LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2017 15:09

Sorry Rak bhai, in a flash I linked it.

Indranil wrote:Don't know. Overconfidence, smugness.

Moi hunch is Khan pressures. Again, someone might think otherwise.. the different screws are always delivered from unkill. We have seen this many times.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Dec 2017 15:29

Cybaru wrote:Wait, what? The plug is still on with old engine?

It was in ref to MK2.

Ramu wrote:Does the MK1A order mean MK1 is exportable now?

Why would the two things be connected..?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Dec 2017 15:56

Indranil wrote:Dileep Sir,

My chai has different colour. I am still being told that it is for Elta to lose the order. I am also being told that it is trying very hard to lose it. Second comes Thales. Uttam comes a distant third. It is all about speed now

Ok figures, Uttam was only at A2A mode stage in Feb for trials. They were still doing the A2G ones clearly. Having said that, I hope they persevere with the program. Even with conservative range estimates for the LCA, it will be a beast when Su-30 sized and can clearly exploit Meteor sized missiles to the max.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 22 Dec 2017 16:31

There is no choice but to go with Uttam. If both the AESA do not come through, put A-A Uttam not fully developed, have 2-3 full uttam teams chasing its development to completion. That is the only way forward. If you do not have radar and aa missiles to go with it, what was the point to indigenize?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Dec 2017 17:24

I agree. However at this point, we need the LCA in service. Lets not hold the platform up for a subsystem. If imported fighters can fly with imported radars, an Indian fighter can fly with an imported radar.

Lets hope we dont repeat the CAG driven stupidity, and actually complete the Uttam for deployment on local platforms.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 22 Dec 2017 19:00

What's this talk about radar 2052? A few years ago, I read a news about USA pressuring Israel not to sell Elta 2052 to India. It was because of that that we had to settle for 2032. Even on Israeli forums, there was a lot of resentment about US interfering with their exports. Has that issue been resolved? Afaik elta is only offering 2032 for LCA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Dec 2017 19:09

The jags have already got the 2052.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 22 Dec 2017 20:32

Indranil wrote:I am also being told that 300-400kg weight loss is possible. They are going to bring in every change from the Mk2 possible. Even ADA feels MK1A will be much better than MK1.

2052 is lighter. They are going to consolidate LRUs and save on brackets, mounts etc., lose the ballast, lose the flab on the LGs. It’s feasible.

OBOGs is coming for sure. If they pull in the aero reshaping for lesser transonic/supersonic drag, then you are speaking of an exceptional light fighter. If CSIO can get a wider fRameless HUD, that will be the cherry on top.

Indranil, may I request something to help us all get a good picture. For all the improvement points mentioned by you above, using your estimates (no classified info) can you pls do a small matrix. Improvement , Positive Impact on aircraft (scale of 1- 10 with 10 max impact) , difficulty of implementation , time frame.

Will give us all a consolidated and useful picture.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Dec 2017 00:10

suryag wrote:IR sir, does the 50cm plug mentioned in MK2 activities improve the drag situation even without the 414 ?

Mk1A will not have the plug. And a more powerful engine will only improve the "thrust situation" not the "drag situation". Drag will remain same although you will have more thrust to counter it.

But if what Indranil's chaiwalla is saying is true and they can shave off 300-400kg of weight on the Mk1A, that will reduce induced drag even without any aerodynamic reshaping or fuselage plugs. Gyani log like Indranil and Jay can comment on whether the reduction could be significant or negligible.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2017 00:37

Indranil wrote:I am also being told that 300-400kg weight loss is possible. They are going to bring in every change from the Mk2 possible. Even ADA feels MK1A will be much better than MK1.

2052 is lighter. They are going to consolidate LRUs and save on brackets, mounts etc., lose the ballast, lose the flab on the LGs. It’s feasible.

OBOGs is coming for sure. If they pull in the aero reshaping for lesser transonic/supersonic drag, then you are speaking of an exceptional light fighter. If CSIO can get a wider fRameless HUD, that will be the cherry on top.

Won't obogs increase weight? Not trying to be a wet blanket but 300-400kg loss, let alone 800kg seems a lot after an aesa, obogs etc. Still, if they can manage to drop half that weight I'll be doing lungi dance.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Dec 2017 01:02

JayS wrote:
suryag wrote:IR sir, does the 50cm plug mentioned in MK2 activities improve the drag situation even without the 414 ?
It does. The plug and Engine are independent from each other.

How much does the plug weight? If weight in other areas are shaved by 400kg+, a plug could be added.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 23 Dec 2017 02:57

Indranil wrote: If they pull in the aero reshaping for lesser transonic/supersonic drag

Indranil how would they go about this when airframe is the same?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Dec 2017 05:19

Indranil, Do central fuselage section will het changed to reduce drag in available space. Coke bottle?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Dec 2017 05:32

Any chance they will add a dorsal fuel tank like on the ugly mig-35 or cfts like on rafale or fa-18?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Dec 2017 07:32

Cybaru Supersonic fuselage has only few options. Take a look at Google and come to conclusion.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 23 Dec 2017 08:06

ramana wrote:Cybaru Supersonic fuselage has only few options. Take a look at Google and come to conclusion.

Does not any kind of structural mods mean lengthy testing - esp fuselage mods.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Dec 2017 08:07

Ajai Shukla had claimed excess of 1 ton shaving of weight. http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 951_1.html

The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.

Couldn't find any authoritative (official ADA/HAL) info corroborating the above.

I'm not an aero guy, but my hypothesis is that MK1A is gated by test points that need to be covered. A plug that may affect CG is going to be a big ask.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 23 Dec 2017 08:33

Christmas is only two days away. Hoping SP-5 flies before that as Indranil Guru has predicted. For me, that would be the best Christmas present.

By the way, looking at the SP-7 picture on the previous page, it somehow reminds me of the Gnat. The small, beautiful, scrappy fighter. Those of us who are old enough to remember, the picture of the Gnat used to be on postage stamps at one time.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Dec 2017 09:09

ramana wrote:Cybaru Supersonic fuselage has only few options. Take a look at Google and come to conclusion.

Kahan anpaad annadi ko padne bolte hoon. Aerodynamic akshar flying bhaaisan (bufffalo) barabar! If I could understand all that wouldn't be asking indranil stupid questions!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Dec 2017 16:38

srin wrote:Ajai Shukla had claimed excess of 1 ton shaving of weight. http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 951_1.html
The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.
Couldn't find any authoritative (official ADA/HAL) info corroborating the above.

I'm not an aero guy, but my hypothesis is that MK1A is gated by test points that need to be covered. A plug that may affect CG is going to be a big ask.

Any fuselage plug can be re ballasted to maintain the CG within limits, weight will obviously change, whether for the good or bad, will have to be seen.

no one should take shooklaw too seriously, he obviously has a burr up his ....

HAL is serious about the "over engineering" and the factor of safety issues. In one case known to me, they went and deliberately loaded a wing to failure to establish that the wing actually failed just a little bit above where it was to actually supposed to fail.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2017 20:38

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944557012028813312 --> Apparently, DRDO's LRDE is going to hire an executive jet being brought in by a private company to serve as a flying test bed for the Uttam AESA fighter radar. Structural modifications will be made to the executive jet, obviously.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 23 Dec 2017 20:39

The LCA bottleneck - its F-404 engine is sanction prone. I understand from BRF that we are past the hump on all other aspects incl. radars. Taking a leaf from China's book, the LIFT and ground attack versions should be a different engine (made in parallel with "regular" versions). China exports bandar with RD-33 and uses RD-33 for J-10 version A.

Version B has WS-10, (50+ produced). They dont care much if slightly underpowered. It is equivalent to F-16A / B in performance and localised, and can fire same missile guided by same radar.

Russia also knows abt it, and so will never sanction an engine that can be replaced overnight. Export customers of bandar /J-10 (Paki, African countries, BD, SL) prefer RD-33 engined versions

In a way it makes sense.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2017 20:40

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944175096200962050 ---> Alongside the Tejas build-up is a need to move credibly towards getting a domestic engine in place to power its variants by the second half of the 2020s. The indigenous Uttam fighter AESA radar program cannot end up being a technology demonstrator either.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2017 20:40

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944174460885594115 ---> Giving up on a larger Tejas variant similar to the Gripen NG is not an option in my opinion. Such a platform can provide the industrial pre-adaptation and scale necessary for LRUs and even sub-systems that can find their way onto the AMCA package.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 23 Dec 2017 20:46

The LCA from engine pov has a route that can be sanction proof (and MOD/DRDO/ADA should as PoC explore this route) - Make LCA around AL31-F engine ( the same engine as SU30MKI, of which we are license building 960 of it and 50 we have produced from raw material). That LCA will be bigger than LCA-MK2, in fact after SU30MKI, it will have the biggest size/range etc. Plus having TVC, the design can be further refined, and at close quarters, it could be the best dog fighter (J-10 uses the same engine, the plane design is a generation behind LCA, by this we jump to the next level, a 4++ SEF)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2017 20:56

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944557012028813312 --> Apparently, DRDO's LRDE is going to hire an executive jet being brought in by a private company to serve as a flying test bed for the Uttam AESA fighter radar. Structural modifications will be made to the executive jet, obviously.

I dont know whether to be happy we can hire a jet or be appalled at how penny pinching our babus are. Fricking unbelievable we can't even get a single biz jet testbed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2017 20:59

dinesh_kimar wrote:The LCA bottleneck - its F-404 engine is sanction prone. I understand from BRF that we are past the hump on all other aspects incl. radars. Taking a leaf from China's book, the LIFT and ground attack versions should be a different engine (made in parallel with "regular" versions). China exports bandar with RD-33 and uses RD-33 for J-10 version A.

Version B has WS-10, (50+ produced). They dont care much if slightly underpowered. It is equivalent to F-16A / B in performance and localised, and can fire same missile guided by same radar.

Russia also knows abt it, and so will never sanction an engine that can be replaced overnight. Export customers of bandar /J-10 (Paki, African countries, BD, SL) prefer RD-33 engined versions

In a way it makes sense.

J-10s all have AL-31F variants with gearbox repositioned.

Agree with you we need to move beyond GE engines on the LCA.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Dec 2017 21:14

fanne wrote:The LCA from engine pov has a route that can be sanction proof (and MOD/DRDO/ADA should as PoC explore this route) - Make LCA around AL31-F engine ( the same engine as SU30MKI, of which we are license building 960 of it and 50 we have produced from raw material). That LCA will be bigger than LCA-MK2, in fact after SU30MKI, it will have the biggest size/range etc. Plus having TVC, the design can be further refined, and at close quarters, it could be the best dog fighter (J-10 uses the same engine, the plane design is a generation behind LCA, by this we jump to the next level, a 4++ SEF)

Are AL31-F of MKIs are reliable enough to be used for single engine fighter ?

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 23 Dec 2017 21:15

ashishvikas wrote:
fanne wrote:The LCA from engine pov has a route that can be sanction proof (and MOD/DRDO/ADA should as PoC explore this route) - Make LCA around AL31-F engine ( the same engine as SU30MKI, of which we are license building 960 of it and 50 we have produced from raw material). That LCA will be bigger than LCA-MK2, in fact after SU30MKI, it will have the biggest size/range etc. Plus having TVC, the design can be further refined, and at close quarters, it could be the best dog fighter (J-10 uses the same engine, the plane design is a generation behind LCA, by this we jump to the next level, a 4++ SEF)
Are AL31-F of MKIs are reliable enough to be used for single engine fighter ?

+1

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Dec 2017 21:21

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944557012028813312 --> Apparently, DRDO's LRDE is going to hire an executive jet being brought in by a private company to serve as a flying test bed for the Uttam AESA fighter radar. Structural modifications will be made to the executive jet, obviously.

Shiv Aroor had reported that they are getting LSP-2 for Uttam. I hope that's also happens.

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.

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

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 23 Dec 2017 21:35

ashishvikas wrote:
fanne wrote:The LCA from engine pov has a route that can be sanction proof (and MOD/DRDO/ADA should as PoC explore this route) - Make LCA around AL31-F engine ( the same engine as SU30MKI, of which we are license building 960 of it and 50 we have produced from raw material). That LCA will be bigger than LCA-MK2, in fact after SU30MKI, it will have the biggest size/range etc. Plus having TVC, the design can be further refined, and at close quarters, it could be the best dog fighter (J-10 uses the same engine, the plane design is a generation behind LCA, by this we jump to the next level, a 4++ SEF)
Are AL31-F of MKIs are reliable enough to be used for single engine fighter ?

I hope your comment was a real question (and not rhetorical - you bloody injuns, all Ruski and Indian stuff suck) - No SU30MKI has crashed yet because of engine failure. Chinese are flying their single engine (same engine) J-10 for a decade.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 23 Dec 2017 21:38

Also by hopping from F404 TO F414 to AL31F (that should be a natural progression, or AL-41F that comes with Super Sukhois upgrade), if we go directly to AL31F/AL41F we skip one generation. Yes the F404/f414 per kg of its size is more efficient/reliable/powerful than AL31F. So it is a matter of choice.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2017 21:46

fanne wrote:Also by hopping from F404 TO F414 to AL31F (that should be a natural progression, or AL-41F that comes with Super Sukhois upgrade), if we go directly to AL31F/AL41F we skip one generation. Yes the F404/f414 per kg of its size is more efficient/reliable/powerful than AL31F. So it is a matter of choice.

There is that little weight issue....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2017 22:21

Rakesh wrote:Read the whole thing. Awesome article. I would suggest, go to the link...drink some chai and enjoy!

Why the fight for Tejas and Arjun is not just about defence forces
http://www.governancenow.com/views/colu ... nce-forces

Visit this link (from Anantha Krishnan) and retweet if you have a Twitter account ---> https://twitter.com/akananth/status/944033992239484928

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 23 Dec 2017 22:27

Karan M wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/944557012028813312 --> Apparently, DRDO's LRDE is going to hire an executive jet being brought in by a private company to serve as a flying test bed for the Uttam AESA fighter radar. Structural modifications will be made to the executive jet, obviously.
I dont know whether to be happy we can hire a jet or be appalled at how penny pinching our babus are. Fricking unbelievable we can't even get a single biz jet testbed.

This is not penny pinching ie a thought out and sustained strategy of reducing costs while delivering value. It is just power games, lack of knowledge , lack of purpose and your normal daily bureaucracy. No point blaming individuals - its the structure of the bureaucracy. Individuals are just responding to their structure and incentives. Vidur explains it out quite well.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 23 Dec 2017 22:33

the good news is Uttam seams to be quite a long way ahead. We have a BVR to go with it and we should be able to integrate WVR missile with Tejas (which are IR missiles mostly not needing integration with radar).

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 23 Dec 2017 22:41

^ Continuing from my earlier post, is there a possiblity that 68-70 KN Kaveri is integrated into the LCA ?
> Role of LIFT / Combat Hawk / CAS /recon
> Aircraft wt. reduced for extra seat and to maintain power-wt. ratio - ballast, radar and fuel load sacrificed. IFR obviously stays.
> Engine MTBO 400-500 hr (or better than in-service Mig-27) and wt. 1200 kg.

> Performance 1.1 -1.3 mach estimated.

These are specs of better than Paki Mirage 5 ROSE. (incl. engine power)

BTW, the LCA video from Sulur is great, bird truly looks the part of a Multi Role plane, in the Mirage 2000 mold.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2017 22:44

Dinesh, nothing below 90 - 95 kN. A certified Kaveri at those specs is a **MUST** have.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 Dec 2017 23:08

Skepticisms on Mk2.. shhhh...

The purchase of an adapted version of the LCA Mark-1 comes amid skepticism about a another effort to purchase of 105 Mark 2 versions of futuristic, homemade light-combat aircraft for $15 billion. Service officials and analysts have said that program lacks clarity.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/12 ... Js.twitter

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Dec 2017 23:30

Please tell me you guys are joking

Al 31
type: Two-shaft afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,990 millimetres (196 in)
Diameter: 905 millimetres (35.6 in) inlet; 1,280 millimetres (50 in) maximum external
Dry weight: 1,570 kilograms (3,460 lb)

F414
.Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight