LCA news and discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 01:35

PratikDas wrote:Being quite grounded in reality, I don't expect any form of SAR.

What does reality (or vice versa) have to do with SAR? This is a typical case of setting the conclusion first and then searching for evidence to justify this assumed conclusion.

Please educate us then. What does the relationship with Elta entail? Why are we using their processor?

You can work it out yourself, provided you approach the topic in a sedate manner. The LCA MMR was tasked to fulfill both A2A and A2G functions. The IAF stated it would not accept the MMR otherwise. By 2007, the LCA MMR team had already achieved a variety of A2A functions. Yet, the A2G work was behind progress. Thereafter, the deal with Elta was signed to accelerate the MMR, with speed necessitating that a processor would be incorporated. What does this tell you?
Kindly also note what Wing Commander Thomas said a couple of days back about the MMR. This website should have it someplace.

Is it just because their's runs cooler for the same Indian codes compared to when they're run on the Indian processor?

That would be yet another assumption.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 01:37

sunny y wrote:
Development has been completed, and its production ready. But focus is now on the XV-2004 for series production, as it comes with ISAR and measurement capabilities.

SV = Super Vision (c)2000
XV = eXtra Vision (c)2004
Mrinal sir, LRDE was working on SAR & ISAR. Does it mean that they have successfully developed them ??
If they have, then it's really a great news. They will be very handful in UAV's.

Thanks

I am no sir. I just share what I am aware of.

Yes, SAR and ISAR modes were demonstrated. The XV-2004 was actually working on validating another set of modes in 2009.

The UAV project will indeed benefit from the development work proceeding on these compact, airborne radars.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 26 Apr 2010 01:43

Mrinal wrote:...
Please educate us then. What does the relationship with Elta entail? Why are we using their processor?
You can work it out yourself, provided you approach the topic in a sedate manner. The LCA MMR was tasked to fulfill both A2A and A2G functions. The IAF stated it would not accept the MMR otherwise. By 2007, the LCA MMR team had already achieved a variety of A2A functions. Yet, the A2G work was behind progress. Thereafter, the deal with Elta was signed to accelerate the MMR, with speed necessitating that a processor would be incorporated. What does this tell you?
Kindly also note what Wing Commander Thomas said a couple of days back about the MMR. This website should have it someplace.

Thank you. I'm happy to stand corrected.

Mrinal wrote:
Is it just because their's runs cooler for the same Indian codes compared to when they're run on the Indian processor?
That would be yet another assumption.

There was an article just a few days back that the Indian MMR was only going to be certified for A2A mode and not A2G mode. The same article also mentioned that the Indian MMR was suffering from a heating problem. I asked a question in the forum if the A2G mode consumed more power / produced more heat and I don't think I got a response. I know from your post now that the two problems - one of processing speed and one of generated heat - are unrelated. So thank you.

Added later: Perhaps the two issues are related and the add-on processor just reduces the processor burden and keeps the operating temperature low.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 01:52

PratikDas wrote:There was an article just a few days back that the Indian MMR was only going to be certified for A2A mode and not A2G mode. The same article also mentioned that the Indian MMR was suffering from a heating problem. I asked a question in the forum if the A2G mode consumed more power / produced more heat and I don't think I got a response. I know from your post now that the two problems - one of processing speed and one of generated heat - are unrelated. So thank you.

Added later: Perhaps the two issues are related and the add-on processor just reduces the processor burden and keeps the operating temperature low.

No issues. I am glad to help with what limited information I may have. Can you point to the article which states certification only for A2A? Was it from a public source or from a discussion on the forum.

Wing Commander Thomas's quote which appeared in the Times of India, April 24 2010 states: " The MM radar is on par with radars used in fighter aircraft around the world. The LCA can now undertake air to ground as well as air to air roles".

I received this by email on asking (thanks to the sender!)

The latter part of his statement does seem to imply the A2G aspect given he mentions A2G first and then A2A (hence my note above).

About processing heat & otherwise - unless there is certitude that such was indeed the case, I would not take it for granted that it occurred.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Apr 2010 02:19

Mrinal wrote: What is a "back end" of a radar? Is it the receiver, the exciter, the power amplifier/ the TWT, or the signal processor, the radar data processor? Or all together? If co, care to inform us when and where the entire "back end" was replaced with that of the 2032 when:

http://angle-of-attack.blogspot.com/201 ... -aesa.html

" It was confirmed to us that the radar is 100% Indian with only the processor of Israeli origin. "

The processor alone is not the back end.

Darned if I know. I heard that the antenna was LRDE's, and the rest was from the 2032. But then again, its a panwallah vs chaiwallah situation. Take your pick, it'll be a while before we know for sure.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 26 Apr 2010 02:31

Mrinal wrote: ...
No issues. I am glad to help with what limited information I may have. Can you point to the article which states certification only for A2A? Was it from a public source or from a discussion on the forum.
...

After a lot of searching I finally found the source. Please feel free to have a chuckle - it turns out not to be an article but this:

nikhil_p wrote:Chaiwala to paanwala information alert******

The MMR is being tested on the HAL flight test a/c Avro. There is an integration issue with the current radar system, where it is overheating and performance in affected if it is in active mode for a long time. Cooling systems in the already tight confines of the current nose is difficult(weight being another consideration).
They will initially certify only for A2A mode and later during FOC the multi mode system will be cleared...

Flight envelope is almost entirely opened.

Mark2 design is in the CAD stage...(three inital designs are being looked into!)...

Note: Strictly C2P info, do not speculate till actual data is opensourced!

The author has very cleverly absolved himself of all responsibility and landed me in doodoo.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 26 Apr 2010 03:04

If I may summarise, and please feel free to correct me, I think outcome of this discussion is:

The Indian codes for the A2G mode(s) exist and existed prior to the inclusion of ELTA
The add-on processing capacity necessary for the A2G mode is provided by ELTA
Wg Cdr Thomas has confirmed A2G and A2A capability
The MMR is indeed worthy of the 100% Indian label
I need to undertake a mundan ceremony to amend for my sins.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 03:09

VivS: Its really not that complicated and the relative accuracy of sources, even if unofficial can be determined from what is publicly known.

For one, most of the key hardware components and systems of the MMR were developed and made production ready quite sometime back - you can check it out if so inclined. We also know of the A2G aspect and the issues with having this made ready in time, while A2A modes were in progress. There were further reports of HAL and LRDE being at loggerheads over the signal processor and consequent delays if the issue was not resolved. Finally, when the deal with Elta was signed, it was quite clearly mentioned that the deal was around processing hardware with direct quotes from an official with the LCA program, name included.

This entire confusion arose because of some execrable reporting from the Hindu newspaper, which has been throwing out 2032, 2052 and all sorts of designations around. By mentioning 2052 and AESA it muddled things up further as other reports rushed to say the same. As things stand, there is no evidence to state that the "2032 backend" was utilized for the Indian MMR in entirety, as compared to add on processing units w/software. Nor is there any evidence about an AESA system being on the LCA MK1 either. The AESA program was sanctioned only in November 2008.

PratikDas:

Furthermore, the report states Avro. In a bit of irony, the Avro actually has several limitations compared to the actual LCA platform, one being the separation between the PA and the Radar scanner, leading to losses/ under-performance. Hence, what happens on the Avro need not necessarily translate to the LCA. There was some move to actually fund a new dedicated test platform for the LCA, wonder whether funding for that was ever released.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 03:17

PratikDas wrote:If I may summarise, and please feel free to correct me, I think outcome of this discussion is:

The Indian codes for the A2G mode(s) exist and existed prior to the inclusion of ELTA

The add-on processing capacity necessary for the A2G mode is provided by ELTA

Wg Cdr Thomas has confirmed A2G and A2A capability

The MMR is indeed worthy of the 100% Indian label

I need to undertake a mundan ceremony to amend for my sins.

