Spitfire9wish ADA goes ahead with the test of the engine on a LCA prototype soon.
A project to install the Kaveri in the LCA and to have it completed by end 2009 was announced ?2008? I guess the project was halted. I have heard no news of this project being completed.
Spitfire9think of NLCA Mk1 single seater as a TD, the 2 seater is useful as a trainer.
Right, NLCA Mk1’s are TD’s. That makes sense to me. Mk2 will be the real thing (a design meeting IN’s performance criteria).
How many NLCA’s could the IN take?
IAF does not need to order today if it finds in 2013 that MRCA production has been held up somehow and Mk2 is 2 years away, it can order then. just like it came up with the additional 20 order after the initial 20. it will send a proposal to MOD who will pass on to the CCS after which it goes to HAL and the contract is signed. the whole process takes 2 weeks at most if IAF pushes it through.
It’s a revelation to me that there is a fast track procurement system for follow on orders of Indian produced materiel. Good news.
Spitfire9why should support of tejas mean either Mk1 or Mk2, if I say ‘USAF supports F-16’ does it mean block 15, block 50 or the complete series ?
Mk1 as it stands now does not match all of IAF’s updated requirements (which however much maskirovka might squirm under his painted camouflage, puts it in the league of pre-NG gripens in most aspects and at par with NG for others) but it is still far better than a host of aircrafts like the mig-27 in IAF which it can easily replace.
I don’t know how well the F-16 was liked by the USAF but I doubt that there was a debate over its acceptability without a more powerful engine being installed. I think you continue to make my point for me – Mk1 it is capable of replacing aircraft (certainly in the case of MiG21) that need replacing.
the IAF would not order substantially because by the time the current order is completed the Mk2 would be ready, which air force in the right state of mind would order aircraft of an older version when the newer one is available ? in any case IAF rarely if ever orders from domestic manufacturers in bulk, unless it’s part of a larger license manufacturing deal.
case in point, the jaguar orders in batches of 17 and 20, similar orders for mig-21 in 70’s and 80’s and so on.
people who say these things have no idea how manufacturing works in a country like India, it is not possible for HAL to start production of 20 LCA Mk1’s per year from day 1, assemblies would have to be set up, technicians have to be trained in batches and then only can production pick up. the current order of 40 (which incidentally is about the same number of mirage-2000 we have, so much for it being a small order) will take between 3-4 years to complete, well in time for the Mk2 to start production.
OK, understood. I would just point out that airlines will order aircraft of an older design if they can’t get hold of those of a new design fast enough. If the older design does the job, it can be better to order it than to wait for availability on the newer design. As I understand it, IAF needs to replace MiG21’s. As I understand it, Tejas Mk1 is perfectly able to do that. Will Mk2 be able to do that in a timely fashion?
the engine is but one aspect of the Mk2, the work can proceed with the engine accounted for but not in place.
Indeed. Just need to know which engine.
don’t you read the thread before commenting ? two additional NLCA with higher powered engine has already been sanctioned last december, to follow after NP1 and NP2. that is but an euphemism for NLCA Mk2.
Yes, I did actually spot that. I imagine though that the IN is more interested in the re-engined version. The navalised version of an aircraft tends to be heavier, doesn’t it? If the IAF wants a higher thrust version, I would think the IN would be even more interested in a higher thrust version.
read this
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1608512&postcount=78
Two more LCA(Navy) prototypes has been sanctioned by the Govt in Dec 2009 with a higher thrust engine to enable meeting the Mission objectives set out by the Navy.
Does rather sound like IN needs the Mk2. That’s why I asked whether the GE404 powered aircraft would be used for development purposes.
this is nothing but NLCA Mk2.
Spitfire9LCA seems to have reasonable amount of orders at present
TD-2
PV-5
LSP-8
batch 20 + 20 (AdA asking for another 20 Mark-1)
LCA Mark II-4NLCA-2
NLCA-6
NLCA Mark II-2Total Present 69 + 20
Boom says there are comments that the IAF is strongly in support of the Tejas. Would that be Mk1 or Mk2? If the IAF does truly want the Mk1, why not increase the order very substantially to allow MiG-21 retirement? This would (presumably) cannibalise some sales from Mk2 but from the viewpoint of supporting “the home side” it would be better to see that than to see increased MMRCA orders to cover late availability of the Mk2. Given that Mk2 engine selection was reported as being due autumn 2008, the risk of Mk2 being late appears quite high.
As for NLCA Mk1, won’t it really only be useful as a systems testing platform? Should focus not be on NLCA Mk2?
Spitfire915 a year LOL, how many years have they made 15 ? and i saw it as not dependent on export but hoping the export would keep it being built
it was also posted a while ago they had 20 for 2011-2014, thats 5 a year
also uae and brazil will be building the rafale, only a few initial ones will be built in france
UAE building Rafales – how? Brazil – yes, but building? I take building to mean making the components Dassault makes and sticking those + third party elements together to make a complete Rafale. If Dassault needs to supply most of / all of the Dassault-made components, that would use up capacity otherwise used to make Rafales for the French military.
Spitfire9Just wondering if someone could tell me why the Gripen is 800Kg’s lighter than the LCA?
Designed by designers where it was not their first foray into fast jet design?
Spitfire9I still do not understand that why Gripen – a plane of almost the same weight of Tejas with a lower thrust engine has no thrust issues while Tejas has. It has good AOA and is reportedly close to supercruise capability.
As far as I have read, Gripen NG has supercruise ability. M1.2 is the figure I remember seeing.
Found the source for that:
Spitfire9would that would be $108m flyaway ? as opposed to ~$60m flyaway for the f-35a
IIRC the flyaway figures for RAF tranche1? Typhoons were somewhat less than £50 million per a/c paid.
Don’t know what the £/$ dollar rate was when each payment was made and to me it is largely irrelevant since the UK government would not have made a $US contract to buy aircraft assembled in the UK from a UK company. In any event I think the package cost of acquistion + through-life spares is far more telling. I suspect that @ ~$US60m flyaway F-35A would be an inkjet fighter (cheap to buy, but would cost a fortune to run).
Spitfire9Do you mean the LSP’s prototypes or the stipulated weight of the LCA MK1?
Don’t know. When Abimanyu stated that the Tejas weighed about the same as Gripen C/D, JF-17 and KAI T-150, I asked why the smaller Tejas did not weigh less than these larger aircraft.
If HAL advertises its weight as 6.5 tons, is that the weight of the single seat prototypes as they are? If so, why not deduct the weight of the test instrumentation and publish that weight ie the weight of the aircraft? What use is it to anyone to know the weight of an aircraft including test equipment of unknown weight?
Spitfire9That would need carriers with catapults & arresting gear, which would put up the price & operating cost of the carriers, & we’d have a small number of specialised naval light fighters, not capable of operating against modern air defences, or modern fighters. I’m not sure how they’d be useful in a major war.
We’d have a naval air arm capable of taking on only low-tech opponents with small air forces, but carried on state of the art, high-tech carriers.
I agree, the cost of the carriers would be difficult to justify without aircraft able to take on other modern fighters. If for some reason F-35B’s were cancelled/unavailable, CTOL aircraft are a bit thin on the ground, aren’t they? Rafale, F-18, non-existent Sea Typhoon (not going to happen), non-existent Sea Gripen (could happen), N-LCA (happening sometime or other). F-18’s would seem to be the choice. Somehow I can’t see the RN operating the Rafale.
Spitfire9Take out US Forces and it is not “selling like crazy”. Typhoon and SU-30 series definately selling better….
To be fair to the F-35, it may not be selling like crazy partly because with all the delays it’s difficult to know when it will be available at non-limited rate initial production prices. At least testing now seems to be running slightly ahead of the latest schedule. Long may it remain that way, if that’s not the wrong way of putting it.;)
Spitfire9Its true it uses a Jaguar-ish undercarriage, which is NOT weight optimized for a smaller jet like Tejas. But its not a crippling problem. Don’t worry, Tejas Mk.1’s empty weight is the same as its contemporaries like Gripen C/D, JF-17 and KAI T-150. Two of these use the same engine as Tejas Mk.1 too i.e. GE-F404.
Don’t want to put a damper on this but if Tejas is physically smaller than the others mentioned and (I guess) has a higher proportion of composites, why does it not weigh LESS than the others?
Now, Kaveri in its PRESENT FORM would’ve worked on a Tejas that would’ve weighed 5.5 tons (amusing to note that kaveri actually meets ASR specs laid 20 years ago).
If Kaveri hit its targets, why was it condemned – I forget by whom, but it was not a journalist – as being unuseable for aviation applications?
And if the Gripen’s example is to go by, the NG’s weight is actually 0.6 tons more than the C/D version — after all the landing gear realignment.
Let’s hope that the Mk 2 does not increase in weight in the same way. Let’s hope that EADS’ input can help limit weight increase over Mk 1 to a minimum. It may be an over-simplification, but I imagine that the thing to avoid is to increase thrust by x% but also to increase weight by x% – in which case the whole exercise becomes pointless.
Spitfire9Also, the chances of Eurojet’s engine being selected over GE-F414 are brighter, given that its an EADs product again.
I have noticed that quite a few people think that the EJ200 engine is an EADS product.
As far as I know there is no connection between EADS and Eurojet except that Eurojet was created to design and build an engine for the Eurofighter Typhoon. EUROJET’s shareholders comprise Avio (Italy), ITP (Spain), MTU Aero Engines (Germany) and Rolls-Royce (UK)
EADS (Germany), EADS Casa (Spain), BaE Systems (UK) and Alenia Aeronautica (Italy) are partners in the Eurofighter project.
Spitfire9Spitfire, EADS was roped in to quicken up testing, my guess is that it will be used during IOC–>FOC of Mk-1 itself.
I expect the other two, Mk2 and NLCA to be looked in as well. ADA/HAL for their part have been extremely quiet about how the Mk2 will end up looking like, what changes it would have from Mk1. that is the most important phase in the future.
Thanks. I remember reading that EADS were going to provide consultancy re: testing. They are also going to assist in reducing weight of the LCA-N undercarriage IIRC.
Re: Tejas MkII, time is passing. Better sort out an engine contract and sort out licensed production, agree any MkII capability creep, design, build, test and plan production in short order. It would be sad to see MKII production halved or whatever because the agencies concerned had ambled along in their usual muddled manner resulting in the IAF buying a load more MMRCA’s instead to maintain squadron numbers.
Spitfire9Actually, thrust has never been an issue but the flat-rated feature has been. Had the flat-rated Kaveri been ready, the new engines would not have been needed at all.
Given that the Kaveri is not ready, which new engine do you prefer and why (always assuming that you have a preference)?
Sign In
