ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

Btw it is explicitly mentioned in the CEMILAC report that this problem can easily be fixed with the addition of nose cone plug,

Hundred people give hundred options. It is up to ADA to decide the right option.

AND IT IS UNDERWAY.

Wrong. The nose cone plug option was never used. ADA decided to extend the entire nose instead on an entirely new design called the LCA Mk2.

If there is a modification to the nose on Mk1, then you will be able to see it. As of today there is no such modification.

The CEMILAC report was just a suggestion, take it or leave it.

If you think it is true then post a picture of Mk1 with a modified nose.

 

[Twinblade]

Btw it is explicitly mentioned in the CEMILAC report that this problem can easily be fixed with the addition of nose cone plug, AND IT IS UNDERWAY.

No, it doesn't. I gave the exact quote to show it isn't. You gave squat. Disinformationist Feel free to correct me with an exact quote from that report.

It may or may not have been fixed by ADA. That only ADA can officially clarify, not anyone else. Since it has been done on MIRAGE-lll and KFIRS and extra avionics were placed even increasing it's weight . So there is no better weight penalty for LCA here. Since the extended nose cone plug will only result in volume addition, not significant weight addition.

And it will represent major shift in center of gravity (even without a weight increase like you claim) for which the aircraft will have to re undergo extensive wind tunnel modelling, CLAW tests and flutter tests. All AoA testing will have to be re done as well. Furthermore adiitional LRU and fuel will further complicate the matter. As far as I am aware never in the history of military aviation has fuselage extension been carried out as an airframe upgrade other than a major redesign resulting in a newer variant as in the case mk2 or design modification from Mirage IIIC to Mirage IIIE, Mirage IIIC to Kfir and Cheetah and further modifications of Kfir to Nammer variant which was never manufactured because of incorporation of newer smaller and heavier engines that were shifting the CoG backwards. The fuselage extensions and the nose extensions, apart from making more space for avionics and fuel also corrected the fallacy with center of gravity. Furthermore you still need to provide links to prove that Kfir and Cheetah had a mid life upgrade that increased their fuselage length like you are claiming would be easily doable to Mk1 variant

Fancy claims all over the place without an iota of backup. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mod:

 

[Twinblade]

@P2Prada:- I'll have to disagree on the usefulness of AESA radars on small and lightweight fighters. Modern airforces world over have settled on AESA as the path to take both in present and near future, even for light fighters (Gripen, Golden Eagle Tejas and if you believe the Bakis, Jf-17 ). A mere shift to AESA radar will significantly reduce the enemy force's ESM capabilities. The cost advantage of further improving the LPI modes of aesa are far more significant in improving the LPI detection abilities.

 

[p2prada]

@P2Prada:- I'll have to disagree on the usefulness of AESA radars on small and lightweight fighters. Modern airforces world over have settled on AESA as the path to take both in present and near future, even for light fighters (Gripen, Golden Eagle Tejas and if you believe the Bakis, Jf-17 ). A mere shift to AESA radar will significantly reduce the enemy force's ESM capabilities. The cost advantage of further improving the LPI modes of aesa are far more significant in improving the LPI detection abilities.

Yeah, there are electronic advantages to AESA. But, enough to say the advantages are not worth $3-4Million a radar(I remember the APG-79 costed $3Million to the USAF in 2010) compared to $1Million that a MS costs. This is apart from all the testing and maintenance kits that cost another fortune.

Gripen NG justifies the use of AESA with a total of 10 hardpoints to carry BVR and LGBs at the same time. The same with J-10 and F-16, payload and hardpoints.

FA-50, I am not sure if the Koreans are serious about it as of today. Mostly American claims riding on the F-16 upgrade program. The 2032 is a good radar anyway. I would wager they would go for an Israeli option for AESA.

If this weapons layout is correct then even FA-50 qualifies for AESA, albeit partly.

JF-17, only if they are able to use the fuselage for carrying LGBs. But, I think in their case they have lesser options unlike IAF. If they manage to afford it, then best of luck.

So, if you can afford it go right ahead, but don't expect it to move mountains like it can on heavier fighters.

 

[p2prada]

.
Fly by wire is every thing in a fourth gen planem Every thing else is system integeration.

General statement. Proves nothing.

Earth is round = General statement.

From where does the drag produced generally in an aircraft?

More nonsense. Keep general statements to yourself.

Dont compare twin engine birds. No one can certify that LCA cant go supersonic,yet.

If you did not notice IAF is in love with twin engines. They want new engines for Jaguar(2x), MKI has two engines, Rafale has two engines, PAKFA has two engines, AMCA will have two engines too.

ARE levcons and caards the same ,please ask any forum members, Levcons don't move and don't need any hydraulics

More ignorance = more nonsense.

Do you know what it was abbreviated from? "Leading Edge Vortex CONtrollers." That's LEVCONS. Go watch videos of PAKFA's LEVCONS.

Or better yet, figure out the difference between the two pictures.

20 years before canadian stock exchange trusted TCS to their computerization.INFY's FINACLE is one of the best banking softwares in the world.

Banking software won't fly aircraft. Guess what, I have a friend who works in TCS and he is one of those people who develops banking softwares for the largest banks in the world. No. He does not know anything about aircraft.

Success in one field does not mean success in another. It is a stupid thought process. It looks like you are yet to finish engineering and get your first job.

 

[p2prada]

@Twinblade

I would like to add another point about AESAs, especially within the Indian context. It would be good if we get one.

"Help the industry" so they don't mess things up when AMCA's turn comes.

 

[Twinblade]

@p2p 2-3 million should be a really old figure . Furthermore the aesa development partner of drdo, astra microwave, with whom drdo holds several joint patents in aesa modules, has reportedly been able to develop t/r modules for a quarter of the import price (I posted their market analysis report a while back either in this thread or aew&c thread. Can't dig up right now, posting from cell phone). From the same report they claim that the array would make up 70% cost compared to 20% in msa, so 2-3 times the cost seems a legitimate figure. Despite the higher cost, the lifecycle costs would be much lower, the power would be more scalable with advances in semi conductor technology and an in general economy of scale would allow more radical stuff, like conformal arrays that might have the capability to merge the roles of esm, ecm, ultra high speed datalinks from one distributed array spread over the airframe

 

[p2prada]

@p2p 2-3 million should be a really old figure . Furthermore the aesa development partner of drdo, astra microwave, with whom drdo holds several joint patents in aesa modules, has reportedly been able to develop t/r modules for a quarter of the import price (I posted their market analysis report a while back either in this thread or aew&c thread. Can't dig up right now, posting from cell phone). From the same report they claim that the array would make up 70% cost compared to 20% in msa, so 2-3 times the cost seems a legitimate figure. Despite the higher cost, the lifecycle costs would be much lower, the power would be more scalable with advances in semi conductor technology and an in general economy of scale would allow more radical stuff, like conformal arrays that might have the capability to merge the roles of esm, ecm, ultra high speed datalinks from one distributed array spread over the airframe

Hmmm... wait, what? Astra is the DP? WtF? Whatever happened to getting the tried and tested first. I thought Raytheon/Elta etc.

Btw, 70% cost wouldn't mean only 2-3 times. It would mean more.

Out of 100 bucks if MSA costs 20 then the back end systems still cost 80. If the back end systems are only expected to cost 30 for AESA, then guess how much the value of the 70 should be. Also, the back end systems for AESA is much more complex due to the use of phasors that need to channel data from the hundreds of receivers compared to a handful on MS. So, the back end alone will cost a bomb for AESA and it's only 30%. Cooling and size is another monster problem that will add to the costs. Back end alone adds two or three times for ESAs including the need for higher processing and software requirements. If 2 or 3 times is 30% then the actual costs will be ten times. So, $10Million/radar. This is considering the MS radar costs a million a piece.

If they get the cooling right, then I don't see any problems. If they get the cooling wrong, then the radar will not perform at peak, it will degrade like how processors and video cards degrade in performance at higher temperatures. More importantly, the side lobes will increase in size. Peak noise levels of 3dB or lesser won't be achieved(but way better than 15dB on MSA).

If they are talking about costs of T/R modules being quarter of the import price, well the import price are always jacked up, then going indigenous is a good thing.

Well, I am happy that LRDE is working with an Indian DP. At Indian prices the AESA would be a good option. Add that to the new made in India CIPs, it should turn out to be good.

The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems - Norman Friedman - Google Books
This book places the cost of APG-73 at $2.5Million apiece in 1992.

The early price quoted was $102Million for 22 APG-79 to be installed on 22 SHs. That's $4.6Million back in 2004-05.

