LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[Austin]

How come a new/late model engine like ej200 have less thrust than old model engine like ge414 or ge414epe?

Or does ej200 still performs better than 414 inspite of less thrust?

EJ200 has better T:W Ratio 10:1 probably the best in 4 plus Gen engine.

They did not need more thrust for Eurofighter and being new engine it has upgrade path , IIRC EJ200 upgrade potential is 120Kn.

[member_20317]

please don't discount mk-2 range that also comes with deep penetration specific refuelers.

i am pretty positive about a squadron of LCA either with couple of sukhois and refuler or an AWACS system with refueler can pretty much clean up a deep strike op.
again think mk-2 specs, and considerable improvements on the radar and weapons store as well.

why MKI /Awacs - net-centricity.. cue from MKI, while LCA radars can go quite or stealth mode.. then at 300kms it can cue the 100km targets that can be fired from LCAs, with absolutely no signature leak out.

i'm damn positive that thundaars can't detect LCAs from 100km range or even 50km range.

The future also is good as you point out. But my point was limited to the permutations and combinations availability only. I used to be sent out of the maths class but you can foresee that there is an exponential increase in the capabilities available to a war planner. Imagine threatening the G-219 from Awantipore, Hindon and for example Leh/Punjab. Even if the Chinese send in a lot of SAM support they would still find it difficult to maintain cover for their forces. Additionally even if the Chinese decide to put 50 odd missiles into 10 of our north Indian our air bases thrice during a war, even then the chances of having a retaliation option in the conventional spectrum remains. Avoid/delay a nuke option too. This will be even more daunting for the pakis to handle.

My argument was limited to an accountants perspective. But that flexibility in terms of options itself counts for a quantum jump in force projection. The risk gets addressed properly. But if supposing India decides to abandon 126 Raffy and take up say 200 more LCA Mk-2 over and above 180. Then will we be able to train enough pilots and ground staff for such a force.

[Singha]

I learnt something new(old really today). war makes strange bedfellows. it seems even before the IDF raid on osirak, iran on the urging of israel had already raided that place!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Iran attacked and damaged the site on 30 September 1980, with two F-4 Phantoms, shortly after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War.[45] At the onset of the war, Yehoshua Saguy, director of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate, publicly urged the Iranians to bomb the reactor.[45][46] The attack was the first on a nuclear reactor and only the third on a nuclear facility in history. It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon.[17][46][47]
Due to last minute Iranian concerns that the reactor had been already fueled and could release radioactive fallout if hit, they did not attack the actual reactor dome, but the control room, research/centrifuge facilities, and the adjacent buildings. The targets were struck and the buildings were damaged, along with the plant cooling mechanisms.[48] Two other F-4s simultaneously hit Baghdad's main power plant, knocking the city's electricity out for nearly two days. The Iraqis denied any major damage. The French and Italian technicians promptly left Iraq, and nearly withdrew from the project, but some later returned in February 1981 and began to repair the damage.[48]
Trita Parsi, in the book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, writes that a senior Israeli official met with a representative of the Ayatollah Khomeini in France one month prior to the Israeli attack.[49] The source of the assertion is Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee. At the alleged meeting, the Iranians explained details of their 1980 attack on the site, and agreed to let Israeli planes land at an Iranian airfield in Tabriz in the case of an emergency.[49] While the new Iranian government was officially hostile to Israel, due to both nations having a common enemy (Iraq), and Iranian fears that the Iraqis would create an atomic bomb to use on them, they clandestinely worked with Israel to forestall such a development.[48]
..............
After the approval for Operation Opera, the Israelis began to plan their mission against Osirak. The basic procedure for the airstrike had been formulated as early as 1979.[48] However, the Israelis needed photographic intelligence about the layout of the plant. That task allegedly fell to the Iranians.[48] Rather than carrying out a follow up air raid after their September attack, on November 30, 1980, a Iranian F-4 Phantom reconnaissance jet took pictures of the Osirak reactor. The photographs were allegedly placed in a top-secret metal container, and certain elements of the Iranian military delivered them to the Israelis. With these photographs, the Israelis began to plan out Operation Opera.[48]

[arun]

IAF C-17 Globemaster III unloads disassembled Light Combat Aircraft Tejas : Clicky

How can you tell its unloading it?

That's what the text of the URL and the caption for the picture on the website indicates.

[Manish_Sharma]

How come a new/late model engine like ej200 have less thrust than old model engine like ge414 or ge414epe?

Or does ej200 still performs better than 414 inspite of less thrust?

EJ200 has better T:W Ratio 10:1 probably the best in 4 plus Gen engine.

They did not need more thrust for Eurofighter and being new engine it has upgrade path , IIRC EJ200 upgrade potential is 120Kn.

Thanks Austin Saar !!!

[Philip]

AS stressed for aeons,,there is "a quality about quantity","safety in numbers",the old adage.

Here is a titbit about savage cuts to the RN which is now being realised by the politicos.

