LCA news and discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 04 Oct 2009 04:09

abhi.enggr wrote: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

RD-33\93 can be fitted in LCA-class plane for sure. However, the airframe redesign must be deeper in some degree, than F-414 and EJ200 need since RD-33 has slightly bigger diameter.

From the Klimov's page:

RD-33MK is the first product of major modifications of the basic engine. Its horsepower is 7% higher due to the use of cooled blades made of modern materials including composites.

FACTS
Unassisted takeoff of the MiG-29K fighter from the aircraft carrier deck is possible owing to the increased horsepower of the engine;
The engine contains systems that reduce its infrared and optical visibility;
The service life of the engine is a long 4,000 hours;
Installed on MiG-29K, MiG-29KUB and MiG-35 jet fighters;



NRao wrote: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.

1) they are starting step by step RD-33 ser 3 producing in India. Initially - from the parts from Russia with gradually increasing Indian participation. Isn't different from other ToT programs between India and Russia.
2) Not EF200 nor F414 fit properly , they both need some airframe redesign too. Furthermore the redesign of LCA's airframe is needed anyway if they want better payload. The Russian option is always available for India so they tried other options before. I then predicted only few will want to help India with Kavery, coz it's lot tech problems without a clear dividend. The same with improved foreign engines for LCA. Who wants help Delhi to have a new independent project in such a lucrative niche? The Americans push for F-35 and have degrading relations with Delhi now. The Europeans are too expensive for LCA with EJ200 to be successful as FC-1 at least. SO turning to the Russian option looks to me rather rational.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 04:24

SO turning to the Russian option looks to me rather rational.


Thanks.

That is cool.

However, unless I am missing something, why is it that they did not look at the Russian engine all these YEARS.

This LCA engine story is getting to be a joke.

One more question. From a LCA PoV, is there plenty of growth in this Russian engine?

TIA.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 05:20

Ajatshatru wrote:'is there plenty of growth' issue vs fear of sanctions....take your pick.


I do not think the need to "pick" will ever come. These guys will never make a decision the way they are going. Besides there is a third option.

BTW, is there any news on if IN is planing on canceling the P-8Is, etc. Just posted that the IN is looking into Elams.

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby ss_roy » 04 Oct 2009 05:40

I never fail to be amazed at indian willingness to buy GE engines after 1998. :((

Is people's memory so short?
Last edited by ss_roy on 04 Oct 2009 06:30, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 06:26

Why the fear?

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vijyeta » 04 Oct 2009 07:01



Did LCA fire the R-73 in this video?
If yes, then does it mean that the HMS has also been integrated/tested ?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Jagan » 04 Oct 2009 07:32

karan_mc wrote:


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



The HF-73 was never built. The ac that crashed was the HF-24 Mk 1R (Reheat). The HF-73 was said to be a significantly different design

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 07:46


vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vijyeta » 04 Oct 2009 07:57

NRao wrote:Nostalgic: HF-73


Seems similar to Su24

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Asit P » 04 Oct 2009 08:21

I will be happy if this report of RD-33MK for LCA turns out to be true. It will make us less dependent upon the ever changing policies of Uncle Sam. But my only fear is the amount of tweaking required in the airframe of LCA to fit this engine. I just hope that it does not delay the LCA program by an infinite value.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Asit P » 04 Oct 2009 08:25

abhi.enggr wrote:if yes other than the afterburn smoke issue (mentioned in previously by many ) are there any other issues with it.

I guess this issue is a matter of past and has been taken care of now.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4622
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Oct 2009 09:45

As Igorr was saying, moving into a market as quickly as possible is important it seems. ChinPaks sure ain't waiting.

via AFM forums.
DATE:30/09/09
SOURCE:Flight International
China's AVIC steps up sales push for FC-1, J-10 fighters
By Siva Govindasamy

China plans to market the Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 and J-10 fighters aggressively as part of its plan to become a major player in the global aerospace industry.


