Teer600 kg will be shed in Mk-1 or in Mk-2? I wonder how extensive changes are being planned in LCA-Mk-2, will it be just a reengined aircraft with new intakes or something like Superhornet or New Gripen type of extensive changes?
I think 600 odd kgs will be shed split between MK1 and MK2 but some of it will go towards incorporating all the stuff the IAF has asked for in the LCA (and trade off versus payload).
If we look at the articles above, the PV1 itself was around 6430 Kg including FTI.
Anyway, even 6500kg operational aircraft with GE-404IN20 engine is pretty good.
Thats the thing, thats why they want 1 more sq of the MK1 itself before MK2 series production is launched.
I see/hope/feel that more orders for Mk-1 itself will come when we get the LSP-3-MMR up in the air.
Any idea why LSP-3 with MMR is now delayed for more than 1 year and when is it going to go up?
Its work in terms of priorities, the main focus has been on working up for IOC, the MMR is required for FOC for which they have ample time. IOC means basic flight envelope (90% of basic flight), basic A2G, navigation modes. FOC means final edges of the envelope, BVR A2A etc.
The initial plan was to first fix up the first few LCAs with Elta 2032’s and rest 40 odd with MMR hybrid and then move to the LRDE AESA.
But it well might be that they go with MMRs for all of them, including LSP3.
To be honest, I am not too worried about LSP3 with the MMR – point is in Jan 2009, the test crew/ASTE were also not worried about it. And the problem has been solved, they have a functioning radar which they were happy with.
As of Jan 2009, they had checked the MMR Hybrid in A2A by fixing it on a stationary mount and tracking low RCS targets at BVR (Kirans etc). But A2G work would have been remaining.
If logic with the earlier MMR holds, they might even be flying the new (hybrid) MMR now on the Hack to check all the modes.
Plus there is the issue of weaponization, which is an entirely different kettle of fish about which BVR to integrate so good they held this off for FOC.
TeerCouldnt have put it up better !
Whats more pathetic is the troll brigade has no answer to what the LCA has already done for Indian Aerospace..
Boeing recently announced $ 600 Million in offsets for the P-8I …guess how much of that will go to companies which worked on the LCA and developed their capabilities that way?
Honeywell, EADS are all setting up R&D organizations in Bangalore..
The IAF’s Upgrades are all running on LCA technology..including its core avionics systems. The “air dominance” MKIs are all using LCA tech.
The IJT – with a projected run of 200 airframes – was developed – the entire airframe design & development – using the LCA derived tech..
I mean – theres simply no question what the LCA has already done..whats more fun is what the MK2 will do.
Rs 8000 crores is around $ 1.7 Billion.
Thats going to go for developing next generation avionics, new AESA system and EW suites.
Again – huge strategic and operational gains.
Again – a record of performance execution, in July 2008 PS Subramanyam said around 500 flights more needed for IOC and he wanted to accelerate the program. They have pretty much done that ALREADY over this year & IOC is now intended much earlier by this year end/early next year, with FOC on track.
A completely new Open Avionics Arch developed in 3 years flat and flying.
May I point out that Smiths walked out from the Jaguar DARINII when asked to do something lesser, with similar budget restrictions?
The IAF recognises the performance of the plane – actual operational crew deputed to ASTE vouch for it.
Its no easy gain – its a decade – almost- of hard work from 2001. Continuous monitoring, hard work and effort.
A bunch of trolls dont count for anything versus the IAF Chief – a hard nosed professional & what ADA has done.
It was no joke making the IAF believe in the LCA.
I learnt something recently – since the LCA was running under budget, these guys managed to take the budgeted money and move it to organizations in parallel for LCA related projects not directly part of the LCA TD effort. I mean what they have done has to be seen to be believed.
The work with the LCA Dynamic rig? Directly linked to the Jag DARINII and MiG-27 rigs and now a local one for the Su-30 MKI to operationalize ASTRA on our own.
Great experience.
Teer21A,
Thanks, yeah, I really wish Harry was still with us.
I mean, this is like the culmination of over a decade of work from the ADA team and others who just slaved till this point and which he catalogued in the radiance of Tejas.
I think, in his memory, its fitting that what he talked about in his LCA article is being progressed further.
TeerYou know whats really sad is if Harry had been here he would have broken all this stuff out and laid out the details.
What an irreplaceable loss for us all. 🙁
Amazing accomplishments for one so young, so talented, his work on aviation shames adults three times his age here, so sad.
Teerok, 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.
21 Ankush,
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 ..
TeerRight, this is getting silly and we are in fact playing on words and downright twisting them.
I tell you what, we can all dress up our opinions as facts. So to make this very very simple for you, I will state some facts.
1) IAF has only 40 LCAs on order.
2) Despite what you or Senior IAF officers may want, no more orders have been placed despite this project having exsisted for 15 years plus.
3) It does not matter who operates the other types, in what capacity or in what number. Please dont play on words. Its obvious to you, me and anyone reading you were implying they were the sole operator. Just because you used the term “about the sole operater” that makes you suddenly be able to say you did not imply that?IAF HAS NOT BEEN THE SOLE OPERATOR OF Gnats and Jaguars when inititially operated and you inplied this.
You wrote
“IAF itself was about the sole military-operator of the gnat and did it quite successfully too.
similar reasoning applies to the jaguars.”What would the average reader imply from this?
My point is air forces very rarely tend to be sole operators of a type.
Air Forces do actually give “two hoots” if other air forces choose types they are considering operating. Actually, its why IAF personnel are in Sweden, US, France etc evaluating the operations of MRCA contenders.
To claim the AF “dont give two hoots” shows (and I am desperatley trying to be civilised here) a certain lack of knowledge with regards Air Force aqquisition programmes.Now your opinion is the IAF will induct this in large numbers, but lets seperate this from fact.
You know Rimmer all that vehemence and obnoxiousness from you aside here are some FACTS for you.
You know FACTs as different from OPINION – facts which have been reported by both public media and ranking officers across all organizations.
1. The Indian Air Force has cleared the MOD to begin development of a LCA MK2.
2. The Indian Air Force has asked HAL, the actual manufacturers to work on the LCA MK2 and put up funds for a production run of AT LEAST five squadrons and even SEVEN. Funding of the order of Rs 800,000 Million.
3. Two IAF Air Chiefs including the current one, his serving Vice Chief have ALL come out in support of the LCA.
4. The IAF in the Standing Committee on Defence 2008-09 in 2009 has gone on record stating they need the LCA.
5. The Govt of India has officially funded the LCA project for the next decade till 2018 which includes the MK2.
6. The IAF has signed up for the LCA MK1 BEYOND what was originally agreed – just a first squadron and asked for a second squadron as well. Both because the MK1 is ALREADY useful and because the LCA production needs to be kept running.
7. The IN has also signed up for the program and funded the development of the NLCA. Again, not out of the goodness of their heart. This means an additional TWO squadrons at the minimum.
8. LCA MK2 development funding clearance has already launched the development of various subsystems and programs.
Now I dont particularly care how things are done in Pakistan – but in India this means serious funding, cleared for certain induction, cleared by the USER AF which took 7 years of detailed flight testing and involved work from its end to come to this conclusion.
So despite all the gas you have written so far, and all the vehemence that you have shown in believing that the LCA will not be ordered, you have no facts in your corner.
Its mere vehemence and arguement for arguements sake.
Merely being obnoxious and condescending to RahulM or others about facts versus opinion wont cut it.
Now I know some Pakistanis like you have this obsessive near belief in trying to push the claim that somehow the LCA will not get produced (when all the facts run to the contrary – eg like the fact that the IAF was the SOLE operator of the SU-30 MKI as a launch customer) ..
And of course, just after registering you have to run to the IAF thread and spam us, with this ridiculous series of vehement posts for NO reason at all.
Your behaviour is provocative, unecessary and ridiculous – compare and contrast to Vikasrehman for instance, who defines what somebody who is interested in real discussion behaves as.
But why dont you spend that same passion and drive in doing something more productive, such as answering a single question which we’ve asked for so long and got NO answer to? Namely what is Pakistans contribution to the JF-17 beyond funding and what exactly has it developed?
You see, I see all that energy you have which could be directed to something useful and actually solve a mystery which has been debated on the internet for over a decade. Please tell us.
TeerYeah, even I am hoping for it to be an unfounded rumor and that Harry will appear and sort things out.
TeerTeer, Im not talking about downgrading it. So let me ask the question form a different angle. Had an 8G limit built into LCA’s design, would LCA’s empty weight been the same or lower?
I think Kartiks post answered that. The weight would have been lower.
But heres the thing, if they had gone for 8G and the IAF subsequently asked for 9G (and the IAF does do these kind of additional requests), question is what would have happened to weight then, and time lines?
Thats what I meant.
As for IAF’s addition, I think it was BRF where I came across a debate about this issue quite recently. And the argument against pinning the whole blame, i.e. for weight increase, on IAF was not a weak one. But then these are just opinions, and we cant say much since we don’t the exact details of it all, i.e. viewpoints of all concerned parties.
I dont post on BRF so dont know about the debate. What I do know is that from an official event, a senior IAF ranking officer openly mentioned that the IAF had asked for “more” to be added to the LCA and consequently weight was affected. There are also multiple statements made in public record about how new items were added to the LCA list by the IAF.
Its not a question of blame – scope creep happens due to a variety of operational reasons also, but its out of the designers hands, and thats the point.
One cant be stubborn/aggressive/non responsive (not you) about these matters and say “to@#@##@ with the IAF” – if they dont do these changes and compensate the IAF will just buy elsewhere.
They are, a very demanding customer.
TeerMy understanding of current position of LCA was that it is 2 tons overweight and 6500kg is the ‘desired’ weight. Just going by ADA posters may not be enough as these postures continued to carry 5500kg even though it is known in ADA circles since atleast 10 years that LCA is overweight.
Also we hear these off and on again rumors about intake and wing redesign which would mean a very different/delayed LCA-2. Note rumours about Kaveri failure, radar problems, weight issues etc proved to be true
Incorrect.
One,
The weight has been accurately catalogued in several areas. Note PV1 weight w/FTI is 6430 Kg. Removing FTI should compensate for a 100 odd Kg radar.
Any weight over and above that is if the IAF asks for MK2 level items retrofitted to production build MK1s.
http://frontierindia.net/light-combat-aircraft-tejas-testing
Weight is determined accurately once the actual aircraft gets built – earlier numbers were design aims.
Two,
Official ADA posters now carry the revised PV weight of 6500 Kg. Promotional materials often get re-used which is why differing numbers appeared in the past.
Three
LSP and MK2 weights will also change – the lay media is least interested in tracking them so we will get indications only if someone contacts ADA etc. Again, the lay Indian media is not noted for interest in defense.
TeerWonder if the extra pound of fat will be some what reduced once the production variant of Tejas Mk1 starts rolling out.
Right now due to the flight testing nature of the aircraft , it is heavily instrumented with all sorts of equipment in there to monitor wide parameter , once production Mk1 rolls out they would shed few hundred pounds of fat , plus ADA may try to reduce some weight for production aircraft.
Austin, some of the weight reduced will be supplanted by weight gained from stuff like the AESA radar which is not in the MK1. The rest will go towards payload.
The ADA guys ultimately aim to shed around 600 odd kgs from the aircraft but which will go towards payload and additional items.
TeerAnd it also speaks volumes that you assume that questioning an obviously questionable fact indicates animosity!
Your aggressive and over the top attitude as shown by your posts indicates the animosity. Perhaps its just the way you generally are.
Collective stupidity isn’t a valid excuse – its called herd mentality!
When dealing with trolls, its a valid measure. And you certainly appear to be reinforcing the perception.
My response to Rahul’s post was in response to his sarcastic response implying that my daring to question the overbudget status of the LCA project was a hatchet job. This is a forum and should have room for, nay encourage dissent, expressing which shouldn’t be jumped on by one group as a sign of trolling or flaming. I thought the whole reason we espoused a democratic society was to encourage a plurality of opinons and not have the forum hijacked by one aggressive group.
Posting a questionable source, without any clear references and clearly incorrect statements is liable to be construed as a hatchet job. Nor have you been on the forum long enough for people to know you are not a troll, and are not just here for baiting. Its very common for trolls to register and bait. IOW, Rahuls response was understandable.
If you had posted a sane rebuttal, without losing your temper, it would have settled the matter then and there. Instead a follow on attack by your end, and your unecessarily aggressive posts thereon have just made the matter worse.
About democracy and the like, no forum is a democracy in a conventional sense. It has a group of contributors with often differing opinions and a moderatorship team which enforces the board rules.
The question is about who makes the case with better logic and facts at hand. Stating that group A is aggressive or Group B is a dissenter and should automatically be listened to, wont work. As in real life, the one who makes a better case for his/her opinion, gets listened to.
Well that’s mutual
As to your statement that you were somehow getting under my skin – I think you overestimate your nuisance value
Yet another case – of asinine aggression from your end even when its not required, and why you have a long way to go before you start being taken seriously.
From your other posts its clear you have some issues with RahulM, banned from the forum he moderates perhaps, so you are here to settle scores.
If so, spare the rest of us from your personal animosity.
TeerRIP Harish.
My deepest condolences to his family.
I -like many here – used to be in touch with Harry- and can vouch for three things, his passion, his knowledge and his prodigious talent.
My only hope is that this is somehow untrue & harry will return, we get to know he’s ok.
I wonder if there is anyway to get in touch with the person who broke this news and confirm it..
Really sad day Rahul.
TeerSince you are speculating, let me also indulge. MCA systems and subsystems might have different linage. You are right when you say that capabilities have been built. But, the current proposal is that ADA wants to work with someone (R&D JV?) else for this project. The costs also are going to be very high. Commonalities with LCA project will be limited to capabilities that have been acquired.
Has there been any confirmed statement on these lines?
As far as I know there has been no confirmed proposal so far to to definitely choose a partner, and the work on the MCA is exploratory in nature (as we discussed earlier) to come up with the basic PD.
Yes, there will be a lot of R&D that will be required for the MCA – but the good part is that infrastructure development (as was done for the LCA) wont have to be done from scratch, so that should help things.
Ie if LRDE is developing a X Band AESA for the LCA, it has a base to develop a LPI (wideband) design for a VLO/LO design. At least its not as ambitious as deciding to develop a state of the art MSA (for its class), when India’s only claim to any sort of airborne radar experience was knocking together obsolete RP series radars for MiG-21s at HAL.
TeerDerby it is then. Thanks.
And SHars were getting toasted in exercises.
Regards,
Ashish
They got taken out by USN F/A-18s as well in exercises. The Blue Fox has been long recognized as a dated obsolete set with severe issues against low flying targets (ie clutter) and should have been replaced a long while back.
The problem is that even with the LUSH upgrade, there are simply too few airframes to count.
The way I look at it, this is just a stopgap till the Vikramaditya arrives with a half decent airwing.
Even there, there is a critical gap of a proper AEW&CS system. The Ka-31s are not exactly ideal. I really wonder what they are doing there.
Yudhishtir,
About patriotism – it speaks volumes that you assume that patriotism is linked to linguistic choices and that somehow the choice of a Hindi or Sanskrit name indicates fierce patriotism.
About where you are from and your general ability to even discern names or the like – your initial posts conveyed the same impression to several posters – check out niravs reply f.e. & not just rahulm’s. who had the same impression vis a vis about your statements. Given the number of trolls who have attacked this thread & your response to rahulm’s post, it was not exactly unwarranted either. Several trolls in the past have been Pak. expats who wouldnt know what Teer etc necessarily meant.
Apart from that, really not interested in your claims/statements etc anymore.
If you post something of interest rather than acronyms, that would change.
TeerI’m Indian too and I didn’t realize that justifying that to your DFB lordship was a condition for becoming a member. And thank you for the superfluous translation on what your name means,
Why don’t you focus on the subject that the forum is intended for instead of sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.
And I’m not sure that questioning a fact that should be obvious to even the most fanatically patriotic of us would be classified as a hissy fit – but again I’m sure you’re welcome to your DFB opinion!
Now lets leave my anteceddents to the mods and get on with the business of the forum shall we? Hmm?
If you post rubbish, and then have a fit when somebody corrects you with the relevant data as Rahulm did, then you will be told as such – its got little to do with patriotism and more to do with accuracy, and yup it classifies as a hissy fit since you brought no facts to the table but only rhetoric.
Furthermore I pointed out the meaning of my name as, your earlier post implied that you didnt even understand what the name meant.
And I dont even know what DFB means nor do I give a damn. About your antecedents (note single d) or the like, given your stellar record so far, I wont be holding my breath , but then lets see.
Sign In
