LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2014 16:49

The question is how much of all this has changed (since say past 10/20/30 years), within the IAF.

That there is a difference between the IAF and others is a given. And yet the IAF (and other services) have adopted a few things from others - they have to. Also, there was an era when the IAF (in particular) accepted what they got. In the past 10 years or so, things have changed - MKI being perhaps the biggest example. What has changed and to what extent. The IAF,as an example, is no longer willing to accept an "export" version of any plane.

And yet they are different.

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Jun 2014 19:39

MKI was rammed down IAF throats, they had (thankfully) no choice in the matter.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Jun 2014 20:15

Wow how loaded ef2k is with self protection, the towed decoy showed at 1:35 is amazing, it renders and bvr-shvr missiles impotent as in 60s:

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Jun 2014 21:04

That the most well funded air forces continue to develop both capable and advanced towed decoys such as for the 4.5th aircraft like the Typhoon, Super Hornet yet also at the same time pursue BVR missile development tells us something

. Everyone is aware of the limit of bvr, but the capability is held closely to the chest. Towed decoy and protection is something aids survivability, it does not solely provide just because its there. Similarly there is no guarantee that every BVR shot will result in a kill. The tacticians know this and plan for it accordingly yet no one is giving up on a vast amount of money for development of this capability. The russians have a couple of missiles for BVR combat in development for the future, the US has some, the Europeans have a lead with the meteor, we have the astra that we have built up with a lot of hard work. If everything was negated with electronic counter measures and decoys most of these efforts would be a waste. It would be easy to refer to some as doing something that is wrong or unwise but the development is going on among all major powers in the world. The debate is very similar to the "stealth" vs detection debate. While only the US had stealth the entire community elsewhere was saying that it is useless, and a marketing gimmick yet everyone at the same time had stealth programs under development be it the chinese, russians, koreans, japanese, turkish, french, british, swedish etc etc

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... 019923.pdf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2014 21:27

brar_w wrote:Well if you look at the IDF example they left only a dozen fighters to protect the country in a classic Air to Air capability, .............. The US was late to (post cold war) to incorporated cutting edge tech for close combat ops, but once they got the budgets in order (BVR took priority followed by A2G) they rapidly acquired the capability at an unmatched rate (4500 JHMCS most of which are for the US forces).

Looking at NATO campaign or IDF Israel win is good exercise on Boards to proves ones point but how when it comes of IAF-PAF scenario it would be little to no use.

Consider this fact when we went to Kargil war , we were short on certain types of weapons, operational types fighter and the Army Chief stated we will fight with what we have , The IAF was clearly told not to cross the border that was the political mandate and the war was limited to specific areas at least then IAF had unchallenged superiority as by and large the fight was within our borders although Pakistan was the agressor but we didnt move in not even into POK where the intruders got logistics support.

No one knows if the war happens and if its full blown war how much of the IAF assets will be devoted to Air Superiority , Attack or CAP ....if say the war happens today what is the operational availability of squadrons , how much of A2A , A2G and other stocks of ammo available , how long can we sustain a war last but most critical what is the political mandate against a Nuclear Background.

It would be constant evolving scenario involving Geopolitics , Military and Politcal mandate with IAF having perhaps a very narrow window to do what it wants to do without getting the war out of control from leadership on both sides.

We do not really know the Pk of say AMRAAM , R-77 , Mica , R-73 , Python etc would change against say Jamming/Spoofing by F-16 or MKI or M2K carrying these system , Will IAF restrict the use of BVR only in case of Positive IFF and avoid firing salvo which the NATO had the liberty to do .... what kind of Tactics will PAF/IAF use against BVR engagement , How Well IAF is fleet wide to know they are under BVR or WVR attack , same goes for PAF fleet ........ I think a lot of this will be learning experience for both sides and things will evolve as war moves and who so ever evolves faster and learns faster would have the upper hand.

We have rarely seen till this day any fight between two Industrial Country that has the might and power and industrial capability to match the other , All the wars where B-2 , AMRAAM , AWACS.JSTARS were used were against a vastly inferior enemy using equipment which were most 2 gen behind , rarely in some cases they matched if at all on some criteria.

I think its a good exercise to study any war of recent times and try to learn from it be it Gulf War , Kosovo , Georgia or Iraq 2nd war , I am sure IAF would have done that and likely the PAF too but in the end I expect our wars would be different in many ways from what we have seen in past wars

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Jun 2014 21:50

Geopolitical complications, constraints and the state of affairs is something all conflicts have to deal with. It is hardly unique to us v the pakistanis. As i mentioned in my very first post of this line of reasoning, we are dealing with an academic exercise rather than something that is likely to happen.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Jun 2014 05:32

Gurujan i was seeing this Tejas video from Leh trials in Feb2014 on the tejas.gov.in website. I see there is a something which remains popped out after the landing gear is closed @ 3:03 What is this ? TIA

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Jun 2014 13:06

suryag ji,

It looks like an antenna. Which antenna??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jun 2014 03:30

It is most probably a V/UHF Blade antenna.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jun 2014 02:15

the towed decoy is exactly we want for mk-2 but more focused on WVR combat needs.. btw, we should have heard about finalized mk-2 designs by now. any info?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Jun 2014 22:34

btw, we should have heard about finalized mk-2 designs by now. any info?

I find it strange that a lot of us in the forum talk about "cancel Rafale, don;t go for consultancy for Mk.2 to speed up development " etc etc, but when there are questions on the timeline about SP-1/2 , FOC , MK.2 etc there are is no response

Point is half of 2014 is over and FOC for Mk.1 now seems to have shifted to 2015, we don;t have a timeline for the prototype rollout of Mk.2 and we talk about having N numbers of Tejas Mk.2 by 2020.
Anyone please let me know how this magic is going to be possible.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Jun 2014 23:21

On googling found a 2012 article, and I firmly believe that things should have been improved by leaps and bound by now, but the basic question remains , was there a lack of foresight that such things were realized as late as 2012 and any chance of such surprises in the future in other areas?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/12/r ... ombat.html

“ADA and HAL have realized that creating a production line needs major effort… That realization has come,”

Senior IAF officers express frustration that HAL has failed to set up a Tejas assembly line, even though its primary activity for the preceding decades has been to build foreign aircraft on an assembly line under licence.

Air Marshal Pranab K Barbora, who retired as the IAF vice chief two years ago, summarises the air force’s viewpoint: “HAL’s assembly line expertise is outdated by at least three decades. They have done nothing to upgrade their technology. Setting up a modern assembly line for the Tejas is far beyond HAL’s capabilities.”

Taking the above as a learning , has ADA and HAL taken everything into consideration so that we don't have any surprises for the early induction of Tejas Mk.2 . I am all for Tejas and more so for the top of the line MK.2 but It now seems that the timeline is shifting and this is where i find the need for consultancy to minimize surprises and early induction [don't care who the consultant is]

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 22 Jun 2014 23:39

dhiraj wrote:
btw, we should have heard about finalized mk-2 designs by now. any info?
I find it strange that a lot of us in the forum talk about "cancel Rafale, don;t go for consultancy for Mk.2 to speed up development " etc etc, but when there are questions on the timeline about SP-1/2 , FOC , MK.2 etc there are is no response
Point is half of 2014 is over and FOC for Mk.1 now seems to have shifted to 2015, we don;t have a timeline for the prototype rollout of Mk.2 and we talk about having N numbers of Tejas Mk.2 by 2020.
Anyone please let me know how this magic is going to be possible.

Delay and inability are two different things. By writing countless garbage articles, DDM has successfully equated our delay into inability in our minds. Delay costs 1 year. Inability costs lifetime. It is easier to fix this delay than assuming our inability and signup Rafale or codevelop with saab in haste.

Mind you these purchase deals are not yet signed by us because they are not ready to sign for variety of reasons. There are delays even in signing a purchase contract for a readily developed products. The talk about purchasing an MMRCA started around the time of LCA first flight. How can we justify that?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jun 2014 01:59

Guys can we take the MMRCA discussion to that thread please.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 23 Jun 2014 19:00

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/ ... world&_r=0

India Promoting Lower-Cost Military Exports
By GERRY DOYLE JUNE 23, 2014 9:05 AM Comment

HONG KONG — India’s ambitions to increase its domestic military industry may have grown a little more expansive.

On Sunday, the head of the country’s Defense Research and Development Organization told the Press Trust of India news agency that a ‘‘list of equipment,’’ including long-range missiles and the domestically developed Tejas light fighter, could be sold as exports in direct competition with countries like China.

Avinash Chander, the agency’s chief, argued that India’s advantage would be in production cost. ‘‘Many times Indian weapons are a lot cheaper,’’ he told the news agency. ‘‘There are various other systems, like if you take strategic missiles, the long-range missiles that China sells to Saudi Arabia and the cost at which we produce, it would be one-third or one-fourth.’’

The defense agency confirmed the comments by phone on Monday.

Whether there would be a market for India’s weaponry is unclear. A heavy importer of weapons, the country has been struggling for years to manufacture arms reliable enough for its military to use, the Times’s Gardiner Harris reported in March.

The Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas jet, in particular, took more than three decades to develop and its capabilities already lag behind those of its contemporaries, analysts say. The project suffered from poor project oversight, a lack of access to key systems and avionics technology because of embargoes, unrealistic deadlines and changing requirements, Ben Moores, a senior analyst with IHS Jane’s, said Monday.

It is estimated to cost $31 million per unit, compared with more than $30 million for an American-built F-16 or $29 million for a Russian MIG-29.

‘‘It is not a particularly cost-effective platform relative to the capabilities on offer by similar products already in the market space,’’ Mr. Moores said. ‘‘Furthermore, the market it is trying to enter is very mature, has low growth, highly competitive and often political in a way that does not benefit India.’’

The F-16 and MIG-29 are both tested designs that can work with a wide variety of weapons, he said.

But potential customers might find the Tejas attractive because of its relatively simple design, Mr. Moores added.

China has two entries in that market, the JF-17, a joint effort of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation in China, and the J-10 (whose only export customer is Pakistan). The J-10 and Tejas are ‘‘on paper very similar,’’ Mr. Moores said.

If India can compete on quality as well as cost, the payoff could be huge. Militaries across Asia are looking to build their capabilities in the face of Chinese ascendance — spending in the region is up nearly 12 percent, compared with four years ago, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But given the industry’s current position, it could be an uphill battle.

‘‘You are starting to see some Indian exports, but these have been limited,’’ Mr. Moores said. ‘‘I think that the private sector is ready to step into global weapons export market, but there will need to be further reform and liberalization of the Indian procurement sector if that is going to happen in a significant manner.’’

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Jun 2014 20:11

^^^
Big Load of BS. The Tejas Mk1 costs only about 23 Million USD (actual amount charged by HAL for the first batch of 20). The f-16 acquisition costs are probably at least 50+ Million USD if not more.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jun 2014 20:52

Mr. Moores said. ‘‘I think...

The "moore's last sigh

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 21:50

The only F-16's available for 30 million are going to be second hand refurbs. The article also does not go into the export cost. With an FMS deal the cost of an F-16 is likely to be north of 60-70 million per aircraft as FMS deals for new customers usually involve training and paying the USAF to take care of all the logistics behind learning the jet (pilot training, maintainers training, logistics setup, depot runs etc). We also do not know what the final cost of an export LCA would be given all these associated costs without which no one will buy the fighter. Of course it is still likely to be half of that of an FMS F-16 at the worst case. The main drivers of many of these deals is the offset a particular company is able to offer and strategic partnerships between the nation and the seller's nation.

Asia aside, I think Africa would be interesting especially since thats a market in which China will be looking to in hard. They may also look to offload a lot of their 4th gen stuff in a refurbished condition in a decade's time once they start acquiring 5th gen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 00:14

*That* article is from the New York Times (NYTimes). One needs to apply the NYT fudge factor.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jun 2014 01:22

They are doing the FUD attack

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about Indian products

Fake article and psy ops

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2014 07:48

Here are two scanned (in part) pages from the official HF-24 history book which indicates why gun firing trials are such a big deal. These are the sorts of issues that the LCA will have to deal with in its gun firing trials. Kelik on image to see enlarged version

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 07:57

shiv wrote:Here are two scanned (in part) pages from the official HF-24 history book which indicates why gun firing trials are such a big deal. These are the sorts of issues that the LCA will have to deal with in its gun firing trials. Kelik on image to see enlarged version

As the article states, why did they not fix the problem? Seems like it was a very simple solution too.

#Confused

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 24 Jun 2014 09:09

svinayak wrote:They are doing the FUD attack

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about Indian products

Fake article and psy ops

Goras have been making billions each year selling arms to the whole world. Military industrial complex is a major component of their economy. However, they have one weakness: high costs. They dread competitors who can sell arms at a low cost to the world (Tata Nano effect). Their ears perked up the moment India announced that they can sell fighter aircraft and missiles at half the cost of what the Goras charge. They will launch a major campaign to discredit Indian military products as unreliable and inferior.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 09:14

Fake article and psy ops

Goras have been making billions each year selling arms to the whole world. Military industrial complex is a major component of their economy. However, they have one weakness: high costs. They dread competitors who can sell arms at a low cost to the world (Tata Nano effect). Their ears perked up the moment India announced that they can sell fighter aircraft and missiles at half the cost of what the Goras charge. They will launch a major campaign to discredit Indian military products as unreliable and inferior

Poor reporting should not be confused with intelligent psyops. The same publication does the same to many US weapons system and publishes criticism of the same. No air force cheif around the world is going to read the New york times and say " well lets not buy the Indian LCA and lets buy the Mig-29 or the F-16". We need to develop an FMS type setup so that we can successfully market the jet to foreign customers and win them over by offering world class training and transfer of the equipment in a smooth way at par or superior to what is done by the west.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 24 Jun 2014 09:17

^^^ Such articles create a general image about the quality of Indian products. Same way, voters don't watch NDTV to decide who to vote for, but propaganda still continues in the hope that a general anti-BJP will be created in the country that will subconsciously effect decisions.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 09:22

^^^ Such articles create a general image about the quality of Indian products. Same way, voters don't watch NDTV to decide who to vote for, but propaganda still continues in the hope that a general anti-BJP will be created in the country that will subconsciously effect decisions

By that measure the NYT does far greater damage to US's own foreign defense sales because of the damaging articles written by it and others like it

. A poorly written article with poor research is just that. One could have poorly written articles in any media, indian, french or the US. One does not have to credit a poorly written article with some intelligent psyops and baseless agenda being the reason for its existence. If one were to use that yardstick then the US media as a whole is the biggest collection for Anti-US Foreign military sales Psyops in the world having published negative articles, at times damaging, poorly written about every major defense system or sub system. From the Patriot missile, Abrams tank to the F-22 and the F-35. No one calls them psyops because they are essentially either bad reporting or sensationalism which results in readership or "clicks" for the online versions.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 24 Jun 2014 09:50

Poor reporting and Pant shiver for the goras.

First we must ramp up production to 16 per year and then later look at exports. The Dhruv was only exported after we had enough to fulfil our own needs. Tejas will be likewise. Also the goras will benefit as well - GE404/414, some subsystems, etc The NYT reporter has absolutely no research done on the basics.

LCA = Thundaar !!!

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 10:00

The best way to reply back is by making 500 LCA-I and 500 LCA II in next 5 to 10 years. Rest all is talk which is cheap (US made thousands of F-16's showing prowess). So where is the order to build from IAF - 100 LCA per year minimum ?

Unfortunately, our imported air-force fascination with dressed up old dame Rafale continues to no end - to the point of bankrupting all future development+acquisition $ spending capability. Running with this MMRCA requirement says a lot about the depth of 'short-sightedness' in senior ranks (actually the word in my mind is st*pidity/C*rruptibility/Whack*ness - pick your choice). Even Manmohan Singh had remarked 'chadar dekh ke pair failane chahiye'.

If we cannot eat our own cooking then no one in the world will eat our desi goods!

By the way, it's funny how the country has awakened to it's real capability (and what we should be doing in the first place) after Modi's election. Seeing a commoner 'Indian' at the top has given a shot of confidence (compared to bowing to the 'Gora' Gandhi family).

member_23651 · Post by **member_23651** » 24 Jun 2014 18:25

Latest opinion piece on LCA by Prof Prodyut Das:
http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.com/2014 ... t.html?m=0

The Ails of the LCA
Professor Prodyut Kumar Das Kolkata June 2014
I wish I had a guinea every time ADA missed out on a Date. I would have been, if not rich, at least well –to-do. I say this because recently, this last December , I think, one of the key figures of the programme- one might say- the Father of the LCA- stating that we would have two LCAs more by March and, if I remember a right- half a dozen before the year is out. The Ides of March have come and gone, “April, the Cruellest of Months” has gone and now even “the Darling Buds of May” have wilted. “June is ready to bust out but nary a sign of them those Airplanes!
It is worrisome when ADA repeatedly fails on dates because these are symptoms of cluelessness. The highly qualified gentleman in the above paragraph must have had access to the proverbial “Horses Mouth” and yet, not for the first time, he has been hopelessly wrong. Is it really so difficult to predict the future events?
In India we have a culture of very accurate predictions based on informal methods and folklore. The apparently “stupid” farmer kicking the dust as he chews slowly on a dry rice stalk may predict the Weather quite accurately. The old Crone sitting under the Neem Tree as she berates her newest daughter- in -law will still be able to predict whose Bahu is going to be a Mother -sometimes even before the poor girl herself is aware! Neither the Farmer nor the Crone has any “scientific” qualifications but they still come pretty close to the truth. So why not try applying those techniques on the possible date for the LCA?
Let me say before I begin that I have no access to “inside” facts. I am a very seasoned Engineer and I like machinery. That is all. What I am writing is therefore a construct. Of course ADA may, (out of sheer spite!) come out with a squadron of LCAs by December along with a chorus of well trained mechanics and a well organized stream of spares etc just to prove me wrong. That would be quite nice. In any case if people speaking from the Augean stables are so repeatedly wrong I am in “eminent” company if my here predictions are wrong. Of, course, mark my word; I fear I shall be proved right!
Let me put down the more important tasks remaining for the LCA to get FOC.
a) Opening the full envelope of positive and negative ‘g’
b) weapons firing particularly of the 23 mm GSh.
c) Spin trials
d) Missile Launching.
e) Proving of remaining systems.
Missile Launching: Pakistan managed to jury rig the AIM9 onto the MiG19 in a matter of months there is no reason to expect that the same cannot be done onto the LCA. I am referring only to CCMs. It will be a brave Air Marshal who will refuse the LCA solely because the aeroplane cannot fire BVRs for the moment.
GSh 23 firing.
The problem of gun firing is “old hat”. The Chemistry is Class 9. The gun propellant gases are ingested by the engine and that affects the air fuel ratio as the propellants gases displace the oxygen in the air causing the engine to flame out through “over richness”. This is aggravated by the pulsations of firing which will tend to “blow out the candle”. This is particularly true at high altitudes where the air is “thin” causing both effects to be amplified. The old trick is to “dip” or reduce the fuel to the engine automatically when the gun is fired. In the LCA, a one second burst will release about five kilos of gun gases into a region of inlet flow of 4 kilos of air over the same period at high altitudes. Vibration is of course a problem but the GAST system (look up!) of the GSh 23 means the recoil loads are much less. I do not think the horrible memories of the HF24 -where I still believe the concerned German Engineer probably put a “bug” into the design- will be repeated here, especially if ADA has had the wit to use the forged aluminum cradle or its derivative the MiG Bureau used for the MiG 21M’s mounting.
240 AOA
This is the old Phantom joke now gone sour. I would like to meet the person who will refuse the LCA simply because the aircraft won’t do 240.
Proving of remaining systems
Thirteen years after the first flight there would be very few things that require major tweaks so there is very little that remains to be done.
Does that mean then we can see a FOC by December and a steady stream of LCAs from 2015. No, definitely not, because I guess the Mk1 is still a ”lemon”. It is not combat worthy. I am on shaky grounds here because I am making the previous statement entirely on what is available in “open source”. The LCA was “officially” declared to be about 1300 kilos overweight by ADA. Subsequently there has not been any announcement about the weight being corrected. Certainly the weight correction would have been noised about. If you have “inside” confirmation that the basic empty weight of the LCA is around 5100 kilos don’t read the remaining portion because everything written below is then irrelevant.
Why is weight important?
Airframes will tolerate a fair amount of abuse but they cannot tolerate excess weight. Let us take the MiG 21 Bison. Despite its age it is still relevantly “sprightly” as Cope India showed. The MiG 21 is of the same thrust to weight class as the LCA. Now imagine we poured in 1300 kilos of lead (Plumbum!) into the airframe. Immediately all critical parameters- take off run, acceleration, climb rate, radius of turn, range, ceiling and top speed will fall below current designed figures. In short the MiG 21 will not be fit to fight. In summer thrust and lift reduces by about ten percent and things would be worse! Exactly the same is happening to the LCA. Until the weight has been corrected the aircraft cannot even complete its flight test programme. My Farmer’s guess is that ADA should have an airframe weight of around 2300 kilos and an undercarriage weight of around 300 kilos to come out shouting winners. Mention has been made of the LCA requiring ballast. Aeroplanes sometime require ballast to get the CG right. The HF 24 needed 134 kilos about 2 % percent of the basic empty weight. This was in the days of wooden slide rules but evidently someone cared. How much ballast does the LCA need? Given the use of CAD it should perhaps be no more than half that figure.
“Opening up the envelope”.
This cannot happen safely because the “g”s to be applied requires acceleration and lift. Unfortunately lift means drag particularly in AR Deltas whose induced drag is almost double of comparable swept wings. Given the combination of excess mass and drag the F 404 just may not have enough “urge” to pull the little aircraft around a turn at 8.5 G i.e. the aircraft is power limited and lift limited to pull the required “Gs”. One could of course dive the aircraft and do pull ups but I think it would be a pointless exercise because one would have to do it again when the definitive airframe is available.
Spin Trials.
This is also held up because of weight. A spin is a combination of a stall and a turn at low airspeeds. The aircraft sinks because of the stall and it yaws and rolls (slowly) because of differential lift and drag caused by the different airflows due to the turn over the two wing panels. The forces at play are the above aerodynamics loads and the inertia of the aircraft which depends on the weight of the aircraft. Given these basics the LCA will be reluctant to spin because the Delta wing is usually difficult to stall. Given the excess weight/ inertia it will take a long time to stabilize the spin. Height loss in recovery will be “interesting”. It may be recalled that the Mc Donnell Phantom II was so difficult in spin recovery that if the crew had not recovered from the spin by 10,000 feet the drill was to eject. Well that is a precedent anyway!
So unless you have tackled the weight you can’t do the spin trials. What happens to the FOC? Please do try and not have FOC 1,2 etc.
Intake Problems
There have been persistent reports of “intake matching” problems. What happens is the take off requirements of the intake are in direct contradiction to those required in transonic flight. You either accept poor take off and climb or face high spillage drag and engine surge at transonic speed. The solution is conceptually and mechanically very simple. Aeromodellers flying ducted fan models (PE Norman’s ducted fan MiG 15 of happy memory!) used them. We used to call them “cheat intakes”) .Spring loaded “blow in” and “dump out” doors are generally used. Even the dear old Hunter of Good Queen Victoria’s times (well, almost!) had them. You could see them on the wing intake lips. As I write about this I realize that I have not seen any photos of such doors yet on the LCA . Perhaps some reader can post?
Aerodynamics
I have elsewhere mentioned that the LCA is aerodynamically blunt, its comparable equivalents being almost a meter longer. Any Aerophile will remind you the Douglas A4M with the 10% more power was actually 0.1 Mach slower than the less well powered Hunter Mk6 which had a longer fuselage and better entry Supersonic wave drag depends on the maximum cross sectional area and its position along the longitudinal axis as well as the entry aerodynamics i.e. from the radome tip to somewhere behind the rear cockpit bulkhead. ADA needs to go over the contour and the cross section centimeter by centimeter. I am not exaggerating because it is so easy to end up with excess weight and wetted area if one becomes too enthusiastic. It is not for me to dare suggest but for God’s sake use some “feel” along with the Analysis.
Maximum speed.
My betters have said that the aircraft has reached Mach 1.4 -(or was it Mach 1.6?).). Sorry, Guv’nor but the facts don’t tie up! We seem to have on our hands an overweight aeroplane that is significantly stubby and has inlet problems and yet it reaches its design speeds? Cap in hand, with fingers touching my forelocks (Alas! Long gone to happy hunting grounds!), I would say no, Sors, this bain’t true! What may have happened is that the claimed speed has been achieved in a dive of around 300.
The Prognosis
Common sense is that if the LCA Mk1 is reasonably well designed it should be in the same class as the early Gripens i.e. definitely superior as a replacement to the early Mig 21s which have begun to retire. The LCA Mk1 should be clear for super priority production. Somehow that is not happening and, going by precedent- not going to happen. The horrible suspicion is that we will see only “token” numbers of the LCA Mk1on v pretexts of manufacturing difficulties etc as a rearguard action until, hopefully, the LCA mk2- which will be an almost new airframe design, - is ready. We will, of course be relying on an organization, which could not correct an overweight problem it itself acknowledged in near twenty years (1996-2013). I am so glad I am not the Air Chief!
The interest expressed by the IAF in the AJTs is perhaps a corroboration of the above. The YAK 132 is a fairly useful LCA if you look at it carefully and indicates how little was actually wanted by the customer before ADA went gaga over Technology. Reminds one of Tacticus who had said so long ago “The enthusiasm for war is highest amongst those who have the least experience of it”. Replace “war” with “Technology” and you have the gist of the situation.

Prodyut Das
Professor.

Prodyut Kumar Das is an Alumnus of St.Xaviers’ Hazaribagh, IIT Kharagpur, and IIM Kolkata. He started his career with Aircraft Design Bureau HAL and for twenty years worked and led various vehicle related Product Development Projects with leading Indian and multi National Companies.
He left Industry to join IIT Kanpur in 1993 as a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. There he won a prize of the Royal Aeronautical Society of UK for his design of a light sports aeroplane using grants given by ARDB. He also did a project study on “The design of a Light Car costing less than 1 Lakh” which was a Ministry of HRD funded project IDICM 36 and started his research on Stirling Engines in which the IN was keen.
When IIT Kanpur did not renew his 5 year tenure he returned to the Industry as a Vice President Technical and finally retired as Advisor Aerospace in the e- Engineering Division of a Leading Indian Engineering Company.

He currently teaches Engineering in a Private Engineering College in his hometown and continues his Research as a Consultant. He has been writing on matters related to Defence Engineering since 1990s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jun 2014 23:34

This guy is the perfect example of an empty kettle makes the most noise. He was also championing the cause of the LCA remaining a limited point defense aircraft and ditching radar/BVR. In his view, swarms of IAF aircraft were best. Never mind, what would happen to the poor pilots flying the swarm.

He clearly has nothing valuable to contribute and makes the most asinine claims:

Missile Launching: Pakistan managed to jury rig the AIM9 onto the MiG19 in a matter of months there is no reason to expect that the same cannot be done onto the LCA. I am referring only to CCMs. It will be a brave Air Marshal who will refuse the LCA solely because the aeroplane cannot fire BVRs for the moment.

Yes, the IAF would accept a MR plane in the 21st century which is not BVR capable. And clearly, the MiG-19 also had a HMCS cued CCM, or a radar cued CCM, both of which the LCA had to demonstrate. What a worthless comparison.

Wont even bother addressing his specious claims re: inlet and what not.. which brings us to this..

My betters have said that the aircraft has reached Mach 1.4 -(or was it Mach 1.6?).). Sorry, Guv’nor but the facts don’t tie up! We seem to have on our hands an overweight aeroplane that is significantly stubby and has inlet problems and yet it reaches its design speeds? Cap in hand, with fingers touching my forelocks (Alas! Long gone to happy hunting grounds!),

Yes, the LCA TPs from the IAF deputed to ASTE are all lying through their teeth. So first, he declares the LCA has inlet problems. Then claims because of those problems it must have a speed problem. Circular logic 101.

There is one term for shri Das and I employ it with all consideration. Blimp. Aka gasbag. Akin to the drunk uncle at a party who accosts every stranger and loudly proclaims he alone knows the answer to all topical issues.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 25 Jun 2014 04:21

^^^^Well said!

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 25 Jun 2014 05:38

Prof Das reminds me of Pierre Sprey's tirades on latest fighters.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 25 Jun 2014 10:05

He is right about

1. Timelines
2. Weight increase
3. Aerodynamics with respect to length of the aircraft
4. Challenges that will be have to be faced when the gun firing tests start
5. Token numbers of Tejas Mk1 that will be ordered

He is wrong about

1. Top speed achieved. Although we have no idea of top speed achievable with 50% fuel and multiple AA missiles or with other loads
2. Tejas *has* fired R73s
3. Intake issues. Although I wonder why this has been reported so often over multiple years.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jun 2014 10:22

For the increased air intake, if i remember right, it was only during certain phases of flight like take off etc I think. Isn't that the reason there are spring-loaded doors on the inlets side now?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jun 2014 12:44

Don't throw the "baby out with the bathwater".or "shoot the postman". The points/allegations that he's made should be countered by those in the industry/programme. We will know of the good professor is "spot on" or "on the spot",when the aircraft proves itself or not,meets the revised timelines,revised umpteen number of times,and production goes smoothly.However,one has always felt that too much capability was attempted to shove into a small airframe,when the incremental method could've been adopted,using the first tranches as pure PD fighters.MIG-21 replacements,which may have saved considerable time.However,just as it was with the HF-24,there is no escaping the fact that the 404 doesn't deliver the goods,the expected capabilities what the IAF wants.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Jun 2014 13:27

Ah well, Prodyut Das and his Mig21 has a more efficient airframe than the LCA (and also by his logic Gripen) is something I debunked long ago.

He was the guy who sold the KoolAid of swarms of single use "People's" fighters using yes the AL-55 engine which was the next best thing to sliced bread (we know the story of the AL-55). Now that has gone to Yak-xxx whatever.

That said I do hope that FOC comes soon and it enters squadron service and we get the MKII into production ASAP.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 25 Jun 2014 14:55

+1 to merlin
He is wrong about the intake.

In general his posts want us to follow the chinese model. Not entirely wrong but cannot be followed in entirety.

edit: from his blog comments

Tijo wrote:Just want to comment on your portion with "Intake Problems". LCA does look like having spring loaded blow-in doors like Jaguar. Please refer the take off photograph below.

prodyut23 wrote:June 2014 01:19
Thanks. Seen. If the reports are right then perhaps they need enlargement.
Thanks,once again.

So he still doesnt comment whether the intakes are large enough despite being provided a link not to mention the fact that R-73 firings have been carried out, so his article is based on "reports" but no original research.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2014 15:30

NRao wrote:
shiv wrote:Here are two scanned (in part) pages from the official HF-24 history book which indicates why gun firing trials are such a big deal. These are the sorts of issues that the LCA will have to deal with in its gun firing trials. Kelik on image to see enlarged version

As the article states, why did they not fix the problem? Seems like it was a very simple solution too.

#Confused

They just didn't. They just gave up on the HF-24. The import disease had set in.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2014 15:34

nik wrote:The best way to reply back is by making 500 LCA-I and 500 LCA II in next 5 to 10 years. Rest all is talk which is cheap (US made thousands of F-16's showing prowess). So where is the order to build from IAF - 100 LCA per year minimum ?

I have been told that one crucial part of the LCA is a solid block of aviation grade aluminium that is imported from France and the French have a waiting list for the supply of such blocks of Al.

Not sure if the French will supply the numbers we want without prior orders.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 26 Jun 2014 20:40

shiv wrote:
nik wrote:The best way to reply back is by making 500 LCA-I and 500 LCA II in next 5 to 10 years. Rest all is talk which is cheap (US made thousands of F-16's showing prowess). So where is the order to build from IAF - 100 LCA per year minimum ?
I have been told that one crucial part of the LCA is a solid block of aviation grade aluminium that is imported from France and the French have a waiting list for the supply of such blocks of Al.

Not sure if the French will supply the numbers we want without prior orders.

who is the manufacturar of this. Cant Mittal or Tata help in this respect.