LCA News and Discussions

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Nov 2010 23:04

Any mockup model of HTT-40 ?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 Nov 2010 20:09

State Agency Busy, Private Industry To Build Composites For Production LCA Tejas
LiveFist

With series production of the Tejas MK-1 to begin shortly to service an order for 20 (+20) aircraft for the Indian Air Force's inaugural LCA squadron, the Tata Group will, fortuitously enough, build the aircraft's most complex composite parts, giving the production series of the aircraft a decidedly more substantial private sector component that originally planned. The decision to rope in Tata's Advanced Materials Ltd (TAML) to build 20 sets of composites for the first 20 Tejas MK-1 jets was taken after India's state-owned National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) first accepted the task, despite being a strictly design and development agency, and then said its hands were full ("oh and hey, we're not a production agency") with reviving the Saras (more on that later) and other civil airplane programmes. Tata will produce 13 major composite parts for each of the 20 Tejas MK-1 fighters. These include parts in the centre fuselage, undercarriage doors, fin and rudder.

nits · Post by **nits** » 16 Nov 2010 22:30

Artist Impression - Chrome LCA Tejas!

Copyright - Abhishek Kaushal - CLICK

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Nov 2010 06:40

http://img580.imageshack.us/f/78095588.jpg/
Take off clean weight is 21,583 lbs.

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Nov 2010 11:11

SaiK wrote:http://img580.imageshack.us/f/78095588.jpg/
Take off clean weight is 21,583 lbs.

If the clean take off weight is 9790 i.e. around 9800kg then it means that empty weight is around 7500kg

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Nov 2010 12:59

internal fuel alone would weigh about that much (9800 - 7500 = 2300 kg). the pilot and his equipment, the 220 odd rounds of 23mm ammo, missile pylons etc all add up to the weight. empty weight should be between 6500 and 7000 kg.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 17 Nov 2010 14:43

kuldipchager wrote:Marut 2000 will be nice.HF 2000 is agood as well.

Why not HF-2010 as it is getting IOC in 2010.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2010 20:00

Aren't any of you seeing any activity?

Tracking the Tejas: Weather holds back LSP-5 flight again today.

If it would have flown today, it would have been a nice Id gift. I feel grateful to the men and women who are sacrificing their national holidays to get the LCA out there. They have to roll out LSP-7 and LSP-8 within a couple of weeks. I think they would be able to.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2010 20:04

there was no flight from HAL apt anytime today unless they secretly took off during my afternoon siesta.

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Nov 2010 20:28

Rahul M wrote:internal fuel alone would weigh about that much (9800 - 7500 = 2300 kg). the pilot and his equipment, the 220 odd rounds of 23mm ammo, missile pylons etc all add up to the weight. empty weight should be between 6500 and 7000 kg.

Clean take off weight 9800 kg

Fuel max internal 2300kg

pylons- "clean" will not have pylons ?? but even we push it then 300kg

Pilot 65-70kg plus his equipemnt 10-25kg=90 to 100kg

Gun plus ammo 100-150kg but clean should not have ammo

So 9800kg-2300kg-100kg=7400kg but if we push it 7400kg-400kg=7000kg.

I think that there was lot of controversy when Ajai Shukla said 10,500 kg for LCA + pilot+fuel + 6 pylons + gun ammo + 2 WVRs

Which means that 10500-100-2300-300-150-210=7440 or thereabouts. This weight also explains why we need 90-100kn engine while Gripen with weight of 6800kg is ok with 80kn.

Even an old Hindu article talked about 2 tons extra weight

If IAF version is 7500kg then Naval would be 7500kg plus around planned 500 plus unplanned 400kg = 8400kg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2010 20:47

how come a bigger gripen with less composite and same engine weight less ? more (thinner) finesse in design of airframe ribs?

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Nov 2010 22:16

LCA has much larger wing area

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Nov 2010 23:24

vic, it's a badly made poster, not the first time either. it's not take-off clean but loaded weight, that does include all the pylons and ammo.

Singha wrote:how come a bigger gripen with less composite and same engine weight less ? more (thinner) finesse in design of airframe ribs?

it doesn't weigh less. wiki figures are wrong.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Nov 2010 23:40

The LCA MK1 empty weight is ~6.5 T not 7.5.

PS Subramanyam, October 2010

"When you consider the amount of features and functionality given in the Tejas, we feel the weight is reasonable. We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne."

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Nov 2010 02:37

Tejas induction may overshoot deadline

The Indian Air Force would have to wait for another 10 months or a year for the induction of indigenously developed light combat aircraft Tejas, it has been learnt. While earlier the aircraft was slated to be inducted into the IAF by March 2011, now even the clearance to operationally fly the fighter may not be available by this period.
...
...
A meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence was held yesterday and the members were informed that the LCA (Tejas) was approaching the initial operational clearance scheduled for December, but the final operational clearance — after which it would be inducted into the IAF — may only be possible by next year-end, the sources said.
...
...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2010 03:05

Is this a new way to advertise delays? So whats the deal here?

Whats the meaning of IOC and FOC if it gets twisted like this?

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 18 Nov 2010 03:34

Indian Government and its organizations should get out of the business of high-end technological applications like LCA and hand them over to competent private organizations.

This news item was frustrating to say the least.

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=13791

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2010 03:57

^^

Whats the confusion? Some reporter cannot make out the difference between IOC and FOC and makes a hue and cry about a std parliamentary reply and out comes the complaining since you are similarly unaware?

IOC was always due December 2010 - the report says thats on track. The FOC was to follow thereafter, estimates said 12-24 months after IOC, but the report above says 12 months which is in the ballpark, and indicates the reports about concentrating on test points versus flight hours, to accelerate testing, were correct. EADS was also hired for this.

A few pages back there were complaints about FOC being 2014-ish, thanks to additions of all sorts of stuff, new CCM, BVR, extra weapons, IFR, and other stuff. The above report stating 2012, for a pared down FOC in all probability, is actually positive.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 18 Nov 2010 06:42

putnanja wrote:Tejas induction may overshoot deadline

Very bad news, if true.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2010 07:23

VinodTK wrote:
putnanja wrote:Tejas induction may overshoot deadline
Very bad news, if true.

In my view this is not bad news. It is old news. What is bad news is the plan to build AMCA aor FGFA with all those fancy technologies that WE DO NOT HAVE without having a back-up plan to build a 3 plus gen aircraft that is completely sanctions free and can be produced at short notice by India in large numbers.

It appears that we Indians as a nation just don't get it. We try for the moon when our capability exists but is far lower. And we lament the unattainability of the moon without trying hard enough for what is attainable. The LCA is rapidly being made into a technological curiosity. I have myself seen (even here on this forum) the statement that the LCA was meant to be only a tech demonstrator. If that is the case why should anyone be sad? We need to be sad only about operational capability and dependence on imports and we as nation are kicking and screaming and demanding another 40-50 years of foreign dependence by planning things that we cannot do like FGFA and AMCA. Balls to the LCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Nov 2010 07:56

The reporter is confused, that's all. Its as simple as that.

the FOC was even earlier meant to only come in 2012 end. The IAF will receive its first Tejas Mk1 fighters in the IOC configuration in March 2011 and that is what IOC is meant for-> to induct the first batch with limited capabilities till the FOC capabilities are developed, tested and certified.

It doesn't make any sense that the IAF will only induct Tejas Mk1 fighters when they achieve FOC.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 18 Nov 2010 08:12

It appears that we Indians as a nation just don't get it. We try for the moon when our capability exists but is far lower. And we lament the unattainability of the moon without trying hard enough for what is attainable. The LCA is rapidly being made into a technological curiosity. I have myself seen (even here on this forum) the statement that the LCA was meant to be only a tech demonstrator. If that is the case why should anyone be sad? We need to be sad only about operational capability and dependence on imports and we as nation are kicking and screaming and demanding another 40-50 years of foreign dependence by planning things that we cannot do like FGFA and AMCA. Balls to the LCA.

India have another 10-12 years for inducting AMCA because PAKFA/FGFA will arrive only in 2015-18 if Local made technologies incorporated in to FGFA and can be tested and fine tuned by that time India will induct AMCA further Indian will also work on heavier Tejas Mk3 or Mk4 for replace Migs, Jags & MRCAs. New technologies can also be incorporated into the Tejas by that time.

I am sure if they start now they will reach some where near to that concept by 2020.

Isn't AMCA of 20-25 ton Category fighter ? if so then Tejas Mk3/Mk4 will be 10-12 ton category making air force of 2 type fighters (Medium & Heavy)

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Nov 2010 08:21

These delays are completely irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. It is not as if a war ready LCA is hampering the next bombing run over Is-slum-bad next week. In any case look at delays in practically any aviation project, civilian or military, worldwide. Even Dreamliner, A380 etc., got delayed by years, for Boeing or Airbus it should be as easy to design and build planes by now as it is for a Paki pig to wear a suicide vest and blast it.

The key questions are:

are lessons being learnt
are they institutionalised
is there a ecosystem built for speeding up and taking it to next level -people, process, companies, supply chain...etc.

I see these happening, slowly though. For instance Tatas getting involved in building composites...it will show results over time...just as creating a few IIT is showing results now...

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 18 Nov 2010 08:25

VinodTK wrote:
putnanja wrote:Tejas induction may overshoot deadline
Very bad news, if true.

Thats really old news. The writer needs his head examined. Just another attempt to run down the LCA with the MMRCA decision due in a few months.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Nov 2010 08:27

I want move from this reactive budgeting to proactive budgeting.. especially for indigenous Kaveri engines perhaps with out any foreign help. We can perhaps reorganize GTRE for that if need be to put them in an agile plan.

Common folks, we have to convert this LCA gig in to a CMM model project. Let it begin at least now. Vote for more money being spent on 100% LCA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2010 08:30

Is it just a coincidence that so many negative connotations are appearing recently in media about LCA when it is nearing IOC...

vic · Post by **vic** » 18 Nov 2010 08:54

Kanson wrote:Is it just a coincidence that so many negative connotations are appearing recently in media about LCA when it is nearing IOC...

Nobody is preventing DRDO - ADA to take some positive action by flying LSP-5-6-7-8 quickly. Test of pudding err LCA is in air.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Nov 2010 09:05

FOC will overshoot by at least 3 years. Its decided by both parties. Engine has to come.

folks should understand that overshooting the FOC deadline dosen't mean that nothing will happen till then. LSP's for Mark 2 will fly then.

The FOC now does not makes any real meaning now except as an internationally accepted procedure.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2010 09:18

vic wrote:
Kanson wrote:Is it just a coincidence that so many negative connotations are appearing recently in media about LCA when it is nearing IOC...
Nobody is preventing DRDO - ADA to take some positive action by flying LSP-5-6-7-8 quickly. Test of pudding err LCA is in air.

Then better watch the news.

Rather than indulging in CTs.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 18 Nov 2010 09:18

chackojoseph wrote:FOC will overshoot by at least 3 years. Its decided by both parties. Engine has to come.

folks should understand that overshooting the FOC deadline dosen't mean that nothing will happen till then. LSP's for Mark 2 will fly then.

The FOC now does not makes any real meaning now except as an internationally accepted procedure.

Wasnt FOC supposed to be end 2012?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 18 Nov 2010 09:21

Rahul M wrote:it's not take-off clean but loaded weight, that does include all the pylons and ammo.

Just nitpicking. Actually take off weight is used in commercial aviation for indicating the final weight of the aircraft. 'Clean' is an added word to TOW which indicates that this weight excludes pylons and any hanging missiles. So, IMHO, Substracting 2300 Kgs for fuel and another 300 Kgs for pilot/ammunition and stuff, Tejas's empty weight should be around 7200 KGs.

Cheers....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2010 09:23

kmc_chacko wrote:
India have another 10-12 years for inducting AMCA because PAKFA/FGFA will arrive only in 2015-18 if Local made technologies incorporated in to FGFA and can be tested and fine tuned by that time India will induct AMCA further Indian will also work on heavier Tejas Mk3 or Mk4 for replace Migs, Jags & MRCAs. New technologies can also be incorporated into the Tejas by that time.

I am sure if they start now they will reach some where near to that concept by 2020.

Isn't AMCA of 20-25 ton Category fighter ? if so then Tejas Mk3/Mk4 will be 10-12 ton category making air force of 2 type fighters (Medium & Heavy)

So, since LCA is not ready, we will spend 2010 to 2020 dependent on MMRCA and MKI

And then, in 2020 when AMCA is not ready we will depend on PAKFA and what?

And in the 1950 to 2010 period what combat aircraft has the IAF depended on?

Foreign origin:

Vampire
Ouragan
Mystere
Hunter
Canberra
Gnat
Su-7
MiG 21
MiG 23
MiG 27
MiG 29
Mirage 2000
Jaguar
Su-30 MKI

Indian origin

HF 24 Marut

And in the 2010 to 2040 period we are looking at
Foreign origin

Su 30 MKI
MiG 21
MiG 29 (Navy)
Jaguar
Mirage 2000
MMRCA
PAKFA/FGFA
And some Indian dream of the F-35

Indian origin

Tejas (not in service yet)
AMCA (no more than a dream)

Is it any surprise that India's international clout matches India's confidence in its own technology?

vic · Post by **vic** » 18 Nov 2010 09:25

shiv wrote: We need to be sad only about operational capability and dependence on imports and we as nation are kicking and screaming and demanding another 40-50 years of foreign dependence by planning things that we cannot do like FGFA and AMCA.

Kanson wrote: Sir. F-22-ish MCA design (lets call this as MCA-2) which was shown in wind tunnel model (AeroIndia-2009)is one of the next design chosen. But the IAF clearly said in their ASR for NGFA that we dont want a monkey business of half stealth or quarter stealth but a full aspect/spectrum stealth; that is a VLO design and not a LO design. Once receiving the ASR, boffins and mandarins went for a cuddle and not emerged so far with any news officially. But, Shiv Aroor reported after the ASR was issued that the new design for AMCA could be different from the models so far shown. Full aspect stealth means shaping, internal weapons bay and it could also means no vertical fins. Lets see what we are upto.

So we want to develop an AMCA for One Billion dollars which is more advanced then US$ 50 billion F-22, US$ 75 Billion F-35 and US$ 15 Billin PAKFA. Now as a 10th class student, we want to teach engineering at MIT, so lets look at our track record:-

Rustom = strugling
Saras=struggling
IJT=struggling with imported engine
AJT=2nd gen imported
Mig29K=3rd gen will be imported till 2015
MMRCA=4th gen will be imported till 2020
PAKFA=4.5Gen will be imported as Russians do not want to give us even 25% of the R&D
Engine of LCA =dead
Radar of LCA= in Coma
MRTA= JV with imported engines
Our Missiles are 1960s tech like Prithvi and Agni -1,2
Astra, AAD, PAD dependent on foregn seekers
Nirbhay missile engine imported
Lakshya engine practically imported (screw driver used on french components for PTAE-7)

China as 3 times the defence budget and 15 times the R&D budet but they are going for simpler things like JF-17 and J-10s while we are still playing around with PVs of LCA. The most idiotic thing is that we want to beat the Ruskies while importing everything from them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2010 09:36

neerajb wrote:'Clean' is an added word to TOW which indicates that this weight excludes pylons and any hanging missiles.
Cheers....

This is what I thought until I did a net search for "Clean" (yesterday)

The only definition I found for clean indicated a "clean aerodynamic configuration" in which spoilers, slats, flaps and airbrakes, undercarriage were retracted and not adding to drag. No mention was made of stores.

I would be happy to know which is correct.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2010 09:43

neerajb wrote:
Rahul M wrote:it's not take-off clean but loaded weight, that does include all the pylons and ammo.
Just nitpicking. Actually take off weight is used in commercial aviation for indicating the final weight of the aircraft. 'Clean' is an added word to TOW which indicates that this weight excludes pylons and any hanging missiles. So, IMHO, Substracting 2300 Kgs for fuel and another 300 Kgs for pilot/ammunition and stuff, Tejas's empty weight should be around 7200 KGs.

Cheers....

neeraj, I've heard of clean configuration but not clean take-off weight.

other than dedicated aerobatics aircrafts, how many fighters have you seen flying without its pylons ? I think we should give more weight to what PS Subramanium says than to our own half-baked analysis.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Nov 2010 09:48

shiv wrote: In my view this is not bad news. It is old news. What is bad news is the plan to build AMCA aor FGFA with all those fancy technologies that WE DO NOT HAVE without having a back-up plan to build a 3 plus gen aircraft that is completely sanctions free and can be produced at short notice by India in large numbers.

So What use are those 3 plus generation planes going to be of when the Chinese do a "plane-a-day" with their 5th (5 minus if you may) generation on us?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Nov 2010 10:05

vic wrote:
Kanson wrote: Sir. F-22-ish MCA design (lets call this as MCA-2) which was shown in wind tunnel model (AeroIndia-2009)is one of the next design chosen. But the IAF clearly said in their ASR for NGFA that we dont want a monkey business of half stealth or quarter stealth but a full aspect/spectrum stealth; that is a VLO design and not a LO design. Once receiving the ASR, boffins and mandarins went for a cuddle and not emerged so far with any news officially. But, Shiv Aroor reported after the ASR was issued that the new design for AMCA could be different from the models so far shown. Full aspect stealth means shaping, internal weapons bay and it could also means no vertical fins. Lets see what we are upto.
So we want to develop an AMCA for One Billion dollars which is more advanced then US$ 50 billion F-22, US$ 75 Billion F-35 and US$ 15 Billin PAKFA. Now as a 10th class student,
we want to teach engineering at MIT, so lets look at our track record:-

I dont know how my statement can be interpreted as wanted to beat F-22,F-35 & PAK-FA with AMCA? My statement only meant, we don't know whether we are capable of meeting the expectations of IAF. You started with the wrong assumption so the conclusion is also wrong.

Rustom = strugling
Saras=struggling
IJT=struggling with imported engine
AJT=2nd gen imported
Mig29K=3rd gen will be imported till 2015
MMRCA=4th gen will be imported till 2020
PAKFA=4.5Gen will be imported as Russians do not want to give us even 25% of the R&D
Engine of LCA =dead
Radar of LCA= in Coma
MRTA= JV with imported engines
Our Missiles are 1960s tech like Prithvi and Agni -1,2
Astra, AAD, PAD dependent on foregn seekers
Nirbhay missile engine imported
Lakshya engine practically imported (screw driver used on french components for PTAE-7)

Number of things you said are not factually correct. Anyway what is your fetish ?

China as 3 times the defence budget and 15 times the R&D budet but they are going for simpler things like JF-17 and J-10s while we are still playing around with PVs of LCA. The most idiotic thing is that we want to beat the Ruskies while importing everything from them.

Exactly, becoz of those budgets, they can go for simpler JF-17 when even their own PLAAF was not interested in it. IAF wont even touch it. And see for yourself, why Pak AF is not willing to take JF-17 with Chinese avionics/radar? Let see which country is interested in J-10 as it is, then we can talk about that.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 18 Nov 2010 10:07

Rahul M wrote:neeraj, I've heard of clean configuration but not clean take-off weight.

other than dedicated aerobatics aircrafts, how many fighters have you seen flying without its pylons ? I think we should give more weight to what PS Subramanium says than to our own half-baked analysis.

Saar, I would be more than happy if my intuition is wrong but this time it is from the horse's mouth. Had it been our beloved DDM, I wouldn't even have bothered to read it. TOW is commonly used term but the guy added clean to it to emphasize clean configuration. Now that would only mean without stores because if Shivji's definition of clean is to be taken here i.e. no flaps, landing gear etc then Clean is very dynamic, changing with flight conditions so why would anyone term any take off weight as clean? So going by this even if we reduce further 200 Kgs for pylons ( assuming no missiles) then also it comes down to 7000 Kgs.

Added later : I have seen pics of operational MKI flying with 2 pylons (others removed) and no stores.

Cheers....

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 18 Nov 2010 10:17

>>>If IAF version is 7500kg then Naval would be 7500kg plus around planned 500 plus unplanned 400kg = 8400kg

If you have the exact figures, please put it, or else please keep quiet. No need to put across your guestimate, nor is there any need to teach arithmatics.

It is sickening

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2010 10:29

abhik wrote:
shiv wrote: In my view this is not bad news. It is old news. What is bad news is the plan to build AMCA aor FGFA with all those fancy technologies that WE DO NOT HAVE without having a back-up plan to build a 3 plus gen aircraft that is completely sanctions free and can be produced at short notice by India in large numbers.
So What use are those 3 plus generation planes going to be of when the Chinese do a "plane-a-day" with their 5th (5 minus if you may) generation on us?

Wet dreams? You want to fight Chinese 5th gen with inferior numbers of imported equipment and dreamed up planes? You can wait for AMCA in 2080.