LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 29 Jul 2017 18:16

^^ My guess--
In the above photo I think Air Marshal was just a "passenger" while Air Vice Marshal did the flying..
.
In a previous Photo and article I read ACM RAHA actually did the flying after take off.
So you can see the pad on the right thigh pocket

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 29 Jul 2017 18:18

News clip here

http://www.asianage.com/ideas/turbulenc ... -tejas-187

On May 17, a group of Indian Air Force’s finest were gathered around in a room buzzing with radio transmissions and lined with consoles. There was nervousness in the air and frowns on faces. Their day in Bengaluru had started according to plan. India would witness the performance of the Tejas fighter jet, their boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, would be flying in it for the first time, he would take over controls halfway into the 30-minute flight and the jet itself would be flown by ace pilot Group Captain Madhav Rangachari.

But as Group Captain Rangachari fired up the engines of the twin-seat trainer version, Air Chief Marshal Raha, from the rear seat threw up a surprise. He told the pilot he would take over completely — take off, check the jet’s agility, throw it into dives, pick a ‘target’ and then return to Bengaluru’s HAL aiport. And as the group of stunned IAF officers in command & control stared into monitors, their boss shot off in the direction of Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu, 90 kilometres away, picked a dam as the ‘ground target’, simulated a strike, tossed the jet around with one of the moves generating a body-crushing 5Gs and then headed back to Bengaluru for a smooth landing.

The Air Chief Marshal was flying after 17 years and in command & control many were looking around for chairs to sit. Because besides the relief, there was much joy. For those who had worked on the plane, this day was once a waking dream.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 29 Jul 2017 19:32

Yakherderji
That plane is a two=seater. They were doing customer flights and the air chief did a sortie during one of those rides. That two seater looks really nice. But the Navy version looks best.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jul 2017 19:45

jayasimha wrote:^^ My guess--
In the above photo I think Air Marshal was just a "passenger" while Air Vice Marshal did the flying..

Hain, ji, but may I respectfully point out that there is no second cockpit visible on that aircraft? I don't think they allow what Indian train passengers and bus conductors demand:

Sneh se baitho!

with two hefty warriors squeezed into one seat-belt and ejection seat.

That was my question: has a 2-seater version been developed? If not, where was His Excellency the Air Marshal carried as passenger? Is THAT what the air intake at the tail end is for?

Internal air-breathing store?

If there is no 2-seater version, then there is no Rapid-Transit Chauffeur Service mission to ferry VIPs between Kanyakumari and Kashmir, so the question is, why the in-flight refueling on a light aircraft? For IAF? For missions inside cheen, it seems a bit doubtful that the long period of subsonic, vulnerable flight where fighters are drinking from a tanker, can be sustained. Missions over the ocean apart from SL and Lakshadweep and Bombay High, are the province of Naval LCA, IMO. Raises a lot of curious questions.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Jul 2017 20:13

UB sir, there is trainer version which is used for these sorties with VIPs. The AVM and AM flew in them. Tandem seats. The intake at the base of the fin is for the environment control unit. It supplies air to all the heat exchangers.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 29 Jul 2017 20:21

question is, why the in-flight refueling on a light aircraft? For IAF?

yakdevji
noob would like to guess
1. IAF plans to keep it deep inside and then air defence
2. refueling over arab ocean and then controlling whatever exists under the name of pakistani navy and pound karachi rather than committing heavy hitters like Su30
BTW the ray gun comment was on jocular side, didnt respond separately to litter on forum

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jul 2017 20:29

Thanks. Two-seater with refueling becomes interesting in other contexts as well. Like south tip of Myanmar. Maldives. Pilots can get some rest in flight.

No kidding about laser weapons. USN is making them operational for anti-drone / anti-missile defence. Which means that the blueprints will have been faithfully conveyed to Wee Dong Xelox and will appear soon on PLAN as well. UCAV version is a bit off because weight is not down yet, but depend on Wee Dong to accomplish that. If it is a 1-mission soosai UCAV, they can use plastic instead of metal for most of the laser.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Jul 2017 20:47

UlanBatori wrote:Is it a 2-seater or did the Air Marshal ride as External Stores? (JUST CONFUSED, pls don't attack!) The ViceMarshal has the map pad in his right thigh pocket, suggesting that he sat in the left-hand seat if there are 2 seats. The Air Marshal made my day. My tummy also looks that way, Marshalji!

Tandem seating saar

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jul 2017 21:35

O I c! Looking carefully I see that it is a tandem seater all right.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jul 2017 21:49

UlanBatori wrote:Hain, why is there a small intake like that for an APU, way up on the spine of the LCA far behind the pilot? Is this for the super-secret Mach 6 SCRAMJET mode for missions to Urumyi? Same question as I asked above: what IAF missions require in-flight refueling? Ferrying Air Marshals from TVM to DEL?

Its for the APU.

There is a cut away diagram for the LCA some where in this forum but can google for it.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Jul 2017 22:10

Singha wrote:Mig29 has BRD not manufacturing line in india.

Over time, BRDs acquire capabilities to assemble the entire aircraft, though not like a assembly line.

The Chandigarh BRD has assembled, overhauled and refitted 100s of Mi-8/17.

The PC-7 is assembled at an IAF BRD

The MiG-29UPG upgrade including re-engining with Series 3 engines is done at IAF BRD.

Even for Rafale and plan for Tejas is for subcontractors to supply structural parts and radars and engines and HAL to assemble them.

Avtar Singh · Post by **Avtar Singh** » 30 Jul 2017 00:02

I was going to make an incorrect comment/reply on APU topic, which I deleted..
On reading the wiki page "HAL Tejas" I have to reiterate what an awesome achievement

"As of 13 July 2017, the Tejas fleet has flown 3,478 test sorties and 4,200 hours without any accidents"

long gone are the days of 1998? and the FBW/FCS people being thrown out of USA
congratulations to India

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jul 2017 01:29

ramana wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:Hain, why is there a small intake like that for an APU, way up on the spine of the LCA far behind the pilot? Is this for the super-secret Mach 6 SCRAMJET mode for missions to Urumyi? Same question as I asked above: what IAF missions require in-flight refueling? Ferrying Air Marshals from TVM to DEL?
Its for the APU.

There is a cut away diagram for the LCA some where in this forum but can google for it.

It's not for the APU Ramana sir.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 Jul 2017 02:16

Hmm! Then it must be the thrust-augmenting ejector to combine with afterburner operation to reach Mach 6.

And cook tandoori chicken for those long trips.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jul 2017 02:34

Nice LCA data in this thread...

http://www.russiadefence.net/t4249-hal- ... ce-fighter

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jul 2017 02:54

Naval LCA Cutaway

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jul 2017 03:12

Indranil You had posted two years ago it was for a heat exchanger.

Will link it.

viewtopic.php?p=1788049#p1788049

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jul 2017 03:22

I am glad HAL is on schedule with expansion of the assembly line.

The Mk-2 for airforce which has a different plug size (0.5M vs INs 1M) didn't make sense. Nor do we have the capacity to work on two Mk-2 versions at the same time. At the most we could have done with one. I feel eventually IAF will add another 40-60 Mk1A and wait for the Navy Mk2 to be ready and tweak that to add some to its inventory.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 30 Jul 2017 08:56

UBji, I like your VKNish sense of humour, but this time, honestly, I don't get it. Blame maybe mine, as history says once serendipity happened to me after several months of you posting something.

In other news, apparently everything new that I know of are frozen at ADA. Optimistically, it is to get everything finished for the current spec. Pessimistically, it is to pave way for the SE.

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Jul 2017 09:03

Dileep wrote: In other news, apparently everything new that I know of are frozen at ADA. Optimistically, it is to get everything finished for the current spec. Pessimistically, it is to pave way for the SE.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jul 2017 22:53

Cybaru wrote:I am glad HAL is on schedule with expansion of the assembly line.

The Mk-2 for airforce which has a different plug size (0.5M vs INs 1M) didn't make sense. Nor do we have the capacity to work on two Mk-2 versions at the same time. At the most we could have done with one. I feel eventually IAF will add another 40-60 Mk1A and wait for the Navy Mk2 to be ready and tweak that to add some to its inventory.

I don't think anything like the NLCA mk2 is happening, iirc the Navy bailed out of the program. My guess is that the NLCA won't go anywhere with a 10 ton engine and an 7.5-8 ton airframe. The twr seems too low for stobar ops.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jul 2017 23:07

^^^
What you say is a gross oversimplification. But just for fun:
Rafale M: 15 ton engines, 10.8 tons empty weight
F-18: 20 ton engines, 15 ton empty weight

You can do the math.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 31 Jul 2017 06:26

You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 31 Jul 2017 06:37

Why is IN bailing out of LCA program? Seems a bit suspicious when combined with complaints about not being able to keep MiG29s flying. [Deleted]

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jul 2017 07:16

Dileep wrote:You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.

But wont this again lead to a LCA- redux since we jump into a highly complex set of problems all at once ( if there was a Mk2, these technologies can be proven on them instead of trying too many things at once on AMCA) and once again, inevitable delays will happen leading to the next set of Import v/s make debate 20 years from now.

With the IN also literally washing its hands off, the dream of any Indian naval fighter is done for since with years to come, the need for carrier fighters will only increase with more carriers coming online and we wont have a local option.
I just hope we plug ahead with the NLCA so that atleast one day in the far future, we will have a option instead of being at the mercy of US/France till the end of time

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Jul 2017 08:02

Dileep wrote:You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.

Dileep saar, if it is not classified or unknown, what problems? We're in the same cycle, spiral of closure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2017 09:37

Marten you haven't been reading this thread!
IFR, Python5, gun firing, LRU redistribution, and cable harness und so weiter.

Also I think LCA design group will work on PAK-FA and transition to AMCA.
Same as Viking to Vikas.
IAF hedges for SU-30MKI replacement.
Bigger thing is RM setup panel which overturned MOD and MOF bokwas.

vina · Post by **vina** » 31 Jul 2017 10:03

Dileep wrote:You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.

Cheta , I wouldn't be worried. Much of the MK2 avionics is already ported into the MK1 and is now called Mk1A . Also, with the over designed landing gear of HAL (why does it look suspiciously like a straight lift out of the Jaguar and plonked into the LCA to my lay man lazy eyes, given that HAL makes the Jaguar gears as well ?) and the removal of the ballast etc, the empty weight will come down and you really don't need the Mk2 . You will get the range and manoeuvrability specs back in the Mk1A.

Where the Mk2 is REALLY needed is in the Navy version, where you need a redesigned landing gear load path . If the Navy has decided to bail out of the Mk2, it is really not needed. The Mk2 was always a Navy requirement. The AF jumped on to it later iirc, salivating over bigger paper capability.

Maybe something like a breakthrough thing like an all composite landing gear on an optimised landing gear design (the current landing gear on the Navy is over designed anyways) and ballast less design for the LCA Navy (Mk1) and also stress areas where the arrester hook attaches is the way to go.

An Mk2 kind of airframe is too much effort (iteration and time wise). Better to go for small well defined projects achievable within specific timeframes to fix any deficiencies.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Jul 2017 11:37

ramana wrote:Marten you haven't been reading this thread!
IFR, Python5, gun firing, LRU redistribution, and cable harness und so weiter.

Also I think LCA design group will work on PAK-FA and transition to AMCA.
Same as Viking to Vikas.
IAF hedges for SU-30MKI replacement.
Bigger thing is RM setup panel which overturned MOD and MOF bokwas.

Ramana sir, (am a permanent lurker on this thread), none of those are Mk2 issues or unknown. IFR is the #1 issue probably. As you had speculated earlier, LRU issues related to gun vibration may have to be resolved iteratively (since any component supplier will need to requalify their items, and will need a year from issue of new specs).

It would be a monumental failure if we failed to fund a subsequent mark/model for the LCA.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 31 Jul 2017 12:04

Marten wrote:
It would be a monumental failure if we failed to fund a subsequent mark/model for the LCA.

Hell ya. Its worth doing it even just for the heck of it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 12:35

Indranil wrote:^^^
What you say is a gross oversimplification. But just for fun:
Rafale M: 15 ton engines, 10.8 tons empty weight
F-18: 20 ton engines, 15 ton empty weight

You can do the math.

I've done this and already posted the figures earlier. The difference in twr between the nlca and the others is rather Stark. Sometimes the problem Is rather simple but folks wish it otherwise.

