21AnkushVictor, they’re the same pics as were posted on ADA’s website (in the form of a flash file, nasa.exe) and i’d posted them on this forum..
21AnkushFirst, the top of speed of JF-17 is projected to be Mach 1.8 and it has a G-limit of +8.5.
Second, JF-17 weighs slightly less than 6,500 unequipped and its RD-93 engine with 18,300 lbs of thrust is considered to be good enough for the purpose.
Vikas, if the JF-17 was a 9 G fighter, the weight would go up by anywhere from 200-300 kgs minimum. the reason being that almost all structures whether they’re primary or not on an aircraft, are sized to the maximum G load case.
I’m pretty certain that following flight tests, the loads would’ve bumped up- the predicted loads from FEM models, wind tunnel models, etc. are good for the first couple of prototypes, but after that, unless you have extensive experience in Loads analyses, the loads could be slightly (hopefully) different than predicted.
and from personal experience with stress sizing, its a bitch when loads go up after flight testing, because inevitably a whole bunch of work comes up with it. the stress sizing needs to be re-done and correspondingly, redesign follows due to interference with surrounding structures. and- most importantly, its from experience that a Stress engineer would know how low a margin to keep..considering the first time effort factor, the LCA team might have kept higher margins just to be on the safer side. those can be reduced further (in case they’ve not already done so) as weight savings measures are undertaken later on in the program.
21AnkushIn reply to those who’re questioning the work done by ADA and HAL relating to the composites on the LCA, the level of work that was done on composites by ADA’s team can be seen from the following articles.
I was reminded of that on seeing a presentation today by some Altair guys who were showing the composite optimising capabilities of Optistruct, an Altair optimisation software. they were claiming that the capabilities that it has were unique, whereas I’ve personally seen demos of Autolay, and it had most of these features earlier itself.
Our approach has always been not merely to develop an aircraft , but the technologies that make an aircraft. And today not only the aircraft has taken off, but also the technologies, said Dr Kota Harinarayana, LCA Programme director ,ADA .
Kota can now feel proud with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) inking a 3.2 -million dollar pact with US-based Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) recently for worldwide marketing of ADA software, Autolay. With this, ADA gets due recognition of being one of the key technology players in the globalCAD and CAM scenario alongside IBMs CATIA Composites, Unigraphics PACKS and Vistagys FiberSIM -all from the United States.
Autolays achivement lies in the fact that is unique in offering design integrated virtual manufacturing capability for laminated composite components. Also, Airbus Industries,decision to go in for Autolay for their latest 600-seater A-380 project demonstrates beyound doubt that this software is best -in-class inthe area of composites. This is a significant archivement considering the fact that, probably for the first time, a software product of such technical excellence is exported at a time when the focus of indian software industry is oriented more towards providing service than product innovation. [b]This gives credence to the fact that a high-tech project like LCA leads to many spin -offs thus empowering the technology base and also bolstering the economic strength of the country, says Dr B.G.Prakash, group director and chief systems engineer , Computer-Aided Engineering Group, ADA. It is noteworthy that LCA uses as high as 45 percent composite in its airframe .
Composite structure owe their lightweight characteristicsto the desiner freedom to place the load carrying material only where it is required.This is achived by using lightweight, high-strength fibers embeded in a resign matrix which can be oriented during the manufacturing proces to suit the desiners requirments . Autolay enables parellel processing of composite design activities viz..,details design studies,laminate engineering and generation of design and manufacturing drawings, thus providing concurrrent engineering benifits in a project environment. The resulting data is accessible for tool design ,lay-up process (both manual and automatic),and generation of substructure drawings,without any loss of geometric information and thereby help in striving towards the concept fo paperless design office .
Development of Autolay is the result of more than 300 man-years effort over the last 13 years . Dr Prakash and his team saw extremly turbulent times when the software industry took away many bright engineers from the government sector . It is a great milestone that ADA emerged winner in the global competitionand attracted composites experts from Airbus Industrie, says Dr Prakash .
The acceptance of Autolay by international leaders like PTC, Airbus Industrie proves that defence R and D Programmers create the necessary momentum for a country to advice from import substitiution to indigenous innovation with associatedtechnological spin-offs . This should put at rest the often touted misconception that our scientists and engineers are good only at theoretical research and not at handling applied science and engineering, feels Dr Prakash .
Infosys tied up with ADA to develop Autolay further and to pitch it to other companies. Dassault Systemes were very interested in purchasing the IP for Autolay and then integrating it with their CATIA suite of tools, but Kota Harinarayana was not keen on selling the IP to them. the deal then fell through and Infosys was left holding Autolay and lacking the experience in sales of engineering software, this particular product has laid low for a while now. had Dassault purchased it, it would’ve been very widely used in the aerospace industry, but now Dassault has its own Composites Workbench software for that.
Also, this article does to some degree illustrate how the aim of the LCA project was not just to build a fighter, but also to build the ancillary industries and build knowhow, something that can be missed when purchasing off-the-shelf products for point solutions.
21AnkushPOSSIBLE A2A ARMAMENT OF TEJAS
R-77 — 175 kg
R-73—-105 kg
ASTRA —154 kg
DERBY —- 118kg
add Python V to the mix.
21Ankushcoldfire2005, thanks for posting the photos as they are informative. As per the load-out diagram, the sum of the max. capacities of each pylon >5,000 kgs.
As rightly mentioned by you, the first photo confirms Tejas has 9 pylons, which is only 2 less than the 11 of an F-16 or J-10. It may be for an extra fuel-pod, thus increasing Tejas range or releasing one pylon more for weapons.
As per ADA’s placard shown at the latest show at ILA Berlin, Tejas’ empty weight is shown to be 5,680 kgs again. It is likely that this figure is inclusive of the minimum electronic equipment, and without the testing equipment as ADA also follows global practice of declaration of figures. Thus, it proves that it is the lightest combat jet globally and lighter than even T-50 at 6,300 kgs.
a model of a Tejas with 2 extra fuselage pylons does’nt confirm anything.
as Victor pointed out, its in a location where the MLG won’t be deployable without some imaginative engineering related to pylon location, MLG relocation (like the Gripen NG) or a size constraint on the type of weapon employed, such that it does’nt interfere with the MLGs functioning.
besides, we’ve never heard of ADA doing any work on increasing the number of pylons. if anything, they could have looked at semi-recessed pylons to attach a couple of A2A missiles, freeing up 2 wing pylons for additional fueltanks in an air-to-air mission. also, aft fuselage mounted pylons are rarely “wet”.
so, while its possible that ADA may have looked at increasing the number of pylons based on an IAF requirement, a simple model at an airshow simply acts a speculation point, not as confirmation.
also, despite the fact that the sum total of the max of all pylons is >5000 kg, it will never happen that the Tejas is that heavily loaded. if the innermost wing pylons and centerline fuel tank are loaded at their max weight, then there will be restrictions on what the other pylons can carry, to keep the aircraft weight within design limits.
21AnkushAccording to the posters, LCA’s takeoff and landing distances are 1700m and 1300m, respectively. Fot MTA these figures (ISA+20?) are 1600m and 1350m, respectively. Doesn’t that strike you kind of odd?
what exactly strikes you as odd, Vikas?
the MTA will employ reverse thrusters and will have very large surfaces that will act as air brakes. also, the MTA will have a lower landing speed as compared to the Tejas, so a distance of 1350m is easily achievable.
on the Tejas, they’ll use brake chutes to cut airspeed as there are no thrust reversers.
just FYI, the landing distances quoted for the C-130 are as low as 660 meters.
21Ankushimages from ILA 2008
this image shows a new pylon on the LCA’s underbelly where a dumb bomb has been added. so could the IAF be looking at increasing the number of hardpoints on the LCA?
Medium Transport Aircraft -MTA
MTA 2nd image
shows a Hummer..:D
21Ankushposted on BR by Kakarat..
now, these are the latest figures as shown at ILA 2008, so pretty much lays at rest some of the speculation about the empty weight increase for the LCA.
Empty Weight: 5685 kg
Max. Takeoff weight: 13500 kg
Internal: 2485 kg (fuel)
External: 2812 kg (fuel)
mind you, these figures are with the F-404F2J3 that powers the TDs and PVs till now. could expect that the IN20 with FADEC may be slightly heavier, but not too much either.
21AnkushUS government may supply F-16s and multi-role fighters to Romanian Air Force for $4.5 billion
By Stephen Trimble
A combination of new and used Lockheed Martin F-16s equipped with targeting pods and helmet-mounted mission controls highlight new details of the US government’s estimated $4.5 billion bid to supply the Romanian Air Force with 48 multi-role fighters.
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which manages the foreign military sales system, informed Congress on 16 May about details of its bid.
The USA’s proposal anchored on the F-16 faces competitive bids from the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab JAS-39 Gripen.
The US will offer 24 new F-16C/Ds Block 50 or 52s, depending on Romania’s engine choice, and 24 used F-16C/D Block 25s powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.
The ground attack package also would include 12 Lockheed AAQ-33 Sniper or Northrop Grumman AAQ-28 Litening targeting pods and six joint helmet mounted cueing systems (JHMCS).
An air-to-air weapon is not listed in DSCA’s notice to Congress. Raytheon Missile Systems, which builds the AIM-9X Sidewinder and the AIM-120 advanced medium range air to air missile (AMRAAM), is listed as an uncredited supplier.
For the new F-16s, the US will offer Romania a choice between the P&W F100-PW-229 or the General Electric F110-GE-129. The used aircraft come equipped with the P&W F100-PW-220 engine.
Romania is looking to replace 21 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Lancer Cs used for air superiority missions and about 41 MiG-21 Lancer As used for ground-attack missions.
21AnkushAlthough these forums contain lots of white noise, I like the moderator’s attitude towards it. Most people, even those people I nearly never agree with, have some interesting points to share. On the other hand, my ignore list will soon greet its tenth member (3 of them have already posted here).
Anyways, I think most white noise is produced in topics covering Chinese/Indian/Russian aviation. I don’t know why.
if you’ve seen the last thread on the Indian LCA’s engine, which got locked, you’ll know that the guy who started it, Buraidiah, who claims to be from KSA but speaks Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, started it with the sole purpose of making fun of it and thereby, irking its supporters..
similar reactions would happen in any thread where a poster would be deliberately looking to **** off others. try mocking the Rafale or the Typhoon in a thread created specially for that purpose and you’ll see French and British supporters of that program reacting for sure.
21Ankushthanks for posting that interview with ACM Major, Ainspiron..so now that the ACM has confirmed that the IAF will be looking to operate approx. 8 squadrons would mean 8*(18 + 2 reserve)=160 units, we know that any issues with the LCA will be dealt with to make it successful.
puts paid to the hopes of certain posters that the LCA would be canned and become a technology demostrator alone..;)
21AnkushTo be honest I don’t know whether the MiG-29 or the F-16 has a good or bad safety record, I just thought I’d be a bit provocative to that previous poster’s post, the main idea of which I had to argue against.
By what yardstick are we measuring the safety record of the F-16 (or the MiG-29 even)?
Who decides which is a dangerous aircraft and which isn’t anyway?
I posted something that I had read. here’s the link
The Indian Express, 2 April 2005
Do F-16s have an edge over French Mirages? (SHIV AROOR)
NEW DELHI, APRIL 1: Does the American F-16 fighter have a better safety track record than the French Mirage-2000? The Indian Air Force certainly doesn’t think so. In a presentation on military flight safety this morning, a
senior IAF officer displayed data which indicated that the Mirage-2000H fighters operated by the IAF were the least prone to crashes by human error compared to Mirage-2000s in other countries and US Air Force F-16 jets.
The Mirage-2000 and F-16 are among four fighters that will bid for a 126 aircraft tender later this year. A lower frequency of crashes due to human error would broadly, though not always, indicate a fighter that is simpler to
operate in the air.
21AnkushAnkush: I agree wholeheartedly, and I appologise if I seemed to be implying there was anything wrong with the general idea. My problem was more to do with the amount of effort involved for the gains. The same basic aircraft could have been in service years ago if it had aimed to use off the shelf parts from the start. My concern is that India is putting a lot of money and effort into making a reasonably good aircraft, where it could have either saved money and had an equally good aircraft, or had a much better aircraft. One possibility might even have been to do a deal with France, buying more of the excellent Mirage 2000s and finishing the development work on the Mirage 4000, or even getting work on the Rafale project.
Personally, I think that the MRCA competition could have the potential to help a lot, especially if the Rafale is chosen. The future Indian Air Force certainly has the potential to remain an excellent force. If the future involves Flanker, Rafale, Fulcrum and Tejas, then that’s a lot of capability. In a sense, it is just a pity that LCA has taken so long to come to fruition!
Ed, I too agree that developing small items from scratch when they could’ve been bought off-the-shelf is’nt the greatest idea, but the LCA was’nt hostage to small items that could be bought off the shelf..it got screwed majorly thanks to the US sanctions post Pokhran nuclear tests. I won’t go into the details because its too long, but US engineers working on the FBW seized equipment including computers and whatever work had been done had to be redone by Indian engineers, which alone led to a delay of 2-3 years. How could that have been taken into account by any program manager? there was a great article on the net by one of the top guys of the LCA development program about how serious a setback it was to have the US suddenly stop all assistance and spares; unfortunately I can’t find it now.
the IAF did have an option of building Mirages under licence in India, but it never was taken up because the MiG-29s were coming into the IAF at much cheaper prices. and in the early 1990s, India’s economy suffered a major collapse which meant that defence spending took a very low priority. even today, LCA’s are priced about 3/4th the price of a Mirage-2000. plus, India made a conscious decision to develop skills and expertise in the military aviation sector and its bearing fruit now. take the ALH Dhruv, which is now going to be the backbone of IAF’s medium sized heli fleet and its derivatives which are now under development (LCH and Weaponised Dhruv). the hope is that the Tejas does that for the fighter segment and to a degree it has, considering its spinoffs have led to indigenous upgrade programs for Jags and MiG-27s.
21AnkushA picture of India’s first A-50I in Israel for fitting out has turned up on a.net:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ilyushin-Il-76EI/1360837/L/
No more parts in primer, it’s getting there 🙂
now thats a sexy beast..:D eagerly waiting for IAF’s follow-on order for 3 more Phalcons.
21AnkushThe question is practicality, if we look at the other Asian fighters, the other fighters are already operationl and have had relatively smooth programs.
The J-10, is flying already in large operational numbers, the J-10 is as good as the LCA, in my opinion better than the LCA in aerodynamics (perhaps the J-10 is not superior in stealth characteristics) and has also a domestic engine WS-10 but uses AL-31s
The Chinese might have critics of lack of originality since Russia and several other powers claim the J-10 is a Lavi, but definitively it is alredy operational and as good as the F-16 and MiG-29.
Originality is not the most important aspect, the Ching kuo is an offspring of the F-16 but the aircraft is flying since 1989, the F-2 also another offspring of the F-16, the F-2 is flying in small numbers but operational.
What India is doing is simply relying in the Su-30MKI and soon in another J-10 equivalent (perhaps the F-18E or the Gripen if a western fighter is Chosen or the MiG-35 as the real LCA equivalent) filling the duties the LCA should had filled long time ago
what other Asian fighters are indigenous? South Korea’s T-50 is basically a Lock Mart program. China’s J-10 is Lavi based, and even if the detailed design would’ve been done by the Chinese themselves, there is the aerodynamics that Israel and Russia helped without any doubt. and it has a Russian engine, which is the most crucial aspect. if the WS-10 were operational, the J-10 would’nt be flying with AL-31s.
although to their credit, they’ve completed the flight test program quite quickly, weaponised it and managed to get the J-10 into operational service. considering that the J-10s flight program would’ve been more complex than the more conventional FC-1s, its a pretty significant achievement.
regarding the FC-1, its not yet entered operational service even though posters show articles that say that the first FC-1s will enter PAF service by this year end. which would mean that the Tejas is about 2 years behind the FC-1, which is ok by me considering that China has been working on iterative fighter development for a few decades now.
Sign In
