LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Feb 2015 20:57

L-273 Uttam AESA Radar

186*4 = 786 TR modules.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2015 21:08

Be interesting to know the power rating of each - peak, av.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Feb 2015 21:40

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2015 22:07

Good stuff man.. you are a find for BRF and a finder.

If the BEL one is used as reference (though I think its the Astra one which we are using, looks a bit different, and I'd suppose it'd cover a wider band), the peak power would be 6Kw, in line with the previous MMR (6.5Kw peak planned, though I think we may have gone with whatever the Israelis had to keep things simple, our front end antenna, rest theirs). But performance should be better, less loss, better gain etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Feb 2015 23:05

from dileep's bucket:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2015 23:08

The radar has 100 target TWS. Talk about situational awareness.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Feb 2015 23:11

and 6 high payoffs. change dia for 1200mm, and double them for AMCA. just speaking aamly.

can someone roughly say what would be the range for 0.1 sqm RCS target?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Feb 2015 23:49

120* coverage makes it gimbals less. dunno the peak watts for the 94km ranged 2sqm target. A GaN could increase this!?

from the AAAU cooling RFP, one could probably guess the need is for GaAs/GaN

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2015 23:51

range figures are sanitized for public disclosure.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Feb 2015 23:55

100 air targets to 2 moving ground targets (SAR mode?) could be sorting for so many ground clutters. but, then firing at two targets simultaneously is a great beginning for this radar.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 25 Feb 2015 01:25

in navigation mode, it got terrain avoidance no terrain following.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Feb 2015 03:31

separate belly mounted radar? like the lantirn

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 03:44

Shaun wrote:in navigation mode, it got terrain avoidance no terrain following.

terrain avoidance function when integrated with the autopilot can give you terrain following, to put it simplistically.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 12:41

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Feb 2015 13:36

Here are some snippets from my conversations with ADA guys at AI-'15. Once again a long post, but I wanted to put it all down before I forget these points.

-Navy LCA Mk2 is not going to be derived from the IAF LCA Mk2. This was made clear by a young gentleman. He said that ADA and the Navy decided to go with a design to meet the IN's needs, even if it means somewhat radical changes from the IAF LCA Mk2, which is further ahead in design phase. The Navy is fully supportive of this approach. They want a variant that works best for their specific needs and requirements, even if it takes more time and effort.

-Navy LCA Mk2 first flight targeted for end-2018 or early 2019 and entry into service by 2023-24.

-The reason for the hump behind the cockpit canopy is due to area ruling. Spoke to a very senior ADA person who works primarily in aero and was associated with the Tejas program since its inception days and he confirmed this. He mentioned that this was done in close consultation with some consulting agency- most likely Airbus Defense and Space (previously EADS), but this he didn’t confirm.

- I asked if the design could be more streamlined or a bubble canopy like that on the MiG-29KUB/K couldn't be used instead of the current design. The gentleman said that the design is not finalised as yet though..further aerodynamic streamlining may occur in the future since they haven't yet tested a wind tunnel model of the Navy LCA Mk2. They will be using the HAL wind tunnel for this, since its considered to be quite good.

-The reason for the hump was that the Navy LCA Mk2 actually has become wider and significantly longer than the Navy LCA Mk1. Add to that the LEVCONS that add to the cross sectional area just fore of the wing join, and they needed a smoother blend and to avoid the sudden cross-sectional area change as seen in the IAF Tejas Mk1.

-That hump will be eventually used for something. Not certain as yet, but likely to be some avionics.

-The reason for the Navy LCA Mk2 having even greater length than the IAF LCA Mk2 was explained to be drag and internal fuel volume related. They wanted more to be carried internally and the designers of the Navy LCA Mk2 wanted to improve the fine-ness ratio.

-I asked the ADA gentleman working on the Navy Mk2 as to why the IAF LCA Mk2 didn’t get a 1m fuselage plug instead of 0.5m and he wasn’t sure..another HAL designer had earlier said that the 0.5m plug was to improve maintainability and access to certain LRUs. Not because of drag issues..clearly, not all folks at ADA and HAL are in the know and their knowledge or info is silo based. They know about their subject but very little about some other department’s issues..I asked if they compare notes amongst each other as the Navy Mk2 and IAF Mk2 groups are different. He said they do know what is happening in each other’s programs but the collaboration may not be very deep.

-The senior ADA gentleman who was associated with the LCA program since the 1980s said that the IAF requirement was for the LCA to be as small as possible and definitely no bigger than a MiG-21.

This confirms what certain other posters on BRF have stated- that the IAF required that the LCA had to able to fit into hangars sized for MiG-21’s and use existing base infrastructure, (while carrying significantly more and to a greater distance). And so the ADA guys went further and made it even smaller in length- the MiG-21Bis length w/o pitot is 14.1m, whereas the LCA Mk1 is 13.2m long without pitot. That was clearly a mistake on the part of ADA and is only now being rectified.

-The reason for the wider fuselage is what we already know- to accomodate the landing gear with its new fairing. Additional fuel tanks will also be accomodated.

-Regarding the F-16 style air-brakes- apparently it was considered but they found it to not be feasible since the structure in that region is not strong enough to withstand the heavy aero loads that will be encountered if the split airbrakes are operated. The beefing up would add weight, so as of now they're going ahead with the current air brakes. However, there is a study underway to see if the airbrake could be moved to a dedicated surface under the wing.

-Harpoon AShM is also going to be integrated to the Navy LCA Mk2 in addition to Kh-35E.

-Derby BVR missile is confirmed for the Navy Mk2 but strangely the person I spoke to wasn’t sure about Python 5. Perhaps he just wasn’t in the know. Another gentleman confirmed that the IAF Mk2 will get both Derby and Python5..he wasn’t so sure about the Astra. By the way I snapped a pic of a Tejas config with the Derby and Python 5, at the Rafael stand..have to figure out how to upload all the pics I’ve taken, which include a bunch of AMCA snaps.

-I’ve uploaded the LCA Mk1 ground based gun firing trials video onto youtube..just search for “Tejas LCA gun firing trial”. It’s a short 5 sec clip. The gun trials were conducted to validate the vibration characteristics and to check whether structures, internal avionics and electronics can withstand it. No issues were seen during the trials.

-L-273 Uttam AESA radar will be the likeliest radar for the Navy LCA Mk2. This clears my confusion from last Aero India where the Deputy PD said that the Elta 2032 would be the radar on the Navy Mk2. Clearly, 2 years is a long time and lot has progressed since.

-No IRST requirement from the IAF or IN as yet. ADA guy said that they won’t propose new equipment if the user doesn’t have a requirement for it.

-Further work to be done for shaving off another 200 odd kgs from the landing gear weight for the Mk2

-There is no change in the height of the vertical fin. The additional height of the Navy LCA Mk2 has to do with the longer stroke length of the oleos. It just sits higher than the IAF variant.

-Regarding the weights, I’ll post separately.

-N-LCA Mk1 bring back max weight is in the ~10,500 kgs range..with an empty weight of almost 7900 kgs thanks to the beefed up structure, arrestor hook and new landing gear, the corresponding payload that can be safely brought back (coupled with enough fuel for a couple of missed traps on the carrier) will be in the range of ~2000 kgs. Fuel dump system hence is a mandatory feature for the Navy LCA in case of an emergency soon after take-off. But I’m a little hazy on this part of the conversation so don’t quote me on this as the final figures are not in the public domain as yet.

-We will likely see 8G capability for the Navy LCA Mk2 and not 9G. Thanks to the added structural weight over the IAF LCA Mk2. But the gentleman remarked that even the MiG-29K is not 9G capable and the Super Hornet is 7.5G capable thanks in part to the added weight and in part to the wing folding mechanism that they feature. So the IN may have no issues with 8G capability. AFAIK, only the Rafale M is a 9G naval fighter.

-No wing folding mechanism required for the Navy LCA Mk2 even with the additional wing span (viz. thanks to the fatter fuselage) since it is still quite a small aircraft by comparison to other navy fighters

-Navy LCA Mk2 air intakes will be bigger for sure to cater to the higher mass flow rate of the F-414 engine. The air intake duct will also been lengthened.

-LEVCONs for the Navy LCA Mk1 are currently only used in 1 position..but the FCS will eventually allow for 4 positions- +30 deg, 0 deg, -10 deg and -20 deg.

-the LCA Mk1 has ~180 kgs of ballast just aft of the nose, below the pilot. Done to be able to keep the CG within a defined range for different configs of weapons and drop tank loadouts. This may be targeted for reduction on the Mk2, possibly by using the space for some equipment. Got this from a young HAL guy.

-Navy LCA Mk2 will get a fixed probe, not a retractable one as per one gentleman. Last Aero India I was told it would be a retractable one. Unfortunately, Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj wasn’t there on the day I visited, otherwise we’d have got even more info.

-Currently the LCA Mk1 uses flares similar to what the MiG-21, MiG-27 and MiG-29 (I may have gotten this list wrong, not completely sure) use. It is an indigenously developed flare that works in one part of the spectrum..but a new multi-spectral flare is being developed that covers a wider band for enhanced protection. This will likely be ready for the Mk2.

-Saw a new pylon adapter that has been developed for the Jaguar- to carry, in the words of the gentleman displaying it, “a boxy type weapon” (he didn’t know what it was though, perhaps the CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon?). The new rack uses pneumatics instead of pyro bolts and consequently is easier to maintain since the pryo leaves behind residue that needs to be cleaned. Plus this one is less than 1/3rd the cost of the imported pylon adapters. I asked him if a multiple ejector rack was being developed and he said no. But if a requirement arose, they could do so.

-Saw the LCA Mk2 cockpit simulator and the cockpit displays. Excellent clarity and they were significantly bigger than on the Mk1. The cockpit itself is a tight fit (I waited for my turn to get to sit inside but some HAL employee’s relatives were given a much longer than usual demo and I was running out of time). The simulator graphics were excellent. Not a full motion sim, but perfect for newbie pilots to get accustomed to the cockpit and the general flying characteristics of the Mk1/2.

-Navy LCA Mk2 will have a wider angle HUD, as it’s a Navy requirement. The IAF has no such requirement, but a new HUD is being developed with better characteristics..not sure what those characteristics are since the person didn’t tell. If jingos want a frameless HUD, ala Gripen or Rafale, they’re going to be disappointed. That ain’t happening.

-HUD symobology is good..been developed in close collaboration with NFTC Test pilots..it took me ~ 10-15 seconds to figure out what was being displayed on the HUD (since it was being displayed on the screen in front of us we all could see it) but that was primarily flight parameters. Since I didn’t get a chance to sit in the cockpit, I couldn’t ask them to run me through different radar modes, or to ask about data fusion or how such data will be displayed. Perhaps it’s too early to ask about data fusion for the Mk2 program. It will most likely be an IAF and IN requirement though.

Will post more as and when I remember it..got a few snippets on the AMCA also.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 13:45

Brilliant! BTW, when I asked an oldie HAL guy about LCA size specifications he said starting point was HAL Ajeet!! Go figure. (Been next to a Gnat, its like built around a pilot). No BVR etc, AI radar was to be short range intercept only and guns and missiles (K-13/R60 class). Said this was the plan and lots of studies were done.

ADA guys said MiG-21 "footprint". Either ways, clearly the small sized can do all mantra coupled with later imports of fancy tech were an unviable mix. I remember in early 90's LCA figures suddenly started emerging with Super 530 mockups so things had clearly changed or LCA as decided was BVR capable from start.

Any idea about LCA Mk2 performance? What improvements it will bring in terms of aero etc?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Feb 2015 13:53

Kartik wrote:
-I’ve uploaded the LCA Mk1 ground based gun firing trials video onto youtube..just search for “Tejas LCA gun firing trial”. It’s a short 5 sec clip. The gun trials were conducted to validate the vibration characteristics and to check whether structures, internal avionics and electronics can withstand it. No issues were seen during the trials.

May your goats always be warm, cuddly and ever willing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KbZDuBKcEs

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Feb 2015 14:09

Philip wrote:What was a let down by the LCA team was a mock-up,model at least of the MK-2.Its been two air shows past,4 years without any clue as to what the Mk-2 will look like.The models displayed ,one with a MK-2 label had the same intakes as the MK-1! There was actually no difference from the MK-1.Only the NLCA showed the raised cockpit,LERXes,etc. Yet again the jaguar upgrade by Honywell,"Make it roar",was touted.The actual truth is that the Jaguar can't make a sound more than a "Meow" of now as this upgrade has been talked about,displayed for 3 air shows now! Talk about procrastination,that too when the contractor for the job,Honywell,has been selected a long time ago.

I’m sorry but did you attend both the Aero India ’13 and ’15? If you did, you’d have noticed that the Navy LCA Mk2 from AI-’13 and AI-’15 are not the least bit alike. They are very different, from length to width to the new canopy style and the intakes are also bigger on this year’s models.

Also, the Tejas Mk2 from AI-’13 and AI-’15 don’t feature too many aerodynamic or structural changes- what we saw then is what we see now since that is what is going ahead for detailed design. So obviously the models won’t vary dramatically.

Also, unless you sat with a ruler and did a proper scale to scale check you’d not be able to tell the difference between even the real Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 intakes. The difference in the diameter of the intake from Mk1 to Mk2 is in the order of millimeters, not enough for any lay observer to be able to easily tell the difference.

Also, don’t go by the quality of the models displayed. The Navy LCA Mk2 model had no RAM intake mounted at the base of the vertical fin. Yet, when I mentioned that to a senior ADA gentleman, he said that was a mistake on the model. It is definitely there on the Navy LCA Mk2 as well.

And the AMCA model was also the same as it was in AI-’13. Which, BTW, is not what the new AMCA configuration looks like. The new one looks very nice in CAD images that were seen at the AMCA stand.

The LCA is also supposed to take up much of the slack in close support ,replacing the MIG-21s in that role. It is nowhere in large-scale serial production. At least the Jag upgrade could've been fast-tracked sicne we've been manufacturing the aircraft for a long time.The snail's pace of M-2000 upgrades is also bewildering,that too just 40+ aircraft for more than $2.4 B,compared with just $32M for a new MIG-29K and just under $1B for the deep upgrades of 64+ MIG-29s!

The LCA can be built at 16 per year if the IAF and IN require it to be built at that rate. HAL can do it. If the GoI says go ahead and do it, they’ll do it. That is the way forward- not a new upgrade Jaguar program that basically is not very cost effective. The residual life on the Jags will run out before the new F125IN engines’ lives run out.

Also, I can see that you don’t seem to comprehend the very basics of how production works.

You mention the “snail’s pace” of Mirage-2000 upgrades.

How long do you think each aircraft is on the ground while it goes through an upgrade? It may be as long as 10 months! During which time, it is taken apart, some parts replaced with modern ones, others kept as is and re-lifed and so on..

Now, Dassault will provide “kits” to HAL to do these upgrades. The kits will comprise the parts to be put on the upgraded Mirages along with tools and software to do that. If you need to upgrade 400 aircraft (like the USAF will for its F-16s), the up-front investment in putting together the kits can be greater. That is, the investment from Dassault and Thales and other suppliers. But if the number is smaller, then your suppliers will not spend a fortune to get tools and build 15 kits a year and then run out of orders in 3-4 years..you will not be able to amortise the costs of the tools and jigs well..basically, you’ll end up getting your costs higher.

For e.g. Which approach should I take if one tool/jig/fixture cost $1 million and it can be used for building 2 kits per year:
(Approach 1) Should I buy/build 2 such tools/jigs/fixtures and get 4 aircraft upgraded per year. Which means all 60 are upgraded in 16 years’ time OR
(Approach 2) Should I buy/build 4 such tools/jigs/fixtures and get 8 aircraft upgraded per year. Which means all 60 are upgraded in 8 years’ time OR
(Approach 2) Should I buy 8 and getting 16 aircraft upgraded in 1 years’ time. Which means all 60 are upgraded in 4 years’ time

My upfront investment in approach 3 would be higher - $8 million vs $4 million for approach 2 vs $2 million for approach 1. It’s obvious that Approach 1 is too time consuming since I’d take 16 years to complete the upgrades. Approach 2 and 3 are better but Approach 3 is a lot costlier and I’ll need to scale up man-power resources quickly and then let them go quickly as well..And I’m pretty much done with those tools/jigs/fixtures after 4 years since the market for Mirage-2000 upgrades is miniscule, unlike with the F-16, where I can probably get more orders for upgrade kits and hence justify my higher initial investment. I will not be able to amortise the cost of the equipment over a longer period and hence my costs will be higher.

It’s obvious that the scale of the order has to be balanced with the timelines for kit deliveries to arrive at what is the best solution for both cost and schedule. Keep IAF’s schedule in mind (they will fly Mirages well into the mid to late 2030s) and keep costs in mind as well, which are already very high to account for the development for a small number of fighters.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 25 Feb 2015 14:48

Thanks, Kartik.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Feb 2015 15:17

thanks Sankum.

I forgot to mention one more point:

the Navy LCA Mk1 has demostrated 72 degree nose wheel castering, which is required to move the aircraft in very tight turns while it is on the cramped deck of an aircraft carrier. A small video was being shown for that. I took a pic, will post it sometime.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Feb 2015 15:24

Karan M wrote:Brilliant! BTW, when I asked an oldie HAL guy about LCA size specifications he said starting point was HAL Ajeet!! Go figure. (Been next to a Gnat, its like built around a pilot). No BVR etc, AI radar was to be short range intercept only and guns and missiles (K-13/R60 class). Said this was the plan and lots of studies were done.

ADA guys said MiG-21 "footprint". Either ways, clearly the small sized can do all mantra coupled with later imports of fancy tech were an unviable mix. I remember in early 90's LCA figures suddenly started emerging with Super 530 mockups so things had clearly changed or LCA as decided was BVR capable from start.

Any idea about LCA Mk2 performance? What improvements it will bring in terms of aero etc?

thanks Karan. Was really tough to get some of these folks to talk about the program..they were wondering if I was from the press and why I was so interested.

I approached an IAF pilot with a Mirage-2000 patch and wanted to know about the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade..he was with a senior IAF pilot in uniform and that guy smiled and said we cannot say anything..even if he knows he won't tell..I said that is there a service life extension involved and they said they cannot say anything! I was like

..all he said is "its a very nice airplane to fly"..just imagine.

My observation was this- BRF jingos are very clued on to defence and are well read and up to date. Most folks at the stalls and the average IAF pilot isn't. They're good at what they do, but staying up to date with defence news isn't on top of their daily to-do's. Its just a job for many.

Regarding the IAF Tejas Mk2's performance, all I got was it will be a 9G fighter. I asked a young ADA guy about its STR and ITR rates and he said he worked on CFD so he didn't know those figures..pointed to another lady and she didn't remember.

In all this, I forgot to ask about range, combat radius and endurance.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 25 Feb 2015 15:29

Great work, Kartik!

Kartik wrote:In all this, I forgot to ask about range, combat radius and endurance.

Now we've to endure the Gripen lobby for 2 more years until AI-17.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Feb 2015 15:40

JTull wrote:Great work, Kartik!

Now we've to endure the Gripen lobby for 2 more years until AI-17.

thank JTull..its not just the Gripen lobby, but the Pukes with their JF-17 too..there are some real 9th std pass fellows out there (on other fora) who haven't yet encountered physics but will argue that the JF-17 range matches the Gripens' mythical range.

BTW, off topic, I wanted to tell the ADA guys that they really need to work their PR better. Having a few journos fly the Tejas trainer, taking them for tours, stuff like that..

the Rafale stall had a Rafale model (that was it!) and was populated by some pretty desi chicks and some marketing guys but you should've seen the crowd! Most junta were ogling at the pretty ladies (clad in sarees mind you!) but free Rafale caps also did the trick. Outdoors, people wanted to pose with a French Aeronavale pilot, climb the ladder to the Rafale cockpit, whereas the Tejas stand didn't seem to generate much curiosity..on static display to the public was TD2 (minus the engine and most avionics which have been removed now) and no one was on hand to talk about it.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 25 Feb 2015 15:49

Optimal path would be for IAF to order more MK1 numbers to replace Mig-21 in existing infrastructure and align with the Navy MK2 design with suitable IAF specific modifications. The HAS and other infrastructure in FOBs can be upgraded to accommodate MK2s as part of next iterations of MAFI.
This alignment will prevent separate MK2 teams in ADA at least for air frame and key systems. Hence, speeding up the MK2 program itself.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2015 15:53

>> -Further work to be done for shaving off another 200 odd kgs from the landing gear weight for the Mk2

said so it look a bit beefier than needed.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 25 Feb 2015 15:55

Kartik wrote: BTW, off topic, I wanted to tell the ADA guys that they really need to work their PR better. Having a few journos fly the Tejas trainer, taking them for tours, stuff like that..

It has improved a bit saar. On the last day at the ADA LCA stall PYTs were handing out a booklet on Tejas like lemons. I was glad to see a Govt organization hand out a publication to common folks. Not sure because of it but there were lots of cheers from aam junta when Tejas took to skies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Feb 2015 16:31

IDRW has grabbed imaged from Kartik's video and posted it as news

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Feb 2015 17:17

I don't know how many know this but one of the prime reasons for early demise of Marut was it's inability to fire all the four 30-mm Aden guns; the vibrations were so phenomenal at couple of times, the canopy of the a/c during gun trials flew off. At other, the instrument panel came off. There were attempts to rectify it but to no avail; in fact, one such trial took the life of a IAF Test Pilot.

The a/c was cleared only for 2 gun firing; this was a let down for the IAF as the same gun set was mounted on Hunter and inspite of engine short-comings, IAF was optimizing the a/c for ground attack/interdiction role.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 17:25

It could have been resolved.. at the end of the day, it was a good design (re: its performance in 1971) and had a lot of potential left. Kurt Tank really knew his stuff. The stuff around MiG-27s gun firing was equally bad but the SU persisted and fixed it.

Speaking of the tragic loss of Group Captain Suranjan Das, the first LCA TP narrated an interesting incident about how the FSU and US approached these risks.

When he visited the US, he asked about a group of AFB names.. his tour guide told him "oh they are named after the TP we lost developing jet aircraft after WW2, we used to lose a lot of our pilots".. he brought it up when asked about risks of test flying & how Marut experience shaped us. The lessons from the loss of GC Das would have been to persist and fix the plane and develop it further. Not abandon it totally. I guess this is why US, SU feel their experience has literally been purchased with lives & why our attempts to progress with TOT etc has never progressed us far in their estimation of our industry, or Govt.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Feb 2015 17:34

Damn dude don't tell me that horrible stretch called Suranjan Das Road is named after the Group Captain Suranjan Das . What to say.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2015 17:37

it used to be a lovely tree lined , smooth and quiet road in upto 2009. the degeneration into hell started in 2009 when Bagmane park started scaling up . bagmane is a venture floated by the son in law of SM krishnaji i was told.
the park itself seems to have been made by filling up parts of a lake / marshy area that belonged to DRDO . a retired drdo guy told me drdo was promised or given equivalent land outside the city and bagmane came up. abominable idea.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 17:37

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:Brilliant! BTW, when I asked an oldie HAL guy about LCA size specifications he said starting point was HAL Ajeet!! Go figure. (Been next to a Gnat, its like built around a pilot). No BVR etc, AI radar was to be short range intercept only and guns and missiles (K-13/R60 class). Said this was the plan and lots of studies were done.

ADA guys said MiG-21 "footprint". Either ways, clearly the small sized can do all mantra coupled with later imports of fancy tech were an unviable mix. I remember in early 90's LCA figures suddenly started emerging with Super 530 mockups so things had clearly changed or LCA as decided was BVR capable from start.

Any idea about LCA Mk2 performance? What improvements it will bring in terms of aero etc?
thanks Karan. Was really tough to get some of these folks to talk about the program..they were wondering if I was from the press and why I was so interested.

It could be worse. Some of them really really loath the press (and with good reason, thanks to the antics of the pompous, flatulent Aroors and Pubby's) so they refuse to talk to the press and will walk off. There are some who are so upset they will actually give it back to the press, and hence its best not to be associated with the group of cretins/press in any manner. The occasional Tarmak or Hindu's TSR or R Prasannan does not make up for the vast majority of the others.

I approached an IAF pilot with a Mirage-2000 patch and wanted to know about the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade..he was with a senior IAF pilot in uniform and that guy smiled and said we cannot say anything..even if he knows he won't tell..I said that is there a service life extension involved and they said they cannot say anything! I was like ..all he said is "its a very nice airplane to fly"..just imagine.

My observation was this- BRF jingos are very clued on to defence and are well read and up to date. Most folks at the stalls and the average IAF pilot isn't. They're good at what they do, but staying up to date with defence news isn't on top of their daily to-do's. Its just a job for many.

Very true
Speaking of Mirage 2000 pilots, you jogged my memory. Several years back, there was a Mirage pilot manning the DARE stall! Just goes to show the amount of stuff that is not reported but is probably being done.

Regarding the IAF Tejas Mk2's performance, all I got was it will be a 9G fighter. I asked a young ADA guy about its STR and ITR rates and he said he worked on CFD so he didn't know those figures..pointed to another lady and she didn't remember.

In all this, I forgot to ask about range, combat radius and endurance.

Never mind - you got some good info out. As far as this AI is concerned, jingo khush hua.. we are making everything from radars to EW kit with stated performances which are world class & our progress has been steady & consistent.

The idiots who sit and mock India's efforts (including our neighbours) don't have a clue of the effort in place & what's coming up on the horizon.
At next AI, I expect a bunch of seekers and other critical subsystems to be openly displayed & Mk2 progress detailed.

India's advancement is but a matter of time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 17:38

negi wrote:Damn dude don't tell me that horrible stretch called Suranjan Das Road is named after the Group Captain Suranjan Das . What to say.

One and the same.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Feb 2015 18:21

rohitvats wrote:I don't know how many know this but one of the prime reasons for early demise of Marut was it's inability to fire all the four 30-mm Aden guns; the vibrations were so phenomenal at couple of times, the canopy of the a/c during gun trials flew off. At other, the instrument panel came off. There were attempts to rectify it but to no avail; in fact, one such trial took the life of a IAF Test Pilot.

The a/c was cleared only for 2 gun firing; this was a let down for the IAF as the same gun set was mounted on Hunter and inspite of engine short-comings, IAF was optimizing the a/c for ground attack/interdiction role.

That is why the IAF then bought the MiG 21 with no guns, asked for guns later and got a gun pod attached to the centerline underbelly pylon of the MiG 21 and later the gun was made integral by which time the MiG 21 was much heavier and less agile leading to the fuselage behind the cockpit being enlarged to accommodate more fuel making it heavier still requiring a new engine - which was not good enough until the R 25 or something was eventually installed.

India and the IAF paid Russian engineers to do the work, while we accepted the limitations including Russian manuals and switches.

The Hunter was originally designated FGA 9 - meaning Fighter-Ground attack while the MiG 21 was a flying dart in its earlier avatar

It is possible that Krishna Menon was responsible in part for pushing for the MiG 21. And it is possible that geopolitics forced it on us. Why is the IAF insisting on IFR for LCA now? I was the last person on earth to suspect that something is amiss in the armed forces - least of all the IAF for I have been an IAF lover and apologist. I am no longer sure that there is no deep inbuilt bias against desi in the iAF. I used to accuse the army of fossilized mindsets - but the IAF is tight up there with the army.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Feb 2015 18:29

Even Harriers and Jags never could carry 4*30 mm config of ADEN. Only the single seater Hawker hunters in IAF had 4*30mm config of ADEN.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Feb 2015 18:37

What's wrong with the LCA. Having IFR.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Feb 2015 18:43

Karan M wrote:It could have been resolved.. at the end of the day, it was a good design (re: its performance in 1971) and had a lot of potential left. Kurt Tank really knew his stuff. The stuff around MiG-27s gun firing was equally bad but the SU persisted and fixed it. <SNIP>.

Fact is this: It was never resolved even after repeated attempts; IAF tried everything on the subject but to no-avail. So did HAL but could not come up with a solution. Finally, use of 4-guns was restricted. The death of IAF TP was the final nail in the coffin on the subject. And all these attempts to rectify the 4-gun issue were made when substantial number of Marut were already in-service with IAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2015 19:49

When I say rectification, its not jury rigging the existing Maruts as was attempted. If the original structures are not able to handle such a stress, its unlikely that some nifty trick can fix it either. Just look at the amount of effort we do today to clear a gun on the LCH etc and this is after having access to complex simulation software, and all sorts of fancy test facilities which were missing earlier.

So it has to be a significant effort. Design a new airframe if necessary, with significant structural redesign and keep the process going. If not Kurt Tank get somebody else in to India at the time to do the complex stuff. Having 4 guns all available (as on Hunter) is fine, but would Marut be useless otherwise? IIRC it had internal carriage of rocket/bombs & external carriage as well. The main thing is to keep going on with further revisions.

The PLAAF's F-7 experience, the Russians with all their MiG-variants all did the same. They just kept plugging away. In Maruts case two things happened, IAF disinterest after 4Gun issues, and the MOD's lack of support for a proper engine. Attempts to develop further Marut variants never went anywhere. HAL got so disenchanted with the entire process that it thought its design team was useless investment & decided life was fine doing assembly jugaad of whatever it got via the TOT farce. All players in this debacle basically messed up.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Feb 2015 19:51

Thanks Kartik, that was good info.

I am still not sure why the IAF didn't go with 1m plug for Mk-II. That would have put it at 14.2m, right around Mig-21 size. I feel if the IAF had gone the IN way and had 1m plug, and landing gear folding into wing fairings, it would have opened up more space for internal fuel . The commonality with IN version would also be there for production/maintenance view too.

BTW, is there any plan to beef up the wing structure for MK-II so that the outer pylons can carry R-77s too?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 25 Feb 2015 20:27

Karan M wrote:
Shaun wrote:in navigation mode, it got terrain avoidance no terrain following.
terrain avoidance function when integrated with the autopilot can give you terrain following, to put it simplistically.

Having terrain avoidance mode and slaving it to Auto Pilot doesn't qualify it for terrain following mode as-well. Components for terrain avoidance can be part of terrain following but it requires algorithm like ADLAT algorithm with dedicated TFR computer and terrain storage.

So my understanding is , TA here is applicable for "sudden" obstacle avoidance like mountains but for nap of the earth flying , TF mode comes into play which is a major technology and would have been mentioned on the Radar specs of Uttam.

Even terrain following with auto pilot will result in an increases the risk of detection as set clearance will be exceeded due to inbuilt safety margin.