LCA News and Discussions

[vishvak]

On one hand the number of squadrons is less than sanctioned strength even now. On the other hand LCA squadrons can be increased post IO clearance. Also some IO clearance may need flying hours as criteria. So it is perhaps better to have more efforts at this. Setting up another line of production will increase production management experience as well. It is better to have more capacity therefore earlier rather than later as part of production experience process.

[svinayak]

Titled 'Tejas Grounds Medium Combat Aircraft Project'

But sources pointed out that the LCA still lacks certain critical capabilities, including a reliable radar, and is deficient in at least 100 technical parameters. “The plane cannot fly on its own. It needs a lifeline in the form of support and monitoring of its systems from the ground by technicians,” they said.

How do the ground control support the components?!!! All the LSPs are test articles and have telemetry to monitor the correct functioning of the components!

Hilarious!

[SaiK]

Indeed.. and which piloted aircraft flew by itself!? this is akin to IA asking for a flying tank?

[Sid]

This is nothing but psywar carried out in Indian media. For every one encouraging news on LCA, 3 baseless articles are published. All these report cites unnamed personals pointing out issues which aam janta can find difficult to comprehend.

Similar psywar was waged when Akash and ALH were about to get inducted into forces.

Faster we get rid of all these Int. arms vendors, better it is for India.

[SaiK]

That should have been the goal or mission some 50 years back, now too late to ignore intl arms vendors. face it for selecting and electing inefficient governance!

[Kartik]

A bit nitpick saar out of the six flights two are from two different aircrafts, the hole in that moron "source's" theory is punched by LSP-5 which logs 4 flights in 4 days.

Even worse for that "source's" credibility. He has no clue what telemetry is meant to do and will now believe that the maintenance requirements have all of a sudden gown down. Shows how data can be interpreted completely wrongly if the initial assessment itself is wrong.

[SaiK]

looks like tarmak has distanced itself from reporting on LCA.. kuch something happened?

[PratikDas]

looks like tarmak has distanced itself from reporting on LCA.. kuch something happened?

In response to a reader's query on the IJT, Tarmak007 wrote back on Facebook:

Dear IR,

I will see what best can be done. I am on a vacation now and will get back to base on Monday. It's iron curtains all over in HAL after Tygai took charge and it has become very difficult to get official info. However, will try and do a story on IJT.

best\akm

[suryag]

[quote="suryag"]LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2131 Test Flights Successfully. (20-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-259,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-164,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)
to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2132 Test Flights Successfully. (22-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-259,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-164,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-2)

[suryag]

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2132 Test Flights Successfully. (22-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-259,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-164,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-2)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2134 Test Flights Successfully. (23-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-260,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-165,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-2)

[tushar_m]

Is there any specific details on MMR Radar of LCA , i expect LCA8 to be equipped with it

if any discussion was done earlier please anyone post the link

[aditya.agd]

Unless we get IAF to make war plans based on Indian planes... India will always remain a weak country.

[Austin]

Reign of Naval aviators

LCA Navy programme will deliver operational LCA Navy Mk-2 fighter only a decade from now
By Atul Chandra FORCE

Bangalore: The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) designed Light Combat Aircraft (Navy) is a highly ambitious project to develop the world’s smallest and lightest, carrier borne fighter with an unstable delta configuration and digital Fly by Wire (FBW). The LCA Navy must cater for a low approach speed, Ski Jump take off capability, with critical management of Angle of Attack (AoA), and have a structure capable of absorbing high vertical speeds while landing on an aircraft carrier deck. For ADA, with no experience in designing such an aircraft, the task has proved to be monumental and the first flight of the LCA Navy Trainer Prototype (NP-1) has been delayed by over a year. It is expected to take place only in the first half of this year.

The delay cannot be good news for the Indian Navy which, committed as it is to indigenisation, can now realistically expect the LCA Trainer variant to achieve Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by 2016, with Final Operational Clearance (FOC) expected two years later, by 2018. This would actually be very good going as ADA would have delivered an operational navy trainer with which selected aircrew could begin conversion training aboard an aircraft carrier.

