LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Feb 2017 03:43

Enough of this. I'd suggest you desist from derailing this thread any further.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2017 03:48

Please use this only for LCA thread. Can we do clean up here admins?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Feb 2017 03:52

As for the Bhopal event, regarding the water ingress into the cockpit of the Tejas, this was discussed on BRF

link to vernacular newspaper

ATC did not give permission to take off, due to bad weather. Not that the Tejas could not take off in bad weather.

As quoted by sanjayc back then- link to BRF discussion

Tejas suffered a tecnical fault in Bhopal during take off and couldn't depart for Bangalore.

The aircraft returned from the runway back to the airport. It had arrived in Bhopal on Tuesday and had to leave same afternoon to Bangalore. However, due to inclement weather, it was not give permission to fly by the ATC. It was thereafter decided that the plane will leave the next day.

On Wed, when it began running on the runway, its engine developed a fault. It was immedaiately brought to the old airport and a team of engineers from airforce was called. The engineers said the fault could be recitifed only by late night. The plane will now take off for Bangalore on Thu morning.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2017 04:04

Nirav, many have reported you. But, I have turned a blind eye just because I want to allow everybody to speak. I have also politely hinted that your posts show your ignorance much more than your knowledge. But looks like you can't or don't pick up polite hints. I am going to scrutinize your posts from here on and will not shy away from showing how hollow your vessel is. So do post carefully.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Feb 2017 04:14

Indranil wrote:Nirav, many have reported you. But, I have turned a blind eye just because I want to allow everybody to speak. I have also politely hinted that your posts show your ignorance much more than your knowledge. But looks like you can't or don't pick up polite hints. I am going to scrutinize your posts from here on and will not shy away from showing how hollow your vessel is. So do post carefully.

Dear Indranil,

As a moderator I will trust your judgement.i know you will be fair.
I encourage you to examine my posts in here in detail and in context.

All I've been saying is, IAF can't be blamed in entirety and called nAmes in perpetuity.
I've also highlighted the delay in necessary clearances for the LCA.

I've received incredible amount of abuse for the same.
I trust you will scrutinize those posts/posters as well.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2017 05:14

tsarkar sahab,

I can understand an ignorant reporter in Bhopal having no idea of fighter aircraft testing, drawing his own conclusions and sensationalizing a breaking news. But I did not expect a seasoned poster like yourself to use this senseless news item just to win an argument.

Do you not know that Tejas has gone through intense testing for water seepage. And it is not about a wet seat and a cockpit. The old radome did not pass the seepage test. It was changed. Every panels, ram and ECU air intake has been tested as an unit and then on the plane as a whole against allowable amount of water ingress. And yes torrential downpour has been simulated even on the prototypes. Because nobody wants to lose the test article or their pilots. The entire fleet has been grounded numerous times at the slightest hint of a risk. Yes the product is late, but you can be damn sure that it has passed all tests that any IAF fighter has been put through and more.

Here is a picture of LCA undergoing wet runway test.

I will try to dig out the picture of the over water ingress tests as well. But here's a picture of the welcoming ceremony of SP1 into the flying daggers.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Feb 2017 05:15

Updates from NAL Director's report for 2015-2016.

A whole bunch of safety related features were added to the FCS. Automatic Low Speed Recovery (stall prevention), disorientation recovery and Critical Altitude Recovery (to prevent controlled flight into terrain).

World class safety standards, expected from a 4th generation fighter.

LCA Control laws updated to include advance features like Automatic Low Speed Recovery (ALSR).

ALSR scheme consists of low speed warnings (ALSR warnings) to the pilot and an ALSR FCS override.

It was designed and tested in Real Time Simulation and Iron Bird Test facilities at ADE and HAL.

Further updates to the Flight Control Laws of LCA Air Force were designed and tested through offline simulation studies.

This included incorporation of the Air-to-Air refueling mode and Gust Ride improvement features in the control laws.

The control law gains were fine tuned to meet the required performance in terms of normal accelerations (g's), angle-of-attack (AoA) and turn rates.

Critical altitude recovery (CAR) and disorientation recovery function (DRF) were other features that were also added to the flight control system.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2017 05:24

nirav wrote: As a moderator I will trust your judgement.i know you will be fair.
I encourage you to examine my posts in here in detail and in context.

That will only add to the unnecessary verbiage.

nirav wrote: I've received incredible amount of abuse for the same.
I trust you will scrutinize those posts/posters as well.