Re

1: The first, certain A2A modes. While A2G modes were worked on, we do not have data to see if these were actually verified and the SP managed to achieve these. The problem for A2G modes is the performance against heavy clutter, it taxes the SP and also requires extensive work on the algorithm front. But again, note India is not exactly standing still here, as the XV-2004 has achieved ISAR versus sea clutter conditions, and we are also working on SAR for UAVs, so work proceeds in parallel to this MMR program.
2. Yes, the evidence suggests this.
3. Yes - as to how they proceed with the certification, that's upto the IAFs priorities.
4. Well, its hard to put a percentage, since the Israelis have definitely helped. But it would not be remiss to state we have done 70-80% of the heavy lifting so far.
5. Re: the last, not required at all.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Apr 2010 03:33

Mrinal wrote:For one, most of the key hardware components and systems of the MMR were developed and made production ready quite sometime back - you can check it out if so inclined. We also know of the A2G aspect and the issues with having this made ready in time, while A2A modes were in progress. There were further reports of HAL and LRDE being at loggerheads over the signal processor and consequent delays if the issue was not resolved. Finally, when the deal with Elta was signed, it was quite clearly mentioned that the deal was around processing hardware with direct quotes from an official with the LCA program, name included.

Well I haven't followed the MMR's development in detail so I'll take your word for it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 03:40

It is interesting to note that media reports cite the LSP 3 having an "upgraded flight control system". Earlier reports cited that this had to be supplied by the ADA along with Air Data Computers. We are now told that the LSP 3 had "new air data computers" and an autopilot. Given this, and that the original DFCC had long been certified, it is presumable a new DFCC hardware LRU was developed for the LSP-3. We will perhaps, learn more about this aspect in the future.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Apr 2010 07:30

Folks following is from BARC's newsletter on MMR's Antenna Platform (and Iirc was posted on forum some time back)

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANTENNA PLATFORM FOR LCA MULTI MODE RADAR
--Y.S. Mayya, Vivek Sanadhya, Vijay Goyal, Hari Balakrishnan,
Nandini Gupta, Vinod Deodhar and J.P. Narvekar
Control Instrumentation Division

It clearly states antenna diameter as '650' mm .

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Apr 2010 08:05

Kanson wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: Reporting as I found is shifting sand. If you are not listening attentively and not verifying 2-3 times then you could get into trouble. Also, ask only the key personnel, others offer a lot of stories. Most are ignorant.
What is your opinion sir, you too confirming as non AESA ?

Eventually AESA is salted for Tejas, but, not now. Its too much risk. Tejas program cannot take more risk that what has been budgeted for. Even the power requirements from the GE-404 IN engine is not efficient enough for it. The AESA tender was floated recently.

All pointer say that its not an AESA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2010 08:09

Just curious. If India had a working AESA of any type, why would we wait to fit it on an LCA. It would be included in upgrades to existing fighters no? And tested fully on them. The idea that LSP 3 will appear with an AESA is a needless bogey that is being discussed.

AESA is great technology and we must have it (unlike supercruise

) - but nevertheless existing mechanically scanned radars are useful and any radar that has an A2G and A2A capability is what differentiates a "multirole" aircraft from a single role aircraft.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Apr 2010 08:19

As said before, the project does not require them to take more than budgeted risk. While it will be macho thing to integrate more, LCA happens to be a testbed which has tested a lot of new technologies in one go. One of the pilots got a US award for it.

But, currently the focus is IOC. They want birds in numbers at Sulur for familiarization.

There could be a working "research" AESA, but, I doubt it could be promoted for "production" use.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 08:44

shiv wrote:Just curious. If India had a working AESA of any type, why would we wait to fit it on an LCA. It would be included in upgrades to existing fighters no? And tested fully on them. The idea that LSP 3 will appear with an AESA is a needless bogey that is being discussed.

By the same extension, one may ask why MMR was not selected for Mirage-2k upgrade?

The discussion helps to understand how far we are progressing on the AESA front. Ofcourse Mech radar is good only...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 08:45

Thanks Chacko.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 08:51

PratikDas wrote:If I may summarise, and please feel free to correct me, I think outcome of this discussion is:

The Indian codes for the A2G mode(s) exist and existed prior to the inclusion of ELTA

The add-on processing capacity necessary for the A2G mode is provided by ELTA

If i'm not wrong, one of the problem is with Moving map generator/target indiacator. So you need a processor similar to Graphics card for playing 3d games. Once at machine level you need both hardware and software.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2010 09:39

Kanson wrote:
By the same extension, one may ask why MMR was not selected for Mirage-2k upgrade?

Kansonji - there may be a big lacuna in my knowledge here. As far as I know MMR is either Multi-mode radar or multi-mission radar. The Mirage 2000 already had a radar with some limited multi-mission (A2A/A2G) capabilty. Are you saying that the Mirage upgrade does not include a radar upgrade to a more capable MMR? Or are you specifically referring to the Indian MMR that has been planned for the LCA and not for Mirage 2000

The fact that LSP 3 was going to have a radar with a mechanically scanned array was known for some time. At what point did people suddenly start believing that an AESA may appear on the LSP 3 and what news led to that assumption? is there any data at all to suggest that India has achieved any breakthrough in AESA? If there is I have missed it.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Apr 2010 10:27

Welcome Kanson

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 26 Apr 2010 10:28

Viv S wrote:
Mrinal wrote: What is a "back end" of a radar? Is it the receiver, the exciter, the power amplifier/ the TWT, or the signal processor, the radar data processor? Or all together? If co, care to inform us when and where the entire "back end" was replaced with that of the 2032 when:

http://angle-of-attack.blogspot.com/201 ... -aesa.html

" It was confirmed to us that the radar is 100% Indian with only the processor of Israeli origin. "

The processor alone is not the back end.
Darned if I know. I heard that the antenna was LRDE's, and the rest was from the 2032. But then again, its a panwallah vs chaiwallah situation. Take your pick, it'll be a while before we know for sure.

FLASHBACK TO AI09

The following info was heard from Project Director of LCA-Navy... Independantly KPrasad heard the same from none other than PS.

1. The radar is has the LRDE/HAL antenna, ECIL/BARC developed APL, indigenous power amplifier and indigenous FRP radome.. the rest is Elta stuff -- the signal & data processing units (with the software for AA, AG, AS modes and the fire control algorithms come straight out of 2032).

2.the radar has been extensively tested.. Very very extensively and works very well in all 3 modes.. after the airborne qualification was completed -- they installed this radar somewhere on a rooftop in the vicinity of CABS area of HAL airport and kept tracking the fighter planes flying out of HAL airport evreryday... that is the LCA's, Jags, Kirans etc..

The LSP-3 radar tracked "smaller aircraft" (smaller than LCA - probably Kirans/Hawks) at 100-120km range.. That is the capability of the radar.

This hybrid radar existed & was proven as far back as Feb09.. at that time the goal was to fly it in 2-3months.. So the "hybrid" effort was not a failure (and hence no necessity to go for a full-2032 or full-2052 solution). Most likely they ran into some "teething problems" while integrating it in the LCA radome (which is typical when you go from benchtop to filed testing). So the delay..

LRDE has started an AESA effort.. they have actually called for RFI for co-development - so they will take outside help (may be easy to guess it will be Israeli) to develop or co-develop an AESA that will go into LCA-MkII. But for the first 40 Teajs - rest assured it is "most likely" ( @ 98% probability ) it is a hybrid radar.. Indigenous MMR with the Israeli data processing unit..

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 26 Apr 2010 11:24

All sources point towards that fact that MMR is very much similar to the EL-2032 in performance, hence 120 km tracking range for fighter sized target isn't over-rated. secondly it should be able to detect very large ships from around 300km because its power output plus its an X-band radar hints at that possibility. Questions remain as to if the info is color coded. It can track 10 aircraft and attack 2 simultaneously, hopefully they test the Astra, r-77 etc from it soon, may be even Meteor. I really doubt the source codes are ISraeli.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Apr 2010 11:39

astra is some years away from compleletion. Russia never co-operates in integrating R77 with any foreign radar.

so is the Tejas going to enter service with Derby as the BVR aam ? that would put it at a serious disadvantage versus
even the mid level amraam's the pakis have managed to get from unkil with the block52.

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Apr 2010 11:49

Tejas going to enter service with Derby as the BVR aam

I would put my money on Mica and/or Metoer. R77 would be integrated as well, irrespective of whether the Russians collaborate or not, just like we did with R73. We do have the Bison experience .

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 26 Apr 2010 11:59

rakall wrote: This hybrid radar existed & was proven as far back as Feb09.. at that time the goal was to fly it in 2-3months.. So the "hybrid" effort was not a failure (and hence no necessity to go for a full-2032 or full-2052 solution). Most likely they ran into some "teething problems" while integrating it in the LCA radome (which is typical when you go from benchtop to filed testing). So the delay..

To your bolded quote

K Mehta wrote:Chaiwala News Network reports
LSP 3 is being held back by just one component problem (not radar related), It is on test already on iron bird, LSP-3 may be flight tested the same or the next day after that component is qualified. The component is almost ready, so lets hope for the best.

Now that lsp3 has flown, i will clarify the post, the component that held the lsp-3 back was a new Air data controller (computer??). It was not essential for this to happen right away but the ADA folks did this for an advantage in longer run, that they didnt have to add more instruments incrementally, thus reducing the amount of downtime. The new adc was amongst one of the new avionics to be tested. However this resulted in a delay.

Chaiwala:"Ek saath bahut saari cheezon pe haath mara hai"
Anyways folks Aal iz well now. The ADA folks have learnt a few things from this experience. The next thing is CMDS integration followed by the next big thing Naval prototype.
NP may also fly by this year end.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 26 Apr 2010 12:00

BTW i remember JCage posting a ppt showing aesa development for LCA, couple of yrs back!
Lets hope Indian AESA flies aboard embraer next year. That in itself will be a big achievement!

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 26 Apr 2010 14:00

K Mehta wrote:BTW i remember JCage posting a ppt showing aesa development for LCA, couple of yrs back!
Lets hope Indian AESA flies aboard embraer next year. That in itself will be a big achievement!

The AESA on board the AEW&C will be S band, not X band which would be needed for the LCA. AFAIK, we can manufacture L band and S band AESA modules but not X band yet.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 26 Apr 2010 14:02

K Mehta wrote: Chaiwala:"Ek saath bahut saari cheezon pe haath mara hai"
Anyways folks Aal iz well now. The ADA folks have learnt a few things from this experience. The next thing is CMDS integration followed by the next big thing Naval prototype.
NP may also fly by this year end.

Thanks for the new info and keep it flowing

I should mark you my buddy

)

manoba · Post by **manoba** » 26 Apr 2010 14:22

Is there any CNN/PNN news about Inflight Refueling Pod? Is that also included in IOC?

IIRC, there was an excess weight problem of that so called pod.

I would love see a promo video of flying, dancing, A2A, A2G, A2S, BVR missiles firing and inflight refueling Tejases before the end of this year.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 26 Apr 2010 16:32

I just wanted to post a new article on the JSF development difficulties.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04 ... ion-fubar/

Just goes to show that any new aircraft development project has its difficulties specially when there is a huge jump in technology required to build the aircraft. I would say that the jump required for the US to go from F16/F18 type fighters to the F35 would be the same as India had taken to go from the HF24 to the LCA. India has taken a long time to get the LCA operational and so has the US, anytime anyone tries to take a quantum leap in technology it is fraught with danger. An old quote from Rumsfeld comes to mind "There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns". I think that this is very apt to the state of the two projects.

just my 2 cents

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Apr 2010 16:53

vcsekhar wrote:I just wanted to post a new article on the JSF development difficulties.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04 ... ion-fubar/

Just goes to show that any new aircraft development project has its difficulties specially when there is a huge jump in technology required to build the aircraft. I would say that the jump required for the US to go from F16/F18 type fighters to the F35 would be the same as India had taken to go from the HF24 to the LCA. India has taken a long time to get the LCA operational and so has the US, anytime anyone tries to take a quantum leap in technology it is fraught with danger. An old quote from Rumsfeld comes to mind "There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns". I think that this is very apt to the state of the two projects.

just my 2 cents

[OT]

Its offtopic but still..

US already has world's only operational fighter bomber in its service. They have also decommissioned their first generation stealth bombers F 117 even before anyone ever got any equivalent machine. Hence its not a quantum jump for them

F35 has problems because of poor-management (one of their management guy quit citing these reasons), over ambitious goals from legacy design (i.e. its design is no ground breaking) barring stealth feature and its lift design had faced similar problems earlier too (i.e. 2 engine design ) like overweight issues.

Our LCA OTOH has totally different issues.

And we need not to take examples from others failures to justify our own... or do we

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 17:05

merlin wrote:
K Mehta wrote:BTW i remember JCage posting a ppt showing aesa development for LCA, couple of yrs back!
Lets hope Indian AESA flies aboard embraer next year. That in itself will be a big achievement!
The AESA on board the AEW&C will be S band, not X band which would be needed for the LCA. AFAIK, we can manufacture L band and S band AESA modules but not X band yet.

err..BFSR-SR.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 17:14

shiv wrote:
Kanson wrote:
By the same extension, one may ask why MMR was not selected for Mirage-2k upgrade?
Kansonji - there may be a big lacuna in my knowledge here. As far as I know MMR is either Multi-mode radar or multi-mission radar. The Mirage 2000 already had a radar with some limited multi-mission (A2A/A2G) capabilty. Are you saying that the Mirage upgrade does not include a radar upgrade to a more capable MMR? Or are you specifically referring to the Indian MMR that has been planned for the LCA and not for Mirage 2000

The fact that LSP 3 was going to have a radar with a mechanically scanned array was known for some time. At what point did people suddenly start believing that an AESA may appear on the LSP 3 and what news led to that assumption? is there any data at all to suggest that India has achieved any breakthrough in AESA? If there is I have missed it.

Shiv saar no ji pls. I mentioned LCA MMR radar as a counter argument to your rhetorical question.
AFAIK, our MMR is ready by 2008. On the AESA front, yes we started developing X-band AESA module for Airborne FCR radar. So moi showed interest when the news breakout. Remember, we started developing L band AESA module by 2000 or so which was used in LRTR(Swordfish). But we came to know abt the existance of Swordfish only by 2006.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 26 Apr 2010 17:20

It is not entirely OT according to me, a lot of other planes development success is shown to compare how the LCA has not worked out till now.
The problem is that most people underestimate the difficulties that ADA had in developing the LCA specially in materials and testing. We had to build a whole new aircraft industry from scratch and doing that in the 15 or so years that it has taken till now is quiet something. Specially not something to be laughed at.
Coming to your points:
F117: This was a pure bomber, very bad aerodynamically and could only carry a couple of LGB's, not supersonic, did it even have a radar? This really had not much to do with the JSF. The JSF is a quantum jump from the F117.
F35: As with the LCA they bit off a too much to chew and they are paying for it now just like with the LCA (check the story of the FBW, composites, Kaveri etc). The STOVL design was completely new and had never been tried before, so that was another big risk. Overweight was again due to trying to make too many things common between the 3 versions.

Again the LCA cannot really be called a failure, yes it is delayed but it is here and is already better than most of the existing fleet of the country, and, as is, it can replace a bunch of existing planes. And show me one country that has developed a 4th gen fighter without any experience of a 3rd gen fighter with composites, FBW, Glass cockpit etc etc... Leave alone the manufacturing and design we even needed help to complete the flight test program.
Everyone who has a new 4th gen plane has a long history of 3rd gen planes (France, UK/Germany, USA, Sweden, Russia, I am not so sure about China though)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Apr 2010 17:33

K Mehta wrote:
rakall wrote: This hybrid radar existed & was proven as far back as Feb09.. at that time the goal was to fly it in 2-3months.. So the "hybrid" effort was not a failure (and hence no necessity to go for a full-2032 or full-2052 solution). Most likely they ran into some "teething problems" while integrating it in the LCA radome (which is typical when you go from benchtop to filed testing). So the delay..
To your bolded quote
K Mehta wrote:Chaiwala News Network reports
LSP 3 is being held back by just one component problem (not radar related), It is on test already on iron bird, LSP-3 may be flight tested the same or the next day after that component is qualified. The component is almost ready, so lets hope for the best.
Now that lsp3 has flown, i will clarify the post, the component that held the lsp-3 back was a new Air data controller (computer??). It was not essential for this to happen right away but the ADA folks did this for an advantage in longer run, that they didnt have to add more instruments incrementally, thus reducing the amount of downtime. The new adc was amongst one of the new avionics to be tested. However this resulted in a delay.

Chaiwala:"Ek saath bahut saari cheezon pe haath mara hai"
Anyways folks Aal iz well now. The ADA folks have learnt a few things from this experience. The next thing is CMDS integration followed by the next big thing Naval prototype.
NP may also fly by this year end.

Thanks...the held up is only due to this alone ? Possible to indicate the time delay for adding this Air data computer?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Apr 2010 17:46

sekhar saab....

