Indian Military Aviation

[Chandragupta]

Sad news.
Deepest condolences to the family of the deceased.

[Rahul M]

I could be wrong, but here's this archived report at Jagan's warbirds site.

http://warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/crde ... p?crno=594

Squadron Leader Prashant Bundela, a pilot in his early 30s, ejected but had a bad fall that has left him with a serious spinal injury. ...........
...............
Bundela ejected and parachuted down but is reported to have landed on his back. He was first admitted to the military hospital in Jodhpur and has now been shifted to the speciality orthopaedic centre of the armed forces hospital in Pune.

we have to understand that ejection seats are designed not to allow the pilot to hit the canopy, so while it undoubtedly happens sometimes, it is not a terribly common occurrence.

[Rahul M]

India set to build Medium Combat Aircraft
from ajai shukla's blog.

Within days, the IAF and a team of aircraft designers will formally set up a joint committee to frame the specifications for India’s own MCA, which will be built largely in Bangalore.

According to Dr Subramaniam, the programme will aim to develop the MCA and build 5-6 prototypes at a cost of Rs 5000 crores.

[Anujan]

India set to build Medium Combat Aircraft
from ajai shukla's blog.

I have no doubt we can pull it off in double quick time. But the radar and the engine needs great planning.

[Gaur]

X-Posting from MRCA thread.

afaik, the most dangerous technology that we are to attempt first time in MCA would be internal weapons bay. lotsa testing time needs to planned for that.. perhaps, we could phase that technology aspects in earlier prototypes, if need be a modified LCA would be enough.

Stealth technology and shapes are the newer technology aspects that needs a bigger budget here. I am not aware of the statuses of various research happened here in IITs and other DRDO labs for this to take off. I did read some where we are into MEMS/nano tech based radar absorptions technologies.

proper funding is required for netcentric approach, requiremetns analysis and lotsa stakeholder inputs from IAF. An integrated approach is required to have perhaps few LCA prototypes for this as well.

AESA radar is important.. which I am sure we are half way there already with LCA's Elta links. I hope, we come out success soon on that front.

The ADA labs could start off on the CFD wind tunnel experiments for various algos and simulations on the models.. can start off ahead.

Engines of LCA is important for MCA. Kaveri-X? status is really important. More budget required to suppor Kaveri program. If management and organization needs change, so be it. This puppy is really the crux of MCA (can't hear this K word in the ddm sense after 10 years now.. may be our kids could inherit better history here).

Rest is all we have already established for LCA.

Jai Ho to MCA.. if the news is confirmed.. its time for MCA thread #1 at BR.

Good points. But apart from weapons bay, another great challenge is the engine. MCA would need to be able to supercruise and have thrust vectoring. Perhaps Kaveri could be modified for thrust vectoring, but I cannot see how two 53KN engines would be able to provide supercruise capability to MCA.

[sanjaychoudhry]

India grounds Sukhoi 30 fighters after crash
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 300909.htm

[Gaur]

^^Quote from xinhuanet.com

India has grounded its premier front line fighter planes, the Sukhoi 30 MKIs, following Thursday's crash of a fighter of this kind, local media reported Saturday

I don't remember any indian paper or news channel reporting as such. I guess its not only desi media which is a dork.

[sanjaychoudhry]

^^Quote from xinhuanet.com

India has grounded its premier front line fighter planes, the Sukhoi 30 MKIs, following Thursday's crash of a fighter of this kind, local media reported Saturday

I don't remember any indian paper or news channel reporting as such. I guess its not only desi media which is a dork.

A day after Sukhoi crash, fleet grounded, checks underway
http://www.samaylive.com/news/a-day-aft ... 22735.html

IAF orders precautionary checks on Sukhoi fighter jets

New Delhi, May 01: A day after a Su-30MKI fighter crashed in Rajasthan, the IAF on Friday refrained from flying the air superiority jet and ordered precautionary checks on the 60-aircraft Sukhoi fleet.

IAF sources, while rubbishing reports of the Sukhoi fleet being "grounded", said: "Yes, today we did not fly the Sukhois. We are certainly carrying out checks. But it doesn't mean we will not fly them tomorrow or on Monday. Grounding is a requirement only when a technical flaw has been identified. In the case of this mishap, the probe has been ordered and it has just started."

http://www.zeenews.com/news528368.html

[Gaur]

^^ My bad.

[NRao]

India set to build Medium Combat Aircraft

Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA)

Some old references:

MCA Configuration options - feasibility studies (2007)

MCA 2009

Wind tunnel model of NGFA 2009

Wind tunnel model of NGFA 2009

Wind tunnel model of NGFA 2009

Wind tunnel model of NGFA 2009

Correct if I am wrong, to get to the wind tunnel model one must have figured out much of what goes into the air craft. It should be a scaled model and therefore a LOT of thought should have gone into it - what kind of missiles - considering all are internal. They should have also got a very good idea which engine (or derivative) they would propose, radar should also have been pretty much been "selected".

Considering that the "MCA" (now the NGFA) was talked about since late 1990s, this air craft should be way down the stream than most of us think.

For sure it is not a "dream" air craft - it does have at least one wind tunnel model out there.

[Omar]

It should be a scaled model and therefore a LOT of thought should have gone into it - what kind of missiles - considering all are internal. They should have also got a very good idea which engine (or derivative) they would propose, radar should also have been pretty much been "selected".

So can we expect to see work beginning on a next gen Kaveri, MMR, and maybe a fly-by-light control system in the near future?

[NRao]

DDM has avery confusing title (fifth gen)(should be either MCA or NGFA):

Indian Air Force, DRDO and HAL to Frame Requirements for Fifth Generation Fighter Jet

[HariC]

Interesting photographs from the recent Air Forces Monthly show that the An-32s in BAF service with Bomb Racks. Presumably our An-32s can also do the same thing?

[vivek_ahuja]

Presumably our An-32s can also do the same thing?

Sure. But why would you want to?

[HariC]

Presumably our An-32s can also do the same thing?

Sure. But why would you want to?

err. not me. but the IAF probably did at some point. there was a demonstration in some firepower display an year or so back when IAF An-32s apparently displayed their bomb dropping for the first time. but never saw any pictures of that

[chetak]

I could be wrong, but here's this archived report at Jagan's warbirds site.

http://warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/crde ... p?crno=594

Squadron Leader Prashant Bundela, a pilot in his early 30s, ejected but had a bad fall that has left him with a serious spinal injury. ...........
...............
Bundela ejected and parachuted down but is reported to have landed on his back. He was first admitted to the military hospital in Jodhpur and has now been shifted to the speciality orthopaedic centre of the armed forces hospital in Pune.

we have to understand that ejection seats are designed not to allow the pilot to hit the canopy, so while it undoubtedly happens sometimes, it is not a terribly common occurrence.

Some ejection seats are designed to pierce the canopy and shatter it on the way out using high mounted canopy piercers. Some have explosive cords mounted on the canopy that shatter the canopy the moment the ejection sequence is initiated.

Here is what the MiG 21 bis seat does, also some interesting diagrams on the linked page.

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/ ... ft/km1.htm

MiG-21 Ejection Seat KM-1

The described pilot ejection system is the one of the MiG-21US (Type 68/69, NATO Mongol B/C). However, the KM-1 ejection seat is used in MiG-21PFM, M, MF. The MiG-21F, F-13, PF and some PFMs have the not so good SK seat which basically can't be used on the ground , on takeoff up to (about) 170m (550 ft) and on landig below 200m (600ft) depending upon speed and pitch angle. The MiG-21 BIS uses a slightly improved KM-1M which has a different leg restrain mechanism.

The KM-1 ejection seat can provide the crew a safe and efficient escape from the aircraft. The seat is propelled from the aircraft by an ejection gun which is assisted by a rocket motor. The seat system includes an automatic ejection sequencing system. The front canopy separates before the rear canopy followed by the pilot in the aft cockpit and the pilot in the front cockpit last in any case when the ejection is initiated by either pilot through the ejection handles. In Type 68 (MiG-21US) both canopies will be jettisoned if one of the emergency canopy jettison handles is pulled.
In Type 69 (MiG-21UM) the rear canopy can be jettisoned separately. However, both canopies jettison if initiated by the pilot in the front cockpit. If necessary, ejection can be accomplished at ground level between 75 knots and 280 knots. If faster than 280 knots, an altitude of 100 ft or higher should?be observed. The ejection seat system also includes an emergency oxygen system and a survival kit in the seat pan.

EJECTION SEAT SEQUENCING

Once the Pilot pulls the ejection handle the canopy cartridge ignites and jettisons the canopy which removes the interlock block.Simultaneously with the canopy jettison, a second cartridge initiates shoulder harness tightening and arm protector extension. The removal of the interlock block fires the ejection gun if the pull is maintained. The seat starts to move, engaging the Speed/Time Computer (KPA-4, PPK-2), and separating the common connector after a movement of 1 inch. The telescopic rail and first stabilizing chute deployment is initiated with a 4 inch movement.?After 16 inches, leg restrain is engaged, followed by rocket motor ignition after 32 inch. If below 280 KIAS the first stab.chute jettisons immediately, deploying second stab.-chute, arm protectors retraction, and engaging separation sequencer PPK-1.If faster then 280 KIAS, this will be accomplished after 0.1...1.6 s according to speed.? Seat - pilot separation is after 1.5 s if below 10000 ft with the regular set up. Deploy survival kit manually at an altitude of 3000...1000 ft AGL.

[HariC]

The older MiG-21FLs had a unique system called "encapsulation" in which the canopy would hook onto the ejection seat . it would be something like this (/ where ( is the canopy and / is the seat. this forms a full body barrier to protect the pilot from wind blast. While for most parts it worked fine, I heard atleast one case (from an airforce pal) that the canopy failed to separate from the seat and the pilot perished in the encapsulated seat/canopy.

[vivek_ahuja]

err. not me.

But the IAF probably did at some point. there was a demonstration in some firepower display an year or so back when IAF An-32s apparently displayed their bomb dropping for the first time. but never saw any pictures of that

I suppose the legacy of using transports as modified bombers has been there since the Indo-Pak wars with AN-12s etc. But in today's battlefield, is it still valid? Are we that short on bomb trucks that we need to push the transports in too?

Hence my original question: why?

[HariC]

err. not me.

But the IAF probably did at some point. there was a demonstration in some firepower display an year or so back when IAF An-32s apparently displayed their bomb dropping for the first time. but never saw any pictures of that

I suppose the legacy of using transports as modified bombers has been there since the Indo-Pak wars with AN-12s etc. But in today's battlefield, is it still valid? Are we that short on bomb trucks that we need to push the transports in too?

Hence my original question: why?

good question. maybe there is some 'dooms day scenario' in the IAF that calls for usage of ALL aircraft the only other thing i can guess is that the transport squadrons were doing timepass . I mean what tonnage you can drop from an An-32, an MKI will do better.

A better answer might be if these pylons can carry Cruise Missiles or Anti-Shipping missiles that cannot be carried on a regular ac in numbers. Like an An-32 might just be able to carry two Brahmos that an MKI wont? But i am just guessing here

[chetak]

quote="vivek_ahuja"quote="HariC" err. not me.

But the IAF probably did at some point. there was a demonstration in some firepower display an year or so back when IAF An-32s apparently displayed their bomb dropping for the first time. but never saw any pictures of that

I suppose the legacy of using transports as modified bombers has been there since the Indo-Pak wars with AN-12s etc. But in today's battlefield, is it still valid? Are we that short on bomb trucks that we need to push the transports in too?

