LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Dec 2016 15:30

Source please of the ACM's comments. Great news otherwise.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Dec 2016 17:05

Indranil wrote:HAL has issued a few RFQs for LCA MK1A/Mk2:
1. SUPPLY OF MAIN WHEEL AND NOSE WHEEL TYRES FOR LCA MK2 AIRFORCE PROGRAMME
2. SUPPLY OF PROGRESSIVE PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE FOR LCA MK2 PROGRAMME

They are planning to begin construction of Mk2 prototypes in 2018-19 and series manufacture from about 2020. I have a feeling that they are also planning to fit some of these parts to the Mk1A. In one tenders the number of "anticipated orders" is set to 83+10(floating). Anyways, the service ceiling of the aircraft is being raised to 18 km from the current 15 km and at least the Mk2 will be 9G capable (stretchable to 10). The MTOW will be 15 Tons. Here's an interesting table.

Its confusing. It looks like MK1A SP is being referred to as MK2 SP. There is no way MK2 would have SP starting anytime around 2020. Else why would AF have gone for MK1A at all..?? Since MK1A itself is going to SP in 2020 or thereabout. The floating 10 nos could easily be cover for wastage or spares for MK1A itself and not necessarily for MK2 prototype. It does look like MK2 prototype will be made around 2018-19, but I don't see how this tender signifies that. To me they are just referring to MK1A. Its possible that they want commonality in MK1A and MK2 parts and thus issued higher specs of MK2 for MK1A parts as well..?

For the valve thing, it mentions altitude change of 150m/s. Is this Climb rate..??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2016 00:17

Yes, I was very confused too. I think they are now trying to get parts which they can use in both Mk2 and Mk1A.

The 150 m/s climb rate is the parameter for the test, not the capability of the aircraft.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 00:40

From the outgoing Air Chief...

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/813978202058067968

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Dec 2016 02:07

^"large numbers"! What exactly does that mean? 120 aircraft? 40? 200? 1000?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Dec 2016 02:23

123.

I had long ago predicted a move to heavier class fighters based on PLAAF evolution and cap on squadron size. IAF us doing it. But this 270 HCA, 250 MRCA, 120 LCA mix is going to be very expensive from even a sustainment mix. Thanks to preponderance of full imports plus twin engines. IAF needs to reduce a few MRCA squadrons and add them to the LCA side. Get more IAF input into a longer ranged, weighted up Mk2 against PAF theater it will be quite sufficient.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Dec 2016 03:34

^ Don't forget there will soon be a clamor for 5Gen birds once the PLAAF starts inducting their namesakes. What then? There are no light weight 5G birds, so will the IAF then add even more to the heavy (Pakfa/FGFA) and medium (JSF/AMCA) inventory? This is a fool's errand to being with. Don't know if it can be sustained. We are looking at:

126 LCA
250 (imported, MII MRCA)
270 (MKI)
126 (Pakfa/JSF)

85% twin engined/heavyish force

Ideally, it would be:
126 LCA Mk1 (FOC std)
126 MKIA
126 Mk2s (circa 2030, total 372).
156 odd MRCA (Fulcrums+M2Ks+Rafales).
270 MKI
100 FGFA

Will give them around 45+ sqds. 60% heavy/40% light and more balanced

A happy medium could be:
126 LCA MK1A)
126 LCA - FOC
270 MKIs
156 MRCA (Rafales/Shornets)
126 5Gen (Pakfa/JSF/AMCA)

70% heavy/ 30% light.

But one can hardly blame them in entirety. Unfortunately, the heavies have been the cheapest to procure so far. The mid range - M2K and Rafale have always been out of reach, and the low end has not been available. At this point the ideal scenario seems out of the question. I just hope they go with the happy medium - it will still mean 126 odd MII fighters, light (F-16) or medium (F-18).

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 29 Dec 2016 03:48

LCA in IAF will be

40 mk1+83mk1a+83mk2=206nos (10sq) say by 2032 @ max 16nos/year.

It seems they are standardizing tyres as well as other parts on both mk1a and mk2 to be of common standard.

10 optional mk1a may very well be for NLCAmk1 and NLCA mk2 is abandoned in favour of 57 nos twin engine NMMRCA.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 29 Dec 2016 04:05

My take on IAF 2032 will be:-

FGFA: 80 nos (4sq) post 2025 @12/year
MRCA: 144 nos (8sq) in 2020-32 period @12/year.(single engine)
Rafale: 36nos (2sq)
Su 30mki: 272nos (14sq)
LCA: 206 nos (10sq) @max 16/year.
Mirage 2000: 50 (2sq)
Jaguar upg: 40(2sq)
for a total of 42 sq.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2016 04:27

Karan M wrote:123.

I had long ago predicted a move to heavier class fighters based on PLAAF evolution and cap on squadron size. IAF us doing it. But this 270 HCA, 250 MRCA, 120 LCA mix is going to be very expensive from even a sustainment mix. Thanks to preponderance of full imports plus twin engines. IAF needs to reduce a few MRCA squadrons and add them to the LCA side. Get more IAF input into a longer ranged, weighted up Mk2 against PAF theater it will be quite sufficient.

Exactly!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 05:40

Cain Marko wrote:^"large numbers"! What exactly does that mean? 120 aircraft? 40? 200? 1000?

The only large numbers we have to go with is what the IAF recently ordered - 120 Mk.1As. That's it for now....till the Mk2 comes into service in the mid 2020s.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 06:45

India on Track to Unveil Most Advanced Version of Tejas LCA
https://sputniknews.com/military/201612 ... tejas-lca/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 06:46

Indranil Saar, please tell me this is true...

First prototype of Indian LCA-Tejas Mk2 fighter slated for 2018-19, serial production by 2020
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18056/ ... GRiLLYrJuU

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 06:48

Solar Power For LCA Tejas' Manufacturing Division Of HAL
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18050/ ... GRjQrYrJuU

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 06:59

Rakesh wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^"large numbers"! What exactly does that mean? 120 aircraft? 40? 200? 1000?
The only large numbers we have to go with is what the IAF recently ordered - 120 Mk.1As. That's it for now....till the Mk2 comes into service in the mid 2020s.

https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 5215977472

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2016 07:16

Rakesh wrote:Indranil Saar, please tell me this is true...

First prototype of Indian LCA-Tejas Mk2 fighter slated for 2018-19, serial production by 2020
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18056/ ... GRiLLYrJuU

I hate to say it but a lot of reporters lurk around BR, read our posts and then write "reports" about it. We discussed the RFQ when it came out, on this very thread.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Dec 2016 08:05

It improves quality of news reports no?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Dec 2016 08:06

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote: The only large numbers we have to go with is what the IAF recently ordered - 120 Mk.1As. That's it for now....till the Mk2 comes into service in the mid 2020s.
https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 5215977472

Thank you Saar, hopefully this increases once FOC birds start delivery.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2016 09:35

Saurabh Joshi ‏@

Raha on LCA: 'We have 3 aircraft now. Going to accept 123 aircraft. Lot of improvements in the Tejas Mk 1A'

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 30 Dec 2016 11:59

✈Anantha Krishnan M ✈ ‏@writetake 2h2 hours ago
Just In : ADA boss Cmde C D Balaji (Retd) flew #Tejas yesterday. He becomes the first Tejas chief to fly the jet.

✈Anantha Krishnan M ✈ ‏@writetake 2h2 hours ago
Cmde C D Balaji (Retd), 3rd from left with NFTC and ADA Test Pilots soon after his maiden flight on #Tejas.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Dec 2016 12:05

Shouldn't it be 'flew in Tejas' than flying the Tejas? IIRC, Cmd Balaji is from engineering stream.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 31 Dec 2016 04:01

Aircraft carrier version of Tejas still alive, despite navy opposition

ADA intends to customise it into a naval fighter in Phase-2, which has been allocated Rs 1,921 crore. Like the IAF version, this will involve comprehensive redesign, including replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a more powerful F-414 engine. But other important changes will optimise the fighter for carrier operations. Weight will be shaved off the undercarriage, which will be accommodated inside a lengthened wing, freeing up space in the centre fuselage for an additional 700 litres of fuel. This will give the fighter an extra 20-25 minutes of flight endurance. In addition, the tail hook will be engineered afresh.

Only 700 litres fuel increase? Maybe not counting the fuel increase in enlarged wing?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 31 Dec 2016 07:42

sankum wrote:Aircraft carrier version of Tejas still alive, despite navy opposition

ADA intends to customise it into a naval fighter in Phase-2, which has been allocated Rs 1,921 crore. Like the IAF version, this will involve comprehensive redesign, including replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a more powerful F-414 engine. But other important changes will optimise the fighter for carrier operations. Weight will be shaved off the undercarriage, which will be accommodated inside a lengthened wing, freeing up space in the centre fuselage for an additional 700 litres of fuel. This will give the fighter an extra 20-25 minutes of flight endurance. In addition, the tail hook will be engineered afresh.
Only 700 litres fuel increase? Maybe not counting the fuel increase in enlarged wing?

700 litres is only? It's a massive amount for a single engine fighter. Jacks up tejas fuel capacity to eph solah levels.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Dec 2016 08:34

Thakur_B wrote:700 litres is only? It's a massive amount for a single engine fighter. Jacks up tejas fuel capacity to eph solah levels.