Admiral Nirmal Verma speaking at the roll out of NP-1 stated that “The LCA Navy aircrew should have carried out conversion flying on the LCA Navy Trainer by 2014, as the indigenous aircraft carrier presently under construction in Kochi would also enter service at the same time.” As per a report by the Comptroller and Audit General (CAG) last year, as of December 2009, only 35 per cent work on the indigenous carrier had been completed. Compared to NP-1, the LCA Navy Fighter Prototype (NP-2) will feature revised air intakes for better engine performance at low speeds, full navy-specified avionics suite and increased internal fuel. The programme, as it stands today, needs more than a decade of design, development and flight testing before being able to trap on deck as an operational, all weather fleet defence fighter, flying off an aircraft carrier. Former chairman (HAL) Ashok Nayak had requested an early order for Limited Series Production (LSP) production of the LCA Navy Trainer, as a lead time of three years is required, to manufacture the aircraft. These orders would then be dovetailed into HAL’s existing orders. As it stands now, the LCA Navy Trainer will have only limited operational relevance.

More importantly, the final operational LCA Navy Mk-2 fighter version fitted with GE F-414 engines will be delivered only by the year 2021-2022 or a decade from today. The first flight of the Navy Mk-2 variant will realistically not take place before 2017-2018. This is because the IAF Mk-2 variant itself was given a four year time schedule and the GE F-414 engine (selection delayed by close to two years) will now come in only by next year (2013). This will be followed by at least two and a half to three years of flight testing to be completed, including Ski Jump and Arrested Recovery trials aboard a carrier. There is also the matter of the small number of aircraft being provided for testing with only two naval prototypes for Mk-2 variant being contracted for. HAL’s ability to churn out the prototypes in time is also limited and the existing manpower and industrial resources to run major programmes like this, simultaneously, are limited. Succession planning of people involved with the project also needs to be catered for. P.S. Subramanyam, director ADA, is already on an extension and expected to retire this year.

Rather surprisingly, the LCA Navy was sold to the Indian Navy as a ‘Minimum Change’ programme, emerging as an offshoot of the Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter version. However, while it is easier to convert an aircraft designed from the start for carrier operations to a land-based one, the other way round is much tougher. This was admitted as much by P.S. Subramanyam in an interview to FORCE, way back in 2010, when he said, “In hindsight, it would have been easier to design the naval variant first and then quickly move onto the air force variant and not the other way around. Our initial estimates on the amount of work required on the Naval variant were not quite accurate and the programme gave us some surprises.” The LCA Navy Mk-2 fighter is expected to have only a 60 per cent commonality with its IAF counterpart. Unfortunately, ADA refused to provide an update on the LCA Navy for this article. Interestingly, it was the navy which showed more faith in the LCA by providing an initial funding of about Rs 900 crore for the naval variant in 2003, compared to the IAF, which did not invest any funds till the decision was made to purchase 20 fighters in 2006. The navy began showing serious interest in the programme from 1995 onwards.

The programme currently lacks the required numbers of naval test pilots and naval test engineers to work on the programme. This is essential as the stress of operating a fully-fuelled and armed fighter on a confined aircraft carrier deck is best understood by a naval aviator. According to Air Marshal Phillip Rajkumar (retd), “The Navy requires at least four pilots and four test engineers working on this programme full time, to complete development in a reasonable timeframe.” The landing gear for the LCA Navy (NP-1) is also said to be overweight by almost 400kg and the LCA Navy Mk-2 will feature a revised undercarriage. The hefty looking landing gear has a longer oleo stroke and will take up more space while retracted into the fuselage, and uses the same schematics as the IAF version necessitating the use of a stay which has lead to an increase in weight. Without a doubt, the landing gear is overdesigned and it remains to be seen how best it will be resolved on the revised landing gear that will appear on the LCA Mk-2 Fighter and Trainer.

The decision to have two different types of landing gear on the Mk-1 and Mk-2 will mean that the new landing gear on the Mk-2 variant will need to be flight tested again. According to N.C. Agarwal, former director Design and Development (D&D) HAL, “Enough work will be carried out on Mk-1 aircraft and many teething problems will be resolved on it. However, there will be many new and unexplored areas that will require additional testing. This is true for any new programme.” The delays also mean that obsolescence management needs to be looked at closely, as obsolescence of items like Line Replaceable Units (LRU), needs to be catered for.the navy trainer NP-1, hardware-in-loop simulation for the Flight Control System (FCS) testing called ‘Iron-Bird’ will need to be completed. On the ‘Iron Bird’, the entire hydraulics, FCS and avionics would be integrated for evaluation of the software. Failure states, emergency hydraulics and the Mission Computer (MC) need to be tested which can be done only on the Iron Bird. All failure states from the Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) go to the Mission Computer and the software between DFCC and MC needs to be tested on the Iron Bird before the first flight. This is a time consuming exercise where no shortcut can be allowed as it is critical for flight safety. The Control Law for the FBW will need to be modified and tested extensively on the LCA Navy NP-1, as there is no prior experience in this area, especially when trials are conducted off the aircraft carrier. The LCA Navy is being designed to have a ‘Hands Free’ take off. When an aircraft is launched ‘Off the Deck’ and leaves the Ski Jump, it is not able to sustain wing borne flight instantly. This means that the aircraft would sink immediately after clearing the Ski Jump, but needs to keep on accelerating while maintaining the optimum Angle of Attack (Alpha) at this time. This task is expected to be automated to a large extent and is understood to be progressing smoothly. The LCA Navy is also slated to have an auto throttle and autopilot.

Apart from this, there will be a large amount of flight testing required to prove carrier compatibility and demonstrate that the aircraft is capable of operation on an aircraft carrier. Flight testing will also need to cater to the Ski Jump testing at both the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) at Goa and on the actual aircraft carrier. The SBTF along with a landing area is expected to be complete this year. Towards this end, a significant amount of money has been spent in developing the SBTF, at Goa. The most critical tests for the LCA Navy will be those that will have to be performed aboard the aircraft carrier at sea. This would encompass testing to demonstrate the aircraft’s wind deck envelope catering for cross winds and wind speeds. Ship motion testing will be challenging as well. Arrested recovery trials will also need to be done.

While the task at hand seems daunting, the LCA Navy carries many of the well accepted features from the IAF ‘Tejas’ programme. According to AM Rajkumar, “The Tejas will have very good flying qualities and has an autopilot in place, along with limiters in the Flight Control System (FCS). It will, therefore, be a safe and pilot friendly aircraft.” Most of the software has already been developed and the aircraft geometry is proven. The LCA Navy is expected to have similar flying characteristics and also features a very good man machine interface. It will have Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and Close Combat Missiles (CCM) along with an AESA radar. One would expect that the LCA Navy will be able to launch the missiles that are currently in the Indian Navy inventory and also feature the Astra BVR missile at a later date. It would also be equipped with Laser designator pod and precision guided munitions. Integration of the required avionics/sensors/weapons required by the navy should not pose a problem as HAL has built up substantial capability in this area with Jaguar DARIN 2/3 upgrade and Mig-27 upgrade. On entering operational service with the Indian Navy LCA Navy, Mk-2 will most likely serve as a point air defence fighter for the carrier battle group.

The Indian Navy is committed to becoming a builders’ Navy and it would seem that this extends to aircraft as well! While the service is most committed to indigenisation among the three services, the navy is said to be increasingly unhappy over the delays with LCA Navy programme. The Navy will face a stark choice in case the LCA Navy Mk-2 is unable to meet its operational requirements as promised to be delivered by its designers. The Indian Naval Air Arm has chosen the Mig-29 K as its main ship borne fighter and is most likely to be the only naval air arm to ever operate the type. The LCA Navy is crucial to the Navies’ plan to acquire more numbers of smaller, less expensive and capable carrier borne fighter for its new carriers. One hopes that the LCA Navy is not late for its own party.

[SaiK]

don't forget to wake me from dead, if we get to operational naval lca. i want still cheer for it.

[Sid]

I think definition of "Operational" differs from one service to another. For IA and IAF "operational" means system capabilities which are similar to mature products available in the market. Meaning LCA == F-16 Block XX and Arjun == Merkava XX.

I am hoping when it comes to Indian Navy, "operational" means Mark I fighter with carrier defense capabilities. Power projection capabilities like ground attack and SEAD can should be part of later on versions.

[Kartik]

Austin that is an old article, dating back to when NP-1 was rolled out.

[suryag]

Saik ji what is this from you, you are relying only on the headlines, like Kartik ji pointed out it is an old article

[SaiK]

huh! moral: never rely on austin.

[PratikDas]

The Force article is from May 2012 but I agree with Kartik ji in the sense that a lot of commentary is derived from information around the time of NP-1's rollout.

[Austin]

Not much old but seriously post NP-1 any thing majorly changed on the Naval variant ?

[SaiK]

it may be just that DDM is not aware.?

[Philip]

In ether the TOI or Ind.Exp his morning,there was an article about Russia continuing to offer India the offer of manufacturing MIG-35 despite losing the MMRCA contest,saying that the aircraft had met or even exceeded the specified requirements.Is there something that we don't know about? It could be "kite flying", or perhaps a genuine worry in the IAF about the LCA meeting IOC/FOC targets and its expected rate of production.If we are stuck with rapidly declining numbers with the imminent retirement of large numbers of MIG-21s and 27s,what aircraft could we swiftly induct to "plug the gap" ? The Rafale will not arrive in sufficient numbers to stop the downturn from its induction schedule,and we will have add "more of the same" ideally to avoid the excruciating process of acquiring a new type.The 35 is an upgraded version of the 29,in service with both the IAF and IN. In the Paki context,with its order of battle,the aircraft would be a far more cost-effective replacement for MIG-21s/27s instead of more larger,twin-pilot and expensive Flankers or less capable Jags.perhaps if the Russians called the aircraft the "MIG-36" for vastu/numerological purposes,instead of the "35",the aircraft would stand a better chance!

[SaiK]

yes..there is something you and i don't want to know about. ie., migs don't eat into LCA numbers.

[Indranil]

In ether the TOI or Ind.Exp his morning,there was an article about Russia continuing to offer India the offer of manufacturing MIG-35 despite losing the MMRCA contest,saying that the aircraft had met or even exceeded the specified requirements.Is there something that we don't know about? It could be "kite flying", or perhaps a genuine worry in the IAF about the LCA meeting IOC/FOC targets and its expected rate of production.If we are stuck with rapidly declining numbers with the imminent retirement of large numbers of MIG-21s and 27s,what aircraft could we swiftly induct to "plug the gap" ? The Rafale will not arrive in sufficient numbers to stop the downturn from its induction schedule,and we will have add "more of the same" ideally to avoid the excruciating process of acquiring a new type.The 35 is an upgraded version of the 29,in service with both the IAF and IN. In the Paki context,with its order of battle,the aircraft would be a far more cost-effective replacement for MIG-21s/27s instead of more larger,twin-pilot and expensive Flankers or less capable Jags.perhaps if the Russians called the aircraft the "MIG-36" for vastu/numerological purposes,instead of the "35",the aircraft would stand a better chance!

I would hate to see us paying for the development of Mig-35 as the qualified fighter, instead of LCA, even it takes a couple of more years. Development of all future Indian fighters ride on the success of LCAs. There will not be a better case of kopek wise, ruble foolish.

[vishvak]

+1 Philip. However India should weigh in requirements/bargains too for scope of strength(in numbers) it has since replacing Mig21 which is also a good fighter by the way. Bargains/weights could be for radars/Kaveri-ekamX2 or Kaveri-dvitiyaX1/MKI other requirements as per experience(Mig/Sukhoi UPG). It can be an attractive deal. Just to note Mig35 is 4Gen++ fighter jet like most others. However such a deal could get IAF jets available as also take a bit of load off others with its new manufacturing and lines of production.