And, chillingly, he casts a cynical eye over what comes next. He recalls we were once promised 12 Type 45 destroyers to replace the 12 Type 42s – a figure that was pathetically reduced to just six.

‘To the government’s mind, increased capability meant each new ship was a good as two old ships, yet still missing the vital point that a single ship cannot be in two places at once,’ he adds.

The only fly in the ointment is the pace of development of MK-2,the vulnerability of the entire programme because of US engines,etc.,no alternatives planned for,and the rate of production.As Maj.Gen. Ashok Mehta in his piece said,the IAF is going to be very vulnerable and in trouble from 2017-2025.I predict that given our well-known track record of missing schedules and dates,we will be force to import more aircraft when the crisis occurs.

[Sancho]

Nope LCA Mk2 is not the ideal fighter for aircraft carriers. IN has itself said so (IIRC they named the ideal plane as Rafale). The twin engine fighters have sufficient TWR when loaded with meaningful payloads to take off and land on an AC with adequate safety margins. IN actually wants AMCA. But it knows that the path to a naval AMCA goes through a naval Tejas Mk2. And they should be admired for that 25-year foresight.

You are correct about N-LCA, but mistaken about the path to a naval AMCA, because ADA/DRDO are doing the same mistakes with AMCA again, ALTHOUGH they already admited that they underestimated the changes needed for N-LCA, but still they are planning AMCA for IAF and only want to re-design a varient for IN. Just shows the utter incompetence of ADA/DRDO again, to see and understand what our forces really need!

But IN is to blame here as well! It might had been right to push N-LCA TD to set up a base for carrier fighter developments in India, but they never should had commited themselfs to order N-LCA MK2s for the carriers. A "modest" fighter as they described it themselfs and should had influenced the industry and the MoD for a 5th gen carrier fighter from the start. That would had forced ADA/DRDO to take a naval AMCA as the logical next development step of the N-LCA TD and by the fact that IAF has filled it's requirements for stealth aircrafts and medium class fighters anyway, IN could had get the whole attention of ADA/DRDO. Now they are dependent again on what will be developed for IAFs requirements and what the outcome of the re-design might be for them.

Also Mig29K is a beautiful aircraft. The RD-33MK is quite a good engine. And for the price that India got it, it was quite a steal. I don't think anybody will get that price anymore.

It's good enough for the basic needs of IN with the carrier, but not good enough for propper land attacks, or even to fight a Chinese carrier. And do you think there is any other country that would buy Mig 29K? Not even Russia buys them in big numbers, which is why IN is the biggest operator and might have the burden to pay big times for upgrades, unless we get to integrate an indigenous AESA and Kaveri engine to them. So the unit cost we paid might be good, but more important will be the cost we need to pay in future, when there is nobody else that wants the fighter or funds upgrades.

[Sancho]

please don't discount mk-2 range that also comes with deep penetration specific refuelers.

i am pretty positive about a squadron of LCA either with couple of sukhois and refuler or an AWACS system with refueler can pretty much clean up a deep strike op.
again think mk-2 specs, and considerable improvements on the radar and weapons store as well.

Where did you see any improvement on weapon stores? It remains with the 7 x hardpoints, will have size limitations on the centerline to carry larger missiles and with any heavy load, will require wing fuel tanks to achieve any useful range. That again means, that it can carry only a single heavy weapon on the centerline (if the size fits), with a set of AAMs at the wingstations too.
Make no mistake here, MK2 might have improved fuel capacity (although we don't know how much so far and how useful that actually will be) and technically will be a propper 4.5th gen fighter, but performance wise it hardly fits to the medium class, because it highly lacks behind in the ability to carry medium class weapon loads, at least to longer distances.
The Gripen NG for example counters this with the modified fuselage, that added another heavy hardpoint. That's why it can carry 2 x heavy weapons + 2 x bigger fuel tanks and AAMs for deep strikes, LCA MK2 can't do that and IAF might not even have the intention to do that anyway.

[Sancho]

The only fly in the ointment is the pace of development of MK-2,the vulnerability of the entire programme because of US engines,etc.,no alternatives planned for,and the rate of production.

The Kaveri engine is still planned as an alternative to replace US engines in LCA, during later upgrades, the mistake was only, to make the fighter development dependent on the engine development for such a long time. Now with the foreign engine, the fighter at least gets some progress, but it's on us to continue with the engine program and get it to a level where it can replace foreign engines. The problem is only, we (DRDO) already aim too high and too complicated again. Instead of getting Kaveri ready to replace GE 404/414 engines in LCA and RD33MK engines in Mig 29Ks, they aim on a Supercruise capable Kaveri with TVC and far more thrust, which just leads us to the next failure.
Kaveri must be our safe option, to not be dependent on foreign countries in war times, just as you pointed out, but then we have to see it as a basic 4th gen engine, sufficient enough for our needs and not always compare any indigenous development with the top of the class of foreign developments.

[Philip]

I agree,"walk before one can run".Aiming too high and too far without the proper "bows and arrows" industrial base has plagued our desi ambitions.I agree totally about the NLCA,as I feel it will arrive too late and offer too little around 2025 when we will need an aircraft with capabilities of a naval FGFA instead.The MIG-29K is a v. good bargain now at the price just $32M an aircraft and capability,comparing very favourably with the $55m F-18SH.It is why the Russians are preferring it ,are ordering it for the Kuznetsov instead of reopening the SU-33 line.If upgraded with AESA radars,newer AAMs and perhaps TVC,they would be equiv. if not better than the advanced F-18SHs being touted as alternatives to the ultra-expensive JSF. The IN should've instead invested its scarce money on a naval version of the FGFA.AMCA development must be synergised with the FGFA to save time and money and avoid reinventing the wheel.Tech developed for the LCA/AMCA could be integrated into the FGFA if found suitable.

Until the LCA MK-2 is flying and on course for success,one is not sure about the AMCA for two reasons.For one,the numbers required of LCAs to replace the retiring MIGs is huge.HAL will be exceptionally busy upto and beyond 2030 producing them and improving Mks.Even at the rate of 20/yr. ,expected only by 2020,we would have built around 200-250 by then.Apart from the 200 or so MIG-21s being pensioned of, we also have the 120 Bisons and MIG-27s too! These numbers cannot also replace the 100+ MMRCA numbers for our enhanced strike capability ,at least 144+ numbers are required.These larger stealth 5th-gen aircraft and supposed to give us the tech advantage over China and Pak,will by virtue of size have an increased capability in payload and combat radius,and comes with advanced TVC engines ,supercruise,etc.Without success on the indigenous front,the AMCA programe will be hard pressed to find the key component that will deliver its capability,its engines.It is why our former COAS,ACM Broiwne was insistent that HAL stopped wasting its time with the BT,etc.,when far more important programmes like the FGFA were seeing HAL abdicating a major share of the work.

[NRao]

Hey Sancho,

Were you the author of the single engined, LCA/FGFA/31 based AMCA by any chance?

[Sancho]

as I feel it will arrive too late and offer too little around 2025 when we will need an aircraft with capabilities of a naval FGFA instead.

That's a crucial point that IN and many people ignore in favour for "indigenous" developments. N-LCA is dependent on the MK2 upgrade, so unless that is done, not a single N-LCA MK2 will be available for our carriers. It is even safe to assume that even IAC 1 will be inducted, before N-LCA Mk2 will be available, let alone mature enough to be used. So we are developing a fighter that is not only low capable for INs needs, but will come very late too. And this bad planning hurts LCA as a program too!
Without the IN requirements, the MK2 upgrade might had gone a pretty different way, since increased internal fuel was mainly an IN requirement, while IAF might had tried to reduce the weight further to the initial plans, instead of increasing it. Also the decision to chose the GE414 is highly based on the fact that it is already a navalised engine, which can be directly used for N-LCA. Without the IN requirement, the EJ200 offer would had given us the better engine, with more ToT and even the possibility to add TVC to LCA. With the lack of canards, this feature could have helped the fighter and the industry (engine developments) a lot.

For one,the numbers required of LCAs to replace the retiring MIGs is huge.

IF only LCA would replace them, like it was the idea back in the R&D stage of LCA, but because all the delays MRCA and later MMRCA was needed to take over the replacement of a part of the Mig fleet. With at least 126 x Rafales and 120 x LCAs on order for IAF, the only question will be, who gets the additional order for another 50-60 fighters, Rafale (option for 64) or LCA MK2. HAL plans with productions for the current orders till around 2022 for both, not to forget that FGFA should be in production by then as well, which gives IAF acutally the choice between additional light or medium 4.5th gen fighters, or heavy 5th gen and all this besides the ADA/DRDO proposals for AMCA, so the the scope for LCA is by far not that big and dependent on other fighters too.

Hey Sancho,

Were you the author of the single engined, LCA/FGFA/31 based AMCA by any chance?

I think I suggested that in the AMCA or FGFA thread once and on or other defence forums, I'm not an author for anything, it just would be the most logical way to develop another stealth fighter (if needed), if we base it on techs and systems that we already have. Therefor using common cockpit layout, EWS, avionics, weapons and even a varient of the the FGFA engine, in a stealth medium class design, would be the easiest and most cost-effective way.

[Mihir]

- deleted -

[adarshp]

That's a crucial point that IN and many people ignore in favour for "indigenous" developments. N-LCA is dependent on the MK2 upgrade, so unless that is done, not a single N-LCA MK2 will be available for our carriers. It is even safe to assume that even IAC 1 will be inducted, before N-LCA Mk2 will be available, let alone mature enough to be used. So we are developing a fighter that is not only low capable for INs needs, but will come very late too. And this bad planning hurts LCA as a program too!

Just curious but why is this? IIRC we have 45 Mig-29k's on order. Both Vik and IAC-1 will only be able to field max 20 fixed wing a/c's along with about 10 heli's, so can we not theoretically use both ships with the current order of Mig-29k? IAC-2 as of now has not even left the drawing board, so will definitely not be there before 2025, if then. The current plan is for Mk2 readiness by 2018. Even if this slips and is ready by 2025, it will give us a couple of options -

a.) Field IAC-1 and Vik carriers with a mix of N-LCA's and Mig-29K's, and free up a complement of 20 Mig-29K's for IAC-2. If the fighter component of IAC-2 can support more planes, then buy more Mig-29K's or an alternative squadron.
b.) Decide by 2018 on future naval fighter solution, maybe moving NLCA to shore based duty with minimal carrier ops for experience and have alternative in place before 2030.

To me it looks like no need to panic onleee....

[Eric Leiderman]

Sancho

Indranilroy has posted this before I am summarizing
NLCA is not the ideal platform for the IN. AMCA is, however without an NLCA a marine version of AMCA becomes less likely, Hopefully the French bird will be ordered soon and that opens out another possibility for the IN
The NLCA will be used like the DRUV in a limited role.

[NRao]

2*^^^^^
Assumptions lead to various ends. IN has 45 MiG-29K, more than enough for the two carriers. Just got to know that the IN prefer Naval AMCA or even the Naval Rafale (and may even look at the F-35C!!).

Sancho,

Thanks.

I came across a drawing that had a lot more details (than your post here) - including why the current AMCA effort was "longer development" (I took that as a knock on the Indian Labs) and a proposed alternative (that did not make sense for a variety of reasons). And at the tail end it stated "Fan work by Sancho, detailing an AMCA powered by a single PAK FA/FGFA engine, among other things." which was the only reason I asked.

_________________

Just a few observations:

* Solely based on the Kartik notes, the MKII is a IN requirement - NOT an IAF one (the IAF could have been satisfied with the MKI) (posted an article to support Kartik's post)
* IF that is true, then if at all the MKII is the AF variant of the N-LCA (and not the other way around)

* Tha MCA/AMCA was conceived in the late 1990s - WAY before the FGFA was even a thought and the LCA was in its infancy. As far as I can recall there was never a stated dependency - of the AMCA - on the LCA
* The AMCA - then - was so radically different that I just do not know how one could think it could depend on any thing (Tailles, fin-less, totally dependent on TVC, FbL, panoramic displays, etc) (The only plane I have come across that comes close to it is the Boeing's 6th Gen proposal for the USN)

* I have seen posts here that the IAF wants the AMCA to start after the MKII FOC, but I have not come across any reference to it anywhere - so far
* The one article about 2018 was ambiguous. I still think it will be built by 2020 or earlier (sorry IR, but no pressure)

* wiki on AMCA: "A naval version is confirmed, as the Indian Navy also contributed to funding."
* As far as I know the bolded is true - work is *still* going on - on the AMCA

[tsarkar]

Interesting picture of Tejas loading into C-17. Any idea why?

Model for 26 Jan Ramp Walk?

Its not a mock-up. They could be flying it overseas for a defence expo or air show.

X Posted from the “Indian Military Aviation” thread. Picture taken by a different photographer vis a vis those posted above. IAF C-17 Globemaster III unloads disassembled Light Combat Aircraft Tejas : Clicky

Indeed an interesting development.

Tejas can fly to any part of India via staging through air force stations all over India. It flies more economically on its own GE F404 than four P&W engines on C-17.

I also note this bird has a different colour scheme. Dark on top & light below.

On Republic Day, IAF aircraft are displayed on trailers like this http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 4.jpg.html or this http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... j.jpg.html and this http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... Mi-35c.jpg

My take is that this is a non flying LCA TD or PV being flown to Delhi for Republic Day to display on a trailer. They cannot spare a flying bird that is more usefully deployed for FOC flight testing.

It can also be a mock up like this one http://photogallery.outlookindia.com/im ... 110120.jpg

Note that the mock up Tejas Trainer has the same two tone colour scheme as the Tejas being loaded into C-17. Dark top light below.

[member_20292]

And do you think there is any other country that would buy Mig 29K? Not even Russia buys them in big numbers, which is why IN is the biggest operator and might have the burden to pay big times for upgrades, unless we get to integrate an indigenous AESA and Kaveri engine to them. So the unit cost we paid might be good, but more important will be the cost we need to pay in future, when there is nobody else that wants the fighter or funds upgrades.

false.

Russian navy has started ordering the mig29k in large numbers and ditched the su33, since the mig29k was well developed due to the Indian orders and money.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120229/171607361.html

[rajanb]

The reason why the LCA will not be in the flypast is because of its single engine and the scare of a bird hit. Told tome my barbers fourth cousins wife's grandfather who was in the IAF

[Kakarat]

Interesting picture of Tejas loading into C-17. Any idea why?

