LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Dec 2017 00:39

It will be a new aircraft. But why not MRCA the LCA.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2017 00:53

It will be a new aircraft LCA MK III

AL 31FP is 60% more weight (and correspondingly big) compared to F404 but produces 50% more thrust (notice slight drop in efficiency, to give 50% more thrust, it is 60% more heavy). In all it can support LCA that is 50% more in size/weight etc. Same wing (in shape not dimension), tail, same major susbsystems. The mid body has to be elongated, it can accomodate more fuel/newer system. It will have at least twice or more range of LCA mk 1, with bigger radar and more hardpoints. It can also have TVC etc. Considerably Bigger than F16I or Grippen E. It could be big enough that we can dream of internal bay and stealth shaping, our own SE stealth fighter, generation 5. Then replace the engine with whatever comes with FGFA so that it can supercruise.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 24 Dec 2017 01:06

Saurav Jha - I will not be surprised if the Tejas Mk-2 design grows a pair of canards sooner than later.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/944645042865455104

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Dec 2017 01:24

fanne wrote:It will be a new aircraft LCA MK III

AL 31FP is 60% more weight (and correspondingly big) compared to F404 but produces 50% more thrust (notice slight drop in efficiency, to give 50% more thrust, it is 60% more heavy). In all it can support LCA that is 50% more in size/weight etc. Same wing (in shape not dimension), tail, same major susbsystems. The mid body has to be elongated, it can accomodate more fuel/newer system. It will have at least twice or more range of LCA mk 1, with bigger radar and more hardpoints. It can also have TVC etc. Considerably Bigger than F16I or Grippen E. It could be big enough that we can dream of internal bay and stealth shaping, our own SE stealth fighter, generation 5. Then replace the engine with whatever comes with FGFA so that it can supercruise.

IMHO, there is way it can have an internal bay with one AL-31 unless you go with something far larger than the J-10 which is already bigger than the F-16 and Gripen.

Anyhoo, I like the idea of going to the AL-31 since we are already producing it. But the airframe will need to be a new design.

And it might end up looking something like the J-10 which is an Israeli Lavi. In fact, maybe we can build a better Lavi with the Al-31FP TVC.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2017 01:34

One good reason to go for AL31F will be to build a bigger LCA (MCA?) but keep everything else same, a 1.4 or 1.6 scale LCA. That way development effort is no different than it is between LCA mk 1 to LCA mk 2. This bigger LCA will give us more volume (more systems, bigger radar, more fuel, more hard points....more range), with an engine that is sanction proof (little inefficient, little less reliable). Even if the project is not done, announce a study. That will make everything else in LCA1 and 2 sanction proof.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Dec 2017 01:40

fanne wrote:It will be a new aircraft LCA MK III

AL 31FP is 60% more weight (and correspondingly big) compared to F404 but produces 50% more thrust (notice slight drop in efficiency, to give 50% more thrust, it is 60% more heavy). In all it can support LCA that is 50% more in size/weight etc. Same wing (in shape not dimension), tail, same major susbsystems. The mid body has to be elongated, it can accomodate more fuel/newer system. It will have at least twice or more range of LCA mk 1, with bigger radar and more hardpoints. It can also have TVC etc. Considerably Bigger than F16I or Grippen E. It could be big enough that we can dream of internal bay and stealth shaping, our own SE stealth fighter, generation 5. Then replace the engine with whatever comes with FGFA so that it can supercruise.

You are facing a designer's conundrum. Which is actually a good thing. You just proposed light F-35 equivalent MKI

or rather indianized F-35. The above will supercruise with AL 31FP itself.

I think after AMCA, ADA must take up a design of Indianized F-35 (call it LCA-F3.5I) around the AL 31FP engine. It will be a good exercise incorporating the design elements from AMCA into a single engined 5th generation stealth platform.

But again, one can think of extending the kaveri to replace the AL-31 FP and start designing the AMCA/LCA around it.

The inflection point, I stated earlier is the Jet Engine. Everything else is in place (or almost there).

