LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[srai]

About time

[ManjaM]

Is this CAG report available for public? I wonder what the baseline weight is for arriving at the 1000kg number.

[SidSom]

^^^Reducing weight by 1,000 kg? And I think they're talking about the Israeli AESA Radar. Even if they manage to reduce about 400-500 kgs, it will be no mean achievement. Hope all this gets sorted out in double quick time.

betting on the Typical over commitment on the 1000 Kgs.....

As per Wiki Aunty, 2032 weighs 100 Kgs... How much heavier is MMR and how much are they going to save...where is the rest of the 1000 Kgs going to come from (MLG ??)

Does any one know the weight of the ballast being used.

[srai]

...
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite- ... eststories

Written by Sudhi Ranjan Sen

NEW DELHI: At least seven squadrons of the indigenously-made Tejas Mark-1A will be inducted in the Indian Air Force to make up for the lack of fighters, despite its flaws. The aircraft continues to grapple with thrust issues, which restricts its weapon-carrying capabilities.

Top Defence Ministry sources have told NDTV that "The IAF needs to have a minimum number of aircraft at all times. Till the time indigenously-built Tejas Mark-2 is ready this is best option available." The IAF, it is learnt, has accepted the ministry's decision. Each squadron of the Tejas Mark-1A will have about 16 to 18 aircraft.

The Indian Air Force or IAF will be losing four squadrons of fighters - three MiG 21 squadrons and a MiG 27 squadron - this year and will be losing rest of the 10-odd squadrons of the vintage Russian-made MiGs in phases by 2022.

India is buying 32 Medium Multi Role fighters from France to make up for the lack of the fighters, but needs over 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and intercept oncoming enemy aircraft.

Production of the Tejas Mark-1A can start immediately from the existing manufacturing facilities of the Defence public sector unit Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL.

The Tejas Mark-2 or the improved version will not be ready for induction or series production before 2024-2025. Powered by the General Electric F404-GE-IN20 engine, the Tejas Mark-1A, is slightly more proficient than the current aircraft that is under series production, but continues to be marred with thrust issues. The Light Combat Aircraft MK-1 failed to meet the requirements of the IAF. Nonetheless, to keep the aircraft building programme alive, the IAF has agreed to buy 40 Tejas Mark-1.

...

7 Squadrons w/ 18 aircraft/sqdn = 126 LCA Mk.1A

At around $50 million/unit (flyaway plus long-term lifecycle support), it comes to around $6 billion total. Good bang for the buck.

[srai]

^^^Reducing weight by 1,000 kg? And I think they're talking about the Israeli AESA Radar. Even if they manage to reduce about 400-500 kgs, it will be no mean achievement. Hope all this gets sorted out in double quick time.

betting on the Typical over commitment on the 1000 Kgs.....

As per Wiki Aunty, 2032 weighs 100 Kgs... How much heavier is MMR and how much are they going to save...where is the rest of the 1000 Kgs going to come from (MLG ??)

Does any one know the weight of the ballast being used.

Delay to Tejas Mk 2 could push IAF into accepting modified Mk 1s

...
Industrial sources say HAL envisages the Mk 1As as being around 1,000 kg lighter than the Mk 1, which weighs 6,500 kg. It aims to achieve this weight loss by shedding 200-300 kg of ballast secured in the aircraft's nose to stabilise it and another 700-800 kg by reducing its heavy and 'over-engineered' landing gear.

The platform would also be fitted with Israeli firm ELTA Systems' active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, replacing the heavier and less capable 'hybrid' version of ELTA's EL/M-2032 lightweight multi-mode radar, which was developed jointly with India's Defence Research and Development Organisation.
...

If they can manage to shed that much weight off, LCA Mk.1 would be close to its original design weight. Hence, TWR won't be as much of an issue with its current F-404 engine. On the other hand, LCA Mk.2 with F-414 would be a beast

[Karan M]

Idiot journalists don't understand the basics of design and development and are busy yack yacking about severe flaws and what not.. buffoons..

[Karan M]

An AESA would really make the Mk1A into a beast.. low RCS fighter with a 150 km ranged radar and DerbyER/Astra Mk1/Mk2 and Python-5s... this will be a PAF Viper killer..

