LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2014 11:27

It will be held up against the project when time comes.

Samajhane wale samajhageye hai. Na samajhe wo aanadi hai.

Nothing I can do. All the stuff I say is based on what is out there. And, I have always been very bullish on the AMCA. Today, with the exception of the engine, I am even more. India, IMVVHO, has a critical mass in this and many other fields.

The train is leaving the station, if anyone cannot stomach the ride they need to get off it. : )

_____________________

And, 40 LCAs by 2018.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jan 2014 12:53

indranilroy wrote: What is worrisome, is the quality of reporting. These are elementary knowledge to anybody following the program, rest aside people writing editorials about the same!

Indranil, the quality of reporting has always been bad. We here on BRF know this very well and even have a thread exclusively dedicated to it. When BRF old timers who are well aware of the standards of our DDM start "believing" these reports in order to run down indigenous programs while carefully avoiding pinning blame on certain foreign ones which have affected us adversely, it is natural for people to start wondering what they are up to.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jan 2014 14:33

Back from the Brink
LCA Tejas attains Initial Operational Clearance with the Indian Air Force

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Jan 2014 17:34

Our attempt on LCA and Cold Start

LCA Tejas and Cold Start Doctrine – Potential Joint Operations Test case

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jan 2014 17:47

Let us assume that AL-55 has MTBF of 100 hours, but the point is that does not hold up test flights as no IJT would be anywhere near flying those many hours.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 07 Jan 2014 18:02

nachiket wrote:
indranilroy wrote: What is worrisome, is the quality of reporting. These are elementary knowledge to anybody following the program, rest aside people writing editorials about the same!
Indranil, the quality of reporting has always been bad. We here on BRF know this very well and even have a thread exclusively dedicated to it. When BRF old timers who are well aware of the standards of our DDM start "believing" these reports in order to run down indigenous programs while carefully avoiding pinning blame on certain foreign ones which have affected us adversely, it is natural for people to start wondering what they are up to.

While reading our local newspapers, I often get tricked by titles of certain articles while browsing through different headlines. The titles are always catchy and its first para sounds nearly informative. When I get to the second paragraph I start to think "hang on, this is not a news article". Then I notice "sponsored article" fine print at the top of it. It is a promotion article about certain local car dealer or double glazed windows or some other local business. The title is always catchy and its contents are just marketing rubbish.

I get exactly the same feeling when I read every such LCA articles since late 90s till today. These articles are not badly written but clever negative-marketing materials without any appropriate marketing tag. I am almost sure about every such "negative-marketing article" but can never say it loud due to a little missing piece - who benefits in writing such a piece. These always follow the same specific pattern.

These are released atleast once a month
It is written by an indian and published in Indian newspaper but never by the same person in same newspaper.
These articles doesn't reveal anything new. It tells the same things we all aready know.
It never puts IAF or MoD in a bad light.
It mentions the latest achievements briefly but never credits anyone.
Mentions current work in progress items as shortcomings.
Last para always loosely mentions one of these points delay, IAF unpreparedness due to the delay, slippages and a random number between 20-30.

After all these years we are still not able to identify such articles, tag them correctly and move on. Someone always manages to drag it into an useless pointless debate. Its about time that someone makes an LCA column generator.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jan 2014 18:08

some things to remember about the media, they are not necessarily there to report the truth, or the truth as we would like it to be portrayed. they are in the business of capturing eye balls so that they can capture ad revenues. they target specific demographics based on the liklihood of eyeball attraction and eventual cashflow to their advertisers.

good news, plain vanilla, everything is fine and on schedule - does not sell news.
disaster, failure, incompetence, etc. does.

once you understand that, the rest is fairly easy to filter

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 07 Jan 2014 20:27

Ramu wrote: I get exactly the same feeling when I read every such LCA articles since late 90s till today. These articles are not badly written but clever negative-marketing materials without any appropriate marketing tag. I am almost sure about every such "negative-marketing article" but can never say it loud due to a little missing piece - who benefits in writing such a piece. These always follow the same specific pattern.

How about the arms import lobby and other vested interests who wont earn their bread n butter if the indigenous weapons are successfully inducted. They could be well be behind some of the people who are able to post/spam 24/7 and 365 days a year non-stop.

You have crossed the line here. Learn to respect difference of opinion without finger-pointing all the time.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Jan 2014 22:07

Flight update

Grounded aircraft
TD1 : 233, TD2 : 305
PV1: 242, PV2: 222,

1759th flight on 23 Dec 2011
PV2: 211, PV3: 325, PV5: 36
LSP1: 67, LSP2: 196, LSP3: 46, LSP4: 43, LSP5: 55

1960th flight on 19 Dec 2012
PV3: 348, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 238, LSP3: 83, LSP4: 56, LSP5: 112, LSP7: 4
NP1: 4

2466th flight on 31 Dec, 2013
PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 289, LSP3: 183, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 246, LSP7: 77, LSP8 : 62
NP1: 6

2469th flight on 07 Jan
PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 290, LSP3: 183, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 246, LSP7: 77, LSP8 : 62
NP1: 8

Strange PV5 is not flying since 2011 or before??
Could it be that focus is moved to Navy LCA?

member_28334 · Post by **member_28334** » 08 Jan 2014 22:27

Good to see NP1 flying. The focus I think has now shifted towards the NP after a long time. Apparently, The NP1 had many issues which I hope are getting resolved for the flight tests to resume.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2014 00:33

GReat pictures at Tejas site.

Pre IOC trials in Jamnagar and Goa.

This one is super cool. They both landed in formation!

By the way, LSP-8 is not flying because most probably it is getting a paint post IOC. So all bets are off on which plane is getting the IFR probe fixed first.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2014 00:43

And the 2014 Calendar.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2014 09:46

nice pics..

btw, did we miss this: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -iaf-chief

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 09 Jan 2014 09:46

^^
Thanks for sharing Indranil. Really beautiful pictures.

Fully loaded LCAs are a sight to behold.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Jan 2014 10:03

The color printer in my office is going to a bit busy over next couple of days...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jan 2014 10:30

smooth posh single malt looks.
the bandar looks to be designed in the local cycle repair shop and hammered together using similar means.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Jan 2014 12:19

Tejas p**n! oh I love it!!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Jan 2014 18:17

Promptly set December as wallpaper

Wish it was armed with some LGBs too, that would have made it perfect.

LakshO · Post by **LakshO** » 09 Jan 2014 18:20

Indranil: Awesome pics

Thanks for sharing these

Quick question to gurus: The first Tejas flight had KH2001 (KH for Kota Harinarayana and 2001 for the year the first flight was made). Why are these birds called KH20xx? KH retired long back, right? And, why are the machines labelled 2015,2017,2018? Any significance to the numbers?

Thanks for the reply.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 09 Jan 2014 18:46

LakshO wrote:Indranil: Awesome pics Thanks for sharing these

Quick question to gurus: The first Tejas flight had KH2001 (KH for Kota Harinarayana and 2001 for the year the first flight was made). Why are these birds called KH20xx? KH retired long back, right? And, why are the machines labelled 2015,2017,2018? Any significance to the numbers?

Thanks for the reply.

2015=LSP5; 2016= Still Missing as LSP6; 2017=LSP7; 2018=LSP8 which is flying with yellow primer in the above fabulous pics!

Am I wrong?

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 09 Jan 2014 19:25

what is the orange thingie on the gun port in 2nd and 7th calendar pic? also visible in last 2 pre ioc pics? have they started integrating the gun?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2014 19:38

http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Gallery/Cal ... 0/O/07.jpg
looks like a temp fixture with turntable attachment. camera for 360* H +/- 30* V view it appears? dunno.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2014 19:54

If developed apace to its full capability in Mk-2 avatar (AESA radar,etc.),and with enhanced production capabilities,allowing enough capacity for exports apart from the IAF and IN's requirements,it could have the potential to be the MIG-21 of the 21st century. Currently,the Gripen is walking away with almost all light multi-role fighter contests. Smaller nations that can only afford one or two types would find the two aircraft attractive options in an age of eco difficulties.

In the context of the current diplomatic spat,a poster wanted us to cancel GE engine orders if it came to it,the situ worsening further.Such a move would cripple the programme,We've gone too far down the road with MK-1 and such a move could be a catastrophe.However,there is no harm in also developing a second MK-2 prototype with an EJ engine ,as an alternative,since Mk-2 prototypes have yet to be built.It could be of use in evaluating engines for the future AMCA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2014 20:03

rajanb, you may be right on 2018 -> LSP8. good one!

we are still waiting to see a video of lsp8

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 09 Jan 2014 20:07

^There should be ready plans for such an eventuality, say with engines from Russia, France, EJ, 1x2Kavery-pratham(1) and Kaveri dvitiya(II). Especially when engines are usually chosen to fit with exact requirements and no leeway allowed for overpowered engine for modern & strict weight v/s performance penalty issues.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jan 2014 21:01

There is no money for all that saar...i fear you dont understand the beancounting that dogs DRDO etc when they budget for these programs. Basically, when they asked for one LRU extra for the LCA from an extra supplier, CAG came down on them hard. VKS used his own budget to fund a startup radar research arm, and CGDA attacked him. To have an alternate engine put in and tested, beyond an academic exercise, is an expensive, time consuming affair.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jan 2014 21:55

All this talk for testing it with multiple engines is very naive. You have to make structural changes, which might need a lot of engineering. An engine is not a standalone product, and all its accessories need to fit. All the wires and lines must be able to go around. For example what was required of IJT when they changed the engine. After you have fitted the engine, you have to do flight testing to see that everything is fine anywhere in the flight envelop.

To overcome the chance of overcoming sanctions during war, he have to build out own engines. There is no substitute to that. Till that we have to maintain good geo-political relations as all the other countries who don't build their own engines do.

The GE-414 is the selected engine for Mk2. There is no turning back, and that is logical.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jan 2014 21:57

engine-airframe combo is locked into the design very early, it has very few degrees of freedom in the development lifecycle

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2014 22:14

indranilroy wrote:The GE-414 is the selected engine for Mk2. There is no turning back, and that is logical.

Time to hack! go the chinese way.

. seriously, we have to have some budget or forced (beg, borrow, ..) budget to put for Kaveri getting into any of the LCA models. I don't care about final thrust, t:w, etc.. I want to v&v whatever we have acheived thus far on Kaveri into one of the LCA prototype.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 00:28

They are going to put one into a prototype. But that is to test the engine. But operationalizing LCA squadrons with the Kaveri engine, not happening. Not because Kaveri is not there yet. Not because IAF doesn't want it. It is because LCA with current Kaveri is not going to cut it in combat.

Time to swallow some pride. I wish GTRE can really come up with that 110 kN engine quickly enough for replacement engines to LCAs when they come in for their mid-life upgrades and for AMCAs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2014 00:35

I feel the fallen indic pride will get a boost once that is done.. I understand not a production model, but the data available from integration of Kaveri into LCA is so vital.. so many learning points from that can be obtained.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2014 03:41

indranilroy wrote:They are going to put one into a prototype. But that is to test the engine. But operationalizing LCA squadrons with the Kaveri engine, not happening. Not because Kaveri is not there yet. Not because IAF doesn't want it. It is because LCA with current Kaveri is not going to cut it in combat.

Time to swallow some pride. I wish GTRE can really come up with that 110 kN engine quickly enough for replacement engines to LCAs when they come in for their mid-life upgrades and for AMCAs.

IMO, when not as experienced and knowledgeable the design goals for an 110kN engine should be set higher, say 120kN. This is because it is more than likely there will be shortfalls in thrust targets and weight gains.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2014 04:44

Then the efficiency of the design is in question.. so better get it right rather a derated engine due to failure to achieve the designed performance parameters.

If the need is knowledge.. seek it, if it is expertise - develop it, lack of money- fund it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2014 05:10

In the light of past experience-the sanctions regime which badly hurt and delayed the programme,one would've expected the stakeholders to have devised an alternative as insurance in case a repetition happened.We are now going through a difficult period with the US over the DK spat.Especially as the LCA is playing such a critical role in modernisation of the IAF and being the key replacement for hundreds of MIG-21s kept flying with string and tape until they are replaced by LCAs. When we've spent so much on the programme,surely such "insurance" contingencies would face no controversy form anyone."Penny wise,pound foolish".Since MK-2 has yet to be built,it is still not too late to develop a prototype with an alternative engine,the proven EJ for example.

Niranjan · Post by **Niranjan** » 10 Jan 2014 06:11

A nice recap:

Tejas :: The Indian Light Combat Aircraft

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Jan 2014 09:25

indranilroy wrote:They are going to put one into a prototype. But that is to test the engine. But operationalizing LCA squadrons with the Kaveri engine, not happening. Not because Kaveri is not there yet. Not because IAF doesn't want it. It is because LCA with current Kaveri is not going to cut it in combat.

Time to swallow some pride. I wish GTRE can really come up with that 110 kN engine quickly enough for replacement engines to LCAs when they come in for their mid-life upgrades and for AMCAs.

Kaveri can be operationlised with LCA-AJT.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 10:21

Philip wrote:In the light of past experience-the sanctions regime which badly hurt and delayed the programme,one would've expected the stakeholders to have devised an alternative as insurance in case a repetition happened.We are now going through a difficult period with the US over the DK spat.Especially as the LCA is playing such a critical role in modernisation of the IAF and being the key replacement for hundreds of MIG-21s kept flying with string and tape until they are replaced by LCAs. When we've spent so much on the programme,surely such "insurance" contingencies would face no controversy form anyone."Penny wise,pound foolish".Since MK-2 has yet to be built,it is still not too late to develop a prototype with an alternative engine,the proven EJ for example.

Money is not the bottleneck always. For this case, it is certainly not.

By the way, how is EJ an insurance? It is much easier for US to stop EJ parts and spares than to stop Russia from transferring cryo engine tech to us.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2014 10:22

good point vic. keep that public pressure and up the ante!

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 10 Jan 2014 10:41

As long as people in positions of authority keep thinking that Kaveri doesn't cut it, we still have GE 414, we still have EJ200, we still have Russians etc - the GTX-35 isnt going to go anywhere. The Kaveri has good numbers on paper in terms of performance and specs. With some effort, a crack of the official whip and sufficient top level interest there is no reason why it can't become operationalized at least to substitute the GE404s if not to take the place of the GE414. The benefit of having even an Indian equivalent to the GE404 would be quite significant and could power the next 2 generations of Indian UAV/USAVs.

Sure it may not be able to compete with the latest and greatest American engines that put out 11:1 or better T/W ratios but it will be cheap, it will be Indian and it will be "good enough". I think these three parameters are quite often neglected in chasing after raw performance.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2014 10:50

right-o! allow the baby crawl first.