LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jul 2013 09:41

good pointer kartik.. I was blind to that.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 03 Jul 2013 09:54

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2247 Test Flights Successfully. (29-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-148,LSP4-90,LSP5-191,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-15)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2253 Test Flights Successfully. (02-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-151,LSP4-90,LSP5-194,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-15)

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Jul 2013 10:01

^^^

Probably good to have a monthly flight counter as well

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Jul 2013 10:07

Sagar G wrote:
Meanwhile, G Satheesh Reddy, director of Hyderabad-based Research Centre Imarat (RCI) of DRDO said miniaturized avionics that provide all avionics systems including navigation, telemetry and mission computers on a single module is in the pipeline. He said this would not only reduce power consumption but would also weigh less without compromising on accuracies.
Wow, this is big. With lighter avionics LCA will be able to carry more weapons payload.

...

LCA Mk.1 is around 1,000kg heavier than originally planned. Any meaningful weight reductions would mean better performance with its F-404 engine. This may mean that when a Mk.1 version is upgraded with lighter components it could meet all of the ASR parameters, such as power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate and maximum speeds at low altitudes.

vic · Post by **vic** » 03 Jul 2013 11:37

There were roughly 65 test flights in June

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 03 Jul 2013 12:49

srai wrote:
LCA Mk.1 is around 1,000kg heavier than originally planned. Any meaningful weight reductions would mean better performance with its F-404 engine. This may mean that when a Mk.1 version is upgraded with lighter components it could meet all of the ASR parameters, such as power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate and maximum speeds at low altitudes.

I think that that 5.5 tons empty weight was pulled out of the musharraf (err, back of the envelope calculations) and had no connection with the reality of Indian tech that was nowhere close to western levels of capability. IOW, 5.5 tons could not be achieved and still cannot be achieved, so there is little basis to calling it overweight. We can call it under powered but that will be rectified with the 414s.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Jul 2013 13:36

I agree. a comparison with the Gripen C/D will give a good idea of what might be achievable for OEW.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Jul 2013 13:54

srai wrote:
Sagar G wrote:Meanwhile, G Satheesh Reddy, director of Hyderabad-based Research Centre Imarat (RCI) of DRDO said miniaturized avionics that provide all avionics systems including navigation, telemetry and mission computers on a single module is in the pipeline. He said this would not only reduce power consumption but would also weigh less without compromising on accuracies.

Wow, this is big. With lighter avionics LCA will be able to carry more weapons payload.

...
LCA Mk.1 is around 1,000kg heavier than originally planned. Any meaningful weight reductions would mean better performance with its F-404 engine. This may mean that when a Mk.1 version is upgraded with lighter components it could meet all of the ASR parameters, such as power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate and maximum speeds at low altitudes.

And this weight creep is what effectively killed Kaveri - but effective weight reduction is achieved by working on structural design and material improvement. Weight-saving adavantages from avionics advances is at best a minor point (but can be a major point wrt space savings/mgmt etc.) - except for the Radar (and to some extent the ECM and ECCM bits as well), in the grand-scheme of things avionics have limited effect on weight saving initiatives.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2013 14:21

someone went overboard on the "smallest,lightest" branding thing. even the original F-16 block10 weighed in around 7 tons empty. there are limits to how small you can make things. only the Mig21FL had the empty 5.5t...but carried poor fuel fraction and 4 aams as a day fighter.

we should have sized it to that dimension from day1 rather than being forced to upsize now.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 03 Jul 2013 14:31

IAF wanted to use the HAS built for Mig-21 for Tejas as well, AFAIK

weird, the IA didn't see such a need with the Arjun knowing well that the Infra is meant only for T-72 type weights

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jul 2013 14:33

IIRC Mig21FL was 2 aams and a drop tank, iaf increased number of aams and then added the gsh23 gunpod

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Jul 2013 14:56

vasu raya wrote: weird, the IA didn't see such a need with the Arjun knowing well that the Infra is meant only for T-72 type weights

OT

Because when the Arjun was first mooted (1975) T 72s did not have the preponderance that it came to have later. Even the last major GSQR revision was before T 72s becoming defacto standard (in 1984) -- also Arjun was not supposed to cross 50 tonnes IIRC (not 100% sure) despite the extra features (I guess again no one least of all CVRDE had a idea of feasibility), the extra weight penalty was waived off as being "acceptable" and solutions made to work with a heavier tank later.

/OT

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Jul 2013 16:20

Singha wrote:someone went overboard on the "smallest,lightest" branding thing. even the original F-16 block10 weighed in around 7 tons empty. there are limits to how small you can make things. only the Mig21FL had the empty 5.5t...but carried poor fuel fraction and 4 aams as a day fighter.

we should have sized it to that dimension from day1 rather than being forced to upsize now.

you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned its rather poor payload (which was fine for fighters in the era it was designed in)

Any fighter's structural strengthening will depend greatly on the payloads it is meant to carry. Had the ASR required a fighter with 2 ton payload instead of 4 ton payload, the Tejas would've easily met the original design OEW goal.

Giving a cursory glance at other contemporary fighters in the same engine and payload category, you'll find that the Tejas isn't really too far off.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Jul 2013 16:24

Sanku wrote:
vasu raya wrote: weird, the IA didn't see such a need with the Arjun knowing well that the Infra is meant only for T-72 type weights
OT

Because when the Arjun was first mooted (1975) T 72s did not have the preponderance that it came to have later. Even the last major GSQR revision was before T 72s becoming defacto standard (in 1984) -- also Arjun was not supposed to cross 50 tonnes IIRC (not 100% sure) despite the extra features (I guess again no one least of all CVRDE had a idea of feasibility), the extra weight penalty was waived off as being "acceptable" and solutions made to work with a heavier tank later.

/OT

I think that this is not a disease specific to Indian defence orgs or the Indian military- i.e. setting unreachable targets in ASRs and GSQRs and having the ones developing it agreeing to unrealistic goals with unrealistic timelines.

I've seen that just a fortnight ago with Eurocopter, with them expecting the world, but with effort and timelines that are just ridiculous. Had we as the company bidding for the project no idea of just how ridiculous those timelines and effort estimations were, we'd probably buckle under sales guys pressures to provide figures that seal the deal.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 04 Jul 2013 21:54

Kartik wrote:was that even meant for the LCA or for future ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles?

Dual use.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jul 2013 23:24

The applications are basically for missiles, to lower weight & make them more compact. They are the volume, weight, space constrained designs that critically need SOCs with as many functions combined.

In contrast, the LCA's MC will have to be more complex and powerful, it has to handle all the nav-attack computations with multiple sensors in real time (as versus preprogrammed waypoints and only executing those), but it also drives display symbology, controls more sensors and does functions like data fusion (intended for MK2 per reports).

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 481969.xml

The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) is working toward surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles with a range of 300 km (186 mi.) and air-to-surface missiles with a range of 400 km, according to Avinash Chander, DRDO’s chief controller of Research & Development (missiles and strategic systems) says. India currently has surface-to-air missiles with a 50 km range.

“The [future goal] is to realize micro- and nano-missiles using MEMS [micro-electromechanical systems] and NEMS [nano-electromechanical systems] technologies,” Chander says. “A nano-missile with low cost and low weight is what we are aiming for.”

DRDO also has plans to develop seek-and-destroy tactical missiles, smart bombs and submarine-launched cruise missiles, he adds.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jul 2013 01:03

we have to also analyze from mission capabilities to integrating with capabilities really required for multi-mission and federated profiles, where the lessons learned by usaf and others do not share, but can be felt by ways of demonstration of capabilities.

this is where, we read issues with raptor's capability to interop, communicate etc. as flight mission computing is vital, dedicated secured communication feeds, full duplex mission CnC and netcentricity is vital for deployment in a scenario where bunch of LCAs with a tanker and awacs system can achieve mostly anything we want for our neighborhood problems. we will massive formations to cater to from NE, and they are capable of deploying 1000s of a/c for one mission, forget about performance and objectives. the fear in them right now, is that we have demonstrated A5++ and nuke capabilities, and will mock them down for quite sometime.. but they are not sleeping.

mission computers should feed in and feed out to net-centric ops.

context: telemetry, communication, and net-centric ops for mission controls and interop. lca could be the capabilities enabling platform for both AMCA and UCAV.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jul 2013 08:27

an LCA just took off now..

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 05 Jul 2013 10:38

Tejas view from inside , don't know if posted earlier

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 05 Jul 2013 15:17

LCA went to singapore ???

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jul 2013 15:26

^^ B'luru Kerla is now renamed after its most outstanding denizen.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2013 17:20

there were lot of takeoffs this morning. from a distance it looked like jaguars.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jul 2013 19:44

Sorry I didn't get the reference.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jul 2013 03:40

Kartik wrote:Sorry I didn't get the reference.

"Singha"pur is the land of Singha saar. Otherwise known as Bengaluru.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jul 2013 09:58

we are still waiting for lsp-8 video.. did some chaiwala ran out of biskoots?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2013 09:54

June has been been a productive month for the Ell Cee Yah, hopefully this momentum is sustained in July too. Dr Chander has already put weather as one of the riders...I think even the IAF is eager to get the fighter on board... the moment is right...once the first couple of birds are in IAF's hands we should see them adopting the baby fast... any old timers have stories about the Marut's adoption in the IAF?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Jul 2013 10:52

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2253 Test Flights Successfully. (02-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-151,LSP4-90,LSP5-194,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-15)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2259 Test Flights Successfully. (05-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-153,LSP4-90,LSP5-196,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-16)

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 08 Jul 2013 11:07

suryag wrote:Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2253 Test Flights Successfully. (02-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-151,LSP4-90,LSP5-194,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-15)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2259 Test Flights Successfully. (05-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-153,LSP4-90,LSP5-196,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-16)

nash · Post by **nash** » 08 Jul 2013 13:43

krishnan wrote:
suryag wrote:Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2253 Test Flights Successfully. (02-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-151,LSP4-90,LSP5-194,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-15)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2259 Test Flights Successfully. (05-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-153,LSP4-90,LSP5-196,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-16)

what is so significant about it

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 08 Jul 2013 15:29

nothing, he missed it...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2013 23:42

Well,the first batch for the first sqd. should be thoroughly evaluated before MK-2 enters production,which will again be another exercise,being larger,etc. due to the more powerful engine chosen.How many will be manufactured before 2020 is amoot Q.

AWST in a recent issue had a feature on SoKo's future stealth fighter.It says that SoKo have studied the past history of manned fighters well and have realised that small fighters have always succeeded,from the days of the Mirage-3 ,etc.They are thus also contemplating a single-engine derivative of their twin-engined stealth fighter and in the list of countries to whom they hope to export,India is also mentioned! The current visit of the COAS to SoKo,a tri-service mission, is a v. interesting development.

However,I pick a bone with Bill Sweetman,in another article about the contest in Brazil for its future fighter,where the Gripen is being offered to Brazil (and will be to us) also in a naval variant,as we already have our own LCA in the pipeline and our own naval variant.There is another error where he says that the IAC-1 uses cats.

The SoKo initiative is interesting and from the posts above,where we could use the LCA and develop it into a single-engined low-cost (if that is at all possible!) stealth fighter.This would be a far more sensible development (than the AMCA) as a future avatar just as we now have "Super-Sokhois" with internal weapons bays for better stealth arriving. With the FGFA/PAK-FA already in extensive flight testing and expected to be in initial service within 5-7 years time,the "heavy" FGFA 5th-gen stealth bird could be complemented with a "light" stealth LCA that however requires a far superior engine ,with TVC,than even the one planned for the MK-2 version.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Jul 2013 01:40

Philip wrote:This would be a far more sensible development (than the AMCA) as a future avatar just as we now have "Super-Sokhois" with internal weapons bays for better stealth arriving. With the FGFA/PAK-FA already in extensive flight testing and expected to be in initial service within 5-7 years time,the "heavy" FGFA 5th-gen stealth bird could be complemented with a "light" stealth LCA that however requires a far superior engine ,with TVC,than even the one planned for the MK-2 version.

I think twin engined AMCA is very very sensible decision with large number of bird hits in Indian Subcontinent. Plus we won't have to look for a single superpower engine. 2 GE 414s(hybrids) would suffice initially until Kaveri 20 is ready. The planners have again showed courage in going for AMCA, like they did going for Tejas instead of creating an improved Mig 21 variant.

Super Sukhoi will have its own importance as the time passes we'll be able to upgrade our 300 + Rambhas to super rambha status complementing FGFAs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jul 2013 03:45

what is "kaveri 20"? going kaveri-10 itself is a big struggle for GTRE. If I have not read your 20 as to with the current models, versions and numbering.

Firstly, it is important to get that Kaveri-9 onboard LCA TD. We can only talk rest after that.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Jul 2013 04:15

Kaveri 15 = AGYV -BEv
Kaveri 20 = + S -v

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2013 07:41

It would be very silly for India to follow some other nation. Even in the FGFA India has shown that their needs are very, very different than that of the Russians. Partnering on the engine, sensors, radars, etc., is one thing, but an entire plane will dent Indian progress.

I think the Indian hurdle is very quickly gravitating around politicians.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Jul 2013 12:41

My opinion:

The small birdies are here to stay. They could be much more agile and stealthy just because they have small size and have less inertia. As technology progresses light fighters should be at more advantage than medium to heavy fighters. Big fighters will bleed too much energy even if they can be as agile as smaller fighters. Not good.

But till then we will have to have medium fighters (may be till 2040s), for that AMCA seems sensible choice. But we should start working on ground breaking R n D on 5th and 6th Gen technologies side by side. And use LCA as test bed for these new tech. Keep new fighter development decoupled from risks in developing new technology. Use new technology only when they are proven on LCA test bed. We could use LCA (the configuration) for next 20 yrs atleast for experimentation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2013 13:22

Yes,even the new UCAV stealth designs show similarities to the manned flying wing bomber concepts,with the engine intakes replacing the cockpit hump .A UCAV version of the LCA could also be part of future development.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Jul 2013 16:26

Philip wrote:Yes,even the new UCAV stealth designs show similarities to the manned flying wing bomber concepts,with the engine intakes replacing the cockpit hump .A UCAV version of the LCA could also be part of future development.

It would be much easier to built an auto-pilot/remote-pilot for LCA now that the ADA has got a firm grip on the FCS of LCA. Doing it for a flying wing will be a little tough, isn't it?? They will have to write whole new FCS for new flying wing (even more complicated than tailless delta) and then test it.

Or it could be so that adapting LCA FCS for UCAV is too much pain as it wasn't designed with such application in Mind. Just wondering..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2013 07:53

You are coming close to my idea of old of turning a few hundred of our retd. aircraft into "kamaikaze"/UCAVs!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Jul 2013 09:27

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2259 Test Flights Successfully. (05-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-274,PV5-36,LSP3-153,LSP4-90,LSP5-196,LSP7-48,NP1-4,LSP8-16)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2265 Test Flights Successfully. (09-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-275,PV5-36,LSP3-154,LSP4-90,LSP5-196,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-17)