Hence my original question: why?

good question. maybe there is some 'dooms day scenario' in the IAF that calls for usage of ALL aircraft the only other thing i can guess is that the transport squadrons were doing timepass . I mean what tonnage you can drop from an An-32, an MKI will do better.

A better answer might be if these pylons can carry Cruise Missiles or Anti-Shipping missiles that cannot be carried on a regular ac in numbers. Like an An-32 might just be able to carry two Brahmos that an MKI wont? But i am just guessing here

Can't let the fighter boys hog all the glory no?

Besides the AN 32 guys also have a legacy to live up to.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rview.html

An-12: Strange But True

It may sound strange that something the size of the An-12 was good for anything other than ferrying cargo. Well, in early 1971, No.44 Squadron formed a flight of 10 An-12 bombers. These aircraft had specially designed bomb crates that allowed them to carry 6,000 lb. of bombs, which were delivered via that conveyer belt in the cargo hold.

The missions of the war were to be led by Wing Commander Vashist. Flying from Bareilly, six An-12s attacked Pakistani ammunition and supply dumps in the Changa Manga forests on the midnight of the 3rd/4th December.

On December 6th the area in the Haji Pir salient was bombed by the An-12s, destroying a Pakistani brigade which was preparing for an offensive. Later the same day, Pakistan's 18 Div. HQ at Fort Abbas was bombed and strafed, as were installations in the Bahawalpur area.

On December 9th a four ship formation flying at 180 feet struck Pakistani installations across from Fazilka. On the 11th a three ship formation bombed the Jaydebpur Ordnance factory in East Pakistan. A pair struck the Rohri railway marshaling yard at dusk on the 13th.

The high point of the An-12's bombing exploits was the attack Sui Gas Plant in Sind. Flying out of Jodhpur three aircraft struck Sui on the 14th. They did such a through job that it took six months to restore Sui's production to even 50% capacity. All three aircraft were returned safely to Uttarlai. The last raid carried out by the An-12 were against Skardu airfield. A mixed formation, consisting of An-12s and Canberras, struck Skardu on December 17th.

Of the 36 bombs dropped by the An-12s, 28 bombs hit the runway, while two fell within yards of it (this was confirmed by a PR mission later that day). On their way back Vashist's aircraft was cashed by two Mirages IIIs, in order to evade these he climbed down to a valley and kept circling for 20 minutes until the Mirages IIIs gave up and left. The most amazing thing about the An-12 operations is that not a single one was lost during the course of the war, although many were peppered by ack-ack.

[Singha]

Aha loved the exploits. out-of-the-box thinking would suggest a half dozen AN32 could be converted into a gunship AN32G configuration using the old engines but night navigation and
targeting retrofit sourced from our other programs like the Hind upg.

A single 20mm cannon backed by 50cal coax HMG and AGL would sure make short work of
jihadi lashkars hiding in thick forest and help our ground forces immensely.

[Bala Vignesh]

Aha loved the exploits. out-of-the-box thinking would suggest a half dozen AN32 could be converted into a gunship AN32G configuration using the old engines but night navigation and
targeting retrofit sourced from our other programs like the Hind upg.

A single 20mm cannon backed by 50cal coax HMG and AGL would sure make short work of
jihadi lashkars hiding in thick forest and help our ground forces immensely.

Well, i would suggest a higher Caliber main canon, say 25 or 30 mm... And a 105 mm howitzer.. to provide mobile artillery support to the infantry...

[Bala Vignesh]

edit.

[Rahul M]

bala, I needed to use the search function to find the original of the above post by rohitvats.
it's from 18th may 2008, page 1 of this thread ! this one is page 56 !!

kindly don't bring back ancient posts out of context. discussion of international relations is anyway verboten in the military forum. if you want to do it, please visit the strat forum.

lastly, I suggest that you delete the post yourself.
thanks.

[NRao]

"5-6000 crores" for a few MCA prototypes.If you believe that ,then we are all fairies! The engine,a million times repeated,has been the achillies heel of all Indian desi aircraft programmes.Every aircraft and helo is flying with a foreign engine.If the ADA boffins imagine that the MCA will fly with a desi engine,then they should be sent to the nearest loony bin,as Tejas has yet to find a more powerful engine for the Mk-2 version! The decision to go ahead with the MCA when even the LCA has yet to mature is an act of acute imbecility.It is babudom wanting a huge chunk of the budget to spend upon a programme that will be academic,with no clear timeframe indicated.The project can spin itself,morphing into never before imagined of technologies a few decades down the line,getting more sophisticated as the years go by,producing nothing!

The MOD and IAF should have clear goals spelt out.The most important project is the 5th-gen fighter,which will supposedly give us an aircraft in the F-22/F-35 JSF class technologically,at a far lesser cost.This aircraft is supposed to be the backbone of the IAF from 2015+ onwards,with the first Russian version supposedly to fly later this year,as scheduled.Production is supposed to start by 2015.What chance that the MCA emerges before the 5th-gen fighter? One must be the most optimistic joker on the planet is one believes that the MCA (going by the LCA timeframe) will see the light of day before 2010.

Valid concerns.

However, getting an engine is not an issue - as you state a foreign engine has been options and will remain one. As far as a "desi" engine, I would think it is a matter of money - I really do not see anyone serious about overcoming engine issues within India. Gievn that an videshi engine is a viable option.

They have provided a time frame, so I am nto sure what is the hang up there. Adhering to it could be an issue, but then a country with its own standard time and the proud inventors of chai-biscoot can never complain.

what is your opinion about the wind tunnel model - does it even indicate that they have made some progress or is it a show-biz model?

WRT getting money - what is news?

[KrishG]

When the LCA had just started it's flight testing, we used hear about the idea of MCA not having any vertical or horizontal stabilizers and it would solely depend on the thrust-vectoring capability of the engine which in turn was supposed to be an advanced derivative of Kaveri.

I don't know the exact cause for the change of design into a more conventional one but I can say that issues about the status and future development prospects of Kaveri had in some way (maybe minor) influenced it.

When I spoke to the NAL guy at AI-09 about the influence of PAK-FA/FGFA on MCA, he told me that they would run as two completely different projects, but didn't rule any possibilities of similar grounds between the end products w.r.t to avionics and even engines.

Well, I believe that at present Tejas-Mk 2 is a bigger issue than MCA. It will be the testing ground for the indigenous AESA and many other tech (maybe even Kaveri on a long shot) that will have be on MCA but hasn't been used in the basic version of Tejas. So, Tejas Mk 2 must be our immediate concern as it will pave way for the MCA. But, the required work on the design and other aspects of MCA with regards to the requirements of IAF must continue.

[NRao]

Would a committee being formed - including the IAF - have SOME validity? Or is that also smoke and mirrors?

That there is concern, apprehension, doubt,............... ALL that is very understandable. No two ways.

However, "India" in 2009 is NOT "India" in 1980, 1990 or even 2000.

A NGFA (old MCA) may NOT fly in the time frame being proposed, BUT, we have to agree that the CHANCES are far, far better. Even IF they deliberately try and goof off. IMHO of course.

For starters may be India needs to start a new engine division - with all new staff (old guys need to reapply for positions).

[Rahul M]

while the engine concerns are understandable, I do think at this preliminary stage of the program, they can afford to be a little hazy about the exact engine parameters (it will be one of the LCA winners/kaveri derivatives) and concentrate on the various subsystems that will be independent of engine configurations.

also, the project cost given above probably does not include the engine costs. the engine for LCA is being funded separately anyway and as and when it is ready MCA will be able to use it.

the very idea of the MCA is to use as much available tech as possible.

[Vivek K]

Any further news about the Kaveri? The last posts seemed to indicate that all was not lost. Is there a chance that it will be available for the MCA?

[putnanja]

HAL to flight-test jet trainer

The stage is set for replacing the Kiran aircraft with the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) as the stage-2 trainer of the Indian Air Force, with the Russian AL-55 I engine being integrated with the airplane designed and developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Highly placed sources connected with the project told The Hindu that HAL would start flight tests of the IJT with the Russian engine in May. The IAF’s Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment would conduct the tests to evaluate the airplane’s induction into the force. The IAF, having acquired over the years capability in all areas of aircraft design, conceptualised the new stage-2 trainer replacement.

...

[Bala Vignesh]

bala, I needed to use the search function to find the original of the above post by rohitvats.
it's from 18th may 2008, page 1 of this thread ! this one is page 56 !!

kindly don't bring back ancient posts out of context. discussion of international relations is anyway verboten in the military forum. if you want to do it, please visit the strat forum.

lastly, I suggest that you delete the post yourself.
thanks.

Sir,
I am new here... so could you please tell me how to delete the post...

[narayana]

After Taking so many years on LCA and still a couple of years of wait for it,we are planning MCA with tailless design almost like the X-36,are we overconfident?i Wish all the best anyhow

[chetak]

After Taking so many years on LCA and still a couple of years of wait for it,we are planning MCA with tailless design almost like the X-36,are we overconfident?i Wish all the best anyhow

Rather like the saras story.

Needless complication in design.

Many more PhDs can be obtained and countless research papers published to increase the paper count.

[Rahul M]

narayana, where do you see tail less design ?? that was in 2001 !

bala, fine I'll do it for you. and please, no need for "sir".
regards everyone !

[KrishG]

After Taking so many years on LCA and still a couple of years of wait for it,we are planning MCA with tailless design almost like the X-36,are we overconfident?i Wish all the best anyhow

No, that was the proposed design during the early 2000s. Now we have chosen a more conservative approach to the design. That seems to tell me that we are a little under-confident about the first design which demanded very very advanced thrust-vectoring and digital fly-by-whatever capabilities. Now, realistically nobody will sell us such advanced tech( only the US seems to have such tech for now). So, the options are to develop your own engine with whatever capabilities you want or go for a more conservative design so that we could get off-shelf engines.

This is the X-44 MANTA (Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft) that was being studied by USAF and NASA. It is very similar to the design of MCA proposed in the early 2000s. The funding for this aircraft was stopped even before a prototype was built due to high developmental costs and doubts about the agility of the aircraft.

[Anujan]

No, that was the proposed design during the early 2000s. Now we have chosen a more conservative approach to the design. That seems to tell me that we are a little under-confident about the first design which demanded very very advanced thrust-vectoring and digital fly-by-whatever capabilities.

The deal with the MANTA was that it had *no* aerodynamic control surfaces and all pitch, yaw, roll controls were to be done by thrust vectoring (simple, strong one piece airframe with no control actuators, cables, connectors was touted to improve stealth, reliability and manufacturability). The first design of MCA though, seemed to have control surfaces on the wings and was just a tailless compound delta aircraft, which is in a totally different league. Maybe it is not the confidence to achieve it which caused people to back off, but maybe the tailless platform didnt buy much in terms of stealth or aerodynamic characteristics (LCA tail piece is one piece composite honeycomb sandwich structure, the RCS of the tail cant be much).

[Kartik]

The deal with the MANTA was that it had *no* aerodynamic control surfaces and all pitch, yaw, roll controls were to be done by thrust vectoring (simple, strong one piece airframe with no control actuators, cables, connectors was touted to improve stealth, reliability and manufacturability). The first design of MCA though, seemed to have control surfaces on the wings and was just a tailless compound delta aircraft, which is in a totally different league. Maybe it is not the confidence to achieve it which caused people to back off, but maybe the tailless platform didnt buy much in terms of stealth or aerodynamic characteristics (LCA tail piece is one piece composite honeycomb sandwich structure, the RCS of the tail cant be much).

not having a vertical stabilizer DOES reduce side on RCS. whether the stab is made of composites or not, doesn't mean that there is simply no radar reflectivity.

however, the risks of going with all TVC for longitudinal stability and yaw control are too high. I think that it was a wise decision to abandon that idea. what CAN be done is to have twin canted fins, and that way make them both smaller than one large vertical stab. that reduces the side on RCS, as compared to one large vertical stabilizer. the rudder authority would be almost the same at low AoA, and at high AoA, where the flow over one stab is poor, the rudder authority will be greater with 2 vertical stabs.

as Vivek had pointed out at the time of the AI-09 unveiling of the MCA wind tunnel model, it does take some design elements from the LCA, such as the channel that brings in fresh airflow over the wings from a bypass duct near the intake. will generate vortices that generate lift even at higher AoAs.

what will be going on as of now, with the Committee being formed, is identification of the technologies and specifications that the IAF wants in the MCA. how many internal weapons to be carried, what range, what weight, how much RCS, etc. once those details are thrashed out and made clear, the MCA team will be able to start to work on the preliminary design work and then design freeze. that will involve a lot of CFD, wind tunnel testing, RCS testing, etc. Concurrently, there will be avionics development. Once preliminary design freeze occurs, they will have to start working on the FBW, or FBL whichever they decide to go with. I just hope that when it comes to actual detailed design/analysis, they use private engineering companies like Infosys, Infotech, TCS, etc. these companies have had a lot of experience with detailed design of aircraft components, structures, panels, etc. working for companies like Boeing, Airbus, etc. with design and analysis tools and it will definitely speed up the process as compared to doing it all in-house.

This is a long process, and a prototype roll-out by 2020 would be the goal, and considering that Indian industry is now familiar with advanced technologies like composites, FBW and advanced systems engineering and manufacturing, it should be a lot less steeper learning curve.

I would assume that the MCA, being that it is likely oriented for strike missions, will be a twin seater, with a large front-on internal volume, like the Rafale or the F-35 to allow internal carriage of PGMs and A2A missiles and reduce dependence on drop tanks for increased range. Sensor fusion will be critical, as will AESA, internal IRST, FLIR and internal EW equipment.

[Bala Vignesh]

narayana, where do you see tail less design ?? that was in 2001 !

bala, fine I'll do it for you. and please, no need for "sir".
regards everyone !

Thanks Rahul, But i would appreciate if you'd tell me how to do it here... As i might need it some where else too...

[k prasad]

After Taking so many years on LCA and still a couple of years of wait for it,we are planning MCA with tailless design almost like the X-36,are we overconfident?i Wish all the best anyhow

Rather like the saras story.

Needless complication in design.

Many more PhDs can be obtained and countless research papers published to increase the paper count.

I have to agree with Kartik here...

adding to his reply,

1. The tailless design was a speculative one from a long time ago (I think it was around 2004 or so). By 2005-06, the present design seemed to have been introduced. Indeed, even with the tailless, there was a lot of speculation about how we can achieve it.

2. The tailless design has not been abandoned - we will be using it for our UCAV. I think we decided to lessen the risks involved in the project and leave the futuristic tech for the future. Altogether a good move I'd say.

3. We have the capability and expertise to quickly develop 3D TVC. No probs there... all the elements are ready.

4. MCA has really taken off after the Tejas Mk.2 has had its prospects considerably brightened over the past year or so... once the Mk.2 was approved, the MCA design was the next logical step. Glad to see that the govt has not given up.

5. MCA is still at an extremely early stage, no matter what people may think based on the model.... that was only a concept design model. IMO, the MCA is right now at the point where LCA was in 1988-90, in terms of design, and 1986 in terms of subsystems. We first have to define our requirements first, make sure that we can have the technology ready (that will take till 2010, once the Mk.2 project is in full steam), and then we can look at the design itself.

[Rahul M]

....
Thanks Rahul, But i would appreciate if you'd tell me how to do it here... As i might need it some where else too...

just that there's a 24 hour period I think, after which the edit button expires, set so by forum SW.
it looks like this : at bottom right corner of your post.