LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2017 09:19

- maws is most needed on helis (esp gunships) and Mig27(not worth it now with retirement pending) and jags (worth it as they will serve longer). all of these go into attack within manpad envelope. for high level missions they will have some fighter escorts.

- those 6 refuelers will likely to be reserved to serve the awacs only. keeping the awacs up for long will save us a lot. however russian engines or any engine for that matter probably needs a downtime after 20 hrs of continuous flight to replace oils etc. so back to back day by day 20 hr missions might not be feasible even if relief crews are available onboard. for the Tu160 i know 20 hr is the safe limit they tested on the mighty kuznetsov engines using aar.

so a good ground based radar network is also a must.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3898
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby deejay » 24 Jul 2017 09:22

ramana wrote:Deejay What are the merits of the IFR for LCA right now?

Is it a must or a want?

Will the quest for a want further delay it further?

I think this MAWS is a red herring want.
Its needed on other planes but not on LCA which operates beyond MANPADs and carries BVR.


IFR / MAWS are "Good to Have" and not "Must Have".

Of course, with every addition the Tejas becomes more potent but if the gun trials are complete lets operationalize the Mk1 A. Where, as per me, "A" is for Attack.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 11:01

deejay wrote:
ramana wrote:Deejay What are the merits of the IFR for LCA right now?

Is it a must or a want?

Will the quest for a want further delay it further?

I think this MAWS is a red herring want.
Its needed on other planes but not on LCA which operates beyond MANPADs and carries BVR.


IFR / MAWS are "Good to Have" and not "Must Have".

Of course, with every addition the Tejas becomes more potent but if the gun trials are complete lets operationalize the Mk1 A. Where, as per me, "A" is for Attack.


I suppose you meant "operationalize MK1"..?? Gun trials pending for MK1 itself. MK1A needs to have the 4 key changes IAF has demanded including AESA radar. I suppose IFR can be deferred if its having serious adverse effect on flight envelop, to until such time when ADA/HAL can come up with a proper IFR setup and can be retrofitted. Its surprizing actually that such issues are seen now at this stage. ADA should have done simulations/flight tests and should have had a decent idea about the effect of addition of IFR on flight characteristics. They could have flown a dummy IFR a long time ago without having to wait for real one to be delivered from Cobham.

I don't think LCA can host a retractable IFR, but may be one which is partially retracting could be possible.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3898
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby deejay » 24 Jul 2017 11:06

Haan, right. FOC Mk 1 and Mk 1 A together. Keep retro fitting all newer developments.

The LCA story must get some crucial chapters added now, me thinks.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1191
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prasannasimha » 24 Jul 2017 13:41

There is a difference in doing CFDon a generic probe and an actual probe as the designs will not necessarily be the same.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 14:32

prasannasimha wrote:There is a difference in doing CFDon a generic probe and an actual probe as the designs will not necessarily be the same.


Why generic probe..? The external shape of the probe must be known for quite a while before the actual delivery.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 687
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Atmavik » 24 Jul 2017 14:51

Tejas FB page admin mentions that mk1A will come with Uttam AESA. I thought we were going with an Israeli radar?

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1191
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prasannasimha » 24 Jul 2017 15:15

The Cobham probe was designed specifically for Tejas and not just a latch on probe. They have done CFD simulations with it but till actual flight testing is done various values and issues will be still unknown. The issue is not just the probe but redistribution of pumped fuel and its impact as it is being rapidly pumped for which validation has to be done.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 16:06

prasannasimha wrote:The Cobham probe was designed specifically for Tejas and not just a latch on probe. They have done CFD simulations with it but till actual flight testing is done various values and issues will be still unknown. The issue is not just the probe but redistribution of pumped fuel and its impact as it is being rapidly pumped for which validation has to be done.


I was referring to the impact of IFR probe aerodynamics on LCA's flight envelop which seems to be more severe and widespread across the flight regimes than expected, that was being discussed a few pages back (I suppose Dileep brought the issue in picture). The fuel pumping should not be coming in picture here.

Also I understand perfectly well that it was designed "specifically" for Tejas. Only said that the external aero shape of the probe must have been frozen well ahead of the actual delivery of the probe. Do you think ADA/Cobham was making significant changes to fairing shape until last minute till delivery..? Typically Aero configs are the first to get frozen. External shape should be sufficient for ADA to run CFD simulations and start flight testing with dummy IFR with "exact" or "near exact" shape of final IFR probe. The fitting of such IFR would be a trivial job for them at its only a stick on thing. A minor variation in shape, if at all it would be there, wouldn't make much difference for this. I would be interested to know why this was not done or why this was not possible to do. I am little taken aback by the impact that is being seen on LCA's flight envelop at 11th hour.

I also understand perfectly well that there are differences in CFD and actual flight, but LCA is a mature design now. Having carried out thousands of simulations of all sorts there should be a fair understanding about the variance by now. If it was judged to be too much, that's all the more reason to have done flight tests with dummy IFR on ahead of actual one.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 24 Jul 2017 16:29

From V-22 order

Hmm!
Cobham's refueling probe is a unique, patented telescoping mechanism that extends the probe tip beyond the Osprey's nose and fully retracts into the fuselage, providing the aircraft with improved aerodynamics and a reduced footprint.

Like a (never mind). :oops:

IMO (CT alert!) they are ascribing the scatter in the performance vs. SeeEffDee to the new entry, instead of pointing to the real culprits such as the fit of composite panels. Surely they can figure out how to stick this thing on the craft without flow separation? Maybe at supersonic speed the shock from it interacts with the boundary layer and causes bigger shock.

Isn't it the thing sticking up in front of the windshield? (pics from recent air show at unmentionable site)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2017 19:37

A data point: The Uttam for Mk1/MK1A is another indicator, IMHO, that the Mk2 will not come. ?????



BTW, either of the AESA radars - Israeli or Indian - I was told, need liquid cooling. And that needs re-configuring the real-estate near the nose. This is a huge challenge - any "real-estate" is with this LCA. So, expect some "delay"s. Just the way the beast is. I would expect OC in 2019-20 for the Mk1A (which IMHO is OK). {But, that should leave only the "engine" on the table. Read somewhere that the French are back peddling. Any truth to that?}


My understanding about the IFR was that the issue was "real-estate". For an optimal solution they needed to re-configure the internal components. Conversely "a" solution (no change in real-estate) may not be optimal. ?????

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5791
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Dileep » 24 Jul 2017 20:30

Uttam has a packaged cooling system that fits into the space. It is designed for the nose of LCA. Actually, the cooling package was pointed out at the unit displayed at AI17. It was the actual flight ready unit I am told.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2017 20:47

So, no need to rearrange real-estate? That is perhaps even better news than the Uttam itself. With good planning they have dodged a bullet for sure. The Israeli AESA needed reworking the real-estate.


OK, on to the Kaveri.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 24 Jul 2017 20:52

Yes Dileep chetta, that is what the LRDE team told me at their stall!!

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 24 Jul 2017 20:53

UBji, since you brought up panel uneven-ness, is it because of the handlaid prepeg being badly laid, or the joins? Shouldn't the paint or ram costing sufficiently smoothen the surface? Am sure you've toured the Seattle lab where discontinuous carbon fibre composite is being developed. For non load bearing components such as skin panels, can we request consultancy from the real specialists like Lamborghini or Trek cycle Co? Can this forged composite approach be used with meshed materials to provide quicker wartime replacement panels at the depot itself? (trying to not call the material or idea half-baked). The autoclave seems to be a huge hindrance, therefore my probably illiterate question. Apologies if OT.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vina » 24 Jul 2017 21:05

Dileep wrote:Uttam has a packaged cooling system that fits into the space. It is designed for the nose of LCA. Actually, the cooling package was pointed out at the unit displayed at AI17. It was the actual flight ready unit I am told.


I can't believe what I am hearing. If it is indeed the Uttam radar and NOT an Israeli AESA radar that is going to be flying on the LCA Mk1A , then it is actually pretty stunning news.

Think about it. The very FIRST airborne fire control radar that India will be fielding will be a proper AESA ,which the users and designers feel matches /betters what a top tier radar specialist like ELTA has on offer.

If THIS is not REAL technology and product catch up, I don't know what is !

IIRC, the Russians still haven't fielded an AESA fighter radar in service!

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 24 Jul 2017 21:28

vina wrote:
Dileep wrote:Uttam has a packaged cooling system that fits into the space. It is designed for the nose of LCA. Actually, the cooling package was pointed out at the unit displayed at AI17. It was the actual flight ready unit I am told.


I can't believe what I am hearing. If it is indeed the Uttam radar and NOT an Israeli AESA radar that is going to be flying on the LCA Mk1A , then it is actually pretty stunning news.

Think about it. The very FIRST airborne fire control radar that India will be fielding will be a proper AESA ,which the users and designers feel matches /betters what a top tier radar specialist like ELTA has on offer.

If THIS is not REAL technology and product catch up, I don't know what is !

IIRC, the Russians still haven't fielded an AESA fighter radar in service!



Wow. Dileepji aap ke muh mein ghee-shakkar. Jingo, bahut khush hua. This is calls for a proper
Image

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 24 Jul 2017 22:36

Assuming LCA MK1A is going to roll out in 2020, then the components of first of the AESA Uttam Radars should be under manufacturing by now. Radar should be assembled by 2019 for delivery, installation in LCA by 2020

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3434
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 24 Jul 2017 22:38

So what's your point ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2017 22:46

suryag wrote:So what's your point ?



Just data.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7975
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 24 Jul 2017 23:30

1. Mk1s will keep coming with the 2032.
2. As I have told this earlier, the fuel probe is not a big problem. They will not delay FOC with regards to that. IAF only wants the envelop cleared with it before FOC.
3. Gun firing will happen shortly
4. The confidence in Uttam stems from the success of AAAU. I am being told the latter works beautifully. They are modifying LSP2 to carry on the tests. Another factor is the Israelis played up with ADA regarding the BVR testing. ADA wanted some modifications and they were not responding quickly enough and/or favourably enough
5. This is absolutely great news if the decision has been made and going by the number of tenders going out regarding Uttam, I think the rubber has hit the road finally
6. However, it worries me too. This gives the feeling of "we have time". LCA production should be brought up to speed of 16-25 aircraft per year ASAP, and the single engined imported fighter shelved. Mk1 and Mk1A program numbers should be adjusted accordingly.
7. Mk2 program should not be shelved. It will be the proof that we have really gone through at least one cycle of design-build-refine cycle. Let HAL run with Mk1A and ADA with Mk2. Make sure they interact.
8. UB sir, composite parts cannot be hammered, but they can be (and are) trimmed.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 23:34

Gyan wrote:Assuming LCA MK1A is going to roll out in 2020, then the components of first of the AESA Uttam Radars should be under manufacturing by now. Radar should be assembled by 2019 for delivery, installation in LCA by 2020


Err..First unit...?? In AI 2017 itself they had displayed flight ready Radar. It was all ready waiting for ADA to give LCA prototype. They told they have 3 units already and by end of 2017 they would have total 6 units.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1970
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakarat » 24 Jul 2017 23:40

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02 ... -back.html

Livefist : Feb 15 2017 wrote:There’s activity on the radar front too. Balaji’s team will be freeing up LCA Tejas LSP-2 shortly for ground integration of India’s indigenous Uttam AESA radar. The ADA has asked the DRDO’s LRDE lab to keep the Uttam’s interfaces as similar as possible to the current Israeli Elta radar. ‘It will be a challenge, moving from a mechanically scanned radar to the AESA without interface changes but that is the attempt, to save time and forestall any structural changes to the aircraft or sensor,’ says Balaji. Interestingly, since the LCA doesn’t have an integrated liquid cooling system necessary for an AESA radar, the team has suggested that a small auxiliary compartment that becomes redundant after the mechanical-to-AESA switch could be utilised to house a liquid cooling system.


This is from Feb 17, LSP-2 has not been flying from July 15 itself. LSP-2 could have been already available for Uttam integration when this news came out and they could have started integration work.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3256
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 25 Jul 2017 02:02

Indranil wrote:1. Mk1s will keep coming with the 2032.
2. As I have told this earlier, the fuel probe is not a big problem. They will not delay FOC with regards to that. IAF only wants the envelop cleared with it before FOC.


If IFR is not part of FOC for Mk1, then why hold it up for clearing the envelope?

Whatever the problems with IFR probe, why not defer them to OC for Mk1A?

Looks like, it will be another 5 years before Mk1A can enter squadron service, so the focus of the production team now should be on Mk1, and the IAF should increase its order for Mk1 to double of what they have placed till now. Get at least 4 squadrons of Mk1 in service before Mk1A is ready.

Even if Mk2 is killed, continue with Mk1B, Mk1C etc until the AMCA is ready.

My dreams!

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3256
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 25 Jul 2017 02:16

As it is today, is the LCA Mk1 not better than the Mig-27 in ground attack role?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7975
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 25 Jul 2017 02:40

Kakkaji wrote:
Indranil wrote:1. Mk1s will keep coming with the 2032.
2. As I have told this earlier, the fuel probe is not a big problem. They will not delay FOC with regards to that. IAF only wants the envelop cleared with it before FOC.


If IFR is not part of FOC for Mk1, then why hold it up for clearing the envelope?

Whatever the problems with IFR probe, why not defer them to OC for Mk1A?

Looks like, it will be another 5 years before Mk1A can enter squadron service, so the focus of the production team now should be on Mk1, and the IAF should increase its order for Mk1 to double of what they have placed till now. Get at least 4 squadrons of Mk1 in service before Mk1A is ready.

Even if Mk2 is killed, continue with Mk1B, Mk1C etc until the AMCA is ready.

My dreams!

MK1 production is not being held up by FOC. HAL is going full steam in trying to increase production rate to 16 per year. They seem to be on track for 6 for this year. If you head over to their website, you will see that they have flurry of tenders to outsource LCA part-production.

Kakkaji wrote:As it is today, is the LCA Mk1 not better than the Mig-27 in ground attack role?

Where are you getting this from sir?

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3256
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 25 Jul 2017 02:50

Indranil wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:
Where are you getting this from sir?


Just asking the Gurus.

If it is already better than the Mig-27, then increase the order for Mk1 to at least replace all the retiring squadrons of Mig-27. Why wait for Mk1A for this pupose?

Or is that too simplistic?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3938
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Jul 2017 03:14

Indranil wrote:7. Mk2 program should not be shelved. It will be the proof that we have really gone through at least one cycle of design-build-refine cycle. Let HAL run with Mk1A and ADA with Mk2. Make sure they interact.

I'm assuming that as with any research PSU, resources and finding are limited. ADA will either be able to focus on mk2 or AMCA. better to move on... And let mk2 be fused into mk1A. more orders will come from the AF, and further iterations can be developed with MLU or via cip. In any case this will just be for the IAF. The mk2 will not be optimum for the Navy.

Right now IAF needs something tangible and that is the mk1a. Mk2 with all the expected changes will not cut it as it will take too long.

Right now the Navy is looking for something long term, soon the IAF will also be looking for the same. ADA should be in position to offer something here via the AMCA. Let's hope they don't miss this flight and the country lands up looking at another import in 15 years time.

time to move on... Let HAL handle LCA and very it's b various mks. ADA needs to focus on newer designs...

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Jul 2017 03:49

Marten wrote:UBji, since you brought up panel uneven-ness, is it because of the handlaid prepeg being badly laid, or the joins? Shouldn't the paint or ram costing sufficiently smoothen the surface? Am sure you've toured the Seattle lab where discontinuous carbon fibre composite is being developed. For non load bearing components such as skin panels, can we request consultancy from the real specialists like Lamborghini or Trek cycle Co? Can this forged composite approach be used with meshed materials to provide quicker wartime replacement panels at the depot itself? (trying to not call the material or idea half-baked). The autoclave seems to be a huge hindrance, therefore my probably illiterate question. Apologies if OT.


