LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2015 06:22

@Khalsa,

You seem to miss a point. The "order" is not meant to fill the IAF squadron numbers - although it will do that too.

It is meant to prevent a manufacturing line from sitting idle. And, its attendant problem/s.

Rest of what you say will continue irrespective. But absorption alone will not - cannot - help an idle line, which is equally crucial.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 Sep 2015 01:22

@NRao

no sir I do not advocate filling up numbers in the IAF to keep them at strength.
Infact when the article came out about the Tejas 1A ... i saw two glasses half full

Manufacturing and Design were honestly expressing its internal picture and how it could best fit.
I had suggested a win win for both parties and that is reassess the numbers ordered for Mk1 and use that assessment to influence for an order for the MK1A and MK2 and so on.

However the manufacturing has more to learn after the first squadron is inducted.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2015 02:13

Khalsa wrote:no sir I do not advocate filling up numbers in the IAF to keep them at strength.
Infact when the article came out about the Tejas 1A ... i saw two glasses half full

Why not? This is a force that will operate the MiG-27 to 2019, and the MiG-21 to 2023 (or later). Its truly flummoxing; how can it afford to be choosy? Especially since its adversaries are inducting a cumulative equivalent of five squadrons of 4 & 4.5 gen fighters annually.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 02:58

There is ideal and then there is reality

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2015 03:27

Like ideally, Pakis should have become 4 states or destroyed in 1965 itself.
Reality bites!

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 Sep 2015 12:25

VivS

as srai said. There is ideal and there is reality.

I am reasonably frustrated at the time it took for the 3 squadrons of Mirage 2000 to become MMRCA and then languish for 5 + years and then die and then off the shelf purchase by the current prime minister.

So even if someone gave you the go ahead to fill the IAF with replacement aircraft it will become whatever Mirage 2000 became....

Thus its time induct the Tejas and use the initial experience as a feedback loop for the manufacturing, supply chains, tactics, l I guess I am saying ... lifecycle stakeholders to become active and ramping up for what should be the backbone of the Indian Air Force over Indian Skies.

The last thing I want to hear is the squadrons have been grounded like the Arjun Mk1.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Sep 2015 21:58

Some tweets from @SJha1618 twitter TL from today afternoon

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 23m23 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The LCA Mk-1 blueprints are frozen.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 25m25 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
There is now nothing that can get in the way of LCA Mk-1 certification. So ADA has to meet said timelines.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Sep 2015 06:51

What does the tweet mean

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 06 Sep 2015 07:18

Now HAL can say we need four years to turn out next LCA after blue prints are frozen. So SP-2 will be called SP-2020.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Sep 2015 13:06

^^^

Hard to produce mass to a standard specification if the blueprints aren't frozen. Otherwise you are hand building each one with variations.

BTW, worldwide standard is around 36-months from order to first lot delivery from active production lines. You have to remember that there are hundreds of suppliers and sub-suppliers involved. They all need lead times to procure raw materials, retool machinery, increase trained manpower, expand factory, finance loans, etc to meet x number of parts per y timeframe. All of these need to get to the final assembly line at the vertical integrator's facility at the right time. Any one of these suppliers could delay the production if they don't deliver on time or up to specifications. All these things take time to iron out. But once that is done things can be scaled up. That's why it's important to keep production lines humming along even if it is at low rate production.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 09 Sep 2015 03:45

All quite at lca front?

member_28482 · Post by **member_28482** » 09 Sep 2015 12:53

^^^^ Kuch to pak raha hai..

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 09 Sep 2015 13:43

fanne wrote:All quite at lca front?

Stealth capability being tested. Working quite well. Ok bad joke.

But long time no news for sure

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Sep 2015 22:26

2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

CFD results showing Canopy shape optimization - shows why we see bulged canopy in LCA.
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... rcraft.pdf

Supersonic drope tank optimization:
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... eneric.pdf

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Sep 2015 22:29

Nilesh, you will live long. I was just thinking about you, and you landed with these gifts. Thank you!

nileshjr wrote:2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

CFD results showing Canopy shape optimization - shows why we see bulged canopy in LCA.
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... rcraft.pdf

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

And it looks better too. Many of us have always said that the Navy version looks better than the AF version. To me, this looks the best.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 09 Sep 2015 22:37

If Blue prints have been forzen it measn that the IFR probe and quartz radome issues have been fixed. Trials must be on now.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2015 02:23

Interesting, is that new canopy design in Mk1? It talks of a 6% improvement in supersonic wave drag, leading to a 20% improvement in acceleration and 2% increase in top speed.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Sep 2015 02:37

nileshjr wrote:2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

....

Supersonic drope tank optimization:
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... eneric.pdf

Supersonic tank is going to be 710LTR capacity carried on centerline pylon.

BR should keep these official study papers in its archive somewhere.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2015 03:04

srai wrote:
nileshjr wrote:2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

....

Supersonic drope tank optimization:
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... eneric.pdf
Supersonic tank is going to be 710LTR capacity carried on centerline pylon.

That is only the first step. They have done simulations on the stand alone tanks which points to their use in wing pylons. They also report ongoing research on even larger tanks.

srai wrote: BR should keep these official study papers in its archive somewhere.

We shouldn't. If they are hidden behind a copyright wall later, and BR publishes it openly, it will be violation of copyright. It is better to download and maintain your own copies.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2015 03:16

Karan M wrote:Interesting, is that new canopy design in Mk1? It talks of a 6% improvement in supersonic wave drag, leading to a 20% improvement in acceleration and 2% increase in top speed.

Ah, just saw this by Indranil.

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

If they do this for Mk1, it will be a huge thing. Fingers crossed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2015 03:34

Also if drawings are frozen the gun trials business is also over.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Sep 2015 03:38

indranilroy wrote:Nilesh, you will live long. I was just thinking about you, and you landed with these gifts. Thank you!

nileshjr wrote:2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

CFD results showing Canopy shape optimization - shows why we see bulged canopy in LCA.
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... rcraft.pdf
The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

And it looks better too. Many of us have always said that the Navy version looks better than the AF version. To me, this looks the best.

LCA Trainer seems to be close to the optimized shape in that study.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2015 03:40

Karan M wrote:
Karan M wrote:Interesting, is that new canopy design in Mk1? It talks of a 6% improvement in supersonic wave drag, leading to a 20% improvement in acceleration and 2% increase in top speed.
Ah, just saw this by Indranil.

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

If they do this for Mk1, it will be a huge thing. Fingers crossed.

I think it is for the Mk2 because this research is the follow-on work of the following paper: 6. Pathanjali R. J., Muralidhar Madhusudan, " Aerodynamic Improvement Studies in V4.8.2 of LCA AF Mk2", Aeronautical Development Agency, ADA/ARD&P/TN/061, 2015. They will also have to implement and test "the closed loop directional stability feedback control". However, nothing stops it from being incorporate into Mk1A.

This is phenomenal news actually: the power of incremental growth. If ADA keeps chipping away at it and IAF handholds this development, it will be a dream come true. 40 Mk1 orders are fine. Ask ADA-HAL to come up with a plan to absorb as many optimizations from Mk2 into the Mk-1A by 2018. Order 40 of them by 2017. What are we even thinking about? We are speaking of 10 LCAs at the price of one Rafale! A Gripen NG equivalent (when Mk2 comes out) at the price of a JF-17! Imagine the demand from outside! It sets a bedrock for AMCA within India and outside.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Sep 2015 04:02

^^^

IMO, Mk.1A, with a whole host of changes to external and internal design and avionics, should be done at MLU and not as a next production lot of 40 in 2018. There isn't enough time to get it ready for production by then. Probably best to order more Mk.1 in existing config with some LRUs upgraded.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2015 04:03

srai wrote: LCA Trainer seems to be close to the optimized shape in that study.

Happy accident, I would say. However, you bring up an interesting question.

The deterioration of CnBeta on the modified version should be even more pronounced in the trainer. If the control laws are yet to be developed, then it certainly does not exist on the current trainer. So, does the trainer have the same A2A limits as the AF fighter? I think not.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2015 04:05

indranilroy wrote:I think it is for the Mk2 because this research is the follow-on work of the following paper: 6. Pathanjali R. J., Muralidhar Madhusudan, " Aerodynamic Improvement Studies in V4.8.2 of LCA AF Mk2", Aeronautical Development Agency, ADA/ARD&P/TN/061, 2015. They will also have to implement and test "the closed loop directional stability feedback control". However, nothing stops it from being incorporate into Mk1A.

This is phenomenal news actually: the power of incremental growth. If ADA keeps chipping away at it and IAF handholds this development, it will be a dream come true. 40 Mk1 orders are fine. Ask ADA-HAL to come up with a plan to absorb as many optimizations from Mk2 into the Mk-1A by 2018. Order 40 of them by 2017. What are we even thinking about? We are speaking of 10 LCAs at the price of one Rafale! A Gripen NG equivalent (when Mk2 comes out) at the price of a JF-17! Imagine the demand from outside! It sets a bedrock for AMCA within India and outside.

Thanks Indranil. Hope the IAF understands this process and supports such measures and the program.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Sep 2015 06:29

These are cfd studies, theory. I did not hear that they even do a wind tunnel or real model test. It may or may not pan out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2015 06:47

If the CFD studies earlier map to current performance, then the above should pan out as well.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2015 14:53

@IR

I hope I live long enough to see all-Indian fleet in IAF/IA/IN across the whole aviation spectrum.

indranilroy wrote: I think it is for the Mk2 because this research is the follow-on work of the following paper: 6. Pathanjali R. J., Muralidhar Madhusudan, " Aerodynamic Improvement Studies in V4.8.2 of LCA AF Mk2", Aeronautical Development Agency, ADA/ARD&P/TN/061, 2015. They will also have to implement and test "the closed loop directional stability feedback control". However, nothing stops it from being incorporate into Mk1A.

This is phenomenal news actually: the power of incremental growth. If ADA keeps chipping away at it and IAF handholds this development, it will be a dream come true. 40 Mk1 orders are fine. Ask ADA-HAL to come up with a plan to absorb as many optimizations from Mk2 into the Mk-1A by 2018. Order 40 of them by 2017. What are we even thinking about? We are speaking of 10 LCAs at the price of one Rafale! A Gripen NG equivalent (when Mk2 comes out) at the price of a JF-17! Imagine the demand from outside! It sets a bedrock for AMCA within India and outside.

This seems to be a concept originated for NLCA and then brought over to the AF version. We will see many more of such aerodynamic fine tuning over the life of LCA. This is just a starting. We might one day have a F-16XL-esque version of LCA if we can spend some money on real RnD, which would pave way future. As you have already said above, Mk1 >> MK1A >> MK2 seems to be quite logical plan right now. Even HAL wants it, but it shouldn't be at the expense of delays in MK2.

Just thinking aloud: If 12 counts of drag = 6% reduction in baseline drag then total baseline drag coefficient = 0.02. From fig 8 in above paper, the wave drag built up is shown. If the difference in the two curves in 12 drag counts, we can figure out easily that the total wave drag is ~0.0150 in that figure. So 0.02-0.016 = 0.005 is the viscous drag. Sonce they said there is only a marginal change in subsonic drag. So this 0.004 value should be good for original as well as modified config.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Sep 2015 09:22

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

Well, the study is just for the Mk1. The MK2 is longer and the optimal area curve for that will be slightly different and anyways, that seems to have been taken care of via the side tanks along the fuselage sides and the "Whispers Ultra with Wings" tanks on the spine , that really buffs up the area around between the cockpit and the inlet nicely, taking care of any steps/breaks in the area curve.

This is a pretty decent fix for Mk1 and if they do the weight reduction in as HAL says it can do in the undercarriage and structures and also get in the AESA by taking out the ballast in the nose, then , we have a plane that will tick all the boxes in terms of requirements and will be a very very good plane ,even if it is called MK1A or whatever and the first batch of MK1 is MLUed into that.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Sep 2015 09:49

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 16 Sep 2015 13:15

Karan M wrote:
Karan M wrote:Interesting, is that new canopy design in Mk1? It talks of a 6% improvement in supersonic wave drag, leading to a 20% improvement in acceleration and 2% increase in top speed.
Ah, just saw this by Indranil.

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

If they do this for Mk1, it will be a huge thing. Fingers crossed.

This should lead to increase in fuel efficiency as well. It is said that there shall be an increase in fuel capacity by 50 lit. This together should increase the range marginally.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Sep 2015 00:14

vina wrote:
The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.
Well, the study is just for the Mk1. The MK2 is longer and the optimal area curve for that will be slightly different and anyways, that seems to have been taken care of via the side tanks along the fuselage sides and the "Whispers Ultra with Wings" tanks on the spine , that really buffs up the area around between the cockpit and the inlet nicely, taking care of any steps/breaks in the area curve.

This is a pretty decent fix for Mk1 and if they do the weight reduction in as HAL says it can do in the undercarriage and structures and also get in the AESA by taking out the ballast in the nose, then , we have a plane that will tick all the boxes in terms of requirements and will be a very very good plane ,even if it is called MK1A or whatever and the first batch of MK1 is MLUed into that.

This fix may work for the Mk1 as well. But, I have no doubts that these studies were done for the Mk2. The x-axis of many graphs in the paper show the length of the plane. It is 13.7 mtrs.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 17 Sep 2015 23:39

was visiting BLR and happened to pass through the road that houses LCA Tejas and NFTC buildings, was itching to stand with a board urging them to deliver SP2 and 3

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 18 Sep 2015 00:04

Actually I wanted to write similar post as hal promised it long tim back but then changed my mind as i know it is very tight walk ... so gave them some breathing space on it by ignoring the dates. Lets hope they do it sooner then later

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 29 Sep 2015 17:35

Time to put this thread back on the front page with this explosive........ hoping this takes offf...

India to induct Tejas Mark 1A fighter

(Edited to make it a URL)

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Sep 2015 17:36

SidSom wrote:Time to put this thread back on the front page with this explosive........ hoping this takes offf...

<url>http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite- ... ories</url>

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite- ... eststories

Written by Sudhi Ranjan Sen

NEW DELHI: At least seven squadrons of the indigenously-made Tejas Mark-1A will be inducted in the Indian Air Force to make up for the lack of fighters, despite its flaws. The aircraft continues to grapple with thrust issues, which restricts its weapon-carrying capabilities.

Top Defence Ministry sources have told NDTV that "The IAF needs to have a minimum number of aircraft at all times. Till the time indigenously-built Tejas Mark-2 is ready this is best option available." The IAF, it is learnt, has accepted the ministry's decision. Each squadron of the Tejas Mark-1A will have about 16 to 18 aircraft.

The Indian Air Force or IAF will be losing four squadrons of fighters - three MiG 21 squadrons and a MiG 27 squadron - this year and will be losing rest of the 10-odd squadrons of the vintage Russian-made MiGs in phases by 2022.

India is buying 32 Medium Multi Role fighters from France to make up for the lack of the fighters, but needs over 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and intercept oncoming enemy aircraft.

Production of the Tejas Mark-1A can start immediately from the existing manufacturing facilities of the Defence public sector unit Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL.

The Tejas Mark-2 or the improved version will not be ready for induction or series production before 2024-2025. Powered by the General Electric F404-GE-IN20 engine, the Tejas Mark-1A, is slightly more proficient than the current aircraft that is under series production, but continues to be marred with thrust issues. The Light Combat Aircraft MK-1 failed to meet the requirements of the IAF. Nonetheless, to keep the aircraft building programme alive, the IAF has agreed to buy 40 Tejas Mark-1.

Earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or CAG had pointed that Tejas Mark-1 had severe flaws and didn't meet many critical requirements of the IAF - these included limited "operational capabilities" besides being "overweight." The CAG report placed before houses of Parliament said "the LCA Mark-1 currently under development has shortfalls in meeting the engine thrust and other parameters such as weight of the aircraft, fuel capacity, pilot protection from front against 7.62 mm bullets."

The Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO and the HAL have promised to carry out changes that will make the Mark-1A more agile and more capable.

Sources told NDTV that changes will be made in the ballast and the landing gear making the Tejas Mark-1A about 1000 kilograms lighter from the current 6500 kilograms. Besides, Tejas Mark-1A would also be armed by Israeli made radars instead of the heavier but indigenously-made EL/M-2032 lightweight multi-mode radar.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 29 Sep 2015 17:37

JTull that was trigger happy

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Sep 2015 17:38

You said it was explosive, so I had to deliver it quickly, innit?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Sep 2015 17:51

^^^Reducing weight by 1,000 kg? And I think they're talking about the Israeli AESA Radar. Even if they manage to reduce about 400-500 kgs, it will be no mean achievement. Hope all this gets sorted out in double quick time.