lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
wet thrust 83kn definitely dry may same as before or maybe 54kn..
VSTOL JOCKEY'S Light Stealth Figther (LSA) First Images and Details
- Thread starter lcafanboy
- Start date
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
vstol just posted
I am well aware of what you are trying to state. Using high density meshing with a larger domain size and more number of iterations give you much finer results and more precise results. But a limited CFD analysis does give you a very good Idea about the aerodynamics of an aircraft/air foil. I had very clearly mentioned that I will get the full CFD analysis done from a CEMILAC certified agency at own expense once I get some backing from IAF/IN/MOD. I also know that to reach the stage of critical design review, I will not only need full CFD analysis but also wind tunnel testing.
I am well aware of what you are trying to state. Using high density meshing with a larger domain size and more number of iterations give you much finer results and more precise results. But a limited CFD analysis does give you a very good Idea about the aerodynamics of an aircraft/air foil. I had very clearly mentioned that I will get the full CFD analysis done from a CEMILAC certified agency at own expense once I get some backing from IAF/IN/MOD. I also know that to reach the stage of critical design review, I will not only need full CFD analysis but also wind tunnel testing.
airtel
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2015
- Messages
- 3,430
- Likes
- 7,814
abhi bhi fenk raha hai .
he does not have support of IAF/IN/MOD ...................no wind tunnel testing , no RCS testing .......
but Israelis are ready to Support , Europeans are ready to Provide EJ230 & thales is ready to Provide spectra
without any test He calculated the weight , speed & performance of the Aircraft ............and LSA is better than F-22 ...............
just Hilarious .
Immanuel
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,553
- Likes
- 7,469
He is certainly passionate about his design and he has spent quite some time trying to get MOD on board. He was also a Harrier pilot. The whole premise was to work with readily available tech and get the bird off the ground asap. His base to start with the Marut is also pretty cool, the problem is that he is quite unrealistic, initially the MOD and DRDO seemed to have looked at his work carefully but probably got shot down because his work needs too much time and effort to verify/correct/rework etc. This doesn't mean I endorse his design, far from it, but let's not mock people who have spent considerable amount of time trying to pitch a new idea however full of shortcomings it is. It takes billions in cash, thousands of people working millions of man hours to get a 5th gen aircraft flying.
Atleast he is thinking about a home made 5th gen single engine aircraft while it appears IAF is sleeping in this regard.
Atleast he is thinking about a home made 5th gen single engine aircraft while it appears IAF is sleeping in this regard.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
EFFECT OF LSA ON AIR WARFARE - At the tactical level LSA will have a large impact in Beyond Visual Range and Within Visual Range air combat. Most recent analyses of relative air combat capabilities assume that BVR combat will arise much more frequently than WVR combat. The basis of this assumption is that opposing air combat capabilities are easily detected and tracked by ISR systems, permitting fighter aircraft to choose the time, place and type of engagements to an advantage. This assumption collapses if the opposing fighter has significant VLO capability, as the LSA will have. The result is that attacking LSA will have to be engaged at much closer ranges than existing non-stealthy threats, as they enter predictable geometries, when attacking high value targets such as AWACS/AEW&C platforms, tankers, or defended surface assets. Another important qualification is that the extreme agility of the LSA will significantly degrade the kill probability of all Air to Air Missiles, (AAM) especially though the AIM-120 AMRAAM, which will be challenged to sustain the necessary manoeuvres to defeat the LSA. Like the F-22A Raptor, the LSA will provide a significant capability for the kinematic defeat of inbound missile shots.
A radar cross section of only -20 dBSM would deny early Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile shots using the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM to all current and planned fighters. Doing any better, like -30 dBSM or -40 dBSM, simply increases the level of difficulty in prosecuting long range missile attacks. The consequence of this is that missile combat will be compressed into shorter distances and shorter timelines, putting a premium on the stealth, supersonic persistence and close combat agility of fighters. A larger portion of engagements will be at visual range, and most BVR engagements will end up taking place inside 30 nautical miles. In Beyond Visual Range combat, the combination of supersonic cruise and competitive VLO performance will allow the LSA to emulate the tactics developed for the F-22A Raptor. The LSA can thus be expected to produce greater lopsided air combat exchange rates to those achieved by the F-22A Raptor when flown against legacy fighters. Even if the LSA was only to attain half of the effectiveness of the F-22A Raptor, it will still yield BVR exchange rates of the order of 50:1 against legacy fighters. The arrival of the LSA therefore irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the 4th generation of fighter aircraft in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. These aircraft will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where neither the LSA is deployed nor is able to be deployed. No less interesting is the impact at a tactical level when the LSA is flown against the F-22A Raptor. Fights between the F-22A and the LSA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A will neither get ‘first look’ nor “first shot” with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the LSA will get “first look” & ‘first Shot’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time. The tactical impact of a low cost LSA is therefore a loss of the overwhelming advantage provided until now by the F-22A Raptor. Flown against the LSA, a decisive outcome can only be guaranteed by numerical superiority of the F-22A force in theatre.
The arrival of the LSA therefore also irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, defined around a 1990s technology threat spectrum, in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. The F-35 will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where LSA is not deployed. The operational impact of indecisive combat loss exchange rates between a low cost LSA and the F-22A Raptor, and very high F-35 Joint Strike Fighter loss rates against a low cost LSA will have major implications at an operational level, and consequently, at a strategic and political level. Once the LSA is deployed within a theatre of operations, especially if it is supported robustly by counter-VLO capable ISR systems, the adversary will no longer have the capability to rapidly impose air superiority, or possibly even achieve air superiority. This will not only deny the adversary access to an opponent's defended airspace, it also presents the prospect of adversary being unable to reliably defend in-theatre basing and lines of resupply. Should this occur, in-theatre basing and surface assets become exposed to air attack by aircraft armed with a wide range of accurate and highly lethal Precision Guided Munitions, with the potential for very high loss of life and equipment deployed in theatre.
The deployment of a low cost LSA into such an environment very significantly increases risks to adversary forces, as the aircraft can credibly challenge the F-22A Raptor in air combat. While the intended survivable strike/ISR aircraft may, eventually, provide a credible capability to penetrate advanced anti-access capabilities, and thus attack opposing airfields, it will need to be defended against the LSA, and airfields deploying this aircraft will also need to be defended against LSA tasked with counter-air strike missions. The adversary will be denied access to any operational theatre into which credible numbers of the LSA are deployed. In turn, the adversary will be deterred from the use of conventional forces in such a scenario. The consequence of this, in turn, is that significant pressure will be placed to threaten the use of, or operationally use, tactical nuclear weapons. The only practical low risk option available is to deploy over this decade large numbers of advanced fighter aircraft which are competitive against the LSA in air combat. The proposed “sixth generation fighter” is not a viable contender in this time frame. The F-35 is not competitive and cannot be made to be competitive due to basic design limitations in aerodynamic and VLO shaping performance. The only aircraft which can survive in airspace contested by the LSA is the F-22 Raptor, and given the time frame of interest, it is the only design which can be adapted to defeat the LSA. The LSA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.
LSA will be another marvel of frugal engineering skills of us Indians and will be remembered along with Mangalyaan mission as a low cost wonder of exceptionally high technical skills. It is derived from two well proven aircraft types which have been extensively used in India. LSA aircraft project is designed to address the need of high performance, affordable, low cost, light fighter which has capabilities of fifth generation fighters and can become an effective replacement for F-4, F-5, F-16, Mig-21, Mig-23/27, Mig-29 and Mirage series of fighters world over. There is a requirement of over 3000 such aircraft today and the aircraft in production are prohibitively costly to be acquired by any country in large numbers.
A radar cross section of only -20 dBSM would deny early Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile shots using the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM to all current and planned fighters. Doing any better, like -30 dBSM or -40 dBSM, simply increases the level of difficulty in prosecuting long range missile attacks. The consequence of this is that missile combat will be compressed into shorter distances and shorter timelines, putting a premium on the stealth, supersonic persistence and close combat agility of fighters. A larger portion of engagements will be at visual range, and most BVR engagements will end up taking place inside 30 nautical miles. In Beyond Visual Range combat, the combination of supersonic cruise and competitive VLO performance will allow the LSA to emulate the tactics developed for the F-22A Raptor. The LSA can thus be expected to produce greater lopsided air combat exchange rates to those achieved by the F-22A Raptor when flown against legacy fighters. Even if the LSA was only to attain half of the effectiveness of the F-22A Raptor, it will still yield BVR exchange rates of the order of 50:1 against legacy fighters. The arrival of the LSA therefore irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the 4th generation of fighter aircraft in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. These aircraft will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where neither the LSA is deployed nor is able to be deployed. No less interesting is the impact at a tactical level when the LSA is flown against the F-22A Raptor. Fights between the F-22A and the LSA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A will neither get ‘first look’ nor “first shot” with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the LSA will get “first look” & ‘first Shot’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time. The tactical impact of a low cost LSA is therefore a loss of the overwhelming advantage provided until now by the F-22A Raptor. Flown against the LSA, a decisive outcome can only be guaranteed by numerical superiority of the F-22A force in theatre.
The arrival of the LSA therefore also irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, defined around a 1990s technology threat spectrum, in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. The F-35 will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where LSA is not deployed. The operational impact of indecisive combat loss exchange rates between a low cost LSA and the F-22A Raptor, and very high F-35 Joint Strike Fighter loss rates against a low cost LSA will have major implications at an operational level, and consequently, at a strategic and political level. Once the LSA is deployed within a theatre of operations, especially if it is supported robustly by counter-VLO capable ISR systems, the adversary will no longer have the capability to rapidly impose air superiority, or possibly even achieve air superiority. This will not only deny the adversary access to an opponent's defended airspace, it also presents the prospect of adversary being unable to reliably defend in-theatre basing and lines of resupply. Should this occur, in-theatre basing and surface assets become exposed to air attack by aircraft armed with a wide range of accurate and highly lethal Precision Guided Munitions, with the potential for very high loss of life and equipment deployed in theatre.
