Victor,
Thanks for the bit on the cockpit bulkheads, that’s finally heading to the info i was looking for to either confirm or deny my theories on the LCA’s short nose. I don’t get the ‘rear bulkhead’ bit though – is that the back end of the cockpit, or the bulkhead separating the cockpit section (remember that the pilot’s legs are quite a bit more forward than the actual cockpit itself)? Also, my compliments for the sarcasm. It’s been a while since something in that quality has been said in this thread 😉

Sameer, Indian:
All the figures i gave in this are from Brassey’s World Aircraft & Systems Directory. I wonder if you actually read the same data as i gave though, i was actually asking you for data on the volume available for avionics between the cockpit and forward bulkhead. But alas, it won’t be a Zhuk-M aye?

Those latter posts are for the Progress-thread, not for this one.

first its your assumption that Kaveri is a failure. now if some tries to rebut that then he dosent become a “fanboy”. its your opinion. secondly it is again your opinion that LCA is hyped up to be the best jet in the world. if you can show me a “fanboy” who says that then i will take this post back. making claims like these dosent help your cause.

Allright – the Kaveri is not a failure. It’s just nowhere near the engine it is supposed to be. That is not my opinion, that is a FACT. If it had passed it’s high-altitude and high-speed tests it was supposed to have passed five years ago, i’m sure we would have read about a dozen posts about it. My intepretation of the Kaveri not being the engine it was all hyped up to be indeed is that it’s a failure. Yup, an opinion only. But if you refute that, please give me a proper argument because you’re not giving me one here.

that hardly means anything. i hope you know that. it has one meter less wing span, weighs two tones less and is half a meter short. yet it carries about the same fuel internaly as the M2K.

So a significantly smaller airframe with almost the same fuel capacity as the M2K… hence a bigger portion of internal volume is dedicated to fuel. Gee, thanks for another argument why the LCA is small. That’s even better than my whole point of the Tejas having a small nose: if you look at the distance from the cockpit to the forward bulkhead, you see that this is pretty short.

LCA test pilots initialy commented on its supiriority in handling (sensitivity, responsiveness, handling etc.) at low speeds/alt compared to M2K. some of the test pilots have flown M2Ks. so they know what they are talking about. they never commented on LCA’s performance on high speed/alt, loaded conditions. but given the requirements it should surpass the M2k there too. especially considering it was deisgned for higher speeds.

That is a flight control systems issue, not an aerodynamics issue as Sameer stated. And if you read my comments on any other aircraft in development: requirements don’t impress me and IMHO mean nothing. I want proven capabilities.

there are two sides to any coin. i dont see LCA praise only on this forum. if that were the case we wouldnt be having this arguement. and what do you mean by no critisim allowed?

Certain posts which have been deleted already, my apologies for this spam-reply.

opinions cannot be used to mark down an aircraft. you yourself admit to not knowing enough about the aircraft. and wehave all seen the arguements provided by the likes of SD10, H177, PLA etc. not one person has tried to debate this one out on a scientific basis. instead we here crap like it looks small and old and so it is nothing more than a viggen and has no upgrade potential. how do you respond to such BS?

By directly responding to the arguments, not by some impressively phrased yet hollow replies. People here have been refuting the LCA is small, despite it’s dimensions. Yet nobody has given any figures on internal volume available inside the LCA for avionics, fuel, engine, ducting and the lot and compare that with other aircraft. Indeed, a picture of the LCA shows me that there is very little room between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead, indicating that at least here there is very little room for avionics.

largely because there is nothing to talk about J10. for or against. neither party knows jack to go around praising or insulting the project.

Which is contrary to what Victor said.

Kya Bidu,
None of your posts had anything to do with the topic, but they all consisted of (originally) unfounded accusations at one of the people in this debate. If you have problems with the moderators keeping this thread somewhat clean, take it up with the moderators or the Webmaster. I’m sure they’ll be happy to reply to any questions you have in this matter.

Euhhh…. the actual beginning of the LCA development was announced on January 5th, 1985 at the 71st Indian Science Congress. So by then the feasibility studies had been concluded, and work on the real thing began. The initial design was ready by 1990, which would have been impossible if we were to believe Victor’s “So the actual development of the plane started around early 89. I am assuming it took a few months to get the tranche of money for developmental phase.”.

30th (Irkutsk) Air army;
– 31 HBD (Tu-16/22/22M), at Irkutsk
-55 HBD (Tu-16/22K), at Primorski

Well, Primorski should actually be Ussuriysk, since that is the name of the airbase. But i think you do have the Army/Division tie-ups correct here.

Secondly, a few questions about the PVO:

Which military district did the 4th PVO Air Army belong to (with a base at Danilovo (Samarskaya))?????

That was the Volga MD, now part of the Volga-Ural MD.

The same for the 14th PVO Air army (bases at Omsk, Bratsk, Kupino, Kansk)

Siberian MD, but Bezrechnaya in the same Air Airmy is in the Transbaikal MD.

Same for 19th PVO air army (bases at Rostov-na Don (MiG-31), Bombora (Su-27), Nasosnaya (MiG-25PDS)?????????

Both the North Caucasus MD (that’s where Rostov-na-Donu is) and the Caucasus MD (with Bombora in Abkhazia).

I’ll adress the issues as raised in Harry’s post to keep things a bit coherent, if i accidentally miss anything, just ask me in a very polite manner 😀

So was the basic delta concept itself, still being employed in most contemporary designs. Actually, the term “Cranked Delta” is incorrect – it should correctly be “compound” delta due to the extensive modifications and optimisations. The wing is optimised for very high AoA and to control vortex burst at the same high alpha flight. Other ‘special’ features include the extensive wing-fuselage blending, extremely low wingloading and sheilded air intakes.

I still don’t see what the difference is between a good old double delta/cranked delta and this “compound delta” of the LCA. The kink in the leading edge produces vortices which improve handling at low speed and high AoA – if that’s what a compound delta is, then the Draken and Vulcan also had compound deltas, as those were the very reasons their leading edges were cranked.
I’m still equally unimpressed by the other ‘special’ features:
Extensive wing-fuselage blending. Making the wingroot an integral part of the fuselage has been done many times (look at the F-16 for example), as is the use of karmann fairings to provide a less structural blend (as on the Mirage 2000 for example).
Extremely low wingloading. Well, as long as you make the wing big enough and keep the weight of the airframe low… The ‘compound’ layout of the wing (with it’s Viggen/Vulcan style kink, not the Draken/Flagon kink) also gives a few extra square feet of wing area. A good idea for hot & high ops (especially if you have a relatively weak engine), but nothing really revolutionary if you ask me.
Shielded air intakes. Euhh… you mean the intakes are suspended under the wing root? That’s been around since at least the F-111.

The final production variant – PV-2 is going to fly soon – integrated with all avionics and weapons systems. Let’s not forget that many of the subsystems, avionics and components have already been deployed or have been in extensive testing for years. Production facilties for the 8 LSP aircraft have been set up and will be handled by a dedicated LSP team. Simulation and infrastructure for training have also been set up.

Yes, and many of the LCA’s subsystems have already been tested a long time ago, or actually even have entered service on other platforms. But they are only now slowly getting underway on the LCA.
Setting up low rate production lines and initial familiarisation/training facilities is of course a sensible thing to do/. If you’re suggesting however that the effort in those LSP-related programs means that the actual flight testing is put on a backburner, i would say that either the program needs a lot better managemen, or a lot more input in time, money and expertise.

If an AF operating Su-30MKIs, Mirage-2000s, MiG-29s, upgraded MiG-21 Bisons, Jaguars and MiG-27MLs (soon to be upgraded) is “low tech”, I wonder what the rest of the world is? 😀

I consider an airforce without AWACS experience, which has only recently started playing with inflight refuelling, with currently no datalinking capability still a relatively (don’t skip the crucial words when quoting me Harry 😉 ) low tech airforce. The IAF has impressive toys and will even get more of them, but it’s still learning to play with them.

Regarding ease of repair, production and maintanance – the infrastructure and facilties are not going to stay boxed up at the HAL or NAL campus. They will be integrated with the IAF. For ease of maintanance, servicing and repair, the LCA employs extensive self-diagnostic systems/BITE, USMS, totally LRU based architecture and modularity.

Yet on the other hand, the IAF is an airforce where dirty fuel and FOD still seem to be regular occuring problems. It is no problem if a crewchief at the squadron accidentally drops a hammer on the wing of a metal aircraft. Were he to do that on a composite wing, you’d need to get that wing checked at depot level. I’m personally not sure if the somewhat lower weight of composites is worthy sacrificing a lot of operational simplicity for. You can’t patch up composites, you can with aluminium.

Another myth and non-issue. Electronics are getting smaller and not bigger. Multiple LRUs are being replaced with single LRUs that perform the same function. Growth potential is ensured through open architecture, software centric development and modularity. All these are the most basic facts that were repeated 10 times before. Also, the LCA may be the lightest fighter but that does’nt make it a Folland Gnat.Mk.2. It’s nose cone and fo’d fuselage offers greater volume compared to the Mirage-2000 and the cockpit itself is much more spacious. It’s shorter but somewhat chubbier.

Yet the F-16 is getting heavier and more bumps every single time a new variant is launched. Miniaturising electronics in theory would lessen the amount of such systems in modern aircraft, but if you look at the evolution of existing jets, you see that this theory simply does not work.

A lot of conclusions seem to be based on ‘looks’.

I plead guilty – i have read less on the LCA than i should have, but i find the chestthumping in a number of LCA articles very hard to chew through (and that’s not a bias, i have the same problem with a lot of articles on the F-35 or other new projects).

I’ll be ready to grow some confidence in the LCA as a fighter once it’s undergone full flight, systems and weapons testing, and has entered service trials with the IAF. And it’d better be with all the equipment the LCA fanboys say it will get – including the Kaveri (any breakthroughs i missed on that one btw?). Before that, i’ll remain as sceptical as i am.

and you have yet to point out where my knowledge of aviation is…..

The cranked delta doesn’t make the LCA anything special. The Draken and Vulcan had cranked deltas half a century ago, and if you consider some of Payen’s designs, the cranked delta was there before WW2.

quite frankly generalizations are bad, anyway I pen off in hopes that you will provide your opinion on this topic, yes I saw your china defence article, ba, a good history paper.

Thanks for the comment on the article – it was a quickie only, you wouldn’t believe how surprised i was when it eventually got translated in Chinese.

As for my thoughts on the subject:
1 – I think the whole LCA development project is of immense importance to India’s aviation industry and as such indespensible. As pointed out in this thread, it appears that the state-run Indian defense research labs under DRDO lack the incentive to develop avionics and systems by themselves, so if an LCA-like project is needed, so be it. I also think the design and possible production are of immense value for India’s avion industry in becoming mature.

2 – As an aircraft, i have very little faith in it. Most importantly for me right now is the fact that the pace of flight tests is going incredibly slow. 3 1/2 years of flight testing now, with AFAIK still nothing really envelope-pushing or even slightly operational being done (please correct me if i’m wrong).
The airframe itself seems to have more emphasis on exotic techniques and materials rather than operational use. When at the choice between building an airframe best suitable for a relatively low-tech air force with ease of repair and production, or a technically challenging airframe helping to give the Indian defense industry a technological leap forward, the choice was made for the latter. A defendable choice, but IMHO one more suited for a technology demonstrator rather than a supposedly low-risk easy-use light combat aircraft. Especially if the aircraft is then only to enter service AFTER it’s operational lifespan would have ended, were it to enter service by the time it was supposed to enter service.
Another issue with the airframe is that it is extremely cramped and doesn’t seem to offer any growth potential at all. The fuselage is fat as it is so anything conformal doesn’t seem an option without totally destroying aerodynamics, the nose is too short to accomodate anything more than the radar… The LCA as currently under development seems to be the ultimate machine that DRDO can squeeze out of that airframe, something which can’t be said about other small fighters.

My take, summarized: I consider the LCA as a nice exam for India’s aerospace industry. But not one with any serious operational value (anymore) when it eventually enters service.

Saying Mirage III or V’s are in service in ‘Europe’ is not a designation mistake. It is an obvious display of ignorance. I happen to be a writer myself – errors like that absolutely destroy the credibility of any article, no matter if the rest makes any sense or not. Because the writer is appearantly too ill-informed or too lazy to check his facts, why should i trust the rest of the article?