[tsarkar]

2 papers from recent conference in BLR related to LCA. Good reads. If you want them for reference get it downloaded and keep a copy. The site will go offline in future.

CFD results showing Canopy shape optimization - shows why we see bulged canopy in LCA.
http://www.nal.res.in/cfdsympo/cfdfullp ... rcraft.pdf

The final canopy shown in this paper has not been sported by any of the SPs, or even Mk2 models shown till now. The significant reduction in (6%) transonic drag reduction leading to 20% increase in transonic acceleration, and the 50L gain in fuel capacity is all welcome. This seems like a very fruitful exercise.

I'm coming on BR after many months, due to work and family commitments.

On seeing this development, I had a deja vu moment and reminded of my post on 11th March 2011 in Page 45 of Indian Military Aviation http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ?p=1059900

Kartik, my understanding was a bulbous two seater canopy reduces drag through area ruling. This was discovered on F-16B model that was every bit as capable as the A model, and this understanding fuelled the spurt in two seaters.

Now it seems ADA is doing exactly the same and bulging the canopy.

I consider my personal knowledge on aerodynamics as very peripheral, based on my readings and conversations with learned people. I remember learning this particular iota of knowledge in the late-80s from an IAF pilot who had keenly studied the F-16 development & performance.

I only wish that such known learnings were adopted earlier, or such design studies were done earlier in the development cycle.

Occasionally basics are compromised for the exotic, as recounted by the late Group Captain Kapil Bhargava here

...HF-24 Mk IR with reheated Orpheus engines. It had the prospect of being earlier and better than the Jaguar. Its performance was less than it would have been if the rear fuselage had not simply been enlarged by HAL to house the larger engines and their nozzles. The nice area rule of the original design had been vitiated badly. All the same, the performance of the aircraft was impressive. All it needed was to get the right avionics. According to me, the other design work should have been for the addition of a second hydraulic system, and of course streamlining the fuselage a lot better than the fat end.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... dents.html

[Vivek K]

tsarkar - you're really wishing that IAF had been with the project from "cradle to grave" to provide leadership, project management and its institutional knowledge to the design and development process. Unfortunately, that did not occur it seems.

[Vivek K]

The NDTV post goes back to my original contention for some years - Tejas is the MMRCA!!

[ramana]

KaranM, Looks like good news on Mark1A front.

In addition to the weight shedding, the hybrid radar is being dumped for full Israeili radar/antenna.

Recall those radome threads I was saying looks like radar is underpowered.

All in all would like vivek ahuja to run his models with LCA at 5500Kg and look at ITR and STR.

Good Job, Cdre. Balaji.

[Karan M]

On seeing this development, I had a deja vu moment and reminded of my post on 11th March 2011 in Page 45 of Indian Military Aviation http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ?p=1059900

Kartik, my understanding was a bulbous two seater canopy reduces drag through area ruling. This was discovered on F-16B model that was every bit as capable as the A model, and this understanding fuelled the spurt in two seaters.

Now it seems ADA is doing exactly the same and bulging the canopy.

If merely bulging a canopy was equal to area ruling, then we would have no need for CFD tools or optimizers.

[Karan M]

KaranM, Looks like good news on Mark1A front.

In addition to the weight shedding, the hybrid radar is being dumped for full Israeili radar/antenna.

Recall those radome threads I was saying looks like radar is underpowered.

All in all would like vivek ahuja to run his models with LCA at 5500Kg and look at ITR and STR.

Good Job, Cdre. Balaji.

Yes indeed.. one way or the other LCA is getting into service and IAF is coming around to the idea. A lot of the "nuthin' but the best import shimport will do" types fulminating on TV and press will be overtaken by events at AHQ which sees the value of the Tejas as it stands today to boost a force still flying MiG-21s, 27s and Jaguars when most frontline AFs have moved ahead.

GOI remaining firm on 36 Rafales would have played a role. An IAF officer at a public seminar was himself ringing warning bells a few years back saying the service was treating financial availability as a given and acting like a child in a candy shop (his exact words, more or less).

Another person was ruing IAF emphasis on fanciest platforms whilst ignoring force multipliers in the past, hence my working out what exactly the status was - not too bad but definitely could do with improvement.