The deployment of a low cost LSA into such an environment very significantly increases risks to adversary forces, as the aircraft can credibly challenge the F-22A Raptor in air combat. While the intended survivable strike/ISR aircraft may, eventually, provide a credible capability to penetrate advanced anti-access capabilities, and thus attack opposing airfields, it will need to be defended against the LSA, and airfields deploying this aircraft will also need to be defended against LSA tasked with counter-air strike missions. The adversary will be denied access to any operational theatre into which credible numbers of the LSA are deployed. In turn, the adversary will be deterred from the use of conventional forces in such a scenario. The consequence of this, in turn, is that significant pressure will be placed to threaten the use of, or operationally use, tactical nuclear weapons. The only practical low risk option available is to deploy over this decade large numbers of advanced fighter aircraft which are competitive against the LSA in air combat. The proposed “sixth generation fighter” is not a viable contender in this time frame. The F-35 is not competitive and cannot be made to be competitive due to basic design limitations in aerodynamic and VLO shaping performance. The only aircraft which can survive in airspace contested by the LSA is the F-22 Raptor, and given the time frame of interest, it is the only design which can be adapted to defeat the LSA. The LSA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.
LSA will be another marvel of frugal engineering skills of us Indians and will be remembered along with Mangalyaan mission as a low cost wonder of exceptionally high technical skills. It is derived from two well proven aircraft types which have been extensively used in India. LSA aircraft project is designed to address the need of high performance, affordable, low cost, light fighter which has capabilities of fifth generation fighters and can become an effective replacement for F-4, F-5, F-16, Mig-21, Mig-23/27, Mig-29 and Mirage series of fighters world over. There is a requirement of over 3000 such aircraft today and the aircraft in production are prohibitively costly to be acquired by any country in large numbers.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,433
- Likes
- 7,047
? all the details of the contract are not know (as for the Qatar's Rafale).
We heard some things about a full after burner of 82 Kn and a dry of 55 Kn.... but not proof so far, for Qatar and for India.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
http://*****************/data/avatars/m/6/6253.jpg?1394556931
Online
vstol jockeyColonelSTRATEGIST
New
I have listed below the timelines for the project and money required for each stage. These projections assume that LSA will be built by Private industry and final assembly to be done at any of the IAF BRDs which have highly trained manpower readily available. We can use any of these BRDs to assemble this aircraft by following the Distributed Manufacturing Process used by Airbus and Boeing. We will use existing vendors like TATAs, MAHINDRAs, HAL etc to make components as per our requirement while we do the final assembly and flight testing. GOI can put the money thru IAF. Purchase of these aircraft by IAF & IN can be subsidised thru export earnings. This is the cheapest, quickest, least risk and safest way of manufacturing this aircraft therefore the expenditure projections are INR 1700 crores. A private player will need to create the infrastructure to undertake a project of this size and quality. The time lines for flight test are realistic as this aircraft is a stable design which uses Power-by-Wire control system. Removing Fly-by-Wire system as a prerequisite will save lots of money, time and effort in developing this aircraft while Power-by-Wire control system allows us the option to install Fly-by-Wire at a later date. I have over 2000 hrs each on B737NG and A320 which is FBW and I have also flown Hunters and Sea Harriers in the Navy. I can say that non FBW control system is better suited for fighter aircraft which are of Stable design and have 3D TVC.
Within three months - Complete the refined digital model of the aircraft and CFD analysis of the airframe. Hire the required manpower to coordinate aircraft manufacturing with established vendors within India and Abroad. Initiate discussions for purchase of engine and other such equipment. We will need INR 100 crores for this phase.
Within six months – Complete the Digital Detailed Manufacturing model and wind tunnel testing of the design. Assign work to manufacturers and vendors for supply of aircraft systems to start construction of first prototype. Hire the Test Pilots and engineers to build the prototype and create flight testing team. Start Teaser campaign to be able to generate interest about this aircraft in world market. We will need INR 100 crores for this phase.
Within eighteen months - Complete the first two prototypes and all ground checks to start flight testing. Commence sales campaign to sell this aircraft in world market. Depending on the feedback from world market, commence preparations for full scale manufacturing of the aircraft. We will need INR 300 crores for this phase.
Within twenty one months – Complete the flight testing phase to prove the air frame and bay door operation including spin test and high Alpha flying ability using first two prototypes. Start construction of 3rd & 4th prototype with modifications needed based on flight testing of first two prototypes, if any. These prototypes will be in full fighter configuration with all sensors and equipment fitted for weapons trials. Also start the construction of trainer version of Ghost. We will need INR 600 crores for this phase. In case no further modification are needed to the airframe, the mass production can be started at this stage as only software issue may remain to be resolved after this phase.
Within thirty months – Complete the construction of 3rd & 4th prototype and the Trainer version and bring them into flight testing. Commence demonstration flights and complete the preparations for weapon firing trials. We will need INR 250 crores for this phase.
Within thirty six months – Complete the proving flights with different weapon load configuration and weapon firing from internal bays and exposed pylons. We will need INR 150 crores for this phase. This stage will culminate in FOC for the aircraft.
The FOC will be achieved for those weapon systems which are operational on Mig-21 and LCA MK1. Any additional weapons integration with be done post FOC. The internal bays will be certified for full weapon configuration for SEAD/DEAD ops as part of FOC. LSA will have a seamless entry into service compared to Rafale as we will need to spend a fortune for creating the infrastructure and support equipment for operating Rafale from various air bases in addition to acquisition cost, LSA will use the infrastructure and support equipment created for Mig-21 for operating from any air base of IAF.
Online
vstol jockeyColonelSTRATEGIST
New
I have listed below the timelines for the project and money required for each stage. These projections assume that LSA will be built by Private industry and final assembly to be done at any of the IAF BRDs which have highly trained manpower readily available. We can use any of these BRDs to assemble this aircraft by following the Distributed Manufacturing Process used by Airbus and Boeing. We will use existing vendors like TATAs, MAHINDRAs, HAL etc to make components as per our requirement while we do the final assembly and flight testing. GOI can put the money thru IAF. Purchase of these aircraft by IAF & IN can be subsidised thru export earnings. This is the cheapest, quickest, least risk and safest way of manufacturing this aircraft therefore the expenditure projections are INR 1700 crores. A private player will need to create the infrastructure to undertake a project of this size and quality. The time lines for flight test are realistic as this aircraft is a stable design which uses Power-by-Wire control system. Removing Fly-by-Wire system as a prerequisite will save lots of money, time and effort in developing this aircraft while Power-by-Wire control system allows us the option to install Fly-by-Wire at a later date. I have over 2000 hrs each on B737NG and A320 which is FBW and I have also flown Hunters and Sea Harriers in the Navy. I can say that non FBW control system is better suited for fighter aircraft which are of Stable design and have 3D TVC.
Within three months - Complete the refined digital model of the aircraft and CFD analysis of the airframe. Hire the required manpower to coordinate aircraft manufacturing with established vendors within India and Abroad. Initiate discussions for purchase of engine and other such equipment. We will need INR 100 crores for this phase.
Within six months – Complete the Digital Detailed Manufacturing model and wind tunnel testing of the design. Assign work to manufacturers and vendors for supply of aircraft systems to start construction of first prototype. Hire the Test Pilots and engineers to build the prototype and create flight testing team. Start Teaser campaign to be able to generate interest about this aircraft in world market. We will need INR 100 crores for this phase.
Within eighteen months - Complete the first two prototypes and all ground checks to start flight testing. Commence sales campaign to sell this aircraft in world market. Depending on the feedback from world market, commence preparations for full scale manufacturing of the aircraft. We will need INR 300 crores for this phase.
Within twenty one months – Complete the flight testing phase to prove the air frame and bay door operation including spin test and high Alpha flying ability using first two prototypes. Start construction of 3rd & 4th prototype with modifications needed based on flight testing of first two prototypes, if any. These prototypes will be in full fighter configuration with all sensors and equipment fitted for weapons trials. Also start the construction of trainer version of Ghost. We will need INR 600 crores for this phase. In case no further modification are needed to the airframe, the mass production can be started at this stage as only software issue may remain to be resolved after this phase.
Within thirty months – Complete the construction of 3rd & 4th prototype and the Trainer version and bring them into flight testing. Commence demonstration flights and complete the preparations for weapon firing trials. We will need INR 250 crores for this phase.
Within thirty six months – Complete the proving flights with different weapon load configuration and weapon firing from internal bays and exposed pylons. We will need INR 150 crores for this phase. This stage will culminate in FOC for the aircraft.
The FOC will be achieved for those weapon systems which are operational on Mig-21 and LCA MK1. Any additional weapons integration with be done post FOC. The internal bays will be certified for full weapon configuration for SEAD/DEAD ops as part of FOC. LSA will have a seamless entry into service compared to Rafale as we will need to spend a fortune for creating the infrastructure and support equipment for operating Rafale from various air bases in addition to acquisition cost, LSA will use the infrastructure and support equipment created for Mig-21 for operating from any air base of IAF.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
The wetted area of HF-24 and LSA retains the same figure even though it has wing area of 32.22sqm vs 28.5sqm of HF-24. This has been possible due to the lesser overall length of LSA vs HF-24. During cruise, the profile drag is paramount while induced drag takes over during combat manoeuvring. HF-24 could reach Mach-1.02 at 36K feet using 2x22KN turbojets in dry power. What will be the speed of LSA witha 72KN dry thrust Turbofan engine when the profile drag and wing sweep back angle of both aircraft is same? LSA will be able do full combat using just the dry thrust and will need wet thrust only for take off and sustained 9G turns.
The design of an aircraft starts by choosing the correct Reynolds number for itswing as that is based on the kind of performance the aircraft is supposed to generate. I used the Reynolds number of Mig-21 for LSA as LSA needs better mid/high altitude performance. It does not need to fly at low levels to avoid radars as its stealth does that job for it.
The design of an aircraft starts by choosing the correct Reynolds number for itswing as that is based on the kind of performance the aircraft is supposed to generate. I used the Reynolds number of Mig-21 for LSA as LSA needs better mid/high altitude performance. It does not need to fly at low levels to avoid radars as its stealth does that job for it.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
http://*****************/data/avatars/m/6/6253.jpg?1394556931
Online
vstol jockeyColonelSTRATEGIST
New
This is what I had suggested for LSA funding to top boss.