May be the visit to RD 33 plant was something to do with this? Block engine sales and kill 2 birds - JF 17 development plus exports.

CM.

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby soumik » 04 Oct 2009 10:06

NRao wrote:Nostalgic: HF-73


damn that bird is sweet!
just had a wet dream involving these birds take on j-8's over arunachal. :mrgreen:

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 04 Oct 2009 14:28

Cain Marko wrote:
China plans to market the Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 and J-10 fighters aggressively as part of its plan to become a major player in the global aerospace industry.


May be the visit to RD 33 plant was something to do with this? Block engine sales and kill 2 birds - JF 17 development plus exports.

If looking in more positive way it could be said: by buying handreds of RD-93 China gives money for Klimov to make Indian planes engines better, that Chinese. ;) But if India cannot produce its own alternative to Chinese fighter programs in reasonable time, nothing can help. Sooner or later the Chinese will catch all the market with Russian engines or with their own. Russia itself has no any competitive project for now in this niche (light single-engine fighter).

So, I starting to think why would not India and Russia cooperate in joint venture to export LCA? At least a number of the cooperation programs between two nations have already proved their worthiness (Brahmos, Al-55). If usually it was a Russian project which became a basis for a joint venture, why could not it be an Indian next time - LCA? The spin-off from the successful LCA export program could help for progress of IAF's Tejas as well. Would it happen, this project could catch a new political level, and thus gain more support from both governments.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nikhil_p » 04 Oct 2009 16:30

Nikhil T wrote: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.


The French had made the successful Entendard/Super Entendard...

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditp » 04 Oct 2009 18:33

Cain Marko wrote:.
.
.
May be the visit to RD 33 plant was something to do with this? Block engine sales and kill 2 birds - JF 17 development plus exports.

CM.



Or maybe we are all unrealisticaly forseeing our intense desire of result oriented pragmatic program management of the LCA program taking shape.

Do we really expect SUCH foresight from the MaD (err MoD).

Possibly the visit to the RD-33MK plant had just to do with a boorokratic phoren trip to earn TADA in daulars.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 04 Oct 2009 20:57

The HF-73 was never built. The ac that crashed was the HF-24 Mk 1R (Reheat). The HF-73 was said to be a significantly different design


If thats the case then HF-73 Should be the designation

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby prabhug » 05 Oct 2009 17:17

Hai
Can Anybody compare the RD33MK(seawasp) engine with it's western counterparts(EJ2000,GE F414).Looks like it's atleast 25% bigger than them.

Cheers

Prabhu.G

Daedalus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 29 Aug 2008 00:57

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Daedalus » 05 Oct 2009 18:36

Nice look at the three engines here.

May I also add this point, that F414 is an uprated version of F404. They did this by shorting the combustion chamber and after burner. I think they have squeezed the max out of this platform. But the EJ200 and the RD-33MK hasn't been squeezed(in their component size and configuration) yet, so giving them more growth potential. I think just by playing around with either of their turbine blades the thrust could be increased by another 6-7%(may be not as easy as it sounds, but possible). Keeping this in mind I am going to vote for RD-33MK, since it is smokeless and has some signature reduction features already. All this after logistical(IAF) and political(babus, GTRE etc etc) problems not withstanding.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby dinesha » 06 Oct 2009 09:44

India To Look for Foreign Partner To Help Develop Naval LCA
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=TOP

......

Lockheed Martin ran out of time in getting the necessary clearances from the U.S. government to enter into a contract with India on providing consulting services in the design and development of the naval version of the LCA, said a senior Indian Defence Ministry official. The ministry has no choice but to look for partners in the Western world other than the United States, so that the LCA (naval) program does not suffer further delays, the ministry official added.Lockheed executives based in India were unavailable for comment.

...............

India is looking for an overseas partner to help in optimizing the landing gear design and making associated changes in the aircraft's structural configuration to bring down the weight of the aircraft by at least 500 kilograms
As the LCA would be operating from am aircraft carrier, the Defence Ministry will seek the help of an overseas vendor in determining the location and attachment of the arrester hook system on the deck of the ship, and aerodynamic fixes to improve the plane's takeoff and landing performance on the carrier, said a scientist with the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is developing the LCA.

The overseas partner also will advise Indian scientists on the need for an alternative engine with higher thrust. In addition, the foreign partner will advise the ADA on ways to test the arrestor hook system.

The LCA (naval) version has been designed with structural and landing gear modifications to the existing Air Force version to handle larger loads and arrested recovery.

The Indian Air Force's version of the LCA also is being powered by the GE 404, but the Air Force wants a higher-thrust engine, as there has been an increase in the weight of the aircraft due to increased demands by the user.



Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4622
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Oct 2009 09:57

The overseas partner also will advise Indian scientists on the need for an alternative engine with higher thrust. In addition, the foreign partner will advise the ADA on ways to test the arrestor hook system.


Could it be possible, even remotely that the IN will try to standardize on an RD-33MK fleet? the IAF Tejas may have an EJ-200 or perhaps an F414. Since the problem of having two entirely different platforms on the carriers is unique to the IN, it might want to standardize as far as possible. guesswork of course.

CM.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby rajeshks » 06 Oct 2009 13:29

Cain Marko wrote:Could it be possible, even remotely that the IN will try to standardize on an RD-33MK fleet? the IAF Tejas may have an EJ-200 or perhaps an F414. Since the problem of having two entirely different platforms on the carriers is unique to the IN, it might want to standardize as far as possible. guesswork of course.

CM.


Good idea but may again delay NLCA so we may standardize on one engine for all LCAs, IAF & IN. Later even mk1 may be upgraded to mk2 standards.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1268
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Nihat » 06 Oct 2009 13:39

An order for a further 29 Mig-29k's implies that Naval LCA is not on the radar as of now , since mig 29's cannot operate from Viraat , it only implies that IAC will also hold only mig 29's.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 06 Oct 2009 14:51

Cain Marko wrote:Could it be possible, even remotely that the IN will try to standardize on an RD-33MK fleet? the IAF Tejas may have an EJ-200 or perhaps an F414.

Different engines on LCA and N-LCA? Bad idea IMHO. Two chain of supply, two different works on airframe redesign, two different suppliers with two lines of decision-making and contract-signing. IOW a little disaster... Methinks one shareholding partner, who would feel its money responsibility about success of whole LCA project, might be the most reliable option. Otherwise they can jump out and derail the project at any future time. And considering political limitations I don't see many potential partners with excepting of Russians and French.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kailash » 06 Oct 2009 15:08

Nihat wrote:An order for a further 29 Mig-29k's implies that Naval LCA is not on the radar as of now , since mig 29's cannot operate from Viraat , it only implies that IAC will also hold only mig 29's.


Regarding the Migs, carrier operated aircrafts can very well be operated from ground bases (with lesser payload cap). Why else do we have the super bug contesting for an IAF tender?

IN's planning will not include paper planes. Having said that, Mig29 purchases must not affect NLCA from being operated on the IAC.

abhi.enggr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 11:57

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby abhi.enggr » 06 Oct 2009 17:15

Igorr wrote:
abhi.enggr wrote: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.
will the stealth coating on outer airframe that russia has offered for mig-21 bison not considerd.
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

RD-33\93 can be fitted in LCA-class plane for sure. However, the airframe redesign must be deeper in some degree, than F-414 and EJ200 need since RD-33 has slightly bigger diameter.
[i]RD-33MK is the first product of major modifications of the basic engine. Its horsepower is 7% higher due to the use of cooled blades made of modern materials including composites.
1) they are starting step by step RD-33 ser 3 producing in India. Initially - from the parts from Russia with gradually increasing Indian participation. Isn't different from other ToT programs between India and Russia.
2) Not EF200 nor F414 fit properly , they both need some airframe redesign too. Furthermore the redesign of LCA's airframe is needed anyway if they want better payload. The Russian option is always available for India so they tried other options before. I then predicted only few will want to help India with Kavery, coz it's lot tech problems without a clear dividend. The same with improved foreign engines for LCA. Who wants help Delhi to have a new independent project in such a lucrative niche? The Americans push for F-35 and have degrading relations with Delhi now. The Europeans are too expensive for LCA with EJ200 to be successful as FC-1 at least. SO turning to the Russian option looks to me rather rational.

question: seriously where does LCA stand with f-404 in comparision to say jf-17 because essentially we are in dire need of replacing mig21 interceptor and can't a lca with f-404 replace a mig-21( not mig-21 bison) in terms of capability.
please answer.

hi igor can you tell me if rd33 mk is indeed chosen can the LCA also have thurst vectoring technique or not and also since you mentioned that for better payload redesigning of LCA airframe is necessary does it mean tinkering with delta wing design also.
also you mentioned rd33 have a slightly bigger radius will it hamper the lightness or smallness of design of LCA or not.
secondly you mentioned that f-414 or ej2000 both will not fit properly.give reasons with advantages of rd33 mk.

my verdict is still with russains as not only are they reliable and helped us in our time of need but also their is a cheap and effective one and can be seen as full ToT and can became a joint venture like brahmos and we can jointly sell LCA as well in future who knows...

on a more sombre front: let's hope LCA is ready first and then can think of exports...:(( :((:((

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Anabhaya » 06 Oct 2009 17:21

Exporting the Tejas is still a long way off. HAL is yet to finish the LSP production run, and there isn't one Tejas in the air with a radar on it. It appears all work on the project remains stalled. HAL and ADA can fly the Tejas on GOBAR engines for all we care - get that damn thing in squadron service quick!

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kailash » 06 Oct 2009 17:35

Anabhaya wrote:Exporting the Tejas is still a long way off. HAL is yet to finish the LSP production run, and there isn't one Tejas in the air with a radar on it.


Agreed. But why the fixation toward IAF's being the first and only client for the product? A less potent LCA is still good enough for many countries. Imagine the leverage we would have on a smaller neighbour if we can offer competitive military ware (wrto Chinese).

Supposing mk-II doesnt come out in time, or IAF rejects it due to some reason, where does that leave this program and subsequent MCA/UCAVs?

The advantage is we get some ROI on the R&D money spent, which would obviously fuel further tranches. When ISRO can earn income by selling goods and service, why cant DRDO? they can supplement government funds with such income.

Are we bound by any national/international accord that is stopping us from marketing/selling military ware, (in this case a fourth gen fighter) outside india?

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 06 Oct 2009 17:42

abhi.enggr wrote:question: seriously where does LCA stand with f-404 in comparision to say jf-17 because essentially we are in dire need of replacing mig21 interceptor and can't a lca with f-404 replace a mig-21( not mig-21 bison) in terms of capability.
please answer.


I seriously feel LCA with F- 404 IN 20 can effectively replace Mig 21 in Interceptor role. Refer to my previous posts along with valuable inputs from Rahul M and Igorr.

Igorr wrote:Different engines on LCA and N-LCA? Bad idea IMHO.


Why have different engine? Let us have a common engine for both. I prefer Russians and French as you rightly said in your post. French were to get high powered engine in Brazil or UAE competition if I remember correctly. Further, Rafale was also get 90KN engine post 2010. I think it make sense to select either RD 33 MK or french engine whatever be it called.
Further, it makes sense even in MMRCA deal as either MIG 35 or Rafale can have the same engine which may be used in LCA / N LCA / Mirage or Mig 29 also

dinesha wrote:India To Look for Foreign Partner To Help Develop Naval LCA

Pathetic.... Why don't they learn from Navy? Both Arihant and Tejas started in the same time frame. Even though more challenging and technically more complicated, look where Arihant is and where Tejas is? The only difference i find is Russian help was sought in Arihant as against American / Europeans in case of Tejas. I wonder why during the entire period of 25 years we never thought of Russian help in Tejas.. PD was given to Dassault, FBW to LM, LM / Boeing consultancy / Engines to GE / EADS, EADS consultancy...... No Russian help sought / taken. Do we believe Russian aeronautics are inferior to unkil / EU?? If yes, why MKI is poised to be mainstay of IAF and further investing over 5bn USD in PAK FA /FGFA with them...

This policy of appeasement to Unkil will cost us dearly in the longer term

-Nitin

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Gaur » 06 Oct 2009 18:08

@abhi.enggr
I notice that you have repeatedly asked if change in engine would affect the delta wing design of tejas (thrice I guess?).
While it is an interesting question, IMHO I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer for that in this forum. It is because the details of required design changes (apart from some obvious things like change in intakes) is a highly technical subject that could only be answered by someone who is working on this project.
But IMVHO, it is improbable that there would be any significant change to the delta wing. Even a small change would significantly alter its aerodynamics and would in turn require redesigning of many other aspects of airframe. This would take many more years. So it is unlikely that an engine that would require any significant structural changes would be selected.

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby prabir » 06 Oct 2009 18:44

I wonder why during the entire period of 25 years we never thought of Russian help in Tejas.. PD was given to Dassault, FBW to LM, LM / Boeing consultancy / Engines to GE / EADS, EADS consultancy...... No Russian help sought / taken. Do we believe Russian aeronautics are inferior to unkil / EU?? If yes, why MKI is poised to be mainstay of IAF and further investing over 5bn USD in PAK FA /FGFA with them...

This policy of appeasement to Unkil will cost us dearly in the longer term

-Nitin


This need to investigated and responsibilities fixed. We want to self reliant, but can have a result oriented projects and the culture required to achieve the same. This has to start at some time, and this happens to be the best time.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Igorr » 06 Oct 2009 18:54

abhi.enggr wrote:hi igor can you tell me if rd33 mk is indeed chosen can the LCA also have thurst vectoring technique or not and also since you mentioned that for better payload redesigning of LCA airframe is necessary does it mean tinkering with delta wing design also.
also you mentioned rd33 have a slightly bigger radius will it hamper the lightness or smallness of design of LCA or not.
secondly you mentioned that f-414 or ej2000 both will not fit properly.give reasons with advantages of rd33 mk.

The 'Klimov's KLIVT TVNs were designed specially for a single-engine plane. So they are 3D (all-aspect) TVNs, while 2D can be enough for a two-engine plane like Su-30MKI. Initially, as I have mentioned before, they were designed for the canceled MiG's 5th gen fighter project (after loss to PAK FA in the Russian AF tender). So, no obstacles are seen from RD-33MK with TVN installation on LCA on this aspect. TVN could be a clear advantage of LCA over its competitors in light class, including FC-1 and Grippen. Apart with maneuverability it also helps to reduce the fuel consumption, raises the range and is needed for better landing on the carrier (low speed controllability in windy condition).

On other hand RD-33MK has as 30 cm bigger radius than F404\f414 have. Thus, the airframe reworking is inevitable in such a case. Donno about the wings - it's really a question for the specialists - but the fuselage is needed to be reworked with according to RD-33MK dimensions. In addition the wings also have been fastened if higher payload expected (as was said).

f414 needs bigger inlets for its higher airflow but doesn't need changing in placement design. ej200 is narrower than the current f404 , thus also needs some frame modification before installation, however easier than RD-33MK needs.

In conclusion I can only repeat what have previously said: for pushing the program ahead quickly a serious shareholding partner can be helpful. It's because a changing engine has many obstacles, partially 'underwater', to overcome together with the engine manufacturer and developer.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2486
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Vivek K » 06 Oct 2009 19:55

In 2001 we were discussing why DRDO/HAL did not build a PV or a TD with the RD-33. We've come a full circle since then. If there was vision in DRDO/HAL they would have managed the project better. If project management and implementation speed is not improved, it could take several years for MK2 development after the engine is selected. Even on the engine, there seems to be no clear direction. One day reports talk of the 414/EJ2000 and then the next day it is the RD-33. If it will take so long to finalize the engine, then airframe development and test flights could well run into a decade for LCA MK2 development. If this happens, it will be the downfall of the program and Indian aerospace industry.