By saving money on the Rafale, there can be a sea change in terms of re-prioritizing acquisitions including boosting Su-30 availability, building up munitions stocks and inducting more AWACs + LCA.

Good wake up call to Dassault as well, and some of the French folks who were thinking they had India over a barrel, the LCA was a goner, and they could do whatever they wished, charge whatever they wanted.

Regarding weight, IMO, around 5.5K and 6K tons both would be a good compare. Latter is probably where we might end up at. HAL's enthu for 1100 kg weight reduction not withstanding. Mk1A is to add the DRDO EW suite and radar both.

[JTull]

I just worry about HAL doing taking the lead on these Mk1A changes. Their record with managing these things isn't great.

[ramana]

The point was the observation of the IAF pilot on the F-16 program.
users see and know a lot. Designers think they know a lot.

Speaking as a former designer!!!!

JTull, Its a relay race.

Time for HAL to take the baton to get to finish line.
Those changes are production related.

[Karan M]

The point was the observation of the IAF pilot on the F-16 program.
users see and know a lot. Designers think they know a lot.

Speaking as a former designer!!!!

I read it more as ADA took an exotic solution versus something obvious, which is not borne out. things are rarely as simple as "stick a bulging canopy and ADA didn't know this". The Dassault/ADA wind tunnel models went through hundreds of changes and configurations. Yet when the actual airframe arrived, high alpha & specific configuration performance was a challenge. When ADA went scouting for answers they found worldwide very few teams had the knowledge either and most wouldn't part with it. Boeing and EADS responded, and only EADS got clearance. At the end ADA did it anyhow with audit from EADS.
You can make out the amount of challenge Vivek had with his simulations and disparate values for F-16 and LCA when we threw new weights at him. In real situation it was 10x worse. I asked one of the LCA TP once about why XYZ was not being attempted, anything and everything went through wind tunnel testing, iterative development, loads of code work, bug checking and only then the TP/crew got involved. These guys were at the top of their game and knew more aero than 90% of the world, yet how is it they didn't radically change the LCA design? The answer is that these things weren't "obvious".

Besides which, if the users knew the answers way back, where were they in the initial design and development stage? Either they didn't know and didn't contribute, or did know and didn'nt contribute. One way or the other, it's pointless since TP were involved and this was not a key factor.

JTull, Its a relay race.

Time for HAL to take the baton to get to finish line.
Those changes are production related.

I wish its that straightforward, but weight changes will mean FBW changes too. It will not be very straightforward but the NAL team is world class. On the plus side, HAL/IAI/Elta have a long history of working together on weapons integration (Jaguar, Sea Harrier). So their confidence on that front at least. Landing Gear reduction is probably based on the naval experience in recent days with EADS as a consultant.

[Cain Marko]

The NDTV post goes back to my original contention for some years - Tejas is the MMRCA!!

I thought you were saying all along that the iaf it's nothing but import air force and what not, must have missed something...

As an aside, I thought in general aesa is heavier than mesa....I should be happy off they can integrate aesa and keep the weight constant...reduction at this point seems unlikely

But this is fantastic news...waiting for confirmation...and foc

[Akshay Kapoor]

Even 400 kg weight reduction will be fantastic especially since the ballast will go and a better radar will come in. Will they incorporate the minor lengthening and aerodynamic changes ? Air Cmdr Kokhar was calling exactly for this and said MK2 is a risky project. If we can get this done in good time then IAF will definitely make this the backbone of the fleet against pakistan atleast.

I would even say drop the inflight refuelling need for Tejas. We just dont have the refuelling capacity for it and nor is it essential for the role.

[Akshay Kapoor]

But the question is that is the NDTV report correct. Has HAL been given the go ahead by MOD and will they devote resources to LCA ?

[Karan M]

But the question is that is the NDTV report correct. Has HAL been given the go ahead by MOD and will they devote resources to LCA ?

That is the question is it not? And your caution is warranted. Don't we all remember the IA-Excalibur story which then went nowhere or got stuck in conflicting reports.

