LCA news and discussion

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Aug 2009 21:41

Do all flt tests have 2 b from same place? Maybe they went to Bangalore, Kerala?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 26 Aug 2009 21:54

Or Yelahanka, south assam...

munna · Post by **munna** » 26 Aug 2009 21:56

^^N^3 and Gagan seem to be inventing Pig-eography after BRF invented Pinglish! Way to go...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Aug 2009 22:29

vina wrote:The issue of Vayu Magazine came in yesterday and there was an issue of the Naval LCA and the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in it , in an article written by a retired Admiral.

Nothing much in detail that a hardcore jingo who has been following the BRF threads wouldn't know. But what struck me most was the absolutely professional way the Navy went about the entire thing and the deep reservoir of technical talent and deep program management skills the Navy has. Such things dont come about by accident, but only by sustained commitment and the experience of having been there and done that.

Now, it seems that the Navy when drawing up the plans for the ADS was looking to see what kind of aircraft could be suitable and when the LCA program was announced and had seen some progress , they approached the ADA director Dr Kota Harinarayana to see if it could be suitably adopted for carrier borne ops and he responded enthusiastically.

Then the Navy took the pains, to do a pre project definition study at a cost of 4 crores or so, by going to TsAgi and found out exactly what will be needed ( more control at just after take off from skil, until it gains enough air speed after 6 to 8 seconds, fuel dump, stronger landing gear etc), finding out that the safety margins werent adequate and hence 15 meter extension in ship length and then when the Gorshkov and Mig 29K came about, go back to the 35,000 ton ship design so that both Mig 29K and the LCA could be operated and hence totally de risking operational capability away from possible LCA failure.

And then this is where the difference is fund Rs 400 crore out of the Navy Budget for the NLCA and get it's engieers and pilots involved right from the design to the flight test!.

No wonder Navy projects succeed, while the Army and Airforce projects are sitting squat on their arses.. The air force simply would not have the technical manpower and skills to do any of this , why they cant even define what the weapon load out shopuld be until after the damn plane flies ! Well, no one expects the army to have any brains anyways, old saying of army all brawns and no brains , but still, the difference between the Navy and the other two branches is just stunning. No wonder the Army ,even if given an Arjun wants more Natashas and the Air Force has every shifting goal posts. The Air Force and Army is like Freud's comment on women " After all these years, I have not been able to find out what is it they want!"

Thank you writing about this article Vina..is there any new image of the N-LCA shown ?

could the reason for the Navy's indigenisation intent be that they are also the least funded of the 3 services and hence cannot rely on imports unlike the other two services ? The Army simply eats up a huge slice of the budget to keep its large manpower going..historically, there is not a single major program where the Army has done any significant R&D, program management or anything of that sort. so, there is very little to expect from that quarters. the IAF is slightly better, but then again, nowhere close to the expertise built up by the Navy over decades of tinkering with Russian and British designs which can lead to indigenous programs of the scale of the IAC and INS Arihant and the numerous other indigenous warship and equipment designs.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 26 Aug 2009 23:46

Gagan wrote:^^^
To me that question is answered adequately. India is NOT ready to meet any eventuality.

While our government was sleeping with eyes wide open, the chinese have done a Kargil in the north east and are well equipped and well entrenched, and the problem is that this is no pakistan we are dealing with.

If there is a border war, with a 1000 mile border to defend, we are going into it with 350 + 155mm howitzers and <60 MRLS, a few pinaka batteries, about 100 odd Grads, and 1 AWACS. The MRCA is not yet ordered, the LCA is still in testing, the LCH hasn't flown yet.

Deploying 2 squardons of MKIs and Bisons there, reads like the scenario that vivek ahuja penned not too long ago, except that in his scenarios, India somehow by stroke of luck were able to convert overwhelming odds into a stalemate or victory. This however is real life.

I hope wimmen in india don't have to go on a sweaters and sock stitching spree this time around.

I agree

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 27 Aug 2009 14:31

There was another flight today-looked like there were drop tanks under the wing.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 27 Aug 2009 16:42

If the LCA had started out as an IN program instead of a program for the IAF we would have had the LCA flying in numbers by now.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 28 Aug 2009 12:45

India's light combat aircraft to phase out Russian jets

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 4020090828

cost per LCA $31M !

