LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[Indranil]

Ofcourse if you add more fuel carrying capacity in terms of CFTs, you will longer range.

Hopefully that satisfies certain test points with regards to unrefueled range in the MMRCA checklist

Don't make a light fighter do the work of a medium weight fighter, it is only going to give unsatisfactory results. If you think MMRCA is unjustified, that is okay. Don't try to make the argument that LCA can do the job of a MMRCA. It can't. The designers of MMRCAs are very smart people too.

The second part is not correct. Though, the lift to drag ratio gets better, the absolute value of lift required and drag faced actually grows when you add CFTs filled with fuel. So with the same engine power, LCA with CFTs will struggle more than one without it

Realistically there is a lot of loiter time before the actual A2A engagement starts and even then they could go with,

-engaging afterburner for longer durations
-use active fuel proportioner removing fuel from the CFTs into the internal tanks
-fuel dump

or increase engine thrust, which means a different engine perhaps moving away from F414, if the MMRCA is scrapped and this causes a spike in the Tejas nos, they could use other engines for the later part of the fleet

- I don't know what you mean by use of afterburners for longer time! STRs are defined with and without AB, so nothing changes there. Use of AB for cruise is not sustainable, both in terms of fuel consumption as well as engine capability.
- I think you have got the uses of active fuel proportioner wrong. Moving the fuel from the CFTs to internal tanks doesn't change the drag at all. What you could argue is that unlike the the CG of the CFTs, the CG of the internal tanks may not be very close to the CG of the plane and this could be used in the active proportioner logic to increase maneuverability. But this has much more effect on the maneuverability than the agility of the plane.
- why would you carry around fuel which you might dump with any significant probability? Navy and AF requirements are very very different?
- We can wish all we want. But GE-414 is the very state-of-art when it comes to turbofan for fighters. So there is no way in the foreseeable next 10-20 years, that you would be able to find an engine with much higher thrust than that without increases the inlet diameter. The moment you do that, your entire plane changes!

[vasu raya]

ok lets treat the MMRCA checklist of 500 or so test points as the preferred ASQR, we further divide it into red, yellow and green zones, I believe the Gripen, F-16 Block 60, F-18, Mig are all in the yellow zone which is where the LCA Mk2 most likely comes under, no illusions there. The other classification of light, medium, heavy, obese grades was not the invitation criteria anyways, so why bring that now?

while payload can be spread across a swarm of LCA as many suggested, the unrefueled range is an absolute dimension that needs to be fulfilled which is why CFTs came about, the marker being the F-16 Blk 60 with CFTs which probably had a thrust shortfall after that

And if we are talking about 10-20 years, I don't think LCA will remain the same, so the engine needn't be the same

[adarshp]

^^^ +1

Wasnt the MMRCA originally supposed to be more M2K's.... What we should also think is where LCA Mk2 would compare against M2k-5's which we wanted. Maybe a few things have moved on in a few years but how much?

[Viv S]

The F-16's (unintentional) first flight video. Observers on the base would have had their heart in the mouth. These are the sort of risks the LCA program managers and engineers could not afford to take with an untested platform. With relatively meagre backing from the air force and govt, a crash would have disastrous for the program.

http://www.airspacemag.com/multimedia/v ... light.html


On January 20, 1974, during a high-speed taxi test, General Dynamics test pilot Phil Oestricher applied what he thought were small control-stick inputs in the standard method used to check the airplane’s roll response. However, in response to the pilot’s input, the control stick in the YF-16, mounted on the right instead of the customary center, didn’t actually move. Instead, it measured the pressures exerted by the pilot’s hand and relayed that data, via electronic sensors, to hydraulic actuators in a newfangled fly-by-wire control system. The simulator Oestricher had flown didn’t adequately portray the stick forces, so he hadn’t learned to judge how much aileron he was commanding.

Too much, apparently. The YF-16 oscillated wildly, banging the right elevator on the runway. After struggling with the aircraft, Oestricher decided it would be safer to take off. The test director, retired Colonel Jim Rider, remembers being “up in the control tower, watching my career go down the tubes.”

The short flight and landing were uneventful, no one got fired, and General Dynamics scheduled the first official flight for February 2. Retired Colonel Bob Ettinger, a YF-16 test pilot, was assigned to investigate the cause of the incident. He concluded that it “resulted from flying an antiquated flight test technique that didn’t work for a fly-by-wire system.” It would be one of many lessons taught by the new arrival.

[Indranil]

Hmmm.

As I said before, if you say that the MMRCA is an unwanted program, I won't contest you. There is merit to that discussion but there have sufficient iterations on the same topic. And there will be more. I don't want to be part of any, because I will only be repeating stuff.

Now if you say that the LCA can do everything that Block-60+, Rafale, EF, Mig-35, I would not contest you either .

As to your question as to why categorize aircraft by weight, my answer is I don't. I categorize them based on engine power. With increasing engine power, you can do the same thing with more weight. The weight of the empty aircraft given a state-of-art and performance requirements is a function of this overall weight. This is where weight of an aircraft comes in. It is a consequence not a reason. There is a reason why M2Ks and F-16s and Gripens did not find favour with IAF. Heck even the F-18 fell short.

One final point that we as jingos forget is that LCA is not state-of-art when it comes to certain aspects. WE are on the path to getting there, but we are not there yet. There is learning to be done on manufacturing capability, sensor fusion etc. which can be sped up.

[Karan M]

State of the art also costs a lot of money and time...question often is is whether the price in monetary and time is worth the wait.
For instance, Rafale and EF have manufacturing innovation and process tolerances that can be classified as state of the art, yet the overall platforms will be behind the JSF when latter enters service in one crucial area - VLO. Yet, the Europeans may well argue that having birds in the hand today, is better than waiting another decade or two for a JSF equivalent.

MHO, at $26 Mn, the LCA is a steal. Something the rtd community in the IAF, including erstwhile LCA critics are recognizing. On FB, Suneet Krishna said - MK1 is great and MK2 will be even better. But more and more folks are stating MK1 itself is really good enough for the IAF as it stands.

In our context, the MiG-21 Bison and Mirage 2000 are very potent aircraft and can match most of what the PAF/PLAAF can field.

Apart from the anon NFTC LCA test pilot quoted by Ajai Shukla, Pervez Khokhar is now on record stating that in some respects, MK1 > Mirage 2000 and definitely better than Bison.

Group Captain Venugopalan - was the first one to state that LCA blows away the Bison in both subsonic and transonic performance, which is creditable given that in acceleration, MiG-21 was still considered a hot rod. He was a Bison squadron commander.

Basically, for our current requirements, LCA MK1 itself is quite a substantial improvement and the IAF should actually increase MK1 orders by at least a squadron and MK2 orders by at least 3 to arrest declining numbers.

[Indranil]

No disagreement at all. That 26 M number blew me away.

P.S. The counter-argument is that if I wait for 2-3 more years, I can get Mk2s. Shouldn't I wait because my aircrafts last me 30 years! The counter-counter-argument is that stop crying for numbers then. IAF says, I will get best of both worlds, I will fill my numbers through MMRCA till Mk2s come in. The counter-counter-counter argument is that this was all fine if MMRCAs started coming in from 2014, not 2017/2018. and then we will start repeating ourselves.

[Manish_Sharma]

Maybe in MMRCA 'M' for medium isn't original requirement.

1. Original MRCA was M2K (Why did IAF want M2k when superior air to air jets like Su-30 & Mig 29 were available?)

Maybe Mort Walker ji's point that IAF was looking for a jet which was built solid needing less man hours to prepare + less maintenance work needed per sortie hence the russians got discarded.

2. Enter Bush bonhomie days and americans offered F-18 with APG 77 radar. The newspapers were screaming every second day that f-18 is unique because its AESA radar can look farther than the reach of its missiles and IAF pilots are drooling over it. So F-18 entered the fray and 1 more 'M' got added to MRCA which became = MMRCA
Also upto now I remember clearly that price MRCA was quoted as 6 billion dollars.

3. Now Ef2k also entered the game with their advertisments etc.

4. Same time French said "enough we have waited enough, so now it'll be Rafale vs Ef2k not m2k vs ef2k

5. By now the price was being quoted 8 billion and russians also entered Mig 35 to save their bankrupting MIG. Although Air Chief Shri Tyagi had said in 2009-10 to media that 'Air Force is looking for a plane that can do more than mere gymnastics in the air'.

5. General (Retd.) Shri V.K. Singh had said before his retirement interview that for Air Force's MMRCA 12 billion we could have bought the whole company. So much before this the idea entered that since buying Dassault or boeing isn't an option why don't we bring on board DRDO and HAL too for what techs they want in the country since we're paying such a huge amount anyway.

So when these 643 parameters were written DRDO also was looking for some great techs to be had.

This becomes clear that 'Medium' is a much much later addition and not THAT IMPORTANT.

With M2k upgrade costing almost double of Tejas fresh built plane. I think GoI can give a rest to this 'Medium' and happily order 400 Tejas Mk I to quash the cheen-porks and order 400 Tejas Mk II later to dominate the whole of Asia.

'M'MRCA rest in peace!

[srai]

...

MHO, at $26 Mn, the LCA is a steal. Something the rtd community in the IAF, including erstwhile LCA critics are recognizing. On FB, Suneet Krishna said - MK1 is great and MK2 will be even better. But more and more folks are stating MK1 itself is really good enough for the IAF as it stands.

...

Basically, for our current requirements, LCA MK1 itself is quite a substantial improvement and the IAF should actually increase MK1 orders by at least a squadron and MK2 orders by at least 3 to arrest declining numbers.

No disagreement at all. That 26 M number blew me away.

P.S. The counter-argument is that if I wait for 2-3 more years, I can get Mk2s. Shouldn't I wait because my aircrafts last me 30 years! The counter-counter-argument is that stop crying for numbers then. IAF says, I will get best of both worlds, I will fill my numbers through MMRCA till Mk2s come in. The counter-counter-counter argument is that this was all fine if MMRCAs started coming in from 2014, not 2017/2018. and then we will start repeating ourselves.

IMO, that whole "only 2-3 years more" is another unmanaged user expectation which will end up in some heartburn. Realistically, I would put the date as 2020 for MK.2 to enter squadron service. There are always unknown/unthought of issues that crop up in complex projects like Mk.2, albeit not as complex as developing Mk.1 from scratch, and these will cause delays. Production also takes time.

Coming to Karan's point, based on current projected timelines for Mk.1 production/rates and Mk.2 R&D it is possible that there will be couple of years of production downtime (or under-utilisation) between 2017-2020 timeframe, especially if there are delays in Mk.2. By 2017, HAL is supposed to achieve production rate of 16 LCA/year. It is fair to make a case for the IAF ordering another squadron (or two) of Mk.1 as this would not impact Mk.2 R&D and production timelines. Besides, even if Mk.2 were to be ready for production by 2018, it's not like it will be produced at full capacity right from the beginning; it will take 2 to 3 years more for production to peak at full capacity.

[merlin]

No disagreement at all. That 26 M number blew me away.

P.S. The counter-argument is that if I wait for 2-3 more years, I can get Mk2s. Shouldn't I wait because my aircrafts last me 30 years! The counter-counter-argument is that stop crying for numbers then. IAF says, I will get best of both worlds, I will fill my numbers through MMRCA till Mk2s come in. The counter-counter-counter argument is that this was all fine if MMRCAs started coming in from 2014, not 2017/2018. and then we will start repeating ourselves.

Sau baat ki ek baat. IAF *still* doesn't whole heartedly support the Tejas. 40 nos. is laughable when Mk. 1 should be good enough for them.

[vasu raya]

The poking argument would be 2 assembly lines at HAL and 2 assembly lines by Reliance for the LCA, that cannot happen until IAF lets go of the MMRCA, lessen the dependence on the "swing role between two fronts" doctrine and focus on building dedicated nos. if there is still cash left, buy a couple of Rafale squads, and for specific technologies sign different deals, this makes more sense as the capability differential keeps narrowing over time.

we keep hearing about LCA test pilots saying "its our design we can do anything with it" yet at an organizational level the thinking is different, anyways, call it Mk3, make modifications on the lines of Block 60, and figure out how much more powerful engine is needed, a positive thing is that effort can run parallel to the Mk2 after design freeze

[Kailash]

MK1 might not be good enough for IAF, but will be more than enough for less fortunate friends in Africa and Asia. Even as second hand fighters, this would sell better than Bundars, older gripens. With more MK1 there is sure value in terms of amortization of cost on imports (engines, radars etc). Operational readiness will be unaffected because of any delays to producing MK2 in numbers. IAF is clearly not thinking long term.

<offtopic>With fighter sales comes friendship, military cooperation, diplomatic leverage and much more - this is where if feel a complete lack of synergy between GoI, MoD, IAF and research agencies in enacting foreign policy. </offtopic>

[ArmenT]

MK1 might not be good enough for IAF, but will be more than enough for less fortunate friends in Africa and Asia. Even as second hand fighters, this would sell better than Bundars, older gripens. With more MK1 there is sure value in terms of amortization of cost on imports (engines, radars etc). Operational readiness will be unaffected because of any delays to producing MK2 in numbers. IAF is clearly not thinking long term.

<offtopic>With fighter sales comes friendship, military cooperation, diplomatic leverage and much more - this is where if feel a complete lack of synergy between GoI, MoD, IAF and research agencies in enacting foreign policy. </offtopic>

Except, India can't sell those MK1s to any arbitrary buyer, while it uses technologies from other countries. For instance, the LCA uses Israeli tech for multi-mode radar, laser targeting pod and helmet-mounted display and Israel might have severe objections to India selling LCAs to their enemies, like Egypt or Jordan, for example. The same situation applies for the engine, multi-function display, avionics etc. Undoubtedly, each one of the supplying countries has specified in their agreements that there will be no selling to third countries without permission.

What makes it particularly difficult for the LCA is that the suppliers are from multiple countries and India needs to get the OK from all of these countries to export. For instance, India may get an OK to export to the Republic of Kerbleckistan from Israel and USA, but the French or Russians could object. Until India can come up with Indian-made replacement versions of all these parts, there might be problems selling the MK1 to third-world countries.

[Singha]

and thats precisely the means how control over key things like avionics, radars, engines is used to deny others export opportunities in favour of flogging used F-solahs etc.

[Viv S]

Except, India can't sell those MK1s to any arbitrary buyer, while it uses technologies from other countries. For instance, the LCA uses Israeli tech for multi-mode radar, laser targeting pod and helmet-mounted display and Israel might have severe objections to India selling LCAs to their enemies, like Egypt or Jordan, for example. The same situation applies for the engine, multi-function display, avionics etc. Undoubtedly, each one of the supplying countries has specified in their agreements that there will be no selling to third countries without permission.

What makes it particularly difficult for the LCA is that the suppliers are from multiple countries and India needs to get the OK from all of these countries to export. For instance, India may get an OK to export to the Republic of Kerbleckistan from Israel and USA, but the French or Russians could object. Until India can come up with Indian-made replacement versions of all these parts, there might be problems selling the MK1 to third-world countries.

AFAIK the LCA has only three foreign sources - Israel, US and France (possibly Sweden for some EW components). The French-origin components are built by Samtel and don't need any export licensing. In any case, I doubt exporting the Tejas to the Middle East was ever viable, even in the absence of the Israel factor. Its too strongly dominated by the US, UK and France. However there are still quite a few countries where the Tejas' prospects are bright if the govt shows some initiative. Vietnam for starters. Other smaller countries like Belgium, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Philippines, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, etc.

An even bigger achievement would be introducing the two seat Tejas onto the market, doubling up as a LIFT aircraft. At $26M, there are another dozen countries that would be interested - the Baltic States, Switzerland, Austria, Spain. The Alpha Jet will be retiring soon, so they could make a play for the French contract. Boeing is considering partnering with SAAB for the USAF's jet trainer competition, but its the Tejas that would be the true competitor to the LM/KAI T-50. Germany and Poland will eventually need new AJTs as well (the latter has already issued a RFI).

The potential is huge, all it needs is a little imagination and a little aggression. Unfortunately, both are in short supply right now.

[member_20453]

I think the easiest prospects for Tejas are first Afghanisthan (3-4 Squadrons 60-80) the rest 1 squadron each Maldives, Seychelles, Brunei, Kenya (2 squadrons), Indonesia ( 2 squadrons), Vietnam (2 Squadrons) etc. They should be fairly easy game, just have to make sure, a few flights with their pilots, some bomb drops, missle launches and should be fairly easy considering the price.

[member_28305]

LCAs unstable Delta design is not suitable for a jet trainer role IMO. they need a stable design like the Hawk, T-50 etc

[Viv S]

LCAs unstable Delta design is not suitable for a jet trainer role IMO. they need a stable design like the Hawk, T-50 etc

The KAI T-50 isn't a stable design either. That's why you have fly-by-wire flight control systems.

[member_28305]

KAI T-50 is derived from F-16 design (at least tats wat Wiki Uncle tells).
I dont think Both the Aircraft are unstable designs. Please correct me if im wrong.

[Lalmohan]

good prospects in latin america - especially if sold in exchange for oil

p.s. f16 is an unstable design

[member_28305]

Thanks for correcting..

[member_20317]

I think LCA or F-16 are RSS crafts kind of like the kites that used to take a rapid jhonk either side, from its narrow range of stability. All the kite flyer would have to do is pull the string at just the moment the kite’s top would point in the direction he wanted it to go. This was the best kite for a Kite fight (Pencha)

Unstable platforms (F-18 early versions were said to be so) would be like kites that have a weight (like some extra maanja/sooth) tied to either of its sides that would essentially allow an exceedingly stable kite to take a jhonk at least to one side as and when required. Though in this case the kite flyer would be forced to keep correcting the imbalance. This was the less better kind of configuration for a Kite Pencha.

A stable platform would I guess be like those exceedingly stable kites that would just refuse to be guided by the pulls of the string. A major headache for a kite fight. No self-respecting kid would go into a pench with this kind of kite. But this was good for girls and novices.

....................


Oh and if anybody has enjoyed running after kites for some kite lootna with some big jhaad. That would be your own SAM system

[vic]

ADA should outsource LCA work to Reliance and let HAL do the label sticking.

[RoyG]

ADA should outsource LCA work to Reliance and let HAL do the label sticking.

Good luck.

[Kailash]

Exports will just be a welcome byproduct, if it ever materializes. The major worry is the gap between a closure of production lines on Mk1 and a subsequent unproductive years before MK2 prod rates really cranks up.

Mark 1 is the bird in hand and is definitely worth 2 or even 3 paper planes right now. IAF's attitude is no different than 10 years back. Lack of follow on orders after clearing IOC. More it changes more the situation remains the same - single crash of an mk2 will send the program back to square one.

[Philip]

LCA MK-1: Good enough for a few more sqds to be ordered.Isn't this what was hotly debated many months ago when I think it was the same PK who in VAYU cautioned excessive zeal in expecting the MK-2 to have a huge increase in capability as there was much redesigning to do,among other things,extra weight which would offset the more powerful 414? The advice was to incrementally improve the Mk-1 in future orders of the same (Mk-1A/B/etc.?),and take a call on the Mk-2 after careful consideration.

But that seems to be much water under the bridge with Mk-2 dev. afoot.However if FOC is achieved later this year and the IAF gets to grips with the aircraft putting it through its paces in the field,then it certainly could take a call for extra MK-1s if only to replace the MIG-21s being retired.At the price of $25M,in this age of the collapsing rupee,it should be bought wholesale.

[Sagar G]

ADA should outsource LCA work to Reliance and let HAL do the label sticking.

Given the awesome track record of Reliance in high precision aircraft manufacturing this sounds like a great plan. Yup.

[JTull]

Reliance will most likely be importing and label sticking itself.

[srai]

...

MHO, at $26 Mn, the LCA is a steal. Something the rtd community in the IAF, including erstwhile LCA critics are recognizing. On FB, Suneet Krishna said - MK1 is great and MK2 will be even better. But more and more folks are stating MK1 itself is really good enough for the IAF as it stands.

...

Basically, for our current requirements, LCA MK1 itself is quite a substantial improvement and the IAF should actually increase MK1 orders by at least a squadron and MK2 orders by at least 3 to arrest declining numbers.

No disagreement at all. That 26 M number blew me away.

P.S. The counter-argument is that if I wait for 2-3 more years, I can get Mk2s. Shouldn't I wait because my aircrafts last me 30 years! The counter-counter-argument is that stop crying for numbers then. IAF says, I will get best of both worlds, I will fill my numbers through MMRCA till Mk2s come in. The counter-counter-counter argument is that this was all fine if MMRCAs started coming in from 2014, not 2017/2018. and then we will start repeating ourselves.

IMO, that whole "if I wait for only 2-3 years more, I can get Mk2s" is another unmanaged user expectation which will end up in some heartburn. Realistically, I would put the date as 2020 for MK.2 to enter squadron service. There are always unknown/unthought of issues that crop up in complex projects like Mk.2, albeit not as complex as developing Mk.1 from scratch, and these will cause delays. Production also takes time.

Coming to Karan's point, based on current projected timelines for Mk.1 production/rates and Mk.2 R&D it is possible that there will be couple of years of production downtime (or under-utilisation) between 2017-2020 timeframe, especially if there are delays in Mk.2. By 2017, HAL is supposed to achieve production rate of 16 LCA/year. It is fair to make a case for the IAF ordering another squadron (or two) of Mk.1 as this would not impact Mk.2 R&D and production timelines. Besides, even if Mk.2 were to be ready for production by 2018, it's not like it will be produced at full capacity right from the beginning; it will take 2 to 3 years more for production to peak at full capacity.

Another thing to point out is it takes the IAF around 2-to-3 years to fully operationalise a new fighter type into its squadron service - airframes & engines, tactics & training, pilots & mechanics, weapons stockpile, and support infrastructure. By 2017/18 timeframe, LCA Mk.1 would have achieved this "full" operational status. The IAF should leverage this investment in Mk.1 by ordering more to keep its squadron "fighting" strength. Given the current projected timelines, LCA Mk.2 would achieve this only post 2020 at the earliest even with it using lot of the Mk.1 infrastructure.

Even if the IAF wants to wait a little to see what pans out, it should include "additional upto 40 options by December 2016" clause in its current Mk.1 order like they have been doing with the C-130Js and C-17As as well as with Rafale. This would allow HAL and its vendors to be ready for additional orders (if they do come) at similar prices. Little time is wasted in re-selecting/re-negotiating with vendors for new orders.

[Singha]

would it be fair to say the "loaded" cost of the Tejas Mk1 with weapons (bombs, paveway, litening, r73, derby) would still be around $50 mil mark?
thats around half the flanker cost and looks like 1/3 of rafale/EF cost. I would rather have 3 tejas than 1 rafale for the most part.

if true, we should immediately place a order for additional 70 (4 squadrons) mk1 planes and accelerate work with all resources for the mk2...maybe tranche the mk2 and not demand everything in the 1st tranche barring the 414 engine ofcourse. the definitive mk2 with its brochure derived uber-specs would take a while to materialize and some of the gains might never come as the engine is heavier. even then should handily match the Mirage2000-5 in raw performance and internals will be newer.

[member_20317]

Indian private sector getting the feel of defense production should be a priority and LCA Mk-1 is actually the best suited least risky project to do that. The costs and time schedules involved are such that you can afford to fail a whole lot more without having to compromise on quality. And if they can do the basic stuff then they can be allowed to move up to the level else they get to specialize in what they have the capability to do. That will also allow HAL to focus on things that cannot be outsourced straight away to the private sector eg. engines.

Without the Indian private sector getting leveraged we can pretty much forget LCAs and AMCAs getting inducted in numbers. There will always be other countries with better products that would cost 3-5 times the home grown products.

The difference is basically about fielding 400 LCA+AMCA fully loaded or 200 MMRCA with half load, 10-15 years down the line.

[vasu raya]

Between a F-16 Block 52 and a Block 60 that carries CFTs, the thrust was uprated by 15kN, per wiki,

Initial orders were for the F110-GE-100 rated at 28,000 lbf (125 kN). Later versions of the F110 include the F110-GE-129 delivering 29,400 lbf (131 kN) thrust and the F110-GE-132 delivering 32,000 lbf (142 kN)
The United Arab Emirates’ Block 60 is powered by the General Electric F110-GE-132 turbofan, which is rated at a maximum thrust of 32,500 lbf (144.6 kN), the highest ever developed for the F-16 aircraft.[2][3]

don't know how much the engine weight changed or even the overall weight of the aircraft, yet it didn't clear the MMRCA

Is there an engine out there that is F414 thrust + 15kN at the least?

[mody]

The F414 EPE. GE rates it at 120 Kn.
Even at worst should be F414 - 98Kn + 15 KN = 113 Kn. It can used for a MK-III variant, in the future.

For IAF, they would increase the numbers for MK1 by another 20 to 40 aircrafts, once the FoC has been achieved and they get a much better idea about the capabilities of the plane.
The Mk1 FoC standard will easily be better then the Bison as well as the non-upgraded M2Ks. Also should be able to match upgraded M2K's in performance.

The MK-II will only enter production around 2019-2020 timeframe.

[Viv S]

Between a F-16 Block 52 and a Block 60 that carries CFTs, the thrust was uprated by 15kN, per wiki,

CFTs are an option on all Block 50/52 Plus aircraft as well.

Greek F-16

[vasu raya]

Thanks mody,
Given that the Mk2 itself is a good 5 years away, they should start off with the F414-EPE version in earnest, if anything the Naval LCA needs it now

if we see the progression of these two streams of engines,

F110 --> 125kN, 131kN and now 142kN, the F110 is an AL-31 class engine
F414 --> 98kN and now 120kN

Viv S, if we take a second hand vanilla F-16 airframe and mate it with the F414-EPE, what would be the outcome? why are they persisting with a heavier engine, the F110?

conversely we don't like the LCA with CFTs to move to AL-31 (if needed) and still match the aerodynamic performance of existing F-16s

[Viv S]

Viv S, if we take a second hand vanilla F-16 airframe and mate it with the F414-EPE, what would be the outcome? why are they persisting with a heavier engine, the F110?

1.Time: The USAF took its last F-16 delivery in 2005. The EPE became available only around 2011.

2. Expense: Installing a new engine will be expensive. To add to which a lighter engine will result in significant CoG issues as well.

3. Performance: The baseline F110 offers better thrust than the EPE (125kN), going all the way upto 145kN for the Block 60.

conversely we don't like the LCA with CFTs to move to AL-31 (if needed) and still match the aerodynamic performance of existing F-16s

Its not compatible with the Tejas. Far too large.

Also, we've ordered the 100kN variant of the F414. If excess thrust was prioritized over fuel burn/durability, wey'd have opted for the EPE variant instead.

[Shalav]

Actually the F110 has an inlet dia about 20/25 cm larger (~120 cm) than the F414, and between 1-2 m longer than the F414. If too large is a criterion for unsuitability, the F110 is "more" unsuitable than the AL31 - which has at-least has an inlet dia about the same size as the F414 (~89/90 cm). It is also lighter and shorter than the F110.

The AL31 is unsuitable because of the location of its accessory gearbox not size IMVHO - the Tejas was always designed with US engines in mind, and accommodating Roosi engines will mean major redesign and revalidation work.

[Viv S]

Actually the F110 has an inlet dia about 20/25 cm larger (~120 cm) than the F414, and between 1-2 m longer than the F414. If too large is a criterion for unsuitability, the F110 is "more" unsuitable than the AL31 - which has at-least has an inlet dia about the same size as the F414 (~89/90 cm). It is also lighter and shorter than the F110.

No one's suggested integrating the F110 to the Tejas. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The AL31 is unsuitable because of the location of its accessory gearbox not size IMVHO - the Tejas was always designed with US engines in mind, and accommodating Roosi engines will mean major redesign and revalidation work.

The Al-31 is far far too large for the Tejas. Its half a ton heavier and 25% longer.

[Shalav]

The AL31 will not fit in the Tejas. Not sure what you meant by bringing the F110 into the conversation either, it is even larger and heavier than the AL31 - in addition to being "fatter".

[Viv S]

The AL31 will not fit in the Tejas. Not sure what you meant by bringing the F110 into the conversation either, it is even larger and heavier than the AL31 - in addition to being "fatter".

I hardly brought the F110 into the conversation. Nor did I suggest it could be integrated on the Tejas. My only reference to the F110 was about why it could not be replaced by the F414EPE.