LCA news and discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Dec 2009 13:09

guys, I've been considerate until now towards OT posts considering the time and effort that goes into writing them up. I've moved those to the MRCA thread.
clearly, people don't care if requests are made politely. I'm quite ok with that, just don't blame me if the next OT vanishes into thin air taking all your hard-work with it.
Rahul.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 20 Dec 2009 10:38

Saturday, December 19, 2009
Kaveri-Snecma JV Try Back-door Entry In LCA

Indian Air Force (IAF) has submitted a report to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about how the Justify Fullpresent engine in the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas fighter aircraft, the American GE 404, does not meet the requirements of the IAF, and that the indigenous Kaveri engine has design problems, both of which are being seriously considered by the Government.

On December 14, Defence Minister A K Antony made a statement in Lok Sabha that the proposal put forth by Bangalore-based GTRE (Gas Turbine Research Establishment), of a joint venture between Kaveri and Snecma of France to bail out Kaveri, was under consideration by the Government, adding that the tender for 99 engines to be delivered by the winning company, both of whom have responded for commercial and technical proposals along with technology transfer. The competing concerns are the American GE F414 from General Electric Aviation and the German EJ200 from Eurojet.

The first 40 LCA aircraft will be powered by the American GE 404, while the ones after that would have either the American GE F414 from General Electric Aviation, or the German EJ200 from Eurojet, both of whom have responded to the tender floated by the Indian Government for a new engine for the aircraft, as the Kaveri-Snecma tie-up too was put down by Air Headquarters.

The Kaveri-Snecma joint venture has been criticised by the IAF on grounds that Snecma, which is a derivative of the M-88 engine developed for the Rafale aircraft, has a similar core like that of the Kaveri engine and the joint venture involves GTRE building the peripheral of the core, which would not solve the purpose of having the joint venture, but would basically be the license production of Snecma, for which around 300 orders are being envisaged by Snecma before it enters into this license production.

A senior IAF officer told People's Post, "Jet engine making is a complex technology, which as of today is mastered only by four countries in the world, USA, UK, Russia and France. GTRE has spent 40 years trying to make jet engines and about 1500 crores on the Kaveri programme. While the LCA is yet to meet the IAF's air staff requirements (ASR) in acceleration, sustained turn rate and other parameters, its performance is no better than the MiG-21 'Bison', the thrust of the GE 404 engine being used in it now is not enough as the aircraft is heavy." By the inclusion of Snecma, the purpose of indigenisation is defeated by the GTRE and even if Snecma is involved, it will not disclose its core technology, which amounts to nothing but license production, he added.

A jet engine has two parts, cold and hot part, where the hot part forms the core of the engine where combustion and the thermodynamics of the engine take place. The LCA requires an engine with more than 90 KN thrust, while the Kaveri and GE 404 are less than that.

It is reportedly learnt that GTRE has agreed to de-link Kaveri from LCA, but has put in a proposal that when the first 40 GE 404 engines in the initial two squadrons of the LCA for the IAF, get phased out should be replaced by the Kaveri-Snecma, in future.

The contract for the new engines is to be signed by mid-2010, while the modified aircraft frame and engine trials would take four years, before serial production begins. The weight of the LCA is nine tons and is being considered to be reduced by 150 kgs. Whichever engine the indigenous aircraft is powered by finally, weight reduction and other modifications would be required which would push back this already delayed project of the DRDO.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Dec 2009 11:33

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/

Yawnn. A lot of verbal vomit and second had regurgitated puke from the Mohtarma who just went MotorMouthMa. Usual garbage from un-named "IAF Officer" mouthing off some half baked stuff .. So really a hatchet job. Don't wast your time on this and dont post such links here.

Atleast Shook Law sees to have some gray matter between his ears and puts in a lot of leg work and goes and speaks with people who matter and visits those places. Mohtarma seems to picked off where Madam Jalebi Shrilleen left off mistaking shrill noise for actual thought.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 20 Dec 2009 12:23

vishnu.nv wrote: It is reportedly learnt that GTRE has agreed to de-link Kaveri from LCA, but has put in a proposal that when the first 40 GE 404 engines in the initial two squadrons of the LCA for the IAF, get phased out should be replaced by the Kaveri-Snecma, in future.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/

Utter BS! Why would anybody invest crores of rupees for just 40 engines which are supposed to go on LCA during mid-life updates ??

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2009 12:32

Frankly,if we want to induct the LCA into service asap,then Kaveri must be buried.The GTRE have ahd enoough time in decades and lots of moolah to have delivered,but failed.If the gains from the LCA programme are not to be wasted,as aerospace technology is the fastest evolving tech in the military world,then we must find asuitable engine to meet the IAF's performance paramaters asap,either one of the twoi shortlisted.Developing an "indigenous "engine with foreign assistance is another project altogether,where we should elarn to walk before we run or fly.It is a sad commentary on the entire establishment that we do not have a single indigenous engine to power even an IJT or AJT.

Those at the helm of affairs ,must decide whether the LCA project is an academic exercise or to be a milestone in indigenous weapon system capability.From all intent ,it is the latter that prevails with the first orders in hand and a firm induction into service date.Therefore,the acceleration of the MK-2 variant should be pursued relentlessly, staying focussed on the job and not looking back at Kaveri.It appears that the GTE and Kaveri patrons are scared stiff that once the new engine is selected,they will be jobless! Though it took a long time too,a comparison could be made with the ATV project.where with Russian help,the sub is now in the water,a major achievement by any standards.Here too the delay was mainly due to the powerplant,the reactor design,which when solved saw the project proceed at pace.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2009 15:41

i agree we need to get this engine issue sorted out fast and get on with the production. frankly even starting mk1 production in good no's is good. We can have a good aircraft for at least AtoA role and may have a limited A to L capabilities. It will free other fighters for other roles. remember we are seriously short of no's and what other options we have with us ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 15:50

Philip wrote:Frankly,if we want to induct the LCA into service asap,then Kaveri must be buried.The GTRE have ahd enoough time in decades and lots of moolah to have delivered,but failed.If the gains from the LCA programme are not to be wasted,as aerospace technology is the fastest evolving tech in the military world,then we must find asuitable engine to meet the IAF's performance paramaters asap,either one of the twoi shortlisted.Developing an "indigenous "engine with foreign assistance is another project altogether,where we should elarn to walk before we run or fly.It is a sad commentary on the entire establishment that we do not have a single indigenous engine to power even an IJT or AJT.

the first recommendation would certainly solve the last problem !

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 20 Dec 2009 15:52

Vina,

I admit that this article is a garbage. But what options do we common jingo's having apart from this rajat pandit, ravi sharma.....? To be frank 80% of Indian defense journalist's write DDM. But still we can refine something out of this DDM Article's.

What we get from the article is that, there is attempt from the side of GRTE to get something from the LCA program. Note the starting of article, The IAF has presented the report to MOD on how the kaveri has failed and 404 thrust is not enough.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Dec 2009 17:04

The aspect of the said motorma indulging in some self promotion and my dislike for her putting herself in every photo on her blog aside, there is one valid point I see here.

Is GTRE and GoI thereby trying to pull off another facade of indigenisation like in the scorpene project? There they were trying to show that the equipment is being indigenised, whereas it would have been imported lock stock and barrel from the french.

Kaveri as it is has a high level of components sourced from snecma, yet it underperforms.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 17:44

gagan ji, kaveri has been de-linked from the LCA project and the tender procedures regarding F414/EJ-200 are also on-going. all that has happened is that GOI/MOD has given a tentative assurance that kaveri (new) will be considered for Mk2 IF it satisfies the requirements by the time Mk2 is ready. I see no harm in that.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Dec 2009 17:52

The problem is not the Kaveri engine, the problem is that there is only the Kaveri engine as an indi-genius contender. Shows total lack of seriousness by those entrusted with developing aerospace capabilities in India. This is why I have been calling for hanging these bozos (the ones responsible for guiding the development of aerospace capabilities), no disrespect at all intended. The greatest bullock cart in the duniya is no good without well-fed, powerful bulls. Just BS is not going to pull the cart. Having just one anaemic engine program, stuck in 1960s technology because they have to focus on getting SOMETHING working, is the disaster. The argument that there is no money is complete BS as well: the market, like I have argued before, is for thousands of engines, not 10 or 40.

An analogy would be if instead of the IGMDP in the 1980s, India had just a GMRE, developing just one Nag Missile Program and nothing else. Testing one prototype in ground tests, say once a year. And going to Russia to test it. With nice pictures showing

Annular combustor ring assembly

in the GMRE brochure.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 18:09

the strangest entity in the engine fiasco IMHO is HAL's engine dept. they have been license producing (assembling) everything from adour to the R-25 and now the Al-31 other than a number of turboprops and helo engines.
that they don't have even one new in-house working design by now is testament to their attitude.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2009 18:57

their blr facility is located in a quiet road behind the GTRE campus. very nice for a long
post lunch walk if you work in bagmane tech park. the campus is neat, green and quiet...

there was a nice board at the gate listing around 6 engines they
work on.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 20 Dec 2009 19:05

Rahul M wrote:the strangest entity in the engine fiasco IMHO is HAL's engine dept. they have been license producing (assembling) everything from adour to the R-25 and now the Al-31 other than a number of turboprops and helo engines.
that they don't have even one new in-house working design by now is testament to their attitude.

Objection rahul saar! HAL has sucessfully developed PTAE-7 engine and GTSU-110 starter engine for LCA. LCA engine development instead of giving it to HAL ,it has been thrust on GTRE just to keep it afloat!!!! pls tell me which engine GTRE has developed as of now. Gurus here talk ,discuss,fight ,argue at length in pingreji especially from ITvity nagar ,how difficult it is to make a working engine!!!!If HAL is sleeping ,what DRDO and MOD babus have been doing !!! they could have woken up HAL!!! who stops them!!!!

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 20 Dec 2009 22:02

LCA-Tejas has completed 1266 Test Flights successfully. (12-Dec-09).

* LCA has completed 1266 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-236,PV2-129,PV3-189,LSP1-54,LSP2-119,PV5-1).
* 236th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 11th Dec 09.
* 119th flight of Tejas LSP2 occurred on 11th Dec 09.

26 test flights in 12 days

.thats good news,seems atlast things are moving in right direction
According to latest vayu
The Tejas LCA development programme is now accelerating and by mid-December 2009 should have cleared the IOC 'flight envelop' for service entry.

And LSP-3 will shortly follow after PV-5

And guys IMHO LSP1 is undergoing radar integration and other critical stuff,the number of LSP1 flights are much less than others.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 22:08

rao sahab, I'm aware of those but HAL should have had a fullsize jet engine in their kitty by now ? I'm most certainly NOT saying that MOD/GTRE can be absolved of responsibilities, the management of defence R&D programs have been bungled to put it politely. that however does not absolve HAL of its responsibilities.

P.S. just remembered that AM Rajkumar's book mentions that PV-2 flew with a "development model of the MMR fitted in the nose". anyone has any details on this ? what exactly was this "development model" ?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Dec 2009 22:24

HAL is living proof of the downside of "technology transfer" and "licensed production, 100% indigenous with only 99% imported parts and 102% imported design". Every 10 years or so they get a new "license" to follow phoren-bought blueprints and blindly follow orders. This is no doubt, hard, honest shop work, and they do a decent job of it. WHY would they go out on a limb and try designing anything under those conditions? They are very honest and reliable - new technology in licensed blueprints stays in the licensed device and goes no further.

In coming years, HAL has a very bright future, possibly expanding to become the Eastern Hemisphere's largest Airplane Repair Shop. So don't look to them to be designing NEW systems for India.

So why is this relevant to LCA? Because HAL's only role should be repairing and maybe repainting LCAs. 8000 Hour Overhaul, grease job and checking tire pressure. They will do that routine job well.

Engine development needs a dedicated agency (oh, yes! Let's call it "GTR&DE"

) that has a dedicated mission like IGMDP. Develop propulsion systems for all Indian aircraft, and design, build, test and fly. Full spectrum of R&D from basic materials and thermodynamics all the way to matching production to demand, and LifeCycle Systems Optimization. This entity should have a large basic research budget to work with universities, a Business Innovation arm to take the risks and build advanced devices, production research down to small-unit production test runs, and really world-class testing/diagnostics/research facilities.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Dec 2009 22:25

It is amazing that HAL has worked on perhaps thousands of engines yet has never put together one of their own. Perhaps the problem is not with HAL but our style of education which "dumbs" us down such that we cannot question and lose our original thought.

If after current high altitude tests, the Kaveri is not within say 90% of original specs then GTRE should be disbanded and the core team assimilated in HAL's Engine division. A new group under HAL's flag with the GTRE core team should work on reverse engineering say the GE 404. With the skills of the core group and HAL's years of engine building and overhaul, we may stand a better chance with such a grouping.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Dec 2009 00:05

vina wrote:
http://chhindits.blogspot.com/
Yawnn. A lot of verbal vomit and second had regurgitated puke from the Mohtarma who just went MotorMouthMa. Usual garbage from un-named "IAF Officer" mouthing off some half baked stuff .. So really a hatchet job. Don't wast your time on this and dont post such links here.

Atleast Shook Law sees to have some gray matter between his ears and puts in a lot of leg work and goes and speaks with people who matter and visits those places. Mohtarma seems to picked off where Madam Jalebi Shrilleen left off mistaking shrill noise for actual thought.

Well I did say earlier that this woman doesn't know anything "technically" speaking and most of her articles and posts are downright dumb. And again we have the "Senior IAF Officer" who claims that the LCA is no better than a Bison (what a joke!) and she pretty much made it clear how much research or truth goes into her articles when she said that the Tejas weighs 9 tons and they're looking to reduce 150 kgs !! no new stuff, just regurgitating known stuff and sprinkling liberal doses of BS and lies, so maybe in the future the'yll give her another free ride in a MiG or Su-30MKI or some western fighter..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Dec 2009 00:09

narayana wrote:
LCA-Tejas has completed 1266 Test Flights successfully. (12-Dec-09).

* LCA has completed 1266 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-236,PV2-129,PV3-189,LSP1-54,LSP2-119,PV5-1).
* 236th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 11th Dec 09.
* 119th flight of Tejas LSP2 occurred on 11th Dec 09.
26 test flights in 12 days .thats good news,seems atlast things are moving in right direction
According to latest vayu
The Tejas LCA development programme is now accelerating and by mid-December 2009 should have cleared the IOC 'flight envelop' for service entry.

And LSP-3 will shortly follow after PV-5

And guys IMHO LSP1 is undergoing radar integration and other critical stuff,the number of LSP1 flights are much less than others.

could you please post a scan of that Vayu article on the Tejas ??

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 21 Dec 2009 07:23

ok i don't have scanner ,but i have taken a Picture of the Article of Vayu and posted down below

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 21 Dec 2009 12:56

Kartik wrote:
could you please post a scan of that Vayu article on the Tejas ??

I can scan and upload,but will it create probs for admins as copyright violation?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Dec 2009 23:51

karan_mc wrote:ok i don't have scanner ,but i have taken a Picture of the Article of Vayu and posted down below

Thank you for posting the article. But I m not able to fetch first image in large. Kindly reload it.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 22 Dec 2009 07:22

i Reloaded it again

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 22 Dec 2009 08:52

US mulls Indian proposal for Naval LCA ties

Toilet Paper wrote:following up on the indo-us cooperation for the country's light combat aircraft (lca) project, the united states on wednesday agreed to "actively consider" new delhi's fresh proposals for a partnership on the development of the naval variant of the lca" alan volknan, visiting director international cooperation of the us department of defence said. "we have told them we will actively consider this," he said. heading a 12-member team for the two-day meeting of the indo-us joint technical group on defence production and research which concluded here, volknan said the two countries had agreed on a draft "milestone" acquisition and servicing agreement, which would pave the way for indian military purchases from the united states. he said the agreement would also enhance us-india military "interoperability" and lead to closer relationships between defence labs in the two countries. elaborating on the proposal for development of the naval variant of the lca, highly placed drdo officials said new delhi required "us knowhow" particularly in developing vertical take off and landing (vtol) technology.

VTOL--> for LCA

& going back to the USA

. AGAIN

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Dec 2009 09:05

Confucius say:

He hu is smart enuf to pay $$$BBB 4 1960s F/A-18, is also smart enuf to pay $$$BBB 4 1970s AV-8B.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Dec 2009 09:25

VTOL--> for LCA

Meow!! That is what they want. US is the only source of Meoows in the world now. Even the French get it from them. So you can guess how the follow on version of the ADS, the 60,000 ton one getting designed is shaping up.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Dec 2009 09:34

How difficult is it for DDM to attribute VTOL technology to CTOL landing training being imparted by the USN to the IN aviators ? And in post 98 era with ugly red tape of dual use technology still being bandied by Unkil what are the chances of VTOL related technology (I read engines ) being transferred by Unkil ?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 22 Dec 2009 09:40

vina wrote:
VTOL--> for LCA
Meow!! That is what they want. US is the only source of Meoows in the world now. Even the French get it from them. So you can guess how the follow on version of the ADS, the 60,000 ton one getting designed is shaping up.

I guess the author of the article wanted to write about possible transfer of CATOBAR equipment or maybe the linear motor electromagnetic rail launch system, but being DDM used the term VTOL instead.

From what I recall having read on this very forum, IN asked the ADA to conduct simulation studies for suitability of LCA for CATOBAR operations. The result of the study I guess was positive.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2009 13:28

karan_mc wrote:i Reloaded it again

thanks Karan.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2009 13:31

aditp wrote: VTOL--> for LCA

& going back to the USA . AGAIN

and to top it off the DDM reporter claims that "top" DRDO officials say that they need VTOL technology..obviously made up, because any DRDO official involved with the LCA will know that its not VTOL.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Dec 2009 15:05

karan_mc wrote:i Reloaded it again

Thank you

...

in the first few lines it is written IOC "flight envelop" will be complete by mid-december 2009 and the last line says by 2015, 2 squadrons should have achieved IOC

did I miss something

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Dec 2009 16:02

What exactly is the difference between the LCA IOC and FOC?

I ask because I think Vina had posted before that LCA's IOC involves a lot of tests that are not normally carried out in a IOC programme.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Dec 2009 17:29

Tanaji wrote:What exactly is the difference between the LCA IOC and FOC?

I ask because I think Vina had posted before that LCA's IOC involves a lot of tests that are not normally carried out in a IOC programme.

If it is reply to my post .. then at both places it says IOC.

Page mentioning IOC and FOC (It is not LCA specific)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_op ... capability

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2009 18:09

btw, USA would rather sell JSF 35B, and still keep tabs on us after signing the cismoa. Where in the world they have gone and helped other country's programs?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 22 Dec 2009 18:32

Thank you ...

in the first few lines it is written IOC "flight envelop" will be complete by mid-december 2009 and the last line says by 2015, 2 squadrons should have achieved IOC

did I miss something

it seems to be a Typo and i think it means FOC (Final Operation clearance)

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Dec 2009 19:01

RKumar wrote:
Tanaji wrote:What exactly is the difference between the LCA IOC and FOC?

I ask because I think Vina had posted before that LCA's IOC involves a lot of tests that are not normally carried out in a IOC programme.
If it is reply to my post .. then at both places it says IOC.

Page mentioning IOC and FOC (It is not LCA specific)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_op ... capability

No it wasnt specific to your post.

I am trying to find out whether the Indian definition of "IOC" and tests involved differs or has more requirements than a conventional IOC that was obtained for say, Eurofighter (which first tranche was pretty limited btw).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2009 00:42

tanaji, this article will give you a good idea of what IOC for LCA means.
http://www.drdo.com/dpi/ADA.pdf
(the para immediately earlier has the details)

arya · Post by **arya** » 23 Dec 2009 01:26

aditp wrote:US mulls Indian proposal for Naval LCA ties

Toilet Paper wrote:following up on the indo-us cooperation for the country's light combat aircraft (lca) project, the united states on wednesday agreed to "actively consider" new delhi's fresh proposals for a partnership on the development of the naval variant of the lca" alan volknan, visiting director international cooperation of the us department of defence said. "we have told them we will actively consider this," he said. heading a 12-member team for the two-day meeting of the indo-us joint technical group on defence production and research which concluded here, volknan said the two countries had agreed on a draft "milestone" acquisition and servicing agreement, which would pave the way for indian military purchases from the united states. he said the agreement would also enhance us-india military "interoperability" and lead to closer relationships between defence labs in the two countries. elaborating on the proposal for development of the naval variant of the lca, highly placed drdo officials said new delhi required "us knowhow" particularly in developing vertical take off and landing (vtol) technology.
VTOL--> for LCA

& going back to the USA . AGAIN

sir, this is 7 yrs old article original date is

6 March 2002, 07:14pm IST

Arun KS · Post by **Arun KS** » 23 Dec 2009 10:21

I was comparing the performance of GE 404 and kaveri, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F404)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri)

it seems the thrust levels of kaveri is at par with 404. so why is the first mk1 versions are powered with 404 rather than kaveri, anyone?