LCA news and discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Sep 2009 18:40

parijat, why don't you post the thrust and SFC figures for the respective engines, AL-31, RD-33 and GE-414 ? that will settle the issue once and for all.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 18:59

Parijat Gaur wrote:Yes, I have heard of the large expense of operating MKI. However, any 2 engine fighter is expensive to maintain. Is there any source to confirm if MKI is more expensive to operate than F-18SH and Mig-29?
And what about the fuel? I am unable to understand that. Are you suggesting that MKI guzzles much more fuel than its 2 engine counterparts? If so, could you also provide source for that?

A heavy fighter like the MKI will in all probability be a greater maintenance hog than the twin engined eurocanards. iirc seeing numbers as low as 9 man hour per flight hr for the ef-2000. The F-18e/f is closer to 15hrs, the F-15 is about 22man hrs, rafale - around 7-9. Even the older F-16As were pretty high. far as fuel goes, my guess is that bigger engines guzzle more than smaller twin engined jets although the Al31s are supposed to be pretty good esp. @ mil power, more importantly, heavier jets will consume more gas simply because of the fact that they are heavier. IOWs, a fulcrum/rafale/ef2k will go a lot further than the MKI/30 on the same amount of fuel.

Valid point. However, that holds true for nearly all fighters in MRCA. Can you see SH doing point defense? On the other hand, Su-35 is an excellent air superiority fighter. If need arises there is no reason why it cannot perform point defense. Though I must admit that it would rather be wasting its capabilities.

The shornet does indeed do point defence when it provides air cover for CBGs. Yes, the 35 can also do it, but it is like using a sledge hammer to drive in a nail, a simple hammer will do. Even the USSR thought to use the fulcrum and not the flanker for theater level ops.

CM

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Sep 2009 19:23

The IAF's purpose for the MRCA was fleet enhancement - 450 Mig21s down to 125 bisons and some bis (100 IIRC), (40-50) Mig 23 BN/MF retiring etc. That is why the thought was additional M2ks to quickly build up strength. IMHO cloning LCAs in numbers would be a good solution given that the production lines are probably being set up and will be needed for some time. The expense would therefore not be wasteful. Any mods needed as discovered would be implemented fleetwide. And, perception is everything. Present day IAF needs to be China centric. Numbers could come in handy if the enemy strikes several different fronts with large number of modern a/c.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 03:33

Jagan wrote:
Kartik wrote:and regarding the Bison flying with 2 R-73s and the initial Tejas demonstrator not being able to do that, keep in mind that the MiG-21 only has 2 pylons on each wing and that meant that almost always, the outermost pylon was the only one that carried any A2A weaponry because the inboard pylons were wet. on some rare occasions, the MiG-21 carried multiple AA-6s on a multiple ejection racks, but in a air-ground config, it would carry bombs or rockets on those outboard pylons. if they were not stressed to take such heavy loads, the MiG-21 would be handicapped with a much much shorter range.

Actually the Bison/Bis does have wet pylons on the outboard. And it has been seen flying with tanks outboard. Infact most of the Bis that fly that i have seen use tanks on the outboard pylons.

I stand corrected. Thanks Jagan.

that however, doesn't change the fact that the MiG-21Bis and the Bison only operate with 2 pylons per wing. if both are wet, it means that a smaller, supersonic drop tank can be carried on the outboard pylon and a heavier weapon load on the inboard pylon. that still means that the LCA could carry more and offered more flexibility, even when it was designed with the R-60 on its outermost pylons.

BTW, Jagan, are you aware of the drop tank G-limitations on MiG-21s ? I read an Combat Aircraft mag article sometime back on Romanian MiG-21s that said that the MiG-21 Mongol was their preferred dogfighter, because the single-seater had lower G-limitations when carrying fuel tanks as compared to the Mongol.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 02 Sep 2009 07:40

Kartik wrote:
that however, doesn't change the fact that the MiG-21Bis and the Bison only operate with 2 pylons per wing. if both are wet, it means that a smaller, supersonic drop tank can be carried on the outboard pylon and a heavier weapon load on the inboard pylon. that still means that the LCA could carry more and offered more flexibility, even when it was designed with the R-60 on its outermost pylons.
.

I am quite sure that the droptank on the outboard pylon in the above picture is carrying an heavier load than the inboard pylon carrying the R-77. The DTs are 490 liters - and possibly around 400kgs. The R-77 is roughly 250kgs. So its actually the opposite. So this 'limitation' has probably more to do with aerodynamics or performance characteristics of the 21 . perhaps DTs on outboard pylons gives you the best performance. But I dont think its the wt.

I read an Combat Aircraft mag article sometime back on Romanian MiG-21s that said that the MiG-21 Mongol was their preferred dogfighter, because the single-seater had lower G-limitations when carrying fuel tanks as compared to the Mongol.

The reasons I have heard are different. the Mongol is based on the very old F-13 and thus is a lighter variant than the Bis and probably more agile and spiffy. Almost everyone agres that the FL was a sports car when you compared it with the Bis. and It performed as good as the F-13 in dogfights and the UM fell in the same category despite the second pilot. i note that the Bis is always heavier than the UM either empty or loaded. that maybe the reason for the preference .

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 02 Sep 2009 08:32

Heres another bit. as per yefim gordon, only the outer pylons are wet. (other than the center one)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 08:34

Very interesting discussion between Kartik and Jagan there, but my eyes caught the words "preferred dogfighter".

To my mind the idea of a "dogfighter" carrying 2 R 77s and 2 drop tanks is an oxymoron. That is not a dogfighter at all and I would have thought that such a profile would be more likely to be used by an air dominance set up where threats would be taken out BVR using a fighter that has the fuel for a degree of loiter time/CAP.

On the other hand a close in fighter carrying R 60s or R 73s and perhaps a gun is more like a "dogfighter" which requires agility for dogfighting. Any agility needed for maneuvers to evade missiles would IMO also require extra weight in the form of avionics to provide the threat awareness - which would necessarily make a fighter of a given type heavier in any case.

JMT

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Sep 2009 09:12

Guru ji said

bottom line - we are not the USSR, we dont have huge industrial complex and
designs ready to roll at drop of a hat.

Guru ji just look at the installed capacity of PSUs we are super USS, we do have huge industrial complex ,
but we nvere do anything but look for a collobrator.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Sep 2009 09:17

If i'm not mistaken amongst all the users of the fishbed, only IAF mig-21 (bisons) have bvr capability as seen from the pic that Jagan posted. He was pointing out that the outer pylons are wet (surprisingly). If needed the bison can do a more mixed load out - 2 R77s + 2 R73s. What is interesting however, is that while the bison is a v.dangerous enemy BVR against 4 gen birds, its ability WVR against F-16 types would be markedly lower. Kind of an irony really.

Essentially, the IAF converted a dogfighter cum ltd. striker into a potent BVR platform v.successfully it seems.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/336 ... G_0058.JPG

JMT[/quote]

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 09:19

Jagan wrote:Heres another bit. as per yefim gordon, only the outer pylons are wet. (other than the center one)

thats another thing I didn't know about the MiG-21.

thanks Jagan.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Sep 2009 11:22

I wonder if IAF's persistence with Bisons in this decade is based purely on the merits of the platform itself or more of a compromise thanks to our speedy and efficient procurement process.

At the end of the day from a Jingo pov Bison does not simply cut in amongst the contemporary AC meant for a similar role , specially if you do a platform to platform comparasion with similar SAM and AWACS support for a comparable AC.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Sep 2009 11:48

on f16-net:

the 'bigmouth' version of block30 F16 is said to be the best dogfighter of them
all. followed by the initial block15-20 PAF types.

the block52 is a bit obese , block60 has 'fat' spilling out in all directions...

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 02 Sep 2009 15:19

The LCA by virtue of its small size which in turn limits its range is more suitable as a point defence fighter. Why was it no optimised as such instead of being designed as a multirole platform?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Sep 2009 17:39

"The LCA by virtue of its small size which in turn limits its range is more suitable as a point defence fighter."

Incorrect assumption - you'll better understand reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhaw ... evelopment

Imagine its utility in Chamb 1965 opening day air strike or Longewala 1971. It was designed keeping that in mind

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 20:09

Willy wrote:The LCA by virtue of its small size which in turn limits its range is more suitable as a point defence fighter. Why was it no optimised as such instead of being designed as a multirole platform?

Because India is always doing things with aircraft that the original designers never thought of doing. Perhaps because India spends humongous amounts of time just thinking about the aircraft before actually selecting it?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Sep 2009 21:30

shiv wrote: Because India is always doing things with aircraft that the original designers never thought of doing. Perhaps because India spends humongous amounts of time just thinking about the aircraft before actually selecting it?

Because money WAS limited. Failures would have ended the program. Not anymore though.

Any one has info about the exact changes in the MK-II? what level the design is at?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 03 Sep 2009 10:19

Heres another limitation of the Bis (and which would extend to the Bison as well) thats given in the book

For ground attack, the Bis can carry two 500kg bombs under the inbound hard points. but the outerboard hardpoints will have to be kept empty. No missiles, No DTs because it cannnot support the additional wts. When the Russians used the Bis in Afghanistan, they had to reduce this further to 250kg x 2 because of the high altitude airfield constraints . This is something we need to take into account when the chinese send their formations -they will definitely operate on reduced efficiency.

Given that the centerline hard point needs to carry a DT for any reasonable range (200 miles at lo-lo-hi), a bis ground attack sortie will deliver about 1000kg per ac per sortie.

Obviously it is better suited for an interception role - we can fit four AAMs and a center line DT for some reasonable airfield VA/VP protection. As a bomber it maybe found wanting. Rockets I would think are the preferred weapon of choice for the MiG.

The LCA i would hope would do better in the GA Role.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2009 11:01

What will be the endurance or amount of time a BISON can spend in air for Air Combat Patrol , with 4 AAM ( BVR/WVR ) and one centerline drop tank ?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 03 Sep 2009 11:21

well there is a famous adage about mig 21's..... there is a fuel emergency the moment the plane takes off... should answer your query!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2009 12:19

manjgu wrote:well there is a famous adage about mig 21's..... there is a fuel emergency the moment the plane takes off... should answer your query!

Emm ...I dont think its that bad.

The figures that I have ( and I dont know if these are correct ) , with 4 AAM and 1 centerline drop tank and internal fuel , the Bison can be on CAP for 25 minutes plus 10 minutes of landing/emergency fuel.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 03 Sep 2009 12:46

The figures that I have ( and I don't know if these are correct ) , with 4 AAM and 1 centerline drop tank and internal fuel , the Bison can be on CAP for 25 minutes plus 10 minutes of landing/emergency fuel.

The bison is not intended for strike mission .Its design was to achieve a reasonably good point defense aircraft with appreciable BVR capability. With 2 r-77 and 2 r-73 that objective is realized with a center line drop tank .In future conflict it will be used for point and or limited rea defense

In emergency ofcourse it can be used for close air support operating out of forward air bases and when air supremacy is achieved .

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 03 Sep 2009 12:51

Shankar wrote:[
The bison is not intended for strike mission .Its design was to achieve a reasonably good point defense aircraft with appreciable BVR capability. With 2 r-77 and 2 r-73 that objective is realized with a center line drop tank .In future conflict it will be used for point and or limited rea defense
.

In such a case, why would bison squadrons be issued with the KAB500 TV Guided bombs, Regular Iron Bombs and Rocket Pods?

All MiG-21 squadrons train for GA missions all the time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 14:44

MiG 21s have been used for ground attack since 1971.

Also see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey4RzWOv ... annel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF92HgC ... annel_page

Sorry - off topic

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 04 Sep 2009 23:27

Hany newz about the yell see yay???

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 05 Sep 2009 02:01

Team,

I was just comparing the wiki page for LCA and Gripen

Gripen:
Empty weight: 5,700 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN

LCA:
Empty weight: 5,500 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (in fighter configuration)
Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN

Is this inf wrong or is the power in the Gripen lower than the LCA? If yes, there is no sense in the IAF complaining that the LCA is underpowered, is there? Further, except the expeditionary capabilities of the Gripen, the LCA is more than a match for it in most cases! Does this mean Gripen will not be our MRCA?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 05 Sep 2009 02:07

Mayuresh wrote:Team,

I was just comparing the wiki page for LCA and Gripen

Gripen:
Empty weight: 5,700 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN

LCA:
Empty weight: 5,500 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (in fighter configuration)
Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN

Is this inf wrong or is the power in the Gripen lower than the LCA? If yes, there is no sense in the IAF complaining that the LCA is underpowered, is there? Further, except the expeditionary capabilities of the Gripen, the LCA is more than a match for it in most cases! Does this mean Gripen will not be our MRCA?

Just because the T/W ratios are comparable doesnt mean the aerodynamic characteristics and capabilities along with efficiencies are similar
performance is combination of thrust and aerodynamics that use the thrust...now I am not saying LCA has significantly higher drag than the gripen or lower lift or anything but eventually these factors count more toward the IAF's evaluation and verdict on the LCA. These issues have been discussed to death on the LCA and MRCA pages...

Sorry, couldnt help myself from including an example

imagine a M800 engine powering an M800 and a plywood board 20'x20' with the same wt as the M800, they'll both have the same power to wt ratio on paper, but due to significantly higher drag coefficient on the plywood board the M800 engine would struggle to power it to the same speeds as the streamlined car (just an exaggerated example)

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 05 Sep 2009 07:41

nikhil_p wrote:Hany newz about the yell see yay???

Nothing big, its just completed 3 more test flights to take it to 1168 test flights

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 05 Sep 2009 13:32

Isnt the Gripen powered by a GE engine or is it a GE engine licence produced by volvo and named so???

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 05 Sep 2009 21:19

Raveen wrote: Just because the T/W ratios are comparable doesnt mean the aerodynamic characteristics and capabilities along with efficiencies are similar
performance is combination of thrust and aerodynamics that use the thrust...now I am not saying LCA has significantly higher drag than the gripen or lower lift or anything but eventually these factors count more toward the IAF's evaluation and verdict on the LCA. These issues have been discussed to death on the LCA and MRCA pages...

Sorry, couldnt help myself from including an example

imagine a M800 engine powering an M800 and a plywood board 20'x20' with the same wt as the M800, they'll both have the same power to wt ratio on paper, but due to significantly higher drag coefficient on the plywood board the M800 engine would struggle to power it to the same speeds as the streamlined car (just an exaggerated example)

Point taken, Raveen! However, it seems hard to believe that the Gripen, with its canard - delta configuration has a lower drag than the LCA with the compound delta wing. As far as I can remember, the delta / compound delta is more aerodynamically efficient that than the canard-delta confirguration, but offers lower manouverability. There probably is something more to the Gripen aerodynamics, than exists in the public domain

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 05 Sep 2009 22:33

Mayuresh wrote:
Raveen wrote: Just because the T/W ratios are comparable doesnt mean the aerodynamic characteristics and capabilities along with efficiencies are similar
performance is combination of thrust and aerodynamics that use the thrust...now I am not saying LCA has significantly higher drag than the gripen or lower lift or anything but eventually these factors count more toward the IAF's evaluation and verdict on the LCA. These issues have been discussed to death on the LCA and MRCA pages...

Sorry, couldnt help myself from including an example

imagine a M800 engine powering an M800 and a plywood board 20'x20' with the same wt as the M800, they'll both have the same power to wt ratio on paper, but due to significantly higher drag coefficient on the plywood board the M800 engine would struggle to power it to the same speeds as the streamlined car (just an exaggerated example)
Point taken, Raveen! However, it seems hard to believe that the Gripen, with its canard - delta configuration has a lower drag than the LCA with the compound delta wing. As far as I can remember, the delta / compound delta is more aerodynamically efficient that than the canard-delta confirguration, but offers lower manouverability. There probably is something more to the Gripen aerodynamics, than exists in the public domain

aerodynamics are not just limited to the wing design (there is a fuselage and other drag inducing structures), and most importantly, just because a wing is a certain shape (compound delta) doesnt mean that other considerations (like AoA, lift characteristics, etc.) make it more efficient than another wing
a well designed delta wing can out perform a poorly designed compound/canted delta

Willy wrote:Isnt the Gripen powered by a GE engine or is it a GE engine licence produced by volvo and named so???

the Volvo engine is a rebadged and slightly modified GE 404 engine co-developed with Volvo

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 05 Sep 2009 22:44

Mayuresh, those figures for Gripen are not accurate from an MRCA perspective. The figures for the Gripen IN should be closer to Gripen NG which uses the GE F414 engine with a maximum thrust of 98 kN. The weight has increased as well but they claim an improvement in T/W ratio.
This discussion has been done before: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &sk=t&sd=a

Here's a link from keypub on Gripen:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... ostcount=1

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 06 Sep 2009 00:10

Willy wrote:Isnt the Gripen powered by a GE engine or is it a GE engine licence produced by volvo and named so???

the Volvo engine is a rebadged and slightly modified GE 404 engine co-developed with Volvo[/quote]

I wouldnt say "rebadged and slighly modified". IIRC the RM 12 contains more 50% of parts that are designed and produced by Volvo Aero. The RM12 was the basis on which the GE F414 came from and which Volvo Aero owns a huge stake in. So if the LCA choces the GE F414 as its future engine many of the engines and parts will be produced by Volvo Aero (just like they produce engines for the SuperHornet)...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Sep 2009 09:49

from MOD report.

Weapon Release Trials on
Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas with 25 lb,
1000 lb and 3 kg bombs at Jamnagar have
been successfully completed. First 1000 lb
bomb from Tejas has been released on March
12, 2009.

The
first naval-version prototype is scheduled for
integration and testing by mid-2009. Work is
in progress to ensure its roll out by 2010.

santoshs · Post by **santoshs** » 10 Sep 2009 18:08

PV-5 trainer was out 11 months ago. Can anyone tell why it hasn't still taken to air? Any news regarding other LSPs?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Sep 2009 18:39

http://www.ada.gov.in/index.html

LCA-Tejas has completed 1173 Test Flights successfully. (11-Sep-09).

* LCA has completed 1173 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-218,PV2-128,PV3-153,LSP1-54,LSP2-82).
* 218th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 11th Sep 09.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 11 Sep 2009 18:45

^^^ Damn! I was so excited to see the LCA thread on top after such a long time. All we get is figures from HAL these days!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Sep 2009 22:05

Mayuresh wrote:Team,

I was just comparing the wiki page for LCA and Gripen

Gripen:
Empty weight: 5,700 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN

LCA:
Empty weight: 5,500 kg
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (in fighter configuration)
Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN

Is this inf wrong or is the power in the Gripen lower than the LCA? If yes, there is no sense in the IAF complaining that the LCA is underpowered, is there? Further, except the expeditionary capabilities of the Gripen, the LCA is more than a match for it in most cases! Does this mean Gripen will not be our MRCA?

the figures are wrong. the LCA's empty weight is 6500 kgs, not 5500kgs. that was the design intent, which they couldn't meet.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Sep 2009 23:10

Was that design intent that couldn't be met or was that a change in requirements from the IAF leading to strengthened wing and other areas leading to higher weight?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2009 23:34

Dont go there! It will become POKII thread with all sort of mental contortions.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Sep 2009 23:46

ramana ji, that's not necessary.

the scope creep* that led to the increase in empty weight is well known and well documented.
I'm sure both the gentlemen in question are well aware of the fact.

> new wings
> OBOGs (not sure if even the mki has one)
> internal EW systems
> plumbing for AR (I tend to think this was not an requirement in the original ASR of late 80's. IAF was very late in recognising the advantages of AR, IIRC we actually paid to remove refueling probes from the mirage)