Model for 26 Jan Ramp Walk?

Its not a mock-up. They could be flying it overseas for a defence expo or air show.

X Posted from the “Indian Military Aviation” thread. Picture taken by a different photographer vis a vis those posted above. IAF C-17 Globemaster III unloads disassembled Light Combat Aircraft Tejas : Clicky

Indeed an interesting development.

Tejas can fly to any part of India via staging through air force stations all over India. It flies more economically on its own GE F404 than four P&W engines on C-17.

I also note this bird has a different colour scheme. Dark on top & light below.

...

My take is that this is a non flying LCA TD or PV being flown to Delhi for Republic Day to display on a trailer. They cannot spare a flying bird that is more usefully deployed for FOC flight testing.

...

Note that the mock up Tejas Trainer has the same two tone colour scheme as the Tejas being loaded into C-17. Dark top light below.

From what i remember Tejas always had a two tone colour scheme, Dark on top & light below (except the initial white scheme)

PV-1


LSP-7


The one being loaded/unloaded is not a non flying LCA TD or PV but a LSP after LSP-4 because the Yellow-Red 'Jet Inlet Danger' warning scheme started appearing only after LSP-4

[SaiK]

6000 kg max
vs.


5700 kg max


pretty close! if you work on the light weight composite missile systems, or even slightly increase the hardpoint config (within clear reach of course with gripen ng), then mk-2 qualifies to be much much greater than gripen.

not just this alone.. we have other factors to account for comaprison. [again, this is only based on info available on the net]

it stands no chance!

[putnanja]

Has there been any pics of the LCA with the centerline pylon fitted? Don't remember seeing any picture with the centerline pylon fitted so far

[PratikDas]

Found this picture:



and this one:

[putnanja]

Thanks Pratik, have you seen any pics of these in flight? with centerline loaded?

[SaiK]

okay, are we at lohorical value of comparing on external stores alone?

[krishnan]

[PratikDas]

Thanks Pratik, have you seen any pics of these in flight? with centerline loaded?

I don't believe I have. While I understand how that sounds, I really don't believe ADA would showcase a center pylon fuel tank if it didn't actually serve a purpose. Having just the center external fuel tank and symmetrical A2G or A2A configurations should work very well.

[srai]

That's not under the centreline. Note the rear wheels. That fuel tank is on the other wing station.

[maitya]

The only fly in the ointment is the pace of development of MK-2,the vulnerability of the entire programme because of US engines,etc.,no alternatives planned for,and the rate of production.

The Kaveri engine is still planned as an alternative to replace US engines in LCA, during later upgrades, the mistake was only, to make the fighter development dependent on the engine development for such a long time. Now with the foreign engine, the fighter at least gets some progress, but it's on us to continue with the engine program and get it to a level where it can replace foreign engines. The problem is only, we (DRDO) already aim too high and too complicated again. Instead of getting Kaveri ready to replace GE 404/414 engines in LCA and RD33MK engines in Mig 29Ks, they aim on a Supercruise capable Kaveri with TVC and far more thrust, which just leads us to the next failure.
Kaveri must be our safe option, to not be dependent on foreign countries in war times, just as you pointed out, but then we have to see it as a basic 4th gen engine, sufficient enough for our needs and not always compare any indigenous development with the top of the class of foreign developments.

Rest is all fine but the above bolded part is not true at all - but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
My interpretation of that bolded line is, because of non-delivery of Kaveri (with of required TWR, if I may add), the LCA program has been delayed i.e. IOC/FOC could have happened earlier had the Kaveri engine (with the required TWR) would have been made available couple of years back - maybe around 2005-6).

Kaveri engine development is part of the overall LCA program - true - however it was well understood that this aspect of the program would be singularly the riskiest one and is thus well mitigated for (hint: decision timeline for getting GE F-404 and the fact that absolutely no redesign/analysis etc required for matching the F404 engine Fans with the air-inlet design - it was as if the whole airframe was built around F404).
So whilst it is unfortunate that Kaveri program itself didn't deliver, the overall program itself (from a platform-availability to the end-user perspective) was not delayed because of this unavailability.


I'm also not sure where-from all this talk of super-cruise and TVC of Kaveri is coming from - the current focus (from all published open source material - in press and internet) seems to centered around,
1) flight-testing it on TD/PV (of course, after getting the core Thermodynamic and Aerodynamic design validated in simulated subsonic in-flight environment in Gromov Test Centre)

2) "artificially" get the Thrust values higher by increasing mass-flow and get somewhere near to the GE F414 levels (I personally don't think this will work, without getting OPR, TeT etc internal parameters also matching those fo F414 - but, as usual, I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong on this one)

3) And support Pt 2 above by trying to move towards SCBs (hint: Shivji's photos from AI13), better TBC and compressor-material improvement to cater to a higher ambient temps (hint: Chackoji's post, a couple of pages back in trying to move to beyond-700deg C limitations of Ti-based compressor stages).


