21Ankushan interesting titbit about the LCA from an article on BR, since the LCA had a successful set of flight trials at Leh Airfield, one of the highest operational airfield in the world.
Additional facets to the effectiveness denominator
The LCA is designed to have several features specifically tailored to IAF requirements. The LCA Jet-Fuel Starter (JFS) has been successfully tested at an altitude of 6.4 Km; this enables the LCA to operate from such high airfields like Leh [48]. It must be noted here that though the Mirage 2000 flew several successful sorties during the Kargil Conflict, it does not have the ability to operate from airfields at such high altitudes. Save the less sophisticated Mig-21, Mig-23 and 29, no other aircraft is said to meet these requirements. The LCA Environment Control System (LCA) is designed to operate in tropical conditions, this will improve pilot comfort [66].
21AnkushOk. So what was happening between 1983 and 1993?
Its totally understandable that FSED started in 1993, but wasn’t any work done on LCA’s design prior to that? One only has to go through some flight global articles to see that.http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%200080.html?search=LCA
According to this (Jan 1990), by 1986 ADA had assembled a team of 300 engineers (around 600 by 1990), PD completed by 1988. So what were those 300 engineers or 600 engineers actually doing?Whatever the reason, whether it is the lack of experience, poor management, or both or any other, there is no doubt that the LCA project/programme in itself started in 1983. Regardless of the fact the fact that PD was completed in 1988 or funding was allocated in 1990s, or India approved two protypes in 1990…one can only assume that a lot of initial work (all part of overall R&D) must have already been carried out for GoI to approve this…we all know the initial date of the programme. There should be no doubt that the programme has done wonders for Indian aviation industry, but has totally failed (thus far) to achieve its other main objective which was the replacement of Mig-21s. Finally, the best way IAF can show its committment to the programme is by ordering more and now, rather than simply saying it has potential and we hope to induct it in so and so number…at least the option of 20 should be exercised…but perhpas IAF is pessimistic because they have no idea when would MK2 would come through its full R&D.
Vikas, 300 engineers is not that big a number. In big aviation companies, many structures related departments alone have 30 or more engineers working on a specific part of the aircraft..and they have decades of company data and knowhow to look up. those 300 odd guys had to design, analyse with absolutely no previous data available. its tough work ! especially if the technologies that were being developed for the LCA did not exist in the entire nation of India..and most foreign nations are not going to part with technology for nothing.
heck, no company in India couldn’t build a car on its own till the Tatas came up with the Indica (whose OML was done by an Italian design house by the way)..if I had the time, I could post the annual report pdfs of DRDO labs, which have been working on technologies that NO ONE else in India is working on. and in most cases, DRDO passes on the technology to private companies, so overall, there is a technology growth for the entire industrial sector.
Regarding how daunting the task was for ADA and DRDO, just take one area-composites..I remember as a kid, hearing elders at home speak about how the Public Sector Undertaking, Indian Petrochemicals Limted (IPCL) had been approached, regarding an autoclave it had..they simply didn’t exist anywhere else in India ! hardly anyone knew how to build complex aviation structures using composites, and yet ADA came up with AutoLay, a composite analysis and layup application whose IP even Dassault wanted to use in its CATIA tool. It has features that are better than Composite Workbench in CATIA and Autolay was developed in the mid 90s..
21AnkushThe indians only wanted to buy lose parts of the Ps-05A like one per artical, like in spare parts(what i know of). i think that call it called technologie stealing. If i had a company i would not sell for that.
The same goes with erieye tech. That´s not serios business to me.The comparing is just for making some people here aware of the diffrencies in the jets at hand.
NO. they wanted to use it as is on the LCA..it was afterwards that work started on the MMR.
you can see it on this link as well.
21AnkushA very informative answer. Thank you!
I actually did´nt know India spent so little on their armed forces at that time. The thing they could have brought to the table? Cash$$$$
Just like the are doing with PAK-FA project.
I know India knew **** about making fighters but if they had brought a bag full of money and just said “- We want this and this and we are willing to learn and gain experience of anything you got”. I´m sure SAAB would´nt object.“Gripen is probably around $50-55 million per unit and even more for the Rafale..”
Actually. A couple a weeks ago the last Gripen Cs were delivered to the Swedish air force. And now a summarize have been produced. The contracted fly away price for the Gripen C/D was actually lower then it was signed! It was just below 30 million $.
India didn’t have much money to spend in the 1980s..in those days, the bulk of the IAF was made of Russian fighters that were given on “friendship” prices..JV’s were an unheard of thing in those days anyway. its only today that after our economy was liberalised, that India has money to spend on Su-30MKI or PAK-FA like projects.
Even the USSR, an ally, never collaborated with India, nor took any of its inputs or its Air Staff Requirements for any of the MiGs it sold to India.
they basically developed a fighter, it would be offered to the IAF or the IAF would express interest in it, then they would evaluate it and then if it fit their doctrines, they’d purchase it..
in fact, one of the major issues with the LCA program was that the IAF always acted like an end-user, since it had always been one. its only since a few years now that the IAF has been closely involved with the LCA, with test pilots and flight engineers deputed to oversee and help.
21AnkushThat’s like saying that the knives are the only difference between the wax maker and the butcher.
The difference is that the Typhoon will get an AESA, and will eventually become a very capable A2G platform..however, the SH will ALWAYS remain a handicapped airframe..
21AnkushIt´s still a success. No matter what you say. You hate Indians (both Indian Indians and probably American Native Indians) …. (Geez, you probably even hate Inka Indians and the rest of South American native population)
LCA can not failure. Cause the Indian MOD have stated that they WILL order a bunch even if the a/c is not up to standard and the Indian airforce don´t want it. There for it is a success.
Even if LCA have had some delays (a couple of decades) the next Indian fighter will be a even greater success. Rest a sure. It will be twice as successful as the LCA or Arjun, cause that´s the way India works. Never give up, never surrender and always be successful! (despite the reality)
:rolleyes:
21Ankushmost posters here are pretty much unaware of the realities..there was no reason for Saab to want India to join in on the Gripen program from the start. first of all, India didn’t have a very big defence budget then and the money available for spending on defence R&D was paltry to say the least..and even if India had joined the program, what would they have done to help ? there was little expertise and little know-how- it was all wasted after the HF-24..Saab on the other hand, had a captive SwAF customer base, which at that time at least, had a large requirement of over 200 Gripens. now, since the demand is low, they’re happy to share the technology in order to get more customers.
and then again, in those days, European partners would never part with top-notch technology..even France’s Dassault, from whom India had bought the Ouragan, Mystere and Mirage-2000, had offered an analog FBW for the LCA, which prompted ADA to go to Lockheed Martin instead..that one fact alone is responsible for at least 3-4 years delay, due to the post-Pokhran sanctions and seizing of data by LM..had Dassault given the ADA help in developing the all-digital FBW instead of offering an analog one for the LCA, that wouldn’t have happened. maybe it might have flown earlier with an analog FBW, but that one factor alone would’ve made it due for upgrades within half a decade of being inducted.
as for Sweden, they’ve never been a partner for India in defence, and apart from the Bofors guns, there is very little of Swedish origin in the IAF (some EW pods)..
and yet, when ADA did approach Ericcson for the PS-05A radar to be used on the LCA, the Swedes only wanted to install it as-is without parting with any technology related to the PS-05A, and as a result, the deal fell through..for a piddly slotted array radar, they were unwilling to share the technology, so why on earth would they share technology relating to how to build a fighter with India ?
unfortunately for India, Russia had no major expertise with digital FBW in the late 1980s and that led ADA to choose Dassault as initial design consultant and then use LM as its partner for FBW..as it is, the Mirage-2000 was the best jet in the IAF then and ADA wanted a fighter as nimble and multi-role as the M2k was..
and the argument that India should end this LCA program to make its defence stronger is ridiculous and short-sighted..China never made good airplanes when it began, but today they’re attempting a 5th gen fighter on their own..thats only possible due to the confidence and knowhow built up over decades of building and flying their own fighter derivatives and finally with the J-10..even with the JF-17, they’ve been cautious, and haven’t inserted as much technology as they could..but, iteratively, they’ll improve upon it till it finally becomes a good enough 3.5 generation fighter. the same is happening in India..
and for those complaining about the LCA’s avionics, thats just utter trash..anything that was of Indian origin on the Su-30MKI is from the LCA program only. the indigenous Jaguar DARIN-II and MiG-27 upgrades are based on technology developed for the LCA. those alone have saved millions of $ that would’ve been spent keeping factories in UK or Russia alive.
as for those complaining about its cockpit layout and comparing it to the Rafale or Gripen, do a cost analysis as well..the LCA will end up costing around $25-30 million per unit, whereas the Gripen is probably around $50-55 million per unit and even more for the Rafale..there was someone complaining that the FoV on the indigenous CSIO developed HUD is only 25 deg and less than that on the Typhoon..what they ignore is that its more than the Thales supplied HUD and costs probably half or a quarter of what the HUD on the Typhoon costs.
and while its layout is probably a generation behind Rafale or Gripen, its of the same generation as the Mirage-2000-5 Mk.2 which is what IAF’s Mirages will be upgraded to..no one in the IAF is asking Dassault to upgrade the Mirage’s cockpits to Rafale standards, are they?
I for one, know what the LCA will provide the IAF- a cheap, capable, multi-role fighter that can be very useful to bulk up the IAF and still be as capable or more as the bulk of our immediate neighbourhood’s fighters..I mean for God’s sake, the PAF intends to use the JF-17 as its mainstay for the next 30 years ! and we’ve never heard any reports of just how great it is..but to the PAF’s credit, they’re willing to take the JF-17 and work on it to make it a decent fighter. I guess thats what happens when you face a cash crunch.
21AnkushFunny, the program started in 1989? I distinctly remember reading a in depth article on the LCA way back in “1983” I believe. As a matter of fact it was in Air International! Which, is Air Forces Monthly Sister Publication……..I wonder if we can get a copy??? If, memory serves me right. It was a few pages long complete with exact drawings of the LCA as it looks today!!! (or at least very close) With a delta wing and no canards……..
As for the MK2 entering serial production by 2013-15. That would have to be considered a wild guess at best. As the current LCA has been in development for 19 years by your own calculations and has not been successful thus far. Also, during that time it suffered setback after setback! Now we are to believe it will be on time with no delays!:eek::eek::eek: I personally wouldn’t take that bet…………………:rolleyes:
stop BSing..the LCA’s design was frozen only in 1987..how on earth could they have published an article on it in 1983, when even the IAF’s Air Staff Requirements were not published then ?
but since you’re claiming that you read it, prove it- show us that article. else it just proves your lying.
and the reason for the LCA to take 19 years has a lot to do with the fact that there was no knowhow in those days..today there is- India won’t go to the US to tweak the FBW and the infrastructure and the knowhow to build the Mk.2 variant is available even today- only the engine is required and that should be decided soon.
21AnkushThis is the problem I seem to face all of the time? It’s like if you don’t support the LCA you are somehow Anti-Indian!?!?! Then if you are lucky not to be insulted or called a liar by the Pro-LCA crowd. They just go on like everything is fine. That the Indian Goverment and IAF are in full support. Which, is usually closely followed by how the LCA is better than XYZ. Which, is really laughable at this stage. Considering the design is decades old and has failed to even meet the basic requirements of the IAF.
wake us up when you have less bile to spurt forth..:rolleyes:
As I understand it right at the moment the LCA is under going very limited testing and are way behind schedule. (again) Further, the current projected model is totally unexceptable to the IAF. As was stated before they want the vastly upgraded Mk 2 with a much more powerful engine. Which, is strickly a paper airplane at this stage. Even then the IAF didn’t say they would except the aircraft? (considering its history totally understandable)
you don’t understand, thats what you’re basically showing..any amount of data presented to you will not change that.
another thing- do a spell check, its not ‘exceptable’ or ‘except’, its ‘accept’ and its not ‘strickly’ its ‘strictly’..perhaps you should’ve paid more attention in school than spending so much time online. 😉
In my opinion the LCA is a total waste of resources. That would be better spent on weapons that could provide India with a strong defense.
and your opinion counts for absolutely nothing to the IAF or ADA/HAL. in my opinion, you’re just a waste of space on this forum, but hey thats just my opinion 😀
Note: China and Pakistan just recently agreed to even closer miltary cooperation on military projects. So, the threat is very real and India is loosing the race…………..Remember, it wasn’t long ago that the best Pakistan could hope for from China. Was the F-7P and F-7MG which were just re-engineered early model Mig-21’s! Now today Pakistan will shortly start to receive J-10’s along with more advance F-16’s. These could be followed with more advance 5th Generation Fighters like the Forthcoming J-XX!!!
again, its ‘losing’, not ‘loosing’ ;)..the IAF has 230 MKIs on order which should take care of the threat, not to mention the upgraded Mirages, Fulcrums and Bisons that will last till the LCA’s enter service. and then the MRCAs and the PAK-FA..adequate, to say the least.
21AnkushAfter 30 years there must of course have been some progression, otherwise I think even the Indians would have killed the project. But I would be less concerned if a prototype crashed due to a software problem in the FBW. Those kind of things can be sorted out pretty “easy”. The issues facing LCA with redesign of the fuselage, not knowing which engine to use etc are problems you don´t fix so easily.
I thought one of the first thing you do when you are about to build a fighter is to chose which engine to use. Then you design the aircraft around that engine. With the Kaveri being a no-go the LCA will off course face a lot of problems (which it is doing).
what a joke !! 😮
you’re saying that its better to have had a LCA crash (like the Gripen, Typhoon, etc.) rather than having any design issues ?! what on earth do you think a crash of a prototype is due to ? in most cases, it points to a design flaw ! the fact that it hasn’t had a single accident in almost a 1000 flights means that the design is sound, but it requires tweaking to achieve the performance that the IAF wants out of it..the engine issue is piddly, and CAN and WILL be handled- after all, the pictures you saw above, had 2 Tejas, flying with 2 different variants of the F-404. one on the PV-3 was the older F-404 F2J3 and the other is the F-404 IN20 on the LSP2..
fact of the matter is, there are more than enough vested interests in India itself that are waiting to see the LCA fail- there’s a well entrenched arms mafia, lifafa journalists (journos who get paid to write articles praising foreign items and maligning any indigenous effort) and a skeptical Armed force, that has in the past seen shoddy support from HAL and cause of that just doesn’t want to indigenise. a crash in such a situation would be a killer blow to the LCA.
21AnkushThe LCA has been in development since “1982” and has yet to field a serviceable aircraft. Further, much of the IAF has not supported the aircraft and just recently commented that it was unacceptable in it current form. To add to all of that the aircraft is obsolete compare to just about any current 4.5 Generation Fighter let alone 5th Generation Fighters………and its still a decade away from widespread service if then…………
You guys just don’t get it………….Maybe you would if your “life” was on the line? Then again maybe not!:eek:
what garbage..what you’re spouting are utter lies..the project was sanctioned in 1982 and the IAF ASR’s only came a couple of years after that ! there was no infrastructure, no dedicated group, nothing..ADA itself got formed at that time specifically to develop the LCA..there is a whole lot thats been written about how the FSED (Full Scale Engg Development) only began in 1989 after the base design was finalised, and yet this ridiculous date of 1982 is being touted..thats like saying that the year that someone in the USAF thought of the F-22, its development began ! :rolleyes:
using such parameters, the JF-17 with its predecessor, the FC-1 has been in development since the mid-80s, nevermind all the intricacies of facts that would make that statement a lie..
LCA is obsolete compared to the JF-17 that PAF is about to field or the FA-50 that South Koreans will ?! thats just BS ! the IAF’s Chief of Air Staff is on record having stated that the IAF intends to order 1 squadron of LCAs with the current engine and then later on, 5 more squadrons with the new engine and yet you keep on with the BS about the IAF not supporting it..for God’s sake, they’ve got a full team of test pilots, and an Air Commodore rank person heading them !
you’re the guy who was suggesting that IAF would’ve done well to buy cheap, simple and rather single-role AMX’s and yet you criticise the LCA which is more than a generation ahead of it..a rather hard to digest POV, but then now its becoming rather clear that your motivation is to malign the project, by using wrong dates..We’ve long known that Indian defence media is generally pitifully ignorant and sometimes have their sly reasons to run down an indigenous project, and turns out you’re of their level as well..:rolleyes:
21Ankushwhile Scooter and some others continue the ridiculous tirade against the LCA based on a report by Ravi Sharma, ADA and DRDO alongwith the IAF are continuing the further tests required to bring it to IOC.
LCA high-altitude trials at Leh successful: DRDO
16 Dec 2008, 1916 hrs IST, PTINEW DELHI: India’s indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has achieved a major milestone when its prototype landed at Leh air base in the
high-altitude Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir.“Tejas (LCA) programme reached a major milestone when the prototype vehicle PV-3 landed at Leh on December 13 this year at 1326 hours,” Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) officials said here on Tuesday.
The event is seen as significant on many counts as Leh airfield is situated at an altitude of 10,600 feet and is one of the highest airfields in the world with a temperature variation ranging from plus 5 degrees Celsius to minus 20 degrees Celsius.
The objective of the current phase of flight trials at Leh was to expose the on-board systems to the extreme low temperatures while making an assessment of the aircraft performance in the rarefied atmospheric conditions, DRDO officials said.
Two Tejas prototypes PV-3 and LSP-2 were involved in this important environmental test. The LSP-2 prototype powered by the latest IN20 engine with Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is in the Standard of Preparation (SOP) that would be cleared for induction into the IAF service soon.
As per reports received from the trial location, the current phase of flight trial was progressing well with aircraft and systems performing well, as expected, officials said.
The aircraft were soaked overnight in cold weather, with temperature around minus 20 degrees Celsius and powered up next day for operation, officials said.
21AnkushThis merger may have something to do with RuAF agreeing to buy the MiG-29s (reported in this month’s Air International) that were previously meant to have been sold to Algeria..its quite clear that politics would’ve played a part as to why MiG had no favour with the RuAF before this merger..
21Ankushnews related to Tejas NP1, which is apparently due to fly first in late 2009.BTW, the part about NP1 being a twin seater is most likely wrong- its external Outer mould line may be similar to the twin seater PV-5, but it has only 1 seat, so the additional space is used for avionics or fuel, I’m not sure which.
Tejas’ naval variant to take to the skies in 2009
Ravi Sharma
The vexing issue of sourcing material for landing gear resolved; Indian companies come to the rescue
——————————————————————————–
The landing gear is being manufactured at HAL, Nasik
The Navy wants an engine of much higher thrust
——————————————————————————–
BANGALORE: Having overcome the vexing issue of sourcing material for the landing gear of the indigenous naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has slated the inaugural flight for late 2009.
The procurement of the material for the landing gear of the naval variant, which is being designed to withstand G-forces of up to 4.5G, had hit a hurdle when the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the aircraft maker was unable to secure it from the global market. However with two Indian companies — Mishra Dhatu Nigam and Bharat Forge — delivering the required material, the landing gear is being designed and manufactured at the HAL, Nasik.
Similar to PV-5
Officials at the ADA told The Hindu that the naval fighter aircraft — a twin-seater variant with the nomenclature NP1 (naval prototype one) — would look similar to PV-5 (prototype vehicle five) of the LCA being developed for the Indian Air Force (IAF). But the similarities are only external: the naval aircraft will structurally be equipped to cater for higher landing loads and the tail arrestor hook landing system. The naval aircraft will also be powered by a more powerful engine compared to the LCA currently flying or being built for the IAF.
The LCA naval variant, which is to be used by the Navy in an air defence role from its carriers, will jockey for space on the deck with the MiG-29Ks that India is buying from Russia. It will be a replacement for the British-made Sea Harrier jump jets currently used by the Navy. The Navy has already placed intent to procure 40 aircraft.
Challenging environment
Explaining the need for a more powerful engine, officials said the environment in which the naval variant would operate was much more challenging. With only 200 metres of deck length available for a take-off, and even more crucially during landing, when the aircraft has to decelerate from speeds of 250 km per hour to zero in just 90 metres, the Navy wants an engine of much higher thrust than the LCA’s present power plant — the General Electric’s GE F404. Two engines — the GE F414 and the European consortium Eurojet’s EJ 200 — are being evaluated by the ADA, the IAF and the Navy, as a more powerful option for both, future versions of the land-based LCA and the naval variant.
Another key challenge for the naval variant’s design is the fact that while the land-based LCAs are designed for a vertical rate of descent of 3 metres per second, the naval variant will be designed for a descent of 7.5 metres a second.
21AnkushI mentioned the Typhoon’s HUD because when one mentions “wide angle HUD”, the likeness Typhoon’s HUD usually comes to mind. Usually around 35 deg FOV, frameless, holographic, etc.
yes, but its more than adequate for a fighter whose cost is probably less than a quarter that of the Typhoon.
Sign In
