LCA News and Discussions

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Dec 2010 09:53

arun wrote:X Posted from the Indian Missiles and Munitions thread.

US Congress notified of likely sale of Harpoon Block II to India.

21 AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles and 5 ATM-84L HARPOON Block II for use on the Boeing P8-I’s:

India – AGM-84L HARPOON Block II Missiles

It would seem that the Anti-Ship missile to be integrated with the LCA (Naval) will be the Harpoon Block-II missiles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Dec 2010 09:58

I wonder why the scandinavian uber missile "kongsberg NSM" thats supposed to solve every problem was not found upto to the mark

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 25 Dec 2010 10:00

I cant wait for the day when we get to see a pic of LCA with all hardpoints carrying munitions.

vic · Post by **vic** » 25 Dec 2010 12:17

There was lot of talk that lower fuselage/landing gear is heavy and needs to be redesigned, so any info on it??

Also there was Ph Rajkumar comments on lengthening the fuselage which will off course lead to bigger wing with increased chord even if the design remains the same, any chaiwallah comments on it??

Let me make a list of changes speculated about Mark-2

1. Nose Plug
2. Change in intake design
3. Lengthened fuselage and hence bigger wing due to increased wing chord
4. Landing gear moving into wing roots ala Gripen-NG
5. Levcons like Naval version
6. Aft changes
7. Pylon redesign
8. Additional composite use and co curing/co bonding of parts
9. Lighter LRUs
10. Noose droop like Naval version
11. AESA
12. IRST
13. DIRCM
14. Active AESA conformal Jammers
15. Conformal fuel tanks

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Dec 2010 15:49

Kartik wrote:
vina wrote: BTW, where are you getting all these from.. Chaiwallahs?
Sort of.

Oh well. Ask Google Chacha and he gives. I found the paper which actually talks about all the things that you talked about .

This is the link to the pdf .

It is written by some folks from CEMILAC. Not very well written, for one, they messed up with the numbering of the figures and figures 18 and 21 are exactly the same, though they are meant to convey two different things.

A shoddy slapped up together paper with zero proof reading not even an once over. I wonder how it got published at all without such basic stuff and gosh.. if this is how the certification guys are going to go around doing things, god save us. Some of the IT/Vity guys have technical documentation teams that do work for all the major tech munnas including aerospace dudes (most tech and user manuals and documentations for most products and everything are banged out in Desh) , maybe ADA ought to hire them to do that Inglees and making manuals part . Will come out very neat and TFTA Massa std level with all IT/Vity "kwalitee " certifications stamped.

That said and whining done, what comes out of that paper (published in 2009) is that this is not for Mk-2, but actually ongoing and you will see it right in Mk-1! Mk2 is a different beast with a different engine, the specs which no one has seen yet (I am willing to bet AESA radar and additional fuel packed ..probably in a humpback like the later Mig 29s , with the trainer as a staring point). In fact, all the stuff in this is pretty minor and can be incorporated as the full series production starts and even retrofitted to the fleet in service , even if not rolled out with it in the beginning for whatever reason.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Dec 2010 16:06

But one thing beats the hell out of me.. is the engine++ for mk-2. The GE 414 (98kN) would be replaced in the future by a Snecma cored Kaveri of ~90kN. Where is all the thrust going away from the designers and users on this aspect. If this is all DDM or spin then ignore, else another disaster requirement specification issue for Kaveri++ is going to happen. This is so glaringly madrassa number to even DDM stds.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2010 19:18

vina wrote:
Oh well. Ask Google Chacha and he gives. I found the paper which actually talks about all the things that you talked about .

This is the link to the pdf .

2009 paper says Tejas did not go supersonic at sea level which is contradicted by some news posted on here.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Dec 2010 19:27

2009 paper says Tejas did not go supersonic at sea level which is contradicted by some news posted on here.

Yes. I was flumoxxed by that and read it again. What the paper said that "it did not attain the supersonic mach number at sea level", which given the contradictory reports , I sort of finessed it as thus.

The design Mach number at sea level is Mach 1.x (x is in all certainty between 1.1 to 1.25, with most probable value being something like 1.16 to 1.18M ). Tejas in all probability did > Mach 1, but could not reach design Mach number at sea level.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Dec 2010 19:41

The first sea trials were conducted in 2007
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3334
This may be the time the problem was detected. The 2009 article provides suggestion on how to sort it out etc
The last test was in Sep 2010
http://www.indian-military.org/news-arc ... rials.html
The problem must have been sorted out.
Added later:
Yes, the problem was before 2009. In December 2009 the test was again conducted (must surely after sorting out the problem detected and applying the solutions as stated in the article.)
So in Dec 2009
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... s_lca.html

INS Hansa, Dabolim, Goa: The ongoing sea-level flight trials of India's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which were carried out for two weeks over Goa air space, have been brought to a successful conclusion with the aircraft zooming around at a speed of 1,350 kmph (approx. Mach1.1). In the process it clocked its fastest speed ever, a top IAF officer said on Tuesday.

And finally
''Tejas has already passed high-altitude tests in Leh, the desert rigours in Rajasthan and now it has proved its worth over the maritime space in Goa,'' Air Cmde Varma said.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Dec 2010 20:09

vina wrote:
2009 paper says Tejas did not go supersonic at sea level which is contradicted by some news posted on here.
Yes. I was flumoxxed by that and read it again. What the paper said that "it did not attain the supersonic mach number at sea level", which given the contradictory reports , I sort of finessed it as thus.

The design Mach number at sea level is Mach 1.x (x is in all certainty between 1.1 to 1.25, with most probable value being something like 1.16 to 1.18M ). Tejas in all probability did > Mach 1, but could not reach design Mach number at sea level.

Vina, from the reports, initially @ Arakkonam it reached 1.05 Mach and subsequently @ Goa it reached 1.14 Mach. Any reason why you expect the value between 1.16 to 1.18?

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Dec 2010 20:28

INS Hansa, Dabolim, Goa: The ongoing sea-level flight trials of India's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which were carried out for two weeks over Goa air space, have been brought to a successful conclusion with the aircraft zooming around at a speed of 1,350 kmph (approx. Mach1.1). In the process it clocked its fastest speed ever, a top IAF officer said on Tuesday.

Oh. Thanks for the post. Yes 1350kmph has to be the ~~Corrected~~ Caliberated Air Speed (CAS), and that would be the max dynamic pressure the plane is designed for. The actual ground speed would be a bit less given Goa's higher temperature than standard atmospheric conditions (ISA is 15C.. Goa would have been closer to 30C even in Dec , but doesn't matter, Mach number is always relative to the speed of sound at the particular conditions of operation).

If it is going to be of any comfort to anyone, the SU-30's max speed at sea level too is 1350 Kph CAS.

So to all the whiners and Nay Sayers, have a nice day!

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Dec 2010 20:43

Kanson wrote:Vina, from the reports, initially @ Arakkonam it reached 1.05 Mach and subsequently @ Goa it reached 1.14 Mach. Any reason why you expect the value between 1.16 to 1.18?

None. It was a guess on what would the design CAS at sea level ( max dynamic pressure the plane would encounter) and I though around 1400 kph was reasonable (which is around mach 1.2 at ISA). Not a bad guess I suppose, if the design speed is actually 1.14 Mach.

Now if random DDM and Pak Lurks start tom tomming tomorrow after reading this Max speed of Tejas is only 1350kph .. bad.. bad..ADA/DRDO murdabad

, what can I say to that, other than

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Dec 2010 20:50

are there other a/c whose speed at sea level is higher ? how high ?
the panavia tornado is claimed as the fastest low level plane on the web with 1480kmph - but need to check it this claim originated in the UK

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Dec 2010 23:37

Pylon modification will be carried out to make them more aerodynamically streamlined

Kartik,

Can we hope for something like the conformal carriage of weapons ala Typhoon? And LEVCONS seem to be the thing to do anymore - even the Russkis borrowed the idea for the latest Pakfa. Also, any talk on increasing internal fuel levels?

So we can hope for:
1) Thrust increase
2) Weight reduction - dumping of telemetry instruments + reduction of redundancy.
3) Pylon changes (conformal carriage I hope)
4) A "longer" nose? Perhaps the IRST will come in here.

Excellent, wonder how much of this will be seen in the production models of Mk1.

CM.

astal · Post by **astal** » 25 Dec 2010 23:43

Re. Tejas reaching 1350 kph at trials in Goa, the article does not mention that this speed was reached during sea level flight. If I recall correctly, the aircraft was flying at a certain height and descending.

Tejas probably needs some minor modifications to improve air speed at sea level. No big deal, soon they will lick these minor problems.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Dec 2010 23:47

vic wrote: 3. Lengthened fuselage and hence bigger wing due to increased wing chord

Is this lengthening beyond the nose plug? What for?

vic wrote: 10. Noose droop like Naval version

why would they want to do this? It is detrimental both in terms of aerodynamics and FCS.

vic wrote: 12. IRST
15. Conformal fuel tanks

Never heard of these developments either before.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Dec 2010 00:13

Didn't post the link directly because it had one statement that Pak lurkers on this forum would take and run all around with.

The active fuel metering system is known to be something that we'll see on the Tejas Mk2 and the other improvements are also likely since a better L/D ratio is desirable even if the higher thrust engine is used. A slight decrease in acceleration will be seen with a nose plug but the additional dry and wet thrust should take care of that.

No major change has been seen as yet on Tejas Mk1 as yet though so since they reached the standard of delivery with LSP5 the rest of the 20 SP batch fighters are unlikely to be different.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Dec 2010 00:17

Cain Marko wrote:
Kartik,

Can we hope for something like the conformal carriage of weapons ala Typhoon? And LEVCONS seem to be the thing to do anymore - even the Russkis borrowed the idea for the latest Pakfa. Also, any talk on increasing internal fuel levels?

So we can hope for:
1) Thrust increase
2) Weight reduction - dumping of telemetry instruments + reduction of redundancy.
3) Pylon changes (conformal carriage I hope)
4) A "longer" nose? Perhaps the IRST will come in here.

Excellent, wonder how much of this will be seen in the
production models of Mk1.

CM we can expect weight decrease from certain systems and a weight increase overall. Pylon changes, lnger nose and a fuselage plug will be likely too and more fuel as a result.

CM.[/quote]

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2010 04:56

Are all the LRUs made of composites? perhaps some of the metal casings of electronic boxes could be converted to kevlar casings to reduce weights, and metal nuts and bolts to composite as well. Except where a metal is needed rest are all the place weight can be reduced. So, what is the real plan for reducing weight?

for example the revolutionary Al composite that is stronger than carbon fiber.
http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-featu ... rbon-fiber
just be aware of NSFW pics as you scroll down.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 26 Dec 2010 05:05

vic wrote:There was lot of talk that lower fuselage/landing gear is heavy and needs to be redesigned, so any info on it??

Also there was Ph Rajkumar comments on lengthening the fuselage which will off course lead to bigger wing with increased chord even if the design remains the same, any chaiwallah comments on it??

Let me make a list of changes speculated about Mark-2

1. Nose Plug
2. Change in intake design
3. Lengthened fuselage and hence bigger wing due to increased wing chord
4. Landing gear moving into wing roots ala Gripen-NG
5. Levcons like Naval version
6. Aft changes
7. Pylon redesign
8. Additional composite use and co curing/co bonding of parts
9. Lighter LRUs
10. Noose droop like Naval version
11. AESA
12. IRST
13. DIRCM
14. Active AESA conformal Jammers
15. Conformal fuel tanks

So basically we are talking about making an entire new air craft. Why? Is´nt the LCA a success?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 26 Dec 2010 05:27

^^ Because the Folks who wrote the ASRs for it have LONG RETIRE, and the key now lies in a new bunch of young guns, who have seen capabilities of a 5th gen air-craft and want to ensure LCA has the capability to serve IAF as a 4++(+?) aircraft for the next 20-30 years. MK I IS A SUCCESS, because it gave India & their scientists the ability to design an aircraft, MARK II is suppose to rectify deficiency from Mark I and implement a better version with more capabilities than MK I which is the NORM world over! (you can name ANY air-craft & see the same holds true for them). Heck the KAVERI might not be in the LCA for now, but atleast they have an INDIAN ENGINE which can ensure that they can develop an engine. Now it's a whole different thing that it doesn't have sufficient thrust to power the LCA in its current avatar (even with the weight increase) but heck they showed the world that they designed an indigenous engine (which will bear fruits in other categories as well.) so all in all LCA IS A SUCCESS!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 07:12

Wickberg wrote:
So basically we are talking about making an entire new air craft. Why? Is´nt the LCA a success?

This question should go in the newbie thread because it is a newbie question. I appears that you have no idea how aircraft are developed after the initial designs are tested.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 26 Dec 2010 07:20

^^^ agrees, Hornet and super hornet evolution is a perfect example of what might happen with LCA too!!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 07:24

Gurneesh wrote:^^^ agrees, Hornet and super hornet evolution is a perfect example of what might happen with LCA too!!!

Don't forget the evolution of the MiG 21 and the Su-27. And the Harrier, the F-16 and the Boeing 737. Wickberg needs to use my unkal Googal to see what the initial designs used to be and what they are now.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 26 Dec 2010 10:02

Success of LCA would only be known after 30-40 years when India would be developing multiple aerospace products and many morphed versions of LCA would still be serving IAF. If India plays its cards right, then few of the south east asian, central asian nations might also be using these fighters.

For a country like India, especially in this time of its economic resurgence LCA happened at a great time, opening multiple options for IAF and a huge victory any way you look at it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 10:09

the gripen and gripenNG also underwent considerable change incl moving the landing gear.

the naval version will anyways prove the nose droop and levcons soon. we have been through one round of intake change already (side air intakes jaguar style) and one round of pylon streamlining.

the onlee major structural changes in the list is the nose plug and perhaps a bigger wing to accomodate landing gear/more fuel.

overall the risks looks managemeable to me if planned right.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Dec 2010 19:49

Lenthening the fuselage and increased wing chord is referred to by HAL Chairman and Philip Rajkumar. It is possible that this problem is solved by Nose plug (??). We already incorporated minor changes like side intakes for engines and small fins (technical name?) on vertical tail etc.

Sea level performance might improve further when test instrumentation are removed (??)

Fuel fraction with even increased weight & more powerful engine seems good. Have a look at data of Mirage 2000, F-16, Gripen etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2010 20:21

what is the total weight of all these test instruments put together? why is this such a big deal for performance measurements? What metrics here are we talking?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Dec 2010 00:05

From LiveFist ...

There Are Issues, But We're Reasonably Happy: IAF Vice Chief On Tejas IOC

Tuesday, December 28, 2010There Are Issues, But We're Reasonably Happy: IAF Vice Chief On Tejas IOC

I asked IAF vice chief Air Marshal PK Barbora this morning about rumoured issues that the service had with the LCA Tejas IOC parameters. Here's his reply in full: "Any venture of this nature, making a product from scratch always takes time. It is not only in India, even Western countries have taken 15-20 years to produce an aircraft. India's first venture has taken time. Ultimately, we are reaching the goal that we had looked for. Albeit a little late, but it's coming through and it will definitely help us move into the future. [Regarding the specific issue of IOC], there are no serious problems that we visualise that cannot be tackled. There are issues. For the IOC part of it, we are quite reasonably happy. Hopefully by the end of next year, we would have formed the first squadron. We would have flown the requisite number of hours which we have stipulated for ourselves. For stability, we are planning initially to have them in Bangalore. Teething problems will be there. But we will resolve them."
...
...

This statement in bold needs to be at the start of every LCA thread, as the same complaints about LCA keeps cropping about every now and then.

tips hat to AM Barbora

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 29 Dec 2010 10:20

Cross-posting from PAK FA thread:

indranilroy wrote:^^^ Any indications to that effect?!!!

Why should we go for Levcons on the AF version in first place.

P.S. please answer in the LCA thread.

Page 9 : 3.3 Sustained Turn Rate Improvement using Levcon

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/200 ... EMILAC.pdf

It's not final yet whether it will be done or not, but the study is underway.

Cheers....

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Dec 2010 10:25

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Dec 2010 10:33

neerajb wrote:Cross-posting from PAK FA thread:

indranilroy wrote:^^^ Any indications to that effect?!!!

Why should we go for Levcons on the AF version in first place.

P.S. please answer in the LCA thread.
Page 9 : 3.3 Sustained Turn Rate Improvement using Levcon

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/200 ... EMILAC.pdf

It's not final yet whether it will be done or not, but the study is underway.

Cheers....

Unless IAF demand the STR to be increased more than the initial/intended specs, LEVCON is considered not essential. Once with new engine, the problem will be rectified.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 29 Dec 2010 10:40

ADA is evaluating the LEVCON for increasing STR (which the MK1 fails to meet right now), whether they will incroporate it on production MK2 or not will come out once their evaluation is over. Lots of variables as of now to assert anything, let's wait till they come out with the final configuration.

Cheers....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Dec 2010 10:44

SaiK wrote:what is the total weight of all these test instruments put together? why is this such a big deal for performance measurements? What metrics here are we talking?

Few years back weight of test instruments is reported to be of few hundred kg; iirc, it is around 300 kg. In one of the recent statements from PS(Chief of ADA), he mentioned weight increase is 1 ton and we are technically 1.5 ton heavy.

So you can discern that test instruments weighs between few hundred kgs to 500 kg.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Dec 2010 10:47

neerajb wrote:ADA is evaluating the LEVCON for increasing STR (which the MK1 fails to meet right now), whether they will incroporate it on production MK2 or not will come out once their evaluation is over. Lots of variables as of now to assert anything, let's wait till they come out with the final configuration.

Cheers....

Sir, pls be sure of what you are saying. If you are going by the paper, may i remind that it is not from ADA.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 29 Dec 2010 10:50

Paper is from CEMILAC, the certification agency, but do you really think that they will do the mods and testing?
And no Sir please, I am quite young/unworthy for that.

Cheers....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Dec 2010 11:14

I mean levcon was studied for various purposes not just for STR. There was/were interview/statements where ADA officials maintained STR problem get rectified with new engine. And it seems agreeable to me.

If suppose there is indeed modification to wings and there is weight increase in Mk2 too you *may* see levcon. Or if the IAF demand more, levcon may be added.

The basic point from me is STR can be rectified with new powerful engine. If there is levcon added in Mk2 with new engine, it is not for correcting the STR deficiency but for enhancing and improving as demand increases.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Dec 2010 22:23

From LiveFist ...

LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."
...
...

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 29 Dec 2010 22:33

^^
That interview is close to a month old. Must be slow news day at Livefist

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2010 23:38

Neeraj thanks for that link to the paper. I remember it getting posted here before. Unfortunately I had not gone through it before.

The changes have been explained in layman's terms there.

However I still don't understand the nose plug. The sudden jump is around 5 mtrs. This is clearly near the intakes. How does addition of the nose cone plug smoothen this kink? The nose cone plug will only decrease the slop near 0-2 mtrs. I could understand if cockpit was lengthened backwards (or pushed backwards) and the air intake made slanted to smoothen this kink. If we could overlap the decrease in the volume of the canopy and the increase of the volume of the air intake, we would get a very smooth rise at 5000 to 6000 mm. We might not even send the cockpit back. We can just introduce a hump behind cockpit like the PakFA which smoothens out as the air intakes grow in size.

Having seen the cross sectional area variation of LCA along the length of fuselage I am now quite sure that that housing for the actuators have been shaped in that fashion specifically to follow the area ruling. When the pylons are added in line with these housing, there is no increase in RCS because of the housing. However, if the pylons having a blunt nose increases drag a lot, why wouldn't this be case with the housing when the LCA is flying clean. Shouldn't ADA make those housings aerodynamic as the pylon changes? It would reduce the RCS when the LCA is flying clean as well

.

P.S. Broadsword was right when he said that the strakes on the HJT 36 were anti spin. We (including me) had shot him down here