We will see where all these ends up in a couple of years’ time.


Betw, how will a supercruise function be implemented until and unless obscenely-high levels of dry-thrust has been achieved? And that means back to square one of requiring dramatically improvement of OPR to early-30s atleast, TeT to 1700C atleast to match the increasing OPR levels, yada yada (Pt 2 and 3 above) ... just as a reminder the graph of TeT vs OPR is as follows:

[Picklu]

I propose a APFS like BRF project for all of Maitya's posts in a single thread as the first step and then either a monitor article or a guest article in Rohit or someone else's blog to save them from the disappearing act via forum upgrade.

[Karan M]

+1

[Avarachan]

OT. Karan M, can you send me an email? I tried your m35 email address, but it isn't working. My address is my username dot the numbers nine seven at the Google service. Thanks.

[Philip]

Maitya,there are innumerable reports reg. Kaveri being planned for the LCA right from the start.The 404 was chosen only because ...

Continuing development snags with the Kaveri resulted in the 2003 decision to procure the uprated F404-GE-IN20 engine for the eight pre-production Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft and two naval prototypes. The ADA awarded General Electric a US$105 million contract in February 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 F404-IN20 engines, delivery of which is to begin in 2006.

The general arrangement of the Kaveri is very similar to other contemporary combat engines, such as the Eurojet EJ200, General Electric F414, and Snecma M88. At present, the peak turbine inlet temperature is designed to be a little lower than its peers, but this is to enable the engine to be flat-rated to very high ambient temperatures. Consequently, the bypass ratio that can be supported, even with a modest fan pressure ratio, is only about 0.16:1, which means the engine is a "'leaky' turbojet" like the F404.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... t-lca-mark
Dream of fitting indigenous Kaveri engine into LCA-Tejas over

"Kaveri engine as such will never come into LCA", P S Subramanyam, Director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO lab, which is the nodal agency for the design and development of LCA with HAL as the principal partner, told PTI here.

Subramanyam said Kaveri engine-fitted LCA would not go into the Services. "In the production aircraft (LCA) going into the Services, Kaveri engine will not be there".

Kaveri engine, originally intended to power the LCA, was taken up for development by Bangalore-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) about two-and-half-decades ago but the project has been dogged by delays, with the DRDO lab not being fully able to overcome technical challenges and development snags.

Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister and DRDO Director General V K Saraswat said unmanned air systems would see the integration of Kaveri engine for different applications.

However,in a later report during the LCA IOC,AKA has said the foll.Is he hinting at a MK-3 variant or that later batches of MK-2 series aircraft will feature Kaveri?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131221/nation.htm#10

In a press conference here, which followed a function where LCA powered by American GE 404 engine was given the initial operational clearance (IOC) making it compliant with the requirements of the IAF for a battle ready aircraft, Antony said, “We have not abandoned the Kaveri engine project yet.”

The Defence Minister said while the LCA Mk 1 and Mk 2 varieties would be powered by the American GE 404 and GE 414 engines, respectively, Kaveri engine could be used to power the next LCA series.

He said the IAF would have two squadrons and four squadrons each of LCA Mk 1 and Mk 2, respectively. There would still be requirement of more planes as the IAF would eventually require about 200 planes to replace the entire MiG 21 fleet.

Kaveri engine, being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) lab in Bangalore, was supposed to power the LCA initially. However, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), also a DRDO lab handling the LCA project, opted for the American GE engine as wait for Kaveri engine continued.

DID:https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/in ... ine-01901/

Which still leaves India without an affordable fighter solution. MMRCA can replace some of India’s mid-range fighters, but what about the MiG-21s? The MiG-21 Bison program adds years of life to those airframes, but even so, they’re likely to be gone by 2020.

That’s why India’s own Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project is so important to the IAF’s future prospects. It’s also why India’s rigid domestic-only policies are gradually being relaxed, in order to field an operational and competitive aircraft. Even with that help, the program’s delays are a growing problem for the IAF. Meanwhile, the west’s near-abandonment of the global lightweight fighter market opens an opportunity, if India can seize it with a compelling and timely product.

Jan 11/14: Pricing. Sources tell India’s Business Standard that HAL has quoted the Ministry a price of INR 1.62 billion (about $26.5 million) per plane for the first 20 Tejas Mk.I fighters. The Ministry wants to know why its 40% higher than the INR 1.165 billion quoted in 2006, and HAL has a good answer. One, inflation over the past 8 years takes a toll. Two, the Indian rupee is sinking, while 45% of the plane’s cost involves imported parts. Three, it’s still about half the price of a Mirage 2000 upgrade (EUR 1.4 billion, now INR 118.3 billion + INR 2.02 billion to HAL/ 49 jets = INR 2.8 billion/ $45.8 million per), which is even more dependent on currency values.

HAL sees eventual purchases of 40 Mk.Is, 84 Mk.IIs, 11 naval trainers, and 46 naval variants (TL: 181), and recent government declaration have used 200 aircraft as a possible figure. Now that Tejas is on surer ground, and the opportunity is clearer, HAL is trying to control costs using longer-term commitments of its own. Step one reportedly involves Long Time Business Agreements (LTBAs) of 3-5 years and 40-50 aircraft sets with key sub-contractors, including clauses that let it vary annual production rates to some extent, a feature also seen in many of the US military’s multi-year purchase agreements. Long lead time components have been identified, and industrial improvements are underway. Practices like having 5-axis CNC machines on hand, and using computerized drilling of 8,000 holes or so in the composite wing skin, are more or less assumed in North America. They’re a step forward for HAL, which needs that kind of long-term investment in its industrial capacity.

Will that investment, and higher production, improve costs enough? Pakistan’s JF-17, which has already delivered 50 planes, is reportedly priced around $23-24 million per plane. If the Tejas Mk.II comes in around $30 million in current dollars, pointing to composite construction and supposedly better avionics isn’t going to cut it in export competitions as a reason for the 25% price difference. An AESA radar might, depending on what Pakistan does for the coming JF-17 Block II, and how much it costs. Sources: Business Standard, “HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore”.

PS:I still have my doubts about the NLCA if it does not appear by 2020.An interesting note that Japan is considering (as expected) to arm its "helicopter destroyers" its amphib flat tops,actually light carriers with STOVL JSFs.These are much smaller than our planned amphibs and if a JC type is selected ,could operate a light NLCA ,similar option offered to the IN for the Viraat,and larger carriers by SAAB for the Sea Gripen.

[Sid]

^^

Philip ji, first TD flew in 2001, PV in 2003, all with same engine 404. Also, for LPs (as per your link) it was decided to have 404 in 2003. They also first flew on 2007. All indicating high compatibility with aircraft design.

I agree with Maitya's deduction that from the beginning LCA was designed around 404 not Kaveri. Until or unless Kaveri is 404 clone and easily swappable.

[sattili]

It would be interesting to see what kind of interest that LCA generates in Bahrain airshow. I am sure there will be some more un-wanted comparisons between Bundar and Tejas. May be its good to show a simulation/animation where Tejas whips Bundar in air combat

New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI) Seeking to explore the export potential of its homemade defence equipment, India is showcasing weapon systems like Light Combat Aircraft Tejas and the airborne early warning systems aircraft at the Bahrain international air show starting tomorrow.

"DRDO, along with some of its production partners, is displaying India?s strength and expertise in design with the aim of exploring the potential of exporting these advanced systems to friendly countries in the region," a Defence Ministry release said here.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/4320510_For ... show-.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 578701.ece
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 847071.cms

[merlin]

^^

Philip ji, first TD flew in 2001, PV in 2003, all with same engine 404. Also, for LPs (as per your link) it was decided to have 404 in 2003. They also first flew on 2007. All indicating high compatibility with aircraft design.

I agree with Maitya's deduction that from the beginning LCA was designed around 404 not Kaveri. Until or unless Kaveri is 404 clone and easily swappable.

My understanding was that the TDs were designed for 404 F2J3 and the PVs for Kaveri and hence required modification to accommodate 404. By the time LSPs came into the picture, the idea of Kaveri powering the Tejas was dropped and hence LSPs were designed around the 404 IN20.

[ArmenT]

I propose a APFS like BRF project for all of Maitya's posts in a single thread as the first step and then either a monitor article or a guest article in Rohit or someone else's blog to save them from the disappearing act via forum upgrade.

1. Download the infamous BRF Archiving tool
2. Fire it up and enter the URL of this thread and tell it to only archive posts by Maitya
3. ???
4. Profit!

[SSridhar]

There was some speculation about the loading of the Tejas in a C-17.

It now appears that Tejas is participating in an airshow at Bahrain.

India to take part in Bahrain airshow - Somasekhar, The Hindu

Exploring opportunities for exports, India will showcase its fighter aircraft Tejas along with airborne platforms and communication systems at the Bahrain International Airshow during January 16-18.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation along with its production partners from the Industry are taking part in strength.

The show will witness flying demonstration of the ‘AEW&C India’ the latest Airborne Early Warning and Control system that can detect, identify and classify threats present in the surveillance area and act as a command and control centre to support variety of air operations.

"AEW&C India" with mission systems developed by DRDO with modular design and seamlessly integrated on an Embraer 145 aircraft provides a very cost effective solution. Models of the Tejas, ‘Expendable high Speed Aerial Target’, ‘NISHANT’, the multi mission Unmanned Aerial Vehicle etc. will be displayed.

A high level DRDO delegation led by Avinash Chander Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Secretary Defence R&D is participating in the event along with the big delegation from industry.

[maitya]

^^

Philip ji, first TD flew in 2001, PV in 2003, all with same engine 404. Also, for LPs (as per your link) it was decided to have 404 in 2003. They also first flew on 2007. All indicating high compatibility with aircraft design.