We need to select the engine this year. Take a decision and stick with it. You cannot delay for five years in the engine selction process to know which one is best. The best bet is to take a decision, select an engine and then when shortcomings are found in the future, hope to deal with them. Get the program into operation as soon as possible. The Chinese will not wait for IAF to build up fleet strength.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 06 Oct 2009 20:37

little birdy told me that lack of test flights is due to EADS! which is currently going through all the test flights data the Tejas has done and needs to do .little birdy was working for HAL but now works for a global MNC GE. i cannot confirm but if some one working for project can show some light it will be good

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RKumar » 06 Oct 2009 20:46

Vivek K wrote:You cannot delay for five years in the engine selction process to know which one is best


As usual we are stuck in "paralysis of analysis".

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 21:28

a kaveri in hand is worth two firangi in the air. but, we need to make her fly up as well, have similar specs.

russian engines are off diff class and does not suit LCA.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 06 Oct 2009 21:35

SaiK wrote:a kaveri in hand is worth two firangi in the air. but, we need to make her fly up as well, have similar specs.

russian engines are off diff class and does not suit LCA.



can a slim down version of kaveri be used in Armed UAV or UFA ?? since Kaveri will not power any batch of Tejas (MK-I/MK-II) what are its future prospects ??

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1268
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Nihat » 06 Oct 2009 22:21

there were reports of modifying Kaveri for propelling the warships of Indian navy in the future , I'm sure the article is 2 or 3 pages back in this thread.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 22:31

prabir wrote:I wonder why during the entire period of 25 years we never thought of Russian help in Tejas.. PD was given to Dassault, FBW to LM, LM / Boeing consultancy / Engines to GE / EADS, EADS consultancy...... No Russian help sought / taken. Do we believe Russian aeronautics are inferior to unkil / EU?? If yes, why MKI is poised to be mainstay of IAF and further investing over 5bn USD in PAK FA /FGFA with them...

This policy of appeasement to Unkil will cost us dearly in the longer term

-Nitin


This need to investigated and responsibilities fixed. We want to self reliant, but can have a result oriented projects and the culture required to achieve the same. This has to start at some time, and this happens to be the best time.


Have you read Gidwani's book "Tippu Sultan"? Please do read if you can. Its ~ Rs 40 in any book store.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Oct 2009 07:10

I wonder why during the entire period of 25 years we never thought of Russian help in Tejas.. PD was given to Dassault, FBW to LM, LM / Boeing consultancy / Engines to GE / EADS, EADS consultancy...... No Russian help sought / taken. Do we believe Russian aeronautics are inferior to unkil / EU?? If yes, why MKI is poised to be mainstay of IAF and further investing over 5bn USD in PAK FA /FGFA with them...


Because the people who started the LCA effort and left for various reasonS, were the very best Indian brains that were working in the US/UK/France and decided to come back to India. Everyone of them, then, had a standing offer to come back to the West. They had studied+worked under some of the best, in some cases the best, aeronautical engineers that the West had to offer. The game plan they had is not what is out there today - for a variety of reasons.

One cannot compare the LCA effort to that of the MKI effort, etc. The LCA has nothing to do with Russia or the US, etc. It became that a way as things got out of hand.

This need to investigated and responsibilities fixed. We want to self reliant, but can have a result oriented projects and the culture required to achieve the same. This has to start at some time, and this happens to be the best time.


That was the very intent of the LCA. Just that it went haywire somewhere along the way .................... as most Indian efforts do (Hockey team, etc)

We did discuss a few features of these efforts few pages ago.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests