LCA news and discussion

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 27 Sep 2009 03:47

nrshah wrote: Now, if we can purchase 125 fighters for 10-12 Bn USD, why can't we purchase radar off the shelf. Israel's Elta 2052 is available and now even Zhuk AESA. Igorr, will be able to tell us whether the same can be fitted in Tejas or not.

Both Elta 2052 and Zhuk-AE need some redesign of AESA antenna to fit with LCA little cone. Elta promises to adjust its AESA to any fighter during 18 months if I remember right. In our case it means a reduced number of MMICs and in consequence a lesser but still decent range. As to Phazotron they only need to join their current 575 mm dia 680 MMICs FGA-29 AESA with more compact processor block. Two years ago the weight of the radar was 220 kg and they promised to reduce it further. I could estimate the needed max weight of a radar for LCA as 150 kg.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 27 Sep 2009 10:26

When we talk about thrust a lot, there is not much talk on weight reduction. Suppose we are able to increase the % of composites (or replace it with a lighter composite), reduce the design weight with EADS consulting etc, then shouldn't we be able to make do with the available thrust? IMHO, reducing weight should be slightly easier than increasing engine thrust, even with expect consultation from outside.

With aircraft development there should be a parallel armaments program - LGBs, short/bvr missiles, better guns etc. We missed out on this for the Mk-I, but that it may become necessary if we have any idea of exporting the bird. Can some guru give an idea of how much resources would be required to develop and test these? Do we have the talent and resource for weapon design?

When Russians/Chinese can export something they are not inducting into their own airforce, why cant we export a Kaveri-based LCA? Why this fixation towards IAF being the first customer for LCA? If we had went with testing and certifying LCA with a Kaveri and a half cooked MMR and established supply chains, maintenance etc, exporting the craft to other nations would have been much easier. Some of the R&D costs could have been recovered and put back into more research. Validation of the platform could also have been done faster - actual feedback from users (with IAF, not sure when we will get these feedbacks and we are already building an Mk-II based on just test flights).

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 27 Sep 2009 12:16

Kailash wrote:When Russians/Chinese can export something they are not inducting into their own airforce, why cant we export a Kaveri-based LCA? Why this fixation towards IAF being the first customer for LCA? If we had went with testing and certifying LCA with a Kaveri and a half cooked MMR and established supply chains, maintenance etc, exporting the craft to other nations would have been much easier. Some of the R&D costs could have been recovered and put back into more research. Validation of the platform could also have been done faster - actual feedback from users (with IAF, not sure when we will get these feedbacks and we are already building an Mk-II based on just test flights).

Exactly! India initially was located some years ahead of China in its LCA program. Now it's behind China, and if starting talks about LCA export only in 2017, as somebody thinks here, it's already 10 years behind FC-1. Who will need LCA then on the market? Also India needs new foreign politics instruments. A fighter program gives for a country the laverage for gaining partners in 3rd World, - something that India desperately needs, especially now after its nuclear status is questioned again.

OK, one cause for LCA program delay is the treacherous American politics. But there was lot of time for finding alternative partners. Russia and Israel both have good records in military cooperation with different countries, keeping promising in joint program and technical support, expertise in air-space. Besides other things Russia helped China for its most ambitious fighter programs (J-10 engine and integration, L-15 airframe development, FC-1 engine and airframe, radars), while Israel has supported China too (J-10 airframe from Lavi's spin-off, FC-1 avionics). If these countries could prove their cooperativeness helping China, they would do the same for India with double willingness, wouldn't they.

And even with some foreign parts on the LCA India nevertheless will remained the 'system integrator' and the propriety owner of the product as whole. If so, why not in accelerated manner to provide foreign avionics for LCA and offer it as an 'export variant' (LCA-E)? Why the Russians have agreed to put foreign avionics on their export aircraft (MKI) but India wouldn't?

OK, some problems with F404 engine reexport is very predicted, at least for some countries. Then, choosing a different engine for LCA could be evaluated from all its aspects including export prospectives. For those countries, who traditionally oriented towards Russian/China mil. standards or US don't agree reexport, India should offer LCA with RD-33MK and a Russian radar and for others - with F404/F414 and Israeli avionics. Then India could milk from its tradition position between West and East and gain allies in both camps.

Wouldn't Russians help HAL to integrate RD-33MK with an Indian airframe if they did the same for China? I think they would... OK there is some problem with Israeli radars since they're including American components (MMICS) and technology. Like Raytheon's delay of electronic parts brought to some months delay in Falcon delivery to India, it can repeat again, but if Washington knows India has an alternative Russian source for LCA's radar and engine, the probability of sanctions decreases.

And if the HAL capability so worse that it cannot push ahead an export program ambitious enough (what I don't believe but still possible), go to a joint venture for the LCA's export variant! A partner could be Russia as well , that's in Brahmos framework. They said, the Chinese FC-1 light fighter isn't a competitor for MiG-29, why would LCA be? The domestic variant of LCA may be fully indigenous, at least in prospective, and the export one - a joint venture, like do the Russians with Brahmos/Yakhont couple. Anyway timing here is a critical point. Russians say: 'a spoon is needed for a dinner'.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 27 Sep 2009 17:04

Igorr wrote:Exactly! India initially was located some years ahead of China in its LCA program. Now it's behind China, and if starting talks about LCA export only in 2017, as somebody thinks here, it's already 10 years behind FC-1.

Thanks to corruption in MoD.

Igorr wrote:OK, one cause for LCA program delay is the treacherous American politics. But there was lot of time for finding alternative partners. Russia and Israel both have good records in military cooperation with different countries, keeping promising in joint program and technical support, expertise in air-space.

Its not treacherous politics. Its corruption and bribe culture in MoD.

Recently, I talked with my friends who are fighting in J&K army units on border. They say, "senior ranks in MoD babus are corrupt. We are still depending on 1972 vintage. Same is true about Indian Army where Generals are selected based on Politicial affiliations. Brains like Manekshaw were neglected despite recommendations and Kaul(Kashmiri) was choosen by Nehru, who was responsible for 1962 mess. Later only, Manekshaw got Eastern command which showed his caliber."

The IIT MAV(miniature UAV) video which was posted here some days ago. I showed that video to him and in response, he said, they can't recruit such technology even if IIT has it because it requires MoD permission and they are not letting anything come, except the products for which they get commission from foreign companies.

With the MRCA, situation has become more rotten for home-made technologies. Even those which can be easily matured within 2-3 years is neglected and foreign is preferred because it pays to MoD babus.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 27 Sep 2009 17:13

MRCA is a substitute for LCA.

The corrupt goons in MoD has delayed and starved LCA of funding for decades and now these goons have totally killed it by issuing MRCA contract.

Armed forces are merely sheeps. They are powerless and helpless because MoD rules over Army and IAF powers. In media, IAF is accused of corruption but thats not how power structure works in Delhi. Its the babus who call 'shots'.

Goons in MoD are having great harvest with MRCA contract.

In my opnion, MRCA should be scrapped totally and invest those 14 billion dollars in DRDO-private industry defense Complex, focusing on all streams of future technologies R&D. MRCA is purely a scandal.

Instead of investing 14 Billions in Western and Russian R&D houses, Babus in MoD should invest such huge money in Indian Design houses, which they never do because there are no bribes in it.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 27 Sep 2009 20:02

vishwakarmaa wrote:MRCA is a substitute for LCA.

The corrupt goons in MoD has delayed and starved LCA of funding for decades and now these goons have totally killed it by issuing MRCA contract.

Armed forces are merely sheeps. They are powerless and helpless because MoD rules over Army and IAF powers. In media, IAF is accused of corruption but thats not how power structure works in Delhi. Its the babus who call 'shots'.

Goons in MoD are having great harvest with MRCA contract.

In my opnion, MRCA should be scrapped totally and invest those 14 billion dollars in DRDO-private industry defense Complex, focusing on all streams of future technologies R&D. MRCA is purely a scandal.

Instead of investing 14 Billions in Western and Russian R&D houses, Babus in MoD should invest such huge money in Indian Design houses, which they never do because there are no bribes in it.

How is your calling armed forces sheep any different from someone else saying local Indians are like this or that
I don't agree with either tone...and both are uncalled for and unjustified
If you think armed forces are sheep then why bother discussing them on BR...save your breath in that case saar

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2009 05:25

US puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 28 Sep 2009 07:42

Gerard wrote:US puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path

why r we even considering American engines for Tejas ? we should go for European engine

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 28 Sep 2009 08:43

karan_mc wrote:
Gerard wrote:US puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path
why r we even considering American engines for Tejas ? we should go for European engine

Because, Lockheed Martin has the necessary experience in designing single-engined aircraft that catapult from an aircraft carrier. Rafale and EADS don't have this know how. I'm sure this was a tough decision (almost a necessary evil) for MoD itself to take - considering the volte-face from American companies earlier on the LCA project itself.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Sep 2009 08:52

^^^
that has nothing to do with the engine. LM is not an engine maker.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Sep 2009 08:54

US puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path

Just a word of caution for all those who want to purchase the American planes and other military technology. Americans can do more flip flops than a quad core processor transistor.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 Sep 2009 09:20

I remember bringing up the export of LCA a long time back on this thread.

Now it's behind China, and if starting talks about LCA export only in 2017, as somebody thinks here, it's already 10 years behind FC-1. Who will need LCA then on the market?

The same countries which are the current importers of aircraft like F-7 and operators of the Mig-21. Lets all this group of countries as group X. With its open architecture LCA will keep evolving, it has a lot of growth potential. Keep in mind the fact that economies keep growing around the world. A lot more low income countries in the next 10 years will be able to afford aircraft like the LCA provided we step up its production numbers with huge production lines and introduce economy of scale.

You can only upgrade an F-7 so much. A good part of the countries in Group X could have neighbours moving up the technology ladder going in for gen 4 aircraft over the next 10 years. How do these countries react? By beefing up on the F-7 count which I doubt will even be actively fielded by the Chinese given its total obsolescence at that point of time? The answer is to go in for a cheap gen 4 aircraft which brings with it a good degree of modern technology and potency. Who do you acquire it from? The Russians or the Chinese (the Americans and Europeans would never have an aircraft these countries could ever afford)? Buy from Russia and China and rub the Americans/Europeans on the wrong side? Never! It is but only natural that a country like India which is seen as relatively neutral on the world stage be approached for fighters. Plus add to it India's own experience in moving from the Mig-21 to the LCA (don't pounce on me, I am talking about the next 10 years). All that effort we have put into the non aligned movement may be of some use after all.

Apart from group X there will also be those mid level income countries which need their fighter numbers jacked up for point defence and a degree of multi role capability. The block 2 LCA would be prime candidates at that point. The LCA block 2 would be the Gripen of that day provided our defence firms play the marketing card well.

The LCA can be marketed in 3 "flavors",

EX: The top of the line with all the gizmos from Mayavi to Vetrivel, GE 414/EJ200, ASTRA XX and what not...Target audience: Mid income countries like South Africa, Brazil etc....
LX: Mid tier aircraft with some of the "non affordables" chopped off. Multi role severely limited. Target audience: Mid to Low income countries who need a mix of numbers and technology: Eastern European countries
DX: Bare bones LCA with Kaveri and good A2A capabilities, multi role on paper. darn cheap! Target Audience: Low income countries.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 28 Sep 2009 09:57

Yogi_G wrote:I remember bringing up the export of LCA a long time back on this thread.

Now it's behind China, and if starting talks about LCA export only in 2017, as somebody thinks here, it's already 10 years behind FC-1. Who will need LCA then on the market?
The same countries which are the current importers of aircraft like F-7 and operators of the Mig-21.

- Yes, but have to understand what 8-10 years of totaly Chinese monopole in this class will lead to. Most of this market niche will be caught by Chinese. Also India needs a strategic leverage today.

Keep in mind the fact that economies keep growing around the world. A lot more low income countries in the next 10 years will be able to afford aircraft like the LCA .

Why not to realize it soon with RD-33(93) and gradually go to Kaveri when ready?

Buy from Russia and China and rub the Americans/Europeans on the wrong side? Never! It is but only natural that a country like India which is seen as relatively neutral on the world stage be approached for fighters.

- Who know what will be the India relationship with US in next 10 years? Now with Obama the Indo-US relations are only little better than 'infamous' Chimerica. Since India's ambitions are growing, the rubs with US will only raise. Now US see India as a 'countermeasure' against China, as a relatively politically weak country useful for manipulation. But will they follow see Delhi in such angle of view also when 5-6 'Arikhants' will furrow the Ocean water?

EX: The top of the line with all the gizmos from Mayavi to Vetrivel, GE 414/EJ200, ASTRA XX and what not...Target audience: Mid income countries like South Africa, Brazil etc....
LX: Mid tier aircraft with some of the "non affordables" chopped off. Multi role severely limited. Target audience: Mid to Low income countries who need a mix of numbers and technology: Eastern European countries
DX: Bare bones LCA with Kaveri and good A2A capabilities, multi role on paper. darn cheap! Target Audience: Low income countries.

OK, for the LX and DX per your classification the RD-33 derivative seams preferable, I would say. Of course till Kaveri is in full power.

I see some countries India would sell LCA wth RD-93 even today if were possible, with a great strategic outcome: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia , Afghanistan. In prospective it can be even Mongolia and Tajikistan, Iran, Latin America. Although with a western engine and avionics adds it could be Malaysia, SA, LA too (about Brazil you are wrong - they have more strong airspace, than India today and cooperate with France).

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Sep 2009 10:12

Yogi G.
While you enthusiasm warms my heart, it is far removed from reality. Basic business logic says that we should always strive for the first mover advantage, especially if we are dealing in a volatile and price sensitive market. Since we are already a decade behind China, we might as well forget about penetrating the markets that you mentioned, unless we bring something spectacularly brilliant to the table with good cost savings. Given that our aircraft technology is still years behind and that we have not built any fighter aircraft worth the name, I don't see how we can achieve this. The only way forward seems like private companies are engaged in a massive scale and companies like TATA/Wipro/L&T etc form a conglomerate and start building the planes and their sub systems with some foreign collaboration. If we believe that HAL can build and sell Tejas in numbers you have dreamed of, it's just a lot of pot smoke. They can't even build the MKI and Hawks in the numbers that IAF needs.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 28 Sep 2009 10:21

[quoteUS puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path[/quote]

Lockheed Martin’s current situation replicates that of Boeing, which was front-runner for the air force Tejas consultancy. But earlier this year, after the US government failed to grant Boeing a clearance (called Technical Assistance Agreement) in time, the defence ministry awarded EADS the contract. The European consortium obtained the sanctions in time and is now working with ADA.

None of the US Navy’s most successful carrier-borne aircraft — the F-4 Phantom, the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18 Hornet — was built by Lockheed Martin. Despite that, ADA believes Lockheed Martin’s experience in designing the futuristic F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter qualifies it as a consultant.

We never seem to correct our mistakes... Apart from LM consultancy, we also wants to buy f 16-18... God help us.

-Nitin

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Sep 2009 10:49

nrshah wrote:
US puts Lockheed off Tejas flight path

We never seem to correct our mistakes... Apart from LM consultancy, we also wants to buy f 16-18... God help us.

-Nitin

Miztake wat Miztake!
We know the love that Indians have for all the phoren maal. Look at ur drawing room, you can still see 1999 calendar that your unkil sent from Texas. Why should't our country have the F16/17/18/19/20/21/22 so that we can display them in airshows as indigenously built plane at HAL Nasick. In fact, we should give the entire project to LM so that we can put more Unkil paint on it for republic day parades.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Sep 2009 11:23

Kailash wrote:With aircraft development there should be a parallel armaments program - LGBs, short/bvr missiles, better guns etc. We missed out on this for the Mk-I, but that it may become necessary if we have any idea of exporting the bird. Can some guru give an idea of how much resources would be required to develop and test these? Do we have the talent and resource for weapon design?

Is DRDO concentrating on any of these? Please provide any related info (except the Astra - which is on a "completely successful", perpetual testing mode)

How difficult is developing a JDAM or a decent range of air-air/ air-ground precision munitions compared to developing an entire fighter? Is it because we wont be able to use locally designed weapons with the foreign hardware we operate? Arm twisting by France/Russia?

An LCA using other countries weapons may have (political) issues getting export orders.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 Sep 2009 13:21

Vijayadasami today, stomach full lunch @ in laws place, belly full of optimism

Vijay Ho!

Yes, but have to understand what 8-10 years of totaly Chinese monopole in this class will lead to. Most of this market niche will be caught by Chinese.

Basic business logic says that we should always strive for the first mover advantage, especially if we are dealing in a volatile and price sensitive market. Since we are already a decade behind China, we might as well forget about penetrating the markets that you mentioned

Agreed that the Chinese have made inroads here, from Zimbabwe to Pakistan, their fighter sales penetration has been good. Their WS-10 and nominal FCS equipped Bandar will be the force to reckon with. Whilst I am going anywhere near the idea of taking up significant share of the market for simple, potent single engined light fighters I am only saying that market penetration is very much possible. Too early to put the soosai vest on the idea of export of LCA. If first mover is the all-decider then we would never have been to sell the ALH in South America, the Americans would not have been able to make inroads into the Indian defence market and the Swedes wouldnt have even dared to think of fielding the Gripen in the MMRCA competition. Agreed, apples to oranges, but the essence is what I am trying to get across here. With a clear vision and excellent leadership LCA taking off from African and Latin American airfields is very much a possibility 10 years down the line.

Why not to realize it soon with RD-33(93) and gradually go to Kaveri when ready?

The Russian claim of the 90 KN engine in a collaborative effort is very interesting and it has to be seen how the approach towards it is. Given that NLCA is still some years away, would a GE 414/EJ 200 for the ground based LCA block 2 and the new Russian-Engine (5-6 years development timeline possible?) for the NLCA make sense? Of course Kaveri will be introduced when ready, eventually,eventually,eventually!! Exploited word that, eventually!

Who know what will be the India relationship with US in next 10 years?

I do not want to delve deep into this topic in this thread. Seeing that given the current situation with Obama in the equation, statements from American diplomats that India is a "ally", I see in the worst case scenario India could at worst be a France to US as against a China. That we are a borderline UK/Japan to US right now is another story. In all probability, in ten years, I dont see Americans putting a freeze on relations with any country should it buy equipment from India while that definitely could be the case for China.

about Brazil you are wrong - they have more strong airspace, than India today and cooperate with France

You are right, they have a better aerospace industry, in the civilian sector. Their investments in that sector has paid off. Even our CABS will benefit from it. But I see nothing coming out of their military industrial complex which I can say has an edge over ours. I am sure they would not want to get into a full development life cycle from scratch to simply acquire a new light fighter. With their F-5s slated to retire sometime in 2020 wouldn't they start looking for a replacement sometime around the 2014-2016 timeframe? The same time period around which Block 2 LCA would be rolling out of production lines. Wouldn't they need a light fighter to complement their mirages and Rafaels when do they come? Here is something radical, NLCA flying off Brazilian ACs

If we believe that HAL can build and sell Tejas in numbers you have dreamed of, it's just a lot of pot smoke

Agree with you there. Production lines not being able to churn out fighters in large numbers does serious damage to the chances of export and also the fleet strength of the IAF. Even private player participation will not ensure hundreds of aircraft rolling out every year as the order book does not justify its need. But let us assume that private players do step in alongside HAL, apart from fulfilling the 100 odd number order of the IAF, how much do you think would be the typical order from say a country like Afghanistan/Ecquador/Laos be? 20-30? At 50 fighters a year wouldn't we be able to make the deliveries should we have a firm order in place?

Given that our aircraft technology is still years behind and that we have not built any fighter aircraft worth the name, I don't see how we can achieve this.

I do not agree with the underlined part. Which aspect of technology do you say we lag behind the Chinese in? Could you please elaborate? The only place I see us lagging behind them is in reverse-engineering. I also feel that given Chinese reliability issues (remember the incident when the Chinese missile on the F-7 in SLAF not being able to lock on an LTTE aircraft?), if we play our cards right we can use the quality of Indian produce as a good USP.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 28 Sep 2009 14:16

Yogi_G wrote:I remember bringing up the export of LCA a long time back on this thread.

The LCA can be marketed in 3 "flavors",

EX: The top of the line with all the gizmos from Mayavi to Vetrivel, GE 414/EJ200, ASTRA XX and what not...Target audience: Mid income countries like South Africa, Brazil etc....
LX: Mid tier aircraft with some of the "non affordables" chopped off. Multi role severely limited. Target audience: Mid to Low income countries who need a mix of numbers and technology: Eastern European countries
DX: Bare bones LCA with Kaveri and good A2A capabilities, multi role on paper. darn cheap! Target Audience: Low income countries.

Versions of Maurti LCA ...

Anyway, if we want to find a buyer for LCA we should have atleast 50-100 LCAs flying with IAF colours. Otherwise no one is going to BUY from us, we may have to find someone to give it for free and then train them also. And think about the time frame to build that many LCAs.

Rather than wasting our time/effort/resources on export front, the best thing for us to do is to get mk2 flying as soon as possible. A fully matured mk2 flying with indian engine and radar/avionics will give us a lot of mileage..

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 28 Sep 2009 22:44

Kailash wrote:
Kailash wrote:With aircraft development there should be a parallel armaments program - LGBs, short/bvr missiles, better guns etc. We missed out on this for the Mk-I, but that it may become necessary if we have any idea of exporting the bird. Can some guru give an idea of how much resources would be required to develop and test these? Do we have the talent and resource for weapon design?
Is DRDO concentrating on any of these? Please provide any related info (except the Astra - which is on a "completely successful", perpetual testing mode)

How difficult is developing a JDAM or a decent range of air-air/ air-ground precision munitions compared to developing an entire fighter? Is it because we wont be able to use locally designed weapons with the foreign hardware we operate? Arm twisting by France/Russia?

An LCA using other countries weapons may have (political) issues getting export orders.

m not a guru but there is one LGB program going on named as SUDARSHAN n for BVR missile ,we have ASTRA.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 29 Sep 2009 11:22

m not a guru but there is one LGB program going on named as SUDARSHAN n for BVR missile ,we have ASTRA.

I am not talking about individual weapons here. We have read a lot about Astra, sudarshan etc. But do we have a roadmap to develop air launched weapons. Short range heat seeking missiles, BVR/radar guide missiles, land attack CMs launched from aircrafts, precision small bombs, bunker busters, conformal weapons, bigger/better guns etc.

Also our intent to test, upgrade these weapons, integrate it with foreign platforms, and market them locally and internationally is seriously lacking. Has ASTRA and Sudarshan been tested from any aircraft in our inventory (much less the LCA)? With the raksha mantri's intent to increase indigenous content, why is funds/consultancy a problem? what is holding these programs from being quickly tested and inducted?

This may not be pertinent to LCA alone (MCA, FGFA, UAVs), but IMHO it does require some discussion. Like an INSAS or tank shells or bullets, ROI (return on investment) on armaments development is very significant in long term. Not sure where this discussion would belong, admins please move it if necessary.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 29 Sep 2009 15:17

hi
has anyone got any info on the counter electronic jammer or ECM tech used in LCA and its capability.
does anyone think that the main purpose for LCA will be interception since we are already going ahead with mrca and su-30 mki.
and if that is so then is the current F404 engine not good enough for that since even some of f-18 are also running on them.
it will at least start the procedure.
again has someone got info on weapons specification of LCA.
thanks

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 29 Sep 2009 15:20

iam interested in knowing wether having F414 or eurofighter will affect in anyway the delta wing modular design of LCA or not.
what about some stealth features in LCA.
the last i heard there were talks of getting stealth coatings from russia (used on mig-21 bison )being considered for LCA.
please comment or correct me if it is not true.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 03 Oct 2009 11:56

Could there be any truth in this report?

India May Use Russian Engines For LCA

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Oct 2009 12:23

if true this would be a bad step. rd-33 doesn't give any advantages over the f-404 in terms of performance which is clearly inadequate compared to the revised requirement.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 03 Oct 2009 13:41

If performance was the only criteria , wouldn't US planes be default choice for M(M)RCA deal?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 03 Oct 2009 13:50

if true this would be a bad step. rd-33 doesn't give any advantages over the f-404 in terms of performance which is clearly inadequate compared to the revised requirement.

It might be for RD 33MK which is in the same class as EJ 2000 and GE 414.

On the side note, if it is not for MK but same RD 33/Series 3, does it mean we are once again facing delivery problems with americans in case of 40 GE 404 IN20 ordered already.

Is it a coincidence that Indian delegation visited the manufacturing plant of MK variant?

Or LM and boeing consultancy issue came as an eye opener for MOD / ADA / IAF?

-Nitin

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 03 Oct 2009 14:30

LCA to receive official "HF designation" next year

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 03 Oct 2009 14:42

can anyone elaborate if the RD 33MK which is powering the mig-35 and is in the same class as EJ 2000 and GE 414 could be fitted in the small light airframe of LCA.
if yes other than the afterburn smoke issue (mentioned in previously by many ) are there any other issues with it.
rd 33 mk can provide a thurst of 9000 kgf and that is enough for lca.
the service life of rd33 mk is 4000 hrs.
my question is can this be fitted in lca without any modifications in its airframe design and if yes why is it not considered good.
and agian is there any stealth tech in line for lca.
will the stealth coating on outer airframe that russia has offered for mig-21 bison not considerd.

why iam discussing rd33 mk is that russains are reliable in all respects and think when if f414 is chosen and after sometime usa comes up with a sanction on their export to indians.

and lastly if the older rd33 (mig 29) is not good enough for LCA why is it good enough for JF-17 which even if we agree or not is in the same league...........comments

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 03 Oct 2009 14:46

X-posting

Igorr in Indian Navy Dhaga wrote:The RD-33 potential with the current gas-generator is 10t of thrust (about 98 KN). I read before that they need for this only a minor changes in the fan and compressor. And with their prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust. If GE is going now to offer f414 with an 'increased thrust' at the expense of the engine life with the life limited to 2000 h, why Klimov could not do the same with its 4000 h RD-33MK? Of course it can do it by slightly increasing the temperature. I'm sure if they have already agreed to sell 9 t RD-93 to the Chinese, they have something more powerful in the pocket

RD-33MK with its smokeless combustor, engine life monitoring and 12T potential, may not be that bad a choice. Also expected to be much cheaper with fewer strings attached if any than the Amerikhan option. Definately not a bad idea as a stopgap till the Kaveri finally arrives on scene (Yawn).

It may not be the best option technically, but should be good enough to get the aircraft in service. Somebody in GoI should read up the Roosi admiral's advice : Better is the enemy of good enough

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 03 Oct 2009 14:47

abhi.enggr wrote:iam interested in knowing wether having F414 or eurofighter will affect in anyway the delta wing modular design of LCA or not.
what about some stealth features in LCA.
the last i heard there were talks of getting stealth coatings from russia (used on mig-21 bison )being considered for LCA.
please comment or correct me if it is not true.

please comment

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 03 Oct 2009 14:54

X-posting

KrishG wrote:
Igorr wrote: The RD-33 potential with the current gas-generator is 10t of thrust (about 98 KN). I read before that they need for this only a minor changes in the fan and compressor. And with their prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust. If GE is going now to offer f414 with an 'increased thrust' at the expense of the engine life with the life limited to 2000 h, why Klimov could not do the same with its 4000 h RD-33MK? Of course it can do it by slightly increasing the temperature. I'm sure if they have already agreed to sell 9 t RD-93 to the Chinese, they have something more powerful in the pocket
It not just about thrust. The internal fuel capacity of LCA is limited. The specific fuel consumption of the present RD-33 while using the afterburner is greater than of the present EJ200. The important thing here is that the present RD-33 produces around 81 kN of thrust with afterburner while EJ200 produces 90 kN thrust with lesser SFC than RD-33. Afterburners are important to naval fighters especially for Short-take off configurations like that on NLCA. The question is whether Klimov can reduce the SFC of Rd-33. Actually, high bypass ratio turbofans are supposed to have lower SFC than lower bypass ratio engines.

The new RD-33MK is said to 7% higher afterburning thrust. Is this with the same amount of SFC as previous engines ??

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Oct 2009 21:13

aditp wrote:LCA to receive official "HF designation" next year

How about HF-73 the crashed HF-24 Marut with after burner ,it will be great to honor the test pilot who was killed in its first flight

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Oct 2009 21:18

aditp wrote:Could there be any truth in this report?

India May Use Russian Engines For LCA

i really donot think so .it might be " kayale pullo " the author might have cooked

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 03 Oct 2009 21:54

krishnan wrote:If performance was the only criteria , wouldn't US planes be default choice for M(M)RCA deal?

Why so? "Fix Or Repair Daily" is something to say about american stuffs

George J · Post by **George J** » 03 Oct 2009 22:21

So either average arrogant and ignorant (oop I meant new and improved) BR jingo is right and ADA is enamored by phoren maal. Or maybe (and we know only BR is ahead of the curve....BR jingos know more about stuff than the guys actually making the stuff)....just maybe there are certain things that you have no experience with.

In the case of the Boeing Consultancy....they were willing to pay millions of $ to Boeing for consultancy in expanding the CLAW to a specific aspect of the flight regimen. Either you pay someone to learn from their experience about what happens when you "go there" or you risk the life of your pilot and PV. ADA is not planning to kill its pilots. I am not sure about the specifics of the LM deal but....ADA will not be looking to them if it was not something crucial.

But please do continue....with the verbal flatulence.

On another note, I am not sure if Jagan has posted this (apologies it has been) but I am really kicked that ADA made this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRf4Xr_G ... re=channel

The only problem I have with the video is that it under represents the number of woman who are designing the LCA. Some of those labs are completely woman dominated. It's an incredible sight....

I don't want to start a tangent here but I have NEVER EVER seen any Chinese facility pics only glorious CGI, made for TV clips, and lots of shiny models. When I posed this question a long time ago on AFM there was nothing but deafening silence. But that's a discussion best left to AFM or China Watch Thread.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2009 23:56

Bala Vignesh wrote:LCA to Receive HF Designation

Wonder why didn't we designate it earlier on???

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 04 Oct 2009 00:52

aditp wrote:Could there be any truth in this report?

India May Use Russian Engines For LCA

Igor covered this on his blog about 20 days ago..

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... -33mk.html

Check the comment below by Igor (2nd comment).

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 04 Oct 2009 02:19

aditp wrote:LCA to receive official "HF designation" next year

Sriman wrote:
aditp wrote:Could there be any truth in this report?

India May Use Russian Engines For LCA
Igor covered this on his blog about 20 days ago..

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... -33mk.html

Check the comment below by Igor (2nd comment).

Hmm… An interesting development. Indeed, I have already said about this possibility in my blog early. I think, the allegedly selling of an uprated RD-93 engine to China and the current Indian tops' activity around RD-33MK for India are two related events. Indeed, many years (more than 5) Russia repeatedly refused to sell the RD variant with increased thrust to China. One cause for this – is Indian pressure and the agreement between two nations for not allowing China have more advanced weapons than India. The second – Russia by self doesn't want China to be too assertive, so the weapons sold for China were always inferior in some degree relative to what Moscow sells to Delhi.

But the technological development is continuing. Sometimes you must run for keeping your place. Russia cannot refuse to sell 9 t RD-93 engine for China infinitely (till now it sold only 8.3 t thrust variant). It because the China copy WS-13 (with 7.8 t thrust) is gradually improved and becoming close in its characteristics to the regular RD-93. If Russia refuses now it will lose both the market and the leverage on China. So, the refusing loses its sense.

It's not a secret, that India wants its Tejas light fighter will be more advanced than the Chinese fighter FC-1 (JF-17) of the same weight class. This advantage has not only a military but political and psychology aspect too. One of the most important and persuasive characteristic of a fighter is its engine. According to its thrust, reliability, service life can be made the conclusions about capability of the aircraft to take weapons and fight.

Thus, the current Indian preoccupation in seeking a more powerful engine for its indigenous Tejas project is well understood against the background of aggressive Chinese FC-1 marketing to India's neighbors. A more powerful engine with longer life could help Tejas mk.2 to take-off the carrier deck, keep more payload and be more maneuverable in dogfight. Now installed GE F-404 engine isn't powerful enough, and the development of the indigenous Kaveri engine is too slow.

Till now two foreign engines were evaluated by India as candidates for Tejas mk.2: the European 90 kN EJ200 (EF-2000) and the American 98 kN GE F-414 (Super-Hornet). Only F-414 gives Tejas a decisive advantage over FC-1's RD-93 in thrust, although being slightly heavier. An airframe (inlets) rework is needed too. 90 kN EJ200 has no significant advantage over RD-93 especially if it is going to be uprated to 9 t = 88.2 kN. Furthermore, since the uprated variant of RD-93 is based on RD-33MK technologies, it must have service life close to 4.000 h. Whilst EJ200 according to some sources has only 2000 h life.

The Chinese were not allowed to produce RD-93, but they bought a repairing facility and technologies for repair. Thus they are unable to make a new RD-93 but theoretically still can try to 'overclock' RD-93 for even more thrust - 90-93 kN – however with expense of reducing life in some degree. In such a way they can have an engine with better than EJ200 tech characteristics for half a price. It can be the critical point for their FC-1 program export success. If they indeed, as was reported, are going to buy up to 500-1000 RD-93 engines with increased power, they are very serious in this aspect.

As a 'hermeneutic' analysis can say us, the Indians tops could be now with the dilemma (or trilemma):

1) Going for the American 98 kN F-414 . Proved risk to be sanctioned in most unpredictable and hard situation. A totally new engine in IAF and IN inventory. However, could have some sense if F/A-18 wins MMRCA tender. Growing friction with US on nuclear issue makes this choice too risky and so – improbable.
2) 90 kN EJ200 – doesn't give any tech advantage for Tejas against it's main competitor and rival. According to my estimation could be as twice more costly than RD-33MK-based engine if recount to lifespan. Theoretically can be sanctioned by each participant of this project (GB, Germany, Italy). Significantly reduces the export prospective of Tejas.
3) RD-33MK variant with the bottom gear placement and a thrust vectoring nozzle (RD-133). Can be uprated up to 10 t (98 kN) thrust in near future without changing the engine core. The Russian obligation to not sell TVN for China can be obtained, so the advantage of Tejas mk.2 engine (if chosen) can be visible and persuasive for public. The KLIVT all aspect TVN can be especially worth for the carrier based Tejas' variant now actively developed by HAL. The 8.3 t RD-33 ser.3 variant of the engine is already licensioned and ToTed in India, so only a minimal addition will be needed for RD-33MK production in India.

PS I'll put this evaluaton in my blog too…

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Oct 2009 03:32

2 Qs:
1) Where does the 'built-in-India' RD-33 stand today?
2) Will the RD-33 fit properly? IF so, why was t never mentioned earlier than this?

Amazed that India is even there.