LCA News and Discussions

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Aug 2010 00:18

Wickberg wrote:What source do you have that LCA will be "primarily" used for point defence role? If that was to be the case, why was such trouble taken to design lca with high payload and long range? Why was time wasted with ground weapons testing?

What ground testing weapon testing do you talk about? Dropping an iron bomb in level flight? A Cessna could do that...

errrr.....it seems you've been smoking Peshawar's finest........no wonder the hallucinations are showing here on BRF

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Aug 2010 00:50

Wickberg wrote:What source do you have that LCA will be "primarily" used for point defence role? If that was to be the case, why was such trouble taken to design lca with high payload and long range? Why was time wasted with ground weapons testing?

What ground testing weapon testing do you talk about? Dropping an iron bomb in level flight? A Cessna could do that...

Nice attempt at trolling. Yeah, a Cessna can do it. Of course it has all the avionics and release mechanism to drop a bomb accurately at the target. But wait! No it has not. So what did the LCA equivalent of Cessna do at the tests? I'll tell you what. The pilot just opened his canopy in mid air and chucked a lump of iron towards the ground.

The first "3" blocks of Eurofighter did not have ground attack capability. Not even chucking a lump of iron towards the ground type. I guess you considered it even worse than Cessna?

LCA has just recieved a radar and is going for a quick IOC. What is important is that ability to carry out accurate bomb runs with unguided bombs is confirmed. Integration of guided munition will come with time.

And what is this about dropping bomb "in level flight"? I don't know if LCA dropped bombs in level flight or not but I would assume so (considering thats how it is generally done all over the world). Do you carry out bombing runs while performing pugachev's cobra?

rohitvats wrote: errrr.....it seems you've been smoking Peshawar's finest........no wonder the hallucinations are showing here on BRF

Your guess is off the mark here. Wickerberg is not from the sweet paradise of Pakistan. He hails from Sweden. He got particularly pissed when some forum members compared Tejas to Gripen and has been trolling ever since.
Shame really. He was a decent member once.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Aug 2010 02:26

archan wrote:
Telang wrote: Please check your PM inbox.

OK Archan, thank you for the edit.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Aug 2010 08:48

Gaur wrote: IOC is expected to be achieved by the year end so I have really no idea about what you mean by 10 years.
------
What source do you have that LCA will be "primarily" used for point defence role? If that was to be the case, why was such trouble taken to design lca with high payload and long range? Why was time wasted with ground weapons testing?
Consider a situation where India and Pakistan are at war. Initially, India would concentrate on achieving air superiority. Most of PAF fighters would be busy defending their own airspace. Some may try to enter Indian airspace and as per your envisioned role for lca they will be intercepted by Tejas. All this is well and good. But after that? After we have achieved air superiority and there is very little danger of Paf fighters invading Indian air space, would you have all the LCAs grounded on the airbase and the pilots being sent on a vacation to goa? Don't you think that IAF would rather prefer that LCAs be used for strike mission ground support. Believe me, there are never enough a/cs for strike missions. Sorties after sorties are sent with no rest and yet the commanders have to make the difficult choice of choosing which target is to be left for another day and which ground force has to be denied critical air support and left to fend for themselves. Even if we were to have 42 squadrons, these choices would have to be made and considering our current depleted strength, it is ridiculous to think that LCAs would be used for "primarily" for point defence role.
----------------------------------------
5th gen and UCAVs you say? It will take even US some time to have majority of its AF fighters to be 5th gen. And as for UCAVs, no current or in development UCAV can be considered a substitute for a fighter. And this is for US. France, one of the leaders in aerospace, has no stealth fighter program. Sweden has no such program. They are also not part of JSF program and rest of the Europe's ability to buy F-35s in formidable nos remain questionable (given the rising cost of F-35 program. Last I heard, it's projected cost was $380 billion). Russia cannot be expected to field PAK-FA in huge nos any time soon. But the above mentioned Nations are not even our adversaries. Who are our potential adversaries? Pakistan and China. China has just developed a 4th gen fighter with the help of Russia and Isreal. You really think that they would be rolling out 5th gen fighters and super maneuverable stealth UCAVs any time soon?
So, considering our neighborhood, Tejas would remain a useful "multi-role" a/c for a long time to come.

Gaur sir,

Your views are all correct.

In my view, even FOC will not make the plane totally airworthy air operations in a decade. For a new plane, quality and other certifications do not guarantee anything. It's a new plane. All agencies like ADA, HAL and IAF will take a decade to iron it out. A new plane take s time like that to integrate and operational. The IOC you mention is for "familiarizing' the bird. The FOC will lead to measures that will make it operational in a period of time. It took decade before m2K's MiG-29's and Su-30 MKI's to be moved to forward bases.

----------------------------------

First of all PAF fighters will not be "invading." They will be intruding. Secondly point defense means that it will be used to intercept intruding PAF or PLAAF fighters. Run CAPS, etc.

-------------------------------------

I see LCA as last of the sophesticated 4++ gen fighters. World will move on in next decade or so. I do not see LCA continuing production after its requires numbers are fulfilled.

The numbers you quote for 5th gen is right. We would have argued the same when world was switching from 3rd to 5th gen.

There is a little "prophesy" in what am trying to say.

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Aug 2010 08:54

this theory seems more rational...given the no. ordered...that they are seeing more in the direction...which we are objecting , why they are even seeing in the direction, and interpreting...

Sona R · Post by **Sona R** » 29 Aug 2010 09:03

ADA and IAF should concentrate more on MK2 version.
They should select new engine at the earliest and should also they should consider using Russian-RD33 engine along with Eurojet-2000 and GE-F414.
but the stumbling block would be HAL's outdated production technique's which largely resemble's british manufacturing technlogy of 30's and early 40's.
invlovement of private sector in manufacturing lca should be considered as HAL alone cannot met IAF's requirement.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Aug 2010 13:49

chackojoseph,
As far as relevence of LCA in the future goes, as you correctly put it, that is fortune telling. So to each his own view.
However, you have not been able to give convincing argument regarding why LCA is a point defence fighter and will be "primarily" used as such by the IAF. So, there I would have to strongly disagree with you.

Sona R wrote: but the stumbling block would be HAL's outdated production technique's which largely resemble's british manufacturing technlogy of 30's and early 40's.
invlovement of private sector in manufacturing lca should be considered as HAL alone cannot met IAF's requirement.

Yeah..right.

HAL manufactures MKIs from raw materials by using pre WW2 era technology.
As for involvement of private sector, that depends on what level of involvement you desire. If you want private sector to fully manufacture LCAs, then that's not going to happen for a long time. People seem to think of private sector as some magical entity. HAL has decades of experience in aerospace technology while private sector has none. That gap will take a long time to bridge.
On the other hand, private sector can surely help in less dramatic ways in the production of LCA. After all, private companies do provide some components for MKI (like SAMTEL provides MFDs).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Aug 2010 14:14

Gaur wrote:chackojoseph,
As far as relevence of LCA in the future goes, as you correctly put it, that is fortune telling. So to each his own view.
However, you have not been able to give convincing argument regarding why LCA is a point defence fighter and will be "primarily" used as such by the IAF. So, there I would have to strongly disagree with you.

Got it! See, here is my POV.

When I said "primarily," it also means that it has secondary roles. So, humble I

haven't written of other roles. All I said is majority of the case would be point defense. But, if you are asking me that specs wise "is it a point defense" fighter? The my answer is no.

I don't expect it to be in frontline service for next 15 years. Till then the current concepts of 5th gen , UCAV etc will mature. It will be futile to send LCA package to enemy territory with possible (more than 5th gen and ucav) risk to pilot. Hence, in majority of the cases, LCA will do CAP, and point defense roles.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Aug 2010 14:32

Well, I understand your POV as to why LCA will primarily be used in point defence role in the future (15 yrs as you put it). It is based on the assumption that Pakistan and China would be operating 5gen fighters and UCAVs in considerable nos which will make it difficult for LCA to perform strike roles. Again, this comes down to a difference of opinion. Contrary to you, I am of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that Pakistan and China would be operating 5gen fighters & 5gen UCAVs in 15 years. I have already given my views regarding this in in detail in my previous reply to you.
Again, to each his own. But it is good to know the opinions of various people.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Aug 2010 14:39

Your POV is welcome read.

My perspective is from the POV of availability of technology and how things are shaping up in Indian aerospace. If chinese and pakis ain't operating 5th gens, it will be blessing.

However, as I see is that, our tech roadmap is going to follow a trajectory that I mentioned.

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Aug 2010 16:10

However, as I see is that, our tech roadmap is going to follow a trajectory that I mentioned.

exactly...it doesn't matters if target nation might collapse in next 10-15 years, 5th gen is far...our roadmap cant rely on it IMHO

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Aug 2010 19:42

What I am counting on is that we are going to leapfrog technologies given the scale of our defense spending and the nations that might want to collaborate on tech and products and access a captive market. So, 5th gen might be achievable faster than we can do on our own.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Aug 2010 20:42

chackojoseph wrote:
But, if you are asking me that specs wise "is it a point defense" fighter? The my answer is no.

Can you please elaborate as to what specs fall short of point defence role for the LCA?
Then, please remeber, little modifications for specific roles have always been made to all the known fighters. For instance even Wampire had a night fighter version, Canberra had a recce version. Such specific modifications tend to narrow down the role of a fighter making its utility very restrictive. That is probably not the trend these days. LCA can not be ruled out as non-specific for any role that is covered by the word multi-role.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Aug 2010 21:04

Telang wrote: Can you please elaborate as to what specs fall short of point defence role for the LCA?
Then, please remeber, little modifications for specific roles have always been made to all the known fighters. For instance even Wampire had a night fighter version, Cnaberra had a recce version. Such specific modifications tend to narrow down the role of a fighter making its utility very restrictive. That is probably not the trend these days. LCA can not be ruled out as non-specific for any role that is covered by the word multi-role.

You misunderstood, it means that LCA is multi role that includes point defence roles.

I mentioned, no matter what specs it has, its primarly going to be used for point defence roles.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 30 Aug 2010 15:17

What will be different in MK II?

1. More powerful engine
2. AESA (desi or non-desi?)

What else will complete the list and when is it estimated to reach the induction stage?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Aug 2010 03:58

Final Certification Process For Indian LCA Underway

The final certification process for Tejas, India’s Light Combat Aircraft, has begun ahead of its crucial initial operational clearance (IOC), program official P.S. Subramanyam tells AVIATION WEEK.
...
...
“The certification mainly ensures that the user [the Indian Air Force] will be handed over a safe, mature and reliable aircraft with specified performance,” says Subramanyam, who is program director for combat aircraft and director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). “Cemilac has given a clear road map segmenting two major steps—equipment and system certifications. The process was started a month ago.”
...
...
Tamilmani says Tejas has proved itself as a safe platform, and the Cemilac team interacts very closely with the users conducting the airworthiness certification.

“The envelope for IOC is frozen and we are working very closely with the [Indian Air Force] program management team at ADA and with other partners,” Tamilmani adds.

...
...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 10:20

simple question. how does the pilot turn the aeroplane nosewheel while on the ground? is there a separate steering wheel or the control stick goes into ground mode and turns the wheel?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 31 Aug 2010 10:25

Steering is done through the rudder pedals when the aircraft is on ground. At least the commercial airliners do it this way. I do not see any reason to it be any different on the combat aircrafts.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 10:45

What will be different in MK II?
1. More powerful engine
2. AESA (desi or non-desi?)

probably
3. better and more comprehensive EW suite, MAWS, towed decoy
4. a new long range AAM (meteor if we go for ef/rafale/gripen mrca, amraam-D if we go f18/f16)
5. new cockpit avionics sw
6. stronger hardpoints if felt necessary
7. IRST

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 31 Aug 2010 10:51

>>>simple question. how does the pilot turn the aeroplane nosewheel while on the ground? is there a separate steering wheel or the control stick goes into ground mode and turns the wheel?

Breaks on rear wheels are separate/independent. Apply right break - turn to right and vice versa..

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 31 Aug 2010 11:04

Singha wrote:simple question. how does the pilot turn the aeroplane nosewheel while on the ground? is there a separate steering wheel or the control stick goes into ground mode and turns the wheel?

Some commercial jets have a separate steering wheel/tiller. Most smaller airplanes use rudder pedals to steer though.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 31 Aug 2010 11:07

geeth wrote:>>>simple question. how does the pilot turn the aeroplane nosewheel while on the ground? is there a separate steering wheel or the control stick goes into ground mode and turns the wheel?

Breaks on rear wheels are separate/independent. Apply right break - turn to right and vice versa..

Videos show the nose wheel itself turning while steering the plane on ground. I am not aware of any fighter employing differential braking technique to steer on ground. The commercial airliners also have this in big a/cs onlee like 747 etc.

Going OT

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 31 Aug 2010 11:33

Singha wrote:simple question. how does the pilot turn the aeroplane nosewheel while on the ground? is there a separate steering wheel or the control stick goes into ground mode and turns the wheel?

usually there is a small button on the stick that enables nose wheel steering on many aircraft. I am not sure about the LCA but I know for sure that it is there on the harrier.
Some other aircraft only steer by using the rudder (example the cessna 172).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 12:44

so rudder penal turns the nose wheel or brakes the rear wheel?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 31 Aug 2010 13:20

Singha Saar, both rudder pedals if depressed together works as brake otherwise it turns the nosewheel/differential braking. The rudder pedals are used for slight adjustments to nose wheel at high speeds. At slow speeds tiller wheel is the only means to turn the aircraft.

Added later : With tiller wheel the nose wheel can be turned to it's extremes but nosewheel movment is restricted to a narrow band when using rudders (by design).

Cheers....

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 31 Aug 2010 14:33

Correction, the rudder pedal assembly houses both the rudder pedals and brake pedals. If you press the pedal by toe it operates the brakes and if pressed by heel at the bottom it operates the rudder.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... ain/40912/
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... main/40983

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 14:47

thanks..I had wondered how pilots center their a/c during the takeoff run if the initial heading is off by a couple degrees..which would run them off the runway before attaining takeoff speed.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 31 Aug 2010 16:48

Singha wrote:What will be different in MK II?
1. More powerful engine
2. AESA (desi or non-desi?)

probably
3. better and more comprehensive EW suite, MAWS, towed decoy
4. a new long range AAM (meteor if we go for ef/rafale/gripen mrca, amraam-D if we go f18/f16)
5. new cockpit avionics sw
6. stronger hardpoints if felt necessary
7. IRST

Maybe wing redesign and intake redesign?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 31 Aug 2010 20:25

Tejas Mk-2 has already been told will have a larger wingspan then the current Mk-1 , and will also have higher MTOW which literally means it will be able to carry heavier AAM and ASM Payload , along with more Internal Fuel , nothing has been mentioned of Re-design of Air Intakes .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 21:14

a more powerful engine will need bigger intakes.

but how will it carry more internal fuel unless the fuselage is made longer or wing tanks are made bigger...

once the wing and fuselage changes, major series of tests will be needed....we arent saab with decades of exp stretching from tunnans and lansens.

all in all , time to select the engine asap and pull our pants up!

vina · Post by **vina** » 31 Aug 2010 21:36

but how will it carry more internal fuel unless the fuselage is made longer or wing tanks are made bigger...

I think a "hump back" like the Su-30 will be the answer. That is what the Mig 29 did. The reason why the Mig-29K upwards have a much higher fuel fraction is because of the addition of a Su-30 like hump back tank. Check out the pics of Mig-29 A/B vs the Mig 35.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 21:46

a reasonable idea , but the mig29 has its cockpit area raised above the wing level permitting a graceful humpback addition. Tejas is more straight fuselage
I fear it would end up as a hunchback A4 skyhawk
http://www.aerohistorians.org/members/S ... awk_48.jpg

extending the wing in size would be better - would maintain the low wing loading and permit enlarging the tanks without the hunchback virus. even
12" extension on each side should permit considerable extra fuel which it will need for the heavier engine and empty weight.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2010 22:33

the trainer profile would make it look somewhat like gripen. maybe the fuselage can be widened a bit..gripen-ng has two side by side pylons rather than
usual single centerline.
http://www.serve.com/vhold/hellcats/pos ... _front.jpg

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 31 Aug 2010 23:47

Singha wrote:the trainer profile would make it look somewhat like gripen. maybe the fuselage can be widened a bit..gripen-ng has two side by side pylons rather than
usual single centerline.
http://www.serve.com/vhold/hellcats/pos ... _front.jpg

Two pylons between the undercarriage are rather unusual, but it makes sense. In fact this remix http://vimeo.com/12356960 shows even three pylons between the under carriage, one below the fuselage for the drop tank and two directly underneath the air intakes / canards for weapon loading. Future designers make note of this, or even for the Tejas Mk 2. For some reasons, my sixth sense says, canards will not be an overkill for the Tejas. Apart from providing agile manuvre, they help in stabilising C of G if the bulk of fuel is in the rib of the fuselage (which seems to be the case in Gripen). I am not selling this idea, it is just a loud thinking. There have been violent arguments for and against canards in the past, I do not want to reopen the controvercy, so, on my own I am killing the discussion on it. Period.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Sep 2010 08:05

a reasonable idea , but the mig29 has its cockpit area raised above the wing level permitting a graceful humpback addition. Tejas is more straight fuselage

No. no.. We already have an aircraft that can serve as the baseline for such a modification. That is the LCA Trainer /Navy, with the drooped nose. The LCA Navy's fuel front fuel tank (in place of the 2nd pilot in the trainer) can be extended backwards and the pilot seat raised higher giving a bubble canopy as well.

naird · Post by **naird** » 02 Sep 2010 05:37

http://www.ada.gov.in/archives.htm

LCA-Tejas has completed 1417 Test Flights successfully. (26-Aug-10).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-163, PV3-225,LSP1-59,LSP2-155,PV5-17, LSP3-14,LSP4-4)

MMR was integrated on LSP3 and LSP 4 correct ? Yet most of the test flights are being undertaken by PV's and/or LSP 1/2.

Just a bit concerned on the radar front -- with LSP 3 and LSP 4 not being flown regularly.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 02 Sep 2010 07:52

What in the name of....? http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/09/ia ... tejas.html

rad · Post by **rad** » 02 Sep 2010 10:00

LCA air to air weapons

AS the LCA is nearing the IOC phase there is no mention of the weapons ie Air to Air apart from the r-73 , how are we going to match the jf-17 with its amraam type chinese active missile ?. I personaly dont believe that the astra will come in quickly enough , so the only other choice is the derby missile which has already been integrated with the 2032 radar that is flying on the lca . Any other suggestions?The derby is a mature missile missile and crucialy will be more ecm capabale than out astra missile .

rad

naird · Post by **naird** » 02 Sep 2010 11:20

naird wrote:http://www.ada.gov.in/archives.htm

LCA-Tejas has completed 1417 Test Flights successfully. (26-Aug-10).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-163, PV3-225,LSP1-59,LSP2-155,PV5-17, LSP3-14,LSP4-4)

MMR was integrated on LSP3 and LSP 4 correct ? Yet most of the test flights are being undertaken by PV's and/or LSP 1/2.

Just a bit concerned on the radar front -- with LSP 3 and LSP 4 not being flown regularly.

Question to folks out here ---

Will IOC comprise of AtoG testing also ? Or the first target will be only AtoA (Like Typhoon) ?

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 02 Sep 2010 13:12

Have you not heard of the Derby range problem (CAG report of half promised range etc)?
Maybe along with R73 other russian amraamski RVV-AE?

rad wrote:LCA air to air weapons

AS the LCA is nearing the IOC phase there is no mention of the weapons ie Air to Air apart from the r-73 , how are we going to match the jf-17 with its amraam type chinese active missile ?. I personaly dont believe that the astra will come in quickly enough , so the only other choice is the derby missile which has already been integrated with the 2032 radar that is flying on the lca . Any other suggestions?The derby is a mature missile missile and crucialy will be more ecm capabale than out astra missile .

rad