Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8101
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jan 2020 06:56

Indranil wrote:I am asking this for the past 6 months. What is the need to import 110 fighters.

Everything you have said is accurate. But this is the plan as per the Chief. Why, is a mystery. My only guess is diversification and risk reduction. But even that does not make sense.

The economy is in the shitter. From which magic hat they are going to cough up the cash for this is a mystery. But the process is indeed moving forward. The Chief has said it, the Raksha Mantri has said it, the Defence Secretary has said it...even the Peons working in the MoD have said it.

While the process will move forward, I personally do not believe it will reach contract signature. The monetary value of the deal is just too much for India to cough up. That realization will dawn upon the decision makers, as the process moves along. At that point, the MoD will have some hard choices to make.

Air Force chief outlines plan to solve shortage of fighter squadrons
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/10/ ... solve.html
05 October 2019

Dismissing rumours that India is buying 36 more Rafales from France, Bhadauria stated: “Our plan is for building 114 MRFA in the SP model. There is no separate plan for this (36 more Rafales)."

===================================================

Now if you ask the Tier 1 industry experts on BRF, as to the why for 114 MRFA...this is what you will hear --->

1) Interoperability vis-à-vis the United States
2) Strategic Engagement vis-à-vis the United States
3) Bulwark against the marauding Chinese (thanks to the saving grace of the United States)
4) Teach India how to do mass production of cutting edge technology (gift from the United States)
5) Roll other sectors of the economy and job creation (you guessed it....thanks to the United States onlee!)
6) Downpayment to the US for jet engine tech (this point is harped on repeatedly on BRF, flogged like a horse!)*
*Remember Point #6 Indranil...OK?)

Basically 114 "American" MRFA will take the Indo-US relationship to that next mystical and erotic level. They are confident that the F-18 and F-21 are coming. After all, it is foolishness for India to tie herself to a nation (France) that got exhausted in the Libya campaign! :lol:

But...But...But...a counter to Point #6! The Tier 1 industry experts will pooh pooh the below as fake news onlee! :)

US-India co-development flop show forces new approach to DTTI
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/10/ ... -show.html
27 October 2019

MoD and Pentagon officials have drawn lessons from the earlier DTTI failures. A key reason was that, in entering co-development projects, New Delhi and Washington had divergent motivations, with neither side focused on co-developing usable products.

An example is the co-development of “jet engine technology”, for which both sides constituted a joint working group (JWG) in 2015. On Thursday, Lord admitted that this had been suspended because, “We could not come to an understanding of what exportable technology would be useful to the Indians. And we did run into a challenge in terms of the US export control.”

In fact, there was little that India could ever contribute to this “co-development”, with US entities already masters of aero engine technologies, while Indian scientists and technologists were at an early stage of the learning curve, struggling to develop the Kaveri jet engine. What the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) wanted was US solutions for unsolved technology challenges, such as high temperature alloys and single crystal blades for the “hot end” of the Kaveri.

Meanwhile, the American side expected that working with the DRDO would create a relationship that would lead to building US aero engines in India. US engine makers like Pratt & Whitney, or General Electric, would never part cheaply with intellectual property (IP) that had cost billions to develop over decades. Nor would Washington grant export control licences for critical engine technology. The best that could be hoped for was the transfer of manufacturing line blueprints for building engines in India. That would advantage American fighter vendors in on-going procurements of fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force and Navy.

India’s MoD understood this would provide a controversial back door into India’s aircraft procurement cycle. New Delhi has also understood that US engine-makers are guided by commercial, not strategic, considerations. Although India remains a strategic partner, US defence industry, which resides in the private sector, would not hand over “hot end” technology to score a success in DTTI.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5764
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Dileep » 16 Jan 2020 07:35

ramana wrote:Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.


No sir! There ain't no mid body plug for Mk1A. Only the innards change.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 07:37

Then all the better no?

So what are the structural differences between Mk1A and NLCA?
Other than undercarriage and stiffened fuselage mid section.
I want to see that table so we can answer the mail.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 08:38

Indranil wrote:NLCA Mk1 can be a point defence fighter. It can take off with 6 A2A missiles and at least a centerline fuel tank. But that's not the point. I think TEDBF will be the best use of the scant deck space....

There are three things which have really impressed me.
1. Sortie rates of the Naval prototypes. 3 flights in a day is wartime operational tempo. This is mindboggling for testing. ...
2. IN must be commended. Making an aircraft carrier available for testing at such short notice for a technology demonstrator that it will not field is amazing. ...
3. I must also commend that IN and ADA. IN knows that single engined will be underpowered. ADA knows that changing AMCA to NAMCA will not be easy (Nobody has succeeded in doing that in history), and hence they have both taken the viable middle path of TEDBF. This shows immense maturity on both sides.



This is the best recap I have seen of the situation. Just because you can get a limited point defence fighter productionized and up in the air in unclear years in numbers doesn't mean its smart to do it. Indeed its the maturity and savviness of IN + ADA + HAL that is a gale of fresh air in recent developments.

That testing tempo is unusual... but so is making available an operational asset like the Vikky... the team is taking risks in hurrying along to maximize value - and that comes from the confidence of the entire program behind it.

Its some folks in BRF who care more for getting debate points, pseudo patriotic "first in the world" points, converting prototypes magically into fleets going to war in the blink of an eye at zero rupees and opportunity cost.... while IN/ADA/HAL is eschewing the Overpromise/Underdeliver mantra of the past designed to get PadmaShris and choosing to put real "just enough" technology in the hands of the user. The TEDBF shows both design chops, realistic planning and political courage - if some Jingos in DRDO and BRF get their undergarments in a twist because we are giving up on 5th gen wet dreams, well so be it.

I predict this will go a long way in repairing bridges between the AF/IN and DRDO - old timers will remember that IAF initially fought tooth and nail against the LCA-Kaveri marriage (having learnt from the Marut disaster) against DRDO's insistence.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 08:51

ramana wrote:Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.



My best guess (pure conjecture):

Is that this conversation has happened... and it has been concluded that HAL is incapable of surging manufacturing capacity / capability at ANY reasonable cost. Their yields and efficiencies are so low and the unionized labor incorrigible. Cost penalties will only make sense if / when HAL is privatized... otherwise they'll just say "Le lo, kar lo jo karna hai..."


They have finite capacity - and you have to make choices on aiming to treating LCA Mk1 as a massive F16/F35 style run OR as a Manufacturing capability demonstrator (at "full scale ~ 100 articles) and moving on to the 4.5 gen aircrafts (MWF, TEDBF etc) as fast as possible. The latter is more useful to the user even if it feels less satisficing... but I can understand moving on from moral victories.
Last edited by agupta on 16 Jan 2020 08:57, edited 1 time in total.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 08:54

Vivek K wrote:
agupta wrote:
Could it be that NLCA is a viable carrier aircraft tech demonstrator instead ? That the "number", data and design experience now available with ADA/HAL actually gives us the confidence that Try 2 (e.g. TEDBF) we won't be far off in terms of the all-round set of metrics - Try 1 based on limited or zero experience was off.

To.......

I like and second Ramana's post!

Gupta sahab - without meaning to offend you - your post is the typical of the way we Indians operate. If you have a viable but not the best in the world fighter we want unobtainium. There is a saying (modified to the occassion) a NLCA in hand is better than TEDBF, ORCA (and whateve other acronym exists ) on the drawing board.




Yes, I bow to thy patriotism... you are indeed the new India, full of vim and realism.

What do the dumbasses in the Navy know about either aircraft, patriotism or aligning acquisition, technology and need roadmaps across multiple streams

Need to send them all to BRF reeducation camps ASAP, hainji ? :lol:

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 08:59

ramana wrote:Then all the better no?

So what are the structural differences between Mk1A and NLCA?
Other than undercarriage and stiffened fuselage mid section.
I want to see that table so we can answer the mail.



Yes. I am also curious if there has there been ANY disclosure of as-is NLCA (or rather NPx) metrics (vs. design goals). As manufactured weights etc ? I've seen goals published on brochures/displays but NOT what's been achieved

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2020 09:13

ramana wrote:Ok folks tell me why can the current 83 Mk1A run be extended to 200 of all types of this version of air-frame.
FOC, Trainer, Mk1A, NLCA.
All these are variants of the air-frame.
Yes the forward canards are new for NLCA + engine
The Mk1A has that mid body plug.

Meantime MWF, TEDBF etc get developed.


In fact that is the only option that makes sense - 200 (or as many till MWF/TEDBF/ORCA/AMCA) start coming online. We are short currently by 240 of so palnes (12 sq from 42 authorized). We will loose another 120 (mIG 21) in few years. Short of 360 and getting only 36 Raf, 21 Mig 29 and another 20-30 SU30MKI - Some 70 planes. The 290 shortfall cannot be bridged only by Plan A plane. With economy not doing good, I don't think we will get more than 36 plan A aircraft.
There is IDSA study, that says we need some 65 sq now to face off chipak. If you believe in that number, we are short by 700 planes - that number may never get achieved, definitely not by imports.
People who argue that now 1 SU30MKI is more capable than 5 Mig 21 so need not replace 1 to 1, even opposing us is not Chinese Mig 21 knock offs but J31s that maybe superior to mkis. We need the bulk!! and LCAMK1ALCA FOC run of 83 +makes imminent sense.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 12:27

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 2426386433

And, up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky!! This video should inspire you - a cockpit view during the maiden ski-jump of #NLCA NP2 from #INSVikramaditya on Jan 12. More action planned today... and later depending on carrier availability


HUD camera view of the first takeoff

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 12:38

Sea Hawk : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Sea_Hawk

Sea Harrier : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British ... ea_Harrier


Mig-29K : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

NLCA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

NP-1&-2 are same as Mk1 with stronger undercarriage and fuselage. No 9tuer details here. Could he on page 1

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9974
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby sum » 16 Jan 2020 12:39

As per the HUD, 63 kN is the engine thrust?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 12:47

Ok use this data for NLCA.

viewtopic.php?p=2404484#p2404484

naruto
BRFite
Posts: 123
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 08:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby naruto » 16 Jan 2020 13:32

This view is the best I have seen till now:

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 4160763905

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 13:42

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 4160763905

#HOOKVIEW | And, just in case if you are not tired of all these updates flying out of this handle, here's a high-quality video captured from the hook of #NLCA NP2 during its 1st-ever historic arrested landing on #INSVikramaditya on 11 Jan 2020.


View from the wing

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 13:54


ashvin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 11:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ashvin » 16 Jan 2020 14:34

Amazing!!!

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 14:50


Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 14:56

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 0927656961
Two super pix by Deb Rana of the Naval LCA-- one over the mothership and one fractions of a second before touch down.


Image
Image

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 4502585344
Simply amazing photo!
Deb Rana-- we ❤️ you

Image

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2682
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JTull » 16 Jan 2020 15:20

srin wrote:
sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.


The video doesn't conclusively show that. Because if that were true, you'd expect the Mig to have a quicker takeoff. I clocked both the Mig and NLCA takeoff time (brake release to both wheels leaving the ramp) to be roughly 7.2 seconds.


As per HUD video, take off speed is about 100 knots. Is there an equivalent video for Mig-29K off Vikky?

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 16 Jan 2020 18:52

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 5651141632

#NLCAUpate

Confirmations now that #NLCA completed 6 cycles today taking the tally to 18 in last 4 days. Today NP1 & NP2 did 3 landings & take-offs each from #INSVikramaditya, continuing their stellar performances. 4 videos combined here for visual treat.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JayS » 16 Jan 2020 19:10

ramana wrote:Then all the better no?

So what are the structural differences between Mk1A and NLCA?
Other than undercarriage and stiffened fuselage mid section.
I want to see that table so we can answer the mail.

The changes are of the order of 40%. They initially thought it would be 10-15% limited only to the mid fuselage but it turned out to be a grossly wrong estimate.

Nice that we have HUD video. I dont understand the whole symbology but from the data points
- Total TO role was ~7.5s
- TO Roll was ~200m
- Avg acceleration on the deck was ~0.6 ish
- Thrust was ~63kN
we can estimate the TOW must have been somewhere around 10.5T. Likely the Max clean TO or thereabout.

If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

Also the Serial production variant is very much likely to have optimized LG, so some freed up empty weight, adding to the payload capacity can be expected. I think anything above 2.5T payload capacity is great.

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1101
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby sudhan » 16 Jan 2020 19:40

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1217721970927656961
Two super pix by Deb Rana of the Naval LCA-- one over the mothership and one fractions of a second before touch down.




These pics are from the pylon mounted telemetry/data equipment, right? How can these be attributed to a private individual? Or does he have a partnership with the agencies?

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 20:07

JayS wrote:The changes are of the order of 40%. They initially thought it would be 10-15% limited only to the mid fuselage but it turned out to be a grossly wrong estimate.

If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

Also the Serial production variant is very much likely to have optimized LG, so some freed up empty weight, adding to the payload capacity can be expected.



JayS: Thanks ! you follow this closely so a follow up question ... is that 40% in weight :eek: or structural components "touched" (i.e. a parts count) metric ?

20% more thrust - you mean like integrating a F414EPE or better... er, are we not in MWF territory now ?

Optimized LG - so a fresh round of (albeit faster) qualification...SBTF/carrier trials with the assumption that it is form-fit-function compliant - i.e., no other cascading changes - that's a big IF no? Or if cascading changes needed for this to be optimal e.g, wing needs changes to create wing-root-junction space... we perhaps are now in TEDBF territory?

Folks: If we assume that that "40%" translates to say 20% weight (pure guess), I would ask some of BRF "andhe-jingo" crowd who live to extrapolate "typical indian" or "import-loving XXX" memes to consider implications of your desire to declare a conceptual success of the desi - MIC. This is like non-alignment... a great debate club and paper victory that really only screws the country over in reality. What would a 20% overweight aircraft design - packaged in the 90s to meet a "light"/small goal for the IAF do to the mission capability of a 203X CAG ?

Like Indranil, I see these moves as a sign of maturity, confidence and ability to learn and deliver "good enough" on Try 2 vs. a "barely enough (for now, forget ~203X)

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 16 Jan 2020 20:07

Kakarat wrote:
Simply amazing photo!
Deb Rana-- we ❤️ you

Image



Sir - you do yeoman service by bringing these here... Draaken fans, eat your hearts out !

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7880
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 20:09

He is not a private individual. He is the one wjonput those cameras there.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby sivab » 16 Jan 2020 21:28

JayS wrote:If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.


https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... t-aircraft

The F404-IN-20 engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and has completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, which is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation


Its more than 85kN, but assuming 85: (85-63)/9.8 = 2.245 tons more thrust available at least. Adding instrumentation weight of ~0.5 ton, that is ~2.7 tons of payload at least.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JayS » 16 Jan 2020 21:31

agupta wrote:
JayS wrote:The changes are of the order of 40%. They initially thought it would be 10-15% limited only to the mid fuselage but it turned out to be a grossly wrong estimate.

If we assume another 20% more thrust possible from the engine, we should have another 2-2.2T added to the TOW. If some margin exists in the WOD, climb rate, max AoA, may be this number can be pushed to 3T on a good day. Reduce some to account for drag due to the underslung stores. Say 13T MTOW. Just some fun calculations so take it FWIW.

Also the Serial production variant is very much likely to have optimized LG, so some freed up empty weight, adding to the payload capacity can be expected.



JayS: Thanks ! you follow this closely so a follow up question ... is that 40% in weight :eek: or structural components "touched" (i.e. a parts count) metric ?

20% more thrust - you mean like integrating a F414EPE or better... er, are we not in MWF territory now ?

Optimized LG - so a fresh round of (albeit faster) qualification...SBTF/carrier trials with the assumption that it is form-fit-function compliant - i.e., no other cascading changes - that's a big IF no? Or if cascading changes needed for this to be optimal e.g, wing needs changes to create wing-root-junction space... we perhaps are now in TEDBF territory?

Folks: If we assume that that "40%" translates to say 20% weight (pure guess), I would ask some of BRF "andhe-jingo" crowd who live to extrapolate "typical indian" or "import-loving XXX" memes to consider implications of your desire to declare a conceptual success of the desi - MIC. This is like non-alignment... a great debate club and paper victory that really only screws the country over in reality. What would a 20% overweight aircraft design - packaged in the 90s to meet a "light"/small goal for the IAF do to the mission capability of a 203X CAG ?

Like Indranil, I see these moves as a sign of maturity, confidence and ability to learn and deliver "good enough" on Try 2 vs. a "barely enough (for now, forget ~203X)


Most likely by part count or by drawings. There is a statement from Cmd CD Balaji somewhere saying this (article written by him). I am being lazy to find it again. But he doesn't specify by what matrix IIRC.

The HUD shows 63kN thrust, so assuming the 84kN rated F404 can put out at least 75kN in hot sea conditions with deterioration. 63 -> 75 ~ +20%

Plane to optimize LG is been there for years, what the ADA folks told me in one AI was they were planning to do it in two steps. NP5/6/7 was supposed to be the first step, Mk2 the second. A lot of work must be already done and I am pretty sure its doable for SP jets if IN orders MK1 config. Second iteration is always faster. The LG is supposed to be quite overweight. Without the changed attachment points, its not gonna shed all that weight but I think its possible to shed significant weight. Any weight loss there is a gain in the payload. Dont ask me a number, I will have to pull out of my musharraf.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 21:44

jayS and agupta don't forget the levcons.
I think mid fuselage, stronger undercarriage and adding levcons.
Then add the FCS changes to accommodate the levcons.
I would say 20% structural and 25% additional FCS and systems integration.
i.e. 10-15% original estimate + 5% more for levcons and wing changes.

I think the original estimate was for just structures.
Most engineers will give answers to the questions asked and not the total answer if not asked.

Sorry whats LG?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2020 21:52

I have a simple question. Why is thrust at @ 65 KN. The values of F404 are 49 K normal and 78 K reheat. The engine is of course in reheat and you need maximum thrust possible to take off- Why only 65 KN and not say 78 KN (or a little less, if you do not want to damage/wear tear the engine at max thrust, maybe like 70 KN?
Is that practical value of these thrust are in 65 KN in real life? Or it is @80% of Max thrust, because given the length of runway (the max roll possible), that is how much is needed. If this is true, we have additional 20% thrust remaining. The plane is at max internal load (full fuel), can that 20% extra translate into 2 BVR + 4 WVR missiles + external tank? OR 4 bvr, 2 wvr + some external tank? Removing telemetry and other optimization will also save us some 100s of kg weight. But radar and other things have to get in as well.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2020 21:52

LG = landing gear

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2020 22:07

It looks like my question has been answered above, Thanks!!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JayS » 16 Jan 2020 23:23

ramana wrote:jayS and agupta don't forget the levcons.
I think mid fuselage, stronger undercarriage and adding levcons.
Then add the FCS changes to accommodate the levcons.
I would say 20% structural and 25% additional FCS and systems integration.
i.e. 10-15% original estimate + 5% more for levcons and wing changes.

I think the original estimate was for just structures.
Most engineers will give answers to the questions asked and not the total answer if not asked.

Sorry whats LG?

Landing Gear.

Exact words by Cmd Balaji
The LCA Navy team from the beginning was aware that it would be a challenging task
to develop a deck based aircraft that very few countries have successfully negotiated,
and which was being attempted for the first time in the country. At initiation, it was
anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific
attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and
development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were
almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.


The Preliminary Design/Feasibility study started sometime in 1995 time frame and was over by 2001-02. All the key design drivers and the changes needed were thought of by that time and FSED-1 was drawn based on it. The Russians provided the consultancy. Looks like they gave estimations based on MiG29K experience. LOL. The realization came within 3-4yrs after the kick off in 2003 I think and accordingly, FSED-2 was planned and approved in 2009 end.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 17 Jan 2020 01:06

thanks for the follow-up.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 17 Jan 2020 12:25

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 1234971648

#NLCAUpdates to follow. Stay-tuned for a small report that summarises events in the 18 cycles so far. Must tell you folks that the success of the current mission and the attention #NLCA is getting seem to have created some flutter in few quarters.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Haridas » 17 Jan 2020 12:37

srin wrote:
sajaym wrote:A simple comparison video. Watch the difference in thrusts between a SEDBF and a TEDBF...in the SEDBF after brake release the thrust is just enough to get the aircraft moving whereas the TEDBF experiences an additional 'kick in the ass' after brake release. That 'kick' is why the IN wants TEDBF and not the NLCA Mk1. That simple 'kick' is extra fuel and weapons right there.


The video doesn't conclusively show that. Because if that were true, you'd expect the Mig to have a quicker takeoff. I clocked both the Mig and NLCA takeoff time (brake release to both wheels leaving the ramp) to be roughly 7.2 seconds.

The key difference between the two was the climb angle immediately after leaving the deck, that ultimately comes from thrust to weight ratio in association with stall speed (wing design has strong influence).

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kakarat » 17 Jan 2020 13:59

As India rejoices, NLCA prototypes continue exciting sea party with INS Vikramaditya

The ADA-HAL-NFTC team is elated after the successful completion of the current campaign (probably a few more days to go).

“We are happy that we were able to beat the March deadline. As per our earlier plans, we had to factor in a possible software update. However
the approaches to the carrier were awless from handling point of view (during trials before the actual arrested landing). The modelling we had
done of the ship wake turned out to be very good. Hence, no software update was needed and we could the beat March deadline,” says an
engineer part of the mission

It is now confirmed that the current trails are meant only to put the platform for basic engagements.

“The target is to engage on each of the three wires. Also ship speed is being varied from maximum to minimum to check loads on aircraft and hook. This is a very systematic study to get data for design. These are not just random engagements,” he said.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JayS » 17 Jan 2020 15:11

Two key pointers from above article:

- Basic engagement envelop is being explored as of now. There likely will be no envelop expansion in terms of payload, but of course the data gathered will bolster the already available simulation data/refined simulation data to give a good graps on the dynamics with payload.

- No SW update was needed after the test campeign at SBTF, though they had accounted for it in case it was needed.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 572
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby mody » 17 Jan 2020 16:09

The experience is going to be worth its weight in gold for the Carrier based naval aviation in India.
The design and production teams both will gain immensely from this, for the TEDBF.
Hopefully the order for the NLCA will be increased to 8 twin seater and 12 single seaters. The tween seaters can be used in the LIFT role for all future pilots, that till operate from aircraft carriers. The single seater can complement the Mig-29K on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant.If the plane can have a combat radius of 400-500 Kms with an on station time of 2.5 hours and a payload capacity of 4 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles, 1 EW pod and 1 centreline drop tank, it would be a very viable fighter to provide air cover to the fleet. A good enough point defence fighter to be used to gain experience, till the TEDBF comes along.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby JayS » 17 Jan 2020 16:41

mody wrote:.If the plane can have a combat radius of 400-500 Kms with an on station time of 2.5 hours and a payload capacity of 4 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles, 1 EW pod and 1 centreline drop tank, it would be a very viable fighter to provide air cover to the fleet.

Thats quite a steep requirement. Forget NLCA, can MiG29K do that (Or any Naval fighter for that matter)..?? :D

May be ony Sea Gripen could do it in brochures. :lol:

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 17 Jan 2020 18:39

more like 45 minutes to 1 hour; 200-300 kms from the carrier with 2 BVR, 2 AA and a central tank.
AEW or ship borne radar detects bogey at excess of 400 KMs (the AEW is ahead of the carrier by say 100-150 km) from carrier, LCA-N is launched (3-4 of them), they fly just with AA weapon, meets bogey at 200 Km from the carrier (avoid Exocet range - 180 KMs). Total flight time 30-45 minutes
CAP over flotilla, 2 LCA launched every few hours with 2 BVR, 2 WVR and external fuel. Flight time perhaps 90 minutes (with the external tanks)
Strike - Takes off with 2 WVR, 1 500-1000 kg ordinance, external tank, distance of say 500 km - This maybe tough to pull out by this NLCA. It can go up with just bomb and external tanks and strike something at 200-500 km distance. Hence we need TEDBF


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kartik, rajkumar, Rakesh, Srikanth P, SRoy and 51 guests