LCA News and Discussions

[Jagan]

Is it the bottom edge of the left side of the canopy?

Yes that is the I beam

But now that my interest has been aroused here i a pic of an F-16 canopy. No I beam. But the transparent part is held by hajaar rivets. What gets blasted off in an ejection? The whole metal frame or something less than that?

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... con_17.jpg

[shiv]

Great picture Jagan. This is a completely crucial event in an ejection.

In the case of the F-16 the canopy is held by two hinges at the back and presumably has some locks to lock it down.

Now in an ejection those locks have to be unlocked and the canopy disengaged from the hinges.

I wonder what the mechanism is. It does not appear that there is a destructive blowing off of anything. It it a system of "explosive driven bolts" - i.e one central blot that is pushed by an explosive opening up all the locks and pulling out the hinges holding the canopy.

I am not an explosives expert - but I would have thought that having all this done in one action by one explosive charge would be more reliable than multiple explosives doing multiple things.

[Jagan]

shiv, ther are a couple of videos out there on this event . It does look like there are an explosive charge/s that throws the canopy clear.

[shiv]

Jagan there has to be an explosive charge - but my doubt is more technical. Do they use charges to blow individual bolts away or just one charge that blows or moves a single central bolt to release the canopy. Just curious.

[enqyoob]

An IED-Mubarak near the pilot's ears, powerful enough to blast anything out against a dynamic pressure at say Mach 0.8 at sea level, would of course make the rest of the ejection sequence quite superfluous... (just pointing out).

[hnair]

[Raja Bose]

enqyoob saar, do you speak the same way while practicing your profession too?

[geeth]

>>>I wonder what the mechanism is. It does not appear that there is a destructive blowing off of anything. It it a system of "explosive driven bolts" - i.e one central blot that is pushed by an explosive opening up all the locks and pulling out the hinges holding the canopy.

FYI, if you haven't already read it....

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/sep/24pune.htm

After nearly 40 test trials, Martin Baker AIC Co, London, arguably the top organisation in the world to certify the safety pilot ejection system, has certified commercial production of canopy severance system. The sophisticated system is technologically so advanced that it requires mere milliseconds to eject the pilot to safety in case of a crash.

"While in the conventional system, the entire canopy flies off and can result in an injury to the pilot, in the newly indigenously developed system, only a certain portion of the canopy which is line-charged, gets severed. This absolutely minimises injury to the pilot," scientist Dr Sudharshan Kumar Salwan, director, ARDE, said

He stressed that no aircraft in the world had this kind of live system which could be operated from outside the aircraft, especially when the pilot was unconscious due to some injuries or in the event of crash-landing.

According to scientist Dr K S Rajgopal, head of the weapons system, ARDE, the Canopy Severance System could be operated by an external initiator.

"The initiator generates a detonation wave which is transmitted in a totally contained manner to a line charger pasted along the canopy and thus cutting it peripherally. This helps in rescuing the pilot," he explained.

Salwan said after the new system was tested at Martin Bakers, UK, recently, it had been approved for use in the LCA. Two LCAs fitted with the system were already in operation for the Indian Army, he disclosed, adding that army authorities were satisfied with its functional operation.

Pointing out that the minimum time in the range of milliseconds should be used in saving the pilot in distress, he pointed out that while the conventional ejection system was 95 per cent successful, the new system would take it to 99.9 per cent.

Salwan said the system was fitted with sophisticated sensors to achieve the expected results as successfully demonstrated in the UK. He said the army chief, General Ved Prakash Malik, during his recent visit to the ARDE was fully satisfied with the new system.

With the green signal obtained from the Defence Research and Development Organisation, which sets the target and supervises the working of ARDE and 40 other armament group of labs servicing the Army, Navy and Air Force, commercial production of the new canopy system for the use of the Indian armed forces will commence shortly, Salwan said.

Asked if it will also be sold in the international market, he said after meeting the requirements of the Indian armed forces, its business potential in the world market will be considered.

In another achievement, the ARDE has also successfully developed an 'air launch rescue' system, christened "Rakshak" (Saviour) for rescuing marooned sailors. After successful field trials at sea, this system has been approved and accepted by the Indian Navy.

[ArmenT]

shiv saar: Some aircraft (e.g. Harrier, Tornado) have an explosive cord going around the canopy, some others have explosive bolts. Discovery Channel had a program on the Harrier some time back and IIRC they mentioned that harrier went with explosive cord instead of explosive bolts because they wanted the canopy to get out of the way even if it is in hover mode. With explosive bolts, they depend on the speed of the wind rushing past the aircraft to blow the canopy clear. With the explosive cord, a fair amount of the canopy shatters I think. If you look at a pic of the Harrier's canopy, you may be able to see a squiggly line making a loop at the top of the canopy. That is the explosive cord. It is a shaped charge and directs its explosion to the outside. You can clearly see the squiggly explosive cord loop at the top of the canopy here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- ... canopy.php

Some seats also have sharp spikes on top as backup to break through the canopy, in case the explosive didn't shatter the canopy the first time.

[edit]From Geeth's post above, sounds like LCA also uses explosive cord.[/edit]

[shiv]

> Two LCAs fitted with the system were already in operation for the Indian Army, he disclosed, adding that army authorities were satisfied with its functional operation.

[rohitvats]

Shhhh....those are with secret IA ground-attack squadron...which are AHQ strategic reserve....so secret infact, that the IAF also does not know about them.....

[enqyoob]

Interesting that a September 1998 article should mention an "LCA" operational with the Army. I think they mean that the external ejection seat operation mechanism was operational with the Army, tuned to the frequency of the JF-17 Bandars.

I thought the "Ibeam" if it was real, was the part of the seat to ensure that the canopy was pushed out of the way during ejection and provide an antenna to receive live cricket commentary during the descent. Well.. so much for that idea.

[Raja Bose]

I thought all these zerrow-zerrow high-funda ejection seats have a canopy penetrator in TFTA ghazi tradition in case canopy is coy and resistant to initial GUBO advances and IED mubaraks?

[Sid]

http://idrw.org/?p=2708

Tejas Pv-1 waits for Kaveri Integration

By Editor at 27 July, 2010, 1:34 am

BY: Vinayak shetty

In a busy Hangar in Hal complex a lone Tejas Pv-1 in the corner of the Hanger waits for Integration with the Kaveri engine , mating should have taken place a decade ago but delays in kaveri engine by GTRE only delayed the whole event , this also shows how off track whole Kaveri engine Project really is .

PV-1 has been pulled out of the current rigorous Tejas Test program since it no longer has all the new avionics equipments and its subsystems , nor does it has weapons integrated to carry out weapons testing ,but it will not join the fate of TD-1 and TD-2 where both have been dismantled and usable parts already been removed from the aircraft and waits it last resting place neither in a museum or a IAF Base .

Efforts are on to integrate Kaveri engine to its airframe , PV-1 is the only aircraft which was designed keeping Kaveri engine in mind , but it flew with American Ge engine , it still needs a lot of rework on its fuel lines and also on plumping systems ,so does LRU in the aircraft, Tejas LSP aircrafts have gone lot of changes recently to match LSP , PV-1 will also require number of changes to its mission computer and software .

Sources close to www.lca-tejas.org have told us that PV-1 up gradation and rework may delay the whole integration of Kaveri engine , HAL engineers are also working on possibility of integrating it with Tejas LSP-1 which is a newer airframe and has better equipment on-board then Pv-1 .

Which aircraft will take the honor will be decided soon and Kaveri engine will fly on board a Tejas Air frame by early 2011 or some time later in the year

Note: Vinayak shetty is admin of www.lca-tejas.org had also has his own blog at http://pointblank.lca-tejas.org/

[ramana]

In geeth's post above

"The initiator generates a detonation wave which is transmitted in a totally contained manner to a line charger pasted along the canopy and thus cutting it peripherally. This helps in rescuing the pilot," he explained.

The initiator is an electro-ordnance device. It transfers the electrical signal into a shock wave which is transmitted to a line charge aka cutting charge. Most likely this is also a contained charge to prevent fratricide ie release of shrapnel to preclude the very effect enqyoob was referring to.

ArmenT, Explosive cord aka det cord is a very shocky energy transfer device. It needs brittle or frangible material to be effective. Its old technology.

[Rahul M]

^^ older hawks had the explosive cord but newer ones, like ours for example, don't.

[vina]

It needs brittle or frangible material to be effective. Its old technology

Art thou material science Mujahid saar?

[vina]

Anyways.. Cross posting ..

I remember Vishnu Som report on Mig-29K with RD-33MK engine , it did smoke for some time and Vishnu attributed it to the cold atmospheric condition and not a problem with the engine.

If Vishnu Som said that, you should ask him to look up the average temperatures in the atmoshphere at altitude at 8000 to 10000 metres and write the following 100 times.

"If the engines of other planes don't smoke because of cold, I must be an idiot to say that the Mig-29 engines smoke because of cold".

The reasons are pretty simple. The older Mig 29 engines had a pretty poor combustor design and ran a much richer mixture (low TET temp ?) leaving unburnt carbon in the exhaust which shows up as smoke.

Frankly, if Vishnu actually said that, it is pretty disappointing. In fact look at the recent "gem" from Shukla in his article on the IJT spin tests and the LCA spin tests.

Shukla went off the deep end in that article. Way beyond his depth. He cant recognize stuff even if someone hits him on the face with a wet undie and tells him so. Re - IJT spin tests , he looks at the strakes on the nose and the ventral strakes below the engine and calls them as "anti spin" devices, when in reality, the strake on the nose is a vortex generator (exactly the same functions as LERX) and the ventral strakes are to shed tip vortices and improve damping in roll to give better yaw control in high Angles of Attack. Together they give greater stability in high AoA . How it becomes "anti spin" (that is the function of the parachute in anti spin testing) boggles my imagination.

An even bigger blooper in that LCA flight testing "thriller" in the same paragraph was about a Emergency Power System powered by "Hydrogen" "kicking in " in "milliseconds" to provide electrical and hydraulic power. Problem is, yes, Honeywell makes them alright, but they are not driven by "Hydrogen" but by "Hydrazine". Obviously, Shukla's "source" (the same one who put "anti spin" devices on the IJT I assume) could have made out the difference between Hydrogen and Hydrazine if this life depended on it . Thank goodness, his beer buddies are not the guys fueling the emergency power systems. Otherwise, it is goners for sure for the pilot in case something goes wrong.

Someone quick, email Shukla a copy of a link to a high school chemistry text book and tell him that Hydrogen is H2 while Hydrazine is H2N-NH2 !

[Singha]

doesnt explain why M2K of same vintage as Mig29A we have doesnt emit the same amt of smoke.
this is assuming IAF uses the same grade of aviation fuel for all.

[enqyoob]

Do the French engines have the same bypass ratio as the Russian ones, or higher? And do both use afterburners for takeoff regularly?

Are people mistaking vapor condensation (white "smoke") for smoke containing soot particles (which may also serve as condensation nuclei)?

[chetak]

doesnt explain why M2K of same vintage as Mig29A we have doesnt emit the same amt of smoke.
this is assuming IAF uses the same grade of aviation fuel for all.

Singha Saar,

the MiG 29K uses imported ATF K60. Something to do with engine guarantees.

The M2K uses the normal ATF K50.

That said, Russian engines have traditionally been more "dirty", leaving an exhaust trail that sometimes can be spotted miles and miles away.

Reminds me of a IN pilot who actually asked over RT if a passing AN 12 was burning coal!!!

[Dmurphy]

doesnt explain why M2K of same vintage as Mig29A we have doesnt emit the same amt of smoke.
this is assuming IAF uses the same grade of aviation fuel for all.

Singha Saar,

the MiG 29K uses imported ATF K60. Something to do with engine guarantees.

The M2K uses the normal ATF K50.

That said, Russian engines have traditionally been more "dirty", leaving an exhaust trail that sometimes can be spotted miles and miles away.

Reminds me of a IN pilot who actually asked over RT if a passing AN 12 was burning coal!!!

If the MiG manufacturers are insisting on ATF K60 it definitely must be a notch higher in grade as compared to the K50. Which means the RD-93 emits smoke even when burning a higher grade fuel!

[prastor]

Here, the year of "availability" mentioned in the table is for the specific block/tranche/mark/upgrade and not the base aircraft and are merely predictions (in case of future dates).

Tejas Mk2 is assumed to have the GE F414 engine. The other options are the GE F414 Enhanced Performance Engine or the EJ200 Thrust Vectored Engine. In any of the cases, the basic performance characteristics are expected to be similar.

I am amazed at the lack of AESA research in China. Am I in the dark about any such R&D there?

And, from my lay-man's analysis of the raw data, I feel that LCA Tejas Mk2 will kick J-10s ass, but might have a tough time with an F-16 Block 60+. But again, F-16s have horrendous combat radius as compared to Tejas. That is a huge disadvantage in war.

Any feedback toward updating the table will be much appreciated

[chetak]

You can clearly see the squiggly explosive cord loop at the top of the canopy here:

This is called pyro cord.


[/quote]Some seats also have sharp spikes on top as backup to break through the canopy, in case the explosive didn't shatter the canopy the first time.[/quote]

These "spikes" are called canopy piercers. Prime example can be seen in the Kiran ejection seat, Martin Baker H4HA.

[chetak]

Singha Saar,

the MiG 29K uses imported ATF K60. Something to do with engine guarantees.

The M2K uses the normal ATF K50.

That said, Russian engines have traditionally been more "dirty", leaving an exhaust trail that sometimes can be spotted miles and miles away.

Reminds me of a IN pilot who actually asked over RT if a passing AN 12 was burning coal!!!

If the MiG manufacturers are insisting on ATF K60 it definitely must be a notch higher in grade as compared to the K50. Which means the RD-93 emits smoke even when burning a higher grade fuel!

Murphy saar,

K50, K60 are some freezing point parameters as I dimly recall.

[negi]

Chetak saar Mig29K is for carrier based ops perhaps that is what governs the fuel choice else the Mig29 can very well run on ATF K50 (50 and 60 iirc correspond to the flash point) ,afaik Tu-142 and Il-38 in IN too run on ATF K50 , SHar however runs on some JP-4/5 blend.

[chetak]

Chetak saar Mig29K is for carrier based ops perhaps that is what governs the fuel choice else the Mig29 can very well run on ATF K50 (50 and 60 iirc correspond to the flash point) ,afaik Tu-142 and Il-38 in IN too run on ATF K50 , SHar however runs on some JP-4/5 blend.

Even the IAF MiGs run on K60 only.

SHAR, Tu-i42 and Il 38 run easily on K50 without restrictions.

[archan]

Anyways.. Cross posting ..

Listen vina,
You can make your points, agree/disagree without making fun of someone's name. It is disappointing coming from a senior user like you. This time I am only editing it out.

[ramana]

It needs brittle or frangible material to be effective. Its old technology

Art thou material science Mujahid saar?

No.

[prastor]

How does the LCA Mk1 compare to the F-16C/D Block 50/52?

Is there an official source for information on the basic specifications of the F-16C/D the PAF would be getting? I mean, things like the engine specs, range, weapons, ECM/Radar and improvements over previous blocks.

Thank you in advance for any useful information.

[rad]

Miissles for the LCA

We just recently lost the critical advantage that we had all these years with the supply of AMRAAMs C-5 version to pakistan which is better in all aspects than the basic models in all spheres. Personaly I dont think the aa-12 is equal to it in ECM and other critcal electronic parameters.
That being the case we need something that is more longer ranged and equal in sophisticaton
It would also not be fair to ask and expect the DRDO to give us a missile equal or better than the latest amraam , its only wishful thinking .
That being the case i would suggest that we ask israel to modify the Barak NG which is a 70 km SAM to an air to air missile .It would not be a problem as the all the subsystems would be the same especially the active radar seeker which is the most costliest part of the missile costing nearly 65% of the mislle and the data link etc The only thing that would probably change is the aerodynamic layout . In that we could easily get a modern missile with a range of 150 km enough to take on the amraam and the meteor . Of course it would be heavy , but so what we can stand away and kill the F_16 before it has come wihtin range of amraam launch parameters. It is usualy agreed that they will launch at around 40 km it was less than that for the basic model of the amraam . We can achieve launch parameters at double that range . That would mean coupling the missile with a longrange AESA radar and the ELTA 2052 comes in handy. There would be a dramatic increase in the F-pole and no escape zone of the missile . Recent publications show that the Barak NG is around 250 KGs , we can have 2 on the lca in the middle pylons , that should not be a problem . The launcher may be another 50 to 100 kg .
We could ask them to fit the python-5 IIR seeker and have a longrange silent attack miisile . I personal prefer long range IIR missile to active ones as once the active seeker lights up the whoile world will know about its presence. We should also collaborate with them in QWIP( quantum well ) iir seekers which are a magnititude more sensitive than the present IIR seekers,
I request other forum members to high light the problems that we may come across by converting a SAM to an AA missile . It would be nice if some one can visualize the concept and make a picture out of it

Kartik your take on it please.


rad

[shiv]

We just recently lost the critical advantage that we had all these years with the supply of AMRAAMs C-5 version to pakistan which is better in all aspects than the basic models in all spheres. Personaly I dont think the aa-12 is equal to it in ECM and other critcal electronic parameters.

That being the case we need something that is more longer ranged and equal in sophisticaton

Rad please let me ask you a question. I agree that the AMRAAM C-5 is a big threat. But how will a similar missile help the IAF protect against AMRAAMs? Surely countermeasures against the AMRAAM would be a better idea. Surely the answer to a sword is not a sword but a shield?

[nrshah]

It would also not be fair to ask and expect the DRDO to give us a missile equal or better than the latest amraam , its only wishful thinking .

Depends upon what time frame you are looking for... If it is intended to be a general remark irrespective of time frame, than I am sorry but i will have to agree with you - WISHFUL THINKING.....

[rad]

Shiv i would tend to partly agree with you , of course ECM would also be the option but you should remember that given its sophistication no body knows wether the later amraams can be decoyed or deflected by EW .That would be tricky ,as being unsuccesful would mean death. I am sure that Israel would have some thing for us in that direction as they are surrounded by hostile nations having the same amraam missile , the latest is turkey, trust a secular muslim country!!
They would have an answer for the amraam , more over the EW equipmnet that is supplied by US to other nations on its fighters do not or will not jam amraam missiles as they are programmed to do so . Their EW digital memory will not hold the signature of the amraam radar wave form.
I am not also saying that the amraam cannot be jammed , that would be wrong as there is no miissile that cannot be jammed , the catching up game will go on for ever. It is also know that the amraam has an overated PK becasue they have been never used against a sophisticated enemy , they have only shot down iraqi migs , maybe serb ac etc with liltle or no serious EW capability .
Saying this i would also like to recollect that i was speaking to a salesman in the italian stall in aero 2007 where he was in charge of EW ,
Ellectonica if i am right, there were various EW pods about and they were trying to sell it to be fitted on the MIG-29 . He was very clear and confident that their EW equipment could easily handle the AMRAAM, the antenna were phased array design which i noticed . Their pods are installed on the eurofighter typhoon on the wing tips as we see it . That would also mean that they employ crosseye jamming which are effective against active seekers.
My idea is that once the enemy knows that we have a longer range missile it will psychological make them hesitant and stop them from doing something jiongoistic like Musharaff did .
It would also be very useful to take out fighters ,awacs , tankers with large signatures from a standoff distance rather than fight within the missile range of the enemy.
I blame the ruling part at the center when the kargil war was on for not being bold or intelligent enough to use the airforce to cross the LOC and take out their F_16s as they would not have stood a chance against the long range matra 530 d or the the aa-12 which we could have at that time . Moreover the f-16 were grounded for lack of spare parts and one of the reasons that the F-16 dint fly too much towadrs the end of the war was due to lack of spare parts.We always loose out becasue of these bloody politicians .

rad

[chetak]

Sunday, July 11, 2010
LCA (Navy) Programme Director's Speech On NP-1 Roll-out Day
The following is the full text of the speech that was delivered by LCA-Navy programme director COMMODORE CD BALAJI on 06 July 2010 at the roll-out ceremony of the aircraft's first prototype, NP-1.

In 2003, based on the progress made on the Air Force LCA Programme the Govt approved Phase-1 development of 2 LCA Navy Prototypes that would operate from an aircraft carrier with the concept of Ski-jump Take-off and Arrested Recovery (STOBAR). Navy actively supported this Challenging programme to design, develop, build and flight test a carrier borne aircraft for the first time in the country. The two prototypes under development would be used to demonstrate that the aircraft is capable of operating from a ship, i.e., carrier compatible.

The question often asked is ‘what are the changes in LCA(Navy) in comparison to the Air Force version?’ Typically the aircraft will get airborne in about 200m over the ski-jump on the ship as against a land based take-off run of about 800m. Landing on the ship is with an arrester hook on the aircraft engaging an arrester wire on the ship and the aircraft stops in 90m which is about 1/10th land based stopping distance.

Unlike shore based take-off and landing applications, typical ship borne requirements imposes large loads on the aircraft structure which entails new design. Also, the nose section of the aircraft is drooped down in order to have better pilot vision for ship landing. Whilst the external aerodynamic shape of the aircraft is same as the Air Force Trainer, the internal structure is entirely different due to larger loads resulting from carrier operations. However, all Mechanical, Avionics and Flight Control system layout are by and large common with the Air Force version. The design of LCA(Navy) has been performed in a 3Dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) concurrent engineering environment. A Digital Mock Up (DMU) of the aircraft was ultimately created which had all the internal equipment laid out. This helped in visualising possible areas of clash with various system groups and the structural interfaces due a possibility of ‘virtual walk through’. No physical mock up has been built. Due to first time design, there could be additional reserve factors taken as a conservative measure, but would be optimised based on experience in the future prototypes. This would result in significant weight savings.

Areas identified as challenges over and above the Air Force Version were structural design, Landing gear design, arrester hook, introduction of a new control surface (LEVCON) and ski-jump take-off. A case in point for Naval specific activities was the development of large sized landing gear forgings. Midhani had to develop the special tooling and processes and provide the special steel forgings. In addition, Bharat Forge, Pune provided the near shaped forgings of the major landing gear elements. These have been fabricated at private companies at Hyderabad and landing gears have been assembled at HAL (Nasik). Some of the typical challenges encountered during the development cycle, resulted in them taking longer than anticipated. However, today these have been resolved and we all await the aircraft’s rollout in the presence of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri and the Chief of the Naval Staff.

In its primary role of Air to Air combat, the aircraft will carry both Close Combat Missiles (CCM) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Missiles. In its Air to Sea role, the aircraft will carry Anti Ship Missile (ASM). The aircraft can carry external fuel drop tanks to increase range and endurance. The aircraft can carry a wide variety of bombs based on role requirement.

To meet specific Naval testing, new test facilities have and are being developed. A new landing gear drop test facility has been created to handle testing to Naval requirements for qualifying larger landing gear loads. A hardware-in-loop simulation for flight control system testing called ‘Iron-bird’ has been set up and functioning. In this facility, entire hydraulics, flight control system and avionics would be integrated for the evaluation of the software. The Avionics and Weapon test rigs have been suitably modified to test the changes in system layout and architecture required for the Naval version. Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery is being set up at the Naval Air Station at Goa. The ski-jump facility is expected to be ready by the last quarter of 2011 and the landing area a year later. Goa Shipyard Ltd is handling the complete structural work, system integration and operations. R&D Engineers and CCE(R&D) west Pune are handling the civil works. Specialised equipment supply is from Russia in order to have the same configuration as on the Vikramaditya.

It is critical to demonstrate carrier compatibility to infuse confidence in the Indian Navy that we indeed have a Carrier borne aircraft and towards that it is critical to demonstrate ski-jump take off and validate the simulations that have been carried out by the control Law team. Navy has defined the Mission and Performance requirements expected of the aircraft. As mentioned earlier, due to first time design, there may be shortfall in certain parameters with the current engine. Two more LCA(Navy) prototypes has been sanctioned by the Govt in Dec 2009 with a higher thrust engine to enable meeting the Mission objectives set out by the Navy.

The act of ‘Rollout’ is a significant milestone in the development process of an aircraft wherein it is structurally complete, equipment installed, plumbing and wiring completed. The aircraft is on its wheels and can be moved by assisted power and is a precursor to the phase of ground based system integration testing leading the engine ground run, taxi tests and flight. Every effort is being made by all the stake holders to have the maiden flight in 3 to 4 months time.

This day of NP1 rollout has been possible with the active involvement of HAL as the Principal Partner of ADA and support by DRDO, CSIR labs, CEMILAC, DGAQA, Public and Private sector industries, Educational Institutions and a host of other agencies. I wish to salute all of those who have contributed as a composite LCA Navy Team in realising this important milestone and look forward to the same spirit to take the aircraft towards its maiden flight at the earliest.

[suryag]

Okie August is here and the wait for lsp-5 begins. Since lsp-5 is the final configuration and lsp6 and 7 would be identical to 5 this is the most awaited event for the rest of the year.

[pralay]

http://idrw.org/?p=155

LSP-5 gears up for first flight

By admin at 3 August, 2010, 2:57 pm

BY: Vinayak shetty

ADA and HAL is all geared up to conduct first flight of LSP-5 and as per source ,ground runs are been carried out and first flight is expected by mid or second last week of this month , LSP-5 will be carrying new layout of the cockpit as per suggestions from the pilots who have been flying them and it also will be carrying Radio aid which will be used for Weapons Testing.

LSP-5 will have all integrated sensors that includes having night lighting within the cockpit, and an auto-pilot , this will be third LSP Tejas to be rolled out of HAL Complex this year , in April this year LSP-3 with MMR radar was rolled out making it first Tejas to have an on-board radar .

HAL is also working to complete LSP-6 and have its first flight by end of this year LSP-6 will be used to further explore Angle of Attack (AOA) and also do minor improvements to its airframe , as per unconfirmed information provided by source to http://www.lca-tejas.org LSP-6 will also be a Test bed aircraft to incorporate newer avionics and other subsystems which will be developed for Tejas Mk-2 ,we have to still verify this claim from multiple sources .

[karan_mc]

when are we going to see some cad images of Tejas Mk-2 ?

[nachiket]

We just recently lost the critical advantage that we had all these years with the supply of AMRAAMs C-5 version to pakistan which is better in all aspects than the basic models in all spheres. Personaly I dont think the aa-12 is equal to it in ECM and other critcal electronic parameters.

That being the case we need something that is more longer ranged and equal in sophisticaton

Rad please let me ask you a question. I agree that the AMRAAM C-5 is a big threat. But how will a similar missile help the IAF protect against AMRAAMs? Surely countermeasures against the AMRAAM would be a better idea. Surely the answer to a sword is not a sword but a shield?

Shiv saar, in this case the "shield" can never be guaranteed to block the "sword" in every case. having a longer (or atleast same length) "sword" to strike first along with the shield is a necessity.

[shiv]

Shiv saar, in this case the "shield" can never be guaranteed to block the "sword" in every case. having a longer (or atleast same length) "sword" to strike first along with the shield is a necessity.

Correct we need both. But if we need both sword and shield why does everyone only mention one (the sword) as was done by the original questioner? This happens time and again on most jingo type forum discussions.

The answer to AMRAAM is not another AMRAAM. The answer to AMRAAM is countermeasures to Paki AMRAAM plus AMRAAM type sword in our hands. This is what I have been trying to say.

I worry that people always think of the sword as counter but never think of the shield. That is a mistake.