LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Jan 2014 21:58

The annual addition costs of pilots, infrastructure is added to the cost of LCA. And if you are still not satisfied add a million dollars more per annum.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 19 Jan 2014 23:04

koti wrote:the costs also should include the cost of the 600 extra pilots and the reserves, their training expenses, the training and maintenance costs of all the support technicians. And also don't forget the infrastructure that needs to be built to support the higher number of planes. The hangers, the logistics, the additional airbases that need to come up, the extra runways that need to be built etc.

the very same flawed logic was used to make LCA fit into the size of Mig-21, making it difficult to improve on due to space constraints, yet today starting with Chabua the former Mig-21 only airbases are being upgraded for handling Su-30MKIs, as long as the money circulates within the Indian system these can be treated as problems with solutions.

As far as China goes we should use numbers, a predicate that their airforce sticks to as well, worse they still have to account for many air forces.

gnair · Post by **gnair** » 19 Jan 2014 23:58

Philip wrote:Developing a stealth LCA MK-3 may be a quick-fix project that both enhances the LCA legacy,plus saves us considerable time in developing the AMCA.It would also be a far cheaper effort.There is no lightweight stealth aircraft available anywhere in the world.

Philip don't you think LCA Mk-3 if ever, from the way technology is evolving would take the unmanned route. As soon as stealth is incorporated in a design, the emphasis leans a little more to the strike role than multi role. And by then the 'Aura' program would have matured as well hopefully! Anywhich way it goes, we're dealing with the 200 nautical mile order of battle segment, not much more.
I dream about a day when the LCA gets magnified X 10 and transforms itself into a recessed twin CFM-56 sized turbofan, that may have an uncanny modernised profile of the Vulcan bomber,that can do some serious 2,000 NM cruise-miss and PGM strikes. Apart from the engines, and program management, I do believe there is the industrial capability to be heading in this direction.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 00:15

gnair wrote:
Philip wrote:Developing a stealth LCA MK-3 may be a quick-fix project that both enhances the LCA legacy,plus saves us considerable time in developing the AMCA.It would also be a far cheaper effort.There is no lightweight stealth aircraft available anywhere in the world.
Philip don't you think ..............................

Very, very slow day ................... So...................

Mar, 2013 :: New Design For Indian Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

Representations of the fighter have changed often in the last few years. But the 1:8-scale model of the concept displayed at last month's Aero India 2013 show in Bengaluru is the final configuration and the one with which the program will proceed.

It ain't waiting for any LCA MKIII. Sorry to disappoint. : )

IF at all there is going to be a MKIII (based on a few words, therefore speculative) it will depend on the AMCA.

And, UAVs are no easy solutions. They require a whole different set of technologies. And, then to integrate them with human based assets is even more difficult. And then there is the naval angle. And, of course, other issues.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Jan 2014 03:49

^^^

If there is a LCA Mk.3, then it will be a parallel program to the AMCA. Both projects will benefit from each other's R&D efforts.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 04:23

(Again a slow day)

(IMHO, from a time-line PoV, the MKII and AMCA will share some - there will be overlaps. Technology wise, I do not expect much from the LCA. So, perhaps the MKIII will depend on the AMCA - if at all.

Let us see. It is not too far.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2014 04:37

If you read the AWST report,it says that Boeing and McDD before it,used a dual track approach to stealth from the late 80s.On one hand they worked on highly stealthy designs,known demonstrators include the X-36,wing body shape,supersonic and tailless,and Boeing's various UCAV designs.This is developing into the JV between Boeing and LH for the LR stealth bomber and the new UCLASS naval programme.

The alternative approach was to reduce the RCS of existing platforms using tech developed for the purely stealth birds."Edge alignment","Have Glass" RCS reduction kits kits where the nose-on RCS of a SH could be 1/10th that of an F-16.The pic of the rear of the stealthy fuselage shows that a stealth coating has been used on the tailfins.As far back as 2007,Boeing's then VP said that they had developed a powerful new technique for evaluating both the aerodynamic and RCS characteristics of aircraft configs. and external stores.

There is no harm is us following a similar approach.Incremental improvements incorporating stealth techniques onto existing platforms would make give them added capability.Since we are in the dev. stage for LCA MK-2,where there are to be required modifications to accommodate a larger engine,etc.,a parallel exercise could be initiated into further reducing its stealth profile.With the FGFA also being developed right now,and which will arrive either before or around the same time as MK-2,the parallel LCA stealth programme could benefit from that programme,and the experience of both benefiting the AMCA.In fact,the 3 programmes could overlap each other to some extent.This would certainly save time with the AMCA,which in any case has been officially said will begin in earnest after MK-2 arrives.In the MIG-29K's development,there were pics posted some time ago showing the much increased number of composite panels,etc.which are supposed to have improved its RCS considerably.