In 2005,
Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Release

This five year production contract for the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) APG-79 system successfully concludes negotiations for 190 radars from low rate initial production lot 3 and 4 (LRIP3/4) through full rate production lot 1-3 (FRP1-3).

This gives $3Million a radar. Even with a 5% increment over the year, the price would be between $3-4Million.

So, that makes my $10Million price rather expensive. Maybe the back end can be made for a cheaper price. Or is it that the volumes bought by Boeing brought down the price significantly? My friend did say new age electronics are getting cheaper to fabricate because the smaller it is the lesser is the cost of manufacture as long as enough are ordered.

The back end is "for sure" more expensive on ESAs than on MSAs. I guess only size of the orders can bring it down to the APG-79 level, if not lower.

 

[p2prada]

A little correction to the value I gave. If we assume back end of ESA to be twice that of MSA, then that would be $1.6Million. If 1.6 Mill is 30% of the value of ESA radar then it comes to $5.3Million, not 10mill.

It's just an assumption, but it gives a decent break up of how much the APG-79 probably costs now.

 

[pmaitra]

Let us get back to LCA-III please. Information is good, but it should be relevant to LCA-III. If not, please open a new thread.

Some further comments or replies should go here: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/35448-canards-vs-levcons.html

 

[Twinblade]

Hmmm... wait, what? Astra is the DP? WtF? Whatever happened to getting the tried and tested first. I thought Raytheon/Elta etc.

It seems that the local industry caught up in a big big way due to proper mentoring by various DRDO labs and defence offsets policies. We have the following companies manufacturing T/r modules in India
1. Astra microwave : S-band modules for El-2084 MPR and LRDE aew&c array, LRDE L-star and Thales GS-100 LLTR (unconfirmed), X-band modules for Tejas mmr, L-Band modules for BMD radars (unconfirmed), Components for SAR for RISAT
2. HELA, a JV between Elta and Tata advanced systems: S-Band modules for El-2084 MPR
3. Data Patterns : S-band modules for EL-2084 MPR and Thales GS100 LLTR (unconfirmed), S-Band modules for LRDE LLTR (ashwini) (Unconfirmed)
4. Alpha systems : Have a JV in place with Elttronica for supply of TR modules, also starting supplies for EL-2084 MPR
5. BEL:- Coming up with its own bulk manufacturing facility

This is not even accounting for LRDE Arudra and Aslesha. Apart from these there are several other companies which are entering the fray, as this is a totally new market which can explode anytime soon.
I suppose we would need a foreign collaborator for LCA AESA MMR only for help in miniaturizing the modules.

 

[ersakthivel]

Respected forum member says

E.R>sakthivel says
ARE levcons and caards the same ,please ask any forum members, Levcons don't move and don't need any hydraulics

ARE levcons and caards the same ,please ask any forum members, Levcons don't move and don't need any hydraulics
More ignorance = more nonsense.

Do you know what it was abbreviated from? "Leading Edge Vortex CONtrollers." That's LEVCONS. Go watch videos of PAKFA's LEVCONS.

the canard hydraulics add more weight ,and introduce force coupling,and increase rcs, and and ad canard wash problems to the wing in extreme performance range. That's what I meant LEVCONS wont add those penalties that much. Since they work in concert with wing they dont create those problems.That's why ADA wanted to avoid this.

ADA didnot want to penalise the LCA with canards with its problems in all altitudes other than high altitude. As LCA is meant to be a more air to air fighter flying at medium to higher altitude and shooting bvrs which can have more kinematic energy and range on aircrafts below.
But a low flying aircraft cannot shoot the same range BVR on tejas at a high altitude because from a lower altitude bvrs have less than half the range when fired from higher altitudes. So canards are not compatiable with IAF mission profile.

That's what ADA says when its press release states that canards offered no significant performance improvement to LCA when compared to the penalties imposed.

this is what the same respected forum member say
in canarrds vs levcons thread.

There really aren't many functional differences as such. These are just design solutions to achieve the required aerodynamic states.

Considering LEVCONS are part of the PAKFA, IMHO, the radar returns may be lesser than Canards. Perhaps the aerodynamic qualities of Canards are greater at low altitudes as compared to LEVCONS. N-LCA uses them for primarily landing while PAKFA probably uses them for an entirely different purpose.

this is the reply of another senior member for the thread.

SUKHOI replies

Re: Canards vs Levcons
Btw, Do Su-35s has levcons fitted?. Read somehwere that levcons effects on aircraft intakes?