[NRao]

I would hate to see us paying for the development of Mig-35 as the qualified fighter, instead of LCA, even it takes a couple of more years. Development of all future Indian fighters ride on the success of LCAs. There will not be a better case of kopek wise, ruble foolish.

When Putin visited India a few months ago, he wanted India to purchase the BMP-III!!!

There was a report that Russia wanted India to remember the past when making purchasing decisions (via ramana's post too).

I think, like the IL-476, the Russians do need more copies to be sold to bring the price down (I think the RuAF is purchasing the 35 too). India is being used to fund some of these efforts to the benefit of Russia.

Purchasing from Russia has to count for more than just replenishing the numbers. Besides I wonder what the IN would do if they had to select a naval plane now (outside of the LCA). I suspect they would go with the Rafale.

[SaiK]

well nobody is denying Mig35 features nor defying its capabilities. What we are requesting is, LCA is our puppy, and more dearer than the migs. If LCA is delayed with a reason, then we can accept and wait. There is no hard pressing demand now for the migs. Migs are yet to create big ticket purchase even from the russkie forces.

Let mig requirement be separated out of LCA requirement. If you are arguing what is the purpose of LCA itself, (btw, the argument to hold replace migs with LCA is much valid though).. then, you have to come to brasstalks table for a cup of coffee.

[koti]

I would hate to see us paying for the development of Mig-35 as the qualified fighter, instead of LCA, even it takes a couple of more years. Development of all future Indian fighters ride on the success of LCAs. There will not be a better case of kopek wise, ruble foolish.

I don't think Phillip saab is trying to say of paying up for Mig-35 instead of Tejas.
LCA has to have certain features to fulfill the overall IAF capability. If it lacks in certain parameters, that deficiency has to be made up elsewhere. If everything else fails and it comes to augmenting LCA Mk-1 with any other type of AC, I too think Mig35/UPG is suitable.

[SaiK]

but koti, the deficiency of migs are the cause of LCA taking shape... if you go by 10-15 years of planning reports.

[koti]

I don't think so.
It would have been better if we went to SAAB or Lockheed Martin if it were just the deficiency of the Migs SaiK sab. LCA is our attempt to attain partial independence in importing AC for IAF.
I think Mig 35/UPG is better for making up the numbers and restoring the edge of IAF without breaking the bank incase Tejas can't catch up in time. We are not talking about 120 Migs, but just enough to arm a couple or more squadrons.
If not migs, what else do you thing is better for IAF iff the need be?
OT??

[Austin]

Mig-35 or M2K-5 will be a good buy if IAF is looking at quick agumentation of its fleet keeping existing logistics infra and manpower in mind and if it foresees squadron reduction much faster then what it can induct this decade.

[RKumar]

Mig-35 or M2K-5 will be a good buy if IAF is looking at quick agumentation of its fleet keeping existing logistics infra and manpower in mind and if it foresees squadron reduction much faster then what it can induct this decade.

How Mig-35 can be quickly inducted when totally number of manufactured and flying planes are less then LCA, so I doubt if it is mature. IAF will get first planes at least 2-3 years after contact signing (which it self could take another 2-3 years). So we are talking about 2017-2019 time frame and don't forget about setting up maintenance nightmare as we getting into different types of planes.

So in stead of wasting resources and energy, we should concentrate on LCA but again I am banging my head against wall (IA and IAF top leadership, I wish only if they had vision to fight and win wars with local equipments. Not expanding our hands out to other nations when we are put to test).

[Indranil]

I would hate to see us paying for the development of Mig-35 as the qualified fighter, instead of LCA, even it takes a couple of more years. Development of all future Indian fighters ride on the success of LCAs. There will not be a better case of kopek wise, ruble foolish.

I don't think Phillip saab is trying to say of paying up for Mig-35 instead of Tejas.
LCA has to have certain features to fulfill the overall IAF capability. If it lacks in certain parameters, that deficiency has to be made up elsewhere. If everything else fails and it comes to augmenting LCA Mk-1 with any other type of AC, I too think Mig35/UPG is suitable.

If you get a more developed alternate in, the indigenous effort gets shelved. Jaguar-Marut ring a bell. Mig-35 hasn't seen squadron service yet. We ill be funding partially their development, willingly or unwillingly as in the case of the Mig-29K.

By the way, I would like to know what certain features do you foresee LCA Mk-1 not fulfilling. LCA, finally has gathered steam. LCA Mk2 is what would really be our arrival at the world stage (sans the engine). Let's not throw it away AGAIN.

[NRao]

LCA has to have certain features to fulfill the overall IAF capability

Should be achieved incrementally. After all even with the MiG-29s and Su-30s (only as an example) we did the same.

[wilson_th]

I think the link might have been posted earlier, if so appologies.

LCA-Tejas (LSP-08) takes off on its maiden flight


http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/lc ... 38934.html

"The performance of the aircraft was flawless and with this, the Initial Operation Clearance for the aircraft can be expected soon," HAL chairman Dr RK Tyagi said in a statement.

Looks like anti-LCA group is getting restless.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/323 ... tejas.html

Sources point out that the hurried flight, skipping the high-speed taxi trial, could have been conceived in the backdrop of Defence Minister A K Antony recently telling HAL not to extend the final operational clearance for Tejas.

Tejas team is on their toes.

[edited to add another link]

[koti]

If you get a more developed alternate in, the indigenous effort gets shelved. Jaguar-Marut ring a bell. Mig-35 hasn't seen squadron service yet. We ill be funding partially their development, willingly or unwillingly as in the case of the Mig-29K.

By the way, I would like to know what certain features do you foresee LCA Mk-1 not fulfilling. LCA, finally has gathered steam. LCA Mk2 is what would really be our arrival at the world stage (sans the engine). Let's not throw it away AGAIN.

I am absolutely against anything that can interfere with the Tejas.
I'm pushing for Mig35/UPG only to address the losing edge of IAF over our neighbors. 2 years or so down we will begin retiring the Mig 27's and most of the not Bison MIG 21s. Rafa won't be in the picture and it will easily take 5-6 years for the Rafa to appear in any noteworthy way and by then all the Bisons would be gone... thats around 10 squadrons IIRC. Add to this any delays in LCA Mk-2 technically, politically or in its production line, the condition I see will be worse. Ramping up numbers with cheap alternatives starting now is what I think is important.

By the way, I would like to know what certain features do you foresee LCA Mk-1 not fulfilling.

AOA, MTOW are what I read it now is working hard on. I'm sure it is a matter of time before these get fixed. But these delays IMO should me mitigated at other places and not left to time.

[Indranil]

Any Migs you get now, will only be eating into LCA numbers. Cold hard fact. Number of Su-30 orders, Rafale orders, PAKFA orders will not fall.

And if we don't have LCAs in at least 10-20 squadrons, forget the idea of an Indian bird for another 30 years.

[vishvak]

Paying for development of fighter is not exceptional for Mig35 as even for other jets such as Rafael costing of development must have been covered. In fact with KaveriX2 this could be an attractive deal. While beginning to induct Tejas mk1 then Tejas mk2, options should be kept open as much as possible. It may be more convenient to make decisions on purchase more 5 years hence whether for Rafael or for Mig35.

Also KaveriX2 should be good enough for Mig35 mkI. RD33 on the other hand should be junked as any improvement could be reflected in bandar engine across border the way improvements in US engine bankrolled by India may reflect in engines given to pakis for free. So this can also be considered as a factor. Better still if Mig35 has the best in class radar currently.

On the other hand Russia also should see to it that the airframe and overall architecture is very sturdy. Just as Mig35 can reduce load on other jets, especially when squadron strength sanctioned is less in any case. Hence less than sturdy air frame could complicate instead of improve situation.

[ramana]

Some of these nameless sources need a public shaming.

[SaiK]

There is a big international force to ensure we are not successful with Kaveri. Just imagine a Kaveri with near 100kN wet, and 60kN dry.. is enough to replace most mig-29 engines.

a 100kN kaveri will satisfy:
LCA Mk++
AMCA
Migs - all series
MMRCA
and other a/cs (except the heavy sukhois)