21AnkushI agree. Multiple Id’s and trying to defame by by using personal remarks or degrading remarks about either China or Pakistan.
look who’s talking !:eek:
21AnkushAnkush/Samsara
We are now derailing this thread. dont know if this is your intention or not.
Am happy to carry this on on PM?
man talk about being delusional !
YOU raised the point of the IAF not getting F-35s which it wanted (so you claim even though thats utter tosh) and about how 5-6 years ago there were posts about India getting F-35s. YOU’RE derailing it by bringing in India into your posts, talking about how India failed to lobby/influence US arms sales to Pakistan. keep India out of your rants and I won’t bother to write on this thread.
and why would I want to engage in a personal conversation with you ? scared that others will see how knowledgeable you really are ? if you want to show your ignorance of facts by stating un-truths on this thread, then its not my fault.
India would LOVE to get its hands on F-35, it would bypass every MRCA competitor.
thats YOUR opinion, not a fact. to date, the IAF has not shown any interest in the F-35, never asked for any presentation, never sent out any Request for Information, nothing, nada. and has committed to the PAK-FA as its 5th generation fighter. is that too much for you to understand ? :rolleyes:
If India gets a F-16 version it will have a better radar, all over improvements will be incremental, and as the US has done for the last 60 years, it will offer Pakistan something to counter it. You are obviously no student of history.
well, the F-16IN is based on the Block 60 with some India-specific equipment. if the PAF gets everything that the IAF gets offered (as you claimed in your previous post), why is it that it gets the older Block 50 and not the Block 60 ? the IAF wants AESA and the US offers it, why not for the PAF ? we know that the PAF wants its J-10s to have AESA, don’t we ? so I see no reason for why it would’nt want its brand new F-16s to not have an AESA, unless its the US which didn’t offer it in the first place.
as for student of history, I couldn’t care less about your opinion, but what about you ? you’re the old history professor uh ? 😀
Can we get back to the PAF now?
keep the IAF out of your discussions and the matter that will be discussed will automatically be the PAF.
21AnkushI beg to differ, US will not allow either Pakistan or India to mainatin a massive qualatitive edge over on other in terms of the equipment it provides.
Case in point. F-16s and F-18s are being offered to India for MRCA comp. Not F-35. Funny isnt it?
educate yourself a bit before talking about what’s funny. the F-35 won’t even be operational by 2013, by when the IAF wants its MRCA to enter service. in fact, the current production schedule shows that partner nations will be taking deliveries till 2018 or so, and anyone else can only get them after that.
and the F-35 program is one where only partners get to place orders. you either join the program as a partner and then get a slot in the production line or you buy something else. the IAF has an open competition, so there is no question of committing to the F-35 which it cannot even evaluate except on paper, since its still going through flight testing.
IN have even asked for F-35 in a potential tender and it will be refused.
BS. the IN is interested in the F-35, that we know, but it hasn’t asked for the F-35 in ANY potential tender. as to whether or not it will be refused, only time will tell. since India pays for its equipment, unlike a certain nation that depends mainly on hand-outs and deferred payments, if Lock Mart and the US is interested in making money and build an alliance, it’ll offer the F-35 as well.
In fact on this very forum, about 5-6 years ago there was ALOT of talk about India being offered F-35. This was never actually offered.
dude..LM appeared at Aero-India and displayed the F-35 with Indian markings. if they weren’t ever interested in having India as a partner in the F-35 program, they wouldn’t do that. its as simple as that. the IAF has committed to the PAK-FA, so its not interested in the F-35. the IN OTOH is interested, but thats about all- just interest as yet.
Almost every pice of equipment India is offered Pakistan is. What may constrain Pakistan is two things
1) Pakistan reluctance to adopt new systems they may get sanctioned on
2) MoneyIn fact I can fill up this thread with technologies the US has denyed India, but then we would get away from the thread topic.
so why isn’t PAF getting the F-16 Block 60 instead of the Block 50 ? Why isn’t the PN getting P-8s when its the future platform for the USN ? Why no Super Hornet Block IIs with AESA ? why no DRFM on its Block 50s ? why no AIM-9X ? why no E-2D ? why no Patriot ABMs offered ? if Pakistan is reluctant to adopt new systems for fear of sanctions, what on earth is it doing asking the US for all the new systems its getting recently ? it only buys what it can afford or gets as part of some military aid package. don’t kid yourself about anything else being the reason.:rolleyes:
21Ankushan old article on the LCA. just to give some perspective to the perennial LCA bashers.
Behind and beyond the `Tejas’ success
By C. Manmohan Reddy
BANGALORE AUG. 1. India’s light combat aircraft (LCA), `Tejas’, which went supersonic today, first flew on January 4, 2001 and its maiden supersonic sortie was the type’s 94th. These 94 flights have been split between the two `technology demonstrators’, TD 1 and 2. TD 1 was the first to fly, at the hands of Wing Commander Rajiv Kothiyal, and it has now also gone supersonic first.
Project definition of a programme to design and develop an advanced LCA contemporary with the best of its kind worldwide began in 1987. This LCA was not only meant to replace the hundreds of MiG-21 interceptors in the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) inventory, but also to be a true multi-role aircraft.
Dassault, of France, helped the fledgling Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in this early phase, but the government gave the formal financial sanction to go ahead with the programme only in June 1993. The initial funding of Rs. 2,188 crores met the design, construction and flight-testing of the first two technology demonstrators with no overruns whatsoever. Remarkably, enough was saved in this phase to construct the first two, of five further, prototypes on the same budget.
Without getting carried away by the supersonic symbolism, especially since the last indigenously developed combat aircraft, the HF-24, first flew in 1961, a critical examination of what has been accomplished so far, shows that the programme has already accomplished a lot. The most important target of the technology demonstration phase was to put to trial successfully the composite airframe, the `glass cockpit’ and the fly-by-wire (FBW) system with a rigorous flight-testing programme, initially using General Electric F 404 engines.
The modern aerodynamic design, a `full glass cockpit’, advanced combat avionics and optronics, full authority digital electronic control (FADEC) of the engine and up-to-date weapons systems, including beyond visual range air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, suggest that the LCA will be comparable to the latest versions of the American F-16 or the French Mirage 2000. Its small size and the extensive use of composites also make this agile aircraft considerably stealthier than its formidable competitors, without the aerodynamically inefficient compromises of, for example, the American F-117 `stealth’ fighter.
Looking back, the development of advanced carbon composites for the airframe was very successful, with specialised software having been sold even to Airbus Industrie. And the critical flight control system was developed in spite of Lockheed Martin withdrawing its assistance in the wake of the Pokhran nuclear blasts of 1998. On the other hand, the development of the Kaveri engine has fallen behind and the Tejas is not expected to fly with it until 2008.Less than a hundred sorties have been undertaken so far of the thousand plus that are needed before the aircraft can meet initial operational capability, and weapons and combat avionics integration has not even begun. Hence, flight-testing is now critical. If all five prototypes, in addition to TD 1 and 2, take to the air by 2005, this initial capability is expected in 2006-2007 and the IAF should receive its first eight limited series aircraft soon thereafter.
The decision to adopt a digital FBW system added considerably to the development process. This was only partly accounted for (perhaps by about 18 months) by the curtailment of Lockheed Martin’s critical assistance. To lament that if Dassault’s offer of an analogue system in 1988 had been accepted the flight test programme could easily have been completed by now will be to cry over spilt milk. On the other hand, the LCA’s quadruplex digital FBW system is what the world’s most advanced aircraft currently use and an analogue system may already have been a prime target for replacement. By way of analogy, the F-16 replaced analogue with digital controls while morphing from its original A/B form to the much more capable F-16 C/D in the 1990s.
This long delay has not been in vain, however, because it has allowed the parallel development and indigenisation of hundreds of the little known systems and components that are an essential part of all aircraft. One such is the beautifully designed auxiliary gearbox developed by the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, that is nearly 60 per cent cheaper than an imported one.The learning process has also allowed Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to shorten considerably the development time of its intermediate jet trainer (IJT) and to make common use of nearly 50 per cent of the LCA’s line replaceable units (LRUs). More important, India’s capability in indigenous aircraft development is at last close to being vindicated a quarter century after Raj Mahindra’s brilliant and wide-ranging design initiatives of the 1960s and 1970s. His last effort, the `Saras’ light transport prototype from the National Aerospace Laboratory, rolled out in February 2003 and will take to the air later this year.
All this background is relevant in the context of charges and counter-charges that have been made with regard to the programme. There is no doubt that the LCA’s programme managers took on the ambitious task of developing an advanced aircraft without realistically estimating the resources required to accomplish their goals in the face of an often sceptical IAF and a not always fully committed HAL. They then lost a great deal of credibility by projecting completion dates that were downright unrealistic and misleading. They even made a presentation to the U.S. Department of Defence in 1985 claiming that the LCA would fly in 1990. India’s financial crises of the early 1990s and post-Pokhran 1998 embargoes only added to their woes.
The end result of their struggle is, however, an aircraft that the IAF now knows will soon be a superb multi-role fighter. In the same vein, the ADA and HAL are now the best of friends and are working closely together. The latter has already installed some of the production facilities needed to manufacture the eight production standard LCAs ordered last year.
Some critics of the LCA do not seem to realise that affordability is a factor that even the U.S. has learnt to accept, as was shown by the awarding to Lockheed Martin in 2001 of the formal contract to develop the joint strike fighter (JSF). The JSF is in some ways less capable than the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 or the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 E/F, but its affordability makes it essential to both the Services. Incidentally, Lockheed has acknowledged that its design was `vetted’ by Yakovlev, the Russian design bureau, before the winning prototype was finalised.
That the losing finalist, Boeing, chose not to do so tells its own story and gives the lie to those in India who think that the countries that were once a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia in particular, only has obsolete technology to offer.
Estimates made last year put the cost of a production standard Tejas at about Rs.100 crores (nearly $22 million) per aircraft even with American F 404 engines. One needs to compare this with aircraft of similar capability, such as the multi-role Mirage 2000-5, which Taiwan bought paying French francs 333 million apiece in the mid-1990s. At current exchange rates, that amounts to approximately $57 million. Today, inflation has taken that up to nearly $70 million. Unless Indian inflation rates rise to three times those of France (they are currently about the same), the cost of Tejas would be one third, or at least $45 million cheaper, when it enters service. This is no mean achievement.
Even if the IAF orders only 250 aircraft, although it needs many more of the class, India will save at least $11,250 million in initial acquisition costs alone compared to a fresh Mirage 2000 purchase, with international rules of thumb typically placing through-life costs at least three times as much.
21AnkushTeer
There is not supposed to be am big jump between Hawk and a fighter. I can keep up very well, in fact could you outline what difficulties a trainee fighter pilot would face?
as a matter of fact, its true that IAF Hawk trainees directly go to squadrons now, instead of going to the MOFTU (MiG Op Flying Training Unit). but they spend a lot of time before they become Fully Op because the Hawk AJT, while a good AJT, is not a supersonic trainer.
Hawk can simulate many fighter chracteristics as a fighter and its cockpit will be almost as advanced as the LCA.
how do you simulate supersonic flight in a subsonic trainer ? currently, every squadron has to train its pilots on this before they become operational solo pilots in their squadrons. and while the IAF’s Hawk Mk132 cockpit is pretty advanced for a trainer, it has no radar and can only simulate it with software. the LCA LIFT being a LCA twin seat derivative would most likely compensate for these and recruits who’ve already completed the Hawk AJT course could complete a course on the LCA LIFT and then with a basic conversion course, they could be fully operational.
What you are saying is a
Hawk/LCA/Fighter training scheme is more effective then a Hawk/Fighter transition?
yes, because it would reduce squadron workload on having to train those who come straight out of the Hawk training before they become operational pilots. a dedicated LIFT establishment would reduce the combat squadron burden and I think that its worth it.
The costs will simply outweigh the benefits.
show us the cost-benefit analysis that you’ve done to end up with this conclusion. just because the PAF doesn’t do something doesn’t mean that no one else will, because the PAF has its own budget constraints and I’m sure you know that well. :rolleyes:
Many air forces more advanced then Indias wil choose the Hawk as its only LIFT.
such as ? and what does “advanced” mean ? what particular capabilities are you talking about ? give examples instead of just generic BS. how many Air Forces operate the type of equipment that the IAF does (Su-30MKI type) or will (MMRCA, PAK-FA) ?
21AnkushQ) OK so it’s 21 years old. But didn’t ADA promise that the first production variant shall be ready by 1995, and inducted by 1996. It’s 2009 and we’re not there yet.[/B]
A) It’s true that the ADA had set a deadline of induction as early as 1996. But the belligerant IAF kept on demanding hitherto new and unknown stuff — like full digital FBW, that nobody had heard of in this part of Asia before.
wait wait..while the part you wrote about the start date and all is correct, this part is not at all correct- whats your source for your claim that it was the IAF which kept demanding a fully digital FBW ? it was the ADA that was offered the analog FBW system by Dassault and AFAIK, it was their decision not to take it up and instead go for the more advanced fully digital FBW. the IAF wanted them to go with a Euro solution because they felt it was less sanction-prone. ADA believed that the American fully-digital FBW was the technology that was the technology of the future and they wanted it for the LCA.
Have you read Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar’s book on the LCA ? it clearly states that it was India’s scientists and engineers who wanted to bridge the gap between India and advanced countries and they wanted to go for the advanced technologies as a result-
Q) What else did IAF demand ?
A) It demanded that it should have the latest-est digital quadruplex FBW, that stumped ADA. Just searching for a foreign consultant like Dassault, Mikoyan and Lockheed consumed a lot of ADA’s time, before it “zeroed” on Lockheed.
boy..complete nonsense. it wasn’t the IAF that forced ADA to go look for a consultant. they needed it because the knowhow for this project wasn’t readily available in India and they needed foreign expertise to get the project off the ground. and as per AM Rajkumar’s book, and I’m quoting
Dassault Aviation was very keen to partner the ADA in the develoment of the LCA and offered the 3 Digital Channels with an Analog fourth channel FBW which they has successfully developed for Rafale (similar thing on the Gripen as well).
The FCS computer would be hybrid Digital-Analog computer having three digital processors with three independent channels and one hard wired analog channel. they said that they would go for a quadruplex FBW FCS when they had gained more experience with Digital-Analog hybrid FCS.
However, their offer was spurned in favor of the quadruplex digital FBW technology offered by the Martin Marietta Control Sytems (MMCS), later Lockheed Martin and now BAE Systems of USA. The FCS computer would be fully digital with four independent channels. The Americans were very confident about the reliability of digital technology and there was no doubt that at that time it was cutting edge, something not seen even today in European fighters like the Gripen.
Since, they would have no control over the development of a system as crucial as the FCS, the Dassault Aviation walked out of the programme, a decision which I am sure both parties regret to this day. With an experienced a/c house like Dasault as a partner ADA/HAL may well have been able to develop the aircraft and have it in service by the end of 1990s. In my view, the decision to accept the US offer of quadruplex digital FBW technology and go it alone with only consultance agreements with various foreign firms added a decade or more to the programme.This decision, I suspect, was taken because the thrust was to acquire the latest technology and build self reliance rather than on deliver and operational fighter in a reasonable timeframe to meet IAFs modernization plans. It was a classic case of ‘best’ been the enemy of ‘good’. Operational requirements should drive the technological requirements and the not the other way around.
so there you go- the IAF did not ask for the most technologically advanced FBW on the Tejas. it was ADA’s decision to go for it with a view to gaining experience on cutting-edge technology.
Further, the IAF demanded that it should be ultralight, somewhere around 5.5 tons. So, the ADA developed lots of advanced composite structures, with as few rivets and joints possible. It even developed the software for it’s layout inhouse. This, at a time when even Russian jets were mostly metallic.
quit this. you’re making the IAF out to be villains in this whole episode. they’re the customers who’re paying money. they can’t end up with a fighter that they cannot use in combat, especially given India’s neighbourhood. they had some ASRs that they required fulfilled and ADA had to come with ways to fulfill them. its as simple as that. again, from AM Rajkumar’s book and I’m quoting,
The planners at the AHQ got to work and issued an Air Staff Target (AST) for a cost effective replacement for the Ajeet and the Mig-21.
The aeronautical engineers and scientists did not agree with the approach and wanted to bridge the technological gap that had opened up between the advanced countries and India since the Marut (HF-24) programme of the 1960s. They wanted the aircraft to have four crucial new technologies which were the FBW-FCS, a glass cockpit, composite materials in the airframe and micro processors controlled general systems. They also decided to develop the jet engine to power the LCA as well as the MMR which would be the primary sensor aboard the a/c. The seeds for protracted programme delays and cost overruns were sown by these decisions. the IAF not wanting to sound overtly pessimistic went along with these ideas and took the 1st step of issuing an AST for a multi role fighter while expressing serious reservations about development schedule.
21AnkushAny official source about minor modifications only? Of the top of my head, one engine would require more changes than the other, though Im not sure which one.
it was mentioned by some ADA guy..let me find that news article. he said that ADA evaluated both and neither requires any major modification to fit into the fuselage- that of course doesn’t refer to the intake changes required for higher air flow.
Ajai Shukla / Bangalore November 24, 2009, 0:52 IST
Decision likely before March 2010, price will determine winner.For two years, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) — the agency developing the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — has searched for an engine to boost the performance of India’s homegrown fighter. With bids for two engines — the General Electric F-414, and the Eurojet EJ200 — submitted on October 12, Business Standard has learned that ADA will select one before March 2010.
The GE F-404, one of fighter history’s iconic engines, currently powers the Tejas. But its 82-85 kilonewtons (KN) of thrust does not provide the acceleration or the sustained turning ability needed by the Tejas in air-to-air combat. ADA wants the Tejas to have 90-95 KN of thrust, which both the EJ200 and the GE F-414 provide. And, so the F-404 will power only the first two Tejas squadrons; all subsequent LCAs, including the naval version, will fly with either the F-414 or the EJ200.
DRDO’s Chief Controller of Aeronautics, Dipankar Banerjee says, two crucial factors will determine the winner: which engine fits into the Tejas with minimal re-engineering; and which one works out cheaper (acquisition cost + operating cost).
The DRDO officer, who guides the Tejas programme, debunked the long-held belief that the Tejas would require major re-engineering for fitting the new engine. “We have evaluated both engines and we believe only minor changes will be needed in the fuselage of the Tejas”, said Banerjee. “Which engine is selected will be largely determined by its cost.”Both engines, however, need minor design modifications by their vendors to meet the specific requirements of the Tejas. According to Banerjee, “The Eurofighter Typhoon is powered by two EJ200 engines, but the LCA just has a single engine. For safety reasons, it must have a re-ignition system to restart the engine automatically if it goes off in mid-flight.”
And since the selected engine will also power the naval Tejas, the EJ200 needs to be protected against the corrosive salt-water naval environment.
The EJ200’s rival, the GE F-414, has neither of these concerns; it already powers the single-engine Gripen fighter, as well as the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which the US Navy operates off aircraft carriers. But there are two other concerns over the F-414. Firstly, it needs to be tweaked to provide greater thrust during some periods of a flight, when it appears to deliver less power. And, since it is an American engine, export controls are potentially troublesome.
Eurojet, however, insists that re-ignite software is an integral part of the EJ200. Managing Director, Eurojet, Hartmut Tenter, explained to Business Standard, “If the EJ200 goes off in mid-flight, the aircraft decelerates sharply. The engine software recognises that and automatically initiates the re-ignite procedure. It’s automatic; the pilot has to do nothing.”
Both Eurojet and General Electric consider this engine contract as vital. The order for 99 engines (plus options for another 49) is worth an estimated US $750 million. But, far more importantly, both see this contract as a way of getting a foot in the door for the US $11 billion Medium Fighter contract. Eurojet EJ200 engines power the Eurofighter Typhoon, while GE F-414s power both the F/A-18 and the Gripen NG. Getting a contract for the engine is seen as a giant first step towards getting a contract for the aircraft as well.
21Ankushthe Bison only did well in BVR, with its Elta jamming pod and R-77 BVR weapons allowing its pilots to fire first. in WVR, a Bison would stand little chance of winning against an F-16, Mirage-2000, F-22 or F-16 Block 60. all of them have better situational awareness than any MiG-21 variant, have good T/W ratio and are very agile to boot. at least 2 of these carry the HMDS that can allow off-bore sight shots of WVR missiles. the only way in which the J-7PG would be competitive at all would be if they simply trained for after the merge WVR fighting. if the pilots on the F-16, Mirage-2000, F-22 and F-16 Block 60 don’t train hard for WVR combat, they may suffer losses here. It happened with Indian Navy Sea Harriers against the Rafale before their LUSH upgrade- they simply were not competitive against the Rafale at BVR. they got off their carrier and got shot down, again and again. only in WVR were they competitive, because, as IN pilots explained, they trained for WVR a lot, the French didn’t.
but that assumes that by some chance the J-7PG or SHar even managed to get within WVR range of any of these fighters with much much better radars, passive sensors and BVR weapons. anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread. no need to discuss this any further.
21Ankushthe J-7PG is a nice looking small fighter, but seems out of place in such modern company. won’t stand a chance in any form of combat against any of those fighters and can’t offer any real threat while training either. BTW, why aren’t there any Rafales or Typhoons ?
21AnkushYou said that “Nato pylons” were essential for the Gripen A to be usable within NATO, or to use non-Swedish weapons. I corrected that error. For reasons known only to you, you were unwilling to accept that, & have kept banging on about NATO pylons ever since, as if they’re a big issue. All I’m trying to do is balance that, by pointing out that they’re 1) not essential for NATO interoperability, & 2) not a big issue even if they were. You seem unwilling to accept either point.
so please enlighten us on why all the ‘export’ Gripens should have Denel Aviation supplying NATO compatible pylons ? just a way to generate work for Denel as part of their offset commitments since as per you its not a necessary piece of equipment for export customers, right ? Gripen A/Bs are likely wired to carry Swedish unique licence-produced weapons.
21AnkushAnkush,
Reworking the displays — its just plain media speak for whats been going on..
You are very right of course about how people never even bothered to do some basic digging around about even with information available…but its the usual story I guess.
I have long maintained if the LCA was marketed by a slick PR organization instead of the scientists at ADA who are only concerned with technology and getting the product ready..we’d have upto date updates and slick marketing to accompany the achievements, and less of the 1983 BS, less of such half baked “rework the displays arguements”…
Anyways.. to kind of put what the article by AM Rajkumar says in perspective:
The first LCAs (TD-1) had separate LRUs – the Mission Computers (dual), separate display processors (not Smart MFD with own processing), separate VSU (video switching units), and some other units which I forget.
What they did was cool – they actually combined ALL these LRUs into one core avionics computer called the OAC (with one more on Hot standby), at the end of the day they “reworked the displays” – more like reworked the avionics for lower weight.
BTW, the OAC also contains a module for DMG (display map generation) & a Voice activation module, again reduces the LRU count. The DMG for instance is a separate module in the MiG/Jag upgrades and MKI’s actually imported from Israel. They already have two Indian companies with actual prototypes of full up DMGs in test to replace even this item.
The interesting part is that all these modules are optimized for low weight but combining them into the OAC saves much valuable weight and real estate space on the LCA. The best part is that this approach was first used (with some 2-3 modules combined) on the CAC for the MiG-27 and DARINII Upg by reworking all the stuff they developed for the Su-30 MKI – which they developed using the LCA TD1 items.
So basically, reworking the LCAs displays – is a bit more than that. Its actually reworking the avionics that drive the LCA’s displays and stuff.
I also asked about why there is no new fancy HUD – was it weight? No – they put a HMD (Elta DASH) which takes away the need for a larger HUD.
Best part is they developed the entire OAC system in ~3 years.
The latest plan for the MK2 is to develop a CIP – the plan/aim is to reduce the LRU count further. This is somewhat like the CCIP in the F-22/JSF but not so ambitious. The CIP will be a super OAC with a lot of the processing done in other LRUs moved to the CIP (again saving weight/volume) with newer processors (OAC has PowerPC) and faster databuses, but some core systems will carry out their own processing (eg radar will probably remain federated – in JSF/F-22 even that is combined).
The development time – again around 3 years, enough time for the LCA MK2 by around 2014.
Whats good news is not just from the Tech Development POV – I mean this is right up there with whats happening in key OEMs such as LM etc but from the POV of keeping up with weight reduction which will compensate (along with the higher thrust engine) of additional weight added by stuff like the AESA radar.
AUW for the MMR was ~130 Kg. The AESA will be more than that thanks to its new antenna array even without the gimbal assembly.
On the plus side there the MMR approach is being taken.There is no separate exciter or receiver or processor. All of it is combined as one LRU named the ERP – exciter receiver processor. Again, with BITE, for ATE to debug/test for quick turnaround.
And it worked because the LCA’s stuff could be redesigned for the space constrained real estate on the legacy Jags and MiGs.
Now the newer OACs and CIP, plus the EW suite stuff (they call it EWSFA) open up a vast range of possibilities in upgrades. Develop the AESA radar and launch series production of the RLGINS for Project AD – and thats it, functional independence in aircraft avionics in major subsystems.
The EWSFA for instance, (thats what became famous on the net as Mayavi etc) design and features makes the ELTA 8222 SPJ etc look like peanuts in comparison. The IAF has had NOTHING like it.
Interesting stuff ..
thanks Teer..will take me a while to wrap my head around all the details you’ve given. 😉
21AnkushMy question, is why are you making such a fuss about pylons? They’re detachable equipment, attached as required for particular missions. They are not part of the aircraft. The Romanians are capable of making their own, or they can buy them from Denel, or from Aero Vodochody. Whatever aircraft they buy, they’ll need pylons for.
I’m making a fuss ? I simply said they’ll need them and you say they won’t. you’re making as much of a fuss denying they’ll need them as I’m making saying they’ll need them..:rolleyes:
21Ankushok, an authoritative and very very reliable source – Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar, wrote an article on the Tejas testing. he gives several data points that are constantly being disputed here. just for instance, the LCA NEVER had any CRT displays. some people continuously mislead and misconstrue the sentence “reworking some displays to reduce weight” to mean that the LCA has CRT displays. it has had Active Matrix LCDs since TD-1 first took off.
Thanks to Rahul for posting this link on BRF. I’d forgotten about it.
Written by Air Marshal P. Rajkumar, PVSM, AVSM, VM (Retd.) in 2005 for Aerospace and Marine International.Introduction
Since completion of the technology demonstration phase on March 31, 2004 the LCA program has commenced the Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) phase in right earnest. The aim of the program now is to achieve Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) with the Multi Mode Radar (MMR) integrated with a weapons suite which will give the aircraft limited operational capability by the end of 2007 i.e. in about three years time. This article will give the reader an insight into the current status of the program while also tracing the evolution of the two Technology Demonstrator aircraft TD-1 and TD-2, and the two Prototype Vehicles PV-1 and PV-2.
TD-1
The first aircraft to be built, TD-1, suffered from all the ills that could beset any aircraft attempting to make a technology leap spanning two decades. It must be remembered that the aircraft industry in Bangalore had not attempted to design and develop a state of the art fighter since the Marut program in the early 60’s of the last century. Almost the entire workforce had their first exposure to new technologies like the fly by wire system, the glass cockpit and the composite structure while manufacturing this aircraft. There was a learning curve involved because most of the workers had to learn on the job. Numerous mistakes were made and the fuselage wing integration had to be done more than once to get things right. It was therefore not very surprising that the aircraft tipped the scales at 6,780 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) against a targeted weight of around 6,300kg. Program managers very wisely decided to launch a weight reduction exercise.
TD-1 has the first generation glass cockpit configuration based on an Intel 80386 processor based mission computer and a dedicated display processor to drive the two Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Multi Function Displays (MFD’s) and an imported Sextant Head Up Display (HUD). Redundancy has been provided with a Control and Coding Unit (CCU) and a second display processor. Bharat Electronics designed and developed Multi Function Keyboard (MFK), a Get You Home (GUH) panel which provides the pilot with essential flight information in case of an emergency, a Multi Function Rotary (MFR) switch which enables the pilot to select radio frequencies, set altimeter settings on the HUD, select IFF frequencies, time display etc, a digital fuel and rpm strip gauge, a Function Selection Panel (FSP), a Sensor Selection Panel (SSP) and a BAE Systems SCR-300 Crash Data Recorder (CDR) make up the major part of the avionics suite. Two units developed by the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), the Mission Preparation and Retrieval Unit (MPRU) and the Centralised Warning Panel (CWP) complete the avionics suite.
Communication is provided by a HAL Hyderabad developed INCOM V/UHF R/T set and a standby UHF set.Four LRUs, the Environmental Control System Controller (ECSC) electronic unit (EU), Digital Fuel Monitoring System (DFM) EU, Engine and Electrical Monitoring System (EEMS) EU and the Digital Hydraulic (DH) EU which also has a brake management computer perform the utilities system monitoring function.
For the first block of flights it was decided to fly the aircraft with a fixed gain control law for the fly by wire system. This meant the control column to control surface deflection law had a fixed linear ratio .The leading edge slats and air brakes were non functional and the aircraft wing tanks were partially refuelled giving a total of 1,800 kg of fuel. Partial fuel in the wing tanks and approximately 140 kg of ballast weight in the nose kept the CG in the mid range. This was done to give the fixed gain control law an adequate margin of safety while stabilising the unstable aerodynamic configuration. The flight envelope was restricted to Mach 0.7,610 kmph Calibrated Air Speed (CAS), 8km altitude and normal acceleration +2g.The GUH was removed and round dial pressure instruments and an angle of attack indicator were fitted to give the pilot unprocessed air data to act as a cross check for the processed information put out by the mission computer. A calibrated chase Mirage 2000 aircraft provided the pilot with a completely independent check of air data and gave him the option of a shepherded landing in case of air data problems .The Mirage 2000 chase aircraft was used for all the 12 flights of the first block.
The almost trouble free completion of the first block flights flown by Wg Cdrs Rajiv Kothiyal and Raghunathan Nambiar between January 4, 2001 and June 2, 2001 did much to boost the confidence of both the designers and the flight test team.
The aircraft was extensively reworked after this phase to make the leading edge slats and airbrakes operational. Some fuel system modifications were also carried out to increase the amount of usable fuel to as high a figure as possible. The full scheduled gain control law wherein the control column to control surface deflection is made dependent on the flight condition of the aircraft was invoked and the aircraft flew again with Gp Capt Rakesh Bhaduria at the controls on February 3, 2003 just in time to be put on static display at Aero India 2003. HAL’s preoccupation with the Intermediate Jet Trainer programme had much to do with this protracted grounding of TD-1.A golden opportunity to fast track the program was thus lost forever.
Once scheduled gains were invoked for the flight control system, envelope expansion was commenced .The flutter envelope was cautiously explored and Wg Cdr Vikram Singh went supersonic in TD-1 for the first time on August 1, 2001.The aircraft has flown 120 flights to date.
TD-2
The air intake duct was redesigned for this aircraft to make it easy to manufacture. Some weight reduction was also attempted which resulted in a weight saving of 110 kg. The airframe weighed 6,670 kg when manufactured.The other significant change in the aircraft was the installation of the Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) Chandigarh designed and developed HUD with 25 x 20 degrees field of view (FOV). The display processor was developed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE). The HUD is Night Vision Goggles (NVG) compatible. All the round dialled instruments were removed and the GUH was brought into operation. The aircraft originally scheduled to fly by the end of 2001 finally flew on June 2, 2002 with Wg Cdr Tarun Banerjee at the controls. The aircraft flew 61 flights with the fixed gain control law before it was grounded to make the slats and airbrakes operational. The aircraft flew with scheduled gains for the flight control system in October 2003 and has flown 150 flights to date.
PV-1
Major weight reduction was attempted during the manufacture of this aircraft’s airframe. Carbon fibre composites were extensively used in the fuselage taking the overall composite content to 45 per cent by weight and 95 per cent by surface area. The part count, which was 10,000 for TD-1’s airframe, was reduced to 7,000 in this case. The airframe weighed 6,430kg when complete which meant the weight reduction exercise had reduced 350kg of weight, a praise worthy achievement.PV-1 represents the production standard airframe. Of the structural material used the proportion of carbon composites account for 45 per cent by weight, aluminium alloys 43 per cent, titanium alloys 5 per cent, steels 4.5per cent and other materials 2.5 per cent.
The avionics suite is the same as that of the two TD aircraft. The aircraft first flew on November 25, 2003 with Sqn Ldr Sunit Krishna at the controls and has completed 80 flights to date.PV-2
There is a big difference between the avionics suite of the first three aircraft and the prototypes from the fourth aircraft PV-2 onwards. The distributed, integrated avionics suite in this aircraft is configured around three dual redundant MIL-STD-1553B data and two dedicated weapons buses. Central data processing is done by the open architecture computer (OAC) which is Power PC/VME64 based. It has a mezzanine card based MIL-STD-1553B, RS422 master and cursive graphics modules. Dual redundant OACs combine the functions of the mission computer, the two display processors, the CCU and the video switching unit replacing five of the LRUs on the Technology Demonstrator aircraft. The OAC has modular software written in the ADA language complying with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards and will be able to generate digital maps without a separate module.The production standard cockpit has no electro mechanical standby instruments. The cockpit is dominated by three 5”x 5” AMLCD MFD’s, two Smart Standby Display Units (SSDU) and the indigenous HUD. The HUD has an Up Front Control Panel (UFCP) which is a significant man machine interface (MMI) enhancement which allows the pilot to program, initialize the avionics and enter mission and system critical data through an interactive soft touch keyboard. Although the FOV of this HUD is slightly less than that of contemporary units on other aircraft of this generation it is not considered significant because the ELBIT, Israel furnished DASH helmet mounted display and sight (HMDS) will form an integral part of the avionics suite.
The four utilities system monitoring LRUs have been reduced to two dual redundant units. These units perform the control, monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance functions.
A HAL Korwa developed Crash Data Recorder will be fitted after the initial flights.
The Multi Mode Radar (MMR) jointly developed by LRDE and HAL Hyderabad will be fitted in the nose after redistributing the FTI carried in the first three aircraft. The MMR features LPRF, MPRF and HPRF modes, platform motion compensation, MTI and Doppler filtering, CFAR detection, range-Doppler ambiguity resolution, scan conversion, display of target and ground map data on MFDs and on line diagnostics to identify faulty processor modules.The aircraft has the ADA developed Stores Management System (SMS) which will provide fully integrated control of weapon systems, external stores and fuel tanks. The SMS is based on a 32 bit, single chip micro controller with dual redundant architecture .Its main components include the single Stores Interface Box (SIB) and multiple pylon interface boxes(PIB) for each hard point.
A state of the art EW suite will be integrated and tested later in the program. Primary responsibility for development of the EW suite is that of the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), Bangalore
The aircraft is undergoing final integration checks and is expected to fly by the end of May 2005.
Program Update
The flight test program has logged 350 flights without encountering any major design deficiency. Due the complexities of the quadruplex digital fly by wire system it is clear that the flight test team and program managers are opening the flight envelope cautiously. At the time of writing(February 8, 2005) the flight envelope has been expanded to Mach 1.4,1150 kmph CAS,15 km altitude, +4.5 g, and an angle of attack of 23.
Conclusion
A host of daunting tasks like full envelope expansion after flutter testing, MMR tests, weapons integration, weapon delivery and environmental tests of the full aircraft have yet to be attempted by Team LCA They certainly have the nation’s good wishes to back them while they go about their onerous task.
21AnkushWhile going through FlightGlobal archives, I found an article on a naval “Sea Gripen” variant from 2006, that Saab was looking to pitch to the Indian Navy’s requirements basically. so its not something that sprung out of the RFI that the IN sent out recently..they must’ve been pitching this to the IN from earlier itself.
DATE:27/06/06
SOURCE:Flight InternationalNew Gripen variants studied by Saab
Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options for its Gripen multirole fighter, including the possible installation of a more powerful engine, increasing the type’s overall size and maximum take-off weight, and the potential availability of a carrierborne strike variant.
Intended to boost the long-term export prospects for the single-engined Gripen – as competition increases from rival types over the next decade – the enhancements could result in a modification package similar to the Super Hornet enhancement to Boeing’s baseline F/A-18, say industry sources.
Models of enlarged and carrierborne fighter concepts of the Gripen are expected to be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in mid-July, says Gripen International.The latter is understood to have emerged as a potential candidate to meet Indian navy maritime strike requirements, but could also be offered to countries like the UK if the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter project encounters future difficulties.
21AnkushI do not think any Soviet/Russian aircraft are an option for Romania at the moment. It is between the F 16 and Gripen. Gripen A/B (inspite of not having NATO pylons) operates western weapons like Amraam and Sidewinder. U don’t need ‘NATO’ pylons to operate these weapons with Gripen A/B. A limited upgrade would make them compatible with NATO operational standards (hell they could even do that with MIG 29).
I really do not see the point you are trying to make here
So if the Gripen A/Bs can use NATO standard weapons, why did the Gripen C/Ds get NATO standard pylons ? primarily because it was meant to be an export type variant.
In May 1999, Denel Aviation was chosen to supply the NATO compatible stores pylons for all export Gripens.
Doesn’t it seem obvious that if ALL export Gripens need NATO compatible stores pylons, then if Romania chooses the used Swedish Gripen A/Bs, they’d need those too or else they’d need to buy existing Swedish weapons stocks as well ? it might be that Swedish licence built weapons like the Rb 99 AMRAAM and RB 98 IRIS-T had some feature that made them uniquely Swedish such as the connectors for the pylons..or else what on earth is the use of these NATO compatible pylons for export Gripens ?
Sign In