I think Sankum was thinking more in terms of the Gripen E which reportedly packs an additional 1500L (over the C/D).

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Dec 2016 09:46

Ah, i don't think gripen actually prints what the 40% extra number in total is. They seem to tout 40% more from some undisclosed number. I really think they are saying 40% more from the Jas 39 B/D number which is 2852 liters (not kgs) and 40% more from that is only 1141 liters extra which comes to 3992 liters.

LCAs current number is at 2458 kgs, which is
1.266 (avg value dependent on temp) * 2458 = 3112 liters
700 extra liters in central fuselage puts us at 3812 liters.

If they manage to put extra in the wings, it will exceed the Gripen numbers quite comfortably.

Internal fuel for F16 seems to be 2685 kgs The version and pic from lockheed suggests lower fuel capacity on later models. The CFT's probably sold for lot extra as options

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f ... tions.html

LCA in the current form seems to be similar in fuel capacity as f-16. f-16 carries a lot more in the CFT and external pods though.

Another data point from USAF page. It does not break down into different versions. Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms/~3978 liters); typical capacity, 12,000 pounds with two external tanks (5443 kilograms)
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... alcon.aspx

This article suggests that USAF does not use CFTs at all. Export customers only.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-do ... 1712746714

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Dec 2016 09:53

Makes sense. Thanks.

Internal fuel for F16 seems to be 2685 kgs http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f ... tions.html

That's for the two seat variant. The F-16C is ~3250 kg internal.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Dec 2016 10:14

Viv S wrote:Makes sense. Thanks.
Internal fuel for F16 seems to be 2685 kgs http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f ... tions.html
That's for the two seat variant. The F-16C is ~3250 kg internal.

Thats a single seat plane in that lockheed martin site. You could be right, that's why I choose USAF/LM data point to make comparison.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Dec 2016 11:38

Not sure how many are interested, but this document lists all the certifications the FA 18 E/F planned to undertake and the number of flights required for each after redesign from C/D version (main purpose is to calculate risk, but lets forget that for a moment, I like the table). We talk about these things in abstract, so here is a good link. The table (Table 1. Projected requirements for the F/A-18 E/F flight test program) that I am referring to is on page number 35 of the article (actual page 3 of 17 on the pdf)

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Dec 2016 11:44

Cybaru wrote:Not sure how many are interested, but this document lists all the certifications the FA 18 E/F planned to undertake and the number of flights required for each after redesign from C/D version (main purpose is to calculate risk, but lets forget that for a moment, I like the table). We talk about these things in abstract, so here is a good link. The table (Table 1. Projected requirements for the F/A-18 E/F flight test program) that I am referring to is on page number 35 of the article (actual page 3 of 17 on the pdf)

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf

You, Sir, are a gem! Thank you. Owe you a chilled one if you land up close to HAL.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Jan 2017 09:37

Aircraft carrier version of Tejas still alive, despite navy opposition
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2016/12/a ... still.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2017 14:16

So many ifs and buts before a naval Tejas arrives and when it does,its performance will surely be below what the IN will want 5 years hence! Given the increased requirements expected from frontline naval aircraft,a twin-engined variant is the best solution giving extra range,TO paylaod,combat capability,etc. The safest solution would be (if Tejas is to be eventually dumped) ,would be an upgraded 29K,to 35 std, with AESA radar,newer missiles,stealth,TVC,etc.Compatability would be cost-effective. Tejas could still arrive in naval colours if the ADA develops a two-seat trainer. This requiremnt sadly has been in the back seats ,as Tejas would make a great advanced combat capable trainer for many air forces apart from India.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Jan 2017 15:01

Philip wrote:So many ifs and buts before a naval Tejas arrives and when it does,its performance will surely be below what the IN will want 5 years hence!

They will change the goal post? Indian Navy that is?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Jan 2017 15:28

Cybaru wrote:Not sure how many are interested, but this document lists all the certifications the FA 18 E/F planned to undertake and the number of flights required for each after redesign from C/D version (main purpose is to calculate risk, but lets forget that for a moment, I like the table). We talk about these things in abstract, so here is a good link. The table (Table 1. Projected requirements for the F/A-18 E/F flight test program) that I am referring to is on page number 35 of the article (actual page 3 of 17 on the pdf)

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf

That's 1839 Flights in total and a 3-yr Test Program..!!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 02 Jan 2017 17:19

In place of the rear brake parachute, can they not add a rocket motor for rocket assisted takeoff from carrier on a full load for the naval LCA?

A lot simpler than EMALS or steam catapults in the deck.

Is it practical and how much more thrust could be expected?

C-130s use a bunch of these to takeoff when overloaded on a short runway.

–-----

The U.S. Air Force Thought About Bringing Back This Crazy C-130

https://medium.com/@warisboring/the-u-s ... .8h5vdis2d

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Jan 2017 17:36

JayS wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Not sure how many are interested, but this document lists all the certifications the FA 18 E/F planned to undertake and the number of flights required for each after redesign from C/D version (main purpose is to calculate risk, but lets forget that for a moment, I like the table). We talk about these things in abstract, so here is a good link. The table (Table 1. Projected requirements for the F/A-18 E/F flight test program) that I am referring to is on page number 35 of the article (actual page 3 of 17 on the pdf)

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf
That's 1839 Flights in total and a 3-yr Test Program..!!

Another interesting data point from this article:

The second evaluation addressed the FT-55 ground
test for the VTA. This test was designed to measure the
expected fatigue life of the F/A-18 E/F VTA. The FT-
55 test requires almost 2 years to complete; it is the most
expensive ground test in the F/A-18 E/F Program.

Reference is - We have had CAG pulling up HAL for not performing Fatigue testing of LCA Aero-structure in 2012.

The article has interesting stories on some practical issues faced during development of F/A 18.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jan 2017 02:29

Marten wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Not sure how many are interested, but this document lists all the certifications the FA 18 E/F planned to undertake and the number of flights required for each after redesign from C/D version (main purpose is to calculate risk, but lets forget that for a moment, I like the table). We talk about these things in abstract, so here is a good link. The table (Table 1. Projected requirements for the F/A-18 E/F flight test program) that I am referring to is on page number 35 of the article (actual page 3 of 17 on the pdf)

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf
You, Sir, are a gem! Thank you. Owe you a chilled one if you land up close to HAL.

Anytime, I have been taught never to turn down a chilled one..

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jan 2017 05:32

Following that report here is another one for F-35. It gives uptime during IOC and development phases. Looks pretty dismal from the report. I am sure some will need to justify those numbers, but really this is to show that shiny new platforms go through ups and downs everywhere. The complexity is testing is just gynormous. The number of tests, the myriad subsystems and the teams required to undergo and test each one is just mind boggling.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Report.pdf

"Block 3F developmental flight testing began in March 2015, 11 months later than the date planned by the program after restructuring in 2012, as reflected in the IMS. Progress has been limited (fl ight testing has accomplished approximately 12 percent of the Block 3F baseline test points as of the end of November) as the program focused on closing out Block 3i testing and providing a software version suitable to support plans for the Air Force to declare IOC in August 2016.
• The current schedule to complete System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and enter IOT&E by August 2017 is unrealistic.
- Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date refl ected in the most recent Program Offi ce schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD fl ight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not fi nish Block 3F development and fl ight testing prior to January 2018, an estimate based on the following
assumptions:"

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jan 2017 06:05

Cybaru wrote:Following that report here is another one for F-35. It gives uptime during IOC and development phases. Looks pretty dismal from the report. I am sure some will need to justify those numbers, but really this is to show that shiny new platforms go through ups and downs everywhere. The complexity is testing is just gynormous. The number of tests, the myriad subsystems and the teams required to undergo and test each one is just mind boggling.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Report.pdf

"Block 3F developmental flight testing began in March 2015, 11 months later than the date planned by the program after restructuring in 2012, as reflected in the IMS. Progress has been limited (fl ight testing has accomplished approximately 12 percent of the Block 3F baseline test points as of the end of November) as the program focused on closing out Block 3i testing and providing a software version suitable to support plans for the Air Force to declare IOC in August 2016.
• The current schedule to complete System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and enter IOT&E by August 2017 is unrealistic.
- Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date refl ected in the most recent Program Offi ce schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD fl ight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not fi nish Block 3F development and fl ight testing prior to January 2018, an estimate based on the following
assumptions:"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2096357#p2096357

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 03 Jan 2017 17:17

ET Defence ‏@ETDefence 15m15 minutes ago
.@manoharparrikar keeps option of LCA mk 2 open, says will think of it on 2024-25.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Jan 2017 18:06

^^ Bunch of Tweets by Manu Pabby on MP statements. Is there any video exists for these statements from MP..??

According to Manu Pabby tweets, There will be no production NLCA. Its only a TD. Navy wants only twin engine jet.

There will be one more single engine jet production line in India along with LCA. Decision this year. Decision on twin engine jet would be next year. LCA MK2 will be considered in 2024-25.

The way MP has been saying these things consistently for last 3yrs, I am thinking, We *will* have both teens being bought and screw-drivered in India.

My only hope is those RFI go the MMRCA way and get delayed (sorry but I am just frustrated) until LCA Mk2 gets ready. Because if teens come, there is very slim chances LCA MK2 will be ordered at all.