LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Jun 2015 22:38

What? Derby no longer actively made?
What are we integrating with LCA if this is the case? Shouldn't IAF be interested in the newer product instead of an outdated one?

http://www.janes.com/article/52232/rafa ... -er-bvraam

Later: realized that I-derby is being integrated by reading above poster's link.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 15 Jun 2015 23:08

Smart idea about the funnel. How about varying the magnetic field dead ending on direction?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jun 2015 23:10

^^^ Please take the funnel and magnetic field discussion to the correct thread. It was a good example to illustrate Tsarkar's point. But a discussion on the same on LCA thread is not appropriate.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Jun 2015 02:11

sankum wrote:Dual pulse I-Derby ER with 100 Km range for LCA.

That explains new Radome and also AESA LCA mk1 P for 100 Km target detection range.

Middle wing station should be able to carry two derby per station using multi rack just like in Sea Harrier.

I-Derby ER – All New Performance

Good news in the short term. In the long term, Astra can come in. Another 16-20 LCA Mk1 would be icing on the cake.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Jun 2015 02:32

It'll be amazingly fun though that while all the time BR and ze internetz was alternately

and

about LCA progress, the program delivers some new tricks and has a squadron or two extra ordered.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jun 2015 03:17

koti wrote:What? Derby no longer actively made?
What are we integrating with LCA if this is the case? Shouldn't IAF be interested in the newer product instead of an outdated one?

http://www.janes.com/article/52232/rafa ... -er-bvraam

Later: realized that I-derby is being integrated by reading above poster's link.

The older version is used in Spyder-SR SAM system. So it should still be actively made.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jun 2015 05:26

^I was about to ask a question on SDR, but it was right on the link

<rtfm>
The use of SDR technology means the missile seeker can be reprogrammed with software upgrades including new waveforms, duty cycles and processing techniques, addressing new threats, countermeasures and techniques that may evolve through its lifespan of 20-30 years.
</rtfm>

there is no two ways think about this.. now hopefully IAF does not demand our DRDO developed FCR with this feature. But this is a great feature to have.. that uttam can do.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jun 2015 07:54

tsarkar, thanks for the Rickover quote. When folks were quibbling at the expense for a full scale mock-up, Rickover said The look and feel of the actual size mock-up is very much needed for the designer to understand the clearances and such stuff the accountants wont understand. A full size mock-up is very much a feature of submarines and weapons systems since then.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Jun 2015 09:14

tsarkar, thanks for the Rickover quote. When folks were quibbling at the expense for a full scale mock-up, Rickover said The look and feel of the actual size mock-up is very much needed for the designer to understand the clearances and such stuff the accountants wont understand. A full size mock-up is very much a feature of submarines and weapons systems since then.

Technology has advanced quite a bit since Adm Rickover days when the design was done on paper by an army of draftsmen and piping, plumbing, wiring, joining etc can in series later. Not today. With CAD/CAM and visualisation tools, the entire design is done digitally and visualised (no way you will see piping and stuff out of alignment/cannot join like in the old days) and you have virtual assembly as well and the tolerances in the CAD/CAM way are far far closer and fit better than in the old days..

The part about a full scale mock up isn't done any more , except for automobile styling studios etc, where the clay model is still done , but the drafting is cad cam anyways for engg design. Not done for commercial airplanes for eg. CATIA rules!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jun 2015 10:23

^^ not when you are going into uncharted and dangerous territory(new reactor) for first time. ok for some other things.
a shore based facility that can simulate the vibrations and movements of a ship or submarine, including close explosions is best.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Jun 2015 13:51

^^^ For testing the radom etc, what flying test bed are our guys using?

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Jun 2015 14:38

Singha wrote:^^ not when you are going into uncharted and dangerous territory(new reactor) for first time. ok for some other things.
a shore based facility that can simulate the vibrations and movements of a ship or submarine, including close explosions is best.

Sorry OT alert.

I'm not too sure why you consider it going into "uncharted and dangerous territory"? India/BARC/Navy already have the S1 and the Arihant reactor running. Yes a reactor for an aircraft carrier will have to be much bigger and maybe we may need two reactors and there are issues with motion/vibrations. But the S1 experience is now, what? More than a decade? And by the time the reactor is actually built Arihant would have already been inducted into the Navy and valuable data would be available. We won't have the super efficient 50-year life-cycle reactors of the US navy with enriched uranium but the new reactor would surely be an improvement over S1 and S2.

It's still going to be long and painstaking process but hardly an ab initio design. Let's not underestimate our engineers IMO.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jun 2015 16:17

I don't know if CAD/CAM or autolay can produce results of a wind tunnel test or putting kaveri on one of the LCA and taking it to 50K feet at mach 1.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jun 2015 20:31

vina, A full size mockup allows the mind to see the clearances in 3-D. A 3D CAD program will not give you the understanding that you will hit your head against the bent I beam.
However 3D model allows analyzing more loads and environments than tests.

You need both

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 16 Jun 2015 22:39

Actually wouldn't an aircraft carrier nuclear propulsion unit have less size constraints comapred to that for an aircraft carrier. We already ahve S1 and S2 which were designed to fit into a submarine which ahs more constraints so building one for an AC should be easier isn't it ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 17 Jun 2015 13:00

Saw the Avro radar testbed in the air today. Was the new radome delivered? or Uttam ASEA being tested? Or routine flight onlee?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jun 2015 13:15

Could be the new radome!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Jun 2015 13:30

^^^ That is twice in two days. I think it is our own stuff they are testing.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Jun 2015 13:44

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago >>

* The good news. No window for Gripen exists any more. Discussions on long term development related partnership underway.
* Cobham has not yet delivered either the bolt on IFR pod or the quartz radome for the HAL Tejas program.
* HAL Tejas MK 1.5, 1A is definitely on the cards with improved defensive aids and other product improvement features.
* Will be produced in the 2018-22 time frame as the MK-II gets ready.
* December 2015 FOC for the HAL Tejas is shaky at best if the new radome and IFR capability are kept as 'must haves'

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Jun 2015 14:09

pankajs wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago >>

* The good news. No window for Gripen exists any more. Discussions on long term development related partnership underway.
* Cobham has not yet delivered either the bolt on IFR pod or the quartz radome for the HAL Tejas program.
* HAL Tejas MK 1.5, 1A is definitely on the cards with improved defensive aids and other product improvement features.
* Will be produced in the 2018-22 time frame as the MK-II gets ready.
* December 2015 FOC for the HAL Tejas is shaky at best if the new radome and IFR capability are kept as 'must haves'

This confirms that the radome flying test bed is testing our own stuff.

@SJha1618 is a crtical source of Indian mil info.

The LCA Mk II is now pushed to 2022 +. Me thinks all LCA++ developments including NLCA should be tracked in other thread and this thread should focus on LCA 'Tejas'.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jun 2015 16:41

looks like uttam has a long way to go if 1.5 is going to use EL2052 radar.
the israelis will smell a good opportunity to supply EL2052 for Mk2 also once they have the foot in door and try to overwhelm the 1.0 Uttam with features since they have a 10 year head start + access to US parts cots

I think we should also look to upscale the Uttam for fitment on the SU30 fleet. russian aesa promises much but might not be able to deliver, and its always better to control radars and EW both for quick changes and security pov. Su30 has a huge nose and carts the 750kg bars, so there is not much space constraints there.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jun 2015 19:15

It is okay to have EL 2052 and GE F414s..
It is not okay to have Uttam and Kaveri not match to these specs.

this data is so glaring and vivid! yet we can't pretty much do anything about it.
either accept a permanent dependency management or really kick-asses and get some reorganized team to deliver to the needs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2015 19:25

Uttam and Kaveri likes need to compete with themselves. Each iteration should be better than the previous. Since the user is captive one, such products should be protected at every step. Quantifyable progress and dates should be key along with capabilities.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jun 2015 19:43

SaiK wrote:It is okay to have EL 2052 and GE F414s..
It is not okay to have Uttam and Kaveri not match to these specs.

this data is so glaring and vivid! yet we can't pretty much do anything about it.
either accept a permanent dependency management or really kick-asses and get some reorganized team to deliver to the needs.

SaiK, The minimum criteria is Kaveri and Uttam have to work no? So lets not go there. Once they work we can discuss them as upgrades etc.

Saurav Jha replied to my question on Cobham deliveries and said he would post good news I didn't check my phone. So guess the good news is
- Gripen is out as LCA replacement.
- LCA Mk1.5 and 2 on track.

However LCA FOC is in jeopardy if IFR and new radome are at risk.

I think HAL/ADA should try the BMI infused quartz fiber radome on their own. Its a resin change. they already make quartz fiber with polyester resin radome. I guess RF transparency at EL-2052 frequencies is not enough for polyester resin matrix. But how do we know BM I resin matrix will be good enough?
Need to make coupons and test them.

IFR should be a must as LCA will become four legged lynx (short range)

And IFR has nothing to do with radome mfg pangs at Cobham.

I would think Gun trials and IFR with local radome can be LCA MK1.25.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jun 2015 19:52

Singha wrote:looks like uttam has a long way to go if 1.5 is going to use EL2052 radar.
the israelis will smell a good opportunity to supply EL2052 for Mk2 also once they have the foot in door and try to overwhelm the 1.0 Uttam with features since they have a 10 year head start + access to US parts cots

I think we should also look to upscale the Uttam for fitment on the SU30 fleet. russian aesa promises much but might not be able to deliver, and its always better to control radars and EW both for quick changes and security pov. Su30 has a huge nose and carts the 750kg bars, so there is not much space constraints there.

IAF has indeed asked LRDE to consider Su-30 for Uttam as well.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Jun 2015 19:53

deejay wrote:
pankajs wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2h2 hours ago >>

* The good news. No window for Gripen exists any more. Discussions on long term development related partnership underway.
* Cobham has not yet delivered either the bolt on IFR pod or the quartz radome for the HAL Tejas program.
* HAL Tejas MK 1.5, 1A is definitely on the cards with improved defensive aids and other product improvement features.
* Will be produced in the 2018-22 time frame as the MK-II gets ready.
* December 2015 FOC for the HAL Tejas is shaky at best if the new radome and IFR capability are kept as 'must haves'
This confirms that the radome flying test bed is testing our own stuff.

@SJha1618 is a crtical source of Indian mil info.

The LCA Mk II is now pushed to 2022 +. Me thinks all LCA++ developments including NLCA should be tracked in other thread and this thread should focus on LCA 'Tejas'.

Looks like it. Will the LCA be relevant in the mid to late 20's? Pumping out the numbers will take even longer.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 17 Jun 2015 20:17

vina wrote:The part about a full scale mock up isn't done any more , except for automobile styling studios etc, where the clay model is still done , but the drafting is cad cam anyways for engg design. Not done for commercial airplanes for eg. CATIA rules!

Lot of 3-D printing these days.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Jun 2015 20:18

But what is the issue in starting LCA production now (since we are way short on numbers) with no IFR and best radome and retrofit them once it becomes available?

The Radome fit should be easy. The IFR if it does not work (or has issues), will be a tricky one. That will delay the program by years (design change etc). So IAF to make up for numbers can live with limited non IFR LCA (it lived with 18 SU30K, going to live with some 36 Rafale, or lived with only 40 Mirage 2000, small numbers have not been an isssue in the past). These planes can do CAP over interior airfields or airfields in NE or do short range bombing, relieving longer legged birds for harder tasks?

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Jun 2015 20:47

fanne wrote:But what is the issue in starting LCA production now (since we are way short on numbers) with no IFR and best radome and retrofit them once it becomes available?

The Radome fit should be easy. The IFR if it does not work (or has issues), will be a tricky one. That will delay the program by years (design change etc). So IAF to make up for numbers can live with limited non IFR LCA (it lived with 18 SU30K, going to live with some 36 Rafale, or lived with only 40 Mirage 2000, small numbers have not been an isssue in the past). These planes can do CAP over interior airfields or airfields in NE or do short range bombing, relieving longer legged birds for harder tasks?

Well ... if the IAF has use for the MiG-21/27s then the range of LCA without IFR should be ok too. IFR and Quartz cone can be retrofitted later on. No reason to delay LCA FOC and production. Once inducted aircrafts continually undergo upgrades. So it should be with the LCA. Go with what it has now and upgrade in due time.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Jun 2015 20:58

First 20 Tejas in IOC 2 config only. Once those come out only then do we need FOC aircraft. Till we produce the first 20, there is time for FOC to happen. As of now SP2 is to be delivered and then 18 more. I don't think the first 20 will come before 2017 end. After that at least two more years for the next 20 in FOC config.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Jun 2015 22:01

LCA MK2 may take years to be in production, in the meantime, after the 40 birds are manufactured, more LCA mk1 (or 1.5 which is nothing but mk 1 with uttam and some internal jammers, if engine can push out that extra power) should be ordered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jun 2015 22:02

If IFR is a drop I replacement from Cobham along with new radome, the current airframe with EL radar should be moving all along in the factory.
That leaves the Derby proofing and gun firing trials as big milestones.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 17 Jun 2015 22:31

Does anyone know if the internal plumbing to connect the bolt-on IFR probe is in place? I couldn't find any concrete news on that, and this is the closest bit I came across:

The Radiance of Tejas: A bright prospect for 'Make in India' - Saurav Jha

<snip> says Dr Tamilmani . He also says that adding the probe itself and flying it is not an issue since it has already been integrated on the hi-fidelity Tejas simulator developed by DRDO's Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and has even been flown by test-pilots on it.

He says it's not an issue, so I am inclined to think the plumbing is in place, and only the probe needs to be 'bolted-on' and tested. It would be nice to have an explicit confirmation though, so the Tejas' nay-sayers can be countered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jun 2015 22:33

arshyam, How about the cutaway diagram posted earlier? It might show the details.

Link:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4035/escaneo001.jpg

Image shows #3 is detachable fueling probe. So its plumbed with the fueling system.

Dr. Tamilmani comments show test pilots are trained to use the fueling probe.

Meanwhile should we have a thread to track the Paris Air Show?

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 17 Jun 2015 22:45

Ramana sir, thanks! I will take a look, but a cursory glance shows a forward fuselage fuel tank at #34, that's closest to the probe. I am guessing the plumbing's there.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jun 2015 22:51

arshyam wrote:Ramana sir, thanks! I will take a look, but a cursory glance shows a forward fuselage fuel tank at #34, that's closest to the probe. I am guessing the plumbing's there.

It will and should have additional plumbing to transfer the IFR fuel to other tanks also. No one will limit the IFR fuel to only one tank unless it is the main or only tank

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 17 Jun 2015 22:59

^^ Chetak saar, that's what I meant, should have been more clear. If there is a fuel tank in the forward fuse, it will usually be connected to the other tanks so all can be filled when refueling normally on the ground. Also, I understand it is important to have this connection in place so the fuel tanks are balanced from a weight perspective. So if the IFR is connected to the forward tank, it means the other tanks will be filled up through the same connection.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jun 2015 23:11

arshyam wrote:^^ Chetak saar, that's what I meant, should have been more clear. If there is a fuel tank in the forward fuse, it will usually be connected to the other tanks so all can be filled when refueling normally on the ground. Also, I understand it is important to have this connection in place so the fuel tanks are balanced from a weight perspective. So if the IFR is connected to the forward tank, it means the other tanks will be filled up through the same connection.

if there are multiple tanks, there will also be the ability to transfer fuel from one tank to another to balance the load and keep the CG under control. This can be either an auto or a manual system. such internal plumbing is usually left in situ with just the actual removable probe that can be fitted on per the mission profile.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jun 2015 23:46

chetak, So we agree that LCA has internal plumbing for the IFR?
Only shortcoming is delay in the delivery of IFR from Cobham and demonstration in flight.

Simulation is just that.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Jun 2015 00:13

ramana wrote:chetak, So we agree that LCA has internal plumbing for the IFR?
Only shortcoming is delay in the delivery of IFR from Cobham and demonstration in flight.

Simulation is just that.

It's normal to do the plumbing and then leave it in place. There must be other probes, that could be jugaded /adapted and available from the IAF or the IN on loan basis, if that is the only problem. Would they not like to standardize the probes across the IAF for western aircraft??

If the delays are long, getting a IFR probe on loan would be the best bet. Once the concept was proven on the LCA and tested, this, that or the other probe is just details.