I wish more ppl in AyDeeYay, EchAyEll etc would ask that question. I am clueless about composites except what yaks etc tell me. But I STRONGLY agree that the real experts to bring in are not Aerospace types, but the luxury car mass-production people. Not Lamborghini, who do hand-crafting for super-quality, but Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura etc. Over time they have brought their fit&finish to extreme precision and absolute interchangeability. Their production experts will know how that is done. I know, it is a major blow to aerospace H&D to bring these car people in. But beg, borrow, threaten, hold them at gunpoint (just kidding), whatever, to get those ppl to open up and put their minds to work on EllSeeYay production: let the AEs look over their shoulder with any special requirements (I can't imagine any below Mach 2 except that paint will have to be the horrible abrasion resistant concoction they use on airplanes; EXTREMELY toxic). I think this is why the HondaJet beats the heck out of the best that the "established" aerospace companies can produce, such as Gulfstream etc. Experience of 10 million units, not 2,000 or 200 or in LCA case, 10.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Jul 2017 03:58

If you haven't been lobotomized as I have, with Kaizen/TQM etc etc: Back in the 1970s-80s the Oiropean/Poodlestanis used to sneer at Japanese quality. Of course the "best" cars were hand-crafted and finished by The Greatest Skilled Master Technicians in the Dunia. Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz....

But the Japanese just kept getting better and better. And better. And then they showed that Ball Bearing Commercial: roll a tiny ball bearing down the slot where the hood fits the front fenders. On all US/Oiropean cars it fell through or stopped somewhere. On a mass-produced Acura or Lexus, it rolled smoothly. And then the slot totally disappeared on the newer versions. This was achieved by mass production with robots, and it left the Master Craftsmen in the dust.

This is what I mean. Airplanes are produced in such small quantities that ppl still think they can achieve super quality by super crasftspeople and hand work, such robotic iteration is unnecessary. But those days are gone. The auto production line with robots and feedback control from millions of units of experience, leave aerospace manufacture in the dust. Maybe Boeing and Airboos achieve excellence, but at extreme cost. Toyota can show you how to do better at miniscule cost.

Think laminar flow over the entire LCA at Reynolds number of 15 million. It's already been shown possible on an F-15 and I think those are pretty crude antiques compared to a Honda Jet.

Plus... you can do the same on Brahmos and all the other babies produced in larger numbers.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2584
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 25 Jul 2017 06:25

UlanBatori wrote:
I wish more ppl in AyDeeYay, EchAyEll etc would ask that question.


Is it possible to keep the cuteness to other forums. This is quite hard/painful to read/follow. Is it necessary?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Jul 2017 06:47

Is it necessary to waste a post sniping at others? There was nothing else in the post that you have any opinion to contribute or find to be any use in triggering any thought? There is something so pure and stuck-up about this forum that makes it superior to those other "forums"? (the word is fora, if one really wishes to be correct and classy..)
Yes, I can post in any type of English at any level of stuck-up-ness, what-what I say, but see no need to do so. In fact, I post here for relaxation, not as a primary place of technical, strategic or military dissemination. Or to posture.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby pandyan » 25 Jul 2017 07:19

Sports equipment use lot of composites too and china has several companies manufacturing all kinds of sports equipments for the world. Some of the tools and skills would obviously trickle to other areas.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2017 07:55

pandyan wrote:Sports equipment use lot of composites too and china has several companies manufacturing all kinds of sports equipments for the world. Some of the tools and skills would obviously trickle to other areas.


For one, ALL given or stolen.

And. "composite" in a 5th Gen plane is highly sophisticated, then comes one for a 4th Gen plane (LCA) and then comes other non-def uses - sports equip/cars/etc. NONE of them are the same.

China, as far as I can see, WILL BE a total failure in a few more years in the aerospace industry - they will fall way behind. IMVVHO, India has done very well, just needs the ducks to line up - granted it is a dream, but one that can be achieved.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 25 Jul 2017 07:56

Marten wrote:UBji, since you brought up panel uneven-ness, is it because of the handlaid prepeg being badly laid, or the joins? Shouldn't the paint or ram costing sufficiently smoothen the surface? Am sure you've toured the Seattle lab where discontinuous carbon fibre composite is being developed. For non load bearing components such as skin panels, can we request consultancy from the real specialists like Lamborghini or Trek cycle Co? Can this forged composite approach be used with meshed materials to provide quicker wartime replacement panels at the depot itself? (trying to not call the material or idea half-baked). The autoclave seems to be a huge hindrance, therefore my probably illiterate question. Apologies if OT.


Where did you get this from that the skin panels are non load bearing..??

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2017 08:16

Kakkaji wrote:As it is today, is the LCA Mk1 not better than the Mig-27 in ground attack role?

If you say EL/M 2032s and Kh59s are inferior to Komar and Kh29s well supported by R 29 engines.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 25 Jul 2017 09:53

JayS wrote:
Marten wrote:UBji, since you brought up panel uneven-ness, is it because of the handlaid prepeg being badly laid, or the joins? Shouldn't the paint or ram costing sufficiently smoothen the surface? Am sure you've toured the Seattle lab where discontinuous carbon fibre composite is being developed. For non load bearing components such as skin panels, can we request consultancy from the real specialists like Lamborghini or Trek cycle Co? Can this forged composite approach be used with meshed materials to provide quicker wartime replacement panels at the depot itself? (trying to not call the material or idea half-baked). The autoclave seems to be a huge hindrance, therefore my probably illiterate question. Apologies if OT.


Where did you get this from that the skin panels are non load bearing..??

From
therefore my probably illiterate question

Apologies! Not from an aero background, and as a layman, would not know if shear is considered as load. I'm armchair design authority (ADA) with limited knowledge of (bending) moments and aerostructures, gleaned probably from chai nashta and beer sessions with knowledgeable structural folks such yourself. Please do educate.

UBji, one KB team works with an auto maker for sensors on their assembly line. I do not think the regular engg folks in the plants are really experts. Most of the tool design and robotic knowledge is restricted to the labs. I don't know the production engineering aspects of this though. Gus might actually be able to tell us more. Japanese especially work in limited silos so design knowledge is typically limited to a protected team (in our domain as well, it is impossible to get deeper insights into any specific issues from such a protected team -- only specific changes to a config or a single lib change will be provided with no further explanation!).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Philip » 25 Jul 2017 10:44

From available info,it appears that our legacy MIG-21s and MIG-27s (not Bisons),may soldier on until 2020. Therefore,if LCA prod. can be ramped up with a second line (no news of further progress on this at all,can't understand why),then around 20+ may be in service with the IAF by 2020 when the legacy MIGs retire.The problem is that the Jags are also due for deep upgrades which will keep at least 12-20 out of service every year until the lot has been upgraded.This upgrade should not go beyond 2025 as the aircraft by then be terribly obsolete.The gap in numbers will be around 100+ at the very least.The IAF should try and add more aircraft of types in service in the interim until the LCA dev/prod has stabilised. It explains why the IAF is hunting for legacy MIG-29s to upgrade,Jags to cannibalise,etc.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 25 Jul 2017 11:15

Marten wrote:
JayS wrote:
Where did you get this from that the skin panels are non load bearing..??

From
therefore my probably illiterate question

Apologies! Not from an aero background, and as a layman, would not know if shear is considered as load. I'm armchair design authority (ADA) with limited knowledge of (bending) moments and aerostructures, gleaned probably from chai nashta and beer sessions with knowledgeable structural folks such yourself. Please do educate.

How do you think the aero-loads which act on the skin are transferred to the airframe saar..? :D Even the earliest fabric skin aircrafts has the fabric loaded. Only thing it it would only take tension.

Almost since 1920s, with the application of monocoque design approach, aircraft skins are always loaded structural members. It shifted to semi-monocoque design soon where skin has underlying reinforcements in the form of stringers and frames. In modern design for civil jet liners for example, upper and lower wing skin form the top and bottom part of the wing torsion box, the other two parts being front and rear spar. Likewise the fuselage skin is loaded completely.

Skin being thin metal/composite panels they don't take shear. They only take up in-plane forces i.e. tension and compression. While its easy to load them under tension (think of stretched cloth), for compression they have reinforcing structural components below them (not the airframe structure but longerons circular frames, stingers etc >> semi-monocoque design)

You guys are oversimplifying the problems. Its not like Aero industry itself doesn't have competency for composite manufacturing, at the global level. As far as LCA is concerned, its not available in anywhere in industry in India, auto or aero. Whatever UB ji are telling about bad quality panels on LCA prototypes, please keep in mind that the LCA composite tech was in its infancy at that time, developed by NAL from scratch. NAL wanted to give out the tech but there was no taker from industry and thus they have been manufacturing the parts for LCA in initial years. It was always going to be a bad finish. However now the parts are being manufactured in Pvt industry. We have not really seen Serial production quality so far from up-close. From the available pictures its seems decent. It will only improve with time. It wouldn't have made much difference if it were metal components instead of composites. Bringing in Auto experts wouldn't have removed this process stabilization phase. Or if GOI had given spare money for experimentation/RnD the existing suppliers themselves could have manufactured parts as practice and improved on the quality before the production starts. But you know very well that there is no such money available in India. (In other countries companies hone their skills on tech demos years before the process/method is applied to a live product. In India, we try to to it on the job. Obviously we will see bad quality initially).

Also there is little to gain from bringing in mass manufacturing knowledge, because aircrafts will never be mass-manufactured at the levels of Cars. BMW manufactures composite panels using die-forming. Arguably this gives good finish and consistency. But you cannot expect an aero component manufacturing companies to set up such die-press set ups when a single part is only made in few hundreds quantity. There is simply no justification for that kind of investment on such small batches. Also the principles of quality control are different. Whereas its based on statistical models applied to quality checks on randomly selected small number of parts from a batch, in Aerospace every part is thoroughly checked (even a scratch is not tolerated on structural component often). With this kind of quality control its easy to keep check on quality even with manual processes. (And its not that hand layup is bad only. With a proper process in place you can easily get reproducibility) And also its not like robots are not already being used. A350/B787 extensively use robots for making composite parts. But not all composite parts are possible with such processes. Its easy to automate uni-directional tape based components with relatively less complicated topology. For pre-preg based component and with complex topology, manual layup is still easier and economical option. You might ask why not make parts from automate-able process then - To switch from one process to another means change of the design from very basic level in composites because the material properties are intrinsically tied to the process of manufacturing.

There is nothing like H&D issues or such stuff stopping a proven technology from Auto industry to come into Aerospace (indeed many good things have come from Auto industry to Aero). If it makes economic sense it will come. And eventually majority of composites will be made by machines as technology progresses, but currently its not that a trivial task. On top of it, try getting tech for Defense related project from outside (because desi auto companies are hopelessly lagging in this field compared to their global counterparts). N number of laws and restrictions kick in when you want a tech for defense application. Composites are classified as dual use tech and is under a lot of restrictions.

May be if GOI can give truckload of money to a few pvt companies to develop composite manufacturing capability for widespread applications and then dole out incentives to encourage use of composites in not only in Aerospace/Defense but in other industries too domestically, then perhaps we can have a good capability built up quickly in this field. Currently the use of composites is so low in India that doing anything makes very little economic sense. Only if GOI can bankroll people will take it up. Otherwise it will take its own sweet time to come up based on market forces. Other countries are doing it already. Indian government is hopelessly policy blind in such areas.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 25 Jul 2017 11:25

Thank you, JayS. Finally feels like the LCA thread is back! Shall retreat into the shadows now. :)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests