ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[nitesh]

I think the GE deal is looking at the timeline of 2012 to finalize. If the deal fall through then, do you think EJ would have quoted a 2 year validity for the deal?

This is not two years hardly 1 and half years and yes this can be asked in tender scenario. What makes you so sure that this has not been asked?

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Really? I never knew it did.

Yeah right, I'll ask my pilots to be 'extra, extra careful' when they land.

And you can ask Rolls Royce to 'snip it a little', your senator to jump down the well, or whatever.

While we're on the subject, deathbycholocate, can you tell me what the GE's offering in terms of full ToT? 3D TVC? Or potential for integration on the AMCA?

You think we've never heard of the bullshit called EULA your senators pull, even while you bend your 'best friend' to the west backward and f*&* them up the arse?

Did I touch a nerve?:happy_2: You are perhaps not smart enough to realize that the selection of the GE F-414 gives the IAF options. Including, a possible replacement power plant for the M-88 if the Rafale wins the MMRCA - since prototypes of the Rafale was powered by the F-404 it isn't far fetched to conclude the F-414 can replace the M-88 with minor modifications.
The selection of the EJ200 on the other hand limits commonality to just the Typhoon, the F-414 can potentially be used on the Rafale along with F/A-18 and Gripen.
The GE F-414 is a great engine, one of the few that has no after burner limit. The F-414 has been deployed in all possible environments including prolonged naval deployment and is renowned for its reliability, a testament to this fact is its use in single engine aircraft like Gripen and Euro consortium's own MAKO. In addition, it was always a planned replacement for the LCA's original power plant the F-404. Both LCA and GE engineers factored this in their designs. As for ToT, its impossible to build an engine without transfer of technology, the challenge isn't congressional approval but India's ability to absorb ToT.

You may think you know better but the folks who made this decision know way more than you do.

 

[Rage]

Did I touch a nerve?:happy_2: You are perhaps not smart enough to realize that the selection of the GE F-414 gives the IAF options. Including, a possible replacement power plant for the M-88 if the Rafale wins the MMRCA - since prototypes of the Rafale was powered by the F-404 it isn't far fetched to conclude the F-414 can replace the M-88 with minor modifications.
The selection of the EJ200 on the other hand limits commonality to just the Typhoon, the F-414 can potentially be used on the Rafale along with F/A-18 and Gripen.
The GE F-414 is a great engine, one of the few that has no after burner limit. The F-414 has been deployed in all possible environments including prolonged naval deployment and is renowned for its reliability, a testament to this fact is its use in single engine aircraft like Gripen and Euro consortium's own MAKO. In addition, it was always a planned replacement for the LCA's original power plant the F-404. Both LCA and GE engineers factored this in their designs. As for ToT, its impossible to build an engine without transfer of technology, the challenge isn't congressional approval but India's ability to absorb ToT.

You may think you know better but the folks who made this decision know way more than you do.

Yeh, you did touch a nerve.

You are perhaps not smart enough to realize that the EJ200, being the more modern, flexible and lighter of the two, offers even more scope for growth. Not only is it the only 5-stage compression in the world today, it has by far the simpler design <speaking to your absorption of the ToT>, the lesser life-cycle costs and the greater technological viability <read a TVC version that's near development, and true-technology transfer, including the dedicated global production facility in India and single-crystal blade technology>. The EJ-200 is also a great engine, having by far the greater overall pressure ratio and the greater efficiency . Also the very, very low By-Pass ratio means the compressor has a near turbo-jet cycle, with the maximum attainable non-afterburning thrust making up the greater percentage of total achievable output.

The utliziation of single crystals 'bliscs' or aerofoils also brings enormous potential advantages to how the powerplant may be operated < I hope, I don't need to tell you what these are>. As for afterburning, the EJ's providing some 20,250-22,500lbf of thrust when wet, with an SFC of some 49g/kN.s, which is more than anything the LCA will ever require .

You are also perhaps not smart enough to realize that the 'commonalities' with the GE F-404 don't automatically evince compatibility with the fighter. As one air force official said, "the F-414 was a "fatter" engine with a bigger diameter,... and could require redesigning of the fuselage." "The thrust of EJ200 (about 85+ kilonewton) may be slightly lower than F-414 (95+ kilonewton), but it will easily fit into the LCA. And if the weight is reduced, its (EJ200) power will be adequate. Thus, we will not have to change the design of the fuselage".

The implications of this are obvious. For:

"then all the test flights, many of which have already been carried out, will have to be repeated and the whole programme could get considerably delayed. It will also escalate the cost."

You are perhaps also not smart enough to realize the politicking that goes on in Indian defence deals. Read this for example:

IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but.. - Money - DNA

..Especially in light of the fact that the Consortium bid $666 million for ninety-nine EJ200 engines, undercuting US rival, General Electric, which quoted US $822 million, by over 20%. How then was GE allowed to resubmit its tender, eh?

I'll let you read some of the other benefits of the EJ-200, here:

Powered by Google Docs

My point with the EULA is not necessarily bilateral technology transfer. Export controls it comes packaged with figure in this decision. After all, we do plan on exporting the LCA.

My point is: we, and not me, know what's best for our country. Amortization of production costs may be factored, but given that the Tejas is an independent program with a lifetime of its own, the selection of the best engine with long-term viability is key. And we also know when decisions made on defence contracts are political, which is exactly what the Air Force predicted would happen.

 

[pmaitra]

You are also perhaps not smart enough to realize that the 'commonalities' with the GE F-404 don't automatically evince compatibility with the fighter. As one air force official said, "the F-414 was a "fatter" engine with a bigger diameter,... and could require redesigning of the fuselage." "The thrust of EJ200 (about 85+ kilonewton) may be slightly lower than F-414 (95+ kilonewton), but it will easily fit into the LCA. And if the weight is reduced, its (EJ200) power will be adequate. Thus, we will not have to change the design of the fuselage".

Very true. In fact, the LCA's fuselage will have to be redesigned to accommodate the GE F414.

My point with the EULA is not necessarily bilateral technology transfer. Export controls it comes packaged with figure in this decision. After all, we do plan on exporting the LCA.

From what I understand, India will not have freedom on whom to sell the LCA in the event we power it with an imported or license produced engine. Hence, it is imperative that the indigenous Kaveri is made operational as quickly as possible.

 

[Daredevil]

Both GE F404 and F414 has some length and diameter. The difference is only in the weight.

Check this GE - Aviation: Comparison Chart - Military Turbofans

 

[Rage]

From what I understand, India will not have freedom on whom to sell the LCA in the event we power it with an imported or license produced engine. Hence, it is imperative that the indigenous Kaveri is made operational as quickly as possible.

That is the plan, certainly. To develop a long-term indigenous engine with Kaveri/Snecma. But I think they're also banking on selling the Tejas with a foreign engine in the interim, quite like what China is doing with the JF-17 on Russian engines. A recent report had it that the Kaveri would only be available for operational evaluations by 2018.

Both GE F404 and F414 has some length and diameter. The difference is only in the weight.

Check this GE - Aviation: Comparison Chart - Military Turbofans

Thanks for that. I don't know, if the F404-GE-IN20 though, which is a variant of the F404-GE-402 and in use on the Tejas, has exactly the same specs. Something tells me it doesn't, because IAF officials have been bickering about the weight and dimensions of the F-414 <which has the same dimensions as the F 404-GE-402> from the outset.

 

[pmaitra]

Both GE F404 and F414 has some length and diameter. The difference is only in the weight.

Check this GE - Aviation: Comparison Chart - Military Turbofans

Thanks for the post.

I see that the weight is not shown in the listing.

One needs to keep in mind that the GE F414 is 889 mm in diameter while GTX-35VS Kaveri is 910 mm in diameter. Hence, if Kaveri was intended to power the LCA, then redesigning the fuselage will be limited to 'fitting' the GE F414 in the fuselage, which is 21 mm thinner and the so called 'fattening' of the fuselage will not be due to GE F414.

 

[Daredevil]

Thanks for the post.

I see that the weight is not shown in the listing.

One needs to keep in mind that the GE F414 is 889 mm in diameter while GTX-35VS Kaveri is 910 mm in diameter. Hence, if Kaveri was intended to power the LCA, then redesigning the fuselage will be limited to 'fitting' the GE F414 in the fuselage, which is 21 mm thinner and the so called 'fattening' of the fuselage will not be due to GE F414.

Any new engine with different weight or different dimensions need some modifications in the airframe, so that every aspect of engine works optimally. Though it is not mentioned in that link, GE-F414 engine is heavier than GE-F404 (he current engine powering LCA Tejas) but have same dimensions. If GE414 is installed in LCA as is, then there might be shift in center of gravity and taking this into account, there needs few modifications to airframe including to the air-intakes for better thrust.

