LCA News and Discussions

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 10 Feb 2011 13:51

prabhug wrote:I have a crazy idea .How about LCA carrying laksyas at its wings and slaved to the stores management used as AA missile/ suicide missions on ground targets.

Have you read the first Page of the thread? There are some rules written over there. if not lemme help you by pasting it here.

Newbies beware ! If you make ignorant remarks, you could be grilled by gurus
to test your LCA knowledge from these pages !
And, if you come out deficient..............(you would do better not to find out !)

Please stay on topic.

That means :
a> No comparison with aircraft A,B or C.
b> No half-baked suggestions to improve LCA like "add a laser gun"/"merge DRDO with ISRO " etc etc.
c> NO whining.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 10 Feb 2011 14:36

O.k Mods i am done with it.Probably it wasn't as crazy as LASER guns lemme lemme delete my posts after reading ur suggestion vishnu.Probably it was better than lot of DDMs . It was based on the views from Mr.Georg Mader about failure of laser guided weapons and Professor Debhasish ghose on co-operative controls(thanks to online videos).

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 10 Feb 2011 16:41

Sorry, two possibly daft things:
1) Maybe it's just me not being able to spot it on the Mk 2 model, but where's the droopy nose gone? I thought that made a lot of sense, especially the more F-16-like canopy. Or do they plan to have that only on the N-LCA? Wouldn't it make sense on both?
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Feb 2011 16:43

Prabhug, indeed there is a sub category of Air-launched UAV. Check this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_Ulka

Ulka (meteor or fire- brand in sanskrit) is an air-launched expendable target drone. It have been developed by DRDO's laboratory Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE). Ulka drone was earlier simply known as MT (Missile Target). It have been designed to be launched from subsonic or supersonic aircraft by means of an ejector release unit. It perform missions between 50 m to 13,000 m altitude at speeds ranging from 0.7 to 1.4 Mach with a rocket motor. It is able to simulate the speed and altitude characteristics of approching, receding or crossing of a variety of aircraft using false radar signatures. It is used for defensive training of surface-to-air missile crews against anti-ship missiles and for development testing and evaluation of air defence systems. It can be air Launched by of a variety of aircraft. It is the first Indian aerial vehicle to incorporate a canard configuration. It have been succeeded by Lakshya PTA

AND

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /dec10.pdf

But using that as AA missile ? I think we have better weapons. Of course it may be considered for loiter missile..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Feb 2011 16:45

vardhank wrote:Sorry, two possibly daft things:
1) Maybe it's just me not being able to spot it on the Mk 2 model, but where's the droopy nose gone? I thought that made a lot of sense, especially the more F-16-like canopy. Or do they plan to have that only on the N-LCA? Wouldn't it make sense on both?
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?

which pic you are referring ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Feb 2011 18:16

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/fea ... 294743.cms

PS Krishnan, distinguished scientist and Director, ADE gives Anirvan Ghosh an inside view of Tejas’s journey and the challenges faced along the way.

There are certain things like wake penetration, and others that the IAF chief said need to be ironed out and the deadline is June. Will you be in a position to meet the deadline?

Of course, we already have done most of it. There are some control loss trials, which are essential before it can be operationalised. Those flights will be completed before June. No modifications are required as I see it, but then we will have a clearer picture post the tests and then whatever changes are needed will be implemented.

vina · Post by **vina** » 10 Feb 2011 19:48

I was looking up Capt Maolanker's presentation on testing of the N-LCA in the aerolindia - NIC webcasts.

A great presentation, very clear, to the point, very well articulated and of course very professional. Any YumBeeYea PowerPoint con artist would simply do anything to put up such a presentation!

But coming to the point a couple of things about the Navy and it's team strikes me immediately very positively.

1) They have a team stationed along with people with the experience and skills and stature of Capt Maolanker and are willing to spare him despite operational requirements

2) The Navy team is empowered to take decisions on the spot regarding the design. No need to do babugiri and triplicate and lamination giri with the CNS or a "Empowered Committee" at Naval HQ authorizing changes. Shows the confidence of the Navy in their folks on the ground, ability to delegate effectively and the competence of their folks. Kudos to them. Absolute best practice and way to go. You put the guys with knowledge of the real operational needs and experience right there, working side by side with designers and engineers and embed them in teams. This is motherhood and apple pie stuff that is always taught at product development. Contrast the Navy's approach with that of the Army and the IAF for the Arjun and Tejas!

