LCA News and Discussions

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jun 2011 23:29

Hitesh ji, I haven't read the last few posts but in the first exchange Gaur was correct. you were also factually incorrect. we lost 2 aircraft to missile fire, not 3; ajay ahuja's mig-21 and one mi-17. nachiketa's mig-27 had an engine flameout from gas ingestion.

mountain terrains are the most difficult for aircraft and ideal for MANPADS. the missiles were all stingers, hardly obsolete. we lost one mig-21 to stinger fire that had come too close to the mountain peaks while searching for nachiketa's mig-27. the mi-17 that got hit was one of a formation and it was the only one that for some reason did not carry flares.

the point we should keep in mind is that all this happened within the first week. IAF continued operations for 2 more months without any casualties.

please understand that we were doing something that nobody else had ever done. to put things in perspective, the LGBs we used had an altitude rating of around 18,000 feet while some of the targets themselves were at 20,000 feet. you can guess the height they were launched from.
long back I wrote something on mountain warfare, you might find it informative. http://brfrahulm.blogspot.com/2008/07/m ... oviet.html keep in mind that kargil was harsher, much harsher than afghanistan.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2011 23:34

Hitesh wrote:Notwithstanding IAF's formidable array of planes and weapons available before it, don't forget that IAF lost three aircrafts to puny mujahideen equipped with obsolete SAM weapons.

Several mistakes plus incorrect comparisons. To begin with, the IAF at Kargil had far less combat power than it does today. Furthermore, it lost 2 aircraft to the PA (not the mujahideen which story the Pakistanis tried to disguise their soldiers involvement with) not three and nor were these obsolete SAM weapons but fairly upto date MANPADS. Of these three, one was lost because the pilot (Sq Ahuja) disregarded standing instructions not to loiter in an area and he did so, knowing the risk so that he could aid a brother pilot by making repeated passes, allowing for a Manpad launch to target him. The other, a Mi chopper was lost after multiple Manpads were launched despite the chopper not having a functioning chaff & flares set, since the other choppers in the formation protected it even against multiple launches. For both shootdowns, the Pakistanis had to launch many MANPADS and that too when the aircraft were operating in the SAM envelope. Thereafter, the IAF adapted its tactics & not a single aircraft was lost despite multiple Pakistani attempts. The IAF took out multiple targets - including a large logistics encampment which broke the Pakistani supply line in an area.
Bottonline, your comparison is apples to oranges.

So I wouldn't get overcocky on IAF's ability to dominate Pakistan airspace just yet.

As things stand, the IAF does have the capability to dominate the Pakistan airspace. I'd rather go by Barbora's professional evaluation & the facts on the ground as they stand, which back up what Barbora said to a T. While the PA vs IA matchup has PA attempt to counter IA superiority thanks to terrain, shorter lines of communication & the extensive defensive fortifications, the PAF is far behind the IAF.

My criticism was not aimed at them, but at the various posters who display typical fanboy attitudes without fully thinking of the situation.

Names of the posters please who showed this so called fanboy attitude. So, rather than understand the topic or contribute in a productive manner, you'd rather use abuse..

BTW:

And that the helicopter was operating at such an altitude that was not meant to be operated, something that the IAF did not anticipate in the beginning but adapted well later on after learning their mistake.

Thats wrong. The loss of the helicopter did not have anything to with operating at an altitude it was not designed for. It had everything to do with the crew deciding to fight despite not having a functional chaff & flares unit & them going into battle knowing the risk, which is why they were posthumously awarded for bravery! FYI, after Kargil, the IAF re-equipped its fleet with adequate countermeasures across the board, as funding was finally made available. If you actually look at the IAF of today, you'd now be aware that pretty much every IAF aircraft has a decent countermeasures set, whereas the fighters even have advanced EW suites. The advances made by the IAF post Kargil far outweigh those made by the PAF and it is a fact.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2011 23:46

Rahul M wrote:Hitesh ji, I haven't read the last few posts but in the first exchange Gaur was correct. you were also factually incorrect. we lost 2 aircraft to missile fire, not 3; ajay ahuja's mig-21 and one mi-17. nachiketa's mig-27 had an engine flameout from gas ingestion.

mountain terrains are the most difficult for aircraft and ideal for MANPADS. the missiles were all stingers, hardly obsolete. we lost one mig-21 to stinger fire that had come too close to the mountain peaks while searching for nachiketa's mig-27. the mi-17 that got hit was one of a formation and it was the only one that for some reason did not carry flares.

the point we should keep in mind is that all this happened within the first week. IAF continued operations for 2 more months without any casualties.

please understand that we were doing something that nobody else had ever done. to put things in perspective, the LGBs we used had an altitude rating of around 18,000 feet while some of the targets themselves were at 20,000 feet. you can guess the height they were launched from.
long back I wrote something on mountain warfare, you might find it informative. http://brfrahulm.blogspot.com/2008/07/m ... oviet.html keep in mind that kargil was harsher, much harsher than afghanistan.

Reference your points in bold (highlighted) - exactly.

The IAF adapted, with the then limited equipment they had & did not lose a single aircraft thereafter. Todays IAF is better placed. In about five years from now, things will be even better for the IAF & in a decades time, far more so. The recapitalization of the IAF has begun in earnest. All the Soviet era equipment is being replaced by state of the art equipment from India, US, Europe, Israel and Russia.

No, it won't be a cakewalk against the PAF - but theres little doubt that they'd dominate the PAF either even today. The IAF knows it, and so does the PAF. Hence the Pakistani rush to involve the US by creating a hysteria about nuclear war after the Mumbai attacks. Hence Barbora's comments about the Pakistani perception. The 5000 target mention clearly indicates a strategic campaign and one achievable by the IAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2011 23:54

Hitesh wrote:trekking your way up to the heights of the himilayas with nothing but your personal weapons, radio, food, and water, and some shelter, and manage to bring down a fighter is an impressive feat despite the background of these fighters.

Hardly!
The PA employed teams of its guest militants as logistics porters for its professional soldiers who manned the posts and did the fighting (NLI, Baloch,SSG). In places they even employed color coordinated tents carried over from Pakistan. Helicopters were also used to transfer men and material. There was a huge logistics train and these guys even had time to erect sangars and camouflaged hideouts. It was one of these logistics nodes that was hit by the IAF at Muntho Dhalo. Phil Camp in his article on the Mirage 2000's at Kargil notes:

On the 16th June, the major enemy supply depot at Muntho Dhalo in the Batalik Sector was sighted by a Mirage on the LDP. The following day this was hit and destroyed by aircraft from 7 Squadron using dumb bombs. This camp was the major re-supply base in the Batalik Sector and this devastating attack left over 100 dead and 50 structures destroyed.

So - it was hardly a bunch of rag tag militants with personal weapons etc trekking over the himalayas (?) but a professional operation with a large logistics tail which the IAF & IA attacked. In several cases, the enemy positions had enough food & water to hold off a siege.

saip · Post by **saip** » 22 Jun 2011 00:04

<snip> DON"T !

Now ducking for cover

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jun 2011 00:22

rohitvats wrote:^^^Given the number and type of sub-munition dispensers, I have a nice feeling that the armored formations of ARN and ARS of TSPA are going to get loads of loooooove and attention from IAF!!!

I think even these 500 odd units are initial orders, probably for the Su-30 MKI per:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=5310

Also, the Jaguars are getting
http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.p ... &Itemid=47

Raytheon, meanwhile, since late 2009 has sucessfully integrated its munitions control unit (MCU) on an IAF Jaguar IS testbed, not allowed to be seen. The MCU is described as plug-and-play to enable integration of many modern weapons on legacy aircraft with minimal modifications to aircraft wiring and no changes to the flight and stores management software. Once integrated on an aircraft, aircrews can employ both exsting standoff-PGMs and A/A-missiles while using the aircraft's existing weapons management system. Raytheon plans to finish the work by mid 2011.

Indicates that we aim to fit them out for more PGMs.

Per Raytheon

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 245270539/

"Once MCU is integrated on an aircraft, aircrews can employ the Joint Standoff Weapon, Maverick missile, Paveway precision-guided munitions and AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile using the aircraft's existing weapon management system," Harry Schulte, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Air Warfare Systems, said in a statement.

Per ACIG

MBDA is pitching the ASRAAM to the IAF, highlighting its high speed and the fact that in the past these were integrated on the Jaguars operated by the RAF until 2007. Raythean officials at AERO-INDIA explained that the Jaguar will always be operating at a lower altitude than any incoming threat and AIM-132s unmatched speed and ‘snap-up capability’ (ability to fire upwards to a very high altitude) would be ideally suited to the aircraft's mission. When combined with a Helmet Mounted Sight (HMCS), the aircraft/weapon combination could be used to its full ability. Because of its sleek, low-drag wingless design, proven body lifting techniques and the high speed provided by its 166mm diameter motor, ASRAAM would have minimum impact on the desired release-envelope.

Currently the IAF uses MBDA ‘Magic-2’ AAMs from the Jaguar’s overwing JOWR rails, developed by Cobham. RAFAEL is proposing its Python-5 to the IAF, pointing to its high maneuverability because of the extra fins behind the seeker. Both companies will reportedly provide test-examples for captive-carriage tests in Bengaluru in the coming months. An Indian delegation should visit the U.K. and Israel in the second half of this year to see live firing tests. Israeli ordnance-technology is already incorporated on the ‘Shamsher’, with ‘Griffin’ LGB kits on standard British Mk.21 bombs. A wide range of PGMs are presently is currently being evaluated by the IAF for the upgraded Jaguar IS, including the AASM from SAGEM (belonging to France's SAFRAN Group), Raytheon's JSOW, MBDAs Diamond Back, Israel Militarv Industries'(IMI) modular standoff vehicle (MSOV) and ‘Delilah’ multi-role cruise missile, and Raytheon's Paveway 4 and IAI's Griffin-3 laser-guided bombs.

With new engines, these will be fairly capable medium altitude PGM platforms. The Sudarshan was also tested with a Jaguar and the IAF has ordered a "significant number of kits".

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jun 2011 00:40

guys, just a reminder that this is still the LCA thread.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 22 Jun 2011 01:42

FLIGHT TEST NEWS

77LCA-Tejas has completed 1649 Test Flights successfully. (09-Jun-2011)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-278,LSP1-67,LSP2-174,PV5-36,LSP3-42,LSP4-37,LSP5-30)

LCA-Tejas has completed 1652 Test Flights successfully. (18-Jun-2011)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-205,PV3-281,LSP1-67,LSP2-174,PV5-36,LSP3-42,LSP4-37,LSP5-30)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jun 2011 01:44

thanks osho ji, could you identify for us which one was flying recently ?

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 22 Jun 2011 01:46

^^ this week, only bird which took off was PV-3! it got 3 sorties.... so, what's on PV3?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Jun 2011 01:52

Ajay shukla blogged that PV1 was being refitted into an ew role. Perhaps all PVs are being refitted that way?

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 22 Jun 2011 02:12

PV3 was first prototype to operate at Leh airbase, at minus 20 degrees.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jun 2011 03:06

Prasad wrote:Ajay shukla blogged that PV1 was being refitted into an ew role. Perhaps all PVs are being refitted that way?

The EW role probably refers to the LCA testing the indigenous EW suite with internal jammer. Previously, it just had Tarang RWR. The MiG-27 with similar derivative EW suite also got fitted out & MOD report 2009-10 mentions the kits for upgrade of 40 planes have already been delivered. These have multiple band coverage with onboard receiving and jamming suite developed locally. The MiG-29 Upgrade with the same EW suite, but ECM (jamming) portion developed with a foreign partner also flew this year (the difference is that its ECM is AESA, able to tackle threats nearly, all around aircraft with higher power). The DRDO noted publicly last year that it was utilizing the EW range owned by IAF in Gwalior for its tests, but in 2011-12, it would use its new EWS range in Karnataka as well, which would allow expanded operations and tests. So basically, in the next few years, we'll have local EW suites on the MiG-27s (40 for which kits are delivered), LCA (if weight permits, they'll put them on the MK1, if not then the MK2 as has already been planned), and the MiG-29s (which are already flying around in Russia with the Indian EW suite).