In either case it is rather strange that the Navy which everyone was in love with unlike the bad-bad airforce, for supporting the nlca project has now simply decided to bail out of the project, wonder why?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 12:40

UlanBatori wrote:Why is IN bailing out of LCA program? Seems a bit suspicious when combined with complaints about not being able to keep MiG29s flying. "Golf" Nadkarni and Romdoss got to them?

Mongolsaar, why so suspicious? Does it have to be that the Navy, if they bail out, must obviously be because they are anti Desi products. Could it even remotely be possible that the product won't actually work for them?

Imho, the reason for the Navy decision is the same reason that the IAF produced, but more relevant.... The bird is under powered. But of course my understanding of such matters is rudimentary at best, and there might actually be another better reason. But I find it rather suspicious that the one service which has been repeatedly commended even by jingos for being pro local products has suddenly grown an uncharacteristically unpatriotic bone and decided to abandon the project for flimsy reasons...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 12:46

sum wrote:
Dileep wrote:You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.
But wont this again lead to a LCA- redux since we jump into a highly complex set of problems all at once ( if there was a Mk2, these technologies can be proven on them instead of trying too many things at once on AMCA) and once again, inevitable delays will happen leading to the next set of Import v/s make debate 20 years from now.

With the IN also literally washing its hands off, the dream of any Indian naval fighter is done for since with years to come, the need for carrier fighters will only increase with more carriers coming online and we wont have a local option.
I just hope we plug ahead with the NLCA so that atleast one day in the far future, we will have a option instead of being at the mercy of US/France till the end of time

Don't be so pessimistic Saar, we may yet live to see mangoeska on future carriers.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 12:47

nash wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
Source? Horrible news if confirmed. But dileep Saar did imply this.
http://idrw.org/lca-tejas-foc-delayed-update/

didn't find any other source, not sure where we can see the records of statement in parliment

Thanks Nash and JayS

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 13:37

Marten wrote:It would be a monumental failure if we failed to fund a subsequent mark/model for the LCA.

Isn't the journey from ioc2 to foc and finally to mk1a exactly this?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Jul 2017 13:50

Cain Marko wrote:
Marten wrote:It would be a monumental failure if we failed to fund a subsequent mark/model for the LCA.
Isn't the journey from ioc2 to focus and finally to mk1a exactly this?

Do you not foresee any features that may enhance the capability provided by the current model?

Why does the F-16 have block 70/72 when 50 was "exactly this"? How about the Grippen NG/E-F?

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jul 2017 13:58

Cain Marko wrote: Don't be so pessimistic Saar, we may yet live to see mangoeska on future carriers.

Hope that happens and would be the best possible outcome

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2017 14:07

Marten wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Isn't the journey from ioc2 to focus and finally to mk1a exactly this?
Do you not foresee any features that may enhance the capability provided by the current model?

Why does the F-16 have block 70/72 when 50 was "exactly this"? How about the Grippen NG/E-F?

Marten Saar, the mk1a be is already rough equivalent of gripen ng. No point in spending resources on a tiny bird that was designed to be a cost effective low end replacement of the fishbed and attempting an mrca typ on it. That ship has sailed unless you want to make it purely for export customers. It will take too long in the making and the biggest potential customer will need something else long before. If you notice the usaf stopped buying the f16 after the blk50s. The later versions all came for export customers afaik.

Just move on to a newer design aka aamka and have it ready for both the services.... What will truly be a monumental disaster is if the aamka is nowhere near ready in 2035 and the services look for other imports.

Having said this, further upgrades and mlus of the mk1a are a given as newer tech becomes available. I also expect more numbers for the same.

But this will now be Hals job, not ADAs, which needs to focus on newer, more cutting edge designs.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Jul 2017 14:14

Cain Marko wrote:
Marten wrote: Do you not foresee any features that may enhance the capability provided by the current model?

Why does the F-16 have block 70/72 when 50 was "exactly this"? How about the Grippen NG/E-F?
Marten Saar, the mk1a be is already rough equivalent of gripen ng. No point in spending resources on a tiny bird that was designed to be a cost effective low end replacement of the fishbed and attempting an mrca typ on it. That ship has sailed unless you want to make it purely for export customers. It will take too long in the making and the biggest potential customer will need something else long before. Just move on to a newer design aka aamka and have it ready for both the services.... What will truly be a monumental disaster is if the aamka is nowhere near ready in 2035 and the services look for other imports.

Having said this, further upgrades and mlus of the mk1a are a given as newer tech becomes available. I also expect more numbers for the same.

But this will now be Hals job, not ADAs, which needs to focus on newer, more cutting edge designs.

CM Saar, the IAF has to see it as the rough equivalent (and place additional orders)! My point is that AMCA cannot be held hostage (or vice versa). It ill take 8-9 years of engineering effort, but the FSED I and II stages require the most effort from ADA and they do have Airbus consultants.

What stops MOD from funding Mk2 -- why would the entire (and same) team be required when they can definitely do cross-pollination while working on two simultaneous projects. If it is a lack of focus, then ADA must be pulled up but punishing the nation or IAF by depriving them through cancellation or drip funding is only playing into the hands of an import lobby that would obviously benefit from the closure of native projects.
PS: Obviously a twin engine 4 gen would have been even better (a decade ago). No more from me on this. Not adding any value.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 31 Jul 2017 17:09

Cain Marko wrote:Mongolsaar, why so suspicious? Does it have to be that the Navy, if they bail out, must obviously be because they are anti Desi products. Could it even remotely be possible that the product won't actually work for them? Imho, the reason for the Navy decision is the same reason that the IAF produced, but more relevant.... The bird is under powered. But of course my understanding of such matters is rudimentary at best, and there might actually be another better reason. But I find it rather suspicious that the one service which has been repeatedly commended even by jingos for being pro local products has suddenly grown an uncharacteristically unpatriotic bone and decided to abandon the project for flimsy reasons...

Cainji, I am sure the Navy leadership understands the implication of their "strategy": MiG-29 is beneath their standards. LCA is beneath their standards. This leaves - what? French and American Navy fighters Rafale or F/A-18, unless they are arguing for JF-17.

Let's see:
1. Admiral Ramdoss, fomer head of Indian Navy. Notorious anti-Indian, spends much of his time slandering India on behalf of foreign entities and commie-pakis. Apparently an enthusiast if not representative of foreign arms dealers.
2. Admiral "golf" Nadkarni, former head of Indian Navy: Spent much of his time during the LCA development, calling for its cancellation. When the LCA actually flew, came out with an article DEMANDING project cancellation, that was so bogus it should have been marked as criminal in its misleading nature.
3. Another Navy boss has been shunted out because his wife was running the Navy, not he. For relatives. By relatives.
These atrocities went on for years and years unchecked. So I think some skepticism by the public is warranted on IN decisions. LCA may not be export-ready, but the IN leadership Alumni Association certainly seems export-ready.

The I in IN stands for India. It is a fact of life that without procurement from the armed services, indigenous weapon development is doomed. So a decision to "have nothing to do with it" by one service, should be unacceptable.

IIRC, when LCA was brought out, the Prototype 5 which was the Navy version, was the most interesting and advanced, since it had several aerodynamic features that others did not have. Now the Navy says it does not meet it's requirements? Are Indian Navy ships somehow special in that the LCA cannot land or takeoff on them? Have IN ships become smaller in the past 10 years? Pilots less skilled? I don't see why. Do they have R&D projects to solve whatever special problems are encountered?

The engine is underpowered? India does not know how to make engines of suitable thrust-to-weight ratio and reliability. That is not fixed by cancelling requirements. Frankly I think the whole setup stinks. Why can't MiG and Sukhoi fighters' engines be adapted, or the LCA adapted, for a match? Ask the Admirals to lose weight and set an example for Navy pilots. Develop lighter weapons.

Meanwhile, China is coming out with aircraft carrier production, and sailing those things all round the world (OK< under tow most of the time..) They are using their own fighters, not French or American. Why does this not work only with India?

The right course of action is for the IN leadership to be invited to a private meeting with the civilian leadership, and given sailing orders. If IN leadership does not cooperate in LCA development, then it is the leadership, not the LCA, that needs to be cancelled. Maybe like the BCCI, Indian netaship could decide that IN needs Phoren Coaches to replace the present top layer?

Maybe a lot of the funds earmarked for Navy procurement should be re-directed to LCA development to solve the outstanding issues.

So yes, given the antics of past leadership, the dissatisfaction with the MiG-29 and now the LCA combine to paint a rather bad picture of IN. Maybe they need to bring back the Mysteres.