I will try to explain in as few words as possible.

vcsekhar wrote: F117: This was a pure bomber, very bad aerodynamically and could only carry a couple of LGB's, not supersonic, did it even have a radar? This really had not much to do with the JSF. The JSF is a quantum jump from the F117.

F-22

vcsekhar wrote: The STOVL design was completely new and had never been tried before, so that was another big risk. Overweight was again due to trying to make too many things common between the 3 versions.

Yak-141

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Apr 2010 20:09

K Mehta wrote:Chaiwala:"Ek saath bahut saari cheezon pe haath mara hai"
Anyways folks Aal iz well now. The ADA folks have learnt a few things from this experience. The next thing is CMDS integration followed by the next big thing Naval prototype.
NP may also fly by this year end.

So how close is it to the final version? And can you find out if the envelope has been fully opened and tested?

BTW, which CMDS are we using for LCA?

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 26 Apr 2010 20:14

Thanks for the corrections sid.. and they are good answers btw.

I had no idea about the Yak 141 and i just read up about it on wiki

(learn something new everyday)
It does look very similar to the JSF (so i wonder about the first supersonic VSTOL claim of the JSF), however the propulsion is different, single engine + lift fan Vs multiple engines . The unique aspect of the JSF is the one engine and shaft driven fan that produces 20K lbs of thrust, which as i remember is more than the harrier in total and almost as much as the LCA. But as far as the program goes the engine has reportedly not been a source of problems for the JSF. The problems have been in the integration and software for all the different modes and the sensor fusion. A lof of problems have been due to the heat generated by the onboard avionics.

F22: Developed as a pure air superiority fighter and the A2G modes were slapped on later to try and justify the high costs of the plane. Although the spin was that they were similar (f22 and f35) and it would make it easier, they were supposedly very different and the 3 versions in one made the complexity very high, stealth was also compromised due to the tradeoffs of the 3 in 1 design.

Yes you do have a point, but, that gives more credence to what i was saying that with all the know how that the US has, they are still having a horrible time with the JSF, so its a bit unfair to criticize the LCA as delayed and all without giving a thought to the whole picture. Let us not label the LCA as a failure simply because it is delayed, it is a good airplane and in the words of someone who has flown many fighters in the IAF and the LCA (through a good friend of mine) 'It handles beautifully and it would be a good day when it comes into service".
Lets hope that the LCA is finally accepted and sucessful in the IAF and let us get back to the radar discussion.

Sid wrote:sekhar saab.... I will try to explain in as few words as possible.

vcsekhar wrote: F117: This was a pure bomber, very bad aerodynamically and could only carry a couple of LGB's, not supersonic, did it even have a radar? This really had not much to do with the JSF. The JSF is a quantum jump from the F117.
F-22

vcsekhar wrote: The STOVL design was completely new and had never been tried before, so that was another big risk. Overweight was again due to trying to make too many things common between the 3 versions.
Yak-141

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Apr 2010 20:17

manoba wrote:Is there any CNN/PNN news about Inflight Refueling Pod? Is that also included in IOC?

IIRC, there was an excess weight problem of that so called pod.

I would love see a promo video of flying, dancing, A2A, A2G, A2S, BVR missiles firing and inflight refueling Tejases before the end of this year.

since when did the LCA need to carry a refuelling pod ? I haven't even heard of an indigenous refuelling pod and you're saying that you remember that it had weight issues ?

All it needs is the refuelling probe. The internal fuel plumbing must already exist and qualification of a probe is not going to be that difficult.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Apr 2010 21:57

Kanson wrote:
shiv wrote:Just curious. If India had a working AESA of any type, why would we wait to fit it on an LCA. It would be included in upgrades to existing fighters no? And tested fully on them. The idea that LSP 3 will appear with an AESA is a needless bogey that is being discussed.
By the same extension, one may ask why MMR was not selected for Mirage-2k upgrade?

The discussion helps to understand how far we are progressing on the AESA front. Ofcourse Mech radar is good only...

I can answer this question, as I said what little I know I will share..

France has offered an integrated avionics set for Mirage upgrade to be completed in shortest possible time. Any integration of other equipment will add significant time to the program. Also, first few Mirages will be upgraded in France but the kits for assembly will then shift to HAL/IAF who will jointly upgrade the remaining airframes.