LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 06 Jan 2015 06:26

It will be interesting to compare with what would Saab use in their 5th gen. Do they have a project under wrap?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 06 Jan 2015 06:31

Victor wrote: Could you also comment on the following remarks of Air Marshal Matheswaran:
It would actually have been prudent to choose a canard-delta design considering the severe size and weight limitations. This was also the recommendation of the consultants in the early phase. It is strange that this was not followed. Instead we chose to rely on a pure tail-less delta design and thought that the combination of unstable platform and digital FBW flight control system would generate enough performance. This was not possible, as subsequent results have shown.

Victor, there were two competing designs at that time. One from Dassault and other from rest of the euros (MBB or EADS, I don't remember exactly). Dassault proposed cranked delta versus the canard layout of the competing design. Cranked delta was selected ultimately.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 06 Jan 2015 06:31

zis is keine bichhar sehr gut, nein?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 06 Jan 2015 06:37

^^ Centerline tank. Till now only the naval version has carried it, is it because it has higher ground clearance than the airforce variant ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Jan 2015 06:57

What a beautiful sight! It seems that IAF and IA design unachievable brochures so that PSUs cannot get anywhere near the product. Unfortunately for them, Arjun and the LCA come darned close or beat their brocuritis. So now the creativity is focused on coming up with lame excuses to generate public opinion against these systems aka the torsion bar breakdown. And using the Chinese ploy, send drones/trolls to internet forums to attack these systems.

Of course these systems will have some weaknesses since these are our first baby steps. But the payoffs from these developments are immense and in the long term provide employment, security, an independent foreign policy, and so on.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 06 Jan 2015 07:14

Thakur_B wrote:^^ Centerline tank. Till now only the naval version has carried it, is it because it has higher ground clearance than the airforce variant ?

Logic dictates they tested everything on the air force birds first -- simply because there are more of them and anything untowards will not cause as big a setback. There are probably just no pictures in public domain.

Wheels up, fuel tank, short range mijjiles. targetting should come as is from air force. Now if they can just leave the dropping bombs on ships part and leave this as trainer/intercepter then the first "tranche" to chahbahar could be dug up double quick. As long as the tail will catch a wire, its miles ahead of hawk/goshawk.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Jan 2015 07:39

Thakur_B wrote:..there were two competing designs at that time. One from Dassault and other from rest of the euros (MBB or EADS, I don't remember exactly). Dassault proposed cranked delta versus the canard layout of the competing design. Cranked delta was selected ultimately.

If true, we need a :shake head: smiley. Dassault proposed a design that none of the established jet fighter designers had ever used or planned to, including they themselves, and HAL/ADA accepted it. But they rejected a more mainstream and proven delta-canard configuration even after Dassault itself put canards on the Mirage 2000 (Mirage 4000/Super Mirage) which eventually led to the Rafale. :shake head:

I prefer to believe AVM Matheswaran who says that the consultant (Dassault-Breguet) suggested a delta-canard config like the one they were working on but our geniuses rejected the idea for mysterious reasons. They also rejected the suggestion to use the M88 that was being developed for the Rafale and stuck to the GEF404. We missed the chance to make a Rafale Light. This was back in 1987.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 06 Jan 2015 08:15

Thakur_B wrote:^^ Centerline tank. Till now only the naval version has carried it, is it because it has higher ground clearance than the airforce variant ?

Please see this, thanks to putnanja.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2015 09:11

Cross posting Kartiks AI gem of a post. Very very relevant to all the questions being raised.

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.

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

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jan 2015 09:42

indranilroy wrote:...
Also, the following picture shows the All-up weight. If those tanks are full, it marks more than 3.5 Tons of payload.

1. 2400 ltrs or 1945 kg of fuel + weight of tanks
2. 1000 kgs of LGBs
3. 210 kgs of A2A missiles
4. 200 kgs of LGB pod

What would be the combat radius in this configuration?

HAL website states radius of action as 300 km on internal fuel of 3000 litres. With additional 80% more fuel carried on external tanks, its radius of action would be around 500km.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2015 09:57

If someone believes that all planes need to be heavily loaded in war and every pylon is carrying the maximum it can. Go to google and spend couple of hours looking at images of f-15s and f-16's ready to take off during gulf war 1 & 2 and see their load. It is quite instructive. You will see almost the same loadout. Extra fuel, wing tip defense and 2/4 LGB's depending on size and a targeting pod for all multirole planes. Look at the afghan ops and see what their loadout looks like. Enjoy Maadi...

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2015 10:14

Raman wrote:Configuration changes are not made on the basis of gut feeling - they require a large number of trade studies backed by reams of CFD and wind-tunnel data.

.

Joo saying that "pheeling" , "seeing" is not the way to do things, but you need theorettikull and eggsperrymental phatx based on Fyzzsix to do konphigurashun ?

. Joo very bad onree.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2015 10:32

Victor wrote: I prefer to believe AVM Matheswaran who says that the consultant (Dassault-Breguet) suggested a delta-canard config like the one they were working on but our geniuses rejected the idea for mysterious reasons. They also rejected the suggestion to use the M88 that was being developed for the Rafale and stuck to the GEF404. We missed the chance to make a Rafale Light. This was back in 1987.

Ah.. Victor babu is onree "pheeling" but not pooching Unkal Googal enough. Pliss to poocho Unkal about the Former Yugoslav phytyr called Novi Avion .. If not , phoooch Wiki Mamu and lookee Hiyar . This is exactly what Dassault sold to the Yugoslavs. A close canard delta, with Rafale like intake and front parts and an M-88 Yinjin, with the Rafale derived FCS. In short a single engined Rafale light.

So really with the Novi Avion contract under the bag, Rafale became tight fisted and didn't really care too much about the LCA. The Yindoos wanted a digital FCS and not the analog one from the Mirage 2k, Dassault thought , pah.. dhotiwallahs asking too much, we are putting in some avant grade Parfum in our Rafale and we can give them only Eau De Cologne from M2K. Dhotiwallahs went to Amereekis and finally developed a super duper cutting edge FBW /FCS themselves.

Yinjin again, dhotiwallahs said, this M-88 is too weak for us, we need more power, and went with GE-404 . Misunphorchunately for Dassault, Yugoslavia imploded and with that the huge dollahs they thought they had raked in for their Rafale and M-88 investments via amortising those over a light fighter as well. They chose the wrong horse when they went with Yugoslavia and stiffed the dhotiwallahs.

So, basically , in Inglees, what Matheswaran and you are flogging is the dead duck Novi Avion, which as back then the studies and the actions of the ADA showed will SIMPLY not have met the IAF requirements even back in that time , not to mention today.

There were 4 light fighters that began at roughly the same time with very nearly similar configs (3 with canard delta) and 1 (LCA with pure delta). The 3 delta canards were the Gripen, Novi Avion and an Indonesian effort (I don't remember the name). The Novi Avion got killed when Yugoslavia imploded and the 1998 currency crisis did in the Indonesian effort. Only the Gripen and LCA remain. Despite best efforts to kill it via sanctions and NATASHAS, it is a testimony to the persistence, skills, talent and dogged determination of the dhotiwallahs ,that the LCA is going to see the light of the day and actually be a pretty competitive product.

You can shake your head like a Thanjavur doll (poocho Unkal for that as well), in all your majestic ignorance, but facts are facts. Or

in frat boy Inglees, the facts are phat!

We actually have succeeded. Take a chill pill and have a good day.

Ps. The Novi Avion layout will be like your fan boy pics. Unkal has bicchars of that as well (with a mini Rafale nose and intake grafted in). But remember, that didn't cut the mustard back then, and won't now as well.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2015 10:40

This Looks Good.. Victor babu likes it and "pheels" good too! But is it good for Yindia ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2015 11:35

Vina, good points. All this consultants are 100% right, we shouldnt use our brains is plain rubbish. MBB with ALH showed clearly what consultants can/cannot do. BTW, there was yet another French supported program which also got cancelled and went nowhere. More of a Mirage 2000 remake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Carver

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.in/ ... anken.html

Then there was the Lavi which ended up as the J-10.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 06 Jan 2015 11:43

OT:

I wanted to read some of Raman ji's posts in his posting history.

But...the search function of BRF seems to be kaput and older posts from 2013 do not come up when you click on them. Ramanji's posts from 2014 seems to be accessible.

Why? I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice this bug?
And if the posts have been deleted, then they should not show up in the search function!

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 06 Jan 2015 12:06

Srai,

on your question on combat radius - on my request Vivek Ahuja had kindly done a quick back of the envelop calculation based on his modelling techniques in late 2013. The regime was Hi Lo Hi, only internal fuel and 2 BVR missiles, 1 ton of bombs. Results were about 350 - 400 km. He also gave rules of thumb to adapt this to other loads. if you scroll back on the thread you can see that.

A 2.5 ton load is more than enough. Its role in ground attack will be Close Air support not striking deep in enemy territory. Also Pakistan has no depth, from our forward air bases at Ambala, Sirsa, Pathankot, Bhatinda etc a 300 k radius is more than adequate. If the glide bomb can be configured for 600 kgs the LCA can carry 3 and that will further increase its range.

For interception you and point defence , you will carry lower loads anyway. Key is to understand the tactics LCA will use to fight close to its design point. That is what I find most interesting.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2015 13:22

Akshay Kapoor wrote:If the glide bomb can be configured for 600 kgs the LCA can carry 3 and that will further increase its range.

Great point. The glide bombs will add further reach. It may not even have to leave Indian Airspace and deal with host of Ground to Air situations to take targets within 100 kms out. lets hope those glide wings are tack on to existing munition and uber cheap.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2015 13:51

IA has the Harop - from Israel - that can loiter for 30 mins and then strike.

IIRC there is another Indian made missile, with a longer range, that has similar capability.

I think the issue is what are they attempting to strike at. Multiple options.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 Jan 2015 14:25

NRao wrote:IA has the Harop - from Israel - that can loiter for 30 mins and then strike.
IIRC there is another Indian made missile, with a longer range, that has similar capability.
I think the issue is what are they attempting to strike at. Multiple options.

You mean Nirbhay ?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jan 2015 20:37

On the Subject of Dassault and the LCA, this may shed some light :

LIMITED ROLE FOR DASSAULT IN INDIAN LCA PROJECT : Jane's Defense Weekly, 1988-03-19, France, India, Archive/Subscription)

REFUTING criticism that the Indian agreement with France for the development of the light combat aircraft (LCA) would lead to "the French running the Indian show", the Science Adviser to the Defence Minister, V S Arunachalam, has explained the limited role being assigned to the French company Dassault.
According to Dr Arunachalam, Dassault has been retained to provide certain technologies, information, data and computer software for the project at the definition stage. Beyond that it would all be indigenous effort.
The technologies themselves would be absorbed from laboratory to laboratory, not laboratory to factory. The emphasis, Dr Arunachalam said, was on technology absorption through such agencies as the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) at Bangalore and Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).
Critics question the claim that the prototype would be flying by 1990, within two years of completion of project definition. ADA chief Kota Harinarayan also claimed that the LCA would be flying by 1990. Critics say a gap of six to seven years is needed between project definition and prototype and as any attempt to telescope this period would only result in the sacrifice of indigenous technology.
The crucial issue in the development of the Indian LCA is the availability of the GTX engine for the production aircraft by 1994. The American GE‐404 engine is to be used until then for prototype flying.
The critics who doubt the availability of the Indian engine point to the inadequate level of funding and the number of people engaged in this work and the lack of any infrastructure for clearance of the engine.
However, Dr Arunachalam is confident of getting the engine on schedule. "GTX with 100% of the designed power would be available by 1994, " he said.
If there is a slippage, the French who are now coming into the LCA arena would like to push through their own M88 engine which they are developing, say the critics. "When they have this engine programme, why should they help India develop its own GTX?"

WINNING LCA'S WINGS 1990-05-26 JDW, Archive/subscription

: Although India's Lihgt Combat Aircraft (LCA) recently completed the project definition phase, doubts remain as to whether a production model will ever emerge
Concern over the LCA's viability centres on three issues: India's technical capacity to produce such an aircraft; its ability to fund such a programme; and whether the political will that launched LCA remains committed to nurturing a substantial defence aerospace capability.
The slippage on LCA's first flight date is indicative of the project's chequered history. Originally intended for 1992, the LCA will not take to the air until 1994‐95 according to Programme Director, Kota Harinarayana.
India requires between 200‐300 aircraft in the LCA class ‐‐ tactical/battlefiled air superiority and close air support (CAS) ‐‐ to replace its ageing MiG‐21 'Fishbeds'. The Indian Air Force fields MiG‐21F and ‐FL models in the interceptor role and the ‐MF and ‐PF in the ground attack role. "They're getting pretty old and will need to start being replaced by around 2000," Harinarayana told JDW. To achieve this with a delayed LCA maiden flight, Harinarayana wants seven prototype aircraft "to build up flying hours quickly."
The Aeronautical Development Agency, which manages the LCA programme, is awaiting the government go‐ahead for the initial development phase. "The initial requirement will probably be for two prototypes," Harinarayana design work."
Prototype LCAs will be powered by General Electric F404‐F213 turbofans, but production aircraft are slated to use an indigenously designed engine, the GTX‐35 VS, which is being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment in Bangalore. However, this powerplant is reported to have hit serious delays.
Despite the recent increase in defence expenditure, LCA may also come under increasing financial pressure because of India's weakening overall economic situation. However, Harinarayana sees no obvious alternative.
"There aren't many choices around. We can't afford a big two‐engined aircraft (for the LCA role).The only other single‐engined aircraft currently in development is the Swedish JAS‐39 ‐‐ and that's got problems." He is sceptical that further buys of either the Mirage 2000 or MiG‐29 'Fulcrum' could replaclean LCA order. "They're both too big. The MiG‐21 was the smallest‐sized aircraft of its class. Small aircraft have certain advantages." Another option, which JDW understands has been discussed on an exploratory level, is the French Dassault Rafale. The French national armament agency, DGA, visited India earlier this year to discuss the possibility of equipping India's new aircraft carriers with the naval variant, Rafale M.
For the LCA Programme Direcktor, however, Rafale hits the samehurdle as Mirage 2000 and 'Fulcrum':: "It's too big and too expensive for the LCA role." However, with Dassault providing technological assistance on LCA, it is not inconceivable that should the project suffer further delay, Rafale could yet emerge as the IAF's first choice, especially if it has already been chosen for carriers. A navalised LCA is under consideration for India's latest class of carrier, currently being designed with French assistance, although Harinarayana concedes that a delta wing design such as LCA is less than ideal for carrier operations, as is a single engine configuration. An advanced design, LCA is intended to have full‐authority digital flight control, Ericsson/Ferranti PS‐05 multi‐function radar, digital databus and engine controls and a central weapons management system. It will be India's first fully fly‐by‐wire aircraft. Harinarayana said it was inevitable that the design chose this path to meet the multi‐role requirement. In arguing for an indigenously‐developed aircraft, Harinarayana also points up the importance of cockpit ergonomics. "Indian pilots," he says, citing an Institute of Aviation Medicine report, "are on average 6‐10 cm shorter than their Western counterparts." Harinarayana claims that ain a combat situation this can have a significant impact. With regard to Western‐designed head up displays, the eye position iswrong, so a pilot would have to compensate by adjusting his eye position. In combat, this could incur a potentially fatal time penalty. Size also effects the pilot's ability to reach all the controls with ease, something he suggests has been a problem with the IAF's Western and Soviet‐designed aircraft. For air‐to‐air combat, LCA is intended to carry the short‐range Matra Magic 2 and the Indian Astra medium‐range missiles. It will also have an internal 23 mm cannon.
In the CAS role, LCA will carry iron bombs and precision guided munitions on seven external hardpoints in a three‐one‐three configuration. Up to four tonnes external load can be carried.
Harinarayana indicated that India would consider future co‐operation on the LCA, although he did not identify which countries would make acceptable partners.
He believes that LCA will prove an attractive alternative to equivalent Western aircraft on the export market because of its low cost, due largely to lower workforce costs.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Jan 2015 21:05

vina wrote: So, basically , in Inglees, what Matheswaran and you are flogging is the dead duck Novi Avion, which as back then the studies and the actions of the ADA showed will SIMPLY not have met the IAF requirements even back in that time , not to mention today.[/b]

Is this some dhotiwala "pheeling" (and therefore condonable) or do you have fijikal-kemikal-byologikal proof, preferably with kamplikated scientifik-looking diagrams & charts (or at least a credible source) to back up this statement? And if it did not "meet IAF requirements", why did IAF not know about it? Or are you suggesting that Matheswaran is lying? Besides he is not "flogging" anything, just stating facts which some obviously find uncomfortable. But this "pheeling" is of course condonable and rendered "scientifik" since it comes from a dhotiwala.

it is a testimony to the persistence, skills, talent and dogged determination of the dhotiwallahs ,that the LCA is going to see the light of the day and actually be a pretty competitive product.

Nobody doubts this or has suggested otherwise. The LCA will eventually see the light of day but it has not so far. The IAF has written it off in its current form and is impatient for the geniuses to get cracking on the LCA2 which will fix its shortcomings.

dhotiwallahs said, this M-88 is too weak for us, we need more power, and went with GE-404

Ah, pure unique thanjavur doll genius! M88 is smaller, lighter, has more thrust than GE-404 and is safer from sanctions so it is obviously not the better choice.

Ps. The Novi Avion layout will be like your fan boy pics. Unkal has bicchars of that as well (with a mini Rafale nose and intake grafted in).

Yes, that's what the LCA2 should turn out to look like if Matheswaran is correct and the "dhotiwalas" as you call them don't attempt any more stunts at being "unique". It's also very similar to one of the 1970s wind tunnel models (way before LCA was conceived) developed by the same people who designed the Kiran, now unfortunately long gone.

But remember, that didn't cut the mustard back then, and won't now as well.

So the implosion of Yugoslavia to you = a design not cutting the mustard? What is this if not a gross example of cutting the cheese after more dhotiwala (and therefore condonable) "pheeling"? Frankly sounds more like a defective musical instrument adding screechy, whiney noise to the cacophony.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 06 Jan 2015 22:06

Victor,

with respect I am not fan boy by any stretch of imagination but you are being unfair to both IAF and the LCA. IAF has not written LCA MK1 off. You are putting words in their mouth, and quoting some of them completely out of context. They want LCA MK1 asap and have ordered 40 a/c and are building 2 squadrons. How on earth is that writing off ? How do you know they wont order more after FOC when they see it works well and most teething issues like turn around times etc are resolved ? Then you say it will never be used in combat. Are you privy to latest op plans at AHQ ? If so please share it with me on pm. What if I told you that in all air land battle exercises in the last few years army is expecting IAF to give significant CAS and Tejas is supposed to fill that role. Speak to ACM Krishnaswamy if you can or even to ACM Naik. They would love to have it asap. If 16 STR can be achieved in the regime mentioned in my discussion with Indranil that is pretty good AR of 18 not withstanding. IAF will be happy with that believe me.

Maybe its a good time to let this rest now. Your persistence has been useful in bringing out a lot of detail on aerodynamics of LCA. We now have a good idea where the problems are and what the regimes (ITR, STR, intercept speeds) and tactical use (to some extent, we should explore this more) in MK1. It seems okay for the role its designed for. We also know what lessons have to be learnt. So instead of working out what tactics we should use with LCA MK1 you are focusing on just winning an argument. Leave it. At least don't use IAF as a prop for your views. It brings a counter reaction some people and they become abusive. Whats the point ? If indeed you still have concerns then lets wait for FOC. If Indranil and Maitya are correct FOC should go off very well.

On my part I am now quite positive about the a/c and my concerns are on delivery, project management and speed of induction. Indranil has also highlighted these issues.

Can we all focus more on taking a very good discussion forward and look at tactics for LCA MK1 as it is ?

Akshay

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 06 Jan 2015 22:20

Victor wrote:
dhotiwallahs said, this M-88 is too weak for us, we need more power, and went with GE-404
Ah, pure unique thanjavur doll genius! M88 is smaller, lighter, has more thrust than GE-404 and is safer from sanctions so it is obviously not the better choice.

Seriously victor, do you even bother to read when you punch keys on keyboard ?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 06 Jan 2015 22:32

Victor wrote:Nobody doubts this or has suggested otherwise. The LCA will eventually see the light of day but it has not so far. The IAF has written it off in its current form and is impatient for the geniuses to get cracking on the LCA2 which will fix its shortcomings.

I was about to change side to Victor ji's, but for his somewhat irritable insistence on declaring Mk-1 as useless and Mk-2 as the new holy grail.

Victor ji thoda fairness jaruri hai.

The Dutch used to fly their F-16A (ones that were really good not the later pig shaped ones) between Kabul Air field Elevation AMSL 5,877 ft & Tarin Kowt Airport (Uruzgan) Elevation AMSL 4,495 ft like this:

&

Reference : http://www.hetverhaalbewaard.nl/persoon ... nkervoort/&http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4723.html

The IAF will be flying its LCA Mk-1 from Leh - Elevation AMSL 10,682 ft / 3,256 m [almost twice the elevation of Kabul/Uruzgan] like this:

LCA Mk-1 ka performance when compared to F-16s, jara bataiye kitna bura hai bhai? Why is the finish line sought to be moved. LCA MK-1 is good to go.

That IAF feels more confident, with a more powerful engine is understandable but to denigrate Mk-1 ostensibly on behalf of IAF which presumably cannot speak for itself, is wrong.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 06 Jan 2015 22:32

Victor wrote:
dhotiwallahs said, this M-88 is too weak for us, we need more power, and went with GE-404
Ah, pure unique thanjavur doll genius! M88 is smaller, lighter, has more thrust than GE-404 and is safer from sanctions so it is obviously not the better choice.

I compared on Wiki and first off we should be comparing GE-F414 to M-88. M88-4E version claims higher thrust but no data on matching F414. M88 base version is weak on thrust.

After 'learning' from Kaveri challenges better to bet on an existing+widely used engine (F414) versus an in-development-low use version. For once I believe that this was the right decision by India.

Bottom line - selecting F414 over M-88 is exactly why we should buy F-35 over Rafale. I am not a fan of either but we were lazy to not pursue AMCA and now are in this tight spot (thanks to the royal family). Kudos to Chinese for persevering in local development and now sporting not one but two stealth jet prototypes.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 06 Jan 2015 22:42

ravi_g wrote:
LCA Mk-1 ka performance when compared to F-16s, jara bataiye kitna bura hai bhai? Why is the finish line sought to be moved. LCA MK-1 is good to go.

That IAF feels more confident, with a more powerful engine is understandable but to denigrate Mk-1 ostensibly on behalf of IAF which presumably cannot speak for itself, is wrong.

The more I read up about LCA MK-1, it is clear that it is a china beater (high altitude thin air performance) while LCA-Mk-2 will be a Paki focussed plane (more thrust - dog fighter).

What we need is LCA MK-1 in hundreds to reduce our numerical handicap with China but we are not been able to shake off the Paki focus. When are we going to wake up, forget the pig (paki) in the room and decide to take the dragon (china) head on?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Jan 2015 22:48

Thakur_B wrote:
Seriously victor, do you even bother to read when you punch keys on keyboard ?

Wiki tells me:
M88: Length 139'', diameter 27', dry wt 1997lbs, dry thrust 50kN
404: Length 154", diameter 35", dry wt 2282lbs, dry thrust 48.9kN

ie. M88 is smaller, lighter and has more thrust than GE-404

Since you asked in such a dismissive tone, I expect you to do your bit and post what you find from other credible sources.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2015 23:17

^^^ That maybe true for the base class only. Higher thrust engines have more weight penalty.

Here is the GE404-In20 brochure from GE:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... Family.pdf

And for GE414IN6
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... Family.pdf

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 06 Jan 2015 23:34

nik wrote: The more I read up about LCA MK-1, it is clear that it is a china beater (high altitude thin air performance) while LCA-Mk-2 will be a Paki focussed plane (more thrust - dog fighter).

What we need is LCA MK-1 in hundreds to reduce our numerical handicap with China but we are not been able to shake off the Paki focus. When are we going to wake up, forget the pig (paki) in the room and decide to take the dragon (china) head on?

Nobody has time for Pakis. Only Amerikhans focus on Pakis because they are idiots.

If Mk-1 is good for China then it represents an overcapacity against Pakistan. LCA Mk-2 is going to do everything that Mk-1 does and far far more at way less cost, per kg x per km x per bang, than anything out there. And even a count of 200 Mk-1 + Mk-2 will be overburdened by the workshare if an actual war starts with China.

IAF & PLAAF in Indo-Tibetan Region:

Table 4: Air distances between Indian and Chinese airfields [Source: Google Earth]
Airfields to Airfield Distances
Srinagar to Kashgar 625 Km
Srinagar to Khotan 572 km
Leh to Kashgar 615 km
Leh to Khotan 384 Km
Leh to Shiquanhe 324 km
Ambala to Shiquanhe 363 Km
Hashimara to Shigatse 293 km
Hashimara to Gonggar 324 km
Tezpur to Nyngchi 324 Km
Chabua to Nyngchi 217 Km
Chabua to Golmud 991 Km
Chabua to Jeykundo 624 Km
Chabua to Bangda 393 Km

TAR-Lines of Communication:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2015 00:33

With that significant jump in thrust the LCA MK2 is likely to be a hotrod.

85Kn to 98 Kn from the Ge404 IN20 to the Ge414 INS6. 15% increase. Pretty much the same jump from the AL-31F (Su-30 series) to the 117 (Su-35) with significant improvements in acceleration & performance.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jan 2015 00:38

Victor. IAF didnt want navy to have a better plane than it did. They wanted what navy wanted as well! They moved the goal post again to make it sound like ADA failed. ADA did not fail!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Jan 2015 00:43

ravi_g wrote: LCA Mk-1 ka performance when compared to F-16s, jara bataiye kitna bura hai bhai? Why is the finish line sought to be moved. LCA MK-1 is good to go.

As I keep saying, this is for the IAF to answer, in word or deed. [gabbar]Hum ko kuch nahi pata[/gabbar].

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jan 2015 00:59

The F414 is not just an increase in thrust compared to the F404, it also incorporates a lot of changes to improve reliability that directly translates to mission availability and a lower life cycle cost.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2015 03:16

Brar sahab,

I have very little knowledge about RCS. But your comments on canards and RCS is interesting. It is right that the canard is demonized more than it should when it comes to RCS, but there is some grounds too.

1. Canards are useless if they are inline with wing, so they add to frontal area.
2. If it is a fixed canard, then it can be blended with the fuselage. But if it has to move, then all those gaps, edges, nooks and corners increase the radar signature. For the elevator this is not a problem as it is tucked behind the wing.

Would like to know your thoughts.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jan 2015 03:46

^^ I agree challenges are there, but what i was referring to was the fact that with the RCS goals that existed and in fact that exist for future projects (or appear to exist based on preliminary Request for information) designers had and still continue to come up with designs that incorporate canards. This points (at least to me) that stringent RCS goals can still be complied with with canards designs as was the case with both the Northrop designs, BaE designs from the JSF and with Boeing's preliminary 6th generation renderings. SAAB apparently also was able to meet its internal RCS targets with a canard design at least in the conceptual phase of its design efforts. The Boys in St Louis get the same threat briefings from the services as the boys in Palmdale so one would assume that the Boeing designs are designed around the same RCS requirements (usually from a customer perspective they spell out the threat and leave it to the vendors to design survivability and then put both designs on a pole) as Lockheed did with theirs, so that gives me some confidence in assuming that you could still get a fairly stealthy designs (even for post 2030 design) and still have canards.

As far as them moving and exposing RCS, I guess you could come up with a mechanism whereby you have to limit their movement/deflection unless overridden (as in a dogfight) as was the case with the F-117 and the B-2 irrc. I am no specialist aero person, but it does surprise me that even 5th generation and 6th generation designers did consider and still consider canards as an option.

I was however surprised that Boeing had the confidence to eliminate vertical tails (on their 6th gen concept) based on McDonnell Douglas's work on the Tailless Fighter Agility Research (X-36) and rely solely on TVC for yaw (based on the X-36). I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed the canards out in further refinements of their design. They also changed the wing quite a bit since 2010. I guess in the end its the aero ability coupled with RCS and there are number of ways to achieve a balance depending upon what you wish to highlight as a strength of your designs compared to what you feel is the need of the hour.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 07 Jan 2015 04:57

ravi_g wrote:
Nobody has time for Pakis. Only Amerikhans focus on Pakis because they are idiots.

If Mk-1 is good for China then it represents an overcapacity against Pakistan. LCA Mk-2 is going to do everything that Mk-1 does and far far more at way less cost, per kg x per km x per bang, than anything out there. And even a count of 200 Mk-1 + Mk-2 will be overburdened by the workshare if an actual war starts with China.

I was envisioning LCA MK-1 for purely defensive operations along the himalayas and supporting Army CAS needs. Range to Chinese airfields would be relevant for offensive operations - MKI and LCA MK-2. Having LCA MK-1 in high numbers relives and allows us to focus MKI and MK-2 for offensive stints (along with Brahmos and Prahar).

No point in thinking that we can go on the offensive against China for intruding in to India. Our FOREX war kitty is a tenth of what China can field.

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jan 2015 05:12

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!

At the end of the day it comes down to how much risk one wants to assume when dealing with targets. If you look at Boeing's early designs they clearly are a continuation of their work (as MD) from the two NASA program they participated in (Phantom Works) and other vehicles that they internally funded (bird of prey). So they as a design group have quite a lot of risk-reduction activity already performed based on which they can confidently come up with a configuration that does not carry such a large risk so as to get them eliminated. This happened to Northrop/MD and GE in the ATF for example. Similarly, Lockheed has a long standing work on stealth, materials (the head of skunk works is currently a materials guy) and providing Low RCS even at very high supersonic speeds. The latter is extremely important because from a design perspective it is much easier to design a fighter with the top speed of mach 1.6 (F-35) to meet stringent RCS goals, than it is to design a fighter that has a cruise speed in excess of Mach 1.7 and a top speed in the mach 2 class (f-22). For HAL to assume that much risk on an LCA has to be traded off with timelines, and if you look at Miss February from lockheed, they have retained the tails but no doubt their design would be damn hard to beat at the pole as was the case both with the Have Blue and the Senior Peg. Each design team/house builds upon its own research that it has experience in that is why it is quite amusing when someone mentioned the fact that after the Super hornet the uS would only have lockheed to do fighters and thereby erode the base. They fail to realize that historically airframe design teams are kept funded by the DOD, and lockheed under Kelly had no luck in fighters (towards the latter half of his career) yet the company after his departure turned around and won both he ATF and the JSF competitions.

In the end, there is plenty of stuff that ADA/HAL can do on the AMCA program without resorting to very high risk changes (no tail) and yet produce a very competitive product. Complex aerospace programs are about risk-management as much as anything else.

vina · Post by **vina** » 07 Jan 2015 05:13

As I keep saying, this is for the IAF to answer, in word or deed. [gabbar]Hum ko kuch nahi pata[/gabbar].

Purrfect. In fact, there was a political party in the US named (very aptly I suppose) as " Know Nothings". Maybe you should start the India chapter of that ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2015 05:36

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!

Original "MCA", predecessor of the current AMCA:

Late 1990s or so.