LCA News and Discussions

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 25 Jul 2012 13:06

http://idrw.org/?p=12916

Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

Sources close to idrw.org have informed that first Tejas MK-2 will be ready by end of 2014 and will be ready for first flight in 2014 , new higher thrust engines from GE for Tejas MK-2 will start arriving in late 2013 and integration will happen by 2014 .Tejas MK-2 will carry new Avionics and new cockpit layout and development has already started and work on first air frame for Tejas MK-2 will start in 2013.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Jul 2012 07:13

pentaiah wrote:Any equipment that is software driven (these days 100% of the equipment is software driven and or embedded system) with their own micro code or chips is expected to be coming with trojans and that is given.

See the Linux thread on this very forum US Navy moved away from windows to Linux because of virus!

All software including OS have to be our own otherwise it's vulnerable some way or the other

What is needed is an Indian counterpart of the US "Trusted Foundry Program". IIRC, details have been posted in the cyber security thread.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 27 Jul 2012 08:16

There is an indian flavour of linux operating system "Rangoli", our government should promote it in government offices.

http://www.indlinux.org/

skaranam · Post by **skaranam** » 27 Jul 2012 15:25

akshat.kashyap wrote:There is an indian flavour of linux operating system "Rangoli", our government should promote it in government offices.

http://www.indlinux.org/

Check this out...BOSS. This is being deployed for the armed forces...effort by CDAC

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 27 Jul 2012 18:04

Article by Vijainder K Thakur, a former IAF fighter pilot who last flew Jaguars

IAF Declines to Induct Tejas LCA LSP Aircraft

https://plus.google.com/u/0/11547733765 ... BMVLgfmJLS

One of the reasons why ADA and HAL are having a hard time obtaining IOC-2 on the Tejas Mk-1 is because HAL has been manufacturing the 4th Gen Tejas using 2 Gen manufacturing techniques.

Because HAL's manufacturing process is outdated, variations between copies of Tejas aircraft are larger than can be accommodated by the FBW control aircraft.

Because of weight creep, the C of G of the Tejas is now significantly behind its C of P (Center of Pressure, where the lift acts) making it very unstable aircraft. Indeed, the Tejas is the most unstable fighter in the world.

WTF ???? This is quite shocking.

How do they expect to make Rafales, when they cannot even manufacture Tejas properly (for which we have pretty much all home support).

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Jul 2012 18:38

Nick_S wrote:Article by Vijainder K Thakur, a former IAF fighter pilot who last flew Jaguars

IAF Declines to Induct Tejas LCA LSP Aircraft

https://plus.google.com/u/0/11547733765 ... BMVLgfmJLS

One of the reasons why ADA and HAL are having a hard time obtaining IOC-2 on the Tejas Mk-1 is because HAL has been manufacturing the 4th Gen Tejas using 2 Gen manufacturing techniques.

Because HAL's manufacturing process is outdated, variations between copies of Tejas aircraft are larger than can be accommodated by the FBW control aircraft.

Because of weight creep, the C of G of the Tejas is now significantly behind its C of P (Center of Pressure, where the lift acts) making it very unstable aircraft. Indeed, the Tejas is the most unstable fighter in the world.
WTF ???? This is quite shocking.

How do they expect to make Rafales, when they cannot even manufacture Tejas properly (for which we have pretty much all home support).

How do you make a aircraft with so much composites using 2g techniques, if HAL was so incompetent how is it able to build Su-30MKI at its other facilities. GIven the way DDM has been hounding the programme, would they ignore such a report, they would have pounced on it and parlimentarians like Former Parlimentarian Suresh Kalmadi would have introduced resolutions to kill the programme.

Yes HAL can do better, but a company which manufactures Su-30MKI and ALH uses 2G techniques, CG creeps and most unstable aircraft in the world would definately have crashed aleast once in 11 years like the Gripens f-22 's etc when they were being developed? I think this is just a bit of Bias coming out.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 27 Jul 2012 18:42

if this news is true , then We don't require screwdrivers to built Tejas, we only require HAL

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 27 Jul 2012 18:48

I have read a couple of articles from this VK Thakur before and found them to be inaccurate. No chance IAF would keep quiet all these days if Tejas had such a flaw.
IIRC this Thakur maintains a blog (sawfnews or something) and had even posted in BR.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2012 19:19

Nick_S wrote:Article by Vijainder K Thakur, a former IAF fighter pilot who last flew Jaguars

IAF Declines to Induct Tejas LCA LSP Aircraft

https://plus.google.com/u/0/11547733765 ... BMVLgfmJLS

One of the reasons why ADA and HAL are having a hard time obtaining IOC-2 on the Tejas Mk-1 is because HAL has been manufacturing the 4th Gen Tejas using 2 Gen manufacturing techniques.

Because HAL's manufacturing process is outdated, variations between copies of Tejas aircraft are larger than can be accommodated by the FBW control aircraft.

Because of weight creep, the C of G of the Tejas is now significantly behind its C of P (Center of Pressure, where the lift acts) making it very unstable aircraft. Indeed, the Tejas is the most unstable fighter in the world.
WTF ???? This is quite shocking.

How do they expect to make Rafales, when they cannot even manufacture Tejas properly (for which we have pretty much all home support).

Interesting and I can believe it. But these have to be sorted out. It was mentioned on here several months ago that the real crunch is going to be mass manufacture and getting people to build parts in an assembly line so that there is no variation. I believe its called quality control. Building prototypes is OK. But mass manufacture is completely different. The reason why Rafale will be built successfully is because the US, French, Russians, Brits etc sorted out these issues decades ago. They send us the machinery and we build to the drawings they send using the machinery they have designed using the materials the send or approve.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2012 19:57

If this problem is correct then everything about LCA is a lie and no LCA exists. We have bee hearing fake news of 1900+ flights.

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 27 Jul 2012 20:23

Center of pressure behind CG?
Fighter aircraft are meant to be unstable to aid maneuverability...
and secondly, the distance between cp and cg is not what matters, its the distance between the neutral point and the cg. neutral point is fixed and for a fighter aircraft, it is preferred that cg be behind the neutral point... That pilot was asleep during aircraft stability 101?

And how come the creep issue hasn't been resolved after >200 flights each on the TD1,TD2,PV1,PV2,PV3?

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 27 Jul 2012 21:30

Gents, this Vijainder K Thakur fellow has a history of being dorkier than the DDM. Look up his blog for some valueable pearls of wisdom.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2012 21:38

I will call up ADA and tell them to put some aloos under the seat of the pilotwa to move gravity to stability.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Jul 2012 21:38

^ he also piloted Marut and throwing tantrums from the beginning on Marut and HAL. So these things are from that hangover.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jul 2012 02:24

I have to provide a feedback here ... most of you have attacked him without countering his points. I am not privy to the information he is referring to, so I will not comment on its veracity.

But if CG lies behind originally designed point, it will definitely stress the control laws. And yes this will get aggrevated at high AoA. The way LSPs have been built till now (barring LSP 7) was without an assembly line. Plus each LSP brought about new things onboard. So the 'creep' that Mr. Thakur is speaking of could have happened. There is nothing to be surprised of. This is a possibility that could have always happened. But it is no big deal. Once things crystallize, the control law can fine tuned and the parameters on production models can be within acceptable tolerance!

If I remember correctly LSP 7 had a long delay in building, because they said they are trying to set up an assembly line. And LSP 7 would be the first plane off that assembly line. However, I don't think everything is as has been reported as I would have expect LSP8 to have arrived much faster than year end if it followed LSP 7 on the assembly line.

But Mr. Thakur is not right in saying that building planes in the serial production has not started. Ajai Shukla had provided pics of the the forward fuselage section of the first series production Tejas way back in Feb 2011.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Jul 2012 09:29

Indranilroy_> some of have countered his points but he makes some outrageous aurguments that an aircraft with composite wings is being built using Mig-21,AVRO manufacturing techniques in an organisation that builds ALH and Su-30's, assembles Hawks etc. Yes HAL can improve but arent such comments overboard.

We cannot ignore also the fact that Arms Agent Mafia nexus in Delhi who have significant influence in Media in past have tried to kill almost all indegenious products, some ex servicemen, ex-parliamentarians like MR Suresh Kalmadi close to the ruling establishment also introduced resolutions in parliament that the LCA project should be cancelled.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 Jul 2012 09:37

Indeed, the Tejas is the most unstable fighter in the world.

Mach plus, FBW Delta wing config AC are designed to be unstable..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jul 2012 10:02

Aditya_V wrote:Indranilroy_> some of have countered his points but he makes some outrageous aurguments that an aircraft with composite wings is being built using Mig-21,AVRO manufacturing techniques in an organisation that builds ALH and Su-30's, assembles Hawks etc. Yes HAL can improve but arent such comments overboard.

He is not speaking of 4th generation stuff that goes into the plane. He is not that stupid to call LCA a 2nd generation plane. He says the production techniques are 2nd generation.

Aditya_V wrote:We cannot ignore also the fact that Arms Agent Mafia nexus in Delhi who have significant influence in Media in past have tried to kill almost all indegenious products, some ex servicemen, ex-parliamentarians like MR Suresh Kalmadi close to the ruling establishment also introduced resolutions in parliament that the LCA project should be cancelled.

At the same time we shouldn't become completely averse to criticism!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jul 2012 10:04

thakur saab should also know 4th gen a/cs get 1st gen funds., and our 5th gen a/c is likely to get only 2nd gen funds. ab kya kare? ayyoo! sab brain drained, and kalmadized.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jul 2012 10:23

His article is not about the reasons why situation is what they are. Also I am not blaming HAL for the situation. But what Mr.Thakur is saying goes quite well with what we are seeing.

LSP 7 has not been transferred yet LSP-8 is not coming 1.5 -2 months delay after LSP 7 but after a year. So production lines don't seem to exactly chugging along. LSP-5 was supposed to be the final version for LCA-1. We know that it is not the case. The situation may be what Mr. Thakur is reporting.

At the same time I am not surprised. HAL/ADA till now has been concentrating on building and refining the plane. Serial producing and operationalizing is the next step.

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 28 Jul 2012 10:52

This chap is a noted anti-LCA proponent. I would take anything he says with more than a pinch of salt.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 28 Jul 2012 11:14

i spoke to one of the ex-Hal employee yesterday and he told me there were minor variations in HAL built Jaguar and videshi built Jaguar since HAL didn't had all the original blueprint just for FYI

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 Jul 2012 12:19

I do think that creep may have resulted in shifting the CG due to poor quality controls in manufacturing processes. But that is exactly why the LCA is undergoing extensive testing. Arresting creep is not high tech for Indian metallurgists today. Testing is meant to bring to focus myriad problems to surface in complex platforms like the LCA. I personally have made a living testing and certifying equipment coming out of design laboratories into mainstream applications in Japan, US, Europe wherever and know that many doubts, idiocies that media spread over the Arjun, LCA are so common elsewhere. Some of these systems that i used to certify were extremely complex and integrated various streams of technologies and hundreds of specialists. Yet the problems one would encounter could be so basic, it would be laughable. And then they would go back to the drawing boards and reconfigure it. The Hydraulic systems problems that Arjun encountered earlier were similar to some i have faced, simple but exploded in a media where the average engineering quotient (EQ) is about 85 equivalent to more recognized forms of IQ/EQ. Separating the grain from the chaff thing eludes a lot of 'experts' too. Indian defense reporting too has to mature from those perspectives and understand what happens in a trial perspective.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 28 Jul 2012 17:09

Re-posting:

Those who flew her never criticized her; those who criticized her never flew her.

I don't get it!! How can the CG move significantly because of 'manufacturing'? Come on, folks!! Each component, and each structural member of the plane is manufactured and installed as per a design drawing. Even if QC is non-existent, something made to a drawing that fits with other components can not have a significant difference in weight to cause major CG shift.

Look, we are talking about a structure that weighs 6 tonnes. It is supposed to fly with weight varying from empty to 13 tonnes. Unless HAL replaced some parts with depleted uranium, manufacturing issues can not cause a significant change in CG. The CG would change more if you have a 60kg pilot and an 80kg pilot, than what is possible with a manufacturing variance!!

Yes, ADA might have added something to the design. Maybe bolted on some new piece of equipment. Maybe the test/telemetry equipment was placed incorrectly, who knows!! But unless the good old simple mechanics principles holds, there is no way the manufacturing variances can cause a major shift in CG.

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 28 Jul 2012 18:57

Dileep wrote:Re-posting:

Those who flew her never criticized her; those who criticized her never flew her.