[Cain Marko]

IOWs, it might be no more than a sneaky ploy by HAL to extend delivery deadline of SPs, which they wrere supposed to be producing at present. The real danger is that the iaf will have no incoming birds other than the mki for three more years while losing a hefty number....not at all good of any sh!t happens in the next couple of years.

I say screw the mki.a., just give the af what you promised mk1 foc and production birds starting early next year...it is more than good enough, and should be able to tackle blk 52 vipers, with dash 5 python combo, and derby lr, and later astra. Plus, it has proven a2g ability as well. Stuff the aesa carrot

[Vivek K]

I thought you were saying all along that the iaf it's nothing but import air force and what not, must have missed something...

But this is fantastic news...waiting for confirmation...and foc

You probably missed a lot then CM

[Cain Marko]

^ yeah and am getting older too..

[Indranil]

On seeing this development, I had a deja vu moment and reminded of my post on 11th March 2011 in Page 45 of Indian Military Aviation http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ?p=1059900

Kartik, my understanding was a bulbous two seater canopy reduces drag through area ruling. This was discovered on F-16B model that was every bit as capable as the A model, and this understanding fuelled the spurt in two seaters.

Now it seems ADA is doing exactly the same and bulging the canopy.

I consider my personal knowledge on aerodynamics as very peripheral, based on my readings and conversations with learned people. I remember learning this particular iota of knowledge in the late-80s from an IAF pilot who had keenly studied the F-16 development & performance.

I only wish that such known learnings were adopted earlier, or such design studies were done earlier in the development cycle.

Occasionally basics are compromised for the exotic, as recounted by the late Group Captain Kapil Bhargava here

...HF-24 Mk IR with reheated Orpheus engines. It had the prospect of being earlier and better than the Jaguar. Its performance was less than it would have been if the rear fuselage had not simply been enlarged by HAL to house the larger engines and their nozzles. The nice area rule of the original design had been vitiated badly. All the same, the performance of the aircraft was impressive. All it needed was to get the right avionics. According to me, the other design work should have been for the addition of a second hydraulic system, and of course streamlining the fuselage a lot better than the fat end.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... dents.html

The area ruling for one plane cannot be just used for the other. There may be a plane out there which gains from reducing the hump. And it is not just area ruling, increasing the hump has adverse effects on others handling features. In yester-years, the designers of F-16/F-15/Su-27/Mig-29s or had the intuition of how much gain and how much loss based on their previous work. And this is why, it is important to have iterative growth. Unfortunately, this is something that the IAF never seemed to have supported or fostered (or probably did not have to luxury to do so).

Coming back to today's world, one overcomes these shortcomings in knowledge/intuition by simulating many potential contours which is what you see in these papers.

[Karan M]

>>In yester-years, the designers of F-16/F-15/Su-27/Mig-29s or had the intuition of how much gain and how much loss based on their previous work.

There is a story of how the Su-27 designer and structures guys almost came to blows over formers choice to redesign. And how despite TSAAGI involvement the first Su-27 was a mess and did not meet performance requirements at all.

Su-27

Development started in 1970, and first T-10-1 prototype did not fly until 20 May 1977. The test program was very difficult and after a fatal crash on 7 May 1978, Mikhail Simonov was brought in by Sukhoi to design a whole new aircraft.

According to Mikhail, the only parts his new T-10S inherited from T-10 predecessors were landing-gear wheels and ejection seat. It was a total redesign. T-10S-1 made its maiden flight on 20 April 1981. Development problems persisted resulting in a second fatal crash on 23 December 1981.

These problems were not resolved until 1983. However the T-10S series did have some surprises for its designers. A miscorrelation between smaller-scale test models versus the full sized real aircraft, resulted in better performance on the real aircraft. The Su-27s high Angle Of Attack (AOA) and low speed handing was so astonishing that Sukhoi test pilots thought they had faulty readings from their instruments. A two seat version was also developed. Operational VVS units began to receive production Su-27 (Flanker-B) around 1984. About the same time the superlative Su-33 Naval Flanker was also developed.

Original Su-27


Actual Su-27 family


So there is no magic wand to wave for answers in Russia or anywhere else. They stick to the job, are supported by their Govt/AF and work on improving the design either iteratively or clean sheet (if the original design was unsafe).

[Gyan]

I think we order atleast one more squadron of LCA Mark-1 itself to make it 60, before we go onto Mark-1A

[Khalsa]

Time to put this thread back on the front page with this explosive........ hoping this takes offf...
India to induct Tejas Mark 1A fighter

Lungi Bhangra Punjabi Dance at this news Indeed.
Balle Balle in the morning ...

[chaanakya]

New Delhi: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The Tejas Mark 1-A is slightly more proficient than the first-cut home-made LCA, the Tejas, but the aircraft still has some flaws. For one, there are doubts about its ability to carry the required payload of weapons. Also, its Indian-made radar needs to be replaced with an Israeli radar.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each. .................
...................

The Tejas Mark 2, expected to address the flaws in the Mark 1-A, will not be ready for induction or series production before 2024-2025.

The Air Force will find itself very short of fighters after it decommissions three squadrons of its MiG 21 and one MiG 27 squadron this year; it will lose the rest of its 10-odd squadrons of the vintage Russian-made MiGs by 2022.

The government is buying 32 Rafale fighters from France to be delivered in the next five years

Indeed it is the best news and calls for celebration and joy.Ironically the source is rrNDTVeee....

It is also timed close to Rafale negotiation teams arrival in India. Seems some message being sent across.

[Bhaskar_T]

HAL claimed its scientists and engineers are overstretched with developmental projects such as the Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 basic trainer and the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer, and are consequently unable to ensure the LCA Mk 2's timely development.

http://www.janes.com/article/53674/dela ... fied-mk-1s

Sir, whatever these projects are HTT-40 and Sitara, are they so important that the limited precious resource (engineers and scientists) can't be given priority to work on Tejas-MK2 first? Last I heard that there are 14 squadrons of Migs which are going to be retired very soon & there was no word on the lack of aircrafts for training. Why do we work on these projects if we have the Pilatus and Hawks already?

Regards,
Aam Abdul.

[Karan M]

Exactly the query that should be posed to HAL.

[nirav]

New Delhi: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each. .................
...................

Indeed it is the best news and calls for celebration and joy.

This MK 1A news is fantabulous ... bring out the damn nashik dhols and lungis, ima do the dhatarr dhatarr dance !!

Make In India.

[Bhaskar_T]

I came to BRF to overjoy myself with at least 20 Lungi Dances in this dhaaga - disappointed to find only one 'Balle Balle'. Why so much misery? Isn't this make in India? Earlier, we wanted more Tejas MK1's and now when 7 squadrons of Tejas MK1A have been ordered, not many seem to be happy.

Disappointed that Abdul's are not happy, am wondering is that the news of 7 squadrons of Tejas MK1A is so good to be true that no one believes OR jingoes are equally unhappy that the Tejas MK1A is going to be another new story to be developed in 5 years or so.

If Tejas MK1A won't be ready, by the time HAL has delivered 40 Tejas MK1 (say by 2020), may be IAF+HAL+MOD won't mind allowing few (say 1 or 2) Tejas MK1A squadron orders to be converted to Tejas MK1. Weren't we concerned about that production line will get idle because of such scarce orders (40)?

PS - Was going to have a celebration drink (Chivas) after 2 months, seems today is not the day. Full confused.

[chaanakya]

News also indicated that deliveries would start next year. I am awaiting IAF's grant of FOC for actual induction and news from Govt sources, preferably MoD/IAF via PIB.

[ShauryaT]

I would even say drop the inflight refuelling need for Tejas. We just dont have the refuelling capacity for it and nor is it essential for the role.

What do you mean? If there is any aircraft that needs a refueling capacity, it is the Tejas. Both due to its own internal capacity limits and the roles it is envisioned for. Is not the primary role of Tejas to provide CAP and Air defense? With most of its operations envisioned to be within our borders, one would think it would most benefit from refuelers? Also, in its x-border roles, it would again benefit from being topped off before it hits enemy air space. Even in its naval role, the primary mission would be CAP. We do not have these carrier launched refuelers and hence a reliance on external tanks to extend the patrol range/time would be needed. Not sure what do you mean by, we just do not have the refueling capacity? If it is the number of tankers, then that is a separate issue and can be resolved independently.

[Abhay_S]

I came to BRF to overjoy myself with at least 20 Lungi Dances in this dhaaga - disappointed to find only one 'Balle Balle'.

Sar,

This deserves all the dances but people are cautious as the source of this news is NDTV.

[Karan M]

You said it.

Yogi Berra - "It ain't over 'til it's over"

[salaam]

New Delhi: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each. .................
...................

Although I am not sure what will MK 1A bring on the table vis a vis MK1, I am still very happy. For last few months there was not much news about LCA, event its test flight numbers are not being updated. That meant something big was in plans, and if this is true, THIS IS BIG.

Congratulations all around and 'Kurta Pajama' dance, lucknow style.

Similar no news on Arihant/Aridhman thread. Hope it is updated with news of 'Arananya'

[Karan M]

HAL LCA line
http://s12.postimg.org/72frssh8d/AAA_LCA.jpg
Clean and functional

[JayS]

Now it seems ADA is doing exactly the same and bulging the canopy.
.
.
.
I only wish that such known learnings were adopted earlier, or such design studies were done earlier in the development cycle.

Occasionally basics are compromised for the exotic ....

Saar, please give some due respect for ADA/NAL guys' aerodynamics skills. They cannot be so stupid as to have ignored such simple thing while designing LCA when even 1st year Aero engineer kid will know that area rule is first thing one should look to optimize.

As IR has already mentioned Bulging canopy is no panacea for area rule. Let's consider the latest and greatest. Do we have bulging canopies on F-22?? I can bet its quite well optimized aerodynamic design from Area ruling POV. What about YF-23 which is as good as you can get perhaps with modern fighter when it comes to Area rule. It also does not have bulging canopy, does it?? One needs to consider each a/c configurations on its own merits and figure out solutions for short-comings for area-ruling or any other issue for that matter.

In addition please note that - there is not one but many area rule curves one need to optimize simultaneously. There is transonic area rule (the well know coke-bottle shape) and there is Supersonic area rule. At each supersonic mach number you get separate area rule curve. You need to pick some of those key Mach speed points depending on the design goals and try to come up with a aero config which not only is good for transonic regime but also for all those 4-5 or whatever number of supersonic speeds you have considered. You will not have best in each one at the same time, there will be compromises.

Now this seemingly obvious question that how could have ADA forgot to consider such a basic thing of Aircraft Design i.e. to have smoother area-ruling curve, could have some explanation that I can think of, which is logical but I have no hard data to prove:
- ADA must have considered at least 2 (and possibly 3-4) area rule curves say Transonic and M-1.6 (and possible 1-2 points in between). They came up with a design which gave satisfactory performances at all those points.

See following yf-23 design image: Notice how they tried to best match the M=1.5 target curve but the curve for M=1.0 is not so good.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif

- At the early stage of design, it was not apparent that due to various reasons the a/c will be overweight, thus more draggy and lack of margin on available thrust would render it fall below expected performance.
- Once they would have exhausted options to reduce drag without making any aero config changes, they would have started with the available options which will need configuration changes, but among them as well would have had considered them in the order of least required changes. At some point of time they figured at last that this change is worth doing for the improvements.
- But since it is going to affect the aerodyamic characteristics and thus re-calibration and re-testing of FCS will be needed which will only delay MK1 further, they decided to push it till next design iteration, MK2 or NLCA which was not finished at that point of time. They have published it now doesn't mean they considered it now only. For example the LEVCONs used on NLCA have been considered way back in mid 1990's already, not a new thing as might be impressed by its appearance in NLCA.
- One more reason could be that they lacked tools to do proper optimization in early 1990s. Their CFD codes were maturing and they could not have had enough WT resources available especially when we don't have a single continuous flow transonic tunnel in our country and running to US/Europe every time costs a lot of money (Some Subsonic tunnels charge upwards of $5000 per hr for subsonic WT runs for full-sized cars, the cost for transonic tunnel would be much higher).

If LCA engine had had enough excess thrust, ADA might not even had bothered to do this change at this stage.

[Cain Marko]

Karan, is that an ifr probe my tired eyes are seeing in the first plane to the left? That would mean these are foc std...if true, Great news...definitely lungi dance moment...far more than mkl.a news...