MIG 29K.The wise solution
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... ution.html

UCAV development is taking its own path.however ,from the concepts shown thus far,the aircraft is too small and can carry only two missiles in the internal weapons bay.The IAF requires a LR bomber and the UCAV programme should enlarge upon its ambitions.The bomber could even be manned as UCAV tech/operations even in the US still has some imperfections.Where the "re-usable missile" (APJAK has often spoken about the need for such a missile) sometimes used in the context of hyper-BMos comes into the picture is anyone's guess.The need for a stealth bomber is there as the Pakis keep on increasing their dependence upon tactical N-weapons in their survival doctrine against India's greater numbers in conventional warfare.Eliminating their missile launchers/bases equipped with such TNW warheads will be essential in any future spat.The great distances required to hit Chinese strategic targets and key installations in Tibet also require an LR bomber,along with the maritime requirement which may require an interim available solution ,not a stealth bird.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 04:51

OK, here goes, one data point:

Jan 24, 2014 issue:: ‘Our focus is self-reliance’

Avinash Chander, DRDO Director General wrote: We have the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) coming up. The designs are ready and we are moving forward.

Like I have been (guessing, based on data points) saying, the AMCA is actually moving. I really do not know where the news about waiting till MKII is done came from. But anyways .......... Here is from the horses mouth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2014 05:59

"Guess who's coming to (the light stealth fighter) dinner?"
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131211 ... r-Jet.html
Russia to Develop Light-Class Fighter Jet

MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will soon start developing a prototype of an advanced lightweight fighter jet to supplement fifth-generation T-50 aircraft, a top government official said Wednesday.

The new aircraft is expected to be cheaper to produce and easier to maintain, but should also possess combat capabilities and performance characteristics comparable with those of heavy-class aircraft.

“The development of a light-class fighter has been included in the current arms procurement program. It will be created,” said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, addressing the lower house of parliament.

Rogozin, who oversees the defense and space industries, said light-class fighters were in greater demand abroad, compared to more advanced heavy-class aircraft, such as Su-30 or the planned T-50 fighter jets.

Russia is currently developing the heavy-class T-50 multirole fighter aircraft, also known as PAK-FA, which will be the core of the country’s future fighter fleet.

The T-50 is expected to enter service with the Russian air force in 2016.
The T-50 fifth-generation fighter

Rogozin, who first voiced the idea of developing a second type of a fifth-generation fighter in February 2012, said Wednesday that Russia has always had at least two types of tactical fighters that in general supplemented one another.

The latest example is a MiG-29/Su-27 pair.

Rogozin did not specify which of Russia’s two main designers of combat jets – MiG or Sukhoi – will be assigned the development of the future light-class fighter.

The LCA is already off the blocks and has an advantage if we get our act together which shouldn't be squandered.High production rates are essential.A stealth variant an attractive prospect for middle ranking nations.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2014 06:01

did they finish the t-50 first? per study it is no where close to f-22/jsf yet, from all aspects.

but, why on this thread?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 06:18

Are they using the Al-55I for this plane?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2014 06:42

Saik,I've been a proponent of a stealth variant of the LCA for quite some time,hence the news item.It appears that others are thinking on similar lines.We are already ahead in the race ,barring the Gripen,and with MK-2 dev. taking place could leverage the project into developing without too much effort and cost a MK-3 stealth variant which would be far more affordable than the FGFA (reduced numbers being planned for).The MK-3 could complement it,and synergise our efforts in AMCA dev. meant to replace the medium sized aircraft in the inventory in the future.

If the goal of the IAF is to have 40+ sqds.this means around 900 aircraft will be required.There is a limit as to how many expensive heavy air dominance fighters/stealth fighters the IAF can afford.The next decade is going to be about numbers and affordability too apart from stealth.UCAVs will also be in favour,but their limited payload makes them more suitable for small precision strikes ,as the US has been doing exterminating terrorist vermin in Af-Pak and elsewhere.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 06:53

There is a huge difference between a stealth plane that is ground up and one that morphs into one. Moreover, the Russians seem to be building one more for experts and perhaps to keep MiG alive.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2014 07:57

No,I think that they have realised that the MIG-21 allowed them and other air forces in the past to have large inventories at affordable cost.That was what the JSF was all about at the beginning,a lesser expensive F-22 ,"bird for all seasons",ending up being master of none! That's the same philosophy that lies behind the LCA too,a follow on to our Gnat and MIG-21 traditions.There is a RuAF requirement for a smaller fighter and the MIG-35 may not fit the bill.The success of the Gripen,bought by many smaller nations has given a boost to the light fighter market as funds dry up.As the good Adm. US CNO Jon.Greenert said,"we need to move from luxury car platforms towards dependable trucks that can handle a changing payload selection".

Though this is more suited to the IN td. as it has a bearing upon the NLCA,Xcpts. posted here.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... on-Weapons Revolution

Payloads over platforms: Charting a new course.