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 28 Aug 2009 13:12

Seems like another overconfident and poorly thought comment with no facts.

Anyways I don't know about u guys, but no latest updates are kinda frustrating me.

We were supposed to have LSP 3, 4, 5, 6 and PV-5 (trainer) airborne by now.

No update on radar......

Can some of the senior members go fishing for info with paanwaalas??

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 28 Aug 2009 13:29

At this moment you can expect this kind of information only ...... don't expect anything more. Unless LSP3 is available nothing new can happen ..... and LSP3, not before end of Sept.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Aug 2009 21:50

End of September huh, that's what the LCA director said last year but he meant Sept 08. They also said all the LSP's will be flying by the end of 2008 when order was placed.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Aug 2009 22:14

SanjibGhosh wrote:India's light combat aircraft to phase out Russian jets

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 4020090828

cost per LCA $31M !

A large part of the $31M being spent at home. That's a massive advantage.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Aug 2009 22:19

edited. no pointless one liners please.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Aug 2009 22:52

AmitR wrote:
Cybaru wrote:A large part of the $31M being spent at home. That's a massive advantage.
edited

I wish I could retort to such one-liners in hindi with the kind of invenctives they deserve, but then the mods will have to intervene..

which is just the right idea ! report a post if you find a problem with it.
Rahul.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Aug 2009 22:59

another pointless one liner deleted.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 29 Aug 2009 01:01

Five Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) costing about $31 million each have already been manufactured by state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and undergoing trials, while eight more will be ready by mid-2010, defence officials said.

So if this is true, then the entire development cost has been paid with US$ 155M. How else can they quote the cost per craft without knowing the total production size?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Aug 2009 01:04

kartik saab, say no to provocations !!

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 29 Aug 2009 01:14

Edit:IED non-Mubarak

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Aug 2009 01:39

jamwal wrote:Cool down Kartik jee. No need to feed the trolls

Jamwal, you don't need to call me ji. I'm not senior yaar

Anyway, I'm yet to see the 787 Dreamliner being called some ridiculous name because its been delayed on 6 different occasions..or the A-400M because its so severely delayed and over budget costs. all because of some unforseen technical issues, and that too with companies that are in the Aerospace business for well over 4-5 decades. Why is it that Indians simply love to pull down and abuse Indian projects, Indian products, etc. and gloat over it?

it is ignorance of this kind that led to that ridiculous "widow maker" or "flying coffin" monicker that was given to the venerable MiG-21s, which smacked of complete ignorance of what service its performed for India over 3 decades and more..it was stretched way beyond what its designer ever designed it for. ever heard the F-104 being derided so much despite its service record with the Luftwaffe being as bad as the MiG-21 in the IAF ? can you even imagine those F-104s in service today in the Luftwaffe ? yet, the MiG-21 soldiers on in the IAF. or how people say the IN keeps crashing its planes..do they know how difficult military flying over the sea is ? or how the RN lost over half its SHar fleet as well through accident related attrition ?

and even if the LCA program is being mis-managed, the blame is not only to be lain at the doors of the DRDO. they work for peanuts when compared to what others in similar roles the world over. there is some lack of required skills in both the technical and management side, but this is as much the fault of the GoI and the IAF's lackluster support as it is of those working there. consultancy from companies like EADS is a welcome thing and I can only hope that a company like Saab is roped in for the MCA, with its engineering expertise.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Aug 2009 03:13

AmitR wrote:another pointless one liner deleted.

Daaang!!

Someone took care of it before I could get to it..

atma · Post by **atma** » 29 Aug 2009 04:42

Cybaru wrote:
AmitR wrote:another pointless one liner deleted.
Daaang!! Someone took care of it before I could get to it..

Let me summarize it. Lot of bickering, but the LCA TEJAS is on track. We believe it, and trust the whole issue. Believe it, when Reuters reports, the west has started believing in it. We need to do so too.

atma · Post by **atma** » 29 Aug 2009 04:44

Nice posts, Kartik.

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 29 Aug 2009 07:48

Guys I think we need Ajai Shukla back.....he used to get a lot of inside news about HAL projects.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 29 Aug 2009 08:42

Kartik wrote:
jamwal wrote:Cool down Kartik jee. No need to feed the trolls
Jamwal, you don't need to call me ji. I'm not senior yaar

Anyway, I'm yet to see the 787 Dreamliner being called some ridiculous name because its been delayed on 6 different occasions..or the A-400M because its so severely delayed and over budget costs.
...
it is ignorance of this kind that led to that ridiculous "widow maker" or "flying coffin" monicker that was given to the venerable MiG-21s,
...

and even if the LCA program is being mis-managed, the blame is not only to be lain at the doors of the DRDO. they work for peanuts when compared to what others in similar roles the world over. there is some lack of required skills in both the technical and management side, but this is as much the fault of the GoI and the IAF's lackluster support as it is of those working there. consultancy from companies like EADS is a welcome thing and I can only hope that a company like Saab is roped in for the MCA, with its engineering expertise.

Katare, you need to cool down a bit. I understand that you may be a uber jingo hyper patriot but that does not mean that everyone should agree or see things the way you do. Nowhere did I blame DRDO/ADA/GoI/IAF/MMS/BO for the mess that LCA program became.You have in fact blamed IAF for the problems and I can also take offence and use the same type of crude language in response but will desist. LCA program by any stretch of imagination is behind it's originally mandated schedule and that is a known fact. I also concede the fact that India tried to create an advanced super sonic fighter on it's own when it did not have the basic industrial base to build one. However, when we discuss LCA it will not be in relation to abc or xyz but the program as a whole. So when it is behind schedule everyone involved will be in the dock and when it succeeds everyone will take the glory. Again the tired logic of people working for peanuts. Our armed forces also work for much less than their western/corporate counterparts while facing all sorts of dangers daily. Going by your logic they should be doing a shabby job which I am disinclined to believe. BTW LCA was supposed to be indigenous program as per the taller than mountain claims of you know who. Hopefully you will not call me an American/Pakistani agent as some of the people in this forum have a proclivity of doing.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Aug 2009 09:11

amit, the point that he is making (which you seemed to have missed) is that every program of such complexity faces some amount of delays and cost overruns and this is true even for orgs that have many many times ADA/HAL's experience in designing and producing aircrafts.

if you compare the actual timeline (and not the DDM 1983 one) you will find that the delays in LCA are not that dissimilar from what other designers have faced.
considering our background and situation of funding in 90's that is indeed remarkable.

and yes, the IAF is guilty of some things, viz.

>> failure to identify which WVR missile or at least the missile by weight class that needed to be carried by a fighter in the future and not one which would be carried if the plane flies today.
the change in specification from R-60(44 kg) to R-73 (105 kg) to be carried on LCA wingtips in early 2000's required a stronger wing than originally designed. consequently the entire wing had to be re-designed almost immediately after the start of the flight tests. also, a re-design of the wing isn't limited to it, other parameters are affected and the total design effort is a major one.
and all of this was entirely avoidable IF IAF had to see a bit into the future to identify what type of missiles it might have to use 5 years from then. that the R-60 was long in the tooth was evident in the 90's itself and the R-73 was the obvious replacement (in service since 1982).

>> refusing to accept LCA in tranches. while it did a good job in projecting requirements for the revised 2010 schedule(the current GSQR projects a pretty capable bird), the refusal to accept LCA in tranches of A2A, A2G and so on adds unnecessary development time to the project. a batch of 5-6 LCA flying with IAF in A2A role right now would have added lots of real operational feedback to the design team, not to mention that development of other features would also have been quicker.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Aug 2009 09:34

Rahul mian

But IAF never asked such a light aircraft in the first place with such tight limitations on payload; the GSQRs are never finicky about the weight or dimensions within a broad range (the MRCA tender or any tender for that matter is a classic example ). The R-60,R-73 and even R-77 have always been in IAF inventory for quite some time now. Even the Mig-21 Bisons are able to carry R-73 and R-77, and all this on a 1960s/70s design.

What roles can LCA fulfill with its current capabilities and specially when ADA and HAl are still working on expanding the flight envelope ? Where are we with the LCA radar ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Aug 2009 10:57

But IAF never asked such a light aircraft in the first place with such tight limitations on payload;

are you sure of that ? AFAIK they did, with the gnat and mig-21 example in the minds of the top brass it's understandable too. they asked for a light fighter that could take on PAF F-16s.
the MRCA tender is not exactly equivalent to the LCA GSQR. MRCA tender is the exception rather than the norm, it's too spread around so to speak.
when it comes to desi projects the forces can specify exactly what it needs, something that obviously can't happen for foreign maal.

The R-60,R-73 and even R-77 have always been in IAF inventory for quite some time now.

all the more reason for IAF to specify the correct choice in time !! btw, AM Rajkumar mentions he went to russia to discuss integration of an un-named A2A missile with the LCA. this was late 2001, when was the r-73 introduced in IAF ?

Even the Mig-21 Bisons are able to carry R-73 and R-77, and all this on a 1960s/70s design.

I guess the tolerances of an all-metal wing and the composite wing of the LCA were different.
do note that the LCA is supposed to carry the R-73 on its wingtips, the migs carry all missiles on inboard pylons and that too a far lower number. the stresses are obviously different.

What roles can LCA fulfill with its current capabilities and specially when ADA and HAl are still working on expanding the flight envelope ? Where are we with the LCA radar ?

the A2A stage of flight envelope has probably been covered already seeing that they have moved onto A2G ordnance separation tests.

on the LCA radar again, from what we know A2A modes are working although we don't know to what level. at worst that means look down and A2G modes are yet to be validated.
there is also the chicken and egg question, if the IAF hadn't asked for everything on the A/C first time around they might have completed a tranche 1 level properly by now instead of trying to do all at the same time.
so there you have it, LCA today could have been inducted in limited numbers as basic interceptors, at about the same level of bisons.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 29 Aug 2009 16:32

m mittal wrote:Guys I think we need Ajai Shukla back.....he used to get a lot of inside news about HAL projects.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... y-for.html

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Aug 2009 21:10

Rahul M wrote: are you sure of that ? AFAIK they did, with the gnat and mig-21 example in the minds of the top brass it's understandable too.

yes I am.... any GSQR never goes into technical details as to if AC has to be made of x% composites or should weigh out an out 10tonnes loaded; span l mtrs yada yada; GSQR merely lays down the performance and mission requirements and ofcourse they would expect a product to be at least comparable to what is currently in market in the same class with obvious expectation of scalability and growth of the platform ;for it would take at least a couple of decades for the AC to be inducted if it is still in on the drawing board.

So while LCA was supposed to replace the Mig-21 they asked for a light fighter that could take on PAF F-16s.

IAF never specified any weight limitations they just specified the performance specifications and it is imperative that the physical stats would be in ballpark of contemporary fighters. Today if Mirages or Jaguars are replaced wont they be replaced with more modern and far more capable fighters ? Afterall whats the point in replacing if the replacement is not gonna be better or at least equal to the perceived threats ? IAF's mandate was not do to do feasibility studies or trim down their expectations their chief mandate was to tackle the f-16's they would be happy to induct anything indigenous but at the same time will import if former does not materialize in time , IAF's non involvement since inception of the project is however indeed unfortunate and they deserve their share of slack for that.

The change in GSQR and the DELAY in LCA programme is akin to a chicken and egg situation and this becomes even more complicated when the end user has no stakes in the LCA.. what so ever .

the MRCA tender is not exactly equivalent to the LCA GSQR. MRCA tender is the exception rather than the norm, it's too spread around so to speak.
when it comes to desi projects the forces can specify exactly what it needs, something that obviously can't happen for foreign maal.

As I said it can happen only if IAF would have had stakes and direct involvement in the project something akin to IN projects ; else HAL and ADA are same as MAPO MIG,Dassault or L&M as far as IAF is concerned.

As for being clear with requirements; well pick any programme across the globe (F-16 ,F-22,Su-30 ,RAFALE or even Mig-29) the end product was considerably different from prototypes or even intial production roll outs ; i.e. the end user or the AF does not care much about the physical aspects (size/weight as long as they do not affect the mission profile for which the AC is being designed) the end product should however meet a minimum set of baselined requirements.

all the more reason for IAF to specify the correct choice in time !! btw, AM Rajkumar mentions he went to russia to discuss integration of an un-named A2A missile with the LCA. this was late 2001, when was the r-73 introduced in IAF ?

Will need to search but iirc Mig-21's were in RU in 98/99 for Bison upgrade programme which included capability to fire R-73 and R-77.

I guess the tolerances of an all-metal wing and the composite wing of the LCA were different.
do note that the LCA is supposed to carry the R-73 on its wingtips, the migs carry all missiles on inboard pylons and that too a far lower number. the stresses are obviously different.

Rahul...common do you think IAF or any other end user would care about such semantics (where to carry a missile) as long as the airframe is able to perform within an established flight envelope with the 'specified payload' IAF should not have any issues.

The lightest of all the AAMs AIM9x,R-73 Python-V all weigh 91kg+ it is obvious that any AF which wishes to induct an AC in 2010(?) will expect the AC to be able to carry and fire above family of missiles (which ever exists in the inventory).

on the LCA radar again, from what we know A2A modes are working although we don't know to what level. at worst that means look down and A2G modes are yet to be validated.
there is also the chicken and egg question, if the IAF hadn't asked for everything on the A/C first time around they might have completed a tranche 1 level properly by now instead of trying to do all at the same time.so there you have it, LCA today could have been inducted in limited numbers as basic interceptors, at about the same level of bisons.

I hope by Tranches you are not drawing a comparasion with the EF-Typhoon programme where the Tranche 1 block 1 itself had cleared the IOC and had a fully functional CAPTOR MESA which itself evolved from the Blue Vixen radar of the Sea Harrier FMK.2.

ADA's and HAL's technological disadvantage notwithstanding we have to admit that for IAF or any of the services to accept a weapons platform it should meet at least a set of baselined requirements . Moreover this being a first project of its kind in India perhaps ADA and HAL are playing it safe with respect to the flight test programme (which is understandable) .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Aug 2009 22:39

Rahul...common do you think IAF or any other end user would care about such semantics (where to carry a missile) as long as the airframe is able to perform within an established flight envelope with the 'specified payload' IAF should not have any issues.

negi sahaab, it may be semantics to you but it is not semantics to the A/C designer.

please show me a fighter that carries 1000 lb bombs on wingtips. they don't right ?
what do they carry ? only the lightest dogfight missiles, am I correct ? why is that ?
probably because it is impractical to strengthen the wings to that level.

when world over a/c designers don't consider load clearance of various pylons to be a trivial matter or semantics, I don't understand how we are in a better position to judge them.

so what would an aircraft designer ask the specification setter (in this case IAF) ??

>> hey, what WVRAAM would you want in the LCA, please give me the weight and dimensions.
I want to strengthen my plane's wing accordingly, it will face the stresses at 9 G's remember ?

now if the IAF answers
>> whatever, we use the 44 kg R-60 at the moment so do whatever you like with that figure, don't bother me again. and conveniently ignores a requirement of a WVRAAM double that weight that will crop up in a couple of years, whose fault is it ?

The lightest of all the AAMs AIM9x,R-73 Python-V all weigh 91kg+ it is obvious that any AF which wishes to induct an AC in 2010(?) will expect the AC to be able to carry and fire above family of missiles (which ever exists in the inventory).

it is not the ADA's job to hunt down the specification of each and every AAM that exists in unkil sam or unkil joe's inventory and make the LCA according to that.

their job is to ask what missile the IAF wants, add 10% or thereabouts for safety and design an a/c around that figure. and that, is what they did.

in this case it is the IAF that goofed up, no two ways about it.

yes I am.... any GSQR never goes into technical details as to if AC has to be made of x% composites or should weigh out an out 10tonnes loaded; span l mtrs yada yada; GSQR merely lays down the performance and mission requirements and ofcourse they would expect a product to be at least comparable to what is currently in market in the same class with obvious expectation of scalability and growth of the platform ;for it would take at least a couple of decades for the AC to be inducted if it is still in on the drawing board.

negi sahab, what are you saying ? what does a GSQR contain ?

I want to fire missiles at aircrafts and drop bombs on enemies ?? baas ??

the total sum of the specifications, including internal range (with x kg of ordnance), payload etc etc fixes the total weight and aircraft class within a ball park figure.

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out. Concessions or a higher standard of requirements have to be mutually agreed upon by the IAF (customer) and ADA (constructor).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Aug 2009 00:09

negi wrote:Rahul mian

But IAF never asked such a light aircraft in the first place with such tight limitations on payload; the GSQRs are never finicky about the weight or dimensions within a broad range (the MRCA tender or any tender for that matter is a classic example ). The R-60,R-73 and even R-77 have always been in IAF inventory for quite some time now. Even the Mig-21 Bisons are able to carry R-73 and R-77, and all this on a 1960s/70s design.

What roles can LCA fulfill with its current capabilities and specially when ADA and HAl are still working on expanding the flight envelope ? Where are we with the LCA radar ?

Negi, the GSQR would have given certain performance requirements. now based on those performance requirements, ADA and the chosen consultant, Dassault, had to come up with a fighter to meet those. the problem is, the fighter had to be cheap, and yet concurrent with other fighters being designed at that time. engine thrust would basically be the deciding factor for which weight range the LCA could fit it, carrying a payload that was and is higher than even MiG-27s.

the range of modern engine options at that time all limited how big the LCA could be- the Gripen was to fly with the GE F-404, the Rafale flew initially with 2 F-404s, the Hornet was already flying with 2 F-404s and even a single RD-33 could only power an LCA sized fighter. I don't know if the F-16 engines were ever considered, but the ones available then only powered the much lighter F-16A/B class fighters.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Aug 2009 00:23

and regarding the Bison flying with 2 R-73s and the initial Tejas demonstrator not being able to do that, keep in mind that the MiG-21 only has 2 pylons on each wing and that meant that almost always, the outermost pylon was the only one that carried any A2A weaponry because the inboard pylons were wet. on some rare occasions, the MiG-21 carried multiple AA-6s on a multiple ejection racks, but in a air-ground config, it would carry bombs or rockets on those outboard pylons. if they were not stressed to take such heavy loads, the MiG-21 would be handicapped with a much much shorter range.

the Tejas that was supposed to be a MiG-21 replacement, was already being designed to carry more, with 3 pylons per wing. when it was designed originally to carry the R-60 on the outermost pylons, the IAF was fully aware of this and let it slide. if they had made it a requirement to fit a heavier missile on the outermost pylon, ADA would've accomodated at teh start itself. it could easily carry 2 R-73s on the mid-pylon and still have more 2 more AA-6s on the outermost pylons as per ADA's design, but ADA is not responsible for keeping tabs on what the latest Russian weapons available to India are- that is the IAF's job and they appraised ADA about it well after the first TDs were flying. that was part of the design, and you can't fault ADA for that, because the IAF was well aware of what the LCA was being designed for. and its NOT capability creep either, because for ANY major fighter program the world over, it takes a decade and more to get it ready, and you need to get what payload you want it to carry, right, at the start of the program, not when the demonstrator is flying. Take the Gripen A/B to C/D for instance..strengthened wings, added avionics, NATO standard equipment, etc. all came in batches and well after tehe A/B was in service.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Aug 2009 01:02

Rahul M wrote: please show me a fighter that carries 1000 lb bombs on wingtips. they don't right ?

And neither has the IAF asked HAL to redesign the LCA to carry a 100lb bomb ;[/quote] the lightest AAM missile out there is IRIS-T (87 kg) rest AIM9x,python-V and R-73 are all above 91kgs.And all 1970's vintage aircraft (Mig-21,Mirage series,super etedards,F-4,F-16 carry a heavier WVAAM) heck even F-86 sabre carries the 90 kg Sidewinder.

what do they carry ? only the lightest dogfight missiles, am I correct ? why is that ?
probably because it is impractical to strengthen the wings to that level.

No there is no such hard and fast rule...and that is what I am trying to emphasis.You can google up and find AIM-120 being carried by F-16s on wingtips.F-15 and Mig-29 do not have wing tip pylons but they still carry the required weapons payload .

IAF or any air force will not ask someone to mount a particular missile at a particular place all they will ask is to have a AC with say 8/9 weapons stations and the number of each kind of weapons to be carried.The decision to mount a pylon at the wing tip or otherwise is upto the design team ; and if some one is trying to sell a design which cannot mount a 100kg missile on a pylon meant to carry a AAM in this DECADE specially when the aircraft is designated as a combat aircraft I am sorry to say that design is not robust enough.

when world over a/c designers don't consider load clearance of various pylons to be a trivial matter or semantics, I don't understand how we are in a better position to judge them.

Because worldover aircrafts even from 70's vintage are able to carry a AIM9X or even AIM-120 on the wing tip pylons.

so what would an aircraft designer ask the specification setter (in this case IAF) ??

I answered this already; first the mission profile will be agreed upon based on perceived threats and operational scenario this will drive the flight envelope characteristics then finally the weapons payload.

IAF will merely lay down the performance specs for the airframe and the number of weapons hard points with a classification of weapons . The arrangement and position of the pylons itself will be at the discretion of the design team.

>> hey, what WVRAAM would you want in the LCA, please give me the weight and dimensions.
I want to strengthen my plane's wing accordingly, it will face the stresses at 9 G's remember ?

now if the IAF answers
>> whatever, we use the 44 kg R-60 at the moment so do whatever you like with that figure, don't bother me again. and conveniently ignores a requirement of a WVRAAM double that weight that will crop up in a couple of years, whose fault is it ?

The IAF had already reached an agreement to buy the Mig-29 in 80's (inducted in 86) and R-73 was a part of standrad weapons compliment for the fulcrum. So I will be surprised if IAF's requirement for LCA to carry R-73 is something unusual.

it is not the ADA's job to hunt down the specification of each and every AAM that exists in unkil sam or unkil joe's inventory and make the LCA according to that.
their job is to ask what missile the IAF wants, add 10% or thereabouts for safety and design an a/c around that figure. and that, is what they did.

I have answered that before R-73 along with Mig-29 were inducted in 1986.

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out. Concessions or a higher standard of requirements have to be mutually agreed upon by the IAF (customer) and ADA (constructor).

Yes it does not say where and which pylon to carry 'xyz' missile as a matter of fact now that we are talking semantics LCA does not have wing tip pylons ; the pylons are still under the wings at least a foot from the wing tip.None of the IAF aircraft except the Su-30 have wing tip pylons.So if 60s vintage Mig-21 can carry them LCA too should be able to adopt these specially when the latter is yet to be inducted.

There are far more major technical issues which have delayed the programme a mere change from R-60 to R-73 imho should not make such a huge difference.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Aug 2009 01:17

Kartik it makes little sense to compare Tejas with Mig-21 specially when trying to highlight the virtues of the former , you are talking about an aircraft which has served many air forces for more than 3 decades and is almost obsolete by today's standards with another one which is yet to be inducted .

My reference to bring in the Mig-21 was that if an airframe design dating back to 1950's can be modified to carry the R-73 and the R-77 then a design of 80's should not face such issues specially with the weight savings achieved due to extensive use of composites.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Aug 2009 01:31

naveen, *NO* fighter has the same load ratings for all pylons, the outermost pylons (*) carry the lightest ordnance in **ALL** modern fighters.

My reference to bring in the Mig-21 was that if an airframe design dating back to 1950's can be modified to carry the R-73 and the R-77 then a design of 80's should not face such issues specially with the weight savings achieved due to extensive use of composites.

do you have the idea that the 2001 LCA couldn't carry R-77 or R-73 *at all* ??

it has nothing to do with weight (of the aircraft) but the strength of the wing. entirely different issue

that's not what kartik or I meant !! it can carry whatever you like in the five inboard pylons, upto 1000 lb bombs IIRC in the inner 3 pylons. the problem was *ONLY* with the outermost pylons which were cleared for the 44 kg R-60 and had to be redesigned when the IAF moved on to the R-73.

(*) shouldn't have called it wingtip pylons, that was sloppy wording. mea culpa.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Aug 2009 02:05

Rahul M wrote:naveen, *NO* fighter has the same load ratings for all pylons, the outermost pylons (*) carry the lightest ordnance in **ALL** modern fighters.

Yes I know ..my intention by listing those AAM missiles and weight figures was to highlight the fact that 90+kg category WVAAM were in service since 80's , it is imperative that any aircraft which enters service in 90's or even later should be able to carry a WVAAM in above class.

that's not what kartik or I meant !! it can carry whatever you like in the five inboard pylons, upto 1000 lb bombs IIRC in the inner 3 pylons. the problem was *ONLY* with the outermost pylons which were cleared for the 44 kg R-60 and had to be redesigned when the IAF moved on to the R-73.

As I mentioned earlier there are far more complicated and major technical issues delaying the induction of Tejas as compared to switch to R-60 to R-73 , which itself is a not a major issue even Mirage-2000s have been configured to fire the R-77 and R-73 (although the weight difference between Majic-II to R-73 aint that huge).

(*) shouldn't have called it wingtip pylons, that was sloppy wording. mea culpa.

Thats alright...btw fwiw if you observe carefully even the Su-30 actually carries the R-73 just below the wingtip and not actually on the wingtip as F-16 or F-18 does (so one might argue about that as well

).

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 30 Aug 2009 02:10

Kartik wrote:
jamwal wrote:Cool down Kartik jee. No need to feed the trolls
Why is it that Indians simply love to pull down and abuse Indian projects, Indian products, etc. and gloat over it?

it is ignorance of this kind that led to that ridiculous "widow maker" or "flying coffin" monicker that was given to the venerable MiG-21s, which smacked of complete ignorance of what service its performed for India over 3 decades and more..it was stretched way beyond what its designer ever designed it for. ever heard the F-104 being derided so much despite its service record with the Luftwaffe being as bad as the MiG-21 in the IAF ? can you even imagine those F-104s in service today in the Luftwaffe ? yet, the MiG-21 soldiers on in the IAF. or how people say the IN keeps crashing its planes..do they know how difficult military flying over the sea is ? or how the RN lost over half its SHar fleet as well through accident related attrition ?

and even if the LCA program is being mis-managed, the blame is not only to be lain at the doors of the DRDO. they work for peanuts when compared to what others in similar roles the world over. there is some lack of required skills in both the technical and management side, but this is as much the fault of the GoI and the IAF's lackluster support as it is of those working there. consultancy from companies like EADS is a welcome thing and I can only hope that a company like Saab is roped in for the MCA, with its engineering expertise.

In fact the terms "widow maker" and flying coffin" were given to the F 104 of Luftwaffe for their miserable accident record. Our DDM cannot even think of an original term for the MiG 21

K

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Aug 2009 10:31

negi wrote:
Rahul M wrote:naveen, *NO* fighter has the same load ratings for all pylons, the outermost pylons (*) carry the lightest ordnance in **ALL** modern fighters.
Yes I know ..my intention by listing those AAM missiles and weight figures was to highlight the fact that 90+kg category WVAAM were in service since 80's , it is imperative that any aircraft which enters service in 90's or even later should be able to carry a WVAAM in above class.

provided the airforce asks for it. a designer can't just go about making his aircraft fitted for every AAM that exists on wide earth. that's not his job, nor is it practically feasible.

that's not what kartik or I meant !! it can carry whatever you like in the five inboard pylons, upto 1000 lb bombs IIRC in the inner 3 pylons. the problem was *ONLY* with the outermost pylons which were cleared for the 44 kg R-60 and had to be redesigned when the IAF moved on to the R-73.
As I mentioned earlier there are far more complicated and major technical issues delaying the induction of Tejas as compared to switch to R-60 to R-73 , which itself is a not a major issue even Mirage-2000s have been configured to fire the R-77 and R-73 (although the weight difference between Majic-II to R-73 aint that huge).

the switch from R-60 to R-73 is nowhere as trivial as you make it out to be.
the wings had to be re-designed and IIRC even the control laws had to be modified adding considerable time and effort to the program.

but anyway, this particular problem has been solved as of 2007, when it fired the R-73 in goa.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2009 10:34

negi wrote:even Mirage-2000s have been configured to fire the R-77 and R-73 (although the weight difference between Majic-II to R-73 aint that huge).

With R-73 they suceeded with R-77 they didnt for M2K

Anand · Post by **Anand** » 30 Aug 2009 11:13

Does any one here know when the LCA Tejas finally gets inducted (2010????) what capability will it give the IAF????
will it b a mere mig-21 replacement or a much more capable multirole aircraft. In 2001, Kota Hariranya the pm of the lca project had claimed lca would be comparable to the best in the world..............