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2017 01:51

If it can super cruise with AL31FP, then we are fool not to pursue follow on to LCA, India's next generation SE 5th gen fighter. Our Achilles heal has been engine, we made planes but somehow engine did not come along or what came along was not sufficient. Now we have an engine that fits the need along with a future variant planed and available ( AL41 F - 160KN thrust), I would say why not. Pursue AMCA and next gen LCA both. In fact why cannot MCA engine be AL31F/AL4IF - or to get better tech and mitigate sourcing risk (Rus acting smart, or lagging behind or under Chinese influence) maybe let that be a western engine.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Dec 2017 03:32

If iaf is willing to keep the production line flowing, they can chew on a bit more in the LCA mk2. LCA mk2 can also come with rr engine slated for amca. They could do the first few prototypes with the 414 engine till that is ready. They could push for LCA mk2 in the medium range with about 5k kgs of fuel and payload and some internal carriage that is easy to do (like thr f15 stealth add on)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2017 05:07

When "izdeliye 30" is available why AL41.*?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2017 05:47

I believe tbat too many people are underestimating the complexity of re engining the Tejas with an engine that does not fit the engine bay and is beavier & more powerful. In practice this means an entirely new aircraft with its attendant risks and testing requirements. IMO this sort of uninformed speculation only raises the hopes of the underinformed and lowers the quality of forum discourse.

The few people on BRF who have some inkling about aircraft design must chip in here and, excuse my French, help cut the crap.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 24 Dec 2017 06:04

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Read the whole thing. Awesome article. I would suggest, go to the link...drink some chai and enjoy!

Why the fight for Tejas and Arjun is not just about defence forces
http://www.governancenow.com/views/colu ... nce-forces
Visit this link (from Anantha Krishnan) and retweet if you have a Twitter account ---> https://twitter.com/akananth/status/944033992239484928

My post from 11th October that highlighted key points made in this article.. ecosystems.. geopolitics..

Rishi_Tri wrote:Agree and Don't Agree with Zynda, Shiv, SiddharthS.

Firmly believe that one motivated person can do the job of 1000 people. A gold medalist is worth 100 top ten guys. Give them freedom and they shall create a storm. Of course we need the top ten guys too (people such as me ) for gadha mazuri.

Funds are absolutely no problem with this government. And when the PM himself says.. Na Khaunga Na Khane Dunga .. substantially more becomes available on the ground, though some pockets shall still be warm. But honestly expected better things on funds allocation and am a Modi supporter.

We slowly have a parallel system coming up. TASL, Mahindra Aerospace, who ever builds the single fighter (nazar lage iss single fighter ko), and countless smaller manufacturers who are buzzing around LCA or have buzzed around other programs. You run faster when you have a pace setter or competitor or fellow runner.

In addition, enough people have come back to India to set up enterprises in truly high tech spaces. They are struggling without much govt support but in true daredevil style continue to plough through.

The way I see it, if LCA, Arjun, ATAGS, are successfully inducted it shall mean 100s of billions lost for foreign manufacturers. And they are already suffering. I am talking about Dhruv (competing systems), Akash (Patriot systems), PSLV / GSLV (Ariancespace), Various indigenous ships / boats (Northrop, Russians, Koreans etc). Just imagine what could happen when Astra, Nirbhay, Helina, FICV etc go through their dev cycles. Not to talk about impending induction of LCH which means no Roivalk or Tiger or Kamovs.

What we are seeing now is a battle for ages. National governments are on notice because of job losses. Example - India ordered Rafales and they were followed by other orders. With the result that Dassault kept their jobs intact whereas BAE is firing 2000 people as they don't have enough orders for Typhoons.

This is a conversation that Modi, Macron, May, Putin, Trump are having with each other and Modi being in enviable position of calling the shots.

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Dec 2017 06:12

^Saar, some ofthe posts are meant for “Designing your own fighter which has a tailless twin delta planform”

Scenarios of death to LCA inflicted by babudom via thousands of paper clips not withstanding., come 2025 there will be rona-dhona about LCA mk2 to be picked w/ GE 414 or with kaveri!

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 24 Dec 2017 06:23

shiv wrote:
Katare wrote:
83 after 3 decades of project development? JSF had confirmed plan orders of 3000+ before a single flight. It has production rate of 100+/year in IOC stage. That is called supporting a product.....well not sure what to call 20, 20, 83 to replace 500 mig 21s that we had.

These 83 were coerced by Shri Parikker ji so no credit to IAF in my books.
Every time we compare with America we put our nation down a little - like a boy who gets second rank in class and is ridiculed for not coming first rather than encouraged for beating everyone else. As Indians we always have an eye on America (or the west) and are always ready to put anything Indian down by comparing unfavourably with the US. This is the kind of mental colonization that the west has on us. This is the second time an unfavourable comparison has come up in the last 12 hours on this forum.

Why must we do this? Is it really necessary to point to ourselves and say how hopeless we are? Who actually gains when people do this? It is a sad commentary on the mental state of the most highly literate among Indians.

We are completely unaware of the state our nation was in 50 years ago - and like the cousin of mine who was born in a village and after age 20 his life was village to Bangalore to Mumbai to New York. And all that this sorry bugger did all his miserable life was compare his village with New York. He still takes people on tour of his house "This is car. This is remote control for curtains. etc"

Why do you have to see it as amerika vs India instead of JSF program vs LCA program? One being done right and another not so good, I fail to see why it would put our nation down? Why do you consistently think India gets putdown if it isn’t doing something right? What is the connection between discussing and referencing us, the Indians, with what one thinks is the state of the art in the world, Had to do with self flogging?

May be decades of piskology is getting to you Shivji. You certainly don’t want us to become another Pakistan where everything Islam/Islamic is always great and no problems exist that can’t be solved by applying more of the same? These cliché of colonialism and white/brown make me cringe, i think we need to get over this insecurity. Being behind or struggling does not make anyone inferior. Also identifying and adopting best practices from around the world is the mamalian way to success.
If there was anothe HAL in India would have used it as an example in respect to sensitivities around gora/west vs Indian.

I usually wouldn’t have replied to you, in deference to you, your contributions at BRF and what I have personally learned from you over so many years but i just wanted to caution against over doing it. I do take your point and i would try to amend my ways.

To make LCA a true success we must reach out, leave no stone unturned, reference ourselves to the best and let no cliche held us back.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Dec 2017 08:45

Said many a time why the ADA/HAL , whoever the buck stops with,did not build a few more prototypes with engine alternatives beats me.We could've has EJ , SNECMA and RR competing along with even Ru engine options for two alternative prototypes, apart from the GE
404 plant.It would've given excellent insight and a choice of plants for the future AMCA .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2017 10:32

V.S. Arunachalam was the one pushing for putting LCA in US basket. Even RLG was supposed to be US during early discussions.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2017 10:35

^^^ Oh this thread has gone on a few wild goose chases in the last few days.

1. Changing engines to ones with different power, diameter, airflow etc. is not easy or cheap. It is not about the engines alone, you will have to re-certify every part that you modify. So let's keep that aside.
2. Some restructuring has happened regarding how ADA scientist get paid. And hence I am hearing that the midnight oil has started to burn in the Mk2 offices again.
3. SJha is right close coupled canards are being seriously considered again. FCS guys are confident that they can handle the challenge.
4. Aroor is also right: LSP2 is being modified for Uttam test bed. I don't know if a second prototype is. HAL doesn't want to hold back Mk1A for Uttam. Prudent in my opinion.
5. For the technically inclined, Tejas has been sporting an active fuel proportioner for a while now.
6. Somebody, said that HAL actually went ahead and broke the wing just beyond structural limit to prove a point. Well, that is the test. The wing should break just beyond structural load limit. Otherwise, it is not optimized. You can find examples galore from the internet.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2017 11:50

Katare wrote:
Why do you have to see it as amerika vs India instead of JSF program vs LCA program? One being done right and another not so good, I fail to see why it would put our nation down? Why do you consistently think India gets putdown if it isn’t doing something right?

Secure or insecure I cannot understand how the comparison is an informed one rather than a rhetorical reminder of what is common knowledge. It is common knowledge that JSF is right and LCA is not so good. Exactly what is positive and informative about the statement?

