I like you Yahoo, u are cool. 😀

LMAO… 😀

First off all the J-10 has one big advantage over the LCA. It has a proven engine.

F404 isn’t proven?

There is nothing wrong with using a forgein engine and I´m not bashing the LCA for using the F404 engine. On the contrary I would even suggest to give a uprated an improved version to all LCAs instead of risking the Kaveri engine.

That’s exactly what the GE F404-IN20 is!!!!!! If the Kaveri doesn’t measure up, GE and HAL are ready to step up to provide an equivalent. You are bringing up non-issues…

Regarding the ALH. I´m not saying it is a bad helicopter, yet the original plan called for the ALH to replace the old helicopters used for high alltitude operations. It failed to life up to that expectation. Therefore I´m critical of the LCA achieving all design goals, just as I´m always critcal about such things with any new project regardless off origin.

True, the ALH didn’t meet the original design goal because during the last 1/4 of the development phase, the prime engine supplier was barred from selling or cooperating (98 sanctions). So, in the final stages of development, a new engine was needed. The new one is lower powered than the original choice. So, now the team is working with Snecma to build an engine that would allow the helo to achieve the desired performance. If the original engine maker was not withdrawn from the pic, the first iteration of the ALH would have met the design goals. But c’est la vie. And “now you know the rest of the story,” as they say.

All metal design is not better or worse imho. However it is a proven method and today even the most modern fighters use a high percentage of metals in their airframes. When you look at parts that are subjected to vibrations or need to be flexible metall is still better then composites. And repairing metal is also easier.

As mentioned in another thread by me, composites main advantage is weight savings, it’s an engineering judgement to use composites but clearly, the trend in the aero industry is to use composites more and more even as load bearing structures.

85 was the begining of the project definition phase. One can argue for and against if the “project definition” constitutes “development” of the plane.

This phase is mostly to nail down the performance characteristics along with preliminary testing of possible shape forms.

Ah, how i love the sound of fanboys giving a non-argument. Please explain to me why an all-composite combat jet is preferable over a metal one?

Mostly through weight saving. Weight is the performance killer for any plane.

With an engine like the F404, the LCA hardly has power to spare. In order to achieve the performance goals the LCA has to be ~45% composite or else it becomes too heavy.

Of course, composites isn’t a panacea, it is a means of solving one problem that brings with it other issues. Brittleness, less fatigue tolerance, propertie not as well known as metals, etc. But, like in everything engineering, it’s about making a compromise on certain things to achieve better results in other areas. The LCA program managers made the engineering judgement to go with composites, willing to risk the down sides in exchange for the benefits. Their engineering judgement is a little bit more credible than the opinions of internet enthusiasts.

Wood a composite? What is it a composite of?

Most composites are some sort of fiber held and strengthened by a resin. There are variations where one might use a sandwich method of putting other materials in between two or more layers of composite, like putting balsa wood or styrofoam board in between two layers of kevlar composite, etc…

Most “Western” bureaucracies, which the Indian bureacracy is modeled after (British) have something called “color of money”. If money allocated towards a feasibility study, that money does not come out of the “development” funds.

Feasibility study funds come from a different pot of money hence by definition can’t be called development. The project definition stage money might come from the “development” pot but really depends on the country, project, budgeting, priority, etc.

A quick reply to one point…
The LCA is not dependent on the success Kaveri. GE and ADE have already talked about a new engine F404-IN20 whose thrust would be about 5-10% more than the current F404… or in other words a hedge against the failure or inordinate delay in the Kaveri program.

Worse case scenario: Kaveri fails and HAL opens up a F404-IN20 line, just like HAL is opening up the Al-31FP line, just like it has a GE LM2500 line for the navy, etc.

Kaveri’s failure would have little operational impact on the LCA’s performance. But a Kaveri failure would be a failure at the strategic technology level.

That’s excellent. Thanks!

Aside from flight crew, how many operator stations are there on the helo? Also, any info (graphs) regarding loiter time at station vs. transit time and range of the radar?