I know others have faltered as well. And that is why I feel it is wrong to act against you alone. But this has gone on for too long. And I am speaking to everybody here. If this unnecessary name-calling continues, I will have no problem to set aside my leniency.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 05:51

nirav wrote:instead of multi quote drama, quote my exact post where i have "lied" or take that accusation back.

Why should I take anything back? The rate at which you dissemble, it would take me the better part of my valuable time and effort to show your twattering for what it is.. its easier to note how many people noted your behavior.

Karan M wrote:
Where. Show one credible source.

This is the problem.You jump in into an ongoing discussion, take it out of context, post long assed BS and then ask for a "source".
But since you asked, im quoting the discussion that was going on in full.

My man.. do you even read? Marten says : If MoD simply sits on the negotiation, or in fact on the file during the evaluation process itself, what can IAF or HAL do about it? Other than this, there are risks associated with the late approval for line expansion.

Note the if. The bolded if. He made a presumption. He did not say MOD WAS doing this very thing. OTOH, heres what you stated - Uttam is coming, hence the part about MOD sitting on it is A-ok.

Dont you see the bloody difference?

One guy is bemoaning MOD slowness. You take that and make it into a yarn and then start taking it as true and even coming up with reasons which are linked to that yarn.

JayS wrote:
LOL they did exactly that. I am seeing news on HAL's proposal submitted to MoD since 2015 end. They have sat over countless other proposals over so many decades. Why is that so unimaginable..?? MP himself seems frustrated by the babus in MoD.

Note the humor. The sarcasm.

So when it was reported that LSP2 is slated for integration with UTTAM AESA, i wondered if thats the reason why MoD didnt go in for the foreign vendor AESA in a hurry and drop millions of dollars when they might have been in the know as to whats the EXACT status of the UTTAM AESA.

MK1A production has no chance of starting before 19-20. So if MoD have a sense that UTTAM AESA might be ready in time for equipping MK1A, it makes sense for them to sit on HALs foreign vendor AESA proposal and save up on a few hundred million dollars.

Dude, FFS before posting on BR take a break and go google up some random stuff about aircraft programs. Seriously, since at least that should help your statements. You will then realize how HARD making a fighter AESA is. Its the hardest trick to crack for proven vendors. This is Indias first FCR. Airborne. Do you seriously think it will be ready for Mk1A by 2018 and the MOD will sit on any proposal today because an UTTAM can be ready in just 2 years???

But in response, this is what you have to say.

So who exactly is running down a national program which is also on the cusp of maturing ?
you yourself are clearly being import pasand.

No, UTTAM is nowhere on the cusp of being mature. Use common sense. The LCA is on the cusp of entering service and it needs a radar and missile combination plus EW asap. That will take two three years to finalize on the aircraft too - just see the MMR qualification. Let alone UTTAM which will take development time plus integration time.

Now do you understand how out there your claims are when you talk about the LCA?

You neither understand the program, what goes into it, the depth of effort that is required who is required in what sequence.

You are unable to even grasp what a massive blow to the program the IAF dealt by not being associated with it. You dismissed this cavalierly. How is one supposed to make you get all this?

Karan M wrote:LOL so you think a radar which is yet to enter flight trials would cause MOD to sit on a vital program. And this is not a CT.

So who exactly is running down a national program which is also on the cusp of maturing ?
you yourself are clearly being import pasand.

Indranil saar has this to say about UTTAM AESA.

Indranil wrote:Integrating Uttam into LCA is a ADA/DRDO project. Integrating a ready to use AESA radar on the Mk1A is a HAL project.

And he is right. DRDO/LRDE need UTTAM for the AMCA. They need it for the future Mk2. HAL needs another more mature sytem today for Mk1A.

There are some great news on both fronts from AI-17.

1. I was pleasantly surprised that integration of Uttam into an airframe was only 1-2 years away. Also Uttam is not a completely new system. It leans heavily on the AEW&Cs AAAU unit.
2. There are now three competitors for the AESA-EW-jammer suite for Mk1A.
while I appreciate Indranils optimism, please be conservative. Having tracked Indian programs for decade+ now, one thing is for sure that our usually underfunded, understaffed programs don't overnight appear and suddenly whiz through trials. The UTTAM will take time before its fighter ready.
DAREs EW is also not ready.

this is exactly the saas bahu mentality i spoke about earlier.hows the above even relevant to the topic at hand ?

