LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Apr 2017 09:25

Doesn't seem to have holes for those two "bars of soap".

More like an external attachment to the frame.

Seen on flight close up.

Relative position of those two objects viewed straight-on.

DrRatnadip · Post by **DrRatnadip** » 03 Apr 2017 14:26

Can they be some sort of markers for motion capture..just a wild guess..

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 03 Apr 2017 19:32

Unidentified Asian Air Force orders $200 million worth of Elta targeting pods

Did we order it for LCA ???

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Apr 2017 20:07

tushar_m wrote:Unidentified Asian Air Force orders $200 million worth of Elta targeting pods

Did we order it for LCA ???

The pods are pretty large. Around 2005, $150 million deal was signed for EL/M 2060P and those were integrated with Su-30MKI. One can assume this follow-on batch of $200 worth would most likely be for Su-30MKI fleet.

Sukhoi-30MKI : The Mini AEW&CS of Indian Air Force

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Apr 2017 00:08

The real ones on the real aircraft. Clearly not soap bars for a real aircraft, but antennae. My guess was IFF.

Clearly smaller than the one on display at the AI-'17 show

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Apr 2017 00:11

Cain Marko wrote:
JayS wrote:
Durby ER will be integrated with LCA (source Tejas FB page)
Thanks JayS, great news.

Indeed, good to get the confirmation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Apr 2017 01:58

AESA + DerbyER/Astra/Python + SPJ/RWR suite + HMDS + Spice/Litening/SAAW... nasty little bird with sharp claws.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 04 Apr 2017 02:56

if this is what has been done with LCA, I am left wondering what will we end up doing AMCA. Perhaps we might end up having a non stealthy version of AMCA which packs a heavy punch. Something like Rafale

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2017 04:08

If the shock and vibration levels are in the 1 to 3 g^2/Hz, it might not be worth installing the gun in every LCA.
The LRUs near the gun will get wiped out.
4BVR +2CCM for intercept, 2BVR + 2 drop tanks + 2 CCM for escort role.
Attack LGB with Litening pods.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Apr 2017 07:07

ramana wrote:If the shock and vibration levels are in the 1 to 3 g^2/Hz, it might not be worth installing the gun in every LCA.
The LRUs near the gun will get wiped out.
4BVR +2CCM for intercept, 2BVR + 2 drop tanks + 2 CCM for escort role.
Attack LGB with Litening pods.

True. Guns are hardly used. They don't need to be loaded for every mission. Two types of mission where guns might be used would be A2A CAP (mostly) and A2G Close Support. Instead it might be good to make another pylon interchangeable for a gun, and use that for another external pod like a SPJ.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Apr 2017 07:28

Used or not every single pilot will have to be qualified for gun firing and will require practice sessions. However my guess is that the GSh 23 will be successfully proven on the Tejas and it will be possible to use it on any of the aircraft - it was, after all one of the originally planned pieces of equipment and the energy transmitted to airframes from the GSh was already a well known quantity after decades of use on MiG 21s.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2017 09:24

When you guys talk to LCA designers, ask if the known gun characteristics were used in LRU design?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Apr 2017 09:48

srai wrote:True. Guns are hardly used. They don't need to be loaded for every mission. Two types of mission where guns might be used would be A2A CAP (mostly) and A2G Close Support. Instead it might be good to make another pylon interchangeable for a gun, and use that for another external pod like a SPJ.

Sample of how we're quick to create favorable arguments if actual reality might be bad-news for the domestic product. And many will simply use this argument - constructed with no more than 2-minutes of thought-process - as base argument in case something actually goes wrong and IAF puts up an objection. Never mind that 'two' types of missions mentioned pretty much cover most of the operational requirement for LCA. I'm waiting for someone to mention 'iterative' development here, which is the favorite buzzword to paper over fundamental issues.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Apr 2017 10:06

Deleted. Completely pointless to reason.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Apr 2017 10:14

So Rohit, you think that instead of working with an issue and fixing it is a bad thing? Or because of a problem the whole program should be abandoned? This in a nation where "torsion bar" and "gearbox failures" of a similar pioneering program were used against it.

Because the F-18s in the USN are suffering from Oxygen deprivation, should the US buy Eurofighters? Or because a F-22 fighter's canopy jammed up trapping the pilot inside, the USAF should abandon F-22s.

But the question is more fundamental than that -
a) Do you prefer domestic junk over foreign?
b) When local capabilities exist to make almost every type of weapon system for the armed forces, why should the country buy foreign goods? In particular Russian weapons have shown to require more maintenance and have not great after sales support leading to hangar queens which pose a great security threat by diminishing the warfighting capabilities at a given instance.