Although, Canards increase RCS of an aircraft. Typhoon and Rafale canards are controlled by software which reduces its RCS.
Another set back is that increase drag and kill lift. The MKIs and Typhoons face a lot of drag, Thats why the new Su-35s doesn't have any canards.

Has P2P already said, Naval Aircrafts could use canards for short landing. Canards can be usefull as brakes better than aircraft tail.

after that there are no more posts in the thread.

The US and russian design of any fighter aircraf avoids canards exactly for the same reason. The russians avoided canards in pakfa, US in F-35 and F-22 for the same reason.There is a whole lot of literature on high aspect ratio canards,low aspect ratio canards, their plu ,minus to the overall aerodynamics all over the net.

If the canards are so beneficial without any aerodynamics and weight penalties they would have implemented it.

 

[ersakthivel]

All LCA is expected to do in its primary mission i.e point defence is to fly low ,in great numbers,using covering it's missile radar emissions under the wing ,opposite to the invading enemy squadron ,and once informed by awacs of the enemy's location all they have to do is to climb high just before their rcs detection range distance and attain high altitude. If they are visible from that high altitude with long range bvrs it is fine. They will just launch them on enemy fighters and dive on them for close combat. Here too the kinematics favour the LCA. Once it's long range bvr stores aree fired it will bonce again regain its lower rcs and be invisible to the opposing radar beyond it's clean configuration RCS.

 

[ersakthivel]

No, it doesn't. I gave the exact quote to show it isn't. You gave squat. Disinformationist Feel free to correct me with an exact quote from that report.

And it will represent major shift in center of gravity (even without a weight increase like you claim) for which the aircraft will have to re undergo extensive wind tunnel modelling, CLAW tests and flutter tests. All AoA testing will have to be re done as well. Furthermore adiitional LRU and fuel will further complicate the matter. As far as I am aware never in the history of military aviation has fuselage extension been carried out as an airframe upgrade other than a major redesign resulting in a newer variant as in the case mk2 or design modification from Mirage IIIC to Mirage IIIE, Mirage IIIC to Kfir and Cheetah and further modifications of Kfir to Nammer variant which was never manufactured because of incorporation of newer smaller and heavier engines that were shifting the CoG backwards. The fuselage extensions and the nose extensions, apart from making more space for avionics and fuel also corrected the fallacy with center of gravity. Furthermore you still need to provide links to prove that Kfir and Cheetah had a mid life upgrade that increased their fuselage length like you are claiming would be easily doable to Mk1 variant

Fancy claims all over the place without an iota of backup. Nincompoop.

Please explain to the members of forum ,how center of gravity shifts with out ant increase in Weight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The center of gravity is the point through which the entire weight of the aircraft acts in case of centrifugal or centripetal forces act.

Thats what people teach in 9th standard I think

Without any increase in weight ,(it will increase only the interna lvolume) ,How on Earth will centre of Gravity shift???

Then what in the need to undergo extensive wind tunnel modelling, CLAW tests and flutter tests, All AoA testing?

Then how will adiitional LRU and fuel will further complicate the matter?

The extended nose cone will add no more weight than the fuel probe infront. It is a very minor weight increase.As all it will do is to trap more air into it.

And no more rotational balancing tests or linear motion balancing tests are needed for the air trapped in side the nose cone.
Infact it may have the additional beneficial effect of freeing up some space for rearrangement of existing avionics and radar.

Please clarify the matter as I am at a loss to respond.

Mod: Upper case letters give the impression that you're literally shouting on top of your voice. Please avoid it. We cannot keep on editing the posts forever.

 

[ersakthivel]

p2prada says
Look at when the first flight happened for these aircraft, all 70s and 80s. Any 4th gen aircraft which wasn't inducted in the early 2000s is a waste of time. Why do I say that? It is because 4th gen became obsolete the minute the F-22 was inducted in 2005.

E.R. sakthivel asks,
Then why is US closing the production line for F-22 and still producing FA-18 hornets?

P2 PRADA says
Now combine 4th gen and light aircraft, that is beyond the word obsolete. It is like clearing 12th standard when you are 30 years old. Worthless?

Please dont say all the grippens,lcas and mirages ,and sukhois,migs are obsolete.All 5th gen planes use the same 4th gen AESA RADAR and 3rd gen technology BVR missiles to combat. If they carry any pocket laser guns like will smith does in "Independence day" ,I will agree that the day of 5th gen has arrived. AS thsese AESA radars and bvr missiles can easily be taken care of with the help of evolving ew and IRST capability.You still havent answered my queries regarding how 2nd gen P-81 radar 15 years before in the kosova war gave target lock to SA-16(what gen) sams resulting in the shooting down of stealth to x-band F-117(same as 5th gen F-22),and their subsequent withdrawal from the war.Also do you mean tosay the 5th gen J-20 will eat all american awacs plane in the pacific,and americans have no counter measures?

P2 PRADA says
All old frames can be upgraded for another 10 to 15 years of life. This makes sense because the frames have been in use for many years. All the protocols for training, maintenance and fighting a war were in place since decades. Comparatively LCA will be inducted in 2018 and will need another 10 years of service to have a similar level of training, maintenance protocols and war fighting capability in place. So, LCA will be a proven aircraft(say 2028) when superior aircraft like the F-16 and Mirage-2000 will actually be phased out of all air forces everywhere.

It's like Bangladesh making their first Maruti 800 today, when we have stopped production of the Maruti 800. The Bangladeshis can jump with joy, but what is the use of such a car today? Think? LCA is in that exact position.

These aircrafts that are being upgraded were produced 40 years before.

In the HIMALAYAN skies any LCA-MK_! (just 40 of them planned)will be as good as stealth as they can fly lower under the himalayan hights and no chinese awacs can bend their radar beams and search every nook and cranny of the himalayan skies nestled with in the high mountain ranges.Do you understand the geography and topology of himalays? where your 2 of your famed MMRCA contenders cannot pass IAF ASR?The low wing loading of LCA will be a nice asset.

If a 5th gen chinese J-20 flies over the skies of HIMALAYAs there me a very high probability that all of a sudden he may find an LCA air group right under his feet. With worse close combat performance ,and pony loads he won't have the guarantee to win the dog fight either.

p2 prada says
Engine change is possible only after 2030, when LCA finishes 10-15 years of service life. Until then it will continue having the underpowered F-404.

Underpowered as per the calculations of you not by global standards all practical twr are calculated with half tank of fuel and a couple of aia to air missiles. No aircraft will have full load fuel when it enters a high G dogfight.

 

[Twinblade]

Please explain to the members of forum ,how center of gravity shifts with out ant increase in WEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The center of gravity is the point through which the entire weight of the aircraft acts in case of centrifugal or centripetal forces act.

THATS WHAT PEOPLE TEACH IN 9TH STANDARAD I THINK.

Without any increase in weight ,(it will increase only the interna lvolume) ,HOW ON EARTH WILL CENTER OF GRAVITY WILL SHIFT??????

THEN WHAT IS THE NEED TO undergo extensive wind tunnel modelling, CLAW tests and flutter tests, All AoA testing?

Then how will adiitional LRU and fuel will further complicate the matter?

Remember how center of gravity for multiple bodies was found ?

X= (M1X1 + M2X2 +M3X3.......... MnXn)/ (M1 +M2 ...... Mn)

where M1, M2.. Mn are weight of individual components and X, X1, X2... respective distances from the point of reference.

Change any of those quantities (change in weight of components or distance) and CoG shifts.

The extended nose cone will add no more weight than the fuel probe infront. It is a very minor weight increase.As all it will do is to trap more air into it.

And no more rotational balancing tests or linear motion balancing tests are needed for the air trapped in side the nose cone.
Infact it may have the additional beneficial effect of freeing up some space for rearrangement of existing avionics and radar.

Please clarify the matter as I am at a loss to respond

LCA-Tejas being an inherently unstable platform like all modern fighters is controlled by a fly by wire system with its own flight control software which means the center of gravity would be inherently behind the center of lift and the FC shifts the center of lift every few milliseconds to keep the aircraft stable when in a level flight. Like every control algorithm it too is designed to operate in a finite range. Shift the CoG too backwards and the aircraft will become far more unstable than what the FCS was designed to do, shift it too forward and the aircraft would have the maneuverability of a passenger aircraft. Thereby any major shift in weight would involve rewiting all control laws. Furthermore adding length to the aircraft would require extensive wind tunnel testing to determine the feasibility of the new configurations and finally a real world testing via prototypes to confirm the theoretical and laboratory results. Changing the CoG will also put new stresses and moments on every part of the airframe which would involve further revalidation of aero structures. The time frame we are talking about is years, the costs gargantuan and the benefits none too impressive. Hence all such modifications are incorporated in newer variants and never mid life upgrades. Hope that answers your query.

