LCA news and discussion

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Jun 2010 15:29

IMHO, with more powerful engine the current airframe should be bursting out of the seams. what I mean is that it will be a total waste to keep it small and not have any additional advantage of extra payload, gizmos etc. Surfaces should expand to accommodate new possibilities. But, As folks already said, it might be MCA. If we can expand LCA frame, and cut the MMRCA cake in middle, then I think we can do some justice, as the current number of LCA's in IAF's mind and half of the MMRCA numbers will make good volumes. This is my personal view onleee.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2010 15:35

Shiv- > I think it has been mentioned in the earlier pages that the LCA- MK2 will have additional weapons point and a larger wing area plus a new AESA radar and a new engine will require some amount renginering the airframe, given my limited knowledge in aerospace design it would still seem that having a new engine with different dimensions and weight as well as increasing Wing area would differenciate the MK-2 from MK-1 like a Superhornet from a F-18 Hornet A-D versions..

Regarding MCA, agree it was just my fertile imgaination which can be ignored. But just thinking that we need an aircraft in numbers wheather it comes with single or 2 engines. And looking at the US example of F-22 and JSF F-35 for numbers conviently using my fertile imagination came up with a single engined MCA- MY BAD.

Just a worried Jingo after looking at the number of aircraft the Chinese and Pakis are adding to thier fleet.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 05 Jun 2010 15:50

krishnan wrote:
Gaurav_S wrote:Sorry for being newbie..but what are they doing with those big pipes (?) in 2nd picture? Fuelling the a/c?

Fuel , and also Oxygen i think

The thick hose is starter cart hose connecting to air starter. Just gassing that the thinner one is GPU cable to power the electronics when the engine is not running. It seems they are preparing to start the engine. GPU connected and the system booting, in the meantime they are connecting the air hose to air starter to start the engine.

Cheers....

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 05 Jun 2010 16:25

AdityaV,
Consider any major block upgradation of any a/c (F-16, Gripen, Mig-29 etc). They all have had changes of engines, avionics, inlets and "relatively small" differences in control surfaces. This will be the way one can expect LCA mk2 to turn out. As for the retirement of older a/cs, this is exactly why MCA is under consideration.
As for single engined MCA. That would seem to be the way to go at the first glance. But if you think about it, it would put forward much more technological challenges than a twin engined 5th gen a/c. If the a/c needs to have decent payload, its internal bay will need to have a large volume and the single engined a/c will need to be designed keeping that in mind (there will be no luxury of placing the weapons bay in the space b/n 2 engine bays as in F-22 and PAK-FA) . So, it will be impossible to have a single engined stealth a/c with weight comparable to lca. It will have much greater weight not to mention the aerodynamic challenges. Plus the engine needed to develop for such a/c will need to generate prodigious amount of thrust. So, as you can see that it will be much safer to develop a twin engined 5th gen a/c.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2010 16:40

Aditya_V, on Hindsight after reading your post yes unless we have some engine like the JSF, single engine MCA is only good for my fertile imagination. Was just thinking in my mind that FGFA will be our F-22 and MCA our JSF- MY BAD. I just hope I see the MCA prototype soon , as it will take time to Develop and Hope ADA, HAl have the ability to get the LCA-MK1 in production, Design Develop and test LCA-MK2 and Design Develop and test the MCA at the same time

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jun 2010 17:17

Just look at MiG 21 from 1962 and Bison. Two totally different beasts. But the MiG 21 look is maintained. It's essentially the same layout of engine, intake, wings etc. No redesign radical enough to make it a new aircraft, although it is a new aircrfat in capability. The same can be said of the F 16 - a series of minor increments have made it a different beast.

The F-18 of course became a radically new aircraft with the E/F versions (I think) being 25% larger. Boeing 737s too have undergone progressive "upmarking" with actual fuselage sections added to make the newer versions bigger with a concomitant increase in wing area.

If you think of the future (my views) - yes by all means go for the MCA provided it runs on the Kaveri. Make a UCAV out of LCA for numbers. In my view the even the manned LCA currently has scope for "puffing up" the dorsal spine between cockpit and tail for fuel and avionics as well as F16 type puffing up above the wing roots. All that extra volume can accommodate a new engine, more fuel and avionics top get a far more capable beast.

But first - get that Naval LCA flying!!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2010 17:33

Gaurav_S wrote:Sorry for being newbie..but what are they doing with those big pipes (?) in 2nd picture? Fuelling the a/c?

Power.

You can see the power generator on the left.

It should have been fueled by now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2010 17:45

Singha wrote: we need to pull our panties up and select the engine asap and complete the integration. once that is done, the rest will sail pretty smoothly for IOC in 2015.

There are two issues with an "engine":
1) The need to complete a "Mark II", and
2) To absorb as much technical details, as possible, to be able to design/build newer engines in the future - knowledge transfer

This is going to be a great juggling act. The urgency of getting to build-out a "Mark II" could actually prevent or stunt negotiations on knowledge transfer. Or if there is more pressure to gain knowledge that could delay an engine for the "Mark II".

I think it has been mentioned in the earlier pages that the LCA- MK2 will have additional weapons point and a larger wing area plus a new AESA radar and a new engine will require some amount renginering the airframe

Would be very interested in knowing more about the "Mark II" (outside of a better engine). AESA also is a known factor, so that is also not of great importance in figuring out what a "Mark II" standard actually is. More hard points? What else?

We have to go beyond "I think".

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 05 Jun 2010 20:10

From Ajay Shukla's blog

“The Tejas Mark I is already as good or better as the light fighters in the IAF”, declares ADA chief, PS Subramaniam, referring to the MiG-21 BISON. “The air force should order at least 60 of them.”

LCA Mk-1 should be significantly better in all aspects as compared to the upgraded BISON. A comparative trials (like the ones between T-90 and Arjun) are needed to cement this and shutup all nay-sayers.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jun 2010 20:26

Neeraj-> Nobody really disputes the Tejas MK-1 is a great achivement for this country and a very good aircraft. It as atleast as good as an F-16 Block 52 or M-2000-5 ot 9 standard.

so comparing it with Mig-21 Bison is like comparing Volkawagen Polo or Maruti Ritz with a premier Padimi with an upgraded engine and interiors in the 1990's. Naysayers will always be naysayers.

I just hope the IAF inducts aleast 300-350 aircraft in the coming decade since we have inducted very few aircraft from 1995 to 2010. All I can think of is 100 Su-30 MKI's, 10 M-2000H, and about 37 Jags, completed Mig-21 Bison upgrades, while we retired MIg 23BN and MIG23 MF and lots of older types of Mig21's.

BTW does anyone know how many GE404 IN's have been ordered, are they enough to cover the LSP series and 40 aircraft ordered plus reserves. Last I remember we ordered around 40 of these.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 05 Jun 2010 20:29

Maruti Ritz??? Yhuck!

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 05 Jun 2010 20:39

ADA+HAL appear to be gunning for a 40 aircraft order.

Presently the IAF has signed up for 20, and has agreed to buy another 20. ADA+HAL want IAF to buy another squadron

Me thinks it might happen if IOC + completion of weapons trial can be done quickly.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 05 Jun 2010 21:42

Aditya I agree with you that we should fill up our ranks with LCA. By 2015 we already would be having large number of MKI and atleast a decent number of MRCA besides the good old 29 and 2000 (later both upgraded). Definitely these would form the sharp cutting edge of the IAF battle axe. But we also need a solid mass behind that sharp edge to deliver a powerful blow. Thats where we need numbers to do the no glamorous work of iron hauling, point-defense and ground support. what better than to use much cheaper LCA(even in mk1 avatar) fill up rank. Development work on mk2 LCA should continue, We need the numbers desperately and having 150 odd LCA mk1 by the time mk2 becomes available is not going to hurt anybody.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Jun 2010 21:52

Tejas LSP-4 Goes Supersonic In First Flight

...
In addition to the MMR, the LSP-4 had [an] onboard radar warning receiver, [an] electronic countermeasure system (ECM), [and] new avionics software.