If it is possible to indicate why the JSF and LCA are comparable without ANY reference to USA or India I would be happy to learn.

srin · Post by **srin** » 24 Dec 2017 11:52

Al-31 class engine is similar to F110, which means that it won't be LCA anymore. It will be F16 class. It will be bigger (to carry more fuel) and hence heavier. It will be wholly new aircraft, so why would we want to do that ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2017 11:57

Let me clear some Mk1A related doubts.

History: IN wanted an LCA with better TWR. ADA proposed increasing engine power. IAF latched on to the idea. As changing an engine is relatively involved operation, ADA proposed that its teams could improve Mk2 in virtually every aspect. Aerodynamically, the biggest change was to add a 0.5 mtr plug. This plug would help decrease wave drag. With decreased drag and increased power, the LCA could greatly strengthen its weakest point, i.e. transonic acceleration. The body plug would also provide space for more internal fuel which would increase the reach of the fighter. In other flight regimes, like subsonic cruise and sustained turns, the plug in itself would increase drag slightly, but the 16% increase in thrust would more than take care of that. But all these changes would take ADA 7-8 years (at the minimum) to get a production ready Mk2.

Obviously, HAL objected. It couldn't ramp up production to 16 aircraft per year by the end of 2018, complete Mk1 orders by 2019-20 and then sit idle till 2025 for Mk2 to be ready. They suggested a simpler path. Increase TWR by decreasing weight. There are all kinds of numbers thrown on how much weight can be saved: from 0 to 1000 kgs. By shedding the instrumentations, Mk1 SPs are already lighter than the LSPs by 200 kgs. HAL said they can further reduce the weight by optimizing the landing gears. They also intended to redistribute the LRUs for three purposes. First, they wanted to get rid of all the ballast in the plane. Although, I have heard HAL say that it is 300kgs of saving, I have reason to believe that it is closer to 120-150 kgs. Second, by consolidating the LRUs into single packages, one can save on the weight of the brackets, mounts etc. A similar exercise on the Uttam is saving over 100 kgs. And finally, they want to increase ease of manufacturing and maintenance by keeping care-intensive LRUs within easy access. My gut feeling is that leaving aside the the instrumentation-related savings, 300-400 kgs look feasible. The effect will be a plane with better subsonic performance (especially in sustained turns) and marginally better endurance. Transonic performance will remain virtually unaltered if they don't take actions to reduce form drag.

Below, I list the modifications which are sure, probable and improbable for Mk1A. I will also give my feeling of how much work is left to be done for each of the items.

Sure
====
1. Weight reduction: a lot of work is left to be done.
2. AESA radar: a lot of work is left to be done.
3. LRU reorganization: a lot of work is left to be done.
4. Easy access panels: IIRC this is already done for Mk2.
5. SPJ pod integration: a lot of work is to be done. But both DARE and HAL would have experience by virtue of a similar project for the Su-30.
6. OBOGs integration: lot of work to be done. OBOGs system is ready, integration into system and flight testing remaining. I have heard, an LSP has been earmarked for this.

Probable
=======
1. Aerodynamic improvements: Reshaped canopy, extended actuator fairings, sleeker pylons. Academic studies are complete. If HAL does not incorporate these changes, I would be disappointed.
2. Updated cockpit: A lot of work has been complete.

Improbable
==========
1. Wide frameless HUD
2. Moving the gun to a gunpod and freeing up space for a pylon when the gun is not required.
3. 9G certification. The aircraft is probably 9G capable, but each LRU has to be recertified to give the aircraft that certification. No time.
4. Semi retractable inflight probe like on Mig-29 UPG.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2017 11:58

Can we move the discussion to re-engining LCA with anything other than the F414 to the design your own jet dhaga.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Dec 2017 13:12

Oh god not the AL-31 in LCA idea again. If any engine could be used on any aircraft why would engine manufacturers develop more than one engine type? If you want to suggest an alternative engine at least do some basic research about the size and weight of the engines. Anyway, shiv saar has provided you the information this time.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Dec 2017 13:14

Indranil wrote:Can we move the discussion to re-engining LCA with anything other than the F414 to the design your own jet dhaga.

I think we should also move related posts from last couple of pages to Design your own Fighter thread.

Interestingly while replying to one post on 0.5mtr plug a couple of days ago here, I typed that I would rather have ADA go with 1mtr plug a la NLCA. I first thought of 0.5m each before and after the wing, but that would have moved engine back and wouldn't have helped area curve in rear portion either. So I thought better go with 1mtr plug ahead of wing itself. But then that would reduce static instability margin. So I thought it would be perhaps possible only if canards can be put on. Which seemed highly unlikely a couple of days ago. So I deleted that part of my post thinking its just a jingo dream. But now with the revelation that Canards can be put on LCA Mk2, I would definitely want ADA to go with 1mtr plug or even more if possible and maximize internal volume, the more the better, use all for fuel. There is quite a bit of scope for plug from wave drag perspective and canards will help maintain static instability margin as well as reduce trim drag. Adding half mtr plug would give significant boost to internal fuel if all of it can be used for fuel. I estimate a good 1000-1200ltr Volume availability from this.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 24 Dec 2017 13:24

Indranil wrote:Let me clear some Mk1A related doubts.

History: IN wanted an LCA with better TWR. ADA proposed increasing engine power. IAF latched on to the idea. As changing an engine is relatively involved operation, ADA proposed that its teams could improve Mk2 in virtually every aspect. Aerodynamically, the biggest change was to add a 0.5 mtr plug. This plug would help decrease wave drag. With decreased drag and increased power, the LCA could greatly strengthen its weakest point, i.e. transonic acceleration. The body plug would also provide space for more internal fuel which would increase the reach of the fighter. In other flight regimes, like subsonic cruise and sustained turns, the plug in itself would increase drag slightly, but the 16% increase in thrust would more than take care of that. But all these changes would take ADA 7-8 years (at the minimum) to get a production ready Mk2.

Obviously, HAL objected. It couldn't ramp up production to 16 aircraft per year by the end of 2018, complete Mk1 orders by 2019-20 and then sit idle till 2025 for Mk2 to be ready. They suggested a simpler path. Increase TWR by decreasing weight. There are all kinds of numbers thrown on how much weight can be saved: from 0 to 1000 kgs. By shedding the instrumentations, Mk1 SPs are already lighter than the LSPs by 200 kgs. HAL said they can further reduce the weight by optimizing the landing gears. They also intended to redistribute the LRUs for three purposes. First, they wanted to get rid of all the ballast in the plane. Although, I have heard HAL say that it is 300kgs of saving, I have reason to believe that it is closer to 120-150 kgs. Second, by consolidating the LRUs into single packages, one can save on the weight of the brackets, mounts etc. A similar exercise on the Uttam is saving over 100 kgs. And finally, they want to increase ease of manufacturing and maintenance by keeping care-intensive LRUs within easy access. My gut feeling is that leaving aside the the instrumentation-related savings, 300-400 kgs look feasible. The effect will be a plane with better subsonic performance (especially in sustained turns) and marginally better endurance. Transonic performance will remain virtually unaltered if they don't take actions to reduce form drag.

Below, I list the modifications which are sure, probable and improbable for Mk1A. I will also give my feeling of how much work is left to be done for each of the items.

Sure
====
1. Weight reduction: a lot of work is left to be done.
2. AESA radar: a lot of work is left to be done.
3. LRU reorganization: a lot of work is left to be done.
4. Easy access panels: IIRC this is already done for Mk2.
5. SPJ pod integration: a lot of work is to be done. But both DARE and HAL would have experience by virtue of a similar project for the Su-30.
6. OBOGs integration: lot of work to be done. OBOGs system is ready, integration into system and flight testing remaining. I have heard, an LSP has been earmarked for this.

Probable
=======
1. Aerodynamic improvements: Reshaped canopy, extended actuator fairings, sleeker pylons. Academic studies are complete. If HAL does not incorporate these changes, I would be disappointed.
2. Updated cockpit: A lot of work has been complete.

Improbable
==========
1. Wide frameless HUD
2. Moving the gun to a gunpod and freeing up space for a pylon when the gun is not required.
3. 9G certification. The aircraft is probably 9G capable, but each LRU has to be recertified to give the aircraft that certification. No time.
4. Semi retractable inflight probe like on Mig-29 UPG.

Indranil your SURE bucket has a lot of "LOTS OF WORK TO BE DONE".

Scary...You think they will have a new landing gear in a year and a bit?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Dec 2017 17:21

Forget LCAs for SL.Vayu titbit say that 6 of our old SU-30s in storage with Belarus may be picked up for a song, cheaper than JF-17s on offer.If they're that cheap, why on earth did we junk them in the first place during a period of declining numbers, then search the dustbins for ex-Malaysian MIG-29s, French Jags , both less capable!
Surely we could've extended their lifespan, some upgrades and used them for specific tasks?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2017 18:15

acquisition is only one kind of cost.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2017 19:39

Philip wrote:Forget LCAs for SL.Vayu titbit say that 6 of our old SU-30s in storage with Belarus may be picked up for a song, cheaper than JF-17s on offer.If they're that cheap, why on earth did we junk them in the first place during a period of declining numbers, then search the dustbins for ex-Malaysian MIG-29s, French Jags , both less capable!
Surely we could've extended their lifespan, some upgrades and used them for specific tasks?

Those are the old Su 30 ks

Junk

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Dec 2017 20:09

But surely better than junked Jags, Mig-29s, etc.? Which we are like stray mongrels sniffing out of various garbage dumps! If they are so bad why are dev. nations been buying them?

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Dec 2017 20:20

Indranil wrote:...
Below, I list the modifications which are sure, probable and improbable for Mk1A. I will also give my feeling of how much work is left to be done for each of the items.

Sure
====
1. Weight reduction: a lot of work is left to be done.
2. AESA radar: a lot of work is left to be done.
3. LRU reorganization: a lot of work is left to be done.
4. Easy access panels: IIRC this is already done for Mk2.
5. SPJ pod integration: a lot of work is to be done. But both DARE and HAL would have experience by virtue of a similar project for the Su-30.
6. OBOGs integration: lot of work to be done. OBOGs system is ready, integration into system and flight testing remaining. I have heard, an LSP has been earmarked for this.

Probable
=======
1. Aerodynamic improvements: Reshaped canopy, extended actuator fairings, sleeker pylons. Academic studies are complete. If HAL does not incorporate these changes, I would be disappointed.
2. Updated cockpit: A lot of work has been complete.
...

It doesn’t seem Mk1A will be ready anytime soon. Certainly not before production of 40 Mk1 ends in 2020.

Should be obvious to the IAF/MoD/HAL/ADA/MoF/GOI production run of Mk1 needs to be extended with more orders, but no movement on it so far. Given the whole 11-step procurement process, doesn’t seem more Mk1 likely and therefore production will come to a halt in 2020. Lead times of 24-36 months need to be factored in.

Seems like Arjun Mk.2 situation where the production line has been sitting idle for 5-years (which instead could have produced 250 Arjun Mk1 during that timeframe had the orders been there to continue production @ 50/year). Every year that Mk1A is delayed in being certified for production India would be missing out on a squadron worth of 16 LCAs (capacity that will be attained in 2019/2020). Factor in lead times, that would be another 2-3 squadrons forgone. No one to blame for squadron shortages but Indian entities themselves. Solution in front and center but no takers. Sad state of affairs, IMO.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2017 21:32

It looks like for many of our problem, the solution is right in front of us, but we always miss it, don't know why. Though MOD is the obvious place to look through this (but staffed with babus, that rotate in 2-3 years and MOD posting is no different than posting in fisheries or irrigation department), IAF is the end user. IAF should grow an org that looks through all this and give opinion/advisory ...getting Malayasian Mig 29, what is missing in contract for Rafael that can cost us, when should we start on 40+ order for LCA so that SQ can be built, like a forward 3-5-10-15 years looking org that covers everything. That way this thing does not get missed. IN is apparently doing this, they have a well laid plan of where it wants to be in 2-5-10-15 years. Any setbacks, like Mig 29K, and they are flexible enough to look at other alternatives (unlike IAF, where SQ fell from 42 to 33). They are not sending their leased Akula back for repairs, lest Russia impounds it or repair takes 30-50 years, unlike IAF letting go 20 SU30Ks (they could have acted just as Air superiority planes)...possibilities are unlimited. But many things for IAF is falling between the crack (lack of holistic vision) vis a vis IN.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 24 Dec 2017 23:00

Is the canards confidence coming from the lca Navy program?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Dec 2017 00:59

Fanne, I don't think the Akula damage is all that serious requiring it being sent back.Terms of the lease require the owner to sort out any problem, cheaper doing the needful here.3 months should be the time enough.
CNS in an interview said that all new IN aircraft should be able to operate from exg. carriers plus future ones.Lift sizes on our two at the moment,would rule out some players unless they modify their birds-unlikely for an order of just around 57+ aircraft.If MIG get their act together, with an improved 29K to 35 std ( AESA radar, TVC engines,etc.) without legacy 29K glitches , it could be the answer.Rafale-Ms at what cost?

LCA Mk-2 increasingly looking like a dodgy programme which may be overwhelmed by events.Unless HAL perform some sort of miracle and double production by next year with a second line- and it can be done with a war footing day mentality, working day and night ,so that by 2025 all 120+ Mk-1/1As are delivered with Mk-2 series prod to begin, other contenders will prove more attractive to the IAF.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Dec 2017 01:19

]

Indranil wrote:Let me clear some Mk1A related doubts.

History: IN wanted an LCA with better TWR. ADA proposed increasing engine power. IAF latched on to the idea. As changing an engine is relatively involved operation, ADA proposed that its teams could improve Mk2 in virtually every aspect. Aerodynamically, the biggest change was to add a 0.5 mtr plug. This plug would help decrease wave drag. With decreased drag and increased power, the LCA could greatly strengthen its weakest point, i.e. transonic acceleration. The body plug would also provide space for more internal fuel which would increase the reach of the fighter. In other flight regimes, like subsonic cruise and sustained turns, the plug in itself would increase drag slightly, but the 16% increase in thrust would more than take care of that. But all these changes would take ADA 7-8 years (at the minimum) to get a production ready Mk2.

Obviously, HAL objected. It couldn't ramp up production to 16 aircraft per year by the end of 2018, complete Mk1 orders by 2019-20 and then sit idle till 2025 for Mk2 to be ready. They suggested a simpler path. Increase TWR by decreasing weight. There are all kinds of numbers thrown on how much weight can be saved: from 0 to 1000 kgs. By shedding the instrumentations, Mk1 SPs are already lighter than the LSPs by 200 kgs. HAL said they can further reduce the weight by optimizing the landing gears. They also intended to redistribute the LRUs for three purposes. First, they wanted to get rid of all the ballast in the plane. Although, I have heard HAL say that it is 300kgs of saving, I have reason to believe that it is closer to 120-150 kgs. Second, by consolidating the LRUs into single packages, one can save on the weight of the brackets, mounts etc. A similar exercise on the Uttam is saving over 100 kgs. And finally, they want to increase ease of manufacturing and maintenance by keeping care-intensive LRUs within easy access. My gut feeling is that leaving aside the the instrumentation-related savings, 300-400 kgs look feasible. The effect will be a plane with better subsonic performance (especially in sustained turns) and marginally better endurance. Transonic performance will remain virtually unaltered if they don't take actions to reduce form drag.

Below, I list the modifications which are sure, probable and improbable for Mk1A. I will also give my feeling of how much work is left to be done for each of the items.

Sure
====
1. Weight reduction: a lot of work is left to be done.
2. AESA radar: a lot of work is left to be done.
3. LRU reorganization: a lot of work is left to be done.
4. Easy access panels: IIRC this is already done for Mk2.
5. SPJ pod integration: a lot of work is to be done. But both DARE and HAL would have experience by virtue of a similar project for the Su-30.
6. OBOGs integration: lot of work to be done. OBOGs system is ready, integration into system and flight testing remaining. I have heard, an LSP has been earmarked for this.

Probable
=======
1. Aerodynamic improvements: Reshaped canopy, extended actuator fairings, sleeker pylons. Academic studies are complete. If HAL does not incorporate these changes, I would be disappointed.
2. Updated cockpit: A lot of work has been complete.

Improbable
==========
1. Wide frameless HUD
2. Moving the gun to a gunpod and freeing up space for a pylon when the gun is not required.
3. 9G certification. The aircraft is probably 9G capable, but each LRU has to be recertified to give the aircraft that certification. No time.
4. Semi retractable inflight probe like on Mig-29 UPG.

Thanks for the tidbits.. Yes 300kg would be a great savings, and more reasonable than other numbers.

But what really caught my attention was the history. ADA knew of the weight problem in 2007, and the mk2 was suggested ages ago. it took them 4-5 years just to decide on the engine and then took another phew years to propose to get it ready in 2025. Why so slow? Iirc, AM Rajkumar had given an estimate of 10 years. But this is over 15.. It seems like it just takes too long.

And folks here want to get an al31 into it ! It will be ready by 2050. Rather let them continue with amca. Let Hal take over LCA CIP, even they seem faster. In any case it still be IAFs low end fighter, no need for making it too fancy just yet.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 25 Dec 2017 01:52

^^^ It seems that many of the weight reductions are coming from the design...things that can be known for sure only after the design is known to work in all load situations i.e. things that are known for sure only after IOC/FOC. Some data is known ahead of time, but to take the final decisions, the full system has to be OKayed. If parts are moved around to save weight, it could potentially affect the CG, and therefore, the FCS. These weight savings could have only been proposed as likely in 2007, but to act on it with 100% confidence (and not screw up something else at some point in flight envelope)..... that can come only after a design is accepted.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Dec 2017 02:57

Jay,

I think they are thinking on similar lines. I don't know the length of plug that they are going to add. But if they go for a 1 mtr or longer plug, then a close coupled canard makes a lot of sense. I don't know what would differentiate the Gripen NG from the LCA Mk2 then.

I was thinking that they would go with an active extended levcon like the PAKFA. But, they are considering an MKI kind of layout (-the tailplane).

Sachin sahab,

That is why they are trying to limit the scope. We will know in 6 months for sure. AESA/avionics/SPJ/EW is okay. They have experience and HAL is a very good systems integrator. Those can be ironed out with time as well. Just get the airframes out first. And to do that they have to complete the re-layout, and freeze the design. And that is my biggest worry. I don't have a lot of confidence in HAL's fixed wing aero department. If they manage this part, I am not worrried of the others.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 25 Dec 2017 04:23

Indranil wrote:
Sachin sahab,

That is why they are trying to limit the scope. We will know in 6 months for sure. AESA/avionics/SPJ/EW is okay. They have experience and HAL is a very good systems integrator. Those can be ironed out with time as well. Just get the airframes out first. And to do that they have to complete the re-layout, and freeze the design. And that is my biggest worry. I don't have a lot of confidence in HAL's fixed wing aero department. If they manage this part, I am not worrried of the others.

For want of a nail a shoe could be lost!!!!

I am worried...

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 Dec 2017 06:22

Whether it is CG redistribution, LRU placement or the layout visualisation prior to prototyping the MK1A/2 has the advantage of real world simulation data collected from the TD/LSPs and this should come in handy in order to reduce the number of test points(by aggregation). I dont think the real estate management is a big worry vis-a-vis other items as the simulation studies will be far more potent than what it was for MK1. Same is the case with LG and associated weight reduction. The plug as i understand is insertion of a section in the front-middle airframe and the same can be studied in the simulations as well. All in all, we need a lot of luck coupled with focus.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Dec 2017 07:12

Folks lets focus on near term tasks and let Dileep, JayS, KaranM tell us about Mk1A and Mk2.

If SP5 is first of the new line being made on the former Hawk line that implies the seond line is close to maturity.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Dec 2017 08:15

Don’t worry Sachin sahab. At the very worst, they will end up with maintenance friendlier MK1 with an AESA radar and an SPJ.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Dec 2017 08:25

Ramana sir, SP5, SP 9, SP 10 are from line 2. Not only is this line in the same space as the Hawk line, it is run by the same people. Even on the Hawk line, there were initial hiccups. But after a while, they not only made up for lost time, but delivered the last few ahead of schedule

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 25 Dec 2017 10:20

Indranil wrote:Don’t worry Sachin sahab. At the very worst, they will end up with maintenance friendlier MK1 with an AESA radar and an SPJ.

Question is more of IAF crying wolf because of something missing..