LCA News and Discussions

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 20 Jul 2010 03:04

I am waiting for a battle hardened OG whose a*$e got badly burnt in action due to quixotic directions from the Government to one day become the PM to really set Indian defence compass due north. Khadi clad is ignorant of Khaki clads' agonies. Vote hungry mind readily prescribes GUBO as better option than valour in battle.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jul 2010 07:53

putnanja wrote:Cobham Looks At LCA Fueling Probe

U.K.-based Cobham is in discussions with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and India’s Aeronautical Development Agency about retrofitting a retractable refueling probe on the current model of the Light Combat Aircraft as well as the Mk2 version.
...
...
“We will develop and design a retractable refueling probe,” Griffiths says. “LCA is a tightly packed aircraft ... Unfortunately, we’re later in the design period. We will roll out the retractable [version] by 2013-14.”

Cobham has already provided to the Indian air force 20 Buddy Refueling Pods for its Su-30s - Mark 754. Its main features include a fueldraulic hose rewind and response, digital control systems, easy installation via a pylon bolted under the fuselage and up to 75-ft. hose length.

The recent joint air combat exercise that India held with the French air force in June included a Su-30 tanker.
...
...

hmm..a retractable probe..as mentioned in the article, it will be a challenge because the Tejas design is tightly packaged especially near the nose section. As to why ADA and HAL need Cobham to do this for them rather than doing it themselves, is there any answer ?

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Jul 2010 08:21

And pray why should ADA do this, when they can outsource the entire thing to an experienced leader in that particular niche ?

It doesn't make sense to design and do everything in house. In fact, I would have been thrilled if they had outsourced most of the subsystem development to the desi engineering firms rather than do that all by themselves.

Everyone, however big you are will have limited technical manpower, limited time and limited bandwidth. The trick is to make best use of what you have and use the skills and competencies of others optimally.

I am glad that they are not going about re-inventing the re-fuelling probe and everything.

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

The original LCA plan showed a non retractable probe (Photos surely must exist from Avia India 1993?)
So the LCA nose has been designed for at least some hosing leading from nose to tanks. It may be a matter of some engineering design ingenuity to use the space that such hosing occupies to put a retractable probe and the actuators for the same.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2010 08:58

^^even earlier. I've a photo of the model with a probe from 80's.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 09:12

Tipu tied up with EU consultant(France) to import some much-needed ToT in artillery and rockets. that was a smart thing to do, since France was generally p***ed at losing its indian territories to UK despite arriving here first.
likewise we have to seek partnerships to fill in the gaps and are doing that.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Jul 2010 17:39

vina wrote: We got the Jag in 77, we were making the Adour engines at HAL in the early 80s. What stopped us from taking the Adour from the Jag, removing the afterburner and putting it in an evolved Ajeet with a raised tandem cockpit and having an indigenous AJT ?. Why TF did we waste 20+ years to do that and in the end go and buy the Hawk, with which the IAF doesn't seem very happy. We had BOTH the Orpheus and Adour made at HAL as engine options!. There is no need for a radar as well ! Thirty years later we are doing the exact same thing. Using the Adour engine from the Jag line and putting it in an airframe not very much more "advanced" than the Ajeet and it is now called the BAE Hawk made in India!.

The Hawk has sold close to a 1000 copies over the years , we could have probably sold 100 to 200 AJT's if we had come up with one in the early 80s!.

Did you read the news about Turbomca blackmailing HAL over the cost of 'integrating' engine & gearbox for LoH. Now the engine, gearbox and Helo is supposed to be JV or indigenous or being manufactured in India itself. Inspite thereof...... The reason is that technology absorbtion is very very low. No funds at all are spent for Labs, evolutionary technolgoy or modification research at all. Now days even R&D is being outsourced to like israeli and russians using indian tax payers money

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Jul 2010 17:54

shiv wrote:The original LCA plan showed a non retractable probe (Photos surely must exist from Avia India 1993?)
So the LCA nose has been designed for at least some hosing leading from nose to tanks. It may be a matter of some engineering design ingenuity to use the space that such hosing occupies to put a retractable probe and the actuators for the same.

Possible solution

http://www.cobham75.com/media/4480/F-35%20probe.jpg

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Jul 2010 17:56

Following two years of joint development, Indian defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), Lockheed Martin and Cobham have developed an F-16 refueling probe.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Jul 2010 18:32

vic wrote:Following two years of joint development, Indian defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), Lockheed Martin and Cobham have developed an F-16 refueling probe.

Probably the wrong thread matey. This has already been posted..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jul 2010 20:56

vina wrote:And pray why should ADA do this, when they can outsource the entire thing to an experienced leader in that particular niche ?

It doesn't make sense to design and do everything in house. In fact, I would have been thrilled if they had outsourced most of the subsystem development to the desi engineering firms rather than do that all by themselves.

Everyone, however big you are will have limited technical manpower, limited time and limited bandwidth. The trick is to make best use of what you have and use the skills and competencies of others optimally.

I am glad that they are not going about re-inventing the re-fuelling probe and everything.

you're right. Being systems integrators like Saab has been for the Gripen, would've been a much easier and less time-consuming task for ADA and DRDO's many laboratories.

Anyway, for the Jaguar, did HAL develop that retractable probe or did they get it from Cobham as well ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 20 Jul 2010 23:34

Kartik wrote:
you're right. Being systems integrators like Saab has been for the Gripen, would've been a much easier and less time-consuming task for ADA and DRDO's many laboratories.

haii jii... and by doing so LCA would have become second KAI (or KIA) T-50 Golden Eagle, which btw looks like a Korean plane, feels like a Korean plane but smells like a amriki plane.

We should be happy for what we did, even if took some time to reach that milestone.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 21 Jul 2010 14:21

Redesigned www.ada.gov.in , the old one looked better, and someone seems to be obsessed with marque tag

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 21 Jul 2010 19:36

krishnan wrote:Redesigned http://www.ada.gov.in , the old one looked better, and someone seems to be obsessed with marque tag

They have added a good video of LSP-4 First Flight (63MB)
http://www.ada.gov.in/LSP4.wmv

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 21 Jul 2010 21:50

Elta, EADs to Pitch for LCA Radar

India’s futuristic plans concerning the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) are taking shape as a co-development project with an international major is on the cards. India is on the verge of finalising a foreign firm for an initial contract to co-develop ten prototypes of Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars with India.

The two majors who are in the race for this next generation AESA radars are the European Consortium EADS and Israeli company Elta. Although the initial requirement is of ten radars, this co-development deal is expected to be to the tune of $3 billion over the next ten years. This is because the estimates reveal that the Indian defence forces will need close to 600 radars for different types of fighters in the near future.

The tenders for the co-developmental project of advanced radars were floated in December 2009 and only EADS of Europe and Elta of Israel are left in the race following the elimination of other majors like Selex of Italy and Thales of France. While EADS is showcasing its “X” band technology, Elta specialises in the “L” band technology and is promoting its new generation X band antenna. The radar will also be considered for the SU 30 MKI upgrade and modernisation projects for front line fighters of the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force

It seems that Israeli firm Elta stands a better chance to win this contract since India and Israel have defence interactions based on radar acquisitions in the past. Israel has supplied radars in the past to India as well.

naird · Post by **naird** » 22 Jul 2010 04:12

Kakarat wrote:
krishnan wrote:Redesigned http://www.ada.gov.in , the old one looked better, and someone seems to be obsessed with marque tag
They have added a good video of LSP-4 First Flight (63MB)
http://www.ada.gov.in/LSP4.wmv

Great vid --- nice quality !! If only they made videos like that often !!!

Any news from anyone about how the LCA radar testing is going on ? It seems like there is relative clam in the project after much activity !!

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jul 2010 10:08

Dmurphy wrote:Elta, EADs to Pitch for LCA Radar
India’s futuristic plans concerning the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) are taking shape as a co-development project with an international major is on the cards. India is on the verge of finalising a foreign firm for an initial contract to co-develop ten prototypes of Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars with India.

The two majors who are in the race for this next generation AESA radars are the European Consortium EADS and Israeli company Elta. Although the initial requirement is of ten radars, this co-development deal is expected to be to the tune of $3 billion over the next ten years. This is because the estimates reveal that the Indian defence forces will need close to 600 radars for different types of fighters in the near future.

The tenders for the co-developmental project of advanced radars were floated in December 2009 and only EADS of Europe and Elta of Israel are left in the race following the elimination of other majors like Selex of Italy and Thales of France. While EADS is showcasing its “X” band technology, Elta specialises in the “L” band technology and is promoting its new generation X band antenna. The radar will also be considered for the SU 30 MKI upgrade and modernisation projects for front line fighters of the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force

It seems that Israeli firm Elta stands a better chance to win this contract since India and Israel have defence interactions based on radar acquisitions in the past. Israel has supplied radars in the past to India as well.

If L1 is adopted then ELTA will wipe the floor with EADS. Lot of Europeans have admitted in the def expo we have visited that israeli are way cheaper in categories they are directly competing and Europeans cannot even hope to match them with 50% discounts

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Jul 2010 05:48

F-35 Engine War Pits P&W vs GE's Fighter Future - Page 84

"We turn off the lights, mothball all the engines we tested, and we shut down our jet fighter engine business" if President Obama vetoes the GE F136 alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, says David Joyce, president and CEO of GE Aviation

What does this mean for the choice of engine for the LCA?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2010 08:08

only a 9 month pregnant Tejas could fit a F136 into its belly.

if GE shuts shop, what of the several hundred F-18s which are using F404 and F414 engines as also the Gripen RM12 engine. I think he was being hyperbolic to drive home his point. likewise arent GE engines in some of the F-15 fleet (said to be more reliable than PW F100) and also in F-16 block60?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jul 2010 08:26

Singha wrote:only a 9 month pregnant Tejas could fit a F136 into its belly.

if GE shuts shop, what of the several hundred F-18s which are using F404 and F414 engines as also the Gripen RM12 engine. I think he was being hyperbolic to drive home his point. likewise arent GE engines in some of the F-15 fleet (said to be more reliable than PW F100) and also in F-16 block60?

Some companies like RUAG will take it up. They are into the after market.

Volvo Air which makes GE engine for gripen, will not be affected.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 08:59

GE will not shut shop. Only the division that deals with that engine will shut shop.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2010 09:12

How can GE engine division shut down they are the biggest players in both Military and Civilian sector ? P&W made a nice comeback with the F-22 and F-35 else most of their engines on F-16 were replaced by GE's F110 and same were used for the newer F-15s for SoKo air force and then SH too is powered by F414s.

I guess this ruckus is due to the fact that DoD is planning to close the tap on funding for F-136 (which is a JV between GE and RR) .

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ngine.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2010 09:13

and most likely all their engineers will be reassigned . would be foolish to let such a bright bunch of experts go.

GE has a vested interest in a doomsday scenario buildup, they want the money that a alternative engine will bring in , and a foot in the long JSF engine lifecycle...tens of billions at stake for sure since 2000+ JSF will get built for local and foreign buyers. all the buyers will be proper AFs who will upkeep their
planes well and buy lots of spare parts for engines.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jul 2010 09:25

Hope fully TATA or HAL buys it and then passes on some tech to India or its safer that TATA's supply the same engine with a production base in India. GoI can underwrite some stuff for them.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jul 2010 09:58

Kakarat wrote:
krishnan wrote:Redesigned http://www.ada.gov.in , the old one looked better, and someone seems to be obsessed with marque tag
They have added a good video of LSP-4 First Flight (63MB)
http://www.ada.gov.in/LSP4.wmv

that's a very good video ! the thing looks like a proper fighter now.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 23 Jul 2010 21:51

Clearly shows the auxiliary intakes.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Jul 2010 22:11

Several interesting points from that lovely video.

1. Metal riveted skin, not composite prefab panels?
2. The "2 intakes" on each side are actually a boundary layer splitter plate and the real intake, hey, not "auxiliary intake"?

3. Interesting takeoff procedure, makes one wonder about the recommended thrust setting and why. See around 3:14. The nose wheel lifts, and the plane leaves the ground, but then the rear wheels seem to settle down again as the craft rotates, before the whole thing lifts again. That would scare the pakistan out of me - is the takeoff thrust so marginal?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jul 2010 22:57

possibly on a first flight they won't stress the aircraft in any way. we have seen much more TFTA take-offs in the past.

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 23 Jul 2010 23:36

Did the front wheel actually lift at 3:14?

It does seem to me that, what seems as the front wheel lifting, is the portion above the wheel which seems to shine when light falls on it, and the appearance is as if there is gap between it and the ground becuase the black wheel is not that clearly visible. The front wheel seems to lift somewhat later in the timeline.

For the record, I have absolutely no knowledge of aircrafts or take-offs etc. So I could be completely wrong in my observation.

Best regards.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jul 2010 01:08

enqyoob wrote:Several interesting points from that lovely video.

1. Metal riveted skin, not composite prefab panels?

nope. its composite panels but riveted to the frame. basically honeycomb sandwich at the center ramping down to a solid laminate into which holes are drilled and it is fastened to the frame.

2. The "2 intakes" on each side are actually a boundary layer splitter plate and the real intake, hey, not "auxiliary intake"?

there is a separate splitter plate and an auxiliary intake on the side of the intake.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 24 Jul 2010 01:30

How effective is the Tejas brake chute ( + shaped) as against a circular one ?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/352 ... -chute.jpg

Su 30 MKI also houses couple of similar brake chutes.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 482854.jpg

Most of the other fighters have circular ones :--
http://img7.abload.de/img/2776aw.jpg

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Jul 2010 06:31

nope. its composite panels but riveted to the frame. basically honeycomb sandwich at the center ramping down to a solid laminate into which holes are drilled and it is fastened to the frame.

Yes. Exactly. Not the most optimal way to use composites. What they seem to have done is replace aluminum skin panels with composite ones.

Maybe to reduce weight, they need to go the full composite single piece fuselage (looks stunning, smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks and no fasteners or anything at all, and big reduction in weight) like the fuselage of Beechcraft Hawker Premier 1, or like the Boeing dreamliner 787. A good way to shave off 500kg or so off the airframe .

What they did with the wing in the Tejas, they need to do to the fuselage as well , maybe in the MKII version.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2010 06:32

enqyoob wrote: 3. Interesting takeoff procedure, makes one wonder about the recommended thrust setting and why. See around 3:14. The nose wheel lifts, and the plane leaves the ground, but then the rear wheels seem to settle down again as the craft rotates, before the whole thing lifts again. That would scare the pakistan out of me - is the takeoff thrust so marginal?

Enqyoob you may be looking at the bumps on the HAL runway that are trying to help any wheeled object get airborne.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Jul 2010 06:55

>>nope. its composite panels but riveted to the frame. basically honeycomb sandwich at the center ramping down to a solid laminate into which holes are drilled and it is fastened to the frame.

Katik,

There was a nice article on LCA's structure and the design of composite panels on the web, specially concentrating on composites. I'm not able find that. Do you have that? TIA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2010 07:30

vina wrote: Maybe to reduce weight, they need to go the full composite single piece fuselage (looks stunning, smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks and no fasteners or anything at all, and big reduction in weight) like the fuselage of Beechcraft Hawker Premier 1, or like the Boeing dreamliner 787. A good way to shave off 500kg or so off the airframe .

What they did with the wing in the Tejas, they need to do to the fuselage as well , maybe in the MKII version.

Unless they take the Prof Prodyut Das route - and make the whole thing in aluminium .

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 24 Jul 2010 07:44

Enqyoob you may be looking at the bumps on the HAL runway that are trying to help any wheeled object get airborne.

Ah! The Runway-Integrated Jump Jet Testing Facility, like on NH-47.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2010 09:34

Avinandan wrote:How effective is the Tejas brake chute ( + shaped) as against a circular one?

The shape hardly matters as long as it does the job of slowing the aircraft down.

I think cross shaped chutes open more easily, are more stable when billowed and are easier to manufacture. (5 squares of fabric as opposed to hajaar triangles.)

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 24 Jul 2010 10:32

Stoopid question. Who makes the canopy for Tejas? Looks good.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 24 Jul 2010 11:37

Move over, Dileep.I have a much stoopider question. How come the canopy when fully open, has a nice I-beam sticking out right above the pilot's helmet? What happens if the ejection button is pressed, to that beam?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2010 17:37

I do not think that I-beam is "right above the pilot's head" - WHEN it is open. It should be right above the hinge at the other end of canopy.

IF seat ejection sequencing is deployed, then the first thing to get knocked of should be the canopy. I would expect that to happen no matter under which/what condition (in flight for sure). So, I would hope (do not know for sure) that it would not be an issue.