The above was in response to me asking a simple question, IAF was "unsupportive" and Navy was "supportive", what does the navy have to show for the support ?
be honest. you said navy ne kya ukhad liya. that was your language. own it
actually you mentioned the term qtiyapa and tools - given that, the fellows in pakdef will be glad to oblige you with the kind of mentality you so enjoy.

see nirav, the likes of you already have your mentality in the gutter, and seem to mistake civility and self restraint as some sort of invitation ad get sequentially obnoxious and aggressive. let me let you in ona little secret. if not for the sheer fact that i have restrained myself on this fora for ages and i wouldn't want to besmirch that, i could well speak to you in gutter level patois of saas-bahu, and similar BS.

so far i have been restrained. otherwise, i could get far far more creative.

aur kya. you ask obnoxiously, navy ne kya ukhad liya and got an answer in the same vein. so dont whine.

the navy got a TD which is now validating tech that can be used for the NLCA Mk2 and is available within India. thats invaluable given the disastrous MiG-29 experience.

you asked the question clearly with an intent to provoke and got an answer in the same vein.

Karan M wrote:navy has a chance to get a purpose designed operational NLCA Mk2 thanks to the TD LCA derived from the AF LCA. which is what happens when a program is joined late by its primary intended user which throws everything out of whack and soaks up any effort to do any super out of the box effort for the secondary partner.

Did navy ask for a "chance" of it asked for a carrier ops capable fighter jet ? When Vikrant needs to launch NLCA, but since its not available, will you tell them, hey the jet isnt here but you have a chance to get a purpose designed jet which will come.when we dont know, but atleast you have a chance.

so if NAVY buys foreign a/c to fulfill its operational needs since NLCA is not ready its okay .. they need the jets.
there you go with the smarmy rhetoric. navy joined the LCA program with the full knowledge it would not meet their primary requirements easily. it was to be an adjunct to the MiG-29k. read up sometime. once the Ge404 proved light for the task, it was the navy which asked for the Mk2. yu would have known this if you even bothered to know anything about the program. but no, off you come, and play tough guy asking "questions".

dude, you know eff all about the LCA, why are you even arguing?

IAF has time bound operational needs or not ? but no, at the drop of a hat, import pasand, and what not ... why dont you go to AHQ and hawk your "chance" theory to AF. Might just get the much needed GPL. Heck i think even Naval HQ would be quite swift in dishing out that GPL if you go and tell them they have a "chance" to get a fighter jet for all their investment of time,effort,energy and most importantly scarce capex money.

nirav the likes of you get GPL 24/7 both on the forum and off it. so spare us your proclivities. after all, it is the periodic GPL you got from rakesh et al as below, that made you so sore and cry so much.

nice no?

first, i didnt not need to go to AHQ or anywhere... the likes of you have never even met AHQ types so spare me your internet tuff guy BS of pretending to speak for them. same for the navy.

instead, do one thing. stand in front of the mirror, administer yourself a swift GPL and read up about the NLCA program and after that, go and find out what is the current condition of those oh so great MiG-29ks and you will understand why the IN is desparate for 57 new fighters. Little to do with the LCA. A lot to do with the earlier fighters it got saddled wth.

Rakesh was mean to me

and i note you didn't even have the gonads to tell Rakesh anything eh. because he is a former webmaster etc.

quite the sly operator eh nirav. trying all the internet tuff guy act where you can get away with it and all the lout talk.

portrays the real image quiet well though. some over exuberant kid in his twenties thinking he has it all figured out. so go on posturing, just dont expect anyone will take it with anythng but laughing at your antics.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Feb 2017 05:55

Karan M wrote:
nirav wrote:instead of multi quote drama, quote my exact post where i have "lied" or take that accusation back.
Why should I take anything back? The rate at which you dissemble, it would take me the better part of my valuable time and effort to show your twattering for what it is.. its easier to note how many people noted your behavior.

Karan M wrote:
Where. Show one credible source.

This is the problem.You jump in into an ongoing discussion, take it out of context, post long assed BS and then ask for a "source".
But since you asked, im quoting the discussion that was going on in full.

My man.. do you even read? Marten says : If MoD simply sits on the negotiation, or in fact on the file during the evaluation process itself, what can IAF or HAL do about it? Other than this, there are risks associated with the late approval for line expansion.

Note the if. The bolded if. He made a presumption. He did not say MOD WAS doing this very thing. OTOH, heres what you stated - Uttam is coming, hence the part about MOD sitting on it is A-ok.

Dont you see the bloody difference?

One guy is bemoaning MOD slowness. You take that and make it into a yarn and then start taking it as true and even coming up with reasons which are linked to that yarn.

JayS wrote:
LOL they did exactly that. I am seeing news on HAL's proposal submitted to MoD since 2015 end. They have sat over countless other proposals over so many decades. Why is that so unimaginable..?? MP himself seems frustrated by the babus in MoD.
Note the humor. The sarcasm.

So when it was reported that LSP2 is slated for integration with UTTAM AESA, i wondered if thats the reason why MoD didnt go in for the foreign vendor AESA in a hurry and drop millions of dollars when they might have been in the know as to whats the EXACT status of the UTTAM AESA.

MK1A production has no chance of starting before 19-20. So if MoD have a sense that UTTAM AESA might be ready in time for equipping MK1A, it makes sense for them to sit on HALs foreign vendor AESA proposal and save up on a few hundred million dollars.
Dude, FFS before posting on BR take a break and go google up some random stuff about aircraft programs. Seriously, since at least that should help your statements. You will then realize how HARD making a fighter AESA is. Its the hardest trick to crack for proven vendors. This is Indias first FCR. Airborne. Do you seriously think it will be ready for Mk1A by 2018 and the MOD will sit on any proposal today because an UTTAM can be ready in just 2 years???

But in response, this is what you have to say.

So who exactly is running down a national program which is also on the cusp of maturing ?
you yourself are clearly being import pasand.
No, UTTAM is nowhere on the cusp of being mature. Use common sense. The LCA is on the cusp of entering service and it needs a radar and missile combination plus EW asap. That will take two three years to finalize on the aircraft too - just see the MMR qualification. Let alone UTTAM which will take development time plus integration time.

Now do you understand how out there your claims are when you talk about the LCA?

You neither understand the program, what goes into it, the depth of effort that is required who is required in what sequence.

You are unable to even grasp what a massive blow to the program the IAF dealt by not being associated with it. You dismissed this cavalierly. How is one supposed to make you get all this?

Indranil saar has this to say about UTTAM AESA.

And he is right. DRDO/LRDE need UTTAM for the AMCA. They need it for the future Mk2. HAL needs another more mature sytem today for Mk1A.

Errr.. while I appreciate Indranils optimism, please be conservative. Having tracked Indian programs for decade+ now, one thing is for sure that our usually underfunded, understaffed programs don't overnight appear and suddenly whiz through trials. The UTTAM will take time before its fighter ready.

actually you mentioned the term qtiyapa and tools - given that, the fellows in pakdef will be glad to oblige you with the kind of mentality you so enjoy.

see nirav, the likes of you already have your mentality in the gutter, and seem to mistake civility and self restraint as some sort of invitation ad get sequentially obnoxious and aggressive. let me let you in ona little secret. if not for the sheer fact that i have restrained myself on this fora for ages and i wouldn't want to besmirch that, i could well speak to you in gutter level patois of saas-bahu, and similar BS.

so far i have been restrained. otherwise, i could get far far more creative.

aur kya. you ask obnoxiously, navy ne kya ukhad liya and got an answer in the same vein. so dont whine.

the navy got a TD which is now validating tech that can be used for the NLCA Mk2 and is available within India. thats invaluable given the disastrous MiG-29 experience.

you asked the question clearly with an intent to provoke and got an answer in the same vein.

there you go with the smarmy rhetoric. navy joined the LCA program with the full knowledge it would not meet their primary requirements easily. it was to be an adjunct to the MiG-29k. read up sometime. once the Ge404 proved light for the task, it was the navy which asked for the Mk2. yu would have known this if you even bothered to know anything about the program. but no, off you come, and play tough guy asking "questions".

dude, you know eff all about the LCA, why are you even arguing?

nirav the likes of you get GPL 24/7 both on the forum and off it. so spare us your proclivities. after all, it is the periodic GPL you got from rakesh et al as below, that made you so sore and cry so much.

nice no?

first, i didnt not need to go to AHQ or anywhere... the likes of you have never even met AHQ types so spare me your internet tuff guy BS of pretending to speak for them. same for the navy.

instead, do one thing. stand in front of the mirror, administer yourself a swift GPL and read up about the NLCA program and after that, go and find out what is the current condition of those oh so great MiG-29ks and you will understand why the IN is desparate for 57 new fighters. Little to do with the LCA. A lot to do with the earlier fighters it got saddled wth.

and i note you didn't even have the gonads to tell Rakesh anything eh. because he is a former webmaster etc.

quite the sly operator eh nirav. trying all the internet tuff guy act where you can get away with it and all the lout talk.

portrays the real image quiet well though. some over exuberant kid in his twenties thinking he has it all figured out. so go on posturing, just dont expect anyone will take it with anythng but laughing at your antics.

Indranil Saar,
Permission to respond to this ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 05:57

Are go on nirav, why the sudden fear? after all, forum members are qtiyas, tools, saas bahu mentality, uber fanbois, GPL etc.

there is no gutter you have not already dredged and covered yourself with, so why the sudden bashfulness? is it sudden fear? after going on record?

heres the deal though. make any more such comments and you wll be responded to in equal vein. dont go complaining after that.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Feb 2017 06:00

Karan M wrote:Are go on nirav, why the sudden fear? after all, forum members are qtiyas, tools, saas bahu mentality, uber fanbois, GPL etc.

there is no gutter you have not already dredged and covered yourself with, so why the sudden bashfulness? is it sudden fear? after going on record?

heres the deal though. make any more such comments and you wll be responded to in equal vein. dont go complaining after that.

And this too.

I do respect Indranil, not you though.
He's asked to cease and desist, you obviously can't.
I'll most certainly respond, once I get the go ahead.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 16 Feb 2017 06:11

@livefist: So, the first 2 @GEAviation F414 engines for the LCA Tejas Mk.2 arrived earlier this month. 8 ordered.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/revealed-the-indian-lca-navys-big-fight-back.html … #AeroIndia2017

It's great that two engines have arrived!

Two GE F414 engines — one for the AF prototype and one for the LCA Navy — arrived earlier this month, the first batch of eight engines contracted from GE for the Mk.2 programme. That the LCA Navy will be a more powerful combat jet is well known. What Livefist has now discovered from the team is that there are design and engineering improvements being effected on the LCA Navy Mk.2 that could prove deal-maker if they work out.

For starters, the team plans to move the wings outboard by about 350mm, increasing the space significantly between the fuselage and the wings. This would immediately optimise load transfer (the ADA has had weight issues with the landing gear) and free up the central fuselage for fuel. ‘We believe the change will free up space for up to 700 kg additional fuel, providing about 22 minutes of additional time on task,’ Balaji tells Livefist. That’s huge for the tactical envelope the LCA platform was developed for.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 06:16

Oh i ceased and desisted. And I really couldn't give a darn about your not respecting me. Seriously. What have you ever shown in this forum or elsewhere for your respect to matter a whit. I saw Indranils post right now and its perfectly fine and I have no interest in talking to you anyhow.

I merely pointed out to you, very politely, that this time around dont expect to get away with the kind of behavior you were exhibiting. Your gutter talk terminology is all on record now. So if folks respond to you in equal vein, it should be abundantly clear about he gutter talk responded to and your cries for moderator coverage should be seen for what they truly are.

There, done and dusted.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Feb 2017 06:20

Karan M wrote:Oh i ceased and desisted. And I really couldn't give a darn about your not respecting me. Seriously. What have you ever shown in this forum or elsewhere for your respect to matter a whit. I saw Indranils post right now and its perfectly fine and I have no interest in talking to you anyhow.

I merely pointed out to you, very politely, that this time around dont expect to get away with the kind of behavior you were exhibiting. Your gutter talk terminology is all on record now. So if folks respond to you in equal vein, it should be abundantly clear about he gutter talk responded to and your cries for moderator coverage should be seen for what they truly are.

There, done and dusted.

And this.
#somepoliteness #some.cease.and.desist

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 06:23

Oh absolutely. The truth, civilly. No need for gutter talk either. #Learn from it

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 06:28

This explains why there is telemetry on Tejas. Not because it is raw, but to constantly improve.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/for-one- ... ke-1659843

In Bengaluru, a team of dedicated flight test engineers and pilots operating state-of-the-art telemetry systems (these process and record data from different instruments) map every sortie flown by the Tejas at the National Flight Test Center. That's because lessons are learnt real-time and software fixes are incorporated to refine the jet. Yes, 33 years and 7,400 crores after it was green-lit, India's first home-made fighter-jet is still "under development" but as I have learned, that's not because it's incomplete. It's just getting better.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2017 06:31

Every Tejas flight is effectively a test flight and this approach was portrayed as being equal to Tejas being unready. Not so. Clearly, the FCS operates in batch releases and the telemetry is for constant data capture throughout the program. The combat units wont have space for telemetry, so it will make sense for ASTE or NFTC to continue to have a few Tejas and keep them flying throughout.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Feb 2017 06:34

Vast difference between needing telemetry support to fly pre IOC to using telemetry to capture data.

Sh.Arup Rahas flight had telemetry too for monitoring..

