Spitfire9It was not just pilot error it also had design problems.
If you read the report on the Saras crash, it seems that in an engine out situation the aircraft goes nose down and wing down due to the loss of thrust on one side (p57 of accident report). The commander more than once managed to regain control by throttling back the remaining engine but of course the aircraft was continuing to lose altitude at this throttle setting on the remaining engine.
I find it a bit harsh to blame the loss of the second prototype on pilot error. It sounds to me that loss of power from one engine makes the aircraft unflyable. That is a fatal design flaw. I hope they can sort it out.
Spitfire9spitfire, I think EADS has been roped in for consultancy, not BAe.
Thanks for that. Any idea which LCA versions will benefit – is it just MkII? Naval version/land version/both? I presume it’s too late for the MkI.
Spitfire9LCA-N is a very pretty aircraft. Am I right in thinking BaE Systems was going to provide consultancy re: the landing gear? Or was that for Tejas? Or am I just wrong?
Spitfire9Why would it be more controversial than other options ?
Because of the cost?
PS : It must be noted that Dilma (Brazilian favorite for the presidency) already met Sarkozy as well as martine aubry (french opposing party leader) sevral weeks ago and the rafale was the main subject. So that is hardly a surprise for the french side as they are already preparing the post election period.
Secondly as already said by several articles, the selection process has already gone too far to backpedal and the brazilian industry is anticipating a rafale export (see embraer stance).
A Rafale export to where? Or do you mean export of KC-390’s to France linked to a Rafale deal?
You say that the selection process has gone too far to backpedal. Unless Brazil has signed contracts with France, I don’t see why. SAAB has prepared and submitted its offer. Why would switching to Gripen after the election be so difficult?
Spitfire9According to Wikipedia, the first aircraft was some 900Kg or 20+% over design weight. If NAL missed the mark by that amount, it sounds like it has little alternative than to seek the help of others more able than itself.
That’s a lot less pathetic than NAL maintaining that it can fix the problem itself, failing to fix it and in the end putting a payload-limited aicraft into production.
Spitfire9Please note that GE and Eurojet submitted their bids in response to the RFP in Dec, 2009 (one day before the last date). Only 7 months later i.e. in July 2010, DRDO announced that the technical evaluation was over and commercial evaluation would begin. This will be done by MoD and finance ministry, I think.
Thanks for the clarification. It does not tie in with the article cited by you. The article written by Ajai Shukla in August 2008 stated:
“The selection of the Tejas LCA’s new engine in October — the choice (as the previous post deals with) is between the Eurojet EJ200 and the GE F-414 — will provide an extra 10 KiloNewtons of thrust to the Tejas.”
Either the writer had got it wrong saying the Tejas’ new engine was due to be selected in October 2008 or there was a big delay.
Please note that Mitsubishi company of Japan has sent an RFI for Kaveri for their 5th gen. fighter project. Its because Kaveri has proven itself in the 81 kN category. Its only that IAF’s requirements are 85-90 kN.
Pleased to hear that piece of news about the Kaveri generating foreign interest. I also appreciate that design creep may be the reason that the Kaveri “became” underpowered for the Tejas. It is a great shame that the GTRE guys could not squeeze an extra 10%+ more thrust out of the engine. Had they done that, it would have had sufficient power for the Tejas and the whole aircraft could be Indian. Goal achieved. Why didn’t they call in foreign help years ago to squeeze the necessary extra thrust out of the engine?
There are NO problems or denials about Tejas.
Please note :-
1) Two years back, a careless report in The Hindu newspaper claimed that Tejas was 2 tons overweight. It was later proven that Tejas is not overweight at all, but on par with its contemporaries like Gripen-C, JF-17 and KAI T-50. That report was baseless.
2) Now this report comes along that claims Tejas’ intakes are “faulty”, when no such thing is there. A delta-wing fighter like Mirage-2000 simply CANNOT execute 50 deg AoA like an F-18 gone crazy. So, this report has also proven to be baseless. As per this official technical document by ADA from 2005, (now defunct), the design target AoA of Tejas is 26 degrees, whereas 22 degrees had been touched at the time of publishing in 2005.
I’m sure that now it has touched 26 degrees AoA.
According to HAL the Tejas air intakes do not result in sub-optimal engine power from the GE engines. So why are auxiliary air intakes being provided to improve air intake “without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years”? To me it sounds very much like there is a problem that is being addressed. From the article you cited:
“1. Improving the air intake.
Top HAL decision-makers pooh-pooh the IAF’s contention that the LCA’s air intakes are incorrectly designed, resulting in oxygen starvation and incomplete burning and, therefore, sub-optimal engine power from the F-404s. At the same time, however, steps are being taken to improve air intake, without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years. Instead, auxiliary air intakes are being provided on the sides of the Tejas engine housing — similar to those on the Jaguar (see photos)”
Please note that contrary to your opinion, Tejas IS THE MOST WIDELY SCRUTINIZED AND CRITICIZED FIGHTER JET OF ALL TIME. ALL ITS TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS PUBLIC IN GREAT DETAIL, WHICH LEAVES NO DOUBT. EVEN THE LEGENDARY F-16s AND MiG-29s CANNOT BOAST SUCH HIGH LEVELS OF TRANSPARENCY.
I don’t hold the opinion you ascribe to me. I have no idea how transparent the Tejas program has been compared to any other program.
I wish the program all the best. I also wish it had been managed much, much better. Well enough for the IAF to be flying an all-Indian Tejas now.
Spitfire9Apparently the GTRE(Gas Turbine Research Establisment) is pushing hard for IAF to accept their joint venture with Snecma instead. Despite many, many calls for the Kaveri engine to be de-linked from the LCA project it hasn’t happened yet because the GTRE are fighting hard for their own survival over the program’s(in over 50 years they’ve developed very few things, this being the only significant one).
Thanks for your comments.
In view of what you say, I can absolutley understand GTRE favouring a Snecma joint venture. Timewise, however, the IAF needs the MkII soon.
I suspect that for time reasons any Snecma joint venture engine would have to be an M-88 with a locally designed badge saying “Kaveri” stuck on the side. OK, I exaggerate but I think that’s closer to reality than any talk of a true joint venture delivering the goods in time for Tejas MkII to start entering service mid-decade.
My thoughts: the LCA project was set up with the aim of creating an indigenous fast jet aviation industry. DRDO seem to have got close to reaching the standard wiith their contribution. GTRE have not. GTRE’s failure should not jeopardise the project. If GTRE is now contributing to the delay in choosing a MkII engine, the GoI should step in and put a stop to it. That’s easy isn’t it – the GoI funds IAF and GTRE, doesn’t it?
Spitfire9Senior Dassault officials in France briefed visiting Indian Air Force AOC-in-C Eastern Air Command, Air Marshal KK Nowhar, about the Rafale and reiterated the company’s willingness/ability to rapidly supply 40 Rafales to the IAF as a stopgap ahead of the MMRCA competition results. Dassault’s pitch plays on the IAF squadron depletions, and the assertion that none of the other MMRCA contenders can deliver new jets as quickly as it can.
Sounds to me like Dassault is trying to circumvent the MMRCA competition. What would be the cost of setting up support structure/training/spares etc for an interim batch of 40 Rafales? It would be enormous. Once India committed to those costs it would make little financial sense to incur them again by selecting a different aircraft in the MMRCA competition.
Regarding quick delivery, I think one or more Typhoon customers might easily be persuaded to part with aircraft already in their inventories. You can fly 40 existing Typhoons from Europe to India in a lot less time than you can build 40 Rafales then fly those from Europe to India.
Spitfire9Originally Posted by matt:
What ajai shukla is saying is that the lca intake have a tough time getting to 28 degrees because the inlets could choke. He may be wrong to quote the 50 degrees but he is crystal clear about that point.
Actually exactly 2 years ago on 17 July 2008, Ajai Shukla had written a detailed article about Tejas’ new auxillary intakes.
Did you also happen to spot its first sentence:
The selection of the Tejas LCA’s new engine in October…
How is it that the GE/Eurojet choice was due 3 months after the article was written but 23 months later the choice has still not been made? Starting from now, when is the choice between the engines due to be made? In another 3 months perhaps? That would be around June 2012, wouldn’t it? 🙁
Another thing:
In it he said, and I quote, “Top HAL decision-makers pooh-pooh the IAF’s contention that the LCA’s air intakes are incorrectly designed, resulting in oxygen starvation and incomplete burning and, therefore, sub-optimal engine power from the F-404s. At the same time, however, steps are being taken to improve air intake, without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years. Instead, auxiliary air intakes are being provided on the sides of the Tejas engine housing — similar to those on the Jaguar (see photos)……………..later LSPs will incorporate the auxiliary air intakes.“
I don’t follow why you should feel the need to spend time and money fixing something that is claimed not to be a problem unless it really is a problem.
I have the impression that an awful lot of failure in the LCA program is either ignored (eg failure to hold to schedule) or denied (eg air intake problems). You don’t get the result you want by failing to do things on time or by pretending problems don’t exist.
Spitfire9I don’t think they even need a majority. What choice do EADS and Saab have ?
They don’t have a domestic market, and if they want to stay in buiseness they have to look elsewhere.
(See EADS and their new offices in Bangalore).
So, buy a large share, get them involved in MCA (or whatever this thing is called by now), absorb technology, throw away. Or even better, use this company to sell MCA in Europe.
I don’t think there will be many European countries in the market for new fighters when the MCA becomes available:
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, UK will all have re-equipped with their indigenous/multinational offerings (+ F-35 for some).
Austria has recently re-equipped with Typhoons.
Norway, Denmark, Netherlands will have re-equipped with F-35 (or failing that probably Gripen NG).
Switzerland is due to re-equip soon.
I think that leaves Belgium and Portugal as the only countries in western Europe that will have ageing fighters needing replacement when the MCA becomes available.
Spitfire9Decision on new engine for Tejas Mk2 is advancing..close to commercial negotiations.
An upgraded and more powerful Kaveri engine is being seen initially as a replacement engine for the first batch of Tejas aircraft, Subramanyam added.
“Every aircraft in its lifetime needs two replacements. Some of those engines are already looking for that. By the time Kaveri gets developed and demonstrated, those engines can start coming as replacement engines for the first 20, 40 (aircraft),” he said. “There is full scope of what their profile is. It is very clear in our mind. The Kaveri engine profile for the next 30 years has a very strong dovetailing into the LCA programme,” he added.
It would be nice to see an engine with some indigenous content in the Tejas. I have to ask though – if it is to be based on the M-88 – will the Tejas MkI need to be redesigned to accept the new engine? If so, will installing the new engine involve taking aircraft out of service for long periods while they are not just re-engined but are first subjected to a major rebuild? I guess that might not matter if a MLU were implemented at the same time.
Spitfire9http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKGEE5B617P20091207
i think there is general confusion between. all codes and the needed codes
regional updates, weapon intergration, threat library and such and global fleet updates of core codes
There is no confusion. The deal struck with the UK (the highest level partner in the program) was that the UK would have access to the code it needed to achieve the operational sovereignty it needed. The deal was not that the US would decide this. That would be tantamount to the US having sovereignty over UK F-35’s.
The USA’s conduct in respect of UK F-35 sovereignty looks devious, dishonest and disreputable. Surprise, surprise – things are often the way they appear to be.
On this one I would say that the UK should announce that it will be ordering no F-35’s unless the USA gives an unambiguous undertaking to supply all source code requested. The USA has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to do so without such an undertaking. There comes a time when you have to say something like:
“I have been f**cked about enough by you. Enough is enough: get your devious head out of your devious ass or this deal is history.”
Spitfire9The F-35 project is in dire straits because all of its clients (including the US government) are stating that it is!
When everyone except emperor LM thinks the emperor is wearing no clothes, it does seem likely that the emperor has got it wrong.
Spitfire9when I remember the RAH-66 program that was cancelled after it went 30% over budget… :rolleyes:
Can the F-35 be cancelled? There is no alternative (to taking some F-35’s) IMO.
Spitfire9The Eurojet engine seems the obvious choice; a feasibility study was already done, and it should be quite straightforward (although still more complicated than with the F414 which was slotted in in “no time”).
Several options exist:
1. Get the first 36 Gripen NG with F414. The following Gripen NG would be with the EJ200. The first 36 can be retrofitted later or kept as is.
2. Get 36 Gripen C/D from Sweden; use those while the Gripen NG with EJ200 gets ready.
3. Get Gripen NG with F414 and a large number of spares. If you have the complete specs and tools and know-how to repair the engine, it is not really that critical. Look at Iran they are still flying F-14!!! A US boycott will not hurt Brazil. Keep in mind we’re talking engine here, not avionics (which needs a lot of updates to stay current). Brazil can develop a Gripen NG using the EJ200 for export only.
If the quest is for non-US materiel in the fighter force, option 2 seems like a very workable proposal.
The BAF wants a new fighter. It prefers the Gripen, presumably because it is aware that it needs to operate within a budget and this is done most easily with the Gripen. Gripen would be cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain and cheaper to arm than Rafale.
I am not sure how many Gripens are sitting around collecting dust in Sweden but I guess some of these could be leased at very low cost for a few years while an EJ engined Gripen NG was developed in conjunction with the Brazilian aviation sector.
Sign In