The mantra "quality trumps quantity" has been bandied about but truly have we bought quality? The dismal serviceability of the MKI and the 29Ks are behind the Rafale purchase to facilitate force projection at a given time.

Building/Investing in a domestic MIC will help to provide cheaper local weapons that could potentially swing the balance of power vis a vis Chicom and pakis in India's favor. Of course with the entrenched procurement mafia, that is proving to be a challenge.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Apr 2017 10:17

Where is the "issue" in the first place? The gun qualification trials may or may not be done, but the vibration discussion over here was an academic one. There is no news about actual issues regarding gun vibration being faced by the LCA program.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2017 11:48

Rohit,

In this case, you are assigning a problem to LCA where none exists. Probably, it just suits your point of view of the program. Have you ever read anything about LCA having a problem with the gun. Any paanwala provide you some special zarda. If not, ....

People here are discussing the challenges of integrating a gun, not a gun on LCA. Let me tell you this, you will soon here good news on this aspect.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Apr 2017 12:49

nachiket wrote:Where is the "issue" in the first place? The gun qualification trials may or may not be done, but the vibration discussion over here was an academic one. There is no news about actual issues regarding gun vibration being faced by the LCA program.

True. I searched high and low about issues relating to the GSh 23 esp the GSh 23 l which has muzzle gas vents to reduce recoil but found none. I don't expect that it will be a huge issue.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 04 Apr 2017 13:51

what would be difference in mounting a gun ALH and LCA ??

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 04 Apr 2017 15:10

<OT>

An alternate approach, towards eliminating the problem of gun gases injestion, from an innovative plane builder

Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites ARES proposal ('stillborn/rejected') for the Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA)

(It's got 2 more initials than the LCA

)

Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

</OT>

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Apr 2017 16:06

Indranil wrote:Rohit,

In this case, you are assigning a problem to LCA where none exists. Probably, it just suits your point of view of the program. Have you ever read anything about LCA having a problem with the gun. Any paanwala provide you some special zarda. If not, ....

People here are discussing the challenges of integrating a gun, not a gun on LCA. Let me tell you this, you will soon here good news on this aspect.

You can tone down the indignation part.

I'm not alluding to any problem in the gun integration issue on LCA. I don't comment on things I don't understand. Nor speculate on things which are not in public domain and for which sufficient information is not available to even hazard a guess.

As for my view of the program, it is pretty well known. I'm critical of the way whole program was conceived and run. Not the effort. And I see Tejas as a means to an end. Not an end in itself.

And can you point me to a SINGLE post where I've alluded ANYTHING to Tejas program which falls in the domain of being speculative? Especially one driven by my 'negative' POV of the program?

Did you read the post I'd quoted? And what that post implied?

My point was limited - If there is an issue with any aspect of a program, or likely to be an issue, there are very convenient arguments created on the fly. And then we've the favorite of all buzzwords, iterative development, thrown about.

If there is likely to be an issue or an issue - 'Who needs a gun, anyway? Didn't IAF import Mig-21 in 60s w/o guns. IAF is an idiot to ask for a gun in the first place in 21st Century! Even F-35 did not have gun ready at IOC...'

How about - 'Hmmm something seems to have gone wrong. Things did not pan about as we expected. Need to have a re-look'

There is a fundamental difference in the above two approaches.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 04 Apr 2017 17:36

srai wrote:
tushar_m wrote:Unidentified Asian Air Force orders $200 million worth of Elta targeting pods

Did we order it for LCA ???
The pods are pretty large. Around 2005, $150 million deal was signed for EL/M 2060P and those were integrated with Su-30MKI. One can assume this follow-on batch of $200 worth would most likely be for Su-30MKI fleet.

Sukhoi-30MKI : The Mini AEW&CS of Indian Air Force

This capability was put to use to find YSR's chopper in AP.did not work too well though.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2017 22:48

rohitvats wrote:
Indranil wrote:Rohit,

In this case, you are assigning a problem to LCA where none exists. Probably, it just suits your point of view of the program. Have you ever read anything about LCA having a problem with the gun. Any paanwala provide you some special zarda. If not, ....

People here are discussing the challenges of integrating a gun, not a gun on LCA. Let me tell you this, you will soon here good news on this aspect.
You can tone down the indignation part.

I'm not alluding to any problem in the gun integration issue on LCA. I don't comment on things I don't understand. Nor speculate on things which are not in public domain and for which sufficient information is not available to even hazard a guess.

As for my view of the program, it is pretty well known. I'm critical of the way whole program was conceived and run. Not the effort. And I see Tejas as a means to an end. Not an end in itself.

And can you point me to a SINGLE post where I've alluded ANYTHING to Tejas program which falls in the domain of being speculative? Especially one driven by my 'negative' POV of the program?

Did you read the post I'd quoted? And what that post implied?

My point was limited - If there is an issue with any aspect of a program, or likely to be an issue, there are very convenient arguments created on the fly. And then we've the favorite of all buzzwords, iterative development, thrown about.

If there is likely to be an issue or an issue - 'Who needs a gun, anyway? Didn't IAF import Mig-21 in 60s w/o guns. IAF is an idiot to ask for a gun in the first place in 21st Century! Even F-35 did not have gun ready at IOC...'

How about - 'Hmmm something seems to have gone wrong. Things did not pan about as we expected. Need to have a re-look'

There is a fundamental difference in the above two approaches.

The goal of my post was not to annoy you, pontificate on IAF's procurement policy, or lecture anybody on approaches of thinking. If you already knew, or know now that there is no problem with the gun firing on the LCA, then it has served its purpose.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 04 Apr 2017 22:58

Saurav Jha‏
@SJha1618

Following
More
Final Operational Clearance for the HAL Tejas is now in sight Goods news is to be expected soon.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Apr 2017 23:07

Here are the likely twin-pylon configurations for the Tejas Mk2- and hopefully will be retrofitted to the Tejas Mk1A and Mk1 as well. If the wing needed strengthening to carry the additional weight on the outboard hardpoints, this configuration may not be seen on the Mk1.

CCM + SPJ
CCM + CCM on the outermost pylons

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 05 Apr 2017 00:20

Rohit,

I logged into BR after a very long time and found that nothing has changed in regard to the misunderstanding of defence issues especially how Mod works, ignorance, pontification and the underlying current of hostility to the armed forces. Not for me to say what you should do - but the option that has worked for me is not to come here too often. Think about it this way - in the Modi sarkar arguably the most nationalistic we have seen for decades the armed forces issues have gone from bad to worse - budget, status vs babus, morale , equipment. For gods sake it was deemed more imp to have a CM in Goa than a RM. If in this govt things are so bad it just shows that we have a cultural blind spot that has let us down many a time in our history. From Prithviraj Chauhan to the Anglo Sikh wars to this day. We just don't get national security and professional soldiers.

The people here are just a microcosm of this blind spot. Don't try to reason with them. Its a wasted effort Rohit.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 05 Apr 2017 00:28

Last dates for HAL Tender for AESA & EW Suite has been extended till 15-April-2017 now.

Are they not getting enough options ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Apr 2017 00:29

Or vendors may have requested an extension or clarifications that would have led to an extension.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2017 00:41

Kartik is right. Could be vendors request.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Apr 2017 00:53

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Rohit,

I logged into BR after a very long time and found that nothing has changed in regard to the misunderstanding of defence issues especially how Mod works, ignorance, pontification and the underlying current of hostility to the armed forces. Not for me to say what you should do - but the option that has worked for me is not to come here too often. Think about it this way - in the Modi sarkar arguably the most nationalistic we have seen for decades the armed forces issues have gone from bad to worse - budget, status vs babus, morale , equipment. For gods sake it was deemed more imp to have a CM in Goa than a RM. If in this govt things are so bad it just shows that we have a cultural blind spot that has let us down many a time in our history. From Prithviraj Chauhan to the Anglo Sikh wars to this day. We just don't get national security and professional soldiers.

The people here are just a microcosm of this blind spot. Don't try to reason with them. Its a wasted effort Rohit.

Couldn't agree more with the bolded part. And Modi govt has been quite a bit of disappointment on the desi products development side as well. Apart from giving some verbal bravado from Modi we have seen little efforts in changing things in DRDO in a large way. Things are moving too slow. But I disagree that things have gone from bad to worse on a larger context.

But I tell you what Sir, the people on the other side also get rapped here left right center (sometimes justified sometimes just baseless or out of sheer ignorance towards technology development). And they don't even have much of a voice defending them on public fora. So don't feel all alone there.

