on the premise that the DRDO would deliver what ever was being promised. They just asked for a few additional items like laser ranger.


Good, if the IAF was all supportive of this ambitious program, then why all the R&D about IAF not being supportive by forumers. I always said IAF was supportive wonlee :twisted:


yes IAF was supportive in the intitial phase when ACM Idris Latif was there. they lost steam post his exit. IMO this was changed when Fali S Major became the chief. now they are enthusiatic and it is good.

WHich again, brings me to my last conclusion - while the goal of "bridging the gap' was achieved, the equally critical one of providing the AF with a fighter in reqd. time was not. Which takes us back to TKS's original point - IAF operational requirement for 21 replacements should not have been tied to R&D/Infrastructure goal of LCA. They should have been two separate goals. Because essentially one is in conflict with the other: you can't catch up with 25-30 years of lost time in terms of tech and R&D in the timeframe the IAF needed its fighter replacement.


yes the first goal has been achieved and in my opinion even the second goal too!! but yes with delay but you have to remember the road is never easy for a country trying its hand first time with absolutely zero MIC!! and if you look at the timeline it is not bad!! even EF had a rough road in its development!! still you compare, it is definitely not bad at all. from 1993 to 2012 will be 19 years!! by any stertch and for a first timer you consider it bad?? besides LCA programme has already paid back and now we have an infra backed by datapoints!! you are looking at it glass half empty but i look at it as glass full. i guess the total delay would be about 3-4 years but consider the sanctions, meagre budgets, technology being reinvented!!! i say it is fantastic but you have a right to your opinion which i respect.

Ya, but there is nothing in the article to suggest that the listed criteria REQUIRED tech such as FBW, composites etc.


it does not but the fact that DRDO outlined it and was debated at the conference and still post 1985 LCA programme did sport FBW/COMPOSITES simply means IAF went with it. i don't think there is any confusion reagarding this. also speaks volumes of ACM Idris Latif being a visionary and saw the big picture so early.

now see that requirement in the context of the confernce in 1982 and ACM's action thereon which makes it crystal clear to me that 'AHQ went with the outline DRDO' sent them and also added some more like LDP. in summary IAF was in the know of the systems, performance and timelines and went along. your point i am afraid is not correct atleast to me.


Rexamine that article. Again from the same article, it is clear that after the program definition phase (1988), the IAF did not want to proceed - it was too ambitious for it's requirement.


your comment refers to Wollen's article. yes. the IAF did have reservations in 1988/89 which is why review committee was set up which went into technical ability of indian infra of the day and found it was good enough and gave a go ahead and phase 1 of FSED was sanctioned. IAF went along here too if you look at the whole programme uptill now.

Again, you are missing the point - one goal was achieved, and I am damn proud of it. But the other was clearly missed. TKS's whole point is why mix the two? And it is eminently pragmatic.


no it does not work like that. the idea was create a 'modern' MIC capable of producing a modern aircraft of your choice which meant you had to create infra and at the same time create datapoints/database for an actual programme so your future programme will have a sound base and cuts your development time in your future projects and which are current for the day. now look you have a goldmine of database right from FBW, COMPOSITES, RADAR, ENGINE, EW etc.. is it not sound?? your next project will be that much simpler because you already have everything as a backup to bank on.

it has not missed the 2nd goal but there is 3-4 year delay for which we should not be so hard on ADA. they were working against great odds!!!

Where is the problem? It has been inordinately delayed - that is where the problem is. IAF was hoping to get the 21s replaced in the mid/late 90s. It is 15 years later that the bird will see FOC!


mid 90s was never possible as the funding happend only around that time due to india's precarious financial position in 80s to early 90s. 15 years?? that is being unrealistic but well you have a right to say it.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Nick_S » 08 May 2012 20:11

100 pages up.... time for new LCA dhagha :!:

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3396
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 09 May 2012 20:18

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1846 Test Flights successfully. (08-May-2012). (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-341,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-52,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1844 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-51,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 10 May 2012 00:53

I don't think this image of the first flight of NP-1 was posted here before. It's taken from the Tejas - LCA Facebook page.

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36345
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 May 2012 01:06

super


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests