LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2015 11:31

Kartik wrote: Surprise for me as well..last AI-’13, the length of the LCA Navy Mk2 was stated as being the same as that of the IAF LCA Mk2. I was aware that the new fairing would be added to accommodate the landing gear and that the wings would get pushed out for that, but this additional length is a positive surprise. The wing area increasing was also not something mentioned then, so it’s quite clear that the design has progressed much more since then.

Like KaranM, I’m not pleased with the canopy design. A smaller canopy, like that seen in brochures of the LCA Navy Mk2 from AI-’13 would be a better approach, unless it was coming in the way of area ruling concepts.

Your observation on the possible F-16 style split airbrakes is also the same as mine- will see if I can get that answered at this AI, if I do get to go.

Don't know about the area ruling. Making a bulged canopy should be working against it. I feel they have gone for maximum internal volume. But then I see so much empty space behind the head of the pilot. So I can't be sure. Also, I am a little worried about the increased weight. With this much extra internal fuel (plus centerline fuel tank to provide additional safety cushion), how much payload can it carry off the ramp?

Your writeup after the last AI was a treasure-trove. I hope you can make it this year as well.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Feb 2015 11:43

I understand that GE engines have capability to increase their wartime Max Thrust by around 10% or so. Hence F414 engines with Max thrust of 98Kn may actually be capable of around 110kn or so. Hence there might be adequate margin to increase MTOW of NLCA.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 16 Feb 2015 12:11

Probably LCA stationed at Leh for the soak test.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Feb 2015 12:26

Gyan wrote:I understand that GE engines have capability to increase their wartime Max Thrust by around 10% or so. Hence F414 engines with Max thrust of 98Kn may actually be capable of around 110kn or so. Hence there might be adequate margin to increase MTOW of NLCA.

AFAIK, at peace time all engines are de-rated (Russian or Western).

mody · Post by **mody** » 16 Feb 2015 14:07

The Naval LCA MKII will exceed the dimensions of M2K. The increased length was really a surprise.

As the things stand, the success of the program now lies mainly with HAL. Current progress on FoC is disconnected from the production of the aircrafts and the best way to get more LCAs in IAF service is to produce them as fast as possible. If HAL can produce them fast enough, then IAF will be forced to order additional numbers, once the performance of the bird is better understood.

My dream scenario for the production of LCA would be as follows. Hope HAL can do this or atleast come very close:

End of March 2015 - SP2
End of December 2015 - SP3 to SP8
End of December 2016 - SP9 to SP16
End of December 2017 - SP17 to SP28 (after SP20, LCA as per FoC std.)
End of December 2018 - SP29 to SP40 + Upgrade of IOC Std. planes to FOC std.
HAL Starts work on Second production line, for upto 24 aircrafts per year, in 2019.
End of December 2019 - IAF Trainer 1 to Trainer 16.
End of December 2020 - SP41 to SP54 (Additional order for MK1 to raise 3rd sqdr) + Completion of Upgrade to FOC Std. for all planes.
2021, production for IAF MKII version starts.
End of December 2021 - IAF MKII-1 to MKII-12 + conversion of 1st production line for MKII planes.
From 2022, both production lines becomes operational
End of 2022 - IAF MKII-13 to MKII-36, NLCA-2 SP1 to SP12
End of 2023 - IAF MKII-36 to MKII-64, NLCA-2 SP13 to SP24

production continues at 40 aircrafts per year (28 for IAF and 12 for Navy)

Offcourse the above assumes that MKII for IAF completes all tests and is ready to enter production from 2021 and Naval MKII is ready to enter production from 2022.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Feb 2015 18:38

Any news on when the in flight refueling probe will be tested.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 16 Feb 2015 19:24

Karan M wrote:
vikrant wrote: Painted over, or is that an insert in place of the acrylic/composite typically used for the canopy? I think its a quick way to get the NLCA Mk1 out of the door without having to a detailed redesign of the rear portion of the trainer cockpit. Perhaps same method is being applied for the NLCA Mk2. Use the trainer design as the standard and the single seater follows thereafter with the rear portion of the two seat cockpit filled up with avionics and covered up (albeit with a single piece canopy and only the front seat. But overall looks and everything else the same. No change in aerodynamics etc & approximately the same weight allocated for the second seat.

A couple of pages back it was clearly stated it was painted over to save time at this pt. Please read up.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Feb 2015 00:49

PAinted so that the sun does not bake the avionics?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Feb 2015 00:58

Raveen wrote:A couple of pages back it was clearly stated it was painted over to save time at this pt. Please read up.

Your lack of patience apart, a simple, it was painted would have sufficed.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 17 Feb 2015 05:47

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/tejas-ha ... ing-740051

Reported by Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Edited by Dilip Bobb -- who were paid to make sure the article bad mouths the aircraft wrote: What the Air Force really wants is an upgraded avatar of the Tejas -the Mark-11 version -...

Forget the Mark-II, you need to wait for 11 now.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 17 Feb 2015 08:42

Shreeman wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/tejas-ha ... ing-740051

Reported by Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Edited by Dilip Bobb -- who were paid to make sure the article bad mouths the aircraft wrote: What the Air Force really wants is an upgraded avatar of the Tejas -the Mark-11 version -...
Forget the Mark-II, you need to wait for 11 now.

Another useless copy paste article.
Mark 11 actually telling us his motivation levels at the time copy paste ...

just another 30 minutes at content creation without any head into the WHY ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2015 08:50

This is how I see it. When you remove a pilot and his controls and the seat itself you free up a lot of space that can be used for anything else, avionics, fuel or even telemetry for the prototype. But what is put in there is limited by the existing design where the actual hard frame in which the seat was fixed remains, as well as the mountings for instruments etc. Also the canopy itself will need to be cut in half and concomitant with that the canopy opening and closing actuators can be reduced in size saving more space. But then a completely new composite or metal part has to be fitted in the area over which the old longer canopy used to exist.

Cutting the canopy short and replacing it with a hard cover is probably trivial and time need not be wasted on it. More important to see how the space can be optimized. How much redesign of the frame around that space will depend on how that extra space can be used. That space may require different mountings, new wiring, new ducts, new tanks etc depending on what works best. Testing out what works best is more important than cutting the canopy and covering it over with a permanent cover. Once a better idea of how that space can be optimized is obtained the next iteration of the single seat naval variant will probably incorporate structural changes that no longer allow for a seat and cockpit controls to be fitted - allowing for even more space. This could possibly be an intermediate prototype before all the available space is used in the final version along with a definitive new half-canopy (for one pilot) and a permanent cover for the space behind. Just my guess.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 17 Feb 2015 09:21

LCA in junk only and we should only order Mark-20 improved version.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 17 Feb 2015 09:27

Incredible how NDTV has reported that story "no manuals yet" and thus "LCA is far from fighting fit" ... Lifafa written all across it, or journalist needed something briefly sensational so cooked this crap up...

Judging from the above NDTV newseditors must be retards or paid off.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 17 Feb 2015 10:07

shiv wrote:This is how I see it. When you remove a pilot and his controls and the seat itself you free up a lot of space that can be used for anything else, avionics, fuel or even telemetry for the prototype. But what is put in there is limited by the existing design where the actual hard frame in which the seat was fixed remains, as well as the mountings for instruments etc. Also the canopy itself will need to be cut in half and concomitant with that the canopy opening and closing actuators can be reduced in size saving more space. But then a completely new composite or metal part has to be fitted in the area over which the old longer canopy used to exist.

Cutting the canopy short and replacing it with a hard cover is probably trivial and time need not be wasted on it. More important to see how the space can be optimized. How much redesign of the frame around that space will depend on how that extra space can be used. That space may require different mountings, new wiring, new ducts, new tanks etc depending on what works best. Testing out what works best is more important than cutting the canopy and covering it over with a permanent cover. Once a better idea of how that space can be optimized is obtained the next iteration of the single seat naval variant will probably incorporate structural changes that no longer allow for a seat and cockpit controls to be fitted - allowing for even more space. This could possibly be an intermediate prototype before all the available space is used in the final version along with a definitive new half-canopy (for one pilot) and a permanent cover for the space behind. Just my guess.

Shiv,

In this case, my guess would be that matters are even simpler. The space is as empty as it will be. The two-seater canopy is a 0 extra work solution. A single seat canopy exists for IAF, and shortening of the canopy and current opening/closing mechanisms would also not have been hard (an existing heavy duty component doing less work).

It is a shortcut, I dont necessarily agree with it. But an extra bird, especially one with a hook is always welcome. The appearance is secondary.

My guess re. painting/fairings would be preserving the integrity of the ejection system. With current canopy -- no change. Half metal -- prove the ejection compatibility again. Here too, just an educated guess.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2015 10:24

My apologies everyone,the LCA news is in the "F" mag,quoting AM PR,etc.The schedule for the LCA's induction,production,etc. is spelt out in charts.The IAF and IN are very clear that only MK-2 will meet their desired requirements.Only 2 MK-1 sqds. will be ordered and will be built only post 2020.Mk-2 might fly by 2018/19.It will take 2 decades to produce the aircraft and LCA production will not be able to compensate for the 14 sqds of MIG-21s and 27s being retd. from next year.

Latest news that training/maintenance manuals yet to be completed isn't helping either. One is not sure if this is meant to put more pressure upon the GOI/MOD to take a quick decision about the Raffy,yes or no and put whatever alt. plans into actions fast.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Feb 2015 10:36

This needs to be added to the first page of every LCA thread henceforth:

Deccan Herald: Induction of Rafale will take time
Bengaluru, Feb 17, 2015, DHNS:

The appointment of chief of defence staff (CDS) representing the three services of the Indian armed forces is likely to happen soon with the heads of the three services having given their go-ahead.

Rao Inderjit Singh, Minister of State for Defence (Independent charge), on Monday told the media at a seminar, Aerospace - Vision 2050, that consensus had been reached between the three services chiefs. “Now what is remaining is political consensus. We will reach out to all the political parties to seek thier views on the position of chief of defence staff. After all, it is an appointment to be made by the Centre. Parliament will also be involved in appointment of the CDS. There will be discussion.”

The minister said negotiations over pricing and the role of HAL in inducting the French fighter aircraft, Rafale, was taking time and causing delay in going ahead with the procurement of the aircraft which has won the bid. “There are some issues with regard to HAL’s role. Will Dassault, the company that manufactures Rafale, give guarantee to HAL on the 108 aircraft that will be produced by HAL? What HAL makes should be the same as what Dassault makes. So, whether Dassault takes responsibility for the aircraft that are not directly imported but made by HAL is what we are discussing. Pricing is also an issue. We haven’t given up and we’ll be looking forward to breaking ground soon,” Singh said.

The pricing relates to costs of procurement and maintenance. Eighteen aircraft will come in original condition, while 108 will be produced in India by HAL in the course of transfer of technology.

A panel comprising technocrats, bureaucrats, heads of defence organisations and scientists then extensively discussed issues on the Prime Minister’s ‘Make In India’ campaign. Most were of the view that there was a need to liberalise regulations and allow greater scope for the private sector. Some also suggested that the private sector should be incentivised so that they would absorb new technology transferred to India.

An entrepreneur raised the issue of design in India and said there was no scope in the current policy to enable companies to take up design work in India. There was need to change policies in the defence procurement policy to create positive conditions for companies to invest in design.

Interestingly, the panel endorsed the view that the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) did not overshoot the deadline. It was felt that even the US had taken two decades to work on the F-22 Raptor and that other countries venturing into design and development of an aircraft took 15 years. The LCA started with next to nothing - right from the drawing board to its overall manufactured look. India had no expertise in building a military aircraft and had to conceive the project from the start.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Feb 2015 11:23

Shreeman wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/tejas-ha ... ing-740051

Reported by Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Edited by Dilip Bobb -- who were paid to make sure the article bad mouths the aircraft wrote: What the Air Force really wants is an upgraded avatar of the Tejas -the Mark-11 version -...
Forget the Mark-II, you need to wait for 11 now.

LOL@ the idiots saying radars and weapons systems are not integrated.

Morons.

The radar & WCS are onboard as is the full capability to fire and deploy WVR missiles & LGBs. The BVR missile firing is to be finalized by FOC.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Feb 2015 11:24

[Personal attack on fellow poster deleted. Take this as a caution. - rohitvats]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2015 11:42

[Useless reply to personal attack above deleted. Report a post if it is offensive. Don't increase moderator workload by indulging into such slugfest - rohitvats]

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 17 Feb 2015 15:44

Irkut to conclude shipment of Su-30MKI kits to India

“Currently HAL is in Phase IV of assembly, which means it is manufacturing parts from the raw material stage with complete transfer of technology from Irkut Corporation,” it says. “The Su-30MKI program is a shining example of India-Russia defence cooperation.”

LCA's Certification to be Slightly Delayed

Highly-placed sources in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) told Express that they are waiting for the air-to-air refuelling probe and nose cone from the UK to complete all tests required for the OFC. “According to earlier schedule, the FOC was expected by March. However, components from the UK will arrive in April, and after integrating them, various tests have to be conducted by DRDO and IAF. That may take around six months,” a source said.

Just wondering, if HAL has truly achieved full ToT for Su-30MKI then it should be a piece of cake for them to be manufacturing these two components critical to the LCA timelines!

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 17 Feb 2015 18:57

^^^
HAL's previous chief noted several times that even after ToT, some percentage of parts are still sourced from Russia. Local industries are not producing them because investment is not justifying the order they will receive (economies of scale).

Also, it was noted (don't remember the source) that aerial refueling plumbing on LCA was already complete. AFAIK its just the refueling probe that we are waiting for to integrate with LCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Feb 2015 23:08

Ok, not going to crib about LCA canopy anymore.. the visibility is fairly decent, and only the exact rear of the pilot (where he cant turn anyhow) is missing.
And those large rear view mirrors are exactly for that I presume.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Feb 2015 06:20

From tarmac on oneindia

Tejas FOC won’t skip the December deadline: ADA Chief

Activities completed towards FOC
Integration of centre-line drop tank
Gun integration & ground firing
Integration of conventional & low drag bombs
Integration of advanced LGB
Hot & cold weather trials
All weather certification
Envelop expansion to higher angles of attack and load factor (g).

Parameters to be completed during FOC phase
.....

And all those whiners who suffer from "scooter helmet syndrome" please read what is written in the above link about manuals.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 18 Feb 2015 08:24

Only NLCA MK 2 seems to talk about techtical data link capability.

Does IAF plans to have similar data link to connect LCAs with their AWAC fleet, or securly communicate with ground stations? On second thought does IAF have a common data link module (like Navy) to integrate different platforms?

Navy seems to have invested heavily in net centric warfare.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Feb 2015 08:57

The article talks of handing over 20 airfcraft for IAF sqaudron 2018-19. Are they talking about 20 IOC or FOC aircraft.

And deadline has been pushed from April to Dec 2015??

The cost of the 1600 crore for production line for 16 Tejas. Cant we ramp this up to 48 so that atleast by 2018-19 with orders MK-1 and later Mk-II should be produced in these numbers and later on AMCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2015 09:01

the IAF Tejas Mk1 will get the Operational Data Link (ODL) which has been in development for quite some time now.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 18 Feb 2015 11:55

Sid wrote:Only NLCA MK 2 seems to talk about techtical data link capability.

Does IAF plans to have similar data link to connect LCAs with their AWAC fleet, or securly communicate with ground stations? On second thought does IAF have a common data link module (like Navy) to integrate different platforms?

Navy seems to have invested heavily in net centric warfare.

Though it should not be viewed as a competition among the Services, the IAF is probably leading the network centric environment. This is partly because of early arrival of air based platforms like UAVs in to the IAF.

On the whole it will be easy for IAF and IN to go net centric but will be more challenging for the IA (for one it is 4x of IAF in sheer size).

Now, while there is this problem with the IAF of not supporting the LCA and other domestic programmes, the IAF has consistently been a leader in technology adoption and integration. It also has the advantage of better budgets than the IN.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2015 15:21

Awesome!!

The real plane

The Sim

Now I hope the LCA gets full support

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2015 15:28

deejay wrote:
Sid wrote:Only NLCA MK 2 seems to talk about techtical data link capability.

Does IAF plans to have similar data link to connect LCAs with their AWAC fleet, or securly communicate with ground stations? On second thought does IAF have a common data link module (like Navy) to integrate different platforms?

Navy seems to have invested heavily in net centric warfare.
Though it should not be viewed as a competition among the Services, the IAF is probably leading the network centric environment. This is partly because of early arrival of air based platforms like UAVs in to the IAF.

On the whole it will be easy for IAF and IN to go net centric but will be more challenging for the IA (for one it is 4x of IAF in sheer size).

Now, while there is this problem with the IAF of not supporting the LCA and other domestic programmes, the IAF has consistently been a leader in technology adoption and integration. It also has the advantage of better budgets than the IN.

Sir but the IN may be the farthest ahead.. its ships and platforms are linked with BEL's Link 2 already. In the IAF we have the IACCS set up and some fighters with onboard datalinks (Su-30s) but there has been little info on the ODL and whether its deployment has started.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2015 15:29

NICE ! This is the kind of political support that was absent for the past 10 years..

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 18 Feb 2015 15:57

A lid, my kingdom for a cover for the back of the HUD and display electronics/connectors! Also, crimped connectors?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 18 Feb 2015 16:18

The discussion went like this
Modi: How is the plane?
Pilot: Very good Sir. Its very easy to fly and i like flying it.
Modi: Good. Rafale cancelled. I will ask air chief to order more Tejas.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 18 Feb 2015 16:36

I felt bad when even the likes of Nawaz Sharif was seen supporting green-painted Bandars during oversears shows when nary an overt sign of political support came from our previous govt. This really hit the sweet spot.

Now for a pic of Modi in front of the Kaveri!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2015 16:36

Shreeman wrote:A lid, my kingdom for a cover for the back of the HUD and display electronics/connectors! Also, crimped connectors?

Thats a simulator.. SDRE onlee.. just as much as necessary etc.. on a more interesting note..judging by the size of the displays wonder if its the Mk2 sim?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Feb 2015 16:48

Yogi_G wrote:I felt bad when even the likes of Nawaz Sharif was seen supporting green-painted Bandars during oversears shows when nary an overt sign of political support came from our previous govt. This really hit the sweet spot.

Now for a pic of Modi in front of the Kaveri!!

Yes, but PAF needs aircraft and they're buying them. IAF, on the other hand, is busy shooting itself in the foot.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 18 Feb 2015 16:55

Karan M wrote: ~~Sir~~ but the IN may be the farthest ahead.. its ships and platforms are linked with BEL's Link 2 already. In the IAF we have the IACCS set up and some fighters with onboard datalinks (Su-30s) but there has been little info on the ODL and whether its deployment has started.

Karan JI, please, please drop the Sir. There corrected it.

My contention of over all net centric warfare capability is based on the degree of evolution that operations, strategy and tactics have had. In this IAF has some lead over the others (again the reasons are longer time duration and greater budget).

Just like the IN, the IAF is presently limited in both types and numbers for this implementation. As to the exact quantity of these assets your information is much better than mine.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2015 17:17

Hmm, fair points. Its not just eqpt but ops, strategy and tactics & IAF has long been netting its sensors together & has had eqpt with it to boot.
For all I know, the IAF probably is silently rolling out ODL on all its fleet and already deploying it. Now that would be something!!

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 18 Feb 2015 17:58

But are ODL and Link 2 different or can work coherently? Like Link 16.

For example, can a Ka 31 securely communicate data with Mig 29K and Su 30 MKI. Similarly can a Phalcon and DRDO's AWAC can integrate with Navy assets.

If they all share similar data link, the combined sensor fused image will be much more coherent then information assessed by individual arm.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Feb 2015 18:44

Sid wrote: For example, can a Ka 31 securely communicate data with Mig 29K and Su 30 MKI. Similarly can a Phalcon and DRDO's AWAC can integrate with Navy assets.

If they all share similar data link, the combined sensor fused image will be much more coherent then information assessed by individual arm.

Sid this post of mine is not aimed at you but the post asks a question that no one asks when people curse India for taking a long time and claim that Pakistan and other nations make quick decisions - so the fault is always ours.

Anyone who has read Paki Air Cdre (redt) Nosey Haider's book will understand that many countries - including Pakistan strike quick deals because of huge kickbacks and the question of integration is this manner - which takes deep planning is not necessarily done.