I agree with Maitya's deduction that from the beginning LCA was designed around 404 not Kaveri. Until or unless Kaveri is 404 clone and easily swappable.

Sidji thanks. Actually the TDs got rolled out with F404 much earlier than their 1st flights - details in the following part of this post.

Maitya,there are innumerable reports reg. Kaveri being planned for the LCA right from the start.The 404 was chosen only because ...

Continuing development snags with the Kaveri resulted in the 2003 decision to procure the uprated F404-GE-IN20 engine for the eight pre-production Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft and two naval prototypes. The ADA awarded General Electric a US$105 million contract in February 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 F404-IN20 engines, delivery of which is to begin in 2006.
...
...

Philipji, another long post ... but not sure how any of the links that you posted above says that "Kaveri being planned for the LCA right from the start" - so pls do post one of those "innumerable reports" which says Kaveri was "planned for the LCA right from the start".

But maybe, I think you are mis-understanding the "Right from Start" bit – does it mean Kaveri was to be made part of the LCA airframe from 1st flight of the demonstrator platform, 1st flight of the prototype platform, 1st flight of the Operational platform or something else?


Anyway here’s a brief timeline of this:
1. LCA was always intended to fly with F404-GE-F2J3 for the FSED-I phase i.e TD 1/2 + PV 1/2

No sane program management team would risk flying an unproven airframe with an unproven engine.

The dimensional similarity between Kaveri and F404 (e.g Dia - F404 35in vs Kaveri 35.8in, Weight F404 1036Kg vs Kaveri 950-1000Kg etc) are not mere happenstances. The "desired" requiremental dimensions of the LCA power-plant were carefully chosen (in 1987-88 etc) after proper due-diligence of what would be realistically available in 1995-99 or thereabouts.
i.e. in lay-man terms, the dimensions of the intended LCA power-plant (Kaveri) were based on those of forecasted contemporary turbofan engine (that would be available in late 90s) achieving similar Thrust, SFC and a host of other parameters.
Of course, as it is customary in such ab intio development programs, to have the intrinsic design parameters like SFC, OPR, TeT to be a notch above than those that would be available in the contemporary engines during it's developmental phases - more in sync with teh forecasted parameters of engines what would be contemporary during atleast the 1st half of the intended platform's ops life (of 2 decades +).

So not only does the rolled-out LCA TDs (TD1 in 1995 and TD-2 in 1998) had the F404-GE-F2J3 installed on them, but also they were on both PV1 and PV2 in the early 2000s.

All as per planned.


2. Also, as per the original plan (of 1987-88), if Kaveri sub-program succeeded, it was to be fitted onto LCA for the FSED-II phase (PV-3 as the production-prototype variant, PV-4 as the naval variant, and PV-5 as the trainer variant). And of course, then roll-on to the LSPs and SPs as well.


3. So while 1st phase of flight testing of the FSED-I phase was on-going (it itself got delayed due to 1998-sanctions and resultant delays in developing the FBW system), in parallel the Kaveri program was also progressing.
And the Kaveri program started off well actually - core (Kabini) first ran in 1995, full 1st prototype engine (Kaveri) began testing in 1996 and by 1998, all five prototypes (K1-K5/K6) were in testing.
But, in 2003 itself, while LCA was merely into 2 yrs into FSED-I flight testing, the indigenous HPT DS-blades started giving up. So, as a last ditch attempt, to keep the engine program on track, the DS blades were imported from Snecma (this import bit is purely IIRC and I need to cross-check it again).


4. But in mid-2004, the Kaveri failed its high-altitude tests in Russia. So it was then decided, Kaveri will not be ready for the FSED-II phases and GE was awarded a US$105 million contract (in 2004) for 17 F404-IN20 engines for LSPs and NPs (and delivery of which began in 2006).


5. The IAF ASR change (justified, in my opinion) happened in 2004/05 - this led to further delays in re-configuring the basic airframe (and thus further increased weight) to cater to it - so all FSED-II platforms were delayed towards incorporating these changes.


6. PV-1/2/3 and LSP-1 (in 2007) all flew with 2J3 version and LSP-2 with IN20 (in 2008) - followed by other LSPs.
All as per their revised schedule, dictated singularly by the program flight testing schedule - plus the delays due to re-configuring the platform due to ASR change (and of course the prototype building pace by HAL - aka "hand built" platforms).


7. And also due to pt.5 above, the resultant weight increase also made Kaveri completely unsuitable for LCA Mk1. So, in 2007, an additional 24 F404-IN20 afterburning engines were ordered to power the first operational squadron of Tejas fighters – and of course, Kaveri program itself was then officially delinked with the main LCA programme.


So the question remains, where exactly do you see the impact to the LCA platform delivery timelines due to failure/delay in Kaveri front?

[narayana]

Tejas to be displayed in RD Parade

TD1 will be displayed in RD parade,it is already shipped from b'lore to New Delhi
As per New Paper reports