Its very important to have people from all backgrounds bringing in their POVs in discussions, so that everyone learn new things, develop appreciation for things that are not from his area of expertise. I would request you to keep putting forth your POVs. Just Ignore junk posts. I find it easy to just ignore useless stuff that does not add any value to the discussion. Engage with people who are willing to discuss things in civilian manner. You may not know how many folks you might end up educating and showing them the reality or give them correct perspective. I have myself taken the journey from being a stupid ignorant kid to an enlightened Bharatiya being on BRF for so many years as lurker and as poster. I can tell you that posters such as yourself or Rohit or tSarkar bring in a completely different perspective which is generally lacking (atleast for people like me who do not know anyone from the forces personally). At least I find it very eliminating to see things from that angle and it keeps things in balance. So I would request you folks to keep posting while ignoring posts which lack substance or come out of sheer ignorance (if the poster is not worth educating of coarse, and there are some like that on BRF).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2017 01:02

Lets discuss in the GDF if required.
Thanks, ramana

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2017 01:09

Kartik wrote:Here are the likely twin-pylon configurations for the Tejas Mk2- and hopefully will be retrofitted to the Tejas Mk1A and Mk1 as well. If the wing needed strengthening to carry the additional weight on the outboard hardpoints, this configuration may not be seen on the Mk1.

CCM + SPJ
CCM + CCM on the outermost pylons

Kartik, these studies are for MK1A ( to be retrofitted on the Mk1). The outboard pylon is strong enough to carry the load. I have had long discussions with paan waalas on this. On Mk2, they will go for internal SPJ.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Apr 2017 01:15

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:Here are the likely twin-pylon configurations for the Tejas Mk2- and hopefully will be retrofitted to the Tejas Mk1A and Mk1 as well. If the wing needed strengthening to carry the additional weight on the outboard hardpoints, this configuration may not be seen on the Mk1.

CCM + SPJ
CCM + CCM on the outermost pylons

Kartik, these studies are for MK1A ( to be retrofitted on the Mk1). The outboard pylon is strong enough to carry the load. I have had long discussions with paan waalas on this. On Mk2, they will go for internal SPJ.

Do you know why the SPJ here has such blunt nose..??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2017 01:25

They are not prioritizing multi-rack BVR carriage as it is difficult to envision a scenario where a light fighter has not entered close combat even after firing two BVRs.

What I do not understand is why they are not following up with a rack to carry two 500 pound LGBs in parallel. I am imagining a configuration of 6 500 lb LGBs on the center and midboard pylons, 1200 ltr drop tanks on inboard pylons, and 3 CCMs+SPJ pod on outboard pylons. That is a serious strike package.

Right now, I don't think that they have cleared the center pylon for carrying an LGB.

However, I am hearing that they are seriously considering plumbing the midboard pylon for MK1A to improve the flexibility. And I read somewhere the first supersonic drop tanks are FINALLY ready.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Apr 2017 01:30

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote: Kartik, these studies are for MK1A ( to be retrofitted on the Mk1). The outboard pylon is strong enough to carry the load. I have had long discussions with paan waalas on this. On Mk2, they will go for internal SPJ.
Do you know why the SPJ here has such blunt nose..??

Perhaps an off-the-shelf design that was being considered for the SPJ? Clearly, the paper indicates that the drag increase with that shape is far more than that with a CCM, so some aerodynamic housing for the SPJ will be required, without compromising on its performance.

dkhare · Post by **dkhare** » 05 Apr 2017 01:32

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote: Kartik, these studies are for MK1A ( to be retrofitted on the Mk1). The outboard pylon is strong enough to carry the load. I have had long discussions with paan waalas on this. On Mk2, they will go for internal SPJ.
Do you know why the SPJ here has such blunt nose..??

I think they are simulating this IAI Elta external pod:

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Apr 2017 01:41

Indranil wrote:They are not prioritizing multi-rack BVR carriage as it is difficult to envision a scenario where a light fighter has not entered close combat even after firing two BVRs.

What I do not understand is why they are not following up with a rack to carry two 500 pound LGBs in parallel. I am imagining a configuration of 6 500 lb LGBs on the center and midboard pylons, 1200 ltr drop tanks on inboard pylons, and 3 CCMs+SPJ pod on outboard pylons. That is a serious strike package.

Right now, I don't think that they have cleared the center pylon for carrying an LGB.

However, I am hearing that they are seriously considering plumbing the midboard pylon for MK1A to improve the flexibility. And I read somewhere the first supersonic drop tanks are FINALLY ready.

As I said earlier, they are actively

They are actively...? Your statement ended abruptly.

I cannot understand how they cannot envision such a scenario, especially when it lends so much more flexibility to the overall loadout. The 4 BVRAAMs would give the Mk1A the choice to avoid entering close combat, especially if they were to encounter a large enemy fighter package. Fire the BVRAAMs, and the AESA should be able to guide them while the Tejas Mk1A would be turning away. The AESA radar should be able to handle 4 targets simultaneously, right? Or is that a limitation they anticipate?

I'm assuming you're talking about the mid-board pylon being used for twin carriage of BVRAAMs? The twin racks would allow 4 Derby ER/Astra and 2 Python V to be carried with a centerline fuel tank, or inboard drop tanks, or a 1000 lb bomb or LGB. the paper indicated that the outboard hardpoint was being considered for twin CCMs, not BVRAAMs, perhaps due to the higher weight of BVRAAMs versus CCMs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Apr 2017 01:47

Indranil, great news on the supersonic drop tank. Found a paper on the studies conducted for the supersonic drop tank on the Tejas

Centerline supersonic drop tank - looks like the LCA AF Mk2 variant, looking at the plug just aft of the cockpit. The paper dates back to 2015, around the time that studies to modify the geometry of the LCA AF Mk2 canopy geometry were just about done. Perhaps that may explain why the canopy geometry in the picture I posted above reflect the pre-area ruling studies optimization.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2017 02:23

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:They are not prioritizing multi-rack BVR carriage as it is difficult to envision a scenario where a light fighter has not entered close combat even after firing two BVRs.

What I do not understand is why they are not following up with a rack to carry two 500 pound LGBs in parallel. I am imagining a configuration of 6 500 lb LGBs on the center and midboard pylons, 1200 ltr drop tanks on inboard pylons, and 3 CCMs+SPJ pod on outboard pylons. That is a serious strike package.

Right now, I don't think that they have cleared the center pylon for carrying an LGB.

However, I am hearing that they are seriously considering plumbing the midboard pylon for MK1A to improve the flexibility. And I read somewhere the first supersonic drop tanks are FINALLY ready.

As I said earlier, they are actively
They are actively...? Your statement ended abruptly.

Stray sentence. Corrected it.

Kartik wrote: I cannot understand how they cannot envision such a scenario, especially when it lends so much more flexibility to the overall loadout. The 4 BVRAAMs would give the Mk1A the choice to avoid entering close combat, especially if they were to encounter a large enemy fighter package. Fire the BVRAAMs, and the AESA should be able to guide them while the Tejas Mk1A would be turning away. The AESA radar should be able to handle 4 targets simultaneously, right? Or is that a limitation they anticipate?

I'm assuming you're talking about the mid-board pylon being used for twin carriage of BVRAAMs? The twin racks would allow 4 Derby ER/Astra and 2 Python V to be carried with a centerline fuel tank, or inboard drop tanks, or a 1000 lb bomb or LGB. the paper indicated that the outboard hardpoint was being considered for twin CCMs, not BVRAAMs, perhaps due to the higher weight of BVRAAMs versus CCMs.

Sounds good on paper, but typically doesn't go that way in typical aerial combats. That's why ASTE never even asked for it. People generally don't fire BVRs from more than 40 km away. Otherwise, your opponent has a very high chance of surviving and knowing where you are. In a 1:1, you may be able to turn the table and gain kinematic advantage while he maneuvers himself out of trouble, but then you would have entered or are about to enter close combat. You are now loaded with heavier, more expensive, and less numerous BVR missiles in a close combat situation. Your adversary might be able to turn the tables if he is flying light. So two BVRs are enough against a single adversary situation.

Now let's take 1:many situation. Firing multiple BVRs at multiple targets simultaneously is a radar capability that all manufacturers advertise. But, those are under test conditions. Imagine what would happen in a real combat. Let's say you fired at 4 BVRs at 2 targets. Those pilots are trained as well. They will break-away in opposite directions. Now, how far could you turn away and yet keep both aircraft in your radar cone? Eventually you will have to choose to follow one of them. Again, you will soon enter close combat with that pilot. Albeit, you will have a significant advantage. But, you have given his buddy a good chance of surviving. And while you turn on his mate, he turns on you, and he hasn't fired any missiles yet when you barely have enough to take down his mate.

In the A2A loadout, against similar opponents, it is almost always better to have a CCM:BVR ratio of more than 1:1. Especially, for lighter aircraft like LCA. So dual racks can come, but they are not the priority right now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2017 02:33

Kartik wrote:Indranil, great news on the supersonic drop tank. Found a paper on the studies conducted for the supersonic drop tank on the Tejas

Centerline supersonic drop tank - looks like the LCA AF Mk2 variant, looking at the plug just aft of the cockpit. The paper dates back to 2015, around the time that studies to modify the geometry of the LCA AF Mk2 canopy geometry were just about done. Perhaps that may explain why the canopy geometry in the picture I posted above reflect the pre-area ruling studies optimization.

This is the tank which is ready now. I am a little exasperated with the guys developing the tanks. Seriously, is this much amount time required to come up with a tank?

P.S. added later. My information may be dated. I think I knew that the 450 ltr tank is ready. But after reading this paper, I think I am not correctly informed on this. But, I still think that the "tank" guys are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.