BTW, MOD report 2010-11 is out. But PDF file is corrupted. Three cheers to MOD efficiency in uploading non working document. If somebody can recover or repair the corrupt file please assist.

http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2011.pdf

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jun 2011 06:01

Karan it is 45.6MB.. so it may take long time to open.. let me see if it downloads good.

PS:
yup.. you are right

BTW: you can painfully read with a free version of the repair software
http://www.datanumen.com/apdfr/download-thanks.htm

or you may buy if you can to repair the pdf.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 07:25

SriniY wrote:5000 targets. wow. Even if say 2000 targets are to be taken out in the first few days of battle, that calls for about 1000 - 1500 sorties just for strikes. And then strike packages need escorts and there would be aircraft set aside for air-to-air just in case. Wonder if IAF can do such an intense bombing campaign given the current aircraft strengths it has.

5000 targets need not all be handled by strike aircraft. Prithvis, Agni, Brahmos, MBRLs and Artillery will also enter into the equation. In couple of years, Nirbhay would be inducted... With the level protection which will be provided by the our AD network we can spare more of our aircrafts for strike and escort missions.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 07:56

Hitesh wrote:trekking your way up to the heights of the himilayas with nothing but your personal weapons, radio, food, and water, and some shelter, and manage to bring down a fighter is an impressive feat despite the background of these fighters.

My point is this: overconfidence and overcockiness will cause you to overlook some advantages that the enemy may have or possess. Don't underestimate the power of Murphy's law.

PAF is still a potent force to be reckoned when it comes to battle over sky superiority or air denial.

Kargil was 1999, we had limitations about crossing the LOC etc, we didn't even have LGBs to start with and it was jury rigged in a hurry, meaning very less practice. by 2011, much water has flown under the bridge. In the intervening decade, IAF's capability in CAS, SEAD, Attack and AD has made a quantum jump and expected to make another in the coming decade. where has PAF gone... "down the tubes". One area of concern is MANPADs, good luck to the MANPAD operator after a Prithvi or a Brahmos hit.
Currently IAF bombs are HMX based, in future we might have shifted to CL20 explosives based Bombs.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Jun 2011 08:29

the late 90s were the worst times since early 1960s for the IAF in terms of quantity or quality. We were just getting out of the economic crisis, the SU had disintegrated and as a result we had problems with serviceablity of our aircrafts. IIRC, m2k were the aircrafts with the least number of serviceability issues. Today the force is far better with the fleet having very high serviceability(except may be for the m29), but today threats are two-fold, the minor irritant called paikhasthan and the dragon being the major irritant. We have to deal with the dragon and the chuha at the same time thats what we are aspiring for and insha allah we will get there soon with the mmrca, tejas and mkis.

panda · Post by **panda** » 22 Jun 2011 08:35

Hitesh wrote:trekking your way up to the heights of the himilayas with nothing but your personal weapons, radio, food, and water, and some shelter, and manage to bring down a fighter is an impressive feat despite the background of these fighters.

My point is this: overconfidence and overcockiness will cause you to overlook some advantages that the enemy may have or possess. Don't underestimate the power of Murphy's law.

PAF is still a potent force to be reckoned when it comes to battle over sky superiority or air denial.

One simple pooch, if I may. Is Murphy's law India specific or does it work against the PAF as well? If it is India specific, we cannot afford to be "overcocky". But, if it works against PAF in equal measure, surely we can be "overcocky".

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 08:49

Guys, let us all get back to LCA discussion. The new development of testing out a Desi EW suite on YellSeeYaaaa is a great news...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 07:06

Paging gurus.

I was looking back at some of evolutionary features from Rafale A to Rafale M.

Here is pic of the Rafale A:

.
Notice the similarity of the wing and the lower wing body join in the LCA.

Now my question is the Rafale significantly smoothened the wing body join to:
1. to improve transonic drag
2. reduced RCS
3. increasing the internal volume significantly
Rafale M now looks like this:

Now my question is:
The wing body blending on the top of the LCA is fabulous. What about the bottom part? It looks very sharp to me. Why not blend it too? It makes even more sense now with the lengthier MkII.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 07:53

^^ In LCA, engine openings are little behind and below the wings. In Rafale, engine openings are placed ahead and below the wings. In LCA, to merge wings endings into fuselage(lower part of aircraft), engine tubes have to be pushed towards front upto the point where wings start. It will take whole redesign than just smoothening.

Actually, its not smoothening. In rafale, they have 'merged' wings with engine tubes on upper and lower sides. This technique of designing an aircraft as one integrated single continous block, with no breaks(where wings don't appear separate from body as in LCA, Mirage, Su-30), is similar to method used in F-22. This is new and different design philosophy from those used in earlier generation planes. Only Russia is doing now same thing in Pak-Fa and even China's J-20 uses same philosophy, where body and wings appear as single entity, not separable parts when integrated!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 08:29

isnt gripenNG doing same now to accomodate pushing out the landing gear and creating internal volume for fuel ?

even the ancient saab draken had this look http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/sa ... ldrage.jpg

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 08:38

^^ yes, that's more that type of thinking there... have you seen those IL-76-stuff? ..see how wings end up nicely into a thick beam joining them into main body... wings seems to disappear/merge into main-body nicely, it airflow doesn't find air-pockets in such design and merely slides over the body areas... let's hope AMCA brings a huge change in our designers approach and we don't repeat some Su-30 type of thing.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 09:54

raajneesh wrote:^^ In LCA, engine openings are little behind and below the wings. In Rafale, engine openings are placed ahead and below the wings. In LCA, to merge wings endings into fuselage(lower part of aircraft), engine tubes have to be pushed towards front upto the point where wings start. It will take whole redesign than just smoothening.

Why do you have to merge the wing with the air inlet when they are not matched. Smoothen the join from the diffuser along the wing join.

It looks fairly simple. And no it would not involve a lot of testing.
There are questions about wave drag (which is am issue in MK I). There are questions about fabrication but not about a huge redesign.

raajneesh wrote: Actually, its not smoothening. In rafale, they have 'merged' wings with engine tubes on upper and lower sides. This technique of designing an aircraft as one integrated single continous block, with no breaks(where wings don't appear separate from body as in LCA, Mirage, Su-30), is similar to method used in F-22. This is new and different design philosophy from those used in earlier generation planes. Only Russia is doing now same thing in Pak-Fa and even China's J-20 uses same philosophy, where body and wings appear as single entity, not separable parts when integrated!

What's the point? It's a new thing, so ...

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 10:29

^^ Can you show some example of what exactly you want to achieve by smoothening?

LCA and rafales are based on two different design philosophies. A jugaad type of smoothening won't be effective. Its far more sophisticated stuff. Things has to be done at design stage, for that.

Rafale is whole 1 generation ahead in that respect to LCA. Its comparable to F-22, J-20, Pak-Fa in terms of its airframe design philosophy, except one thing - no internal weapon bays. Later 3 takes the cake and are far more complex.

I think French have tried to test some of their 5th Generation UCAV airframe manufacturing/design technologies into this rafale design.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 10:33

Singha wrote:isnt gripenNG doing same now to accomodate pushing out the landing gear and creating internal volume for fuel ?

even the ancient saab draken had this look http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/sa ... ldrage.jpg

No it is not. Gripen always had a wing well blended in.

In Gripen NG, they actually actually made join like a bulb. They moved the main undercarriage housing mostly into this bulb. This freed up internal space for fuel. However the blending was always there.

Actually we expected something similar on the Tejas MK II. The undercarriage in MK II is going to be different. But I couldn't see a major difference in the models (other than small humps) showcased in AI '11.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 10:49

raajneesh wrote:^^ Can you show some example of what exactly you want to achieve by smoothening?

LCA and rafales are based on two different design philosophies. A jugaad type of smoothening won't be effective. Its far more sophisticated stuff. Things has to be done at design stage, for that.

Rafale is whole 1 generation ahead in that respect to LCA. Its comparable to F-22, J-20, Pak-Fa in terms of its airframe design philosophy, except one thing - no internal weapon bays. Later 3 takes the cake and are far more complex.

I think French have tried to test some of their 5th Generation UCAV airframe manufacturing/design technologies into this rafale design.

Dude, I wrote about it in my opening message:

1. to improve transonic drag
2. reduced RCS
3. increasing the internal volume significantly.

First of all, I don't understand where you are going with the generation stuff. You just saw Draken (3rd gen), Gripen (4th gen), Rafale (4.5 gen) have blended wing. If you read about the wing body blending on the LCA you will be able to read the aerodynamics behind it.

So please don't give me the gen-cr@p. If you can give me aerodynamic reasons of not doing it on Tejas,then let us talk. Otherwise, we don't necessarily need to waste cycles.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 11:16

indranilroy wrote: Dude, I wrote about it in my opening message:
1. to improve transonic drag
2. reduced RCS
3. increasing the internal volume significantly.

First of all, I don't understand where you are going with the generation stuff. You just saw Draken (3rd gen), Gripen (4th gen), Rafale (4.5 gen) have blended wing. If you read about the wing body blending on the LCA you will be able to read the aerodynamics behind it.

They planned this blending well ahead during planning stage(paper design stage). That's why today, one can see them in reality. Also, their first prototypes didn't have much of blending because new design features are added in increments in prototypes, but they are designed and thought in advance.

You can't just design a plane(LCA) and 15 years later after IOC, say, "lets blend the wings now and add some fuel in internal vaccum". It doesn't work that way. Such features have to be accomodated during initial design stages. LCA didn't have such plans.

Also, in 1980's noone thought of adding vaccum and fuel in the body. That was never accomodated/incporated into LCA's design. So, it can't just happen now without a full redesign.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 11:51

Fair enough! I Will give you that, but Rafale A was just a prototype, Rafale B and Rafale C were prototypes too. Anyways let's move to LCA.

There was a lot of redesigning LCA MK-II. Design changes include increased the length of the whole plane, changed the undercarriage and increased internal fuel etc.

So, is LCA MK II a good point to this design change? It was not done. There must be a reason for not doing it. What is it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jun 2011 12:34

indranilroy wrote:So, is LCA MK II a good point to this design change? It was not done. There must be a reason for not doing it. What is it?

Time and Complexity for redesigning and flight testing would further delay Mk2 , they did the smart thing of just improving what was known issue with Mk1 and rectified it with Mk2 without tinkering too much with the design other then what was absolutely needed and required , KISS

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 12:51

I hope they clone and copy all they can gripenNG and benchmark the MK2 with that bar - now that we have full test data across 683 parameters in hi and lot alt tests

this info is far beyond what can be culled from open source.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 13:33

@Indranil, I agree on that point. we have time but we are not utilizing it. we are wasting it.

Engines for Mk2 are coming in 2014 end only and even I don't understand why IAF is sitting quiet and not forcing more changes in Mk2. There are 3.5 years left for God's sake! you don't need so many years to do those little refitting.

Atleast IAF should have asked for one expertimental twin-engined LCA Mk-TD(technology demonstrator), just to make use of these years.

Mk1 will be over by next year(FOC-2012 end). Mk2 has no new work, other than little refitting. So, what people are working on? Are we going to get AMCA sooner than expected?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jun 2011 14:03

I think in the interim they would be busy flight testing the NLCA an assisting IAF with post FOC issue whatever crops up.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 14:13

^^ you have a good humour there! NLCA is a different project from Mk2/Mk1. Both teams are different and have separate budget.

Same team is not working on two projects, doing 9:00am to 2:00pm on NLCA testing and then going to Mk2 hanger and doing 2:00pm to 5:00pm on Mk1/Mk2 refitting/testing/FOC. Which firm in world works this way? Is this some motor-garage hain jee, where you have 2 motors parked in same shade, and same guy working on both, side by side? ..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jun 2011 17:08

The inlets for LCA under the wings should be view against Rafale's protrusion a little forward but aided by canards for higher AoA. The n-LCA actually answers that more clearly with the movable LERX, if my understanding is correct.

So, a blended wing & inlet would lead to issues with higher AoA, but might help like in divertless for super sonic air flow. We could do the Rafale like bend, but compromise of internal space is not possible with a small airframe like LCA, where we need more internal space for fuel and other LRUs.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 20:38

SaiK wrote:The inlets for LCA under the wings should be view against Rafale's protrusion a little forward but aided by canards for higher AoA. The n-LCA actually answers that more clearly with the movable LERX, if my understanding is correct.

I don't understand what you want to say here. Moving on from Rafale A, they added a highly swept LEX from the diffuser to the wing root. This along with the air-intake diffusers helps create diffusion shockwaves to energise the boundary layers over (and under) the wing. This feature also provide the rudder with a continuously renewed energic airflow, giving it spin-free characteristics. Along with the closely coupled canard, the Rafale can handle good AoA.

This is for Rafale. LCA employs different techniques. instead of a LEX, it uses the cranked arrow, bleed channel and turbulator strip. NLCA needed higher controllability at low speeds and high AoA, so they added the LEVCONS. You should notice the LEVCONS is exactly matched with the 'notch' of the original cranked delta of the LCA.

All of the above have nothing to do with wing blending.

SaiK wrote: So, a blended wing & inlet would lead to issues with higher AoA, but might help like in divertless for super sonic air flow.

I don't agree with you. Look at the blending on the top of Tejas. It has a beautiful wing body blending. Does it bloat out the leading edge. It is bulbous in the middle and and quite thin at the edges.

On the bottom the wing join is clear of the inlet by about 1 foot at the diffuser. There is no reason why adding a wing body blending akin to the top side of the wing would affect the airflow into the inlet.

SaiK wrote: We could do the Rafale like bend, but compromise of internal space is not possible with a small airframe like LCA, where we need more internal space for fuel and other LRUs.

Sarkar, aap padhe toh sahi. Wing body blending increases internal volume and decreases transonic drag. Both of these were desired from MK I.

In MK I there is problem with the area ruling and adding the blend would have further increased the wave drag. So I completely understand it not being included in MK I.

In MK I the length has been increased. Utilizing the benefits of the blended wing body on the lower side seems logical to me. And this is something trivial. I am sure the ADA and HAL guys know about this. They chose not to include it . I am trying to understand it.

Austin sahab, you may be right about minimalistic changes, but adding the blend would hardly increase test cycles (it is not a control feature). It might be more of characterization runs.

Does anybody about aerodynamic/structural disadvantage of adding wing body blending to the lower wing join on the LCA?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jun 2011 21:01

my wild guess would be it interferes with inflow into the inlets.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jun 2011 21:11

indranilroy wrote:you may be right about minimalistic changes, but adding the blend would hardly increase test cycles (it is not a control feature). It might be more of characterization runs.

Indranil , In that case we will have to wait till the real prototype of Mk2 shows up , may be the model that they showed at AI 11 could be a work in progress and they might improve on it by adding blend etc

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 21:51

Rahul M wrote:my wild guess would be it interferes with inflow into the inlets.

Rahul da , there would hardly be any any change in front of the lip.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 21:52

Austin wrote:
indranilroy wrote:you may be right about minimalistic changes, but adding the blend would hardly increase test cycles (it is not a control feature). It might be more of characterization runs.
Indranil , In that case we will have to wait till the real prototype of Mk2 shows up , may be the model that they showed at AI 11 could be a work in progress and they might improve on it by adding blend etc

In my heart of hearts, I am wishing for it.