21AnkushWould you rather that only bald factual statements were made in this forum
eg I know 1+1 = 3
rather than
eg I believe 1+1 = 3
It is quite acceptable to say you believe or think something is the case or that you are of the opinion that something is the case – even if you are wrong.
BTW does the IAF give a rat’s hind quarters about anyone’s thoughts, beliefs or opinions expressed in this thread?
no, the IAF doesn’t give a rat’s hind quarters about anyone’s thoughts, beliefs or opinions on this forum, but then, the guy implied that “he believed” that the MRCA competition had the naval element as a factor, which is patently untrue.
to-date the IAF or its officers have never even raised the aircraft carrier issue. its only arm-chair generals who “believe” they know what the IAF wants, without even thinking that their thoughts are contradicted by the very presence of non-navalised fighters in the MRCA competition. if there was even an element of truth to the idea that naval capability meant additional points, then EADS, LM and Saab wouldn’t be spending so much money trying to get the MRCA deal.
21AnkushWhere ever you have learnt it, it shows poor taste.
oh great, we have a saint here ! 😉
close your eyes, lest it spoil your mind as well.
21AnkushThe Super Hornet is pretty much capable as a land based fighter. The naval role it can perform is an added bonus whether we want it or not, its capable of doing that.
Its still the best package in the MRCA deal considering ability. Politics and ToT may be another issue altogether.
then why not have the USAF interested in it ? the fact is that being a development of a naval fighter, it lugs around weight that a land-based fighter doesn’t need at all. and there a host of deficiencies in the airframe that are well documented..
how does the idea of a FLIR in the centerline fuel tank sound to you? thats whats planned for the SH. and while its avionics and weapons are top-notch, the question is whether the IAF will get the freedom it wants, to modify, add and gain technology for DRDO’s future projects.
the Rafale is probably the best package among all the MRCA contenders, and comes with NO political strings attached..the last thing the IAF would like is to be hamstrung the way the PAF was when its F-16s were embargoed, leading them to cannibalising some to keep others flying. its only now that with the “war on terror” that they’re getting spares and additional airframes.
21AnkushAt the moment we can only speculate. One can guess it will offer better low level performance. As for the F 414, that is the logical step for the LCA, but then again I won’t be surprised if they go for redesigning the Kaveri with foreign aid.
there are many changes- take a look at the PV-5, viz. 2 seater LCA. the N-LCA will share a similar OML, with the rear cockpit being used for an additional fuel tank. other than that, the drooped cockpit will be there and a totally new feature, the LEVCON will be added. it basically improves the low speed handling and also high AoA handling of the N-LCA. but the IN has also stated that it wants a higher thrust engine for the N-LCA and it could be the F-414, EJ-200 or the Kaveri-M88-2.
21AnkushTake a lot at the archives of BR forum. The two (F-16/F-18) have been called worse.:) Only when ppl (BRFites) realised that:) the two were:) serious contenders, they kinda stopped…(probably so) it does not come back to haunt IAF enthusiasts.
most of them learnt to call it that at this very forum..I first saw the name “lawn dart” for the F-16 and “Sewer Hornet” and “Super Whorenet”, on this forum..;)
21AnkushMan you guys just kill me………First, this point has been discussed before. So, its hardly like I brought up the idea. Second instead of just providing a counter point and least waiting for a reply. You go right back to the name calling and negative comments.
So, typical……………….let’s see “Sewer Hornet”, “Lame Excuse”, “Mafia”, Rat’s Hind Quarters”
Clearly, while such a case may not be likely its far from unplausible from a number of points of view.
Do you insult the neighbor next door. If, his opinion is not the same as yours………….:confused:
the counter points are all there in the answer. if you just know how to read and comprehend a little bit..:rolleyes:
and lets face what you’ve been doing on this forum for a while now- repeatedly bringing up threads specifically aimed at ridiculing the LCA and India. leave the cry-baby antics behind.
21AnkushI’ll try to find a source for the 1200L Tejas tank.
I already have one..
HAL-ADB – 1200 L Drop Tank for LCA, these were tested for resistance to small arms at TBRL
21AnkushHow did you figure that?
The MMRCA is for the Air Force. There is no reason for those land lubbers to lug around (and hence pay the performance costs of) a beefed up structure, landing gear, marinized doodads, etc.
In fact that alone should preclude the SH from being selected for the MMRCA. 🙂
its a line that he’s been crowing about for a long time now..makes him happy, so leave it at that..;)
nevermind that its an IAF MRCA requirement, and that the IAF couldn’t care less whether its fighters can fly off carriers or not..and nevermind that the Gripen, Typhoon and F-16 have no carrier variant and are yet contenders for the MRCA. and nevermind that the IN is about to recieve its own MiG-29Ks and later on, N-LCAs and has no plans yet for a CATOBAR carrier, so doesn’t require any of the MRCAs (which IN chief would want 3 types of fighters for a total numbering about 100 ?)
when someone wants to have his own opinion, despite any evidence provided that contradicts it, its best that no one argues, just to save their own breath. he’s been supporting the Sewer Hornet for a while, so he’ll try to find any lame excuse to push it further..if you say anything, he’ll simply say that you’re part of a “mafia” and don’t allow him to express his opinion. :rolleyes:
note the “I Believe” part ! as if the IAF gives a rat’s hind quarters for what he believes..
21Ankushthis is for those were under the false impression that the LCA has CRT displays..it doesn’t !!
Colour Multi Function Displays (MFDs): LCD based colour MFDs hava a useful screen area of 125 mm x 125 mm. They have soft keys around their periphery for interaction with the systems. This display provides various aircraft system pages and navigation pages in addition to RADAR & FLIR display.
21AnkushThe Tejas LCA carries 1200 litre drop tanks that are made with material that allows them to be resistant to small arms fire.
it can also carry 800 litre drop tanks on the wing pylons.
21AnkushThe demensions of the engine are the least problem, when its that alone.
The infrastructure of that inside the fuselage is the most demanding part. To give you an idea about that I will add the pics of both. The related transmission is still to add.
it can all be taken care of..you’re seriously over-estimating how hard it’ll be..it requires work, but if its taken up in earnest, it should be done within a year’s time.
21AnkushPossibly but that engine is custom designed for the Gripen and may be Americans will be pissed off for rejecting their jets and won’t allow the Gs to be integrated into LCA.
but GE itself could update the F-414 to an F-414IN type, with higher thrust, if ADA wants. they did it with the F-404 IN20 after all.
see below
link
The F414G uses a similar architecture to the popular F414-GE-400 engine powering the F/A-18 Super Hornet, with minor changes to the alternator for added aircraft power, and modified Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) software for enhanced single-engine operation. The F414 engine is capable of producing more than 22,000 pounds (96 kN) of thrust.
21AnkushNo it is not about the redesign of the inlet only. Otherwise all F-404 were replaced by F-414 for the F-18C for example. 😡
the only external difference has been the enlarged inlets, other than that, any modifications are not so great, since the dimensions of the engines are almost the same. the reason to go for F414 on the SH had to do with a higher weight due to range concerns. all these changes can be done on the LCA as well, without significant rework.
The Gripen Demo’s new GE F414G powerplant replaces the current standard Volvo Aero RM12 engine (derived from GE’s F404).Some changes were made to the aircraft’s internal engine bay walls to accommodate the F414G and the engine is mounted slightly higher than the previous RM12.The air channel feeding the engine has been
redesigned to deliver the higher airflow needed by the more powerful engine and the external air intakes have also been modified and widened.
21Ankushyup, the easiest and probably the least painful option is to use the F-414 as the engine for the Mk.2 variant..it would still require redesign of the intakes, but at least the engine dimensions are quite close to those of the F-404..IMO, this is most crucial for the Navy variant..it requires a lot more excess thrust so that the pilot could take-off during an aborted landing and also due to the added weight caused due to navalisation.
The only probable issue with the F-414 would be that the US may not allow any exports of the Tejas to countries that are friendly with India, but not the US.
21AnkushHere’s a list of advances made in various fields, due to the LCA project. any person who thinks that the project is a failure then, doesn’t understand what strategic projects mean-
all of this is from this article
link
Area of R&D
Outline of advances made in the fieldAerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
CFD codes, various aspects of wind tunnel testing, development of Control Law, and control law simulation and testing facility, use of supercomputer to attack various aerodynamics issues, Finite Element Method codes, Aero Elasticity Studies.
Airframe including Carbon Fiber Composite {CFC) Wing and Fin
Precision machining of special metals like Titanium (challenging), Aluminum, Composites manufacture and machining, Carbon Disc brakes.
Propulsion System
Engine Design work at GTRE, design and manufacture of very high reliability sub-components like fan-blades, casings etc, for the Kaveri, JFS, Hydro-mechanical parts, Engine Control Unit, Nozzle Control Unit [51].
Mechanical General Systems and Manufacturing
Landing gear, Brake Systems, AMAGB, Brake Parachutes , CAD-CAM software, Environmental Control Systems, Application software for Distributed Numerical Control, software to improve control over CNC instruments.
Flight Control System
Control Software, Iron Bird testing facility, Mini Bird, Cockpit Controls, Actuators and other components of Digital Flight Control System and computer [52].
Avionics and Electrical Systems
Design of Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), LCD, Antennae, Testing facilities like DAIR, Communication Equipment, Control and Coding Unit, IFF, Various cockpit systems and simulators, Mission Computer, Lightning test facility, Multi-Mode Radar.
Quality Assurance and System Effectiveness
Several quality assurance programs like Failure Mode Effect and Criticality analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, `Walk through check lists’ etc… were implemented [53]. Software like C-SCAN was developed to deal with QC issues in composites [54], Software Test Plan based on DOD standard.
Ground and Flight Testing
Flight test facility and equipment, testing during ground run, fast and slow speed tests
All these things meant that when the Sitara IJT was to be developed, it only took 48 months from conception to prototype. is that something to joke about ? and one very important fact that should not go unnoticed
The LCA project has managed to secure considerable amounts of participation from the private sector. This participation falls into three broad areas; manufacturing of pre-designed components (moulds, tools, jigs, etc…)[56] and special purpose tools [57], software development [58] and advanced machining products (aerospace grade Line Replaceable Units (LRU))[59].
Some of these companies existed before the LCA project but a fair number are new. Almost all of these companies have had to expand their capabilities and take on serious financial liabilities because of the LCA project. A large number (approximately 300) of small and medium-scale units are involved in mechanical production. These units are heavily invested in the LCA project as it stands today and will suffer enormous hardships if the project is summarily cancelled. Many of these companies are in a position to exploit spin-off technologies and will at the very least be able to assert a presence in the aerospace market.
The software companies have been able to combine their participation in the LCA to enter into very high-end markets like embedded systems, ultra-stable code development, and computational fluid dynamics calculations. Some software companies have used their LCA experience to build up manpower and then moved into more lucrative businesses like e-commerce. This has added to growing presence of Indian companies in the world software market.
Small and Medium-scale manufacturing units have been able to upgrade manufacturing setups so as to meet the requirements imposed by certifying bodies such as DGAQA and CEMILAC. This has spawned ancillary industry as some of these companies outsource their initial requirements and focus on meeting aerospace tolerances and quality guidelines.
for those genuinely interested in reading about what the LCA’s technological spinoffs have been, please view the article link provided above and scroll down to the “Appendix I: Technologies developed and Spin offs” section.
once you read that, threads such as this, that call the LCA a failure, show the ignorance of people who are not actually involved in aerospace development.
Sign In