3) The Navy is incredibly pragmatic. They seem to know exactly what they want and are willing to work for it. For eg, Maolankar clearly says that expecting to go from zero to a state of the art Navy Multirole fighter in one jump is just too much and they are willing to concede that the NP1 and NP2 are interim fighters that bring significant capability (nothing to scoff at per the Capt's own words, but not something the Navy will want 20 years from now) and are willing to wait for perfection in MKII!

4) There was a discussion on the undercarriage and the Capt said yes, the undercarriage is clearly overdesigned and had biceps like the WWF wrestlers that were , because only the fuselage center sections were strengthened and they couldn't change the mounting points, though they the had the US Navy guidelines and inputs for the undercarriage .

5) For the MKII, the ADA has agreed to a new undercarriage design with optimal mount points.

All in all, it kind of shows the Navy's attitude, professionalism , commitment to developing systems and the top class caliber of it's personnel and the kind of people and monetary investment they are willing to make.

For eg, the previous speakers were the Boeing Chief Test Pilot (with an ultra impressive resume and was the former President of the International Test Pilots Assoc among his massive no of flying hours) and a Flight Control expert from Boeing. Maolankar and our folks from the Air Force and others who presented were right there with them and could rub shoulders with them by right on the basis of achievement and professional expertise! And that is purely because, they actually went and built something rather than just bought out stuff!.

No wonder the Navy is able to put some absolute cutting edge stuff like a Nuke Sub with SLBMs in the water and build an aircraft carrier AND the aircraft , all designed and built in India, while the army is unsuccessfully trying to buy some basic oh-so boring bread and butter stuff like 155mm artillery for 20 years and see no light at the end of the tunnel and make a dog's meal of inducting something as daal chaawal as an MBT (compared to a fighter /Nuke Sub, MBT is really daal chaawal) devoloped per it's own spec!

vina · Post by **vina** » 10 Feb 2011 20:07

Hmm. Going by what I could gather from Capt Maolanker's presentation and the other stuff (esp MK2 photos from Shiv Aroor),let me try stringing somethings together and speculating from here.

1) The MKII is going to have an all new fuselage structural design . Call it design optimization /iteration / whatever.

2) Yes, now that there is better information from the flight test program of MK1 and there is absolute clarity on the requirements for MKII are, the second iteration will sort of nail it and the weight targets will be largely achieved.

3) The undercarriage layout and the mount points are going to be different in MKII from MK1! . I think the MKII will have a Mig29/Su-30 /F-14 style undercarriage placement, basically the edge of the inlet trunking/ wing root and fold into the wing, rather than into the fuselage as present! This obviously will be possible if you have a new structural design and the fact that ADA agreed to change in undercarriage design makes me speculate that point no 1) happened. Without that this impossible to do. The Navy version will have a heftier undercarriage and oleos etc, than the airforce one . Other than that, very similar I think.

4) That brings it to final point. If they are going to move the undercarriage stowage and mount point to wing and shoulder mounting, what about the space which was taken up by the undercarriage in the existing layout ? Ya Allah, more internal fuel!. So top it by around 500 to 750kg more fuel.

So I guess the total internal fuel in the MKII (with the two side tanks in front), the sting ray tank on the spine and the extra tanks now where the undercarriage was earlier , we are looking at something like a total of 3.5 tons , maybe even 4 tons or so fuel in that tiny fighter.

With that kind of internal fuel, the plane is probably not going to need drop tanks for most of it's missions , and all pylons can be loaded with weapons!. Hallelujah! No wonder I don't see more weapons stations being added (two wingtip pylons for eg?) (speculation hat firmly on).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 21:14

vardhank wrote:Sorry, two possibly daft things:
1) Maybe it's just me not being able to spot it on the Mk 2 model, but where's the droopy nose gone? I thought that made a lot of sense, especially the more F-16-like canopy. Or do they plan to have that only on the N-LCA? Wouldn't it make sense on both?
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?

There is a discussion a couple of pages back on the changes. Vina ji provided possible changes in the landing gear placement as well.

The droopy nose looks good. But it is not good for aerodynamics and RCS. The LCA-AF is sleeker through the air. That is why the LCA-Navy MKII looks a lot like the LCA-AF-MKII. IT doesn't have thave the hunched back of NP1 and NP2.

I don't know what you mean by your second question.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 21:49

a dual rail aam launcher for the innermost pylons would permit 6 under the wings and 2 on the fuselage, giving a creditable 8 (6 bvr), 2 wvr denying the weapons loadout persistence advantage to bigger fighters it comes up against.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 10 Feb 2011 22:13

vina wrote: 4) That brings it to final point. If they are going to move the undercarriage stowage and mount point to wing and shoulder mounting, what about the space which was taken up by the undercarriage in the existing layout ? Ya Allah, more internal fuel!. So top it by around 500 to 750kg more fuel.

So I guess the total internal fuel in the MKII (with the two side tanks in front), the sting ray tank on the spine and the extra tanks now where the undercarriage was earlier , we are looking at something like a total of 3.5 tons , maybe even 4 tons or so fuel in that tiny fighter.

With that kind of internal fuel, the plane is probably not going to need drop tanks for most of it's missions , and all pylons can be loaded with weapons!. Hallelujah! No wonder I don't see more weapons stations being added (two wingtip pylons for eg?) (speculation hat firmly on).

Vina Ji, aap ke muh mei Ghee-Shakkar

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Feb 2011 22:31

On the AESA, LRDE should directly jump to AlGaN t/rs direct. There is no point in re-inventing these modules with GaAs and staging to advancements to save time, and work direct towards the leading/cutting edge tech.

JumpStart++

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 10 Feb 2011 23:43

3) The undercarriage layout and the mount points are going to be different in MKII from MK1! . I think the MKII will have a Mig29/Su-30 /F-14 style undercarriage placement, basically the edge of the inlet trunking/ wing root and fold into the wing, rather than into the fuselage as present! This obviously will be possible if you have a new structural design and the fact that ADA agreed to change in undercarriage design makes me speculate that point no 1) happened. Without that this impossible to do. The Navy version will have a heftier undercarriage and oleos etc, than the airforce one . Other than that, very similar I think.

4) That brings it to final point. If they are going to move the undercarriage stowage and mount point to wing and shoulder mounting, what about the space which was taken up by the undercarriage in the existing layout ? Ya Allah, more internal fuel!. So top it by around 500 to 750kg more fuel.

So I guess the total internal fuel in the MKII (with the two side tanks in front), the sting ray tank on the spine and the extra tanks now where the undercarriage was earlier , we are looking at something like a total of 3.5 tons , maybe even 4 tons or so fuel in that tiny fighter.

vina,

This is pretty much the same evolution that Gripen made from the C/D to the NG. This is fantastic news for the LCA, and obviates the need for Gripen in the force structure.

As for the Navy, I say that AMCA should be re-tasked in the Super Hornet mould as principally a carrier borne aircraft and secondarily an Air Force fighter, with the Navy being the principal stakeholders. That would give the navy a post MiG-29K 5th gen option, since the Air Force has its bases covered with PAK-FA/FGFA. Navy rocks!

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 11 Feb 2011 00:14

Raman wrote:
3) The undercarriage layout and the mount points are going to be different in MKII from MK1! . I think the MKII will have a Mig29/Su-30 /F-14 style undercarriage placement, basically the edge of the inlet trunking/ wing root and fold into the wing, rather than into the fuselage as present! This obviously will be possible if you have a new structural design and the fact that ADA agreed to change in undercarriage design makes me speculate that point no 1) happened. Without that this impossible to do. The Navy version will have a heftier undercarriage and oleos etc, than the airforce one . Other than that, very similar I think.

4) That brings it to final point. If they are going to move the undercarriage stowage and mount point to wing and shoulder mounting, what about the space which was taken up by the undercarriage in the existing layout ? Ya Allah, more internal fuel!. So top it by around 500 to 750kg more fuel.

So I guess the total internal fuel in the MKII (with the two side tanks in front), the sting ray tank on the spine and the extra tanks now where the undercarriage was earlier , we are looking at something like a total of 3.5 tons , maybe even 4 tons or so fuel in that tiny fighter.
vina,

This is pretty much the same evolution that Gripen made from the C/D to the NG. This is fantastic news for the LCA, and obviates the need for Gripen in the force structure.

As for the Navy, I say that AMCA should be re-tasked in the Super Hornet mould as principally a carrier borne aircraft and secondarily an Air Force fighter, with the Navy being the principal stakeholders. That would give the navy a post MiG-29K 5th gen option, since the Air Force has its bases covered with PAK-FA/FGFA. Navy rocks!

Saar, there is a fundamental difference in the needs of pentagon and our Mod. I don't see anytime in coming couple of decades that GoI will put money in something called "carrier borne aircraft".

There are "karamcharis" in MoD in front of whom one cant even mention phrase like "principally carrier borne aircraft" and "Navy being the principal stakeholders in an aircraft project"

Any idea which involves navy getting a homegrown plane anytime less then 5 years after AF is too complex for them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Feb 2011 00:34

I hope this settles the EW suite on the LCA business as nobody seems to have picked it up. My own email in December 2010.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 08#p989608

Looks like the flight testbed for the MiG-27 Upgrade (see report below on Bangalore aviation from Devesh Agarwal) with a new EW suite as mentioned in news reports. There seems to be a new fitment just beside the Indian flag on the aircraft stabilizer. In comparison, see this picture of the same aircraft earlier:

http://frontierindia.net/wp-content/upl ... 00x212.jpg

The picture of the new aircraft is from this site:
http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2010/1 ... force.html

And the news report I am referring to is here:
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/repor ... 27_1471748

Announcing the latest achievement in the country’s defence warfare capabilities, Dr Prahlada, chief controller, R&D (Ae&SI) of DRDO, speaking on the sidelines of the India National Electronic Warfare Workshop (EWWI-2010) in the city, said the technical know-how would bring India on par with the rest of the world.

“We have successfully integrated the present electronic warfare (EW) systems with MiG-27 fighters. It will be operational from 2011. Similarly, we’ll integrate EW systems with MiG-29 fighters and Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by 2011. They are likely to be operational by 2012,” said Prahlada.

Now, kind gentlemen, which year is the LCA MK1 FOC to be done by? It is 2012.

When is the LCA MK2 intended to be operational? Per reports, flight in 2014, operational by 2016.

So figure what the above EW suite is for.

Also - MiG-29 Upgrade already mentioned in the above article.

Now, lets go back to 2008.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3896

Talking to The Hindu just before his retirement, Director R.P. Ramalingam said that his laboratory could offer a state of the art EW suite for the MiG-29, including a radar warning receiver and a self protection jammer, provided the production agency came up with funding.

“BEL is prepared to put up a portion of the project’s cost, but this will first have to be cleared by their board. BEL also wants an assurance that the production order for the EW will go to them.”

With each EW suite expected to cost Rs. 15 crore, the production order for BEL could be around Rs. 1,000 crore.

[/quote]

Now, lets see the latest image of the FAT MiG-29 upgrade
http://key.aero/central/images/news/2936.jpg

Check the right fin (nearest to the camera) & the fairing there. Clearly an EW system/provision made for one. It is not RWR. That is the small circular antenna on top of fin. Check MiG-27 picture for comparison.

Enough said, I think...??

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 11 Feb 2011 08:42

vina wrote:Shows the confidence of the Navy in their folks on the ground, ability to delegate effectively and the competence of their folks.

I guess it is the basic way of operating. A pilot runs a mission 400% under the control of the bosses (ground or AWACS). A ship operates a lot more independently.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Feb 2011 09:13

indranilroy wrote:
vardhank wrote:Sorry, two possibly daft things:
1) Maybe it's just me not being able to spot it on the Mk 2 model, but where's the droopy nose gone? I thought that made a lot of sense, especially the more F-16-like canopy. Or do they plan to have that only on the N-LCA? Wouldn't it make sense on both?
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?
There is a discussion a couple of pages back on the changes. Vina ji provided possible changes in the landing gear placement as well.

The droopy nose looks good. But it is not good for aerodynamics and RCS. The LCA-AF is sleeker through the air. That is why the LCA-Navy MKII looks a lot like the LCA-AF-MKII. IT doesn't have thave the hunched back of NP1 and NP2.

I don't know what you mean by your second question.

The droopy nose is there, just that its a lot more streamlined aft of the cockpit. The earlier NP2 design was simply adding a cover onto the rear cockpit and otherwise leaving it similar to NP1.

As you said, the drag is definitely higher on the NP1 as compared to the regular Air Force single seater. They would've noticed that after flight testing PV-5 which is the basis for NP1. I actually love the N-LCA Mk2's look. Slight droop is there, the blending is beautiful and the additional 0.5m of length somehow makes the proportions finally look right (I always felt that the aspect ratio of the Tejas Mk1 was just not right),

Really looking forward to seeing the Mk2s fly. Like others, I too feel that they've licked all the aerodynamic problems finally.

nits · Post by **nits** » 11 Feb 2011 09:35

Tejas MK 2 Pic posted by Livefist...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 09:40

mock up
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 769204.JPG

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 09:57

Would it be the cobham retractable refuel probe on mk2 /heard it was possible by 2014?

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Feb 2011 10:00

If we have to maintain the strength and for smooth transition, new aircraft which is suppose to replace the existing one must be inducted before phasing the existing one. Any decision to augment the strength has to be taken well ahead in time.

If suppose we fast forward to 2025 - 2030 period. What will be the scenario ?

1. Jags must have been retired in 2020, except for the few.
2. MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 start retiring at that period and process could have been started.
3. That leaves only Su-30MKI, MMRCA and LCA. LCA and MMRCA by that time must have completed their production run, if we assume the no. 126 for MMRCA and 123 for LCA.

Mirage 2K, Jags, Mig-29s, Some Mig-27s will be upgraded between 2010 to 2015 so they will be around atleast 2025 and only then start retiring from say 2025-30 onwards. So you will have to add around 200 to your numbers between 2020 to 2030.

More importantly what will happen to the production line of Su-30MKI between 2015 to 2020, will be closed, used for upgrades or another 40-100 Sukhois ordered?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 11 Feb 2011 10:57

Kanson wrote:
vardhank wrote:Sorry, two possibly daft things:
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?
which pic you are referring ?

This is the pic I'm referring to, a Tarmak007 pic:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/T ... 00/003.jpg

I always thought you needed a certain amount of physical space for the radar, which is why this nose seems a bit small to me. Or is it simply because this is a trainer version, and features a more basic radar (or no radar at all), and therefore doesn't require a large nose? Am I making sense?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 11 Feb 2011 10:59

@ Kartik and Indranilroy

Thanks!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Feb 2011 11:30

Tarmak007: Tejas Mk2 with arrestor hook!

LiveFist: The LCA Navy Mk.2 & AMCA Shapes

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 11 Feb 2011 15:15

vardhank wrote:Sorry, two possibly daft things:
2) I finally saw a good side profile of the N-LCA, and the nose seems incredibly short. Would the radar fit easily in that space?
which pic you are referring ?

This is the pic I'm referring to, a Tarmak007 pic:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/T ... 00/003.jpg

I always thought you needed a certain amount of physical space for the radar, which is why this nose seems a bit small to me. Or is it simply because this is a trainer version, and features a more basic radar (or no radar at all), and therefore doesn't require a large nose? Am I making sense?

I dont think that the trainer was supposed to have a Radar installed on it. I had read somewhere, cant recall where, that the trainer was without the radar as there was no space for it in the nose.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Feb 2011 15:22

i wonder if the kopyo will fit in the trainer nose?

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 11 Feb 2011 20:04

vina wrote:3) The undercarriage layout and the mount points are going to be different in MKII from MK1! . I think the MKII will have a Mig29/Su-30 /F-14 style undercarriage placement, basically the edge of the inlet trunking/ wing root and fold into the wing, rather than into the fuselage as present! This obviously will be possible if you have a new structural design and the fact that ADA agreed to change in undercarriage design makes me speculate that point no 1) happened. Without that this impossible to do. The Navy version will have a heftier undercarriage and oleos etc, than the airforce one . Other than that, very similar I think.

4) That brings it to final point. If they are going to move the undercarriage stowage and mount point to wing and shoulder mounting, what about the space which was taken up by the undercarriage in the existing layout ? Ya Allah, more internal fuel!. So top it by around 500 to 750kg more fuel.

So I guess the total internal fuel in the MKII (with the two side tanks in front), the sting ray tank on the spine and the extra tanks now where the undercarriage was earlier , we are looking at something like a total of 3.5 tons , maybe even 4 tons or so fuel in that tiny fighter.

Vina, the above bolded part means lesser internal fuel tank capacity than that are being currently carried in the wings - so need to discount for it also. Plus some more space needs to be discounted for inteal EW/Comms stuff (e.g. Processing units for MAWS, Tactical Data Link etc.).

But agree, MK2 will turn out to be a superb beast with loads of (daresay unmatched) internal fuel capacity.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Feb 2011 20:10

vardhank wrote:This is the pic I'm referring to, a Tarmak007 pic:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/T ... 00/003.jpg

I always thought you needed a certain amount of physical space for the radar, which is why this nose seems a bit small to me. Or is it simply because this is a trainer version, and features a more basic radar (or no radar at all), and therefore doesn't require a large nose? Am I making sense?

I think the enlarged spine & enlarged canopy makes you to think the nose is small. Check with other other LCA pics, the nose is of same size.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 11 Feb 2011 20:13

SaiK wrote:On the AESA, LRDE should directly jump to AlGaN t/rs direct. There is no point in re-inventing these modules with GaAs and staging to advancements to save time, and work direct towards the leading/cutting edge tech.

JumpStart++

In this case choosing Thales, or EADS as a co-development partner would make much sense, because they already focusing on these modules.

Do you know whats the status of the Israeli 2052 is and what modules they will use?

steve · Post by **steve** » 11 Feb 2011 20:14

Please some body find out what is the Dry weight of LCA . Please post the photos of the LCA Spec Board at Aero India 2011. Please Post the request information.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Feb 2011 20:28

vic wrote:
If we have to maintain the strength and for smooth transition, new aircraft which is suppose to replace the existing one must be inducted before phasing the existing one. Any decision to augment the strength has to be taken well ahead in time.

If suppose we fast forward to 2025 - 2030 period. What will be the scenario ?

1. Jags must have been retired in 2020, except for the few.
2. MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 start retiring at that period and process could have been started.
3. That leaves only Su-30MKI, MMRCA and LCA. LCA and MMRCA by that time must have completed their production run, if we assume the no. 126 for MMRCA and 123 for LCA.
Mirage 2K, Jags, Mig-29s, Some Mig-27s will be upgraded between 2010 to 2015 so they will be around atleast 2025 and only then start retiring from say 2025-30 onwards. So you will have to add around 200 to your numbers between 2020 to 2030.

More importantly what will happen to the production line of Su-30MKI between 2015 to 2020, will be closed, used for upgrades or another 40-100 Sukhois ordered?

After 2015, 40 recently ordered will be carried out.

Jags are going to be retired from 2020 onwards. MiG-27 lasts till 2020. Life extension of MiG-29 is 15 years. Same way Mirage-2000 will be 15+.

So in 2025 - 2030, you are left with only LCA, MMRCA, Su-30 and PAK-FA. In order to maintain the numbers, you wont have the luxury of retiring them when they have to be retired and have to manage them keeping in the mind the time line of Induction. You are currently at the level of 33 Sqdn. You are at the burden of not only increase the strength to 39.5 or whatever and to manage the replacement for retiring a/c to keep the strength. This situation is very much reminiscent of the earlier decades which see the reduction in Sqdn strength due to slippages in the induction timeframe of new aircraft. To keep the stregnth at the time frame of 2025-2030, we are very much dependent on the PAK-FA. Is it not? And we see the same tamasha repeating again.

I think you have better convincing answer here from Indian Mil thread....

Sagar G wrote:IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

"We have proposed to increase our squadron strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons and it is under consideration of the Defence Ministry," IAF sources told PTI here.

The current squadron strength of the force is 33. A squadron comprises around 18 to 20 aircraft.In view of increasing Chinese military deployments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the IAF has been strengthening its presence in the northeastern sector and has plans of deploying four squadrons of the air superiority Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft there by 2015.

Asked about the time-frame in which the IAF was looking to achieve these numbers, they said the future acquisitions would depend on the sanctions accorded to the service by the Government.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 Feb 2011 22:27

Light Combat Aircraft’s naval variant to be ready by May.

The first flight of the naval version of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is expected to take place by May this year.

The Naval Prototype-1 (NPT1), which was rolled out last year, is undergoing integration tests in Bangalore.

Cmde (Retd) CD Balaji, project director LCA Navy, said integration tests are on and the aircraft is currently suspended on bungee cords for undergoing a series of tests.

Following this, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the nodal agency for the design and development of the LCA programme, is expected to start the aircraft engine for testing.

A series of ground tests followed by taxi trails will precede the first flight which is expected in May.

As part of the Aircraft Carrier Capability Testing (CCT), ADA will also have to carry trails at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) which is currently being built at the Naval Air Station in Goa.

The SBTF replicates an aircraft carrier having Restraining gear and Ski-jump for take-off. The landing area will have arresting gear and other landing aids as in an aircraft carrier. Once proved ashore, the aircraft will be cleared for trials on the carrier.

Meanwhile, as part of the Phase-2 of the LCA Navy programme, a single seat fighter (NP2) with a new higher thrust engine (GE-F141-INS6) and further design optimisation is on cards.

The NP2 structural build is at an advanced stage of completion and is due to fly a year after NP-1.

The LCA’s naval variant is to be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and is slated for deployment on the INS Vikramaditya as well as the Vikrant class aircraft carrier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 22:54

Sancho wrote:
SaiK wrote:On the AESA, LRDE should directly jump to AlGaN t/rs direct. There is no point in re-inventing these modules with GaAs and staging to advancements to save time, and work direct towards the leading/cutting edge tech.

JumpStart++
In this case choosing Thales, or EADS as a co-development partner would make much sense, because they already focusing on these modules.

Do you know whats the status of the Israeli 2052 is and what modules they will use?

Per elta chaiwala, Israeli program was funded and nurtured by unkill/ raytheon. Raytheon is already knee deep into advanced sensor packages with AlGaN or a variant, increasing the range/role by double, reducing the power requirements nearing 7-8times per last reports /google for yourself. advanced stage of testing.

Again, I should not be comparing per thread guidelines.. but has a reference since 2052 was banned for LCA. Many elta people as consultants work for raytheon.

DRDO labs, and IITs are also in knee deep in R&Ding into AlGaN /GaN .

@See also
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... 3&p=992821

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Feb 2011 23:37

Kanson wrote:
vic wrote:quote If we have to maintain the strength and for smooth transition, new aircraft which is suppose to replace the existing one must be inducted before phasing the existing one. Any decision to augment the strength has to be taken well ahead in time.

If suppose we fast forward to 2025 - 2030 period. What will be the scenario ?

1. Jags must have been retired in 2020, except for the few.
2. MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 start retiring at that period and process could have been started.
3. That leaves only Su-30MKI, MMRCA and LCA. LCA and MMRCA by that time must have completed their production run, if we assume the no. 126 for MMRCA and 123 for LCA.
Mirage 2K, Jags, Mig-29s, Some Mig-27s will be upgraded between 2010 to 2015 so they will be around atleast 2025 and only then start retiring from say 2025-30 onwards. So you will have to add around 200 to your numbers between 2020 to 2030.

More importantly what will happen to the production line of Su-30MKI between 2015 to 2020, will be closed, used for upgrades or another 40-100 Sukhois ordered? /quote
After 2015, 40 recently ordered will be carried out.

Jags are going to be retired from 2020 onwards. MiG-27 lasts till 2020. Life extension of MiG-29 is 15 years. Same way Mirage-2000 will be 15+.

So in 2025 - 2030, you are left with only LCA, MMRCA, Su-30 and PAK-FA. In order to maintain the numbers, you wont have the luxury of retiring them when they have to be retired and have to manage them keeping in the mind the time line of Induction. You are currently at the level of 33 Sqdn. You are at the burden of not only increase the strength to 39.5 or whatever and to manage the replacement for retiring a/c to keep the strength. This situation is very much reminiscent of the earlier decades which see the reduction in Sqdn strength due to slippages in the induction timeframe of new aircraft. To keep the stregnth at the time frame of 2025-2030, we are very much dependent on the PAK-FA. Is it not? And we see the same tamasha repeating again.

I think you have better convincing answer here from Indian Mil thread....

quote="Sagar G"IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

"We have proposed to increase our squadron strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons and it is under consideration of the Defence Ministry," IAF sources told PTI here.

The current squadron strength of the force is 33. A squadron comprises around 18 to 20 aircraft.In view of increasing Chinese military deployments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the IAF has been strengthening its presence in the northeastern sector and has plans of deploying four squadrons of the air superiority Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft there by 2015.

Asked about the time-frame in which the IAF was looking to achieve these numbers, they said the future acquisitions would depend on the sanctions accorded to the service by the Government./quote

Using the BR's Aircraft Fleet Strength as baseline ...

Retiring squadrons by 2022:

5 x MiG-21 M/MF
2 x MiG-21Bis
6 x MiG-21 Bison
3.5 x MiG-27 ML
2 x MiG-27 UPG

Total (retiring 2022): 18.5 squadrons

Current Squadrons (2010) still in place by 2022:

3 x MiG-29UPG
3 x Mirage 2000UPG
6 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
5 x Jaguar IS
1 x Jaguar IM

Total (remaining 2022): 18 squadrons
Note: All listed here, except MKI, will be retiring between 2022 and 2030.

Planned Squadrons in place by 2022:

2 x LCA Mk.1
5 x LCA Mk.2
9 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
7 x MRCA
2 x PAK-FA/FGFA

Total (induction 2022): 25 squadrons

This means in 2022:
Total (remaining + induction): 18 + 25 = 43 squadrons in 2022

From 2022 to 2030, there will be 12 squadrons (3 x MiG-29UPG, 3 x Mirage 2000UPG, 5 x Jaguar IS, 1 x Jaguar IM) being retired (as shown above). The production lines for the LCA, MRCA, and FGFA will be available during that period. AMCA will come online in the later half of this (closer to 2030).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Feb 2011 23:43

I am expecting AMCA IOC in 10 yrs and FOC in 12 - i.e. 2022. still a longish way out but not 2030.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 23:46

got to agree.
for a nation with barely more than zero infra we managed LCA IOC in 17 years. the rate only accelerates from here.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Feb 2011 23:52

Singha wrote:I am expecting AMCA IOC in 10 yrs and FOC in 12 - i.e. 2022. still a longish way out but not 2030.

AMCA Timeline:

First flight is planned for 2017.
To reach IOC, it takes at the minimum 7 to 10 years from first flight.
To reach FOC, add another 2 to 3 years to the IOC.

So given the above, IOC will be achieved sometime between 2024 and 2027. FOC will be achieved sometime between 2026 and 2030 timeframe. Production run will begin once IOC is realized.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2011 23:58

srai, Hate to do this but can you put all that in one slide?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Feb 2011 00:11

Kartik wrote:
indranilroy wrote: There is a discussion a couple of pages back on the changes. Vina ji provided possible changes in the landing gear placement as well.

The droopy nose looks good. But it is not good for aerodynamics and RCS. The LCA-AF is sleeker through the air. That is why the LCA-Navy MKII looks a lot like the LCA-AF-MKII. IT doesn't have thave the hunched back of NP1 and NP2.

I don't know what you mean by your second question.
The droopy nose is there, just that its a lot more streamlined aft of the cockpit. The earlier NP2 design was simply adding a cover onto the rear cockpit and otherwise leaving it similar to NP1.

As you said, the drag is definitely higher on the NP1 as compared to the regular Air Force single seater. They would've noticed that after flight testing PV-5 which is the basis for NP1. I actually love the N-LCA Mk2's look. Slight droop is there, the blending is beautiful and the additional 0.5m of length somehow makes the proportions finally look right (I always felt that the aspect ratio of the Tejas Mk1 was just not right),

Really looking forward to seeing the Mk2s fly. Like others, I too feel that they've licked all the aerodynamic problems finally.

Damn right! Beat the looks of this. Seriously good looking bird. Needs to be reproduced at high resolution.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Feb 2011 00:16

Capt Maolanker's presentation talked about changing the air intakes so that the engine doesn't get starved at sea level. He also talked about the undercarraige moving outboard, presumably in the wings. however, I don't see the changed air intakes in the Mk-2 model, nor is the undercarraige present in this model. Is this really the final iteration of mk-II?