LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

[Trikaal]

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/rhk111sm ... ck-60/amp/

This analysis was done ages ago and quite a few things are based on speculation and/or wrong but still makes me feel happy when our desi product is praised.

[Trikaal]

Yes.

How much does the new aesa weigh?

[Indranil]

But I don't know the exact figures for either. I am hearing that they will be very similar with the 2052 being slightly lighter.

Frankly, I believe it will be the other way round. But sometimes I trust others more than myself.

[JayS]

The empty weight of Mk2 will not be much more than that of the Mk1. Let us see the things that are going to add weight:

1. A 0.5 mtr fuselage will not weigh more than 300 kgs more in metal and plastic (If the 700 ltr tank number is true, then it has a >700cc hole in it).
2. Internal EW about 150 kgs (guesswork).

A couple of other things:
3. GE 414 is around 75-100 kg more than GE404
4. The SFC of GE414 is greater than that of GE404. So to travel the same distance, more fuel needs to be carried, rt ? Don't know enough math to say approximately how much though.

srin, the sfc dat for F414 is not easy to come by. I have tried multiple times. The reference you posted is pretty much the only number on internet that I have come across as well. But the number given there is not believable. F414 cannot have higher sfc than F404. Just by considering usual life cycle of any jet engine family, one would expect F414 to have improved efficiency. There is one reference on net that I can see in multiple locations (This one seems to be original source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... s/f414.htm)

The new engine has increased thrust, an improved thrust-to-weight ratio of 9:1 and a 3- to 4-percent cruise-specific fuel consumption improvement over the F404-GE-400 engine

3-4% improvement in sfc is quite believable.

Found this thesis work from Naval Postgrad school California. This actually grabbed data from above article only. (I am thinking since the thesis is by USN personnel it should give it some credibility, however that should not be necessarily true for obvious reasons. But I cannot find anything better. And the numbers are along the typical expectation and believable).
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a493918.pdf

It mentions:

The design improves reliability and fuel efficiency

“The Seven-Stage Compressor uses the latest 3-D aero and clearance control features to increase efficiency by 3%.

“The advanced High Pressure Turbine incorporates 3-D aero design, advanced cooling, and brush seals to increase efficiency by 2% and gas path temperature capability by 150 degrees Fahrenheit with current blade materials

“Three-dimensional vicious flow modeling helped increase turbine efficiency more than one percentage point over previous design methods. Thermal barrier coatings also enhance the durability of both turbines”

The 3% increased efficiency in HPC itself covers 3% increase in overall engine efficiency and drop of ~3% sfc. With all improvements mentioned 3-4% reduced sfc is quite obvious.

Some other data of F414 quoted in the thesis, from this mentioned ref - (Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, 1998, p. 1)

Engine Characteristics
The F414-GE-400 engine design is a low-bypass turbofan with a split spool turbine that allows the fan and compressor modules to spin independently. The Super Hornet is capable of going above the speed of sound, requiring Variable Area Exhaust Nozzles (VEN) mounted on the tail of the Afterburner (AB) Module, allowing for quick augmented thrust in flight. The engine is 155.5 inches long, weighs 2,445 lbs and has an inlet diameter of 30.6 inches. “The engine is rated at 14,770 lbs thrust at the maximum power throttle setting without the afterburner, and 21,890 lbs of thrust at the maximum afterburner throttle setting given standard day settings of 59°F, 0 percent humidity, sea level static conditions”

Upto you to believe source of your choice. I chose to take 3-4% reduction in SFC as correct.

[JayS]

The LCA has been funded for 3 decades+.When it was found that weight was an issue and a MK-2 was needed which the IAF was gung-ho about, saying it would meet all its requirements, a swift decision to start building the MK-2 prototype with the F-414 engine should've started.Funding? We've been funding the programme for over 3 decades. Surely the cost of a few MK-2 prototypes could've been worked into the overall R&D costs. How come the " Cinderella of the services" the IN coild find the money for their share of the programme.

If all the stakeholders had jointly pressed the GOI/ MOD, it would've happened.At that time the MMRCA show was hogging the limelight.Perhaps the anticipation of 120 of the same was more attractive than a Desi MK-2..How many voices were rooting for the MK-2 at that time too?

Still not too late .Look how long the F-16 and MIG-21 programmes have lasted with umpteen upgrades and variants.When compared with Rafale costs, a few MK-2 prototypes should be assured to HAL.
But as said before delays will kill it.Chin stealth fighters and US future fighters with bells and lasers will bury a simple MK-2.The IAF will demand more sophisticated fighters.
.

Philip saar, you are walking on thin ice already. Such kind of posts add zilch to discussion. If you want to make a point, present some data corroborating your point. Else kindly go to Whine thread.

Mod NOTE for all: Such posts will disappear from the threads. Please use whine thread if you want to vent out. I would urge posters not to reply to such posts, simply ignore or report. But if you want to dispel some usual myths by presenting credible data, you are more than welcome. Otherwise the replies also will disappear. No more warnings.

[suryag]

IR Sir, SP5 didnt fly last year, whines aside, where exactly is the non determinism coming in from ? we have seen across the board that the SP production doesnt really follow the timelines, varied reasons have been thrown in like SOP undergoing changes, component lead times etc. While all of these are acceptable as reasons, what confounds me is despite 1.5 lines being active for production over the past 2 years we still have teething issues(may be we can take that 0.5 kiran line out). What am curious is as a process where is the lacuna(production planning ? component sourcing planning ? financial sanctions ?) given HAL has produced few thousands of aircraft(concede it was screwdriver giri) and they should have this under control. Am pretty sure, if this is the case with a well run org like HAL(yeah it is comparitively very well run) OFBs probably are in a worse situation and there needs to be a bigger set of systemic issues that the Production PSUs might be facing which is probably not being addressed adequately.

[Indranil]

Your frustration is obvious and to some extent shared by me too.

SP5 had a problem when it came up for ground checks a few months back and had to return to the shop. Then it again came up flight trials about a month back. There was another problem, not in SP5, this time. But SP5’s first flight had to wait till it was cleared.

After that, I have not heard of any problems. It’s first flight should be imminent.

[Kartik]

^^ The 3500 Kg is supposed to be reasonable payload. The hard point capacity of mk1 is in excess of 5 tons. I expect tejas mtow to be within 1 ton of Gripen ng.

Just remember that additional payload and fuel on board generally does lead to strengthening of the airframe, which is what happened with Saab. They underestimated this, and as a result, the actual Gripen E is now showing an empty weight of 8000 kgs! So they've basically added a more powerful engine, but to get the additional range and payload, the empty weight has gone up by over 1300 kgs versus the Gripen C.

Gripen E fact sheet

the IAF and ADA need to arrive at the performance, range and payload numbers that they can make do with, while keeping the empty weight ~7000 to 7300 kgs. That should be the goal, IMO. Then you'll have a 9G fighter that can, when required do the longer range strike missions with additional payload of upto say 5000 kgs (which should more than suffice for almost any real scenario), but in most other scenarios, like interception or CAP, will remain light and agile with a fantastic thrust to weight ratio, thanks to the fact that it isn't lugging around a lot of empty weight all the time.

[Kartik]

I hope ADA goes for rigorous weight optimization of the airframe on Mk.2 but still I think we will see north of 7000 Kg for Mk.2.

I agree. I would bet on 7.3T if I have to choose one number.

Exactly the figure that I gave as my upper range for desired empty weight.

That would keep its MTOW around 15.5 tons, that's 2 tons more than that of the Mk1 or even Mk1A, but 1 ton lower than that of the Gripen E, which is 16.5 tons.

[jaysimha]

Happy new year to one and all..

there is no better way to start the new year.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... tml#page/1

if some one can get the full book they are lucky i think

[JayS]

JayS and Indranil

Can you both rank the changes in weight from MK1A to MK2 wrt range

Sorry didn't get you. What you mean by ranking exactly..?

Indranil, any idea what Life numbers they are targeting for Mk2...?

[Dileep]

Happy new year to one and all..

there is no better way to start the new year.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... tml#page/1

if some one can get the full book they are lucky i think

Here is PDF Version
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... cation.pdf

[JayS]

Happy new year to one and all..

there is no better way to start the new year.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... tml#page/1

if some one can get the full book they are lucky i think

I have been trying to buy it for a while. All those monographs are available for sell. But most of the times the site doesn't work when I check. Not sure how to order exactly.

[Philip]

Good media report about the DRDO in 2017, lots of achievements, a few mentioned misses- late in the yr., two failed missile tests, but otherwise a v.good yr.2018 should be even better.LCA production will be on the upswing and perhaps the first sqd
will get its full complement of aircraft.

[jaysimha]

Happy new year to one and all..

there is no better way to start the new year.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... tml#page/1

if some one can get the full book they are lucky i think

I have been trying to buy it for a while. All those monographs are available for sell. But most of the times the site doesn't work when I check. Not sure how to order exactly.

I think the below contact can do help
Editor-in-Chief: Dr Alka Suri
Senior Editor: B Nityanand; Editor: Manoj Kumar
Asst Editor: Geeta Sharma; Editorial Assistance: Biak Tangpua
Multimedia: RK Bhatnagar
Printing: SK Gupta, Hans Kumar; Distribution: Tapesh Sinha, RP Singh
For feedback, please contact: director@desidoc.drdo.in
Tel: 011-23902403; 23902474; Fax: 011-23819151

it is available in all drdo news letter

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsle ... jan_18.pdf

[ArjunPandit]

Exactly the same issues came up with the MiG 21 as noted by Air Marshal Rajkumar in his chapter in the MiG 21 50 years commemorative book. He says that the original Type 77 was lightly armed, short ranged and a real joy to fly - a pilot's dream. Decades later the MiG 21bis had a very powerful engine but had gained so much weight that its performance barely reached that of the Type 77. But he says the bis is a much more capable and useful aircraft, though the 77 gets marks for "joy of flying"

So I suspect that a heavier and more powerful Tejas will have more useful avionics, weapons and capabilities, and perhaps some increased range.

This being our plane, wouldnt it be easier for us to go back and forth. I am sure fighter planes are given/procured not for joy of flying but for a specific task. If that task is affected it would not be very difficult to make those changes in "our" plane

[Indranil]

The LCA trainer is so easy on my eye.



Let there be more curves on the Mk2.

[Karan M]

Just lengthening the LCA will do wonders for its looks.

[ramana]

JayS and Indranil

Can you both rank the changes in weight from MK1A to MK2 wrt range

Sorry didn't get you. What you mean by ranking exactly..?

Indranil, any idea what Life numbers they are targeting for Mk2...?

I meant to rank the changes which have maximum impact on range.

For example cutting down weight has big impact on range and would not need aerodynamic shape changes. This would be ranked 1.

Und so weiter......

[Haridas]

The LCA trainer is so easy on my eye.



Let there be more curves on the Mk2.

Two Air Commodores !

[Haridas]

Happy new year to one and all..

there is no better way to start the new year.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... tml#page/1

if some one can get the full book they are lucky i think

I have been trying to buy it for a while. All those monographs are available for sell. But most of the times the site doesn't work when I check. Not sure how to order exactly.

Have to make a trip to Desidoc in Metcalfe House, Delhi. If you are lucky you might see gupt things as you walk across campus.

[Cybaru]

The LCA trainer is so easy on my eye.



Let there be more curves on the Mk2.

Is the trainer longer in length than the single seater? can't find any sources on web that give its dimensions.

[Philip]

What would the LCA-T cost as an export in the light supersonic multi-role aircraft /advanced combat trainer class? As a GA/CS aircraft it could do very well internationally considering that there are no such equivs. to the A-10 and SU-25s today, with the ultra-expensive JSF meant to do the same for the USAF. The failure to develop the Gnat/Ajeet trainer which had great potential also saw us wait for decades until the Hawk was chosen.Medium sized air forces could operate the LCA and a heavier twin- engined fighter for air superiority, LR strike, etc. Malaysia operates both SU-30s plus MIG-29s for instance.

For a single-aircraft force it is ideal.

[Haridas]

^^^ pie in the sky dreams are easy mental stimulant but of no consequence.
Export only possible after 120 a/c IAF order fullfilled, guess when Phillips saar?

Now even if India has to export 20 A/C before fulfilling iaf needs it would be for very stategic compulsions (say Lanka, BD or Vietnam ), cost of 30 MM $ or 40MM or 50MM would be inconsiquential.
Jmt.

[Haridas]

Is the trainer longer in length than the single seater? can't find any sources on web that give its dimensions.

Iirc same length.

[shiv]

Exactly the same issues came up with the MiG 21 as noted by Air Marshal Rajkumar in his chapter in the MiG 21 50 years commemorative book. He says that the original Type 77 was lightly armed, short ranged and a real joy to fly - a pilot's dream. Decades later the MiG 21bis had a very powerful engine but had gained so much weight that its performance barely reached that of the Type 77. But he says the bis is a much more capable and useful aircraft, though the 77 gets marks for "joy of flying"

So I suspect that a heavier and more powerful Tejas will have more useful avionics, weapons and capabilities, and perhaps some increased range.

This being our plane, wouldnt it be easier for us to go back and forth. I am sure fighter planes are given/procured not for joy of flying but for a specific task. If that task is affected it would not be very difficult to make those changes in "our" plane

Two points:
1. The heavier plane is more capable - so that is a plus point
2. "Joy to fly" should not necessarily be a reason unless it is comfort and reduced pilot workload and increased safety. The HF 24 was called the Cadillac because of its excellent a/c while MiG 21 pilots of the era would lose a couple of kilos in sweat in a 45 minute sortie. Still -it was the MiG 21 that scored for joy of flying. MiG 21s also had an insane rate of descent - so for landing the plane approached the ground at an insane speed (maybe 340 kmph?) and to top it the big nose would prevent the runway from being visible in front of the cockpit. But it could outfly pretty much anything on that era so pilots flying it were happy. The early type 77 had light controls compared to the bis, but the early MiG barely had armament. For many years it was only 2 missiles or 2 rocket pods and no gun. The bis had a much better radar and was multirole.

[Eric Leiderman]

Yes.

How much does the new aesa weigh?

Th Jag ASEA is a 100 KG However the LCA has a bigger snout adding more modules so it might be in the 125Kg

[Philip]

If sufficient serious enquiries do come along,with an export potential of around say 100+ aircraft, it would be worth setting up a separate export line with a pvt. entity, for example Tata or Mahindra ,better suited to marketing and selling products.Coupled with an order book for 200+ LCAs for the IAF it would help bring down costs. There should be a concerted effort to break the HF-24 hoodoo of only building 140+ aircraft.

[Haridas]

Sure, cross the bridge when it comes.

[Vivek K]

^^^ pie in the sky dreams are easy mental stimulant but of no consequence.
Export only possible after 120 a/c IAF order fullfilled, guess when Phillips saar?

Now even if India has to export 20 A/C before fulfilling iaf needs it would be for very stategic compulsions (say Lanka, BD or Vietnam ), cost of 30 MM $ or 40MM or 50MM would be inconsiquential.
Jmt.

We should be planning a third line now.

[Akshay Kapoor]

The LCA trainer is so easy on my eye.



Let there be more curves on the Mk2.

Two Air Commodores !

Isn’t the the Air Chief ACM Dhanoa ? But he seems to be be wearing an Air Commodores stripes. Deejay ?

[ArjunPandit]

Sure, cross the bridge when it comes.

The thing is there is a river ahead and like military we have to build the bridge. Cross when it comes build when it comes, but if we start when it comes then we'll always be lagging behind. An extra line under the 'pretext' of exports can give a lot of cushion to IAF which will take as many Tejas as we can build. This is where our DPSU system limits risk taking

[Trikaal]

Philip Sir's idea has merit. Even countries like UK and Germany have praised LCA and there was talk about exporting it as a trainer jet to sweeten the MMRCA pot. This proves that there is surely a lot of potential for LCA as a trainer jet even in countries with MiC much more advanced than ours. This is definitely an option worth exploring. If sufficient orders come, the cash generated has the potential to free up the program from bureaucratic hurdles. We won't have to wait for GoI sanctioning funds for Mk2 or other future versions.

[srai]

Philip Sir's idea has merit. Even countries like UK and Germany have praised LCA and there was talk about exporting it as a trainer jet to sweeten the MMRCA pot. This proves that there is surely a lot of potential for LCA as a trainer jet even in countries with MiC much more advanced than ours. This is definitely an option worth exploring. If sufficient orders come, the cash generated has the potential to free up the program from bureaucratic hurdles. We won't have to wait for GoI sanctioning funds for Mk2 or other future versions.

Domestic needs should sustain homegrown platforms like the LCA. Sufficient quantities need to be ordered for ROI. Exports are bonus.

India has to learn to export its defense wares first. What weaponry does it export today? Only after that the Indian bureaucracy will tackle hurdles with what to do with the new found cash. Long ways to go.

[deejay]

...

Isn’t the the Air Chief ACM Dhanoa ? But he seems to be be wearing an Air Commodores stripes. Deejay ?

He is wearing the Chief's stripes Sir.

[Trikaal]

Philip Sir's idea has merit. Even countries like UK and Germany have praised LCA and there was talk about exporting it as a trainer jet to sweeten the MMRCA pot. This proves that there is surely a lot of potential for LCA as a trainer jet even in countries with MiC much more advanced than ours. This is definitely an option worth exploring. If sufficient orders come, the cash generated has the potential to free up the program from bureaucratic hurdles. We won't have to wait for GoI sanctioning funds for Mk2 or other future versions.

Domestic needs should sustain homegrown platforms like the LCA. Sufficient quantities need to be ordered for ROI. Exports are bonus.

India has to learn to export its defense wares first. What weaponry does it export today? Only after that the Indian bureaucracy will tackle hurdles with what to do with the new found cash. Long ways to go.

A lot of things 'should' be happening. We should junk SEF tender. We should order lots of Mk1and Mk1A. GOI should sanction funds for making Mk2 prototype yesterday. Unfortunately all these shoulds are not transforming into 'is'. As such looking at exports for sustenance instead of just bonus isn't a bad idea.

We already do export quite a lot of defense equipment. Yes, so far we haven't really exported big ticket platforms like aircrafts. But we will only learn when we actually do it. The taboo around exports after the ecuador gaffe needs to be broken.

[Akshay Kapoor]

...

Isn’t the the Air Chief ACM Dhanoa ? But he seems to be be wearing an Air Commodores stripes. Deejay ?

He is wearing the Chief's stripes Sir.

Hard to see the 3 full stripes after the Air Cmd stripes. Now that I look carefully I can see them. Im visually challenged obviously.

[ramana]

I think the SEF tender is hedging the Mk2.
So unless its very clear that Mk2 will make it, the SEF tender will be there.

[Trikaal]

Mk2 will stay unclear and unsure as long as GoI doesn't sanction funds to build prototypes. So SEF will continue to survive in some shape and form until then.

[Kartik]

Is the trainer longer in length than the single seater? can't find any sources on web that give its dimensions.

Iirc same length.

From my memory, it is approximately 0.3 m longer. But I couldn't find any sources to confirm it. Maybe Indranil could confirm with his sources.