ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Thrust bump is a feature of FADEC and has nothing to do with FBW unless FBW is coupled to auto throttle. Fighters do not use A/T for combat. they use them for very specific purpose like in MIG-29K for deck landings only or during A/P coupled cruise.
In Thrust bump you allow engine to exceed its thrust rating for a small duration without causing over speed of engine. This was first applied on V2500 engines of earlier model A-320s. So IN can use this feature while taking off from Deck with a higher load. For normal peacetime use 108KN is more than sufficient thrust for LCA MK2.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Anyone who thinks that F414INS6 will be same as F414-400 is wrong. The EPE variant has only six HP stages as it has new wide swept fan. This has allowed them to increase thrust without the need of increasing its inlet diameter. F414-standard name of engine, IN-Indian variant, S6-six stage compressor. Of all F414 variants only EPE model has six stages and it was already tested to TRL-6 stage.
This variant will be delivered with full EPE power but derated to 108KN for IAF and a special bump feature for 118KN thrust for IN.
GE did announce the INS6 will be the highest rated thrust variant for the F-414.

108KN is good. It caters to any weight growth during the development period of the Mk2. I remember someone saying 110KN for LCA Mk2, so he was right, but it was speculation at the time.

The bumb feature exist on many aircraft. I think the Russians call is emergency thrust. 94KN on Mig-29K or 133KN on AL-31, probably on Su-33s.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Can you tell us anything about the Mk2 and the modifications it will have compared to the Mk1?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Can you tell us anything about the Mk2 and the modifications it will have compared to the Mk1?
Before posting continuous rants all along one should check whether what they are posting is right.

this type of posting will ruin threads and make the credibility of all the posters questionable.If it goes on and on No serious technical guy will think about posting anything substantial in this thread.Which professional will stand this endless rants
As a result the thread looks like sindbad stories with no relation to today's realities.
What happened to the bluster all along that EPE is a paper tiger?
It is a shame that this kind of littering all over the thread is happening , with no knowledge of anything and ranting forever.
Ranting all over the forum that there is no 120 kn version of EPE and bluffing all along it is a paper tiger.
Now a navy guy says Naval tejas will have 120 kn EPE and when decklander explains that INS 6 denotes 120 kn EPE with 6 stages instead of normal 7 stage normal GE-414 ,what is the worth of so called seniority and gains from posting in all the forums?
No wonder some people are ashamed of reading their own statements again , when i quote them back at them?
Who was saying 110 kn for mk-2?
First go to ADA site and see the specs.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-229.html

post no-3429

I have been interrogated on this single point throughout this thread and PAKFA thread ,for posting the 6 stage version of INS6 is the highest thrust variant of GE-414 series.And continuously shouted down through out the closed ADA TEJAS-III thread.

Now when decklander confirms it has more than 100 kn i.e 108 kn ,and 120 kn in bump mode , some people are innocently saying that someone else mentioned mk-2 has 110 kn in this thread already.Who is the some one?

If it is so why was I repeatedly grilled despite posting boeing officials regarding the same point again?

Should people be hauled over coal for stating the simple fact the mk-2 is going to have more than 100 kn engine?

Why are people so dead set against mk-2 getting higher thrust engine?I have posted repeatedly that GRIPPEN NG is also going to have the same engine,even then I was accused of being a liar,

If not for posts from USS and DECKLANDER , I will be repeatedly grilled for pointing out the simple fact that mk-2 will have the highest thrust variety of 414 engines, and the monotonous ranting that mk-1 is less than mirage and even lesser than mig-21 and mk-2 will be about the same level as MIRAGE-2000.

So they will continue to say ADA and MOD are conspiring to thrust an underpowered obsolete tejas down IAF's throat against national interest like the same ranting repeated against ARJUN tank all over the indian media

And people will contiue to insist that UPGRADED 4TH GEN MIG-21s will continue to eat squadrons after squadrons of tejas alive, and experienced pilots should be chained to mig-21s and mig-27s and like the slaves of EGYPTIAN PARAOHAs to be tombed alive with the dead king.

Hope at least from now on people will see some sense and stop being dogmatically attached to illogical ,unreasonable postions reducing 100s of pages of ADA TEJAS thread to idiotic ranting instead of useful debate bringing out the salient points of TEJAS design..
 
Last edited:

rahulrds1

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
800
Likes
1,268
GE F 414 EPE(120 kn) Engine Status

'TRL' i.e. 'Technology Readiness Level' is a measure used by some United States government agencies and many of the world's major companies (and agencies) to assess the maturity of evolving technologies.

There are total 9 stages. The last stage is TRL-9 meaing -'Actual system proven through successful mission operations.'

http://www.boeing.com/AeroIndia2011/pdf/Aero_India_Super_Hornet_Briefing.pdf
Aero India Super Hornet Briefing

According to the pdf from Boeing(year-2010), page-15, 40% of the subsystem of GE 414 EPE(120 kn) engine have completed last 'technology radiness level' i.e TRL-9.
60% subsystem of GE 414 EPE(120) engine have completed TRL-6.

This news is from 2010, it is possible that EPE might have completed the TRL-7 in last 2 to 2.5 year & it might be in TRL-8 or TRL-9 stage.


As of 2010, TRL status of EPE(120 kn) Engine Subsystem,

"¢ Low Pressure Turbine & Afterburner: TRL- 9 completed.
"¢ Control System: TRL-9 completed.
"¢ Combustor: TRL- 6 completed.
"¢ Engine Fan : TRL 6 completed.
"¢ High Pressure Turbine: TRL- 6 completed.
"¢ High Pressure Compressor: TRL- 6 completed.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@rahulrds1

TRL-6 is a basic prototype, something like a PV-1 for LCA.

What we really need to confirm is whether a TRL-7 or 8 is ready, because that's like the LSP equivalent version before the product is ready for serial production.

Also, about what may have happened between 2010 and today, that is subject to speculation. Whenever there is no official confirmation, it is speculation. Speculation can be right or wrong. If INS6 is indeed the EPE or a derivative engine that will be further modified to EPE, we will see.

As for me, I would very much believe this engine is a derivative engine and not necessarily the version they have planned for EPE, especially considering IAF rejected the actual EPE engine offered back in 2010. Maybe IAF doesn't believe GE will have the EPE ready by 2015 for the SH. So I don't see how the LCA will get this engine around next year and have first flight by 2014 when we are yet to sign a contract. Hence a derivative engine is the best I can come up with.


@ersakthivel

Learn to understand the fact that there are civilians here who have contacts within the armed forces or development agencies. I am an engineer from Bangalore. Most of the technicians working in defence industries come from Bangalore. So, I am bound to have friends who work in such industries. One of them speculated that the F-414 for LCA was a 110KN engine. This was a passing comment, same as the comment about LCA being an aerodynamic disaster reached my ears two years before the media did. I refused to believe it. So, now I take information more cautiously. I don't discard it without a second thought. This is something only experience can teach you.

As long as information is not official, it is speculation. Most of your "speculations" are more of a wish than something we can apply logic to. Learn to understand the fact that Decklander could also be wrong. EPE is a planned 5th gen engine, there is no guarantee what we are getting is the real deal or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: uss

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
@rahulrds1

TRL-6 is a basic prototype, something like a PV-1 for LCA.

What we really need to confirm is whether a TRL-7 or 8 is ready, because that's like the LSP equivalent version before the product is ready for serial production.

Also, about what may have happened between 2010 and today, that is subject to speculation. Whenever there is no official confirmation, it is speculation. Speculation can be right or wrong. If INS6 is indeed the EPE or a derivative engine that will be further modified to EPE, we will see.

Speculation is russians who are starting bench testing of PAKFA engines now will finish it within 2017 and GE will sleep from 2009 to 2016(tejas mk-2 introduction) at TRL level of 6 doing nothing and sleeping tight.
Speculation is posting bull shit like a few UPGRADED 4TH GEN MIG-21 will wipe out a squadron of lca tejas .
Speculation is posting nonsense like "I hope grippen has larger radom dia than tejas.
Speculation is writing Tejas has insurmountable drag issues and cannot pass mach 1,4 throughout the closed ADA TEJAS-III thread.
As for me, I would very much believe this engine is a derivative engine and not necessarily the version they have planned for EPE, especially considering IAF rejected the actual EPE engine offered back in 2010. Maybe IAF doesn't believe GE will have the EPE ready by 2015 for the SH. So I don't see how the LCA will get this engine around next year and have first flight by 2014 when we are yet to sign a contract. Hence a derivative engine is the best I can come up with.
No one is aking your certification based on your self belief.
@ersakthivel

Learn to understand the fact that there are civilians here who have contacts within the armed forces or development agencies. I am an engineer from Bangalore. Most of the technicians working in defence industries come from Bangalore. So, I am bound to have friends who work in such industries. One of them speculated that the F-414 for LCA was a 110KN engine. This was a passing comment, same as the comment about LCA being an aerodynamic disaster reached my ears two years before the media did. I refused to believe it. So, now I take information more cautiously. I don't discard it without a second thought. This is something only experience can teach you.
You can join any political party and become a spokesman of it in the first day itself.You have the gall to make such face saving statement s even now is a proof of your TALENT.
this is what experience has taught you. I do hope at least from now on experience will teach you not to post nonsense on threads dedicated to a particular fighters without having a rat ass info on it's design parameter.
Experience should also teach you that someone should know some basic stuff regarding factors like

1.Wing loading
2.AOA
3.TWR(and what is the norm for calculating the thrust to weight ratio, and why that norm is there?)
And how these combine to affect the fighter's performance.
Experience should also teach you not not to post rat ass stuff like "LOW WING LOADING IS MEANT FOR PASSENGER AIRCRAFT".
As long as information is not official, it is speculation. Most of your "speculations" are more of a wish than something we can apply logic to. Learn to understand the fact that Decklander could also be wrong. EPE is a planned 5th gen engine, there is no guarantee what we are getting is the real deal or not.
But the planned 5th gen PAKFA engine will become operational witout any hitch,offcourse.
so when was it oficially decalred that a few mig-21s will wipe out a squadron of TEJAS and tejas has a lower Radome dia than grippen?
So what happened to IAF's rejection of the EPE version?


The enigne on LSPs produce 1000 pounds less thrust than the engines that are to be mated with serial production aircraft(SP)
The LSP is operating within 85 percent of this lesser thrut engine's flight envelope restricted by FBW software.

Only after the completion of SPIN RECOVERY test which tests the aircrafts performance in near stall flight envelope and post stall recovery will Flight envelope be fully opened to reach full specs.

Then only the flight envelope will be fully opened to reach max AOA,max STR and all other max specs.Otherwise it will endanger the life of pilot who tests the aircraft.

It will be further increased in SP version.

This is the norm in all international test flight programs with FBW software.
Even then with the introduction of SP version with 1000 pounds higher thrust engine only the mk1 will reach it's full specs.
This much is official.

If you have a friend in LCA program ask him about this, provided he reamains your friend even now after seeing all the bull shit you dumped on tejas in this thread.
End of discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Since when did tejas became am aeronautical disaster ?, and who rescued it?.

According to indian media it is still a aerodynamic disaster barring a few excetions like MANOHAR JOSHI's artcle in INDIA TODAY that "OUR CINDRELLA MUST STEP OUT ".
Our Cinderella must step out : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today

This is a very detailed article in a major media house . But still many people call tejas as a disaster.

Like many ignorant posters posting all over the net , indian media always believed that LCA was 35 years old and it is nowhere near completion.

And people who don't even know the purpose of thrust to weight calculation and what are the international norms for thrust to weight calculation are beating their chest as tejas is underpowered and less than mirage -2000 and mig-21!!!!!!!!

And some international bloggers who call me a nationalist tripe are roaming many international threads in the net armed with CEMILAC report by DR.S.K.JEBAKUMAR, like evangelist clergy man as if the ADA designed the TEJAS with insurmountable drag issues and scoot at first sight when people ask some inconvenient questions.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-207.html#post579107

Then why blame the media for that?
In post 3103 another guy saying in the following page

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-207.html#post579107

POST NO-3103
The problem with this guy isn't that I cannot ignore him. But he comes up with so much crap that it is nearly impossible to tolerate his nonsense. Then he starts a mud slinging campaign with more nonsense added.

Like Twinblade said, if we stop posting then he will completely ruin this thread.
Despite the best efforts I managed to ruin the thread. Will they please come and clean it up now?

Same arguments over so called drag issues in post no-3430 in the following page.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-229.html#post588612
I do wish someone with professional background will explain it convincingly.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Our Cinderella must step out : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today
In the above article , The following statements are there.

The aircraft under 10 tons of operational empty weight are the American F-16, the Chinese JF-17, the Swedish Gripen. Of these the LCA is the lightest at just 5.9 tons.

But its most important quality is that it does not reflect radar beams, unlike the metallic components of aircraft. In other words, this gives the LCA a naturally low radar signature or 'stealth' characteristics. Given its small size anyway, it is, in the words of a former fighter pilot, "virtually invisible" to adversary fighters.


The use of carbon fibre gives the LCA another advantage: with its low operational empty weight, and compared to an aircraft with similar engines, the LCA has greater thrust to weight ratio. The LCA Mk 2 is likely to have 1.53, compared to the other agile fighter, the F-16's 1.64. The Gripen has 1.44 and the JF-17 has 1.28. Indeed, the LCA's rate of acceleration compares favourably with heavy two-engined fighters like the Eurofighter, which has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.64.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042


GE rates the new components at a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 (indicating successful prototype testing) and notes that it has developed 17 new or derivative engines successfully from the same TRL.

The new engine offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost. That would take the EPE up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, giving it the best thrust/weight ratio of any fighter engine -- almost 11:1. Alternatively (an option understood to be attracting interest at Saab) the EPE could be delivered with a 10 percent uprate and very generous temperature margins, extending its life and reducing fighter life-cycle costs.

The EPE "will not make much difference at an air show", says Boeing chief test pilot Ric Traven, but dramatically improves the fighter's performance at high speed and altitude, halving supersonic acceleration times. For the Gripen, the extra thrust would
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
If anyone still has any doubts, pls read this link.
GE Brings Good Things To Hornet, Gripen
There are who wont be convinced even if you put them through the turbine blades of EPE.They will go on to say it is a paper tiger . It is not available for tejas mk-2 and mk-2 will only have regular 414 98 kn engine, throughout this thread. So please don't commit the mistake of trying to convince them and post for the benefit of other people in the thread.

Thanks.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
A flutter test is a test of vibration of the aircraft. A "flight flutter test", as the name suggests, is a test of vibration in the airframe during flight. This usually happens when the airplane gathers speed, usually nearing its maximum theoretical speed. This in effect is done by gaining significant elevation and diving the plane so it gathers speed.

The vibration is tested on various parts of the plane and compared against theoretical limits. If the plane vibrates too much, it risk getting ripped apart in mid-air. Flight flutter testing is a significant and hi-risk test for most airplanes.

Flutter involves the interaction between aerodynamics, elastic and inertia forces that come into play on structures that results in an unwanted (sometimes dangerous) oscillation (vibration).



INS Hansa (Goa) In the final phase of its tests before formal commissioning, India's indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas went past its ultimate speed of 1,350 KMPH over the Goa skies and clocked the fastest speed ever, a top IAF officer said on Tuesday.


"The aircraft went past its ultimate speed of 1350 kmph on December 7 over the skies in Goa after take off from the naval air station INS Hansa," Commander Rohit Varma, project director (flight test), National flight test centre, told reporters here.

"This is the fastest speed ever achieved by an Indian- made fighter aircraft," he said. The aircraft also passed flight flutter test diving from an altitude of four kilometers to almost sea level at 900 feet. "Tejas has already passed high-altitude tests in Leh, the desert rigours in Rajasthan and now it has proved its worth over the maritime space in Goa," Varma said.

INS Hansa Base (Goa), Dec 9 (PTI) The aircraft dived towards the sea as the pilot lifted his hands off the control stick for five seconds. In such a short duration, it had plummeted from four kilometres above sea level to just 900 metres before the pilot hit to the throttle again to take to the skies.

The 'flight flutter test', a mandatory procedure for fighter crafts, was conducted off the Goa coast on Tejas in maritime environment by the agencies, which are testing this technology, a senior Indian Air Force officer said today.



So the tejas achieved a speed of mach 1350 kmph at sea level off goa during this flutter test. Some people have misunderstood it to be a dive to gather enough momentum to achieve max sea level speed to overcome the induced drag due to the shortcommings pointed out by the cemilac team. But this interpretation also seems wrong.

So there is no reason to believe that this 1350 kmph achieved at sea level from a 4km dive cannot be achieved in level flight.

Read the report carefully. The pilot took his hands off the handle and aircraft was diving free from the height.

So the pilot was not pushing the stick in the dive to overcome any drag that stops the fighter from reaching its top sea level speed in a normal level flight at sea level to overcome any design deficiency.


An interesting graph from the presentation-

Originally Posted by sudhir007
http://www.aero.iisc.ernet.in/kartik/INCAST_sudha5.pdf






this graph depicts the step by step opening of the flight envelope of tejas. Without understanding this process many people say that tejas is unable to achieve it's topspeed due to design faults and drag issues and it is inferior to grippen and even mig-21.

So the achieved stop speeds at sea level and mach 1.6 does not correspond to the design specs. It corresponds to the partially opened flight envelope specs only.

Extrapolating the curves will show that suitable engine even mk-1 can have much higher speeds than achieved within the partially opened flight envelope.

Observe the lower most curve in the graph. That is the Calibrated Airspeed (CAS) curve. It suggests that the LCA has been designed for a max CAS of 1354 kmph which the reporters mistook for the max speed of the LCA. CAS has nothing to do with the max speed of an air craft and it is impossible to estimate the max speed of an aircraft from its max design CAS.

So what is CAS?

Calibrated airspeed (CAS) is the speed shown by a conventional airspeed indicator after correction for instrument error and position error. Most EFIS displays also show CAS. At high speeds and altitudes, calibrated airspeed is further corrected for compressibility errors and becomes equivalent airspeed (EAS).

When flying at sea level under International Standard Atmosphere conditions (15°C, 1013 hPa, 0% humidity) calibrated airspeed is the same as equivalent airspeed and true airspeed (TAS). If there is no wind it is also the same as ground speed (GS). Under any other conditions, CAS may differ from the aircraft's TAS and GS.


Calibrated airspeed in knots is usually abbreviated as KCAS, while indicated airspeed is abbreviated as KIAS.

Practical applications of CAS

CAS has two primary applications in aviation:

"¢ for navigation, CAS is traditionally calculated as one of the steps between indicated airspeed and true airspeed;

"¢ for aircraft control, CAS (and EAS) are the primary reference points, since they describe the dynamic pressure acting on aircraft surfaces regardless of density altitude, wind, and other conditions. EAS is used as a reference by aircraft designers, but

EAS cannot be displayed correctly at varying altitudes by a simple (single capsule) airspeed indicator. CAS is therefore a standard for calibrating the airspeed indicator such that CAS equals EAS at sea level pressure and approximates EAS at higher altitudes.

Calibrated airspeed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In short what it basically means is - a conventional airspeed indicator in the LCA will show a true airspeed under International Standard Atmosphere conditions (15°C, 1013 hPa, 0% humidity) upto a speed of 1354 kmph. Beyond this speed the CAS and TAS for the LCA will start diverging at ISA conditions.

The graph also proves that the LCA has already been tested at Mach 1.4 at an altitude of 1000 m. Further, it can be noted that the LCA is capable of achieving Mach 1.6 at altitudes of about 7000 m at CAS.

Because of the restricted flight envelope , the curves in the graph have been truncated after Mach 1.6. But if one extrapolates the CAS curve, it can be observed that the LCA will touch speeds of upto Mach 2 at altitudes approaching 10000 m. The MKI can achieve a top speed of about Mach 2.3 at an altitude of 11000 m.

However, what is interesting to note is that the MKI has a max ground level speed of only 1350 kmph. The LCA on the other hand has achieved that speed at sea level that too in Goa.

The location is significant because the weather conditions in Goa vary drastically from ISA conditions of 15°C, 1013 hPa and 0% humidity. The density of air in Goa at sea level will be higher than the density of air at ISA conditions at ground level

taht too with alesser powered GE-F404 engine.
 
Last edited:

rahulrds1

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
800
Likes
1,268
'Know the Super Hornets that came to Brazil' [ May 17, 2012 ]


"The Air Force Academy (AFA) was visited by two fighters Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet- '166,790' & '166,677 (VFA-106 squadron) , belonging to the United States Navy (USN) during the commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Smoke Squadron, last weekend.

Aircraft Squadron VFA-106 are usually seen in air shows and demonstrations, They are known as "TAC DEMO team."

This aircraft is commonly used by Boeing to perform demonstrations around the globe. There are reports that this same aircraft received two GE F414 engine version EPE Enhanced Performance Engine - which has 20% more thrust than the former."



Fumaça 60 anos: conheça os Super Hornets que vieram ao Brasil | Poder Aéreo - Informação e Discussão sobre Aviação Militar e Civil

Translated page link :
Google Translate
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
If anyone still has any doubts, pls read this link.
GE Brings Good Things To Hornet, Gripen
Sir, this is a very old article and not entirely up to date. I posted a Carnegie report from Tellis saying the IAF rejected the EPE for Super Hornet because the IAF believes GE cannot make the engine in time for the competition.

This is not a speculation and the information is more upto date (June 2011) compared to Bill Sweetman's article(April 2011). Unfortunate for Sweetman that the first set of rejections happened a week after he wrote that article.

An excerpt from the article that I have.
Although the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
remained America's best shot at making
the down-select in the MMRCA competition,
the IAF ultimately rejected this
aircraft on four grounds: the maturity
of its engine design, the growth potential
of its engine, assorted performance
shortfalls, and issues related to special
preventative maintenance. Unlike the
case of the F-16IN, where IAF reservations
are easier to appreciate, the case
against the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is
more blurry, raising some doubts about
whether the IAF gave the twin-engined
fighter an equitable shot.
These concerns arise in part because
of the way the F/A-18E/F's General
Electric F414 Enhanced Performance
Engine (EPE) was scored during the
competition.
Boeing offered this engine,
which is in its final development stage,
as the standard power-plant for the production
version of the F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet because its 20 per cent greater
thrust and advanced design — involving
a two-stage integrated blade and
disk fan, an advanced six-stage highpressure
compressor, and a new highpressure
turbine design — mitigated
many of the flight envelope deficiencies
that had hampered the airplane when
equipped with the older F414-GE-400
engine. Thanks to the EPE, the F/A-18E/
F's climb performance, its transonic acceleration,
its maximum sustained G,
its maximum sustained turn rates, and
its top-end speed all improve considerably,
with beneficial impact on its performance
in both the air-to-air and the
air-to-ground regimes.
The IAF, however, held the engine's
development status as proof of its immaturity,
despite the fact that when it
enters service it will be a substantially
new engine with greatly improved performance
and decades of active life
ahead of it. That the IAF was unwilling
to accept the engineering test results
of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F
was concerned, even as it accepted the
bench test results of the developmental
AESA radars proposed by the Europeans,
raises questions about whether the
service may have interpreted compliance
with some ASQRs a tad subjectively
The information released by GE said that there were just three tests conducted, in 2004, 2006 and 2010. Apart from that 17 "derivative" engines were made, and not the actual EPE engines. A "derivative" engine can be as different as Al-31FP vs AL-31FN or as different as the Kaveri aero engine vs the marine version, two extremes. A "derivative" engine is surely not the same engine as the planned EPE.

I don't know what level of progress has been made in the last two years. We can speculate and say they may have progressed a lot. Maybe an EPE is nearly ready for flight tests. Then IAF had no grounds for rejecting it for a 2015 SH. So, if they rejected it, then there is a reason civilians may not know of, even people like Bill Sweetman or Ashley Tellis.

This picture is from an actual Boeing presentation released in Aero India 2011.


INS6 is at the same level as the -400. We can say Boeing is not being very accurate. But Boeing is not trying to relate the EPE to INS6, rather it is listed as a different engine. We can say, Boeing does not have accurate information in this case. But then these guys could be more right than analysts or journos.

There is no reason to believe we are buying an EPE for $6Million each for a total of $600Million(not final price), including development, ToT and industrial production charges when a similar engine is expected to be made with France(Kaveri K-10) for over $2BIllion. A derivative engine with greater thrust, possible. But a whole new 5th gen engine, very, very unreasonable to believe in it for the costs involved. Comparatively the EJ-200 had completed development.

EPE is really the enhanced version of the EDE. So, maybe you are right and we are going to receive a downrated EPE or an uprated EDE. Doesn't matter which because both are the same 6 stage engines. Maybe they are not 5th gen engines and are being hyped up, especially after the loss of the F-136 contract.

However, there are a lot of tell tale signs which indicate we are not going to get the EPE engine though.

Lets look at some home grown signs.
The author is an ex-IAF officer, Jaguar pilot, IIRC.
Vijainder Thakur
LCA Naval Program Threatened by Excessive Weight
LCA Naval Program Threatened by Excessive Weight

May 05, 2012, (Sawfnews.com) - The first prototype of LCA Navy, NP1, took to the skies for the first time on April 27, 2012 nearly two years after it was rolled out on July 6, 2010. The breakthrough maiden flight brought cheer to ADA and the Navy, but the LCA Navy program remains beleaguered by excessive weight.

It has now been revealed that the GE414-INS6 engine ordered to power LCA Mk-2 and LCA Navy will prove inadequate for the LCA Navy because of the aircraft's upward spiraling weight.

At the time of NP1's rollout, ADA Director, Dr P.S. Subrahmanyam, had said the aircraft aircraft still needs to shed 400 kg and the landing gear has to be perfected.

Aviation Week now quotes a Navy official as saying that strengthening the rear airframe and undercarriage for carrier operations, and the addition of an arrestor hook, has made the aircraft about 1,000 pounds overweight.

"The naval variant of the LCA will require the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine [EPE] providing up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, a 20-percent boost," the official said.

The problem is, the F414 EPE is still under development!


Boeing is developing a F414 derivative with an all new core that will pack 20% more thrust for Super Hornet F/A-18E/F clients.

The improvements would increase the F414 thrust rating from 22,000lbs to 26,600lbs and dramatically improve the fighter's take-off performance.

The US Navy sought the new engine core to reduce susceptibility to FOD and improve SFC.

The F414 EPE retains the dimensions of F414-INS6 but sucks in more air. In the Super Hornet F/A-18E/F this is not a problem because its existing air in-take is large enough to accommodate the increased airflow.

It remains to be seen if the air intakes on the LCA Navy are similarly adequate. If not, the program could face delays that could conceivably kill it.
All good hints which indicate the EPE engine will be different from the INS6. If the Navy officer is talking about buying the EPE for the Navy in May 2012, when the lowest bidder for LCA's engine was actually chosen in Sept, 2010. Then we did not order the EPE for LCA Mk2. Had it been the EPE in the first deal, then there would have been no problems. Perhaps a new deal will be signed for the F-414 EPE. But, for sure, it is still an ongoing development. I cannot imagine any Indian company signing a deal for paper tigers like EPE for something like the already delayed LCA program. After all the requirement was for a ~100KN engine.

Also it is yet to be seen if the intakes on LCA can handle even 98 KN let alone ~120 KN.

I would like your thoughts on this if you still have a diverging opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top