LCA News and Discussions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Feb 2013 17:55

Then the weird part was F-18 which has two 404 engines yet its performance in Leh was found wanting while Tejas has no trouble taking off from there with a decent payload using the same engine.

> I think the F-18 also took off with no difficulty, but just not in the length of runway specified with the given load.
> that apart the SH is a big plane, bigger and heavier than the EF/rafale...and its heavy duty naval undercarriage and bones comes free on land.

> F-18 will be kept strong and sharp being the tip of spear for USN and likely to be first point of contact with hostiles around the world esp planaf flankers and newer platforms.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 04 Feb 2013 18:59

is there any news of MK2 model being displayed at aero India ????

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 04 Feb 2013 19:00

Then the weird part was F-18 which has two 404 engines yet its performance in Leh was found wanting while Tejas has no trouble taking off from there with a decent payload using the same engine.

> I think the F-18 also took off with no difficulty, but just not in the length of runway specified with the given load.
> that apart the SH is a big plane, bigger and heavier than the EF/rafale...and its heavy duty naval undercarriage and bones comes free on land.

> F-18 will be kept strong and sharp being the tip of spear for USN and likely to be first point of contact with hostiles around the world esp planaf flankers and newer platforms.

Well, engine power and Thrust to Weight ratio are never the be-all and end all to performance. If that was the case, we wouldn't need to do such extensive aerodynamic tests on rockets, let alone a more complex aerobody like a combat aircraft.

Aerodynamics of the aircraft play a big role in influencing the actual performance of the aircraft. So we cant say whether a certain aircraft would be overpowered or underpowered just by looking at its weight and the engine specs. It comes from actual tests of the engine ON the aircraft in real life conditions.

a) The rated power and specs of the engine are based on some tested conditions. Max dry and wet thrust at ideal/ standard conditions also wont tell us how much performance degradation the engine will face at different conditions. That depends on the engine design and tuning - much like car engines, for that matter. Some will be tuned for power delivery, some for fuel efficiency, some for pickup, etc. Aircraft engines are also similarly unique among each other. This degradation is especially true for Leh-like conditions - hot and high.

b) TWR doesnt automatically equate to performance. The entire aerodynamic package comes into play. Again, to stretch the car analogy, muscle cars have lots of power, but they'd do well only in a straight line drag race, if at all. A sports car with the same engine will be better for race circuits. Its about how that engine delivers within that airframe, and how the airframe is able to handle it.

c) Are we even sure about how accurate the brochure specs are? Theres a big big difference between design intended vs delivered vs delivered on platform vs delivered on platform in actual usage conditions. The answers are never straightforward. TWR helps, but it isnt the only factor.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Feb 2013 19:08

that lca mk.2(?) mock up with rafale type refueler probe doesn't appear like showing the extra length.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Feb 2013 19:21

remember last month I had claimed a chaiwala news that winter trials of tejas in Leh?
confirmation
http://livefist.blogspot.in/2013/02/stu ... ls-at.html

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 04 Feb 2013 19:48

Aditya_V wrote:
Is this MK-2 looks ??

Its pre- LSP 7 Mk1. ie, its not even a production model.

You can clearly see it doesnt have LSP 7 aerodynamic refinements. Also, the fixed refueling probe is a Mk.1 feature. Mk.2 will have a retractable probe.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 04 Feb 2013 20:02

SaiK wrote:that lca mk.2(?) mock up with rafale type refueler probe doesn't appear like showing the extra length.

That mock up is from 2009 air show and not MK2. But I do hope they show a mock up of LCA Tejas MK-2 in this season of the show.
link: http://www.airliners.net/photo/India--- ... 7a4f677b92

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Feb 2013 20:25

krishnan, could you pl put some text for your source/date etc? thx

Siddhu · Post by **Siddhu** » 04 Feb 2013 22:26

[quote="indranilroy"]FromLCA 2013 calendar

Wt's the orange part in the end of the tail above the exhaust ??

will it have parachute or some thing in it??

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 04 Feb 2013 22:32

Siddhu wrote:
Wt's the orange part in the end of the tail above the exhaust ??

will it have parachute or some thing in it??

Korrect. Its the cover/cap for the drogue parachute.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Feb 2013 00:02

Karan M wrote:MB

Exactly. The LCA MK-2 in many ways will be a peer of the NG Gripen, which is why latter did not make sense for the MMRCA as well. Why buy something which you are making yourself? A lot of foren obsessed types were perfectly willing India swing an axe at its own interests by buying a WIP jet and killing its own progress, but the IAF chose the two best performers both heavier, which by virtue of their size brought certain advantages to the table. Plus were more mature to begin with, vs NG and less risky.

Is there any open source material suggesting that the IAF was biased in favour of a heavier fighter? I ask because I have not seen any. AFAIK the Grippen NG did not qualify because it was not mature and not because there were any shortcomings in its capability. So why "medium"? Is it like a variety thing; "I wore a blue shirt yesterday, so I need to ware a different colour today!". Is there specific reason why only expensive uber fighters like the are good enough not the Grippen or the LCA? A lot of the discussion here make it sound like war is a game of Top Trumps. The guy with the highest, longest, fastest and what-everest fighter wins. Is that what history shows us?

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 05 Feb 2013 00:05

It may end up with some humor but how come Iran could unveil a stealthier airworthy aircraft faster than us if we compare our experience with LCA? Unless they are completely lying about it or the technology was somehow stolen it is an amazing feat, isn't it?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 05 Feb 2013 00:25

Please do not bring the F-313 into this discussion. "stealth" RC models are not to be discussed here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Feb 2013 02:25

Livefist reports Tejas to participate in Firepower Demo "IronFist"

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2013/01/ahe ... as-at.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Feb 2013 02:30

^please note the swing role demo!

sum · Post by **sum** » 05 Feb 2013 11:17

This has to be one of the most perplexing pieces of news in a long time. The Light Combat Aircraft Tejas needs a new radome. A helpful Livefist reader pointed me to a late 2012 expression of interest (EOI) by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to vendors to "design, develop and manufacture radome for LCA".

The ADA's Directorate of Avionics & Weapon Systems in the EOI of September 2012 notes that it is "looking for alternative radome for LCA as part of their product improvement activity". Let's go over this slowly. A few months short of initial operational clearance, the fighter programme figures the platform needs a new radome? A reading of the document suggests that the ADA is looking for another radome to compare -- if the new one is better, great. If it isn't, tough, they'll stick with the old one. But why are they even looking for a new one? What's wrong with the existing radome design? Have systems trials been impeded by an unsatisfactory/faulty radome? A reading of the ADA document throws some light. But only some.

The EoI puts forth that the programme is looking for a radome "to replace the existing radome with improved EM (electromagnetic) performance) and with no change in existing geometry and pitot attachments." OK, so there's nothing specifically wrong with the radome's aerodynamics or structure. Also note the following points: (a) The new radome needs to have identical geometry, though surface smoothness needs to be "equivalent or better". It also appears that the agencies testing the Tejas are not entirely happy with the lightning protection system of the existing radome and that there is rain water ingress at the radome-fuselage junction in the current structure.

Looking for further details about the Tejas radome online, I occasioned upon this excellent post over at www.aame.in, which reported the Tejas programme's new radome requirement first in December last year, and must therefore have credit for breaking the story. The author of the post is right when he notes, "To my mind it indicates a level of dissatisfaction with the outcome of [ADA's] own design efforts, and a degree of lack of confidence to see it through to the end."

The questions that this EOI throws up are many: Why now? Could this disrupt programme/delivery timelines further? How bad is it really with the current radome? A new radome will involve attendant trials -- will those delay the programme further? This is not a good situation for a programme that is already replete with hurdles, even now.

From Livefist!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Feb 2013 11:32

indranilroy wrote:
suryag wrote: Where is it IRji?

btw why do we have specification for design and dev of Radome now?

http://www.ada.gov.in/EOI.htm
No 'ji' please.

http://www.hal-india.com/tender_ARDC_tab_New.asp

RFP: D/IMM/COM3/LCA(MK2)/5461/03/13951/2012
RFQ: D/IMM/5461/7R/1069/2012

suryag wrote: btw why do we have specification for design and dev of Radome now?

http://www.ada.gov.in/EOI.htm
On page 4, "ADA is looking for design and development of alternative radome for Light Combat Aircraft as part of their product improvement activity.
They don't want any geometry changes, only improved EM performance. If possible better lightning protection and better smoothness.

Info nugget: IFF dipoles are integrated into the MMR antenna. I used to think that they were the two silvery things above the nose, in front of the cockpit. (like in the F16).

P.S. Corrected formatting

So much for breaking news. This is from Nov'2012

.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Feb 2013 11:37

Tejas logs Flight No. 2000

sum · Post by **sum** » 05 Feb 2013 11:37

BRF ahead of curve onlee

kish · Post by **kish** » 05 Feb 2013 18:26

Gurus,

I wonder how many of those 350-400 will be indigenous fighter jets. Does this $40 billion to procure 350-400 new aircraft during the 12th five-year-plan give any hint?

With up to 400 aircraft purchase on cards, IAF to spend $ 40 billion in 12th plan

The Indian Air Force which is on the verge of re-inventing itself into a multi-spectrum strategic force will be spending around $40 billion to procure 350-400 new aircraft during the 12th five-year-plan.

The IAF had signed as many as 325 capital contracts worth $28.5 billon in the 11th plan.

Interestingly enough, $15.5 billion of this amount benefited Indian defence companies and signing of as many as 417 contracts with world majors to fulfill the offset clauses.

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 05 Feb 2013 20:47

LCA Tejas likely to be ready for operational service by 2015

The much-delayed indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas aircraft is expected to be ready for induction into operational service by 2015, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne said today.

Talking to reporters, the IAF chief said the indigenous aircraft will have to be modified further for operating in high-altitude areas as recently during trials in Leh, its engine “did not work”.

“By my estimate it (the Initial Operational Clearance II) should be by the end of this year and the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) should take another year-and-half more,” he said on the sidelines of a seminar. The IAF chief said the aircraft will take part in the exercise ‘Ironfist’, which will be held at Pokharan in Rajasthan on February 22.

“There it will be firing the R-73 missile along with laser guided bombs etc. But a lot more work is still required,” he said.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Feb 2013 20:54

Singha wrote:Then the weird part was F-18 which has two 404 engines yet its performance in Leh was found wanting while Tejas has no trouble taking off from there with a decent payload using the same engine.

Hornet bros have higher wing loading than most of the MRCA competitors ; LCA has by far the lowest wing loading numbers when compared to MRCA contenders.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 06 Feb 2013 00:00

So this is what they used on Tejas during weapons trials. The current pic looks like Su30 though

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 06 Feb 2013 01:09

^ Its only when you see the folks standing tall UNDER the wing of the Su-30 when you realize the massive size difference between this and the LCA.

Perhaps someday someone will post a in-flight picture of the two flying side by side perhaps...

-Vivek

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 06 Feb 2013 03:13

They got a reference set from the MMRCA trial which is also applied to the Tejas now as part of the FOC?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Feb 2013 03:33

vivek_ahuja wrote:^ Its only when you see the folks standing tall UNDER the wing of the Su-30 when you realize the massive size difference between this and the LCA.

Perhaps someday someone will post a in-flight picture of the two flying side by side perhaps...

-Vivek

I remember the first time I had seen Su-30 at AI'07. It was instant love for me. It is intimidating (almost as big as regional jet) and beautiful at the same time. The other jets parked next to it look like kids.

And when it takes off with full AB, your lungs vibrate.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 06 Feb 2013 07:15

keshavchandra wrote: Talking to reporters, the IAF chief said the indigenous aircraft will have to be modified further for operating in high-altitude areas as recently during trials in Leh, its engine “did not work”.

so LCA failed Winter trials

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2013 07:29

Thats the danger of people speaking partially. Either he should have kept quiet or specified exactly what did not work. Saying something incomplete and offhand only gives the sharks and crooks a handle to damage the program.
People in high places need a course in how to deal with the media. It certainly flew for the livefist photos...maybe it failed some cold start test in morning or night .

Even in mature program like amraam , production was suspended for a long long time due to propellant failure until a norway company recently bailed them out. Of the 1000s in inventory worldwide nobody has a good handle on how many will fail when the button is pressed.

People need to accept in any project there will be periodic new failures uncovered and regression failures. Mature countries deal with it and move on. Immature countries point fingers and howl ineffectually.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 07:35

++ ^sure "we" are immature.. and there is no doubt about it!

There needs to be SoP for media exchange with the forces and indigenous products that enable the forces.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 06 Feb 2013 07:40

so whats the deal, IAF will not accept even if it passes 99.9999% tests ?

in the same interview, he said that even mki had to be modified for leh, so why doesn't we first induct lca and lets fix these extreme case scenarios afterwards.

Or

is it a basic requirement failure ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2013 07:51

who knows "engine did not work" - did it fail to start sometime , did not develop required thrust?

in any case, the Tejas will be inducted at sea level Sulur and will participate in iron fist with LGB and R73.

this indicates the derby integration might not be done yet - though one can never show off a BVR aam hit in a exercise like iron fist over a small area.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 07:55

I think they say things specific or don't say it at all! on actual failures. Now, what is success is left to the test requirements.

akshat.kashyap wrote:so whats the deal, IAF will not accept even if it passes 99.9999% tests ?

whatever, it (performance) should be measured by number of test passed divided by number of tests executed.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 06 Feb 2013 08:10

The IAF should take the Jaguar over to Leh, am afraid it can land but never take off and will become a relic outside the AFSTN over there. The IAF should stop looking for unobtainium in every case.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 06 Feb 2013 08:31

suryag wrote:The IAF should take the Jaguar over to Leh, am afraid it can land but never take off and will become a relic outside the AFSTN over there. The IAF should stop looking for unobtainium in every case.

I am starting to highly doubt now if IAF even gives a rat's a** about LCA Tejas.

With 42 additional Sukhoi's , upgraded MiG's, Jaguar and Mirages along with 126 +63 additional Rafale jets with FGFA and AMCA development in pipeline IAF is giving me a sense of feeling that they are better off without LCA in multiple Squadron service and they don't care about it anymore.

Are they even interested in LCA Tejas

If not then HAL better start offering it to other countries for export.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 06 Feb 2013 09:08

SagarAg wrote:
suryag wrote:The IAF should take the Jaguar over to Leh, am afraid it can land but never take off and will become a relic outside the AFSTN over there. The IAF should stop looking for unobtainium in every case.

I am starting to highly doubt now if IAF even gives a rat's a** about LCA Tejas. With 42 additional Sukhoi's , upgraded MiG's, Jaguar and Mirages along with 126 +63 additional Rafale jets with FGFA and AMCA development in pipeline IAF is giving me a sense of feeling that they are better off without LCA in multiple Squadron service and they don't care about it anymore. Are they even interested in LCA Tejas If not then HAL better start offering it to other countries for export.

Man, IAF surely is the favorite punching bag of this thread.

Where has anyone read that LCA induction is getting delayed because of repeated trials being demanded by IAF (unlike Arjun saga). If HAL was ready to hand over SP aircraft for squadron service and IAF refused it based on, let's say, Leh Trials you all would have a point.

IAF have placed an order of 40 (20 + 20) Mk1 LCA's. The second 20 plane batch was ordered somewhere around IOC-1, even when multiple tests (wake penetration, lightening etc.) were still to be performed. Does that not show faith and interest of IAF in LCA.

The blame of LCA not being with IAF is purely on HAL. LSP7 and 8 were supposed to be handed over to IAF an year ago. What is the status of that. Induction of SP LCA's was supposed to have started last year. Surely, IAF is to blame for that because all they want is videshi maal !!. Even after all these delays there is an order of around 80 Mk2 LCA's (remember this is something which is not even flying). Surely, IAF has no interest in LCA getting into squadron service.

The IAF bashing in this thread specially for their role in the last 4-5 years in just ridiculous.

Plus, exporting LCA at this stage is a joke, HAL will make 3-4 SP aircraft this year. Good luck getting any export orders with that kind of production capability.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 09:12

Other countries will respond only against IAF inductions. For example, Mig-35.. no exports yet, even though the baseline Mig29 (forget the naming - that is their headache), was sold. Normally, if the seller country can't induct, then it is a big question mark.

It has to be then under heavy handed corruption deal, which is highly plausible considering our existing neta regime.

srin · Post by **srin** » 06 Feb 2013 09:18

SagarAg wrote:
suryag wrote:The IAF should take the Jaguar over to Leh, am afraid it can land but never take off and will become a relic outside the AFSTN over there. The IAF should stop looking for unobtainium in every case.

I am starting to highly doubt now if IAF even gives a rat's a** about LCA Tejas. With 42 additional Sukhoi's , upgraded MiG's, Jaguar and Mirages along with 126 +63 additional Rafale jets with FGFA and AMCA development in pipeline IAF is giving me a sense of feeling that they are better off without LCA in multiple Squadron service and they don't care about it anymore. Are they even interested in LCA Tejas If not then HAL better start offering it to other countries for export.

How did you arrive at that conclusion ? Has the IAF said they will not accept LCA if it can't fly in Leh ?

The Air chief needs to think from short-term operational point of view - if there is a war in next 1-2 years, do I have sufficient aircraft ? With LCA not having FoC in that time, and pilots not able to develop all the tactics in that time, does he have any choice other than to upgrade existing ones (M-2000 and Mig-29) and to order more of the aircraft he already has (Su-30) ? He cannot afford to bank on the LCA for the short-term.

Then, there is the 10 year view - after 10 years, he needs the best of class in every class that is relevant, and an aircraft that is "our own" - we do whatever we want with it. It might be a EW plane, it might be CAS, we might even make it VLO.

He needs to invest in both near-term and long-term.

All indications are that IAF is working closely with HAL/ADA on the LCA now, and they have put the past behind.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 06 Feb 2013 09:44

Gurneesh ji Saik ji and Srin ji it was an outburst over our IAF Chief's bouncer that LCA Tejas's engine did not work in Leh. On one hand we are seeing piktures of Tejas flying happily in Leh

and on other hand this comment by our IAF Chief

Atlease state clearly what did he meant by engine failure and how much will it further delay the IOC-II

As far as export is concerned I don't think our beloved Khan will allow us to export Tejas anywhere with their engine. I on one hand hope forget about its induction now. Try putting all the resources and efforts in developing Kaveri engine for LCA Tejas.

Go for it give it another try. Well let's see I am hoping for LSP-8 first flight by March end or April beginning and IOC-II by year end.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Feb 2013 22:49

he must have some insight which we dont get from pictures.
Maybe the thrust wasn't adequate for full load or some such thing.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Feb 2013 23:01

agree with singha

the Chief needs tobe smarter than to say things like this to our DDM