ZERO COST WEAPONS PURCHASE
I have a proposal for making in India which will ensure that IAF/IN get them at highly subsidised rates or even at zero cost to nation. The proposal is detailed below:-
Online
vstol jockeyColonelSTRATEGIST
New
This is what I had suggested for LSA funding to top boss.
ZERO COST WEAPONS PURCHASE
I have a proposal for making in India which will ensure that IAF/IN get them at highly subsidised rates or even at zero cost to nation. The proposal is detailed below:-
- Let us manufacture LSA using distributed manufacturing process in one of the BRDs of IAF using IAF manpower while the Private sector will be roped in as Tier-1 equipment supplier.
- I will register a company for manufacturing Aerial vehicles in which any GOI company can pick up a stake of 49% and seed capital/funds being provided by GOI from “Start Up India” fund.
- The company thus formed will have five board members of which two will be appointed by GOI and can be an official each from MOD & IAF of the rank of Jt. Secretary or above. The audit of this company will be done by CAG to ensure full accountability and transparency.
- We have very little to learn from Pakistan but they did one thing correct. Their defence production is completely controlled by their armed forces.
- It will take me six months to complete the design validation and reach a stage where all risks associated with this program are mitigated & decision to build LSA aircraft can be taken. We will need a total of just about INR 35 crores for stage-1 and we can drastically reduce this cost if ADA/NAL can be roped in for this job.
- We will then set up a domestic & International vendor base to create s strong and robust supply chain with clearly laid down milestones for transfer of technology to Indian partners by International vendors. Even the Indian vendors will be encouraged to seek best manufacturing technologies from foreign companies to create a strong aviation Ecosystem in India.
- My company will start a high pitched sales campaign in collaboration with MEA to generate interest in LSA in our prospective markets.
- We will use Barter trade instead of using USD or any other currency to sell this aircraft. We import a very large amount of crude oil from Middle East, Edible oils from South East Asia, Uranium from CIS & food items like Pulses from Africa. Such a barter trade will give a boost to the industries of both the nations besides removing trade imbalance turning it into a win-win deal for both nations involved.
- A Dollar saved is a Dollar earned. We will enter the markets thru barter trade and earn double the amount thru maintenance contracts which will be paid thru in USD only.
- JF-17 costs PAF USD22m/ac while they have been able to find buyers for that aircraft for USD30m/ac. LSA will be far superior to JF-17 & American F-15/16/18, GripenNG, Rafale & Typhoon. I foresee no problem in selling this aircraft easily with a margin of 100% on cost price.
- It is very common to charge 200% profit in weapon sales and for Fighters it can go up to 250% of the cost price. LSA is a unique design with no such aircraft even under consideration anywhere in the world. Its cost price will be around USD25m/ac as it will have a very small development budget and can be easily sold at double this price due to the capabilities it will have.
- The money earned thru exports will be used to fund the acquisition of LSA by IAF/IN at ZERO COST TO NATION. We may have a situation wherein, initial purchase by IAF/IN may be against payments but once exports pickup, this money will be reimbursed to GOI thru dividend payments.
- In addition GOI will have the option to sell off its equity in part or full and make more money over and above the dividend pay outs once the company is listed. This is what is probably called, “Aam kay Aam aur guthliyon kay bhi daam, that too, double”.
- A model of this kind does not exist in the world. In western world all armament industries are privately owned and their govts earn only thru taxes on profits. Russia and China have such model but the companies are majority held by governments. In my model, GOI will earn thru taxes on profits, thru Dividend & also thru equity sale. This is virtually like growing money on a tree.
- If my proposal is accepted, I can complete this exercise within 30days and I will be in a position to complete stage-1 by August this year followed by first prototype roll out in Dec 2018.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
The Philosophy of LSA
Keep it small - Empty weight is a major factor in aircraft's cost, since higher empty weight means more materials used as well as more man hours of work to build it. Thus smaller aircraft are cheaper, assuming identical technology level. Further, smaller aircraft use less fuel and have lower operating costs. Keeping aircraft smaller will also improve its air combat ability, as it will improve ability to achieve surprise thru visual and electronic means as well as transient performance, which is crucial for outmaneuvering an opponent.
Keep it simple - This should be true for both development and the final product. Design group should have one person overseeing the process, and one engineer for every area (reliability engineer instead of group dedicated to reliability, for example). It should be small enough so that all people in the group can effectively work together at a single place. Management should be hands-off, so that once design goals have been provided in broad outlines, neither the military or upper levels of the company interfere with the design process. Military in particular should only define what weapon should do in broad outlines, and leave it to company to decide on how weapon will achieve these goals. Formalization during process should be minimized - military should get the same data, and in the same format, as the design group, and it shouldn't go through approval cycles. The time frame for development must be fixed and military strictly forbidden from changing the broad outlines. A military incapable of clearly defining its needs for next 15 years must not engage itself in writing the broad outlines for any project.
Keep it single - This is a key factor in keeping the aircraft simple while achieving adequate effectiveness. Fighter aircraft should be single-role, single-engine and single-seat. It should also be designed in such a manner that only role specific equipment is changed in each airframe. The design therefore must be capable of being adopted for a vide range of missions with enough of space available within the airframe to integrate role specific sensors without the need for changing the main design of the aircraft to save cost and production time.
Use the Nature – Every predator in the nature has a small size for visual stealth and extremely high agility and speed with ability to blend within its surroundings and sensors to search and track its prey during hunting. Same is true about weapon designs and we must try and achieve stealth by use of size, shape and skin only. Use of exotic, complex technologies for stealth will only create problems for maintenance and effective deployment in battle.
Use proven designs and systems – Using proven airframes, wing and system designs and integrating them will help reduce development time and expedite entry into service time. Many YF designated fighters of USAF were created using this philosophy. This helps reduce the production cost as the existing vendors are given more repeat orders.
Start from the weapons - This is one of the reasons for why aircraft should be single-role. When designing an aircraft, one should always consider what weapons will it use and how will it use them. This means that sensors for air superiority aircraft - using gun and air-to-air missiles - will be very different from those for ground attack aircraft, which typically carry bombs and missiles far fatter and less aerodynamic than air-to-air missiles are. If done properly, however, it will reduce cost of both designs, weapon integration and testing, and will lead to improved performance with much shorter time for entry into service with full FOC for that particular role.
Procede to Sensors - The sensor selection should be based on the weapons integration asked for by the military in their broad outline for weapons. They should not be allowed to dictate the terms or change them as that may need a complete reconfiguration of the design. As far as possible, use the systems of an aircraft which already has an FOC and integrate them to shorten the entry into service time.
Use off the shelf components - Using off the shelf components where acceptable would reduce development time and costs, since some systems will not have to be developed, but some factors influencing the end design may also be known. For example, using an existing engine, Hydraulics, electrical systems, actuators - will automatically point to some design and performance parameters. Using an existing gun means that issues concerning size and weight of a weapon as well as possible vibration issues can be known before the design process even starts.
Optimize the production - Optimization of the production line also plays part in the cost of a fighter aircraft. Typically, cost falls the longer the aircraft is in production. This decrease is comparably small for modern fighters but in large numbers can lead to significant total savings. Entire aircraft should be produced using Distributed manufacturing process and assembled at one place, so that any errors in production can be fixed as soon as possible.
Keep it small - Empty weight is a major factor in aircraft's cost, since higher empty weight means more materials used as well as more man hours of work to build it. Thus smaller aircraft are cheaper, assuming identical technology level. Further, smaller aircraft use less fuel and have lower operating costs. Keeping aircraft smaller will also improve its air combat ability, as it will improve ability to achieve surprise thru visual and electronic means as well as transient performance, which is crucial for outmaneuvering an opponent.
Keep it simple - This should be true for both development and the final product. Design group should have one person overseeing the process, and one engineer for every area (reliability engineer instead of group dedicated to reliability, for example). It should be small enough so that all people in the group can effectively work together at a single place. Management should be hands-off, so that once design goals have been provided in broad outlines, neither the military or upper levels of the company interfere with the design process. Military in particular should only define what weapon should do in broad outlines, and leave it to company to decide on how weapon will achieve these goals. Formalization during process should be minimized - military should get the same data, and in the same format, as the design group, and it shouldn't go through approval cycles. The time frame for development must be fixed and military strictly forbidden from changing the broad outlines. A military incapable of clearly defining its needs for next 15 years must not engage itself in writing the broad outlines for any project.
Keep it single - This is a key factor in keeping the aircraft simple while achieving adequate effectiveness. Fighter aircraft should be single-role, single-engine and single-seat. It should also be designed in such a manner that only role specific equipment is changed in each airframe. The design therefore must be capable of being adopted for a vide range of missions with enough of space available within the airframe to integrate role specific sensors without the need for changing the main design of the aircraft to save cost and production time.
Use the Nature – Every predator in the nature has a small size for visual stealth and extremely high agility and speed with ability to blend within its surroundings and sensors to search and track its prey during hunting. Same is true about weapon designs and we must try and achieve stealth by use of size, shape and skin only. Use of exotic, complex technologies for stealth will only create problems for maintenance and effective deployment in battle.
Use proven designs and systems – Using proven airframes, wing and system designs and integrating them will help reduce development time and expedite entry into service time. Many YF designated fighters of USAF were created using this philosophy. This helps reduce the production cost as the existing vendors are given more repeat orders.
Start from the weapons - This is one of the reasons for why aircraft should be single-role. When designing an aircraft, one should always consider what weapons will it use and how will it use them. This means that sensors for air superiority aircraft - using gun and air-to-air missiles - will be very different from those for ground attack aircraft, which typically carry bombs and missiles far fatter and less aerodynamic than air-to-air missiles are. If done properly, however, it will reduce cost of both designs, weapon integration and testing, and will lead to improved performance with much shorter time for entry into service with full FOC for that particular role.
Procede to Sensors - The sensor selection should be based on the weapons integration asked for by the military in their broad outline for weapons. They should not be allowed to dictate the terms or change them as that may need a complete reconfiguration of the design. As far as possible, use the systems of an aircraft which already has an FOC and integrate them to shorten the entry into service time.
Use off the shelf components - Using off the shelf components where acceptable would reduce development time and costs, since some systems will not have to be developed, but some factors influencing the end design may also be known. For example, using an existing engine, Hydraulics, electrical systems, actuators - will automatically point to some design and performance parameters. Using an existing gun means that issues concerning size and weight of a weapon as well as possible vibration issues can be known before the design process even starts.
Optimize the production - Optimization of the production line also plays part in the cost of a fighter aircraft. Typically, cost falls the longer the aircraft is in production. This decrease is comparably small for modern fighters but in large numbers can lead to significant total savings. Entire aircraft should be produced using Distributed manufacturing process and assembled at one place, so that any errors in production can be fixed as soon as possible.
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
I am reposting theconcept and how it is based on HF-24. Once you see the comparison of LSA vs HF-24 design, you will understand every part of it. I have just tweaked HF-24 design to create LSA and increased the Reynolds number of the wing to give it better mid/highaltitude performance.
http://*****************/attachments/hf-24-cutaway-jpg.3311/
http://*****************/attachments/hf-24-cutaway-jpg.3311/
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,802
- Likes
- 37,220
LSA will be known as a marvel of Indian frugal engineering skills like Mangalyaan mission. No one will ever accept that a supersonic stealth fighter can be made with a budget of just USD 300m which is less than the development budget of world’s cheapest car called Tata Nano. It is a completely re-designed HF-24 aircraft with single engine. HF-24 all metallic airframe weighed 2.85tons with a length of 15.87m giving it an OWE of 6.25 tons with four 30MM Aden Cannons. LSA design is 13.75m long with one GSH-30mm gun and LERX-mid wing Delta-Tail planform with lots of composite construction and avionics far lighter compared to HF-24. I have calculated an empty weight of 5.75 tons for LSA including Internal bay launchers, bay door opening systems. The OWE of this aircraft is expected to be 6 tons. The weapon load is 6.25 tons with internal fuel volume of 3.5 tons giving it a MTOW of 15.75 tons. The 3D TVC of this aircraft will be based on the principles of Sea Harrier as this aircraft will have stable design. A switch on HOTAS will engage TVC and merge the movement of elevators and rudders to TVC giving the pilot ability to use TVC on demand during combat and switch between stable to unstable flight regimes on demand. 3D thrust vectoring nozzles will also act as additional control surface and its twin rudders as V-tail will augment the control authority of Tail plane based on a combination of speed + Alpha + Pilot demand. This design uses off-the-shelf technologies presently available within India developed for LCA program and does not need any R & D for any of its systems. The FOC will be achieved for those weapon systems which are operational on Mig-21 and LCA MK1. Any additional weapons integration will be done post FOC. The internal bays will be certified for full weapon configuration for SEAD/DEAD ops as part of FOC. LSA will have a seamless entry into service as it will use the infrastructure and support equipment created for Mig-21 for operating from any air base of IAF. LSA will have a total of 16 stations for carrying a variety of loads comprising six internal, six under wing, two wingtip and two CFT stations. LSA uses air foil of HF-24 which was the first ever supersonic, supercritical air foil of the world. The HF-24 airfoil round LE will be converted to sharp LE for better subsonic /supersonic performance with addition of LE maneuver Flaps and double slotted TE Flaps. Even the fuselage has been shaped as per this airfoil. The modified LERX-Delta-Tail planform has the Reynolds number of Mig-21 wing. I have enumerated below the changes I had made to the HF-24 design to make it LSA and attached the superimposed images of LSA & HF-24 to highlight them.
- The nose has been shaped to become a lifting surface and also provide very predictable vortex shedding with a very small boundary layer to help reduce the size of air intakes as the gap between the boundary layer diverter and the intake will be 8 cms only which is lesser than any other design with similar intake arrangements.
- The fore body shape coupled with LERX will also provide a wing-body AC which will be of special use during super cruise. The LERX will provide a very strong vortex to pull the airflow towards the fuselage by increasing the span efficiency & overall lift. They will also increase resistance to spin and provide very effective high AOA stability.
- LSA nose is shaped as a hexagonal and has a maximum width of 1.4m compared to 1.2m width of HF-24. Length of the nose has been reduced and will have same drag polar as that of HF-24.
- The nose provides space for IRST, OLS-K EOTS and 0.45 sqm area for AESA radar. The gun will be accessed from main weapons bay for loading and unloading including servicing.
- The cockpit is very spacious and offers same comfort level and equipment fit as that of Jaguar aircraft and provides 360* visibility.
- HF-24 had 4x30mm guns with 130 rounds each internally. This space has been converted to avionics bay which will be lowered down like the HF-24 rocket pack for maintenance purposes and to access various LRUs. This will also ensure that we can upgrade LSA avionics anytime without the need for changing the internal set up. The 50x68mm Rocket pack will now house the 150 rds of ammo for one GSh-30mm cannon to be fitted in the nose.
- LSA is a mid-wing design compared to low-wing HF-24. Raising the wing on the fuselage and lowering the engine to have a thrust line below the wing line will provide a nose pitch up moment due to thrust which will assist the Tail plane in providing very high control authority and outstanding pitch rate ability far superior to any RSS design presently flying in India. This combination will also help reduce Trim Drag. The circular intakes have been converted to wing root intakes and allow for airflow of 84kgs/second with 8cms left for boundary layer bleed off on each side.
- LSA wing has a sweepback of 50* and area of 32.22sqm with 9m span and 2.15m long LERX & Aspect ratio of 2.51 which is best figure for a multirole aircraft. HF-24 quarter chord sweepback was 45* while LSA is 42*. The wings will have LE flaps & TE double slotted 60% exposed span flaps borrowed from Jaguar. Primary FCS will be controlled by EHSAs and will have Power-by-Wire architecture which is same as FBW in Direct Law. The secondary flight controls & weapons bay doors will be actuated by Hydraulics & rotary electrical actuators.
- LSA provides for 50% additional internal fuel volume compared to HF-24.The additional fuel capacity is a result of single elliptical air duct and 10cm thicker fuselage compared to HF-24 which had 1.45m thick fuselage.
- LSA will have Gripen like fully internally housed telescopic IFR probe to maintain low RCS.
- The main weapons bay is 4.25m long, 62.5cms deep and 1.1m wide. HF-24 had a 35cms deep fuel tank below the fuselage which has been converted into main weapons bay by increasing the fuselage thickness by 10cms and reshaping the air duct to elliptical shape like that of F-16. The main bay is capable of carrying 2xK77M or 2xAstra or 2xHarpoons or 2xKH35UE or 2x1000lb bombs or 8xSPICE250 and every weapon designed for Pak-Fa.
- Large internal weapons bay of LSA can be adopted to carry multiple payloads for specialist missions like F-18SH Growler for exclusive EW/Recce role and can be converted to carry directed energy weapons of the 6th Gen fighters in future.
- Each side bay can carry one 1xK-77M/Astra and 1xK-74M2/ASRAAM. The Lower side bays are 3.8m long while the upper side bay is 3.2m long and their combined width is 70cms and depth is 45cms.
- The outstanding wing-body blending will add a large part of overall lift besides drastically reducing the Interference drag. LSA has the best wing-body blending compared to any other aircraft of similar nature anywhere in the world and it is nearly as good as a flying wing in mid fuselage section.
- The upper fuselage has area ruling to reduce drag at all stages of flight. Tail plane has sweepback of 50* with span-5.2m, tail arm-4.35m, Vbar-0.41.
- The use of twin rudders positioned out of LERX wake, will provide much superior directional control with extremely high yaw stability besides acting as a V-tail to provide increased nose pitch up authority at extremely low speeds and extremely high AOA. The twin V-tail shaped rudders will also lower the overall stance of the aircraft which will reduce its visual & radar cross section to increase its stealth capability.
- The wheel base is 5m, wheel track-3m, topple angle-30*, Nose wheel weight-15%, main wheel weight-85%. The nose gear is same as Mig-21 and the main gear is borrowed from LCA. The main gear doors will also be the airbrakes.
- The tail clearance angle is 20* which allows this aircraft to fly 15 Alpha approach to exploit the full potential of LERX. LSA will have approach speeds of less than 115 kits and can be easily adopted for Carrier operation.
- The engine of choice is EJ230 with 72KN dry thrust and 103KN wet thrust giving it a TWR of 0.8 at loaded weight on dry thrust and a TWR of 1.23 in Combat weight configuration on wet thrust. LSA will have a sea level ITR & STR of 33.5*/sec & 27.1*/sec for 9G & 6G loads respectively with 700 feet radius of turn.
- The equipment fit will have Central Mission Computers which will integrate all weapons, sensors, communication equipment, navigation equipment and on board systems to provide a composite fused picture to pilot on touch screen based glass Cockpit with cockpit speech recognition and voice command system. LSA will have ELTA designed GaN based AESA. A chin mounted EOTS system based on Litening pod componants configured for internal fitment providing capabilities like F-35.
- LSA will have ELBIT supplied SAPIR for 360* view, JHMCS Quadeye NVCD cueing and display system. Internal EW suite consisting of Jammers, RWR, MAW, LWR, DIRCM housed in two wingtip mounted sensor pods to provide an unobstructed 360* coverage around the aircraft. These pods will have missile rails below them. Chaff and flare dispensing systems will be housed on rudder roots.
- LSA will have a fault detection, display & diagnosis system like A-320 to shorten turnaround inspection time. I have spoken to Israeli Aircraft Industry and they are willing to provide full support to create tailor made solutions for LSA.
http://*****************/attachments/upload_2017-1-7_10-10-40-png.3312/
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,433
- Likes
- 7,047
On this forum, no. But on some others Yes !
https://www.**************.org/forums/threads/mmrca-2-0-update-and-discussion.1156/post-47127
replace ******* by strategic front (without space)
