LCA News and Discussions

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 14 Jan 2011 23:54

They were doing good with ALH, wonder what happened with Tejas assembly. my vote is for private sector as well

Now, HAL should expand on the ALH assembly lines

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2011 00:00

How do you know that the private sector wont do the same and bribe the inspectors?

What is needed is accountablity by whoever is responsible for the contract.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 00:24

In the maker-checker setup, the checker could be a team comprised from all sorts of industries/committees. now if the corruption happens, they have to bribe both the maker and the checker. quite an expensive affair.

again, if we have fixed price, fixed quality requirements, there could be lesser chance of bribes happening within given scope of the life cycle. in the sense, we can always device ways to anti-corruption, but can't beat a nexus of organization who are hell bent on corruption.

also, there is no guarantee that tatas or birlas have enough capability to support HAL in sub system production. ADA/DRDO along with CAG team could form a checker group, that in lines with production engineering setup, so that every stage or phase of the sub system, ToT, product quality is tested, measured by the group.

bribing can happen, but if happens for covering slacking then onlee pray to gawd for decent people employed.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 15 Jan 2011 00:43

One of the motivations of bigger private sector players is expansion and hence have long term plans which can only be sustained when they are careful with what they deliver now

quick buck thinking is for individuals and their copy cats, hopefully this is one problem management folks can solve, making people believe in belonging to an organization and the ethics there in.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 00:55

It can't be run on beliefs, but on capability. That is the reason contracts are award to most capable engineering firms. When capability does not exists, Gov have ask for international participation. Now, there is the legal issue how 24%-74% participation issues with firangi experimentation.

We have clearly now said, only where the capability does not exists, we would seek firang help. ToT can happen from R&D center to production center, where the product engineering setup can further focus on production quality , and product refinements. Tatas and other aerospace would soon be seen with suitcases lining up babooze based on the new DPP, and offsets. (raja babu must wink with the new policy]

Corruption is where, the spoil is imho within our setup. People lose trust even the most capable firm who can deliver things. Firangies are no exception to corruption (the most capable bofors).

Hence, we can only go on Corruption Avoidance and Detection setup rather on a belief system, and award contracts to most capable firms. We can bring in many technologies and legal setup to avoid corruption.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 15 Jan 2011 01:17

Sai, the problem is big enough that we can fit multiple elephants (solutions) in the same room

anyways, about the F-35 STOVL the good thing about that life system is its bolt on, the downside is its patented and the engines are still facing problems during testing

if Navy has a need for STOVL aircraft and Tejas doesn't fit the bill, it would probably choose the F-35. So, yankees will never allow for the lift system from them to be fitted with the Tejas

that said, Naval tejas 2 seater version can have the fan in place of the second pilot and Mk2 allows for enough fuel

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 01:45

vasu, you are jumping the gun again comparing F35 or its technology to Tejas requirements. IN never said it needed a VTOL/STOVL/VTOSL.

any vertical take off /landing is so advanced for us to catch up right now.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Jan 2011 02:21

guys you are immediately diving into corruption
way before that you have to deal with competence and capability!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 03:07

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 15 Jan 2011 03:13

ok, lets take the Pegasus engine, do you think we can catch up with integrating it on Tejas? and have it perform better than the Harrier

we are only considering the FCS, intake and fuselage changes, not engine manufacturing so all under desi control

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2011 03:18

The LCA is an unstable design. You integrate a lift engine it changes the whole thing and needs new design. Its a new aircraft.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 03:20

You are talking fuselage change to almost 50" from 35-40 odd inches, like near 1ft dia increase. Plus you are adding 3/4th ton more weight. quite a bit of aerodynamic changes, plus all digital controls issues, and not to mention big structural changes, that needs to get into CFD studies and back to wind tunnels/stability tests.

Wait for the Kartik or Kanson to reply to you.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jan 2011 03:36

vasu_ray wrote:ok, lets take the Pegasus engine, do you think we can catch up with integrating it on Tejas? and have it perform better than the Harrier

we are only considering the FCS, intake and fuselage changes, not engine manufacturing so all under desi control

Vasu, with regard to this post of yours and the others regarding putting a lift fan in the Tejas to make it a STOVL jet- the idea is a dead end at the very start. No go.

STOVL imposes some very strict performance limits on the jet, and requires a very large engine to allow for hovering. That means you're designing a jet to fit around the engine instead of the other way around. STOVL imposes limits on payload, endurance, and operationally has proven to be the cause for high attrition rates. Accepted that F-35B STOVL variant has a very modern FCS that allows the pilot to very safely land, but a STOVL jet is still a very niche jet that is costly to design and costly to acquire due to the very small numbers that the IN requires. The gain corresponding to that is small and frankly, Tejas Mk2 is a much higher priority and scarce engineering resources have to be dedicated to that program. The STOBAR N-LCA is good enough for its role. Later on, the AMCA can be developed into a potent naval fighter. Its size will make it a much better fit than the PAK-FA or the LCA, which are either too big or too small.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jan 2011 03:46

The AMCA will be the platinum standard.

Rest all will be water under the bridge.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2011 04:15

Kartik wrote:
vasu_ray wrote:ok, lets take the Pegasus engine, do you think we can catch up with integrating it on Tejas? and have it perform better than the Harrier

we are only considering the FCS, intake and fuselage changes, not engine manufacturing so all under desi control
Vasu, with regard to this post of yours and the others regarding putting a lift fan in the Tejas to make it a STOVL jet- the idea is a dead end at the very start. No go.

STOVL imposes some very strict performance limits on the jet, and requires a very large engine to allow for hovering. That means you're designing a jet to fit around the engine instead of the other way around. STOVL imposes limits on payload, endurance, and operationally has proven to be the cause for high attrition rates. Accepted that F-35B STOVL variant has a very modern FCS that allows the pilot to very safely land, but a STOVL jet is still a very niche jet that is costly to design and costly to acquire due to the very small numbers that the IN requires. The gain corresponding to that is small and frankly, Tejas Mk2 is a much higher priority and scarce engineering resources have to be dedicated to that program. The STOBAR N-LCA is good enough for its role. Later on, the AMCA can be developed into a potent naval fighter. Its size will make it a much better fit than the PAK-FA or the LCA, which are either too big or too small.

Exactly my thoughts.

Between, why does one need VTOL or STOVL on the Tejas?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 15 Jan 2011 04:45

Thanks guys for the rationale, on the question of why

1) Technology demonstration and the long lead times usually associated with new development

2) Replacement for the Harriers

3) Based on the pet theory that if North and North eastern air bases are unavailable during conflict, these jets could easily take off from small unprepared airstrips or large helipads close to the border. It allows for camouflage and dispersal tactics instead of declaring formal bases which can be targeted. if Mk2 were anything closer to Gripen, it should be armed and fueled by just a small team. Snow camo in Himalayas and Desert camo in Rajasthan.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jan 2011 05:56

kamal wrote:@ Rahul...
This is one is OT.

Much appreciated but can the user have a choice of a different username?

Thanks.

as long as it is human sounding. please post it in the forum feedback thread.
cheers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 08:09

Air bases in the Himalayan regions and Northe East may be in short supply because of terrain that is unsuitable for an air base. Poor terrain means difficult logistics - so getting fuel and supplies to a temporary air base for VTOL aircraft will also be a problem.

It would be far better to have much larger and long endurance aircraft take of from 100 km away to do the same job that is being demanded of an already small and tightly packed LCA with a VTOL engine crammed in. After all a plane from an air base 100 km away can be on site in minutes.

Also - "high altitude" with tropical temperatures brings its own problems - so an aircraft that needs a long runway for a conventional take off because of high altitude might never take off with a useful payload if VTOL. VTOL by definition means thrust to weight ratio of >1. That means more engine. Less payload. Please let's shift this hypothetical discussion to some other more appropriate thread.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 15 Jan 2011 09:31

^^^ How is it different from Helmet Mounted Displays already in use all over the world.

IIRC, LCA already has the DASH HMDS or will get it by FOC.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jan 2011 09:51

LCA has HMDS since 2006.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2011 09:52

mm. for some reason I was thinking we might be in for elbit's JHMCS.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 15 Jan 2011 10:00

^^^ Also, the cost of each of those helmets cost a whopping "250,000Pounds per helmet". With their recent defense cuts, those ain't even going to see the light of day on RAF EF's..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 20:00

Air Marshal Rajkumar, who headed the LCA test team until he retired gave me a Tejas calendar and brochure commemorating the IOC. I wil be sending hi res photos to Jagan for upload on BR, but there is a preview below, and the brochure is in 4 separate scans.Kelik on images

Calendar preview

Brochure pg 1

Pg 2

Pg 3

Pg 4

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Jan 2011 23:26

The last scan posted by shiv shows G limits as 8.5/-3.5. So has the max G been revised downwards from 9 to 8 now?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Jan 2011 00:08

putnanja wrote:The last scan posted by shiv shows G limits as 8.5/-3.5. So has the max G been revised downwards from 9 to 8 now?

Indeed it seems to be the case. The excess weight of the Tejas Mk1 compared to initial design estimates is what might have caused that.

atma · Post by **atma** » 16 Jan 2011 00:12

Thanks, Shivji for the eyecandy!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jan 2011 00:13

it is +8/-3.5 and do not seem to be exact figures

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Jan 2011 00:17

ravi_ku wrote:it is +8/-3.5 and do not seem to be exact figures

What do you mean they don't seem to be exact? This is on the ADA calender, and I would expect the figures to be right.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 16 Jan 2011 00:30

LCA Calendar - Courtesy of Shiv

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jan 2011 01:07

See the above two parameters given,
i) the max height achieved is >15km and says it has achieved supersonic speeds at all heights.

So they are not giving the exact parameters. They are simply stating it will be minimum this much and we will discuss the exact parameters only to those who need to know, iaf/customers

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Jan 2011 02:10

ravi_ku wrote:See the above two parameters given,
i) the max height achieved is >15km and says it has achieved supersonic speeds at all heights.

So they are not giving the exact parameters. They are simply stating it will be minimum this much and we will discuss the exact parameters only to those who need to know, iaf/customers

I don't think so. The figures don't say "at least" or ">" anywhere. So it looks like what Kartik said maybe right. Based on the current configuration, the max G is probably limited to 8G for Mk-I.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2011 02:40

IIRC, ADA's press release at Tejas IOC, said that Tejas will be -3.5G to 8G (up from -2G to 6G at IOC) and the max AoA would be to 24 degrees (up from 22 at IOC).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 03:51

Jagan wrote: LCA Calendar - Courtesy of Shiv

Nice. Handsome. Thanks to All.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 03:53

We never had a single failure so far in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE

A very good article.

Just one major quibble, the author brings up all sorts of nonsense, but why is it that he never brought up AMCA, I wonder.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Jan 2011 05:02

Shiv, Jagan thanx...

Man, I love that aircraft. It is a beautiful thing, a beautiful thing. Doesn't "look" like anything else out there... Sure there are other good looking aircraft, but that pic above from the calendar, the thumbnail which Jagan has posted, actually shows you something you can't quite put your finger on... It looks somehow organic... Maybe I'm just blabbering...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2011 05:07

I had a question about the calendar ... Do the photographers get credit for the pics?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Jan 2011 05:08

In the 00-cover what is the red thing on the wingtip, have been trying to find out without much success.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 05:25

suryag wrote:In the 00-cover what is the red thing on the wingtip, have been trying to find out without much success.

I think the red thing is carrying two high speed cameras. I suspect it is trying to capture the item to be dropped, which is right next to it - all marked for a drop.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jan 2011 05:30

suryag wrote:In the 00-cover what is the red thing on the wingtip, have been trying to find out without much success.

That is a practice bomb holder.

You can see the same red one empty and one next to it loaded with practice bombs in the pic linked below

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... -Bombs.jpg

The calendar photos were too large to be scanned by my A4 scanner - so I had to photograph them and crop.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 05:36

shiv wrote:.

You can see the same red one empty and one next to it loaded with practice bombs in the pic linked below

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... -Bombs.jpg

Nope.

With this picture I am even more convinced that the red thing is a camera pod.

Even in this picture you can see the markings for testing a drop on the bomblets.

In fact in this picture it is even more clear that the cameras are being skewed - to take the pictures while those tiny bomblets are dropped.