“Tejas-LSP-4 is the final configuration of [the] IAF version. Now all the hardware items have come onboard and there won’t be anymore additional systems, barring some software changes,” an ADA source said. “All objectives have been met and all systems worked as per the design. IAF pilots from [the] operational front would soon fly LCA.”

IAF sources said the LCA program’s recent progress has been a huge boost to the force’s confidence in the wake of delays and cost overruns.

“We are all keen to see the Tejas induction. After having waited for so many years, investing so many man hours, review meetings and money, it’s but natural to become anxious. It’s heartening to see the platform is taking definite shape and heading in the right direction,” a senior-ranked IAF official with Air Headquarters said.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 05 Jun 2010 22:45

with the autopilot on LSP-4, the LCA datalinked by a ground station or an AWACS can be vectored by providing way points or can be fed a preprogrammed flight plan

one can grade the reduction in pilot work load by the autopilot performing

1) routine flying

2) air-to-air refueling

3) all weather landing/takeoff

4) collision avoidance

5) low level flying to avoid radar detection using terrain following technologies that are part of Nirbhay

6) pre-programmed missile avoidance maneuvers like diving close to specific terrains that confuses the approaching missile's sensors, choice of ingress and egress routes that can give this opportunity increasing survivability

cliff edges are nice places to break missile locks

then we can get into the UCAV regime

I hope it gets to Red flag or another venue along with Gripen sometime soon

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jun 2010 00:00

neeraj wrote:From Ajay Shukla's blog
“The Tejas Mark I is already as good or better as the light fighters in the IAF”, declares ADA chief, PS Subramaniam, referring to the MiG-21 BISON. “The air force should order at least 60 of them.”
LCA Mk-1 should be significantly better in all aspects as compared to the upgraded BISON. A comparative trials (like the ones between T-90 and Arjun) are needed to cement this and shutup all nay-sayers.

Not entirely true - the Tejas won't be significantly better than the upgraded BISON in ALL aspects - least of all not in the current Mk1 configuration - not until it can fire a suitable BVR AAM anyway. In the current config, it is inferior to the BISON, at least in this one critical area. Also, is the Elbit HMD integrated with the R-73 on the Tejas?

Thats where the operational part comes in - DRDO can say what it wants to but the IAF needs war-fighting machines wonlee.

CM.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Jun 2010 01:31

Cain Marko wrote: Also, is the Elbit HMD integrated with the R-73 on the Tejas?

Thats where the operational part comes in - DRDO can say what it wants to but the IAF needs war-fighting machines wonlee.

CM.

A few months ago, I had pointed out that in a picture taken by Sanjay Simha of one of the PV's while landing that the pilot was wearing an Elbit DASH HMDS. You can go back into archives or probably the first pages of this thread to find that picture, or it may be on BR itself.

the DASH is a far superior system to the Sura that is on the Bison. While that doesn't confirm that its already capable of guiding an R-73, its something that the Tejas will have by the time it reaches IOC.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jun 2010 01:40

Kartik wrote:[A few months ago, I had pointed out that in a picture taken by Sanjay Simha of one of the PV's while landing that the pilot was wearing an Elbit DASH HMDS. You can go back into archives or probably the first pages of this thread to find that picture, or it may be on BR itself.

the DASH is a far superior system to the Sura that is on the Bison. While that doesn't confirm that its already capable of guiding an R-73, its something that the Tejas will have by the time it reaches IOC.

Yup, thanks for refreshing my memory, I do remember now. However, if the integration is still not complete, it only furthers the exaggeration in the comment. Also, I am not sure about ordering 60 of the said birds - would that mean the GE 404? If so, is the IAF comfortable with this choice considering the drama that is normally associated with US gear. Does the IAF really want a bulk of its fighters equipped by American engines? The current order, which gives the IAF about 45 fighters and 2 sqds with the IN20 is good enough for now imho.

However, if the IAF has no such issues, an order to replace a few MiG-21s/27s might be a great idea.

CM

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 06 Jun 2010 04:55

This is another basic question I have: I know that LCA is not as well funded as the fighter aircraft programs of say, USA. However, if, hypothetically, funds were not a problem, then what could have been done to decrease the development time?
I ask this because as per my understanding the PVs and LSPs are tested in an incremental manner, so LSP 6 cannot be rolled out before LSP 5 has been extensively tested, so on and so forth.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2010 06:39

say you need item A to create one major subsystem of LCA, it is available only from outside. ideally you would have bought at least 6 of these, to test different aspects simultaneously and also to have spares if one of the items suddenly went to pakistan. however, since you had low funds you could buy only one, that means no simultaneous progress on the project and if the item went kaput you would have to stop that part of the project altogether till it was repaired, sometimes for as long as a few months.
funds have been less of a problem in 2000's than it was in the 90's. the run up to the first flight would definitely have been quicker with better funding. right now there would have been LCA's flying in squadron service.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 06 Jun 2010 06:56

LCA pics at LEH:
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/ex ... t-leh.html

LCA night sortie pics:
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/ph ... lying.html

Loved the pic with afterburner!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2010 07:36

Rahul M wrote:say you need item A to create one major subsystem of LCA, .........................................

I am fairly confident that HAL/ADA/DRDO/etc, since they have very, very little experience, funds would not have made too much of a difference. Some, perhaps. Experience counts to the nth degree. Which is why (IIRC) Boeing was approached. Companies with experience have substantial DBs to rely on - statistical verification being an acceptable method in many cases.

Loved the pic with afterburner!

Nice, but, time Indians got hold of better cameras.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2010 07:39

Rao sahab, these are generalisations of problems noted by AM Rajkumar, not my own views. I daresay he knows what he is talking about. if he makes the point that funding was a factor(not to mention nothing was funded at all for 3 whole years in the 1988-91 period) I'll tend to believe it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2010 07:54

Rahul M wrote:Rao sahab, these are generalisations of problems noted by AM Rajkumar, not my own views. I daresay he knows what he is talking about. if he makes the point that funding was a factor(not to mention nothing was funded at all for 3 whole years in the 1988-91 period) I'll tend to believe it.

RMji,

No problem. I was under the impression that the question regarding funding was related to testing.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 06 Jun 2010 09:45

NRao wrote:Nice, but, time Indians got hold of better cameras.

I agree. With a better resolution that would have made one hell of a wallpaper. Like the Mountain Home AFB pic of our MKI.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2010 10:11

for some reason it's only the last pic that has poor quality. I guess something went awry during editing.
defence PR and DRDO have provided some very crisp images in the last few years, no reason why they would use cellphone quality cam all of a sudden.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 06 Jun 2010 10:30

There is nothing wrong with camera or the photographer. Look at the lights in the first two pictures, photographers has obviously used flash; plus, there is plenty of ambience lighting. However, in the last picture, I think he could not use flash because that would hindered with the take-off so he had to resort to high ISO setting, which is a fancy way of saying that he made his sensor ultra-sensitive to light.
In low-light high-ISO settings photographs do come out like this, very grainy; and it is visible with the best of cameras. Nothing a photographer or a camera could have done.
Just to put things in right perspective, if you try shooting the same scene without flash with your point-and-shoot camera, all you will get is the trail of light due to afterburner, nothing else.

Praveen · Post by **Praveen** » 06 Jun 2010 10:31

Rahul M wrote:for some reason it's only the last pic that has poor quality. I guess something went awry during editing.
defence PR and DRDO have provided some very crisp images in the last few years, no reason why they would use cellphone quality cam all of a sudden.

Using flash in foggy condition causes pics like the last pic. In foggy night conditions with the aircraft not under light, you can take better pics by using long exposure(with a tripod).

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 06 Jun 2010 10:33

Long exposure? I don't think you can do that for a flying-jet, it's like trying to see a bullet with naked eye.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2010 10:59

..changing the subject
Thoughts about LCA Mk II and future upgrades

Look at these two photographs
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 705048.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/T ... 022626.JPG

Note that the "dome" of the cockpit smoothly narrows down to the dorsal spine making a concavity @ mid body up until the point where the auxiliary intake sits in front of the tailfin. See also (in the daytime pic) the sharp groove between dorsal spine and the fuselage.

These are features waiting to be exploited. If the dorsal "spine" of the LCA is enlarged to remove the concavity and the sharp depression between the spine and the fuselage a whole lot of extra internal storage space gets created for extra fuel and avionics.

For comparison see the dorsal spine of early version MiG 21 versus later versions

http://www.jplanes.com/Images/Mig-21 images/an13.jpg
http://battle-gear.org/mig21.jpg

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 06 Jun 2010 11:15

^^ Even the F-16 and the MiG 29 got similar 'growth' of the dorsal spine to arrive at their current forms. Surely could be one of the possibilities for MK II.

We can hope for some great pics with weapon loads soon!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2010 11:43

the douglass A4 skyhawk carried the hump thing farther and became a hunchback.
http://www.hyperscale.com/images/A-4E_UA-08.jpg

looks fairly common to add additional avionics bays along the spine (easy to open and change things once climbed on wing)

a good example of wing body blending is the tu160 blackjack. the roots of the wing are hugely thick and taper off slowly.
must be storing a huge amt of fuel there.
http://rlv.zcache.com/russian_tu_160_bl ... cl_400.jpg

a wingtip towed decoy and better self-defence EW will be needed given the thicket of SAM defences the panda and munna are building up from s-300 level downward.

a desi Growler version of the MKI in dedicated EW "sub-squadrons" assigned in each command area to accompany big strikes or
operate alone would also be good. there is ample pylons to fit ram air or prop driven generators for additional electrical power
and the big new centerline and inboard pylons can haul up pods weighing multiple tons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2010 12:11

Singha wrote:the douglass A4 skyhawk carried the hump thing farther and became a hunchback.
http://www.hyperscale.com/images/A-4E_UA-08.jpg.

True! Another funny look are the swollen "deltoids" of the F-16 block 60
http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/new5/f-16block60.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2010 16:10

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/ua ... elampy.jpg

note the black cooling vents along the spine. perhaps the aux air intake ahead of the tailfin takes in the air and circulates
it to cool the dorsal avionics. ahead of it where no exhaust is there could be fuel storage.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2010 18:00

I would like the "MArk II" to be what the IAF asks for + 1. That is it.

My expctations:
* a powerful engine (I do not recall what the power they are expecting)
* AESA
* tighten the rest of the plane in all respects

And call it a day. Breed them like rabbits and move on to the MCA (which I feel has already started taking shape) (I also do not have very much trust - as I post - in the PAK-FA, but am willing to wait)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jun 2010 18:39

Not sure if this has been posted but Air Fleet carried a nice review on Tejas and J-10 development program.

Clicky Pdf

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2010 22:28

Austin wrote:Not sure if this has been posted but Air Fleet carried a nice review on Tejas and J-10 development program.

Clicky Pdf

Great link. Thanks.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 07 Jun 2010 02:20

I laughed out loud at these sentences:

It is really true that unlike Europeans, who are always in a hurry, the sons of the most ancient Indian civilization don’t take two or three decades for a long period of time even in the dynamic field of military aircraft building.

and

It is common knowledge, though, that there is nothing as permanent as temporary measures…

and it came as a shocking revelation that the fly-by-wire control system is not developed indigenously.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 07 Jun 2010 03:08

the article indeed is a relevation. That the Tejas is getting to the home stretch is nice to read , but what was eye opening was :-
1. the mach 1.4 ceiling
2. the weight
3. the sourcing of the fbw system. ada/drdo fave been claiming its their innovation ( or so i thought)

if you read the article before that about the J 10 , i like the fact that the chinese dumped their j9 fighter because it was taking so long. and i guess the other thing we can learn from the chinese is that we should be concurrently be developing 2-3 planes rather than putting all our eggs in the tejas.

about time that mca got funding i guess

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 07 Jun 2010 03:23

IIRC the fbw was in consultancy with LM, but after pokhran all hell broke on the team, it was re-designed from scratch with whatever experience the personnel had. Mach 1.4 is as per some media reports, as the pdf says, the authenticity of these media reports are questionable till LCA attains IOC and finally FOC.