LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 May 2013 22:24

capability driven architecture leading to capability driven operational success. long live LCA Mk(x), {x=1,2,3..}

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 May 2013 23:07

indranilroy wrote:In order to help get back to technical discussions, here is my wishlist for Tejas Mk2.
1. Increased payload, larger internal fuel and IFR demands higher number and flexibility of weapons stations. (position unclear)
a. Increase the number of weapon stations to 9 (by upgrading weapon station L to a full fledged station and moving the gun into the fuselage).
b. Plumb weapon stations 3 and 4, so that 800 ltr supersonic fuel tanks can be moved to those stations freeing up stations 1 and 2 for large weapons.
c. Development of multiple racks for MRAAMs at weapon stations 1,2,3 and 4

...

4. IRST (most probably will not happen)

...

With regards to 1, if payload capacity is to be increased, I would go for increased payload capacity at the No.7 centre-line pylon from 1,500kg to 2,000kg. That would allow the LCA to carry one big/heavy missile/bomb. However having said that, most missiles/bombs made for combat aircrafts fall into less than 1,500kg category. So this may be money not well spent.

Agree on the multi-rack at station 3 and 4, especially for MR-AAMs. When the IAF invests more in SDB-types of PGMs, then a bomb-rack would be good. This would allow stations 1 and 2 to keep carrying external fuel tanks for range.

Of the 5 things you mentioned, I would add In-Flight-Refueling on it. While LCA is a short-ranged multi-role fighter, it would add much more flexibility in the types of mission profiles it can undertake with IFR capability.

I would like to see IRST as well since it is increasingly coming to the forefront on combating stealth fighters at up to 30-50km range.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 May 2013 00:14

srai wrote: With regards to 1, if payload capacity is to be increased, I would go for increased payload capacity at the No.7 centre-line pylon from 1,500kg to 2,000kg. That would allow the LCA to carry one big/heavy missile/bomb. However having said that, most missiles/bombs made for combat aircrafts fall into less than 1,500kg category. So this may be money not well spent.

LCA is not long enough to carry those category of weapons, and be able to pivot on the runway, without scrapping the runway (notice the bottom at the back of the 1200 ltr fuel tanks).

srai wrote: Agree on the multi-rack at station 3 and 4, especially for MR-AAMs. When the IAF invests more in SDB-types of PGMs, then a bomb-rack would be good. This would allow stations 1 and 2 to keep carrying external fuel tanks for range.

They already have bomb racks similar to the ones on the Jaguar. But 3 and 4 can't carry 2 450 kg dumb bombs (hence I was asking for 3 and 4 to be plumbed, so that 1 and 2 can carry the two 450 kg dumb bombs.

srai wrote: Of the 5 things you mentioned, I would add In-Flight-Refueling on it. While LCA is a short-ranged multi-role fighter, it would add much more flexibility in the types of mission profiles it can undertake with IFR capability.

IFR will definitely be present on Mk2. It will be present on Mk1, post FOC. Those 5 things are ones which I am not sure of.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 03:08

“Carrier compatibility test for LCA (Navy) is expected by the end of 2013,” Sudan said on Friday. The test is intended to check if the indigenous fighter can fly from the decks of a carrier and land with the support of an arrester-hook.

from the p8i link/BR news

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 03:47

Self del..

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 May 2013 04:33

how will you take off? how would you move landing gear? these magnets cant be turned off

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 04:55

self del

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 04:57

the next big step is what being tried by the massans. JSF vtol.

Another advantage of hooks is that if it does not get engaged, the jet still retains the same speed to re-take off again. [what if the magnets fail? and the jet speed is reduced by half? --a loss $30M straight into the seas, and perhaps more precious is the fighter pilot if he can't eject]

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 05:00

self del

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 05:02

why do you have to remove these posts?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 05:02

Because it will work.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 05:04

okay, but removal does not make sense. if your ideas will work, then it should remain in the thread, so would be those ideas that may not work as well. you are not OT, imho.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 05:10

If it can be propriety tech then it should not be on here too. Not necessarily mine, but the Navy's, then why share?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 05:15

unless you own the IPR and do not want to share it here, i agree. otoh, if you can google and get it.. then anyone can too. we still have "discussions" as part of the topic of the thread. so it is perfectly valid to discuss LCA techs.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 05:22

Saik Ji, if it has value and we can make AC land without hooks/ arresters on steel decks, why publicly share the idea that other nations may also get clued in. This is too public a forum for that. The tech is not this simple idea itself, but in making it happen.

Anyways deleted as not comfortable..would feel better if Katare ji and you too removed references, but it's up to you. Apologies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2013 06:26

^^^^^

Have you used google, yet?

An arrestor needs a back up - typically a cable-hook.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 May 2013 08:15

to avoid something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYXbFJrA4Ik

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2013 08:47

No, when a cable is engaged you can see that the planes hook rises (for whatever reason). Once that cable snaps (as it happened here) the hook in most cases is unable to reengage any other cable and the plane becomes a "bolter".

A back up is one that stands ready to engage when the prior is unable to engage (not fail). In earlier days they used to have barriers, first some 5' high (to catch the landing gear) and if that failed a 15' high to snag the whole plane.

A S-3A Viking making an emergency landing into the barricade on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). The aircraft was unable to make a normal arrested recovery because of damaged landing gear.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2013 15:22

Oh dear! Yet another gloom and doom report about the LCA-Naval this time.There are ew details too other than few test flights.

http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/18308 ... all-at-sea

Four flights in one year. That’s the flight track record of the naval variant of Light Combat Aircraft -LCA Navy (NP-1) since it made its maiden flight on April 27 last year in Bangalore.

The NP-1 which is the sole prototype build under the LCA Navy programme by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has been bogged down with a few problems that it has not been on a flight sortie since July last 2012.

The aircraft since its first few flights has been undergoing a few modifications with regard to the landing gear and a few other systems to meet the ski jump requirement, said Ministry of Defence sources.The LCA Navy is being developed to operate from an aircraft carrier with a concept of ski-jump take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR). The aircraft to prove that it is fit for carrier-borne operations it would be subjected to ski-jump launch and arresting recovery tests at the naval air station in Goa.

Sources added that a few hiccups which are being sorted, after which more flights would follow.The LCA Navy programme commenced in 2003 and the development plan of the Naval version envisages building of two prototypes, a two-seat trainer (NP-1) and a single seat fighter (NP-2), as technology demonstrators to carry out carrier suitability certification and weapons integration.

Compared to its Air Force counterpart, the LCA is different as it has a new stronger and longer landing gear, arrester hook for ship deck landing, front fuselage drooped for better over the nose vision to facilitate ship landing, an additional control surface to reduce ship landing speed and consequential changes in various systems.The NP1 aircraft would be flying with the GE-F404-IN20 engine.

The LCA will replace the depleting Sea Harrier squadron and operate along the MiG29 K’s by 2014 from the Indigenous Air Craft Carrier which is being constructed at Kochi.The Government has already sanctioned limited series production of the LCA Navy under which eight aircraft would be developed.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 May 2013 22:20

This is old news Philipji no need to re-analyse the same

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 May 2013 06:35

Where's the doom and gloom part of the news? All it states are facts that are well known.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 May 2013 06:40

The title of the article starts with a negative tone, and all it does is just state the facts known so far. A very poorly researched and written article.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 May 2013 06:53

will our ddm ever come out of moharum mode?

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 06 May 2013 22:08

Bhrata evam bhagini gan,

The IOC 2 was expected after Iron Fist.

Any news? Any idea how the IAF is judging the performance of LCA in Iron Fist? Is the IOC 2 imminent by June/July???

The suspense is too much to bear!!!

Itna sannata kyon hai bhai?

Will be very glad and thankful if any body can throw some light, need some good news desparately!!!

P.S: Any intelligent analysis or views on the bolded part will be much appreciated. and no I'm no DDM journo fishing for info but just a BRF muzzahide..

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 07 May 2013 03:21

indranilroy wrote:In order to help get back to technical discussions, here is my wishlist for Tejas Mk2.
1. Increased payload, larger internal fuel and IFR demands higher number and flexibility of weapons stations. (position unclear)
a. Increase the number of weapon stations to 9 (by upgrading weapon station L to a full fledged station and moving the gun into the fuselage).
b. Plumb weapon stations 3 and 4, so that 800 ltr supersonic fuel tanks can be moved to those stations freeing up stations 1 and 2 for large weapons.
c. Development of multiple racks for MRAAMs at weapon stations 1,2,3 and 4

For MK2, your "wish list" is too big, since we already have to add too many new things that delays the development and induction, not to mention that some things are not necessary (single screen touchscreen display in the least capable fighter of IAF fleet?

).

Point A is not possible, once because the lack of a dedicated pod station, would occupy the center line station with the LDP in any strike role. That then would make carrying 2000lb LGBs not possible, the same problem that the EF has.
Secondly, with the gear bay behind the station L, you have size limitations and must place all payloads as far as possible to the front, which might limit it to WVR missiles only. Not to mention that the station is attached to the air intake and won't hold any heavier load anyway.

Points B and C are not good ideas, once because you reduce the fuel capacity only for the aim to carry larger loads, which then again means less range. Currently we see a 2400l fuel tanks for 2 x 1000lb LGBs, in your config it would only be 1600l for 2 x 2000lb LGbs for example. Even if you add the center line fuel tank, you would have the same fuel as today with 2 x fuel tanks, but twice the bomb load and more drag, which results into much lower operational range.
Same can be said for C wrt multi racks for MR AAMs, because that increases the drag and makes the fighter less maneuverable. Even if you jettison the fuel tanks before combat, the multi racks will remain an issue.

To solve hardpoints issue, we should have gone with a similar way like Saab did it with the Gripen NG!
The gear bay was moved under the wings, which gave them 2 important advantages:

- new internal space for increased fuel capacity
- new external space for additional hardpoints

They even solved your problem with the gun I guess:

http://www.heeresdruckerei.at/sk/lusk/a ... 01_mac.jpg

http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/jas39/j ... 811201.jpg

LCA MK2 could have been like this and would have been far more capable:

By the fact that we have to change the fuselage for the new engine anyway, this might have been a simple and better solution, to add more internal fuel than increasing the length of the airframe, or to re-design the wings for additional hardpoints.

Also the upgrade should be aimed on the roles LCA is aimed for in IAF and partially in IN. Carrying heavy loads like cruise missiles will never be an issue, since MKI, Rafale, or Mig 29K are meant for that. More interesting would be increased A2A capabilities, by adding AESA radar as soon as possible, just like passive sensors and to further reduce the RCS, by reducing the number of fuel tanks that are necessary (increased internal fuel / CFTs if possible). For CAS, the addition of HELINA or CLGM would be important additions, just like twin pylons like the M2K-5 most likely will have for 500lb bombs:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130506/3jyglrww.jpg

However, the focus must be on fast and simple induction, anything that offers the smallest risk for delays should be avoided, especially waiting for indigenous developments like the radars. If they are not capable and mature enough, de-link them and take an off the shelf option and use the indigenous AESA to upgrade LCA MK1 and Mig 29K for example in later stages. Getting LCA ready must be the priority, not making it 100% Indian!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 May 2013 04:45

Sancho wrote: Point A is not possible, once because the lack of a dedicated pod station, would occupy the center line station with the LDP in any strike role. That then would make carrying 2000lb LGBs not possible, the same problem that the EF has.
Secondly, with the gear bay behind the station L, you have size limitations and must place all payloads as far as possible to the front, which might limit it to WVR missiles only. Not to mention that the station is attached to the air intake and won't hold any heavier load anyway.

Well, I don't agree with your first point. Currently, it can't carry anything other than an LDP. One can always build a weapon station which can carry an LDP or any other weapon. Example, station 2 on the Mirage 2000.

I agree with your second point. There will be restrictions.

Sancho wrote:
Points B and C are not good ideas, once because you reduce the fuel capacity only for the aim to carry larger loads, which then again means less range. Currently we see a 2400l fuel tanks for 2 x 1000lb LGBs, in your config it would only be 1600l for 2 x 2000lb LGbs for example. Even if you add the center line fuel tank, you would have the same fuel as today with 2 x fuel tanks, but twice the bomb load and more drag, which results into much lower operational range.

Ofcourse, if you carry more payload, you will carry less fuel. I said, in lieu of the fact that Mk2 will have IFR and larger internal fuel capacity (from the look of things, it will be more by about 600-800 ltrs). Btw, the 800 ltr fuel tanks are more aerodynamic and create lesser drag.

Sancho wrote:
Same can be said for C wrt multi racks for MR AAMs, because that increases the drag and makes the fighter less maneuverable. Even if you jettison the fuel tanks before combat, the multi racks will remain an issue.

I agree, and it should not be pursued if drag becomes the primary bottleneck. but I can't think of a situation, where you would lose an aerial battle only because you were carrying an extra rack. I think a pilot would chose to have an extra missile any day.

Sancho wrote: To solve hardpoints issue, we should have gone with a similar way like Saab did it with the Gripen NG!
The gear bay was moved under the wings, which gave them 2 important advantages:

- new internal space for increased fuel capacity
- new external space for additional hardpoints

They even solved your problem with the gun I guess:

Nope, that is definitely not a solution for LCA Mk2. They need to decrease wave drag, that solution would increase wave drag. Gripen NG could adopt that, because it was already slender enough to start with. There is nothing fancy about their gun either. The set up is similar to the gun on LCA (below and behind the intake).

Sancho wrote: LCA MK2 could have been like this and would have been far more capable:

If I understand that setup correctly, station 8 cannot be used when station and 7 or 9 are being used. Then effectively, we have added 1 station, provided the loads carried there are not long enough to interfere with the MLGs. I think it is a good setup, may be have add 7' and 9' behind the MLG, as in the Mirage 2000.

Sancho wrote: By the fact that we have to change the fuselage for the new engine anyway, this might have been a simple and better solution, to add more internal fuel than increasing the length of the airframe, or to re-design the wings for additional hardpoints.

Once again there is requirement for them to extend the fuselage. They are not adding any additional hardpoints on the wings. (I don't know if they are increasing the payload capacity of any hardpoint).

Sancho wrote: Also the upgrade should be aimed on the roles LCA is aimed for in IAF and partially in IN. Carrying heavy loads like cruise missiles will never be an issue, since MKI, Rafale, or Mig 29K are meant for that. More interesting would be increased A2A capabilities, by adding AESA radar as soon as possible, just like passive sensors and to further reduce the RCS, by reducing the number of fuel tanks that are necessary (increased internal fuel / CFTs if possible). For CAS, the addition of HELINA or CLGM would be important additions, just like twin pylons like the M2K-5 most likely will have for 500lb bombs:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130506/3jyglrww.jpg

However, the focus must be on fast and simple induction, anything that offers the smallest risk for delays should be avoided, especially waiting for indigenous developments like the radars. If they are not capable and mature enough, de-link them and take an off the shelf option and use the indigenous AESA to upgrade LCA MK1 and Mig 29K for example in later stages. Getting LCA ready must be the priority, not making it 100% Indian!

I agree. I am not speaking about ability to carry cruise missiles. I am only speaking about more flexibility than anything else. AESA will definitely be a part of LCA Mk2. Desi or not remains to be seen. They have plans for everything that you said on LCA Mk3: higher composites, better RAM coating, stealthier shaping. I have not heard anything about the CFTs though.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 07 May 2013 09:34

LCA Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2146 Test Flights Successfully. (04-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-262,PV5-36,LSP3-126,LSP4-72,LSP5-168,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2152 Test Flights Successfully. (06-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-264,PV5-36,LSP3-127,LSP4-74,LSP5-169,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

member_23657 · Post by **member_23657** » 09 May 2013 10:49

LCA Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2152 Test Flights Successfully. (06-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-264,PV5-36,LSP3-127,LSP4-74,LSP5-169,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2153 Test Flights Successfully. (08-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-264,PV5-36,LSP3-128,LSP4-74,LSP5-169,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

Good to see some real seriousness shown by HAL/ADA towards IOC-2. The average for the last month is >1 flight/day.

member_23657 · Post by **member_23657** » 09 May 2013 13:16

This is a direct quote from wiki about F414-GE-INS6

F414-GE-INS6: India's Aeronautical Development Agency selected the F414-GE-INS6 engine to power the Mk II version of the HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force. 99 engines were ordered in October 2010. The engine is to produce more thrust than previous F414 versions. It features a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system.[21] The F414-GE-INS6 is to have six stages. The engines are to be delivered by 2013.

F414-EPE: The "Enhanced Performance Engine" or "EPE" variant, includes a new core and a redesigned fan and compressor. The new engine version offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost, which increases its thrust to 26,400 pounds (120 kN), giving it an almost 11:1 thrust/weight ratio.

Does this mean F414-GE-INS6 will be more powerful than the F414-EPE

If this is true, then the F414-GE-INS6 would produce a thrust greater than 120kN and may be a military thrust around 80kN assuming that reheat produces ~50% increase.

Can some experts through light on if this increase in thrust help LCA Mk2 go supersonic in all regimes.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 May 2013 13:20

ADA quotes F414-GE-INS6 at 98 kn or 10T of thrust

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 09 May 2013 19:27

avinashpeter wrote:This is a direct quote from wiki about F414-GE-INS6

F414-GE-INS6: India's Aeronautical Development Agency selected the F414-GE-INS6 engine to power the Mk II version of the HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force. 99 engines were ordered in October 2010. The engine is to produce more thrust than previous F414 versions. It features a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system.[21] The F414-GE-INS6 is to have six stages. The engines are to be delivered by 2013.

If by 6 stages they mean 6 compressor stages, then INS6 should be atleast equal to 414EDE. EDE can either give out same thrust and better sfc and engine life or more thrust at same (414-400 level) sfc and life.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 09 May 2013 19:41

indranilroy wrote:Once again there is requirement for them to extend the fuselage. They are not adding any additional hardpoints on the wings.

That's the point! The only reason why the extend the airframe (not only the fuselage) is to add additional fuel tanks for IN's requirement, but without any benefit of additional hardpoints. Not to mention that according to Kartiks conversations at Aero India with officials:

Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

The Gripen NG design on the other hand offers, more fuel and hardpoints in a simpler modification. So why limiting MK2 and making the modification more complicated than necessary?

Wrt drag, with the same internal fuel increase as the Gripen, LCA MK2 would have 1200l more fuel, which means no centerline fuel tank needed in interception or missions anymore => less drag, lower RCS
In CAP or CAS with 1 or 2 centerline fueltanks instead of the 2 bigger wing fuel tanks => less drag, lower RCS
In strike with bigger wing fueltanks, the bombs could be carried on the centerline and no multi racks for AAMs would be needed, since the midwing stations are free => both turns into less drag

The fact that the ADA LCA MK2 or N-LCA MK2 Brochures and models keep showing it in similar configs as MK1, without any freeing of hardpoints basically confirms Kartiks informations too and would be more than disappointing, that after such an ammount of modification, neither much more internal fuel, nor more range, nor more hardpoints could be added.

indranilroy wrote:If I understand that setup correctly, station 8 cannot be used when station and 7 or 9 are being used.

Depends on the load carried and the space the LCA fuselage would offer. Saab shows configs with 3 x BVR missiles, or 3 x 500lb LGBs, but even if it's only 2 hardpoints, if would provide LCA MK2 with the flexibility to carry a useful AAMs load in any mission without the need of multi racks, redesigned wings.

indranilroy wrote:They have plans for everything that you said on LCA Mk3: higher composites, better RAM coating, stealthier shaping. I have not heard anything about the CFTs though.

LCA MK3 is just another dream of ADA and DRDO, to fool everybody with promises they can't hold. You can't make a stealth fighter out of LCA, without having a complete stealth design, including fully internal weapon and fuel carriage, so don't put too much hope on that fake PR.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 09 May 2013 19:48

Austin wrote:ADA quotes F414-GE-INS6 at 98 kn or 10T of thrust

GE as well, 22000lb = 98kN:

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2013 22:45

The "F" mag has given the latest LCA schedules,promised and achievable in its latest issue "Better late than never?" It alleges that further delays are affecting the plans of the IAF and IN and only by 2020 will the first lot of 40 LCAs arrive and that MK-2 will fly only by 2017.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 May 2013 23:23

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Once again there is requirement for them to extend the fuselage. They are not adding any additional hardpoints on the wings.
That's the point! The only reason why the extend the airframe (not only the fuselage) is to add additional fuel tanks for IN's requirement, but without any benefit of additional hardpoints. Not to mention that according to Kartiks conversations at Aero India with officials:

Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

The Gripen NG design on the other hand offers, more fuel and hardpoints in a simpler modification. So why limiting MK2 and making the modification more complicated than necessary?

Get over your blind love of Gripen and you will be able to see the reason.
1. The length is not being increased to increase fuel load. The fuel is being increased because they have to increase the length. Check the cross sectional area of the Tejas. Between the 5mtr and 6mtr. There is sudden jump in cross sectional area. They are trying to smoothen that out by using a 0.5 mtr fuselage plug there. That plug allows them to have more internal volume, half of which they are using for more fuel. Also you can imagine that the if they go for the same changes as the Gripen, then it will aggravate the problem, rather than mitigate it.

2. The SFC of GE 414 is better than GE404 at same levels of thrust. The SFC is higher when you push the GE414 beyond the limits of 404. So as long as you are not dashing around with the Mk2. You will see increased range.

Sancho wrote: Wrt drag, with the same internal fuel increase as the Gripen, LCA MK2 would have 1200l more fuel, which means no centerline fuel tank needed in interception or missions anymore => less drag, lower RCS
In CAP or CAS with 1 or 2 centerline fueltanks instead of the 2 bigger wing fuel tanks => less drag, lower RCS
In strike with bigger wing fueltanks, the bombs could be carried on the centerline and no multi racks for AAMs would be needed, since the midwing stations are free => both turns into less drag

The fact that the ADA LCA MK2 or N-LCA MK2 Brochures and models keep showing it in similar configs as MK1, without any freeing of hardpoints basically confirms Kartiks informations too and would be more than disappointing, that after such an ammount of modification, neither much more internal fuel, nor more range, nor more hardpoints could be added.

3. The internal fuel of Mk2 is going up by 800-1200 ltrs.
4. When did Kartik say that no more internal fuel could be added. You see that violet tank behind the pilot. That is new tank for more internal fuel. Range has also be increased due to reduced drag (they have done a lot aerodynamic refinements on the wing-body blend strake, pylons, APU intake, hydraulic covers and MLG fairing). and increased internal fuel. When you speak of range, you are going to cruise at your maximum fuel efficiency, at which the 414 is better than the 404.
5. To add no more hardpoints may be decision of the user. They don't want to carry more. They don't want a low end medium aircraft. They want a nimble aircraft.

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:If I understand that setup correctly, station 8 cannot be used when station and 7 or 9 are being used.
Depends on the load carried and the space the LCA fuselage would offer. Saab shows configs with 3 x BVR missiles, or 3 x 500lb LGBs, but even if it's only 2 hardpoints, if would provide LCA MK2 with the flexibility to carry a useful AAMs load in any mission without the need of multi racks, redesigned wings.

I have actually never come across a Gripen using all the 3 pylons simultaneously. Can you shown me one. I have always seen them using multi-racks on 2 hardpoints. All I am asking for is the flexibility of the config being wind tunnel tested at the right bottom corner.

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:They have plans for everything that you said on LCA Mk3: higher composites, better RAM coating, stealthier shaping. I have not heard anything about the CFTs though.
LCA MK3 is just another dream of ADA and DRDO, to fool everybody with promises they can't hold. You can't make a stealth fighter out of LCA, without having a complete stealth design, including fully internal weapon and fuel carriage, so don't put too much hope on that fake PR.

They never said that they are going to make a stealth fighter out of LCA. They are saying that they are going to make it more stealthy. There is nothing wrong in that. F-15 went to silent eagle, JF-17 and J-10 stealthier versions are in the works. So I don't know why you would single out the Indian project as the 'pipedream'.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 10 May 2013 01:20

indranilroy wrote:Get over your blind love of Gripen and you will be able to see the reason.

Lol, that has nothing to do with love for the Gripen, but with acknowledging that somebody else have found a more innovative and effective way for the same requirements (integrating a new engine, adding more internal fuel) and with more advantages in return!

indranilroy wrote:4. When did Kartik say that no more internal fuel could be added. You see that violet tank behind the pilot. That is new tank for more internal fuel.

Kartik wrote: Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1920

Yes, that is one of the new fuel tank, which required the lenghtening of the airframe as I said, the others are at the fuselage and will be integrated in the changes their, but wouldn't have required lenghtening of the airframe itsef.
So MK2 gets wider and longer, don't you think that will create more drag than the gear bays moved to external positions?

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130509/i86sz2dd.png

And as I said, wrt to an upgrade of MK1s to MK2, what is the simpler modification?

indranilroy wrote:5. To add no more hardpoints may be decision of the user. They don't want to carry more. They don't want a low end medium aircraft. They want a nimble aircraft.

Yes, that's why they increase the number of hardpoints at M2K and Mig 29. Come on man, you really believe that IAF likes to fly LCA in strike config without BVR missiles?
Something that is a basic requirement for any 4th gen fighter? Of course they do, but ADAs solution is simply not offering this advantage, without credible changes at the wings, that is why I criticize this approach and would prefer the way Saab did it.

indranilroy wrote:I have actually never come across a Gripen using all the 3 pylons simultaneously. Can you shown me one. I have always seen them using multi-racks on 2 hardpoints.

http://imageshack.us/a/img69/5374/gripenngcloadout.jpg

indranilroy wrote:They never said that they are going to make a stealth fighter out of LCA. They are saying that they are going to make it more stealthy. There is nothing wrong in that. F-15 went to silent eagle, JF-17 and J-10 stealthier versions are in the works. So I don't know why you would single out the Indian project as the 'pipedream'.

It is as much as a pipedream as to believe that there will be a stealthy JF 17 someday, the point is, using the term "stealth" for a 4th gen fighter is wrong itself, because all you can do in a non stealthfighter design is, the "reduce the RCS". Stealth on the otherside would mean a complete re-design for the fighter, which is neither possible nor cost-effective. The Silent Eagle uses additional CFTs to carry the weapons internally, which is not possible with the LCA design, the Silent Hornet uses a weapon pod on the centerline and CFTs, but the size limitations of LCA at the centerline, won't allow a big pod that can house any useful weapon load. Note that even the Silent Hornets weapon pod has not enough space to carry the IR missiles internally too. Both fighters might have reduced their RCS to an extend, by reducing external payloads, but are far away from being a stealth fighter, or at least having a stealth design. LCA potential to either add such CFTs or weapon pods, are more than low and the fact that they are claiming such things at this point, when they didn't even have MK1 ready or a fixed concept for MK2 alone shows that they are just promising things again, that they can't hold!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 May 2013 02:20

Sancho wrote: Yes, that is one of the new fuel tank, which required the lenghtening of the airframe as I said, the others are at the fuselage and will be integrated in the changes their, but wouldn't have required lenghtening of the airframe itsef.
So MK2 gets wider and longer, don't you think that will create more drag than the gear bays moved to external positions?

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130509/i86sz2dd.png

And as I said, wrt to an upgrade of MK1s to MK2, what is the simpler modification?

1. Well if you keep saying "new fuel tank, which required the lenghtening of the airframe", then I have nothing to say. I told you that adding of the fuel tank is after effect and not the cause of lengthening the airframe.
2. I did not understand the second part of your question. LCA Mk2 is going to be only longer, not wider. Gripen was long enough, so they could go wider. LCA was wide and not long enough, so they are making it longer.

Sancho wrote:

indranilroy wrote:5. To add no more hardpoints may be decision of the user. They don't want to carry more. They don't want a low end medium aircraft. They want a nimble aircraft.
Yes, that's why they increase the number of hardpoints at M2K and Mig 29. Come on man, you really believe that IAF likes to fly LCA in strike config without BVR missiles?
Something that is a basic requirement for any 4th gen fighter? Of course they do, but ADAs solution is simply not offering this advantage, without credible changes at the wings, that is why I criticize this approach and would prefer the way Saab did it.

It can have BVR missiles right. On the mid-wing pylon, it can have upto 3 WVR missiles on multi-rack. And actually the multiple rack creates more drag than a single rack pylon. But will a 3 rack pylon create more drag than a 3 pylons. All of them will have the similar frontal area. I can understand if you would have argued with recessed pylons as in the EF. But on pylons like that on the Gripen, I don't know how big a difference, it will make.

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I have actually never come across a Gripen using all the 3 pylons simultaneously. Can you shown me one. I have always seen them using multi-racks on 2 hardpoints.
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/5374/gripenngcloadout.jpg

Thank you.

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:They never said that they are going to make a stealth fighter out of LCA. They are saying that they are going to make it more stealthy. There is nothing wrong in that. F-15 went to silent eagle, JF-17 and J-10 stealthier versions are in the works. So I don't know why you would single out the Indian project as the 'pipedream'.
It is as much as a pipedream as to believe that there will be a stealthy JF 17 someday, the point is, using the term "stealth" for a 4th gen fighter is wrong itself, because all you can do in a non stealthfighter design is, the "reduce the RCS". Stealth on the otherside would mean a complete re-design for the fighter, which is neither possible nor cost-effective. The Silent Eagle uses additional CFTs to carry the weapons internally, which is not possible with the LCA design, the Silent Hornet uses a weapon pod on the centerline and CFTs, but the size limitations of LCA at the centerline, won't allow a big pod that can house any useful weapon load. Note that even the Silent Hornets weapon pod has not enough space to carry the IR missiles internally too. Both fighters might have reduced their RCS to an extend, by reducing external payloads, but are far away from being a stealth fighter, or at least having a stealth design. LCA potential to either add such CFTs or weapon pods, are more than low and the fact that they are claiming such things at this point, when they didn't even have MK1 ready or a fixed concept for MK2 alone shows that they are just promising things again, that they can't hold!

Ofcourse, you can't make a MAKO out of LCA. But, you can make it quite difficult to find.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 May 2013 08:42

Sancho wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Once again there is requirement for them to extend the fuselage. They are not adding any additional hardpoints on the wings.
That's the point! The only reason why the extend the airframe (not only the fuselage) is to add additional fuel tanks for IN's requirement, but without any benefit of additional hardpoints. Not to mention that according to Kartiks conversations at Aero India with officials:

Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

Sancho, the Tejas Mk2 is also looking to decrease drag by improving the fineness ratio, by increasing the length by 0.5m over the Mk1. But, they will use that increase in length to add additional fuel tanks, since the Mk2's weight will be greater than that of the Mk1. Indranil is right about wave drag as well, where he mentions that the Gripen already has a better fineness ratio and lower drag than the Tejas Mk1. Which is why they can afford to add the new fairings, which won't impact the Gripen NG's wave drag as much as it will the Tejas Mk2's.

The Gripen NG design on the other hand offers, more fuel and hardpoints in a simpler modification. So why limiting MK2 and making the modification more complicated than necessary?

I don't agree that the Gripen NG modification is simpler than the Tejas Mk2- to whit, they haven't yet even demonstrated the fuselage modifications on the Gripen Demo that has been flying and used as an avionics testbed.

Wrt drag, with the same internal fuel increase as the Gripen, LCA MK2 would have 1200l more fuel, which means no centerline fuel tank needed in interception or missions anymore => less drag, lower RCS
In CAP or CAS with 1 or 2 centerline fueltanks instead of the 2 bigger wing fuel tanks => less drag, lower RCS
In strike with bigger wing fueltanks, the bombs could be carried on the centerline and no multi racks for AAMs would be needed, since the midwing stations are free => both turns into less drag

While you're correct that increased internal fuel would possibly obviate the need for fuel tanks for certain missions, it impacts the overall weight and requires substantial re-design to accomodate those fuel tanks, such as what they've planned with the Gripen NG. The Tejas Mk2 design has been kept simpler, which IMO is a blessing, since its lower risk.

The fact that the ADA LCA MK2 or N-LCA MK2 Brochures and models keep showing it in similar configs as MK1, without any freeing of hardpoints basically confirms Kartiks informations too and would be more than disappointing, that after such an ammount of modification, neither much more internal fuel, nor more range, nor more hardpoints could be added.

But why does it need more hardpoints? Even after the modifications, the Tejas Mk2 is a LIGHT fighter. If it can carry 4000 kgs of weapons, it'll more than suffice for nearly every mission that it was designed for and that the MiG-21 and MiG-27 series carry out.

I didn't ask the Deputy Project Director about whether they would be re-stressing the hardpoints or not, to increase the ordnance that could be carried on stations 4, 5, 6 and 7.

IMO, a double ejector rack is what they should be looking to design and qualify for the Mk2. Again not sure if such a rack is being developed for it or not.

LCA MK3 is just another dream of ADA and DRDO, to fool everybody with promises they can't hold. You can't make a stealth fighter out of LCA, without having a complete stealth design, including fully internal weapon and fuel carriage, so don't put too much hope on that fake PR.

LCA Mk3 is not being bandied about right now, so I don't see any need to really be so harsh on them for that. If at all its taken up, the Mk2 could definitely form the basis for a Mk3. It doesn't need to be full stealth, but certain measures could definitely be taken to reduce its RCS even further, while adding relevant technology updates if and when it ever takes shape.

There are ways in which you can reduce the RCS of externally carried weapons by designing new stealthy pods, something that nearly all the 4th generation fighters will be carrying at some stage. Believe me, if and when a Super Hornet appears with the stealth pod, you'll suddenly see a rush for something similar on all the 4th gen designs, if not for anything else, to just keep up with the Jones'. As they say with the F-15SE, it may not be a fighter to take out the enemy's defences on day one of the battle, but any reduction in RCS will always be welcomed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2013 09:38

Kartik's emphasis that the LCA is a "light fighter'" is the fundamental of this bird.The L in its name stands just for that.The F-16 was similarly meant to be just that,a light fighter,but was adorned with much matter that detracted from the purity of the original concept.Two articles,in VAYU and the F mag,in high praise of the simple MIG-21,still soldiering on 50 years after the type was inducted need to be read,extolling the virtues of the much upgraded and capable Bison which will carry on until 2020,equipped with BVR missiles,indicates the way forward .After all the LCA was meant to replace the MIG-21s at low cost.Trying to turn it into a scaled down multi-role M-2000 or Rafale is frankly a "role too far".4000kg of ordnance is far in excess of what 3rd gen. fighters carried,a very healthy payload.The constant tinkering and trying to fit into its small airframe a plethora of eqpt. ,which is being undertaken for Mk-2,carries its own penalties in further delays and weight.
Getting MIk-1 into service asap and even using it primarily in the air defence role would serve the IAF very well and keep its numbers happy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2013 06:31

Report on the LCA from the F mag.(Atul Chandra)."Better Late than Never?"

Compariosn,13 LCA's LSPs included in 12 years while we celebrate 50 years of service of the MNIG-21.
IOC will see the bird flying with the R-73 CCM,DASH-3 HMDS and a Litneing pod for PGMs.FOC will see Derby and Python-5 as AAMs.Astra to also be tested for use on Mk-2.One interesting fact.In 2003 the IN invested 400cr, for its version while the IAF had not invested a single rupee! Can someone verify this fact pl.? However,the IN will face the max. delay in getting its version.

F mags status report:

Induction of Tejas Sceduled 2011 Realistic 2014

Completion of FSE Dev. Dec. 2008 Realistic 2015
(Ph-2)

FOC Mk-1 2012 Realistic 2015

FOC Trainer variant 2011 Realistic 2016

Delivery of all 40 LCA Mk-1s 2015 Realistic 2020
(Remember an earlier schedule of APJAK's where he said that "200 would be manufactured between 2003 and 2011")

Tejas Mk-2 first flight Dec. 2014 Realistic 2017

Tejas Mk-2 series prod. June 2016 Realistic 2021-2022

LCA Mk-1 Navy IOC 2014 Realistic 2016

LCA Mk-2 Navy IOC NA Realistic 2021