 

[ersakthivel]

Remember how center of gravity for multiple bodies was found ?

X= (M1X1 + M2X2 +M3X3.......... MnXn)/ (M1 +M2 ...... Mn)

where M1, M2.. Mn are weight of individual components and X, X1, X2... respective distances from the point of reference.

Change any of those quantities (change in weight of components or distance) and CoG shifts.


LCA-Tejas being an inherently unstable platform like all modern fighters is controlled by a fly by wire system with its own flight control software which means the center of gravity would be inherently behind the center of lift and the FC shifts the center of lift every few milliseconds to keep the aircraft stable when in a level flight. Like every control algorithm it too is designed to operate in a finite range. Shift the CoG too backwards and the aircraft will become far more unstable than what the FCS was designed to do, shift it too forward and the aircraft would have the maneuverability of a passenger aircraft. Thereby any major shift in weight would involve rewiting all control laws. Furthermore adding length to the aircraft would require extensive wind tunnel testing to determine the feasibility of the new configurations and finally a real world testing via prototypes to confirm the theoretical and laboratory results. Changing the CoG will also put new stresses and moments on every part of the airframe which would involve further revalidation of aero structures. The time frame we are talking about is years, the costs gargantuan and the benefits none too impressive. Hence all such modifications are incorporated in newer variants and never mid life upgrades. Hope that answers your query.

So this nose plug insertion is no big issue at all. It has been done before in other fighters.So it can be done as suggested by CEMILAC test paper by JEBAKUMAR.

Essentially the nose will be longer and hence sleeker, akin to the changes made to the Cheetah/Kfir from the original Mirage III, where the nose plug was added (the reason for that of course was mainly to add volume for the radar and avionics suite)

What I said was that the increase in value of M1 is so small and there is nothing that prevents it from being handled.

A new modified fuel probe is visisble in front for the LSP-7. It's value in M would also have been corrected.
Even the weight of the pilot will vary by 7 or 8 kgs every time.Do you think people will run to wind tunnel and retest it for those few kg increses for the weight of pilot.

Any one who noticed ACM Naik at the FOC would have known how big the M1 would have changed, it will be atleast 15 kgs or so.
Does that mean men like him will not be allowed to enter the cockpit of any modern fCS fighter?

Or when a 50 kg pilot enters the cockpit The M reduces ,what can we do that?

Think about planes like airbus -320 that run on fcs. some times passengers sit in front and some times luggage weight is more, some time there are no passengers in the back. Do they all go to wind tunnel every time for retesting?, before each and every flight?

Incidentaly ADA exported its FCS to AIRBUS. Do you know that?
We dont have to blow it out of proportion.that's what I insisted. In an FCS that controls more than 10 tons with in MTOW it is not an impossibility.
Also the weight of external sores of the LCA will be varied and with every release from the pylons the LCA's weight varies dynamically every time.Many Ms will vary simultaneously.
In future new munitions with varying weight will also be introduced.

Do you think LCA will spend 7 years every time a and redistribution of weight and extensive modification to it's weight every time?

As the fuel decrases many Ms change dynamically through out the flight of a craft. Will they make the LCA fail?

What I wanted to say was that this weight addition is so insignificant that it will fall into the range of factor of safety provided by the FCS and calculations and modifications wont be carried out alone for this parameeter.in any software system a safety margin is left for further software upgradation. Lca will undergo further flight tests for AOA and spin recovery,and further opening of flight envelope, during these tests also some more need for minor modification will be thrown up. Fine tuning is not yet complete as you may know further opening of the envelope is about to be done with EADS.

Instead of halting the whole test programme and attempting modifications for this one issue the ADA may have decided to club it with minor modifications it will bound to under take for FOC. They say LSP-7 & 8 is as close to production standard.Not the final gold standard. Many members have noticed auxillary intake near the air inlet and some changes in the tail section design and some changes in the top section of the LSP-7 when it first flew.You can go to other forums and blogs and can notice the discussion regarding changes.

There will be enough redundancy left in any software systems and many error handling routines will be there. I think this would suffice.

 

[ersakthivel]

So this nose plug insertion is no big issue at all. It has been done before in other fighters.So it can be done as suggested by CEMILAC test paper by S.K.JEBAKUMAR.

Essentially the nose will be longer and hence sleeker, akin to the changes made to the Cheetah/Kfir from the original Mirage III, where the nose plug was added (the reason for that of course was mainly to add volume for the radar and avionics suite)

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

the paper further suggests that by co cured bonding of winG surfaces and components and changing slat doors ,casing and mountings of LRUs and rear fuselage bulk heads and pylons into composites to further reduce the weight and increase TWR.

Why are you leaving out these parts that are beneficial to the LCA, inconvenient truth perhaps, exposing your argument that LCA NOSE CONE PLUG INSERTION will have to be done on mk-ll

so many Ms would have been changed and going to change.

When casing and mountings of LRUs on the front is converted to composites some M2, and M3, will reduce.

So this nose plug insertion as suggested by CEMILAC test paper by S.K.JEBAKUMAR will result in some increase in M1. So won't they compensate?

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas LCA Limited Series Production Aircraft LSP-7 to Make its Debut Flight this Month - Defence Now

ast year, the 'Tejas' LCA project suffered a major setback due to fuel leakage in one of the aircraft during taxi-trials. Following this mishap, the entire Tejas fleet was grounded for safety purposes and several months were lost due to absence of tests on the LCA. Several structural changes in the fuel and hydraulic system were made on the aircraft to avoid future mishaps. In fact, the project management team from IAF and the Deputy Chief of Air Staff has been intently monitoring the development of the LCA project after the mishap.

Yes i also think they have extended the "back end". Maybe they are incorporating these changes as part of the structural changes suggested by the IAF for the Mk2 version and also in keeping in mind the new GE-414 engine.

Look at the F-16 : The USAF inducted it in just 3 years after its debut flight, warts and all simply because it was phasing out its old F-86 Sabres and the like.
Later on, the F-16 underwent incremental upgrades as and when demanded by the USAF.

So why does the IAF have to be so belligerent ? On the one hand, it has MiG-21s on their last legs, crying to be retired. A wife, a parent must pray each day before their son sorties in a MiG-21.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2008/apr08.pdf

Any one interested on the FCS of TEJAS can go to this site and have a study themselves. it is not in seedish language either.


Instead of tearing their head over CEMILAC test paper by S.K.JEBAKUMAR , they can relax a bit. As these aree no reverse engineered stuff, and all original.

This is how the media critics write,

Last year, the 'Tejas' LCA project suffered a major setback due to fuel leakage in one of the aircraft during taxi-trials. Following this mishap, the entire Tejas fleet was grounded for safety purposes and several months were lost due to absence of tests on the LCA. Several structural changes in the fuel and hydraulic system were made on the aircraft to avoid future mishaps. In fact, the project management team from IAF and the Deputy Chief of Air Staff has been intently monitoring the development of the LCA project after the mishap.

The Indian development capability is now mature enough that within the space of months, the LCA design team was able to make many critical changes to the fuel & hydraulics system within the aircraft, and have it qualified for incorporation into the latest LSP-7. They did this with minimum fuss, despite the constant carping in the media about delays.

 

[p2prada]

It seems that the local industry caught up in a big big way due to proper mentoring by various DRDO labs and defence offsets policies. We have the following companies manufacturing T/r modules in India
1. Astra microwave : S-band modules for El-2084 MPR and LRDE aew&c array, LRDE L-star and Thales GS-100 LLTR (unconfirmed), X-band modules for Tejas mmr, L-Band modules for BMD radars (unconfirmed), Components for SAR for RISAT
2. HELA, a JV between Elta and Tata advanced systems: S-Band modules for El-2084 MPR
3. Data Patterns : S-band modules for EL-2084 MPR and Thales GS100 LLTR (unconfirmed), S-Band modules for LRDE LLTR (ashwini) (Unconfirmed)
4. Alpha systems : Have a JV in place with Elttronica for supply of TR modules, also starting supplies for EL-2084 MPR
5. BEL:- Coming up with its own bulk manufacturing facility

This is not even accounting for LRDE Arudra and Aslesha. Apart from these there are several other companies which are entering the fray, as this is a totally new market which can explode anytime soon.
I suppose we would need a foreign collaborator for LCA AESA MMR only for help in miniaturizing the modules.

Not bad at all. S and L band antennas are easy to make, they are pretty big. X band and higher, difficult. Well, if they can make it affordable and easy to mass produce then this will be a major boost to our industry.