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Feb 2017 07:08

Karan M wrote:Every Tejas flight is effectively a test flight and this approach was portrayed as being equal to Tejas being unready. Not so. Clearly, the FCS operates in batch releases and the telemetry is for constant data capture throughout the program. The combat units wont have space for telemetry, so it will make sense for ASTE or NFTC to continue to have a few Tejas and keep them flying throughout.

You are wasting your breath posting facts and logic. You are dealing with a bunch of trolls here, some like the utterly ignorant, dishonest and name calling, former uniformed guy who blusters like a blunderbuss, and then you have the other guy who is probably a pimply faced punk , who is dumber than a bag of stones , but a rather loud mouth.

Look at the "stretchable" logic. When you point out that the M2K was simply unusable in combat when it was "inducted" (no weapons..) and that it came to full capability probably a full half decade later , the logic changes to "flight envelope" .. yeah, fat lot of good pulling 9Gs with no weapons is going to do for you in a combat , or when the Su-30 is pointed for lack of full capabilities, we are given some random photo of it carrying a boat load of bombs.. yeah, sure, the pilot is going to use his eye balls MK1 and drop the weapons physically like in WW1 and while for the "freshly inducted" M2K will just like in WW1, the pilot delicately cocks the Lewis gun in the Puss Moth, wraps his very high end Hermes scarf tighter(costs more than the WWI plane I assure you, I do hope the French gave it free with the M2K) , draws a bead and pulls the trigger at a target beyond his visual range.

You ask them, what gives, when you name call a far more complete LCA, you get some serious 'tude .. I learned to ignore these guys from earlier, just grin /grimace and put them in your ignore list. Not worth expending brain cpu cycles over. JMT.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 16 Feb 2017 07:29

Guys, I appreciate the time you put in your back and forth, but there are some of us who try to catch a quick Dekko at the threads for ai updates. We have to go through the haystack every time to find a needle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2017 07:33

tsarkar wrote: MiG-21 with Matra Magic 1

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.html

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.jpg

That is the Oocities archive of my Geocities site and the email associated with that site was the one I used to register with BRF

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2017 07:41

tsarkar wrote:
Weapon Envelope

The basis for an air-to-air kill is flying the aircraft to the firing parameters necessary to employ a selected weapon system successfully. Those parameters define the weapons envelope (Figure 3) in terms of range and angle off the tail (AOT—fighter position off the bandit’s tail). A weapons envelope around the bandit is three-dimensional and dynamic based upon fighter and bandit airspeed, altitude, g, and specific weapons capability. Firing from within the envelope greatly increases the probability of a kill (PK).The weapons firing envelopes for CNATRA are rear quarter envelopes only for snap guns, raking guns, tracking guns, and sidewinders (FOX-2). Figure 3 illustrates maximum and minimum ranges and angle off. The hot and cold sides are functions of angle off and bandit direction of turn (intercept geometry). The hot side refers to the area in the direction of turn relative to the bandit’s longitudinal axis. The cold side refers to the area away from the direction of turn. Hot and cold do not refer tothe heat source of the target; they are only a function of intercept geometry. The heart of the IR envelope is 1 nm at the bandit's six
The below envelope for Derby needs to be determined via flight testing and published to users.
.

Quting the earlier part of the same source document above:

ENGAGED/FREE FIGHTER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Anytime the section is engaged with a bandit, lead and wingman formation roles and responsibilities
are exchanged for engaged and free fighter tactical roles and responsibilities. The engaged fighter
is the fighter actively pursuing the bandit or forcing the bandit into a predictable flight path (offensive/
defensive). The free fighter is the fighter maneuvering to protect the engaged fighter and to obtain a
clear shot at the bandit.
Engaged Fighter
As the engaged fighter, your primary responsibility is to kill the bandit. To do this, you must keep the
bandit in sight and either attack him or defend against his attack. In either case, the engaged fighter
must force the bandit to maneuver hard enough to deplete his energy, thus making him predictable.
It is essential that you communicate with the free fighter to coordinate your tactics effectively.
Free Fighter
As the free fighter, you are also responsible for killing the bandit. Analyze the fight to predict the
bandit’s flight path and maneuver for a shot while maintaining sight of both the engaged fighter and
the bandit. Use descriptive comm to inform the engaged fighter of your position and directive comm
to provide tactical recommendations to target the bandit. The free fighter should constantly manage
his energy package.

How would test pilots of the Tejas determine the envelope for a missile unless the bandits and conditions are provided by the Air Force in a realistic scenario to aid such testing, or an untested plane is simple sent to war knowing that Pakistan (or someone) will provide the bandits?

No such envelope validation can occur in India without active involvement of the Air Force. The argument made here is a slur on the Air Force and not on the Tejas. It is a different story in the US

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 Feb 2017 07:59

Thakur_B wrote:Guys, I appreciate the time you put in your back and forth, but there are some of us who try to catch a quick Dekko at the threads for ai updates. We have to go through the haystack every time to find a needle.

+1

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2017 08:30

It is so easy to forget history. Many of us were unborn then and the rest of us were probably too young to understand:

From pages 19 & 20 of the IAF's 50 years of the MiG 21 commemorative book - in a chapter written by Air Marshal Partha Dey: about MiG 21 testing in Russia by Indian pilots in 1962

The aircraft could carry only 2 x K-13 air to air missiles and did not have a gun. I flew five sorties totalling 2 hous and 50 minutes and I think Wg Cdr Das flew the same number of sorties and hours. The aircraft had excellent performance and good handling qualities but was handicapped by its limited range and payload. We felt the Operational Command in New Delhi should be apprised about these limitations and their views obtained. Air Vice Marshal Ranjan Dutt and others thought this was not necessary.

Now let me paraphrase this story in a way that is applied to the Tejas story.

The Air Force test pilots flew a fighter aircraft in Russia for a total of less than 6 hours and felt that its flight characteristics were good but weapons inadequate. Their bosses felt that these details were not important enough for New Delhi to be informed. So less than 6 hours of flying was considered adequate and differences of opinion were suppressed.

The author writes on:

The Soviets promised to have a gun installed in the aircraft to be supplied to India.

The MiG 21 was inducted after a handful of hours of flying and a virtually useless weapon load. All its problems were discovered later in India by the Indian Air Force. On here we have people digging up every single problem with regard to the LCA without spending even one minute in the LCA's cockpit

What does that say to you about the competence of our own people in uniform if anyone does that and then claims to represent the interests of the Air Force? It is not we who are sullying the reputation of our men in uniform. It is their argumentative self appointed representative/s who insist on forcing down our throats that idea that we must all be wrong.

"The Air Force may have erred in the past, and that is irrelevant and you'd better believe me because I know better than you that those errors of judgement were not errors at all. What I say, and I say a lot, is the only truth"

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Feb 2017 09:45

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote: MiG-21 with Matra Magic 1

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.html

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.jpg
That is the Oocities archive of my Geocities site and the email associated with that site was the one I used to register with BRF

If you are reading this Shiv, thank you for the flash back. I remember this so clearly. WOW! Those were the days Hakeemji!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2017 09:53

Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote: That is the Oocities archive of my Geocities site and the email associated with that site was the one I used to register with BRF
If you are reading this Shiv, thank you for the flash back. I remember this so clearly. WOW! Those were the days Hakeemji!

Rakesh we were so short of information back then that BR was the first that started to quench our thirst. Amazing to recall those days in this era of minute by minute updates from a thousand "defence" oriented "news" portals

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Feb 2017 09:55

You know back then when I searched (we had Altavista & Yahoo...no Google) Indian Air Force on the World Wide Web, I would come across the Indiana Air National Guard. What a difference 20 years make.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2017 10:01

Rakesh wrote:You know back then when I searched (we had Altavista & Yahoo...no Google) Indian Air Force on the World Wide Web, I would come across the Indiana Air National Guard. What a difference 20 years make.

BR's strength came from this. Thanks to Seetal, Rupak, Jagan and you. I still have that video of you as a young lad on TV being interviewed by MTV

Saving that for the right occasion

Sorry. OT

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2017 10:03

tsarkar wrote: Well, since you asked for it, following is the operational performance of Tejas after squadron induction on August 10, 2016
http://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopal/te ... XRlrO.html

It was an unusual sight at Raja Bhoj airport in Bhopal on Tuesday afternoon, when the ground staff rushed in panic to cover the cockpit of a Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) apparently to prevent water leakage into the plane.

However, it did not take off as it started raining, and was towed to the state hanger at 4.21 pm. An airforce official told HT that the light combat aircraft was grounded because of bad weather.

Rain started minutes after the aircraft’s landing in Bhopal. The airport ground staff and some IAF men immediately rushed to the aircraft and tried to cover the cockpit with a yellow tarpaulin.

When the rain stopped, the two pilots of the high-profile LCA stood near the aircraft and ensured that the cockpit canopy was dried properly. But they looked nervous as it suddenly started raining heavily.

The two pilots insisted on another layer of tarpaulin to cover the cockpit. Later, another dark green tarpaulin was placed over it, as everyone had to ensure proper safety of the cockpit.
However, because its build started before IOC-2, it was not built to all-weather-standards. It was inducted in No 45 squadron in July 2016.

They're shit scared that lack of waterproofing in the aircraft doesnt damage the aircraft and scuppers their Leh deployment.

Are you pulling a fast one? Is it possible to test an aircraft to mach 1.6 at 50,000 ft without weather sealing? HAL has been assembling and putting aircrafts together since the 60s/70s? They probably know how to do this.

And yes, when you do enter and exit a cockpit in rain, if you are not under a canopy or hangar, rain water does seep in. The tarp was probably provided because the canopy couldn't be closed or something and it started raining. Nothing as sinister as hal hadn't weather sealed it.

And if defense journalists are trained psychologist that can identify, diagnose and isolate the root cause of "Panic/Nervousness" that is indeed awesome!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Feb 2017 10:12

Yeah this is as hare brained as it gets, if the cockpit has even a hair line place from which air can enter(forget water) it will be pretty bad(in terms of noise, try keeping your car window almost locked but with a little gap and do 100MpH) at the speeds at which these birds fly, back then it was confirmed that there was no issue(nothing like water ingress like heavy weight words) but since the trainer wasnt certified for this an extra amount of caution was exercised(source is official FB page of Tejas team)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2017 10:21

I think we need to move all these good discussions to another thread of people need to post all relevant information in the aero india 2017 thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7305&start=200

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2017 10:35

tsarkar wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Will its PK change if its on sea harrier vs Tejas ? If so will it change greatly that it fills unknown gaps in knowledge?
Very generally, yes, the Tejas can impart a higher launch velocity, so during end game, Derby will have more energy than when launched from Sea Harrier.

That doesn't mean Tejas has to worry about end game pk of a missile that it does not manufacture. The purpose here is to mate, make sure the missile is slaved to the right co ordinates and the launch doesn't destabilize the platform. The onboard computer will either provide a lock or no lock before the pilot fires and that takes all this into account (The computer will compute all the required parameters: heading, altitude, speed of both target and source before providing a solution). Sure you will need to complete the end to end testing, but like shiv asks, a target will need to be provided and the missile/radar manufacturers team/IAF based assets will need to be present to ensure all goes well unless its fired at a simulated target. Feel free to correct me.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2017 10:40

Any more tu-tu-main-main will attract immediate warnings with a one week ban. And the rules apply to everyone. Discuss LCA, not other posters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Feb 2017 11:05

has the IAF expressed an interest yet in sending 2 tejas to tacde school to work with other fighters and develop the tactics book?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2017 11:16

Not yet. That will come after 2-3 years. IAF cadres will take this time to learn how to maintain and operate this aircraft on their own. However, I have heard good news on that front. The mechanics seem to love it. Mk1A should be even better.

To some other posters, sealing the cockpit from air at high altitude and at high speed is a different problem than preventing rain water from seeping through.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Feb 2017 11:39

Ok. Lets get back to topic. Any details about the LCA Mk2 in AI 2017 ? The IAF and Navy variants were different for the Mk2 as per the earlier AI. Is it still the case ? Is there going to be an AF Mk2 at all ? The fuselage for the Navy version was going to be wider. Is the 25% fuel increase over the AF version Mk2 ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Feb 2017 11:59

Nube question, the automobile industry is in the business of mass production. Which means that it can produce 100 of car's daily for an assembly line.

What's the minimum number of orders that are required for a Mass production of planes. So that a 100 can be produced per year.

More importantly is it even possible for aircraft manufacturing industry?

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 16 Feb 2017 12:17

Pratyush wrote:Nube question, the automobile industry is in the business of mass production. Which means that it can produce 100 of car's daily for an assembly line.

What's the minimum number of orders that are required for a Mass production of planes. So that a 100 can be produced per year.

More importantly is it even possible for aircraft manufacturing industry?

Very much. At the height of World war-II, factories were churning out aircrafts like potato chips.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Feb 2017 18:07

vina wrote:Ok. Lets get back to topic. Any details about the LCA Mk2 in AI 2017 ? The IAF and Navy variants were different for the Mk2 as per the earlier AI. Is it still the case ? Is there going to be an AF Mk2 at all ? The fuselage for the Navy version was going to be wider. Is the 25% fuel increase over the AF version Mk2 ?

Will try to find the answer tomorrow. But I think, they should simply use NLCA MK2 config, stripped down with all naval related stuff. That bird would kick some assess in IAF variant and will have good range too.