The predominant trend compelling us to consider a new approach for capability development is the exponential growth of information-processing power. Over the past 40 years, that growth helped fuel innovation in almost every civilian and military technology, and brought about a revolution in the precision and accuracy of sensors and weapons. In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, predicted that the number of transistors per processor chip would double about every two years, thereby increasing overall computing speed and power. His prediction—now commonly referred to as “Moore’s Law”—held true. Today’s commercially available chips are almost 40,000 times faster than those available in 1971. 1 Moreover, the average price of a megabyte of computer memory has gone from more than $700,000 dollars in 1970 to around 2 cents today. 2

The precision weapons enabled by this computing power fundamentally changed modern warfare. Advances in targeting and guidance systems allow us to achieve much greater accuracy and lethality with far fewer weapons. Today, about 70–80 percent of guided munitions fall within ten yards of their targets. During World War II only 18 percent of U.S. bombs fell within 1,000 feet of their targets. 3

Our commanders exploit this precision by using the smallest number and size of weapons possible. In addition to improving efficiency, this minimizes collateral damage—which can have a significant strategic impact in modern counterinsurgency operations. From World War II to the Gulf War, the number of bombs used to hit a fixed target decreased by a factor of 300, the number of aircraft assigned decreased by a factor of almost 400, and bombing accuracy improved by a factor of 17. 4 Instead of sorties per aimpoint, we now commonly speak in terms of aimpoints per sortie.

The ability of a few very-precise standoff weapons to be more efficient and effective than a larger number of less-precise weapons leads to a surprising result. In modern warfare, precision standoff weapons such as Tomahawk or the joint standoff weapon are now more cost-effective in many situations than short-range gravity bombs such as the joint direct attack munition (JDAM). A Tomahawk missile, for example, costs about $1.2 million, while a JDAM is about $30,000. To strike a single target, however, the total training, maintenance, and operations cost to get a manned aircraft close enough to deliver the JDAM is several times higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk at the same target from a destroyer, submarine or aircraft operating several hundred miles away. That is one of the trends leading us to focus more effort on improving and evolving our standoff sensor and munition payloads.

The Limits of Stealth

The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain above and below the water. First, though, military sensors will start to circumvent stealth of surface ships and aircraft through two main mechanisms:

• Operating at lower electromagnetic frequencies than stealth technologies are designed to negate, and

• Detecting the stealth platform from angles or aspects at which the platform has a higher signature.

U.S. forces can take advantage of those developments by employing long-range sensor, weapon, and unmanned-vehicle payloads instead of using only stealth platforms and shorter-range systems to reach targets.

Stealth ships and aircraft are designed to have a small radar or infrared electromagnetic signature at specific frequencies. The frequency ranges at which stealth is designed to be most effective are those most commonly used by active radar or passive infrared detection systems. At lower frequencies detections do not normally provide the resolution or precision necessary for accurate targeting. Using more powerful information-processing, however, military forces will be able to develop target-quality data from these lower-frequency passive infrared signals or active-radar returns. 5

The aspects at which stealth platforms are designed to have their smallest signature are those from which detection is most likely. For example, an aircraft or ship is designed to have a small signature or radar return when it is approaching a threat sensor—or has a “nose-on” aspect. Improved computer processing will produce new techniques that can detect stealth platforms at target aspects from which they have higher radar returns. Multiple active radars, for instance, can combine their returns through a battle-management computer so radar detections from a stealth platform’s less-stealthy side, underside, or rear aspect can be shared and correlated to allow the stealth platform to be detected and attacked. Similarly, passive radar receivers can capture the electromagnetic energy that comes from transmitters of opportunity—such as cell-phone or TV towers—and bounces off a stealth platform at a variety of angles. With better processing in the future, those weak, fragmented signals can be combined to create actionable target information. 6

Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them. [/quote]

Last line why larger twin-engined aircraft are preferable to single-engined ones,greater range and payload options (BMos).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2014 08:50

reg stealth: philip, imho, LCA variant could appear aerodynamcially the same or better but could have skins internal surface something similar to the pattern you see in this picture:
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 6399_o.jpg

external skin surface may not deflect, but permeate the radiations

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Jan 2014 21:23

On a stealthy LCA-3 ...

Track record indicates that once we've completed ab initio development of a system, we use that a test-bed for the others. The reason is that during the ab initio development, we learnt - the hard way - the various behaviors that to develop a new one, it makes sense to keep the others constant.

Consider the Prithvi. Because we understood that so well and mastered its flight dynamics, we developed exo-atmospheric ABM interceptor based on that.

Consider the Prahaar. Once we tested the AAD very well, we developed a tactical SSM based on it.

The road to LCH too is similar - we took what we knew (Dhruv) and we modified it but with the cannon tested, ATGMs integrated, it will be easier.

So - to de-risk the AMCA, the most appropriate will be to adapt the system we've grown to understand very well - and that is the LCA. Once the ADA is done with the LCA Mk2, to start validating the AMCA requirements (stealth/LO, AESA, fly-by-light ?), it makes sense to have LCA as a test-bed. And if it makes sense in the interim to productize it (like the Rudra before LCH), why not ?

You can call it LCA Mk3, you can call it Silent Tejas, but I'm willing to bet that is going to be reality.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2014 21:24

Was this posted before? Since it comes from the horses' mouth,then debate about the possibility of MK-3 is irrelevant as it is on the cards,using tech being developed for the AMCA,just what one has been advocating,increasing the sophistication of our designs and aircraft incrementally.

http://www.aame.in/2012/06/stealth-vers ... ombat.html

India's indigenously developed supersonic fighter aircraft to be developed into a stealth platform.

Dr. V.K Saraswat, presently the Scientific Advisor to India's Defence Minister, delivered a keynote address at the recently held Aerospace Forum in Sweden that concluded on the 3rd of June, this year. Titled, 'Vision for India’s Future Aerospace and Defence', he spoke of some of big ticket Aerospace development projects currently underway or are to commence shortly.

Among these would be a programme to integrate technologies developed as part of India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft [AMCA] programme into the Light Combat Aircraft [LCA], Tejas. This variant would be identified as Mark III.

"Many of these technologies could also find their way into the Light Combat Aircraft Mk. 3 that is to be more stealthy than the current Mk. 2 version, which is due to fly in the next two years with the General Electric F414 engine and be ready for operational trials in 2016. The Mk. 3 is to have up to 70% composite content, almost double the current version's level, and could be powered by India's Kaveri turbofan, if that troubled program gets back on track."

Light-Combat-Aircraft-LCA-Tejas-Formation-01

Considering this aircraft was not developed from the outset to be stealthy, the final outcome of this particular venture would, therefore, be more of having improved the aircraft to exhibit greater reduction in its Radar Cross-Section [RCS] than its previous iterations [Mk. I & II]. Having a small-sized airframe [smallest for its class], inherently gives it a fair degree of that advantage even now. Add to it reduced metallic surfaces by replacing it with increased composites, and you should have a fine aircraft whose chances of detection on the radar would be that much closer to those aircraft, bigger in size, that are touted as truly stealth fighters. For an aircraft that is not to be the frontline fighter of the Indian Air Force, this development should be a welcome gain.

The Defence Research & Development Organisation [DRDO], on the back of its present Airborne Early Warning & Control System [AEW&CS] development programme, that now appears to be looking up, is to initiate a program to build a more powerful platform capable of detecting fifth generation stealth aircraft & unmanned flying systems. This project gains significance in light of development of fifth generation fighters in the neighbourhood, that should likely enter service by the end of this decade, along with increasing adoption of unmanned aerial systems by armed forces the world over.

At the same time, the country is exploring ways to better detect stealth aircraft. Detecting low-observable aircraft is a key element of the Indian 2020 airborne early warning and control development effort, a program likely to start in late 2014. It will be based on a yet-to-be selected widebody. This initiative follows the current Embraer EMB-145-based airborne early warning program featuring an Indian-developed, 240-deg field-of-view radar. The first of the modified regional jets is due for delivery to India in August, with radar integration to start in October.

The new system will feature a rotodome radar and be integrated with unmanned aircraft and aerostats to allow bi-static radar operations to detect stealth aircraft, says Vijay Kumar Saraswat, scientific adviser to the director general of the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). The distributed transmitter and receiver approach should also aid in detecting small targets, such as unmanned aircraft, and provide extended-range detection, Saraswat recently told the Aerospace Forum Sweden 2012.

Dr. Saraswat's talk has been summarised in an article that appears in the latest issue of the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine. You could read the full article below.

AWST page in the link for more details.Interesting notes on our anti-stealth work that is being incorporated into our desi AEW aircraft based on the EMB platform.

If a MK-3 stealth version arrives,along with a naval variant of the same,that would be an attractive option for our carriers,especially the smaller VikA and IAC-1,complementing larger more capable twin-engined multi-role aircraft.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2014 22:29

Anything more recent? Thx.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jan 2014 22:39

Flight update

=================================================================
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

2471th flight on 17 Jan
PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 290, LSP3: 183, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 246, LSP7: 77, LSP8 : 62
NP1: 10
=================================================================

Need chaiwalla information. Why aren't any PVs or LSPs not flying since 31st Dec, except for 1 flight of LSP2 between 02 Jan to 07 Jan?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2014 23:11

why no lsp8 video yet?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 21 Jan 2014 04:42

indranilroy wrote: Need chaiwalla information. Why aren't any PVs or LSPs not flying since 31st Dec, except for 1 flight of LSP2 between 02 Jan to 07 Jan?

Just a guess, but looks like they are modifying the AF versions for FOC testing and are now flogging the NP1 to prepare for STOBAR operations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2014 04:58

NR,AKA mumbled something around the IOC-2 induction about "other series" ,or words to that effect.I can't remember the origin.There were so many reports at the time.However,these statement from the chief raises the Q,whether a MK-3 is on the cards /envisaged,or is to be developed as a DRDO project,experimental version leading to the AMCA,or even dropped.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/scienc ... 482654.ece

“The LCA MK-I would go into immediate production and two squadrons comprising 40 aircraft would be raised by the Indian Air Force by 2015 and 2017 respectively and they would be based in Sulur in Tamil Nadu.”

After this the production of MK-II variant would be undertaken and IAF would raise four squadrons. In all about 200 aircraft would be inducted into the force. On why more aircraft would not be inducted, Air Chief Marshal Browne said it was so because the operational requirement for a particular type of aircraft were limited. “We require a balanced force which also has medium and heavy aircraft. The LCA seeks to replace the MiGs, whereas the medium range comprises aircraft like Mirage and the heavy like Sukhoi.”
About 250 MiGs still remain in the IAF which at the peak of their use had about 600 of them.

Air Chief Marshal Browne said till now the flying was on telemetry by test pilots but now the service document has given full envelope and profile of aircraft. “With the integration of new BVR missiles, integral guns and air-to-air refuelling capability, the LCA will acquire increased potency and enhanced operational efficiency as envisaged at the FOC level.”

He said the final goal remained the LCA MK II which would be the “final version in its projected force structure”. This would have the critical GE 414 engine integration for enhanced thrust along with a better intake design and improved maintainability of the platform.

Was this also posted earlier? Some Pll. work seems to be afoot:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 955174.ece

DRDO’s most prominent voice Dr K Tamil Mani, Director-General (Aeronautical Systems), said his organisation is working parallel to get a few Indian weapons integrated on Tejas.

“Though to integrate Indian weapons is not a planned test point for the final operational clearance (FOC) of Tejas, we have started working on it for some time now. The Astra missile integration with an improvised range of 80-plus km (currently 40-45 km) is the next big challenge. We have also planned some PGMs (precision-guided munitions) for Tejas, including glide bombs and GPS-guided bombs,” Mani said.

“We want to take up the Indian weapon integration as a parallel programme, which is progressing as per our plan. In military aviation, the modern thought process is to share the strength. No country makes every component all alone in a fighter plane. So to say that Tejas is not 100 per cent Indian, doesn’t hold any ground. We want to take the indigenous content in Tejas to 80 per cent from the current 60 per cent. It is an achievable target and we have the strength,” he said.

An onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) is also in the pipeline for Tejas. The OBOGS development work is being undertaken by the Bangalore-based DRDO life sciences lab Defence Bioengineering andElectromedical Laboratory.

“The OBOGS enables the pilots to fly at high altitudes and on long duration sorties without the help of oxygen cylinders. We are also planning to get an Indian company to supply the tyres for Tejas, which currently runs on Dunlop,” Mani explained.

The engine (GE F 404), ejection seat (Martin Baker), missile (R 73 E) and the multi-mode radar (Elta) are among the prominent import content onboard Tejas now.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Jan 2014 09:28

NRao wrote:OK, here goes, one data point:

Jan 24, 2014 issue:: ‘Our focus is self-reliance’

Avinash Chander, DRDO Director General wrote: We have the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) coming up. The designs are ready and we are moving forward.
Like I have been (guessing, based on data points) saying, the AMCA is actually moving. I really do not know where the news about waiting till MKII is done came from. But anyways .......... Here is from the horses mouth.

its actually moving forward..just a week ago, I found out that ADA has invited certain private sector companies to participate in a RFP for aero-structures design for the AMCA. In a few months' time (hopefully) the work on the design should begin.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jan 2014 10:05

Not surprised at all. I think it will fly far earlier than most think it will. And check out the latest data point: the IAF and the FGFA saga.

Any idea about funding such events? That should provide a huge data point.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 21 Jan 2014 12:11

Asit P wrote:The LCA did not but the Indian AEW&C did fly at the Bahrain show:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sli ... 007183.cms

There was that 1 fly-by on day 2 - That's It!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2014 13:06

I wonder whats stopping them from carrying out a decent flight display of Tejas at such airshows when its already cleared IOC-2.
They should have aerial demonstration of Tejas on all major airshows.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jan 2014 14:52

After FOC is a better idea. No point in doing a tame show & then being called names by the hypercritical junta.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jan 2014 22:20

AKM aka Tarmak007 is arranging a talk with Suneet Krishna on 25th Jan, 4-6 PM. This is a great opportunity. We should collate the questions we want to ask about LCA.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jan 2014 23:00

indranilroy wrote:AKM aka Tarmak007 is arranging a talk with Suneet Krishna on 25th Jan, 4-6 PM. This is a great opportunity. We should collate the questions we want to ask about LCA.

Yes, that's a good idea. It is 4-6PM IST, so a few people should split up all the questions, as he might want to answer questions from multiple people.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jan 2014 23:29

^^^

We should probably use Kartik's info from Aero India 2013 as a basis for new questions:

Kartik wrote:Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won’t describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA). I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn’t hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.

- Tejas LSP6 is the platform on which the spin chute will be integrated but it’s not here as yet. Will get done before FOC.
- Tejas Mk1 has achieved the IOC AoA limit of 22 deg and they will go a couple of degrees further in tests, when the spin chutes are integrated on LSP6. This is to ensure that they know that the airplane is safe even at higher alpha although the FBW will restrict it to the AoA limit for FOC for service pilots (which is higher than 22 deg, but he didn’t say how much)
- Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri’s airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.
- Tejas MK2 will get an approx 10mm increase in diameter for the increased air flow requirement of the F-414 (Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj confirmed this as well). Too small a difference to be visible to the naked eye for us jingos. The spring mounted doors may also be bigger if needed
- When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”. When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure. He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.
- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It’s a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn’t push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.
- When I asked him whether the Navy fully backs the NLCA program, he laughed and said “I’m here, aren’t I?”. So all in all, it appears that the IN is backing the program fully
- NP1 hasn’t flown more than 4 flights because they’re re-designing some of the structures on board. This is the additional strengthening required for handling the thumping that is a carrier landing. The landing gear is being re-designed since its overweight and NP2 is going to fly soon.
- I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should’ve started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1. The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn’t have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won’t face since it’s a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren’t the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.
- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

At this point he had to leave and I was disappointed since I hadn’t gotten to discussing anything about the Elta 2032/MMR, Litening LDP and the weapons on the Mk1 such as the Derby/Python V/R-77/Astra and Sudarshan..

Kartik wrote:Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”.. Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:

- The Tejas Mk2 is being lengthened by 0.5m only and not 1m as that big gasbag Prasun Sengupta was fibbing about. We really ought to never take him seriously at all. The reason cited were CG change primarily.
- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.
- The fuselage on the Mk2 will be slightly wider as well due to the larger diameter of the F-414 engine. This will be used to put onboard additional fuel
- The widening of the fuselage will push out the wings a bit, thus increasing wing span. Otherwise no increase in wing span as such. It doesn’t need it, since the wing area is massive already
- 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.
- He confirmed that the intake size will go up by approx. 10 mm for the Mk2.
- There is a LOT of work that is required to be done due to engine change. This is something jingos must keep in mind since jingos keep asking if this or that engine can be used or not on a platform..pumps, motors, fuel supply lines, nearly everything associated with the engine requires re-design due to an engine change due to higher fuel flow rates for a larger engine and the different specs of the power generation on board. Plus, the higher weight means localized structural strengthening as well, all of which takes time
- N-LCA will be an out and out 9G fighter. He was categorical about this.
- NP1 trainer doesn’t have a radar- the radome is used for carrying avionics. He said he was more interested in the NP2 since it was the first fighter and was going to carry the same radar as that on the Sea Harrier. I tried to quiz him on this because the Elta 2032 on the Sea Harrier is not the same as the Elta 2032/MMR on the Tejas Mk1, but he didn’t stop what he was saying.
- NP2 is basically similar to the NP1, but with the rear seater’s canopy painted over (he said that! I asked if it was faired over and he said no, just painted over). The rear seater’s space will carry avionics (that were put into the radome on the NP1) and additional fuel tank.
- NP1’s LEVCONS will be initially having 3 positions- 10 deg, 20 deg and 30 deg, just like flap settings. I tried to ask him if the LEVCONS would be just lift generating surfaces or that they could be used as additional control surfaces by the FBW FCS to increase turn rates but he said that they were primarily required for higher lift when landing and taking off
- They’re working on the hands-free take-off for the N-LCA. He said that it was no big deal and they’ll do it for sure
- Mk2 is to get bigger MFD displays, but he said that even the ones on the Mk1 are actually good and possibly adequate
- One piece of news that will get some jingos happy- he said that he has asked CSIO Chandigarh to develop a frameless HUD instead of the current one. It’ll feature higher FoV and its easier to view through since there is no frame obstructing the pilot’s view.
- DASH HMDS from Elbit for the N-LCA as well. I had initially thought they’d go with the Thales Top Owl-F as on the MiG-29K
- Just as I suspected, I asked him if the current drop tank is transonic- he confirmed that it is. A supersonic tank is being developed to carry about 200 gal. (~750 ltrs)
- Also confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the centerline fuel tank – since we almost never see Tejas Mk1 carry a centerline fuel tank in place of the innermost wing pylon drop tanks. If required, Mk1s can carry drop tank on the centerline station also
- Regarding IFR, it is Cobham that is going to work on it. Asked if it’s a fixed probe, retractable or semi-retractable, it was confirmed to be semi-retractable, like that on the MiG-29UPG. I asked about the lack of internal volume on such a small fighter for even a semi-retractable probe and he said that its going to be a small probe, and they’ll manage to find the space for it
- No OBOGS on Tejas Mk1 or NP1. It’ll be there from Mk2 onwards. Designed by DEBEL and certified by CEMILAC
- Regarding the landing gear, he said it was 1600 kgs over the Tejas Mk1’s landing gear weight initially!! They designed it per MilSpec which was too conservative. Also, in addition to the general Factor of Safety that is needed for Ultimate Loads, they added another Factor of Safety of 1, for a total of 2.5 because it was being done for the first time in India and they were concerned about the design..and used maraging steel which was heavy.
- He clearly said that before the NP1 first flight, none of the OEMs even believed that this program had any future and no one cooperated with them when asked for help. Then, when NP1 flew, they were interested in helping out.
- US Navy is now consulting with them on where to reduce weight, what other materials to use. All the leg work is done here itself though, and no work is being done by foreign OEMs. They are confident of shaving off 1000 kgs and bringing it to 600 kgs over the LCA AF version’s landing gear weight for the N-LCA
- On the N-LCA Mk2 they will change the position of the landing gear and bring it more towards the wing/fuselage joint. The landing gear will then retract into a fairing for that. That will also free up space in the fuselage for additional fuel
- Regarding radar, he said that they are pretty confident about it. The reason is that they’re using the same Elta 2032 as on the Sea Harrier! Since they’ve already qualified that radar for the Derby, he was pretty confident about the Derby on the N-LCA. Asked about the Python-V he said that it’s the R-73 that’ll be the WVR weapon..when I asked him how come the Python V was shown on the mockup outside, he said it’s just a mockup. Wasn’t very clear about this
- Shockingly about the radar, when I asked about what increased range one might get with the Elta 2032 since the diameter of the antenna on the N-LCA will be bigger than that on the LUSH SHar, he replied that there is no increase in range, its more than sufficient..I asked him specifically again that “really same detection range?” and he said yes. Again not very clear about this
- When quizzed about AESA for the N-LCA Mk2, he said that for now it’s the same Elta 2032 and Cmde Mao had recently even gone to Israel to test the radar that will be used on the N-LCA Mk2. Here, he mentioned that “if you get anything from Israel, just take it. Their equipment is very good”. Then went on to mention how the Barak was tested on the Viraat and was successful on its very first trial with 2 missiles fired. The first hit the target and the second hit its debris!
- He confirmed that the anti-ship missile for the N-LCA is going to be the Kh-35E, similar to the MiG-29K. Laughed when recollecting how poor the Sea Eagle was as an AShM.
- Primary role envisaged for the N-LCA is that of CAP and Fleet Defence, replacing the Sea Harrier. He was quite dismissive about the P-3C Orion threat (jokingly saying that to shoot that down, a gun is enough!:P), but was primarily concerned about the cruise missile and anti-ship missile threat to the Carrier. But he mentioned that a Carrier Battle Group consists of several rings of protection for the carrier, and that the carrier will get warned about any possible airborne threat several hundred kms before it even approached it. With that much warning, a N-LCA could dash to the edge of the fleet and take on the threat.
- When I asked him if shooting down sub-sonic anti-ship missiles with on-board missiles was a possible scenario for the N-LCA, he replied in the affirmative
- When he mentioned this, I asked him how good the Elta 2032 was with regards to dealing with sea clutter and he said that its very good.
- NP2 is currently already going through integration tests. Will likely fly in June or July if no issues are found.
- NP1 has given them a lot of data for how the platform behaves in 4 flights itself
- Said how the LCA is designed as per the Test Pilot’s recommendations- whatever they want, ADA/HAL give it to them. He said let the IAF get the Rafale and then ask for these small changes and then they’ll figure out just how hard it is to get anything they want. On the N-LCA, we can integrate whatever we want, and for the entire lifetime of the fighter. Easier upgrades will be available since everything is known about the aircraft to the designers

I had to leave at this point since my friend who I’d met after 6 years was in a hurry to leave so we could escape the impending traffic snarl. Thanked the Cmdr profusely and got his card as well. I asked for some other brochures on the Mk2 and he said that he could give me a soft copy of it. To date, I’ve never had so much come from a single conversation at any airshow or business show. Very competent fellows are working on these programs. They need our support and encouragement. Those who are constantly piling it on them, with negative reports are basically doing this nation a great dis-service. Criticize the organization perhaps for its failings, but those who are working on these programs are to be commended and encouraged.

My list:

Lifecycle costs - projected vs actual so far
AAR - how much increase radius/time (action/ferry)?
Weapons - upcoming tests (new AAMs, rockets, guns), AF-version AShM?, Other planned air-to-surface weapons?
EW suite - Mk.1 and Mk.2
Radar - MMR or all-up Elta 2032; if MMR, what is indigenous?
NLCA - when carrier training, trials?
Sensor Fusion/Sharing - what is implemented?
Future - 200 projected?, LCA Mk.3?, AMCA progress

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 22 Jan 2014 02:42

My questions

1. AOA - what will be achieved by FOC . Have spin chutes been integrated on LSP 6 and what progress has been made on AOA
2. STR - what is achieved now and what will be achieved by FOC
3. Any general non sensitive info about tactics - what roles would it be used for
4. Agility - IAF loves agility. Linked to above any non sensitive info about air combat tactics and agility would be very interesting

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jan 2014 03:33

SRai and AK have covered most of the points!

1.Combat radius FOC, MK1 and whether it would increase for MK2.
2. Also projected improvements in STR, acceleration for MK2

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Jan 2014 03:52

Other than takeoff and landing distances, I would like to know how both the LCA and the NLCA compare on the performance parameters

And what are the areas they are targeting to gain weight savings

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Jan 2014 03:53

do paisa sawaals from my side
1. Field test away from home base - issues, solutions, repairability by BRDs and comparison with other aircraft in the stable on this aspect
2. Extent of knowledge that has been documented in a knowledge base - basically steps taken by the entire team(TPs, engineers, System designers, technicians etc) to ensure knowledge accumulated is not lost
3. Any combat drills done with other aircraft in the stable
4. Data link issues with AWACS and AEW - is it networked enough
5. Processor and Subsystem replacement to have newer computing components
6. Spin recovery tests and progress on the trainer
7. Weight reduction strategies

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jan 2014 04:04

Some of my questions:

1. Max payload carried so far on LCA
2. What is the increase in range/payload projected from Mk-II?
3. Why has there been a pause in test since Dec 31, as per ADA website?
4. Max-G tested so far and the max that it will be tested before FOC
5. When will the cannon be fired?
6. No news of LSP-6 marked for AoA testing so far. What is the progress so far? when can we expect the spin tests and Max AoA tests?
7. FOC target date
8. Status of Mk-II. How far has it proceeded? Has the metal cutting begun? When can we expect first engine run/flight?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2014 05:27

Indranil going to pare the list to most useful info? I see about 30 questions. Would be too much from one site!

My one question is wake penetration tests are they complete?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Jan 2014 17:03

ramana wrote:Indranil going to pare the list to most useful info? I see about 30 questions. Would be too much from one site!

My one question is wake penetration tests are they complete?

Wake penetration tests have been confirmed as being completed before IOC-II.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jan 2014 18:03

Ask about:-

Proposed LCA Mark-3

Proposed or possible time lines for AMCA and UCAV

srin · Post by **srin** » 22 Jan 2014 18:25

Are LEVCONs planned for the IAF version of Tejas also ?
Are there plans to have an internal integrated IRST ?
Does the Mk1 have Elta 2032 radar ?

I second the LCA Mk3 question.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2014 18:54

To add to the current pool of questions -

1. SRAAM on Tejas - R-73E or Python 5?

2. Outlook on Astra integration - might Derby be redundant?

3. Passive AAM employment capability time-frame? [Targeting info handed off by diff platform]

4. Flight ceiling - Mk1? Mk2?

5. Take-off distance? Landing distance? Landing speed? - Mk1

6. Min. starting time? Turn-around time? Sortie rate? Engine change time? - Mk1

7. Maintenance requirement? Projected operational availability? Comparison with IAF's existing fleet esp. Mirages.

8. Ejector rack integration? - Mk1

9. Number of hardpoints on Mk2 ?

10. RWR - Acuity? Geo-location? Related details?

11. RCS work - RAM application? Cockpit canopy treatment? Frequency selective radome?

12. Status/scope for integration of (a) EL/M-8222 [jamming] (b) EL/M-2060 [recce] (c) SIVA HADF [ESM]

13. MAWS on Mk1 - active or passive? Same question wrt Mk2.

14. ECM/ESM antennas - solid state (AESA)?

15. Mk2 IRST - local or imported?

16. Mk2 max speed? Any scope for supercruise at all?

17. Sudarshan integration? Any other PGM/missiles? (Esp. anti-armor) Opinion on SDB? (Designed for limited vol carriage)

18. Anti-ship weapon for N-Tejas - Kh-35 or Harpoon?

19. Leh trials - problems/issues faced? Fixes implemented?

20. Air intake - larger size (Gripen type) vs rounded with aux doors. Merits? Demerits?

21. Cost estimate Mk2?

22. Interest from foreign customers?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS NOT RELATED TO TEJAS -

23. IN Dornier upgrade - details.

24. Dornier NG - status, scope, future? Level of HAL content?

25. Status of SARAS program? Possibility of military variants?

26. HS-748 and An-32 replacement - opinion? Merger into single program viable?