LCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2010 07:53

karan_mc wrote:
So, EADS is trying to recover the cost of the MAKOs development.

Recall that the Brits offered India the co-dev of the Jag AFTER it was in production and while they were in the process of developing their own MRCA (the Tornado).

Bad habits die hard.

Is it to develop new AJT using LCA has a platform or to put MAKO tech in Tejas MK-2 ?

(I have always gripped about Indian reporters - they make a confusing situation more confusing.)

(Having said that:)

India asked for:

......... consultancy on flight trials of the LCA ...............................

.............................................. The consultancy contract to EADS will fast-track flight testing toward Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC).

OK that part is clear enough.

Now:

EADS Military Aircraft Systems is in talks with India’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to offer technology support for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that originally was developed for the abandoned Mako trainer.

The lead sentence has nothing about the consultancy contract that was sought.

Then:

Mako shares some commonality with India’s LCA. “The technology of Mako can be brought to India to develop over time a trainer — first for India and then for export,” a government official says.

Which government? I have to assume the Indian. IF so, why would he say something like that when the interest is with a consultancy? But, since the sentence is more like a PR/Mkting it could be a government official from "EADS" trying to peddle the deal. ?????????? It also introduces the confusion about building a Mako in India for India then selling it outside or making a LCA based trainer and selling that outside India.

But, whatever abut the contract?

Opportunities for Indian design engineers to get expertise and influence design targets are plentiful. “Mako technologies that range from modern materials like carbon fiber to flight control computing could be channelized,” the official adds.

Mako was being offered with optional and alternative radar systems, including the BAE Systems Bluehawk, Thales RD-400 or the AN/APG-67 multi-mode radar. The fuselage was made of aluminum, with mainly carbon fiber air intakes and tail unit.

Ah, now I see ......... must be a non-Indian government official. One who is peddling the Mako itself. "The opportunities for Indian design engineers" cannot be for the LCA, the LCA cannot be redesigned and rebuilt.

All that for:

A $20 million contract between EADS and India ..................

BUT, what about the consultancy?

I wonder if they have any more projects that they would like to recover their development costs for. And, dump some old carbon fiber out of the country.

Neelam ji bhi cheese hai. Big article in AWST. No proper answers to very important question: consultancy?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 08:02

article in Flight Global on the N-LCA

this article shows a picture of the N-LCA and it's got the name "Tejas" written on it..earlier pics showed LCA..so someone either removed LCA later on and replaced it with Tejas or Tejas was removed and LCA put in its place.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 08 Jul 2010 08:19

Indian reporters including the colonel, mostly are clueless fiction writers with an agenda or grudge against the Indian scientists and tech. Call them Type "A"

Indian Sientists, especially of the ADA / DRDO type are mute and deaf and excessively secretive, as for as the craving of Indian readers for information is concerned. Call them type "B".

And we here are the ones, the type "C", with a lot of curiosity, always ready to be habitually and willingly confounded by the types A and B. This has been going on, on the LCA thread for quite sometime.

Can some insider don a mask and appear here to reveal the Bhagavatgita to the confounded warriors?? Some truth though camauflaged as rumour, or bees hum or whatever??

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jul 2010 10:16

Kanan wrote:......... and hence your comparison is asinine

warned.

vivekmehta · Post by **vivekmehta** » 08 Jul 2010 11:47

Kartik wrote:article in Flight Global on the N-LCA

this article shows a picture of the N-LCA and it's got the name "Tejas" written on it..earlier pics showed LCA..so someone either removed LCA later on and replaced it with Tejas or Tejas was removed and LCA put in its place.

are they planning to have a different name for NLCA ? can this be possible ?

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 08 Jul 2010 12:57

In the Flight Global pic, the undercarriage doors are persent. This was not so in case of the rollout pic. Could it be that the rollout prototype was the static test airframe that everyone is referring to?

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 08 Jul 2010 14:01

Kartik wrote: oh so now since you believe that the Mirage-2000 is outdated, it shouldn't be compared. Well, those are the specs that the IAF set.

So what should we compare it to? JF-17 Thunder Bunder? F-16 ? Typhoon ? I already gave you the data on the Rafale which is in the range of 20-29 degs max AoA only, which is 1 deg more than 28 degs max AoA which you scoffed at.

As for personal attacks, let the mods decide. If you post critical remarks without having a clue about the subject then I will respond in such a manner only. All it takes is a bit of googling and some diligent reading and you'll find that 28 deg max AoA is quite standard for fighters.

I think you should go back and read what i posted, i said 28degs is not good enough for flame out and i was reading into the Test pilots statement. There are many aircraft that can do 50deg AoA like the Saab JAS and not have flame out. Try to talk in context to the test pilots statement and HAL should have thought of AoA test far ahead rather than when its nearing induction phase.

Also i request you to stay away from personal references, BR is also a place for learning there is nothing wrong in being wrong and i am sure i am not wrong here. If you teach me something i appreciate it and am willing to change my stance.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 08 Jul 2010 19:22

Kartik wrote:
jamwal wrote:Is radar signature of NLCA any different from LCA or it's trainer version ?
might be slightly higher thanks to the higher surface area of the canopy and consequently that of the cockpit. Cockpit reflections are a big source of RCS.

Thanks.

Just because LCA can't carry Brahmos, doesn't mean it's useless. It can carry other lighter anti-ship missile for offensive operations at sea and very capable payload for shore based operations.
Sukhoi 30, which is the only aircraft that can carry Brahmos will be shore based limiting it's use. IMHO Naval Tejas armed with multiple missiles of shorter range is a more useful weapon system for navy than Sukhoi 30 armed with a single Brahmos

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2010 20:03

Reg. AoA,great pics in AWST June 28th issue of the PAK-FA/T-50 taking off at an AoA of about 40 deg.,"climbout is already impressive..." (though aircraft could've been lightly loaded),a special performance for PM Putin.The article also says that the T-50 will have both forward and aft facing radars,giving a "120 field of regard in each direction",plus poss. cheek radar apertures.

Mikhail Pogosayan,Sukhoi's chief also said that there would be a market for about 1000 of the T-50s,available at one-third the cost of the F-22.If the production/induction dates are met,we could see the T-50-/PAK-FA's arriving at the same time as the LCA MK-2! No guesses or bets on as to which bird the IAF will prefer when that happens.The undue delay in deciding upon the engine for the MK-2 version of the LCA ,when the C-17 deal is being processed at supersonic speed in comparison,just months,given the track record of India's MOD (20 years+ to decide upon the Hawk AJT),grates upon the mind,as the Sino-Pak JF-17 is already flying,in service and production and is being showcased at this year's Farnborough Air Show.Why the GOI/HAL hasn't shown off the LCA abroad beats me,when it has been flown so many times at Aero-India and 20+20 of Mk-1 are being ordered for the IAF.We have abdicated valuable space to the Sino-Pak combine who are now in pole position to export lightweight affordable fighters for the "turd world".

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Jul 2010 20:17

Philip garu perhaps that would be a climb at 40 deg angle not 40 deg AoA , latter should be very small for a steep climb.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 08 Jul 2010 20:34

I dont understand what all this fuss about NLCA cant carry Brahmos so its useless!!!!

Why would the navy want an arial platform to launch Brahmos in the first place. It can very well do it from its ships and soon from its subs. (which are any way part of the CBG).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 20:37

Philip wrote:Why the GOI/HAL hasn't shown off the LCA abroad beats me,when it has been flown so many times at Aero-India and 20+20 of Mk-1 are being ordered for the IAF.We have abdicated valuable space to the Sino-Pak combine who are now in pole position to export lightweight affordable fighters for the "turd world".

Philip - the LCA is the most maligned and criticised new fighter in the world - with Indians taking the lead in saying how useless it is. Nobody would touch it without asking what it is good for because it is arguably the single aircraft in the world that has received the greatest negative attention in the history of aviation.

It is not GoI - as a nation we have failed.

The Chinese are good salesmen if nothing else. They have taken a 2-3 gen design and made a saleable aircraft out of it. Everything has been so soo secret that there is nothing to criticise.

Google for LCA and it will be hard to find anything else than 50% of the articles being critical. I will eat my hat if anyone can point me to any other aircraft that holds a similar or worse public opinion record.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2010 20:47

the kind of nation which buys JF17 will need strong vendor financing. in operational use the flight hours will be low and missions fairly undemanding like dropping a few bombs and rockets on nearest rebellious village. it is a product that fits the target market. not overly sophisticated in any dept. can fly with austere avionics and nav-attack kit.

I am not sure the prc is going to export J10 to all. faithful munnas like pak might buy it though.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 08 Jul 2010 20:58

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote:Why the GOI/HAL hasn't shown off the LCA abroad beats me,when it has been flown so many times at Aero-India and 20+20 of Mk-1 are being ordered for the IAF.We have abdicated valuable space to the Sino-Pak combine who are now in pole position to export lightweight affordable fighters for the "turd world".
Philip - the LCA is the most maligned and criticised new fighter in the world - with Indians taking the lead in saying how useless it is. Nobody would touch it without asking what it is good for because it is arguably the single aircraft in the world that has received the greatest negative attention in the history of aviation.

It is not GoI - as a nation we have failed.

The Chinese are good salesmen if nothing else. They have taken a 2-3 gen design and made a saleable aircraft out of it. Everything has been so soo secret that there is nothing to criticise.

Google for LCA and it will be hard to find anything else than 50% of the articles being critical. I will eat my hat if anyone can point me to any other aircraft that holds a similar or worse public opinion record.

shivji, the fact that the LCA project started out in the 80s and still is not flying HURTS! And it was never intended to be the World Beater like Raptor/Flanker, but something REALLY handy like MiG-21! After innumerable delays and cost overruns we still cant make the engine or RADAR! But the worst thing is, it has come to the fore when fighters have entered a new age, the 5 the Gen! So, I would would say a lot of criticism is justified, but I also believe that We need to go ahead with the LCA for IAF, it will give us a hang of core technologies!!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 20:59

karthik wrote: I think you should go back and read what i posted, i said 28degs is not good enough for flame out and i was reading into the Test pilots statement. There are many aircraft that can do 50deg AoA like the Saab JAS and not have flame out. Try to talk in context to the test pilots statement and HAL should have thought of AoA test far ahead rather than when its nearing induction phase.

Also i request you to stay away from personal references, BR is also a place for learning there is nothing wrong in being wrong and i am sure i am not wrong here. If you teach me something i appreciate it and am willing to change my stance.

it might well be that the air intake channel on the LCA hasn't been well designed. I'm not sure, but what I understood from your remark was that you were being critical about 28 degs max AoA which is wrong since 28 deg AoA is as high as most fighters' max AoA. And don't read too much into the Gripen going as high as 50 deg AoA. In normal circumstances, the Gripen won't go anywhere near that AoA. It is a recorded fact that during simulations they've found that Gripens can stall at as low as 20 deg AoA and in one of the Gripen's crash that was attributed to PIO, the AoA was only 21 deg.

Suffice it to say that high angle of attack flights are complex, and without caution it can lead to catastrophes of the type that caused the Gripen crash at lower than what its max. angle of attack was. To get some more idea of the complexity of control at high AoA, read the article on this link. It states that

Simulator studies have showed that it is possible to stall Gripen at less than 20 deg angle of attack during similar conditions.

anyway, as per one forum, a Swedish poster working with an engineering firm whose main client was Saab said that the Gripen's max AoA is around 30 degs, and exceeding the limit can cause it to lose some yaw stability and enter into a super stall but it is possible to recover it easily from a super stall condition. Undoubtedly, the Saab designers and engineers had decades of experience, already established facilities and data banks from the Draken, Viggen designs to be able to design a very capable Gripen aerodynamic shape, but they still did receive assistance from BAE (read up on the P.106 model) on the basic aerodynamic shape and layout.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 21:17

Kanan wrote: So, I would would say a lot of criticism is justified,

Let us accept this as 100% correct. - i.e criticism is justified.

Now imagine (as a hypothetical scenario) that India decided to develop some fighter of no specified generation and no pre-announced specifications and all the development was done in secret, 3 or 4 crashes of prototypes were kept secret (from Indians and no criticism allowed) and then India suddenly unveiled a fighter claiming it was a world beater who would have been able to question India?

That is the way the Chinese have developed planes. And the Chinese are a big success. We are a big failure.

The take away lesson is that we must hide our failures and publicise our successes. If you don't allow criticism there will be no criticism.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 08 Jul 2010 21:29

shiv wrote:
Kanan wrote: So, I would would say a lot of criticism is justified,
Let us accept this as 100% correct. - i.e criticism is justified.
...
The take away lesson is that we must hide our failures and publicise our successes. If you don't allow criticism there will be no criticism.

Why this need to feed ?? Saar looks like you need to be reminded of your advice posted on this page.

shiv wrote:Troll alert. Kanan is a troll...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 21:33

^^
assisted suicide

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 08 Jul 2010 21:40

shiv wrote:^^
assisted suicide

You are a doc so I assume you know whats best for the patient. Good luck!!!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 09 Jul 2010 00:49

Can somebody please explain this to me!! I thought that the Brahmos is suppose to be a cruise missile., launched from Land, Shore, Ship or Submarine. Does it even makes any sense to be able to launch a cruise missile from a fighter aircraft? (It could be from boeing or IL-7X aircrafts)

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Jul 2010 00:53

^^
Err...are not all missiles launched from a/cs cruise missiles (including the anti ship missiles)?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 09 Jul 2010 00:59

SBajwa wrote:Can somebody please explain this to me!! I thought that the Brahmos is suppose to be a cruise missile., launched from Land, Shore, Ship or Submarine. Does it even makes any sense to be able to launch a cruise missile from a fighter aircraft? (It could be from boeing or IL-7X aircrafts)

SBajwa,

Harpoon,Storm Shadow,JASSM,MDBA Apache,Taurus 350,etc are all fighter launched cruise missile!

Brahmos will be launched from Su-30 MKi

As Austin posted earlier, a suitable cruise missile will also adore our LCAs!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Jul 2010 01:19

Kanan:

Insider news. There is a new missile called LTrahmos in the works just for LCA. Wait for announcement in a year or so. It has a reduced 150KM range and has a new parachute based recovery so that LCA doesn't need to land with it. It can take about 40 dunkings in water before requiring refurbishment.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 09 Jul 2010 01:30

Cybaru wrote:Kanan:

Insider news. There is a new missile called LTrahmos in the works just for LCA. Wait for announcement in a year or so. It has a reduced 150KM range and has a new parachute based recovery so that LCA doesn't need to land with it. It can take about 40 dunkings in water before requiring refurbishment.

What a LOSER!

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 09 Jul 2010 02:23

Kanan wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Kanan:

Insider news. There is a new missile called LTrahmos in the works just for LCA. Wait for announcement in a year or so. It has a reduced 150KM range and has a new parachute based recovery so that LCA doesn't need to land with it. It can take about 40 dunkings in water before requiring refurbishment.
What a LOSER!

read this:http://www.deccanherald.com/content/509 ... ahmos.html

You have probably not been on BR even as a lurker for long......Any BRfite worth his salt would get the sarcasm in that post!

So he aint the loser...it is someone else!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2010 06:13

Cybaru wrote: Insider news. There is a new missile called LTrahmos in the works just for LCA. Wait for announcement in a year or so. It has a reduced 150KM range and has a new parachute based recovery so that LCA doesn't need to land with it. It can take about 40 dunkings in water before requiring refurbishment.

I request you not to reveal insider information like this. My uncle is senior to your uncle in DRDO and I will tell him about this security breach. The whole project is secret and is also called LCA - Light Cruise Astra (weapon) so nobody knows what is being tested.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Jul 2010 06:24

Damn you Cybaru now they'll have to cancel LTrahmos and start a new project with a secret name

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 09 Jul 2010 07:37

Aeronautical Development Agency to bring in adviser for Tejas Mark-2

Commodore C D Balaji, director-LCA Navy-ADA, told DNA Money the state-run defence aerospace firm would be appointing a consultant for the Tejas Mark-2 in the next couple of months.
Since ADA’s negotiation with US-based Lockheed Martin, which had qualified for the consultancy of the LCA Tejas, has failed, it would be European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) that would be brought in to advise it on the programme.

http://idrw.org/?p=2356

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2010 07:58

DNA :: Jul 9, 2010 :: Aeronautical Development Agency to bring in advisor for Tejas Mark-2

....ADA is also in the process of the selecting engines for the LCA Tejas for which it had sent out request for proposal (RFP) to General Electric (GE) for its F-414 and Eurojet for its EJ200.

Balaji said both the engines are technically compliant and their financial bid was under evaluation. He said after the down selection of the engines, the design and aero-structure of the LCA could be required to be modified.

“Once they (ADA) move to developing the new variants (for the LCA),they will need help in areas such as determining the location and attachment of the arrester hook system on aircraft, ways to test the arrester hook system, aerodynamic fixes to improvetakeoff and landing performance on the carrier, optimising the landing gear design to handle larger operating weight,recommend alternative engine with higher thrust to enhance thrust-to-weight ratio and making associated changes in the aircraft’s structural configuration forreduction of weightby 500 kg and integration of operational payload on the aircraft,” said an expert.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jul 2010 08:39

Cybaru wrote:Kanan:

Insider news. There is a new missile called LTrahmos in the works just for LCA. Wait for announcement in a year or so. It has a reduced 150KM range and has a new parachute based recovery so that LCA doesn't need to land with it. It can take about 40 dunkings in water before requiring refurbishment.

You know, I have apologized in this forum in order to get out of situations that involves insider news. Its better to keep a secret with pride and loose an argument. The kind of information that available to a lot of us is mind boggling. But, we make it a point not to mention.

Forums, websites and social media is getting watched by people whom we don't want to give a news. The concern was told to me by a very senior person. One of the reason, I managed to get from blogging to news distributor is the ability to respect secrecy. I hope people will follow the example.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jul 2010 09:03

Kartik wrote:article in Flight Global on the N-LCA

this article shows a picture of the N-LCA and it's got the name "Tejas" written on it..earlier pics showed LCA..so someone either removed LCA later on and replaced it with Tejas or Tejas was removed and LCA put in its place.

Could be the airframe for the structural tests. I am only guessing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Jul 2010 09:30

Katare wrote:Damn you Cybaru now they'll have to cancel LTrahmos and start a new project with a secret name

Dammit.. Okay Okay, My bad. I plead temporary insanity. I am not sure what dark force made me reveal such sensitive information on this website. It must be the work of a SETH master.

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 09 Jul 2010 09:57

Cybaru wrote:
Dammit.. Okay Okay, My bad. I plead temporary insanity. I am not sure what dark force made me reveal such sensitive information on this website. It must be the work of a SETH master.

just delete the damn post....and the subsequent posts

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Jul 2010 10:11

Now I am konphoosed onlee! I thought good old cy was joking to begin with.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jul 2010 10:17

Dileep wrote:Now I am konphoosed onlee! I thought good old cy was joking to begin with.

He was, and others were playing along with him. Good performance by chacko though

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Jul 2010 10:35

Kartik wrote:
article in Flight Global on the N-LCA

this article shows a picture of the N-LCA and it's got the name "Tejas" written on it..earlier pics showed LCA..so someone either removed LCA later on and replaced it with Tejas or Tejas was removed and LCA put in its place.

Could be the airframe for the structural tests. I am only guessing.

Nope. The structural test will be just airframe (barebones), just weighted appropriately and wont have anything of consequence installed and wont be finished as this one is. This is a true blue fully built plane for roll out.

Me thinks this is good ol' Kangress party's dirty tricks dept at work again. See, they would hate a name given by Vajpayee and since the Naval version is distinct and different and the Navy would like a name of it's own, why not put two and two together and when the time comes, bestow it with a "Kangress" name at the time of the first flight . So, would expect MMS/ Madam to pick out a name for the Navy fighter when it makes a first flight.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jul 2010 10:46

vina wrote:Nope. The structural test will be just airframe (barebones), just weighted appropriately and wont have anything of consequence installed and wont be finished as this one is. This is a true blue fully built plane for roll out.

Me thinks this is good ol' Kangress party's dirty tricks dept at work again. See, they would hate a name given by Vajpayee and since the Naval version is distinct and different and the Navy would like a name of it's own, why not put two and two together and when the time comes, bestow it with a "Kangress" name at the time of the first flight . So, would expect MMS/ Madam to pick out a name for the Navy fighter when it makes a first flight.

Possible. LCA navy should have a name too.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 09 Jul 2010 12:13

vina wrote: Nope. The structural test will be just airframe (barebones), just weighted appropriately and wont have anything of consequence installed and wont be finished as this one is. This is a true blue fully built plane for roll out.

Me thinks this is good ol' Kangress party's dirty tricks dept at work again. See, they would hate a name given by Vajpayee and since the Naval version is distinct and different and the Navy would like a name of it's own, why not put two and two together and when the time comes, bestow it with a "Kangress" name at the time of the first flight . So, would expect MMS/ Madam to pick out a name for the Navy fighter when it makes a first flight.

Oooh..a controversy with the name looms! But hey...all good only....LCA gets some publicity!

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Jul 2010 12:17

Well, maybe it will be named 'Veron'

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 09 Jul 2010 14:09

How about "raul baba rashtriya pappi-e-jhappi atii-sekoolaar daleet-pasand nau sena viman"?