I don't get it!! How can the CG move significantly because of 'manufacturing'? Come on, folks!! Each component, and each structural member of the plane is manufactured and installed as per a design drawing. Even if QC is non-existent, something made to a drawing that fits with other components can not have a significant difference in weight to cause major CG shift.

Look, we are talking about a structure that weighs 6 tonnes. It is supposed to fly with weight varying from empty to 13 tonnes. Unless HAL replaced some parts with depleted uranium, manufacturing issues can not cause a significant change in CG. The CG would change more if you have a 60kg pilot and an 80kg pilot, than what is possible with a manufacturing variance!!

Yes, ADA might have added something to the design. Maybe bolted on some new piece of equipment. Maybe the test/telemetry equipment was placed incorrectly, who knows!! But unless the good old simple mechanics principles holds, there is no way the manufacturing variances can cause a major shift in CG.

Although I dont have aerospace experience, applying my manufacturing knowledge - the CG will vary within a certain range (tolerance, some +/- from the nominal). This range will be tighter for production process. For Proto and early limited series as in LCA etc, the range will be wider (due to continuous subsystem level design iterations, non stabilized assembly and manufacturing process). But progressively being brought tighter. So if there were CG issues those would have been for earlier version. But not sure if some personal views adding to 'widening'

the wide CG range.
Also I would think the CLAWs team would have tailored the s/w for each of the early protos for few reasons - one for 'flyability' another for extreme caution the whole team adopted and one for just because they can afford to. For LSP and production versions they may have stabilized the s/w.
Another point to consider is - lighter an object, minor changes can more significantly affect the CG than for heavier objects.
Prototype to production is truly a nightmare. But there is significant capability in India to overcome these hurdles.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 28 Jul 2012 20:46

Sid, what I am trying to show is that the change in CG because of manufacturing tolerances would be miniscule compared to the change in CG the aircraft is expected to see during normal operation. The ONLY way the CG can appreciably change would be design changes.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2012 20:50

No body is foolish to fly an experimental aircraft with doubtful or critical CG positions.

That said, virtually any aircraft can be ballasted with weights to move or position the CG to desired locations. There are precise mathematical calculations for this.

Commercial aircraft are loaded with cargo in a planned manner to make sure that the CG stays well within the specified limits. The load and trim sheet is always finally approved by the Captain.

Many production military aircraft fly today with permanent ballast weights to make sure that the CG stays well within design limits.

No aircraft is normally ever released for flight without every body concerned knowing precisely where the CG is.

Change in CG because of manufacturing tolerances would essentially mean uncontrolled manufacturing processes and would not normally pass Quality checks.

Many HAL divisions are Aero Space standard 9100 rev C certified- meaning tight process controls are in place.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Jul 2012 06:33

How does the LCA compare to Mirage 2000 series?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 29 Jul 2012 07:15

,Very open ended question
How does it compare in what?
Cost its the LCA, fuel fraction I would go with LCA, thrust to weight ditto (especially with 414)
Radar cross section LCA, Electronic warefare again LCA.
The overall avionics of the upgrded Mirage will be superior but static.
It costs a lot to upgrade french stuff, these airframes have a limited life we are 50% ++ into its lifecycle.
The LCA meanwhile might come not so great on this front but will be constantly upgraded at a very cheap rate.
keeping it cutting edsge longer
The Mirage is larger and its range will be greater , load carriage higher (N.bumb)

The actual pilot satisfaction will come through once tejas mk2 comes in at squadron level and we get feedback fm the experts.

I can play with my lungi and keep going, but what comparison are u after?

I am a bit biased but tried to hide it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jul 2012 10:25

Pranav wrote:
pentaiah wrote:Any equipment that is software driven (these days 100% of the equipment is software driven and or embedded system) with their own micro code or chips is expected to be coming with trojans and that is given.

See the Linux thread on this very forum US Navy moved away from windows to Linux because of virus!

All software including OS have to be our own otherwise it's vulnerable some way or the other
What is needed is an Indian counterpart of the US "Trusted Foundry Program". IIRC, details have been posted in the cyber security thread.

Check out at 7 min mark regarding Cyber Security:

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jul 2012 11:29

RoyG wrote:How does the LCA compare to Mirage 2000 series?

Horse and buggy compared to the Model T

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 29 Jul 2012 22:53

^^^^

Nopes. LCA is the Model T here. It flies much better, builds on the Mirage 2000 design philosophy and then some, and has far more advanced avionics.

When the Mirage 2000 upgrade finishes, the M 2000 is going to be better electronically, than the LCA.

At the same time, tech infusion and RnD partnerships with France-Dassault, and the tech infusion taking place with the Rafale will bring the LCA electronics upto par with the M2000.

Of course, flight characteristics are far, far better than the M2000.
Look at the LCA wing. It can do everything; turn quickly, flight straight and fast, has great handling at slow speeds, as well as simultaneously making a neat chicken butter masala

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 30 Jul 2012 01:53

No flights by tejas for a long time now

as usual D shivering starts someone should update us(not that we are important)

vic · Post by **vic** » 30 Jul 2012 01:59

If LCA is better than non- upgraded Mig-21 even then it is good replacement over retiring Mig-21s

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jul 2012 02:13

RoyG wrote:How does the LCA compare to Mirage 2000 series?

It does not matter to what it compares itself. It matters how LCA is put to use by IAF. The role it is going to play charters a long life for LCA.

I can imagine, LCA Mk2++ staging to AMCA might happen that might look very similar to pak-fa, but on a medium scale, and having medium combat role specs. But all this depends on how well IAF gets excited over LCA, and they get to measure the value in terms of technology and usage, and role-envelope spectrum.

When AESA arrives, it would tell a lot more death knell for old mirage and migs.

member_23657 · Post by **member_23657** » 30 Jul 2012 09:33

RoyG wrote:How does the LCA compare to Mirage 2000 series?

I remember our ex AF chief grading LCA at IOC-1 as a MiG21++ aircraft. Though this assessment was conservative, it is certain that over the period from IOC-1 to FOC, LCA Mk1 would easily surpass the Mirage2000 in every terms except for the avionics(upgrade to happen)

LCA Mk2 at FOC would be comparable atleast to Saab Grippen or even better and IMHO by the time Mk2 goes through a mid life upgrade, with the technology infusion from AMCA, MMRCA and PAK-FA.
- It can have the best home grown avionics and cockpit system..
- A mature home grown AESA radar
- mature home grown A2A weapons and LGBs
- and possibly Kaveri K10 engine

It would surely scale upto a 4++ gen aircraft and atleast be 80-90% indigenous

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jul 2012 10:09

I would de-rate the indigenous to 70% if K10 does not go in.. so for long time to come, it shall remain so. Now, how one qualifies 30% being the core engine tech is just a ball park and no sense value. But for a few, this would be actually 80% of the value, so, it can remain at 20% indigenous for a long time to come.

/dhoti shiver

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 30 Jul 2012 20:36

^^^ THIS post by SaiK is in code. what does it mean?

Anyways. My predictions is folks,
a. that the LCA is going to whoop the asses of MANY advanced planes when it goes up against them in DACT. Teen series, like Terence Fornoff spoke about the Mig 21, is going to be dust against the LCA.

(invisible composites, jammer, small etc. )

b. Paisa for paisa, it is going to be the MOST advanced aircraft per dollar spent anywhere in the world. Will carry the most load, the furthest for the least amount of money.
(Composites, Indian jammers, electronics, programming, Russian, Israeli, French, Indian weapons and electronics, F 16 XL wing)

C. In fact many advanced countries will order the LCA to make up their lighter figher components. (Japan, Aussies, etc. )

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 30 Jul 2012 23:00

Getting a little ahead of ourselves, are we ?

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 31 Jul 2012 01:26

mahadevbhu wrote:^^^ THIS post by SaiK is in code. what does it mean?

Anyways. My predictions is folks,
a. that the LCA is going to whoop the asses of MANY advanced planes when it goes up against them in DACT. Teen series, like Terence Fornoff spoke about the Mig 21, is going to be dust against the LCA.

(invisible composites, jammer, small etc. )

b. Paisa for paisa, it is going to be the MOST advanced aircraft per dollar spent anywhere in the world. Will carry the most load, the furthest for the least amount of money.
(Composites, Indian jammers, electronics, programming, Russian, Israeli, French, Indian weapons and electronics, F 16 XL wing)

C. In fact many advanced countries will order the LCA to make up their lighter figher components. (Japan, Aussies, etc. )

Mahadevbhu, what is the point of your constant "my daddy strongest" posts?