If and when Kaveri is operationalized, the air-frame has to be optimized again for Kaveri engine.

 

[jatkshatriya]

can anyone post a pic of how LCA mk 2 will look like..i am dying to see it..anybody havinbg sources in ADA..plz plz

 

[pankaj nema]

The LCA mk 2 is still being designed. There will be TWO proto types that will be designed and tested before one is selected.
It will be a slightly larger plane , with some changes in wing design and air intakes .That is all that is known AESA radar is a certainity though the size of an AESA might be a challenge for the small nose of the LCA , IRST and refuelling probes may be added

The work is HUGE. EADS is the consultant .It will take not less than 5 years.

 

[EagleOne]

can anyone post a pic of how LCA mk 2 will look like..i am dying to see it..anybody havinbg sources in ADA..plz plz

need to wait another some more months before the image comes up so keep dreaming .
P.S :if u can draw, draw a artistic image

 

[jatkshatriya]

need to wait another some more months before the image comes up so keep dreaming .
P.S :if u can draw, draw a artistic image

well yaa i can..but need to have an idea of what changes will be made in the aircrafts airframe...will canards be added?...i gotto have an idea

 

[pankaj nema]

LCA mk 2 will still be a single engine aircraft ,The new engine is for greater thrust so the weight of the plane has to be controlled to get max thrust.
AESA is the first priority. Other things may be added later. LCA Mk 3 might come after mk 2

Enhancements are routine but all enhancements can t be done at one go

 

[EagleOne]

well yaa i can..but need to have an idea of what changes will be made in the aircrafts airframe...will canards be added?...i gotto have an idea

their will be refined in aerodynamics ...and their is some thing i dont understand is air staff requirement is for a small lighter air craft but if we keep ge-414 it will become medium weight and it requires lot of refinement in aerodynamic structure and the size of the aircaft will definetly increases

so this may be not fall under the category lca

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Any new engine with different weight or different dimensions need some modifications in the airframe, so that every aspect of engine works optimally. Though it is not mentioned in that link, GE-F414 engine is heavier than GE-F404 (he current engine powering LCA Tejas) but have same dimensions. If GE414 is installed in LCA as is, then there might be shift in center of gravity and taking this into account, there needs few modifications to airframe including to the air-intakes for better thrust.

If and when Kaveri is operationalized, the air-frame has to be optimized again for Kaveri engine.

The F414 EDE variant have undergone significant weight reduction over earlier models due to reduction in parts and stages and the use of light weight materials. The EDE variant is powered by an advanced two-stage, all-blisk (blade and disk) fan and new high-pressure turbine (HPT) design. The use of advanced materials and the vacuum plasma spraying of GE's patented thermal barrier protection coating extends engine life to 6000 hours. In addition, the Euro engine isn't certified for use on single engine aircrafts and there isn't enough operational data to validate resistance to corrosive ocean air(naval deployment). From a pure project perspective ignoring political uncertainties the F414 is a safer choice. Some of the political risks associated with the use of American equipment can perhaps be mitigated contractually. As for ToT, GE has obtained preliminary clearance and I believe the intention is to transfer the technology to GE's Indian subsidiary to facilitate production in India. But will GE build the entire production infrastructure in India for limited production of 99 engines? I doubt it, unless GE and/or the Indian authorities have plans yet unknown to us.

 

[p2prada]

I like the fact that the F414 was chosen for our bird. Let's not forget that both engines matched requirements, but as of today, the F414 is a better, more mature engine. ADA already has experience on General Electric engines and also the fact that GE has quite a bit of presence in the Indian market compared to Eurojet(read Navy). So, absorption of technology will be much easier along with govt stipulations of ToT and Offset rules being met.

Let's not forget that in the long run, neither the GE nor the EJ engine will be used on the Tejas Mk2. Rather it will be a modified version of Kaveri that will be used which could be readied by 2020. So, the long run advantages the EJ provides over the F414 can be overlooked.

The initial complement of 99 engines shows that only 2 squadrons of LCA MK2 (and test prototypes) will use the engines and IAF requirements could be upwards of 10 Squadrons which can either increase the scope of the deal or the prospects of using the Kaveri can be achieved sooner than 2020. ADA or IAF has not yet released requirement for follow up orders so it is best to speculate that later models of the LCA will feature a new Kaveri engine which may be an offshoot program of the NGFA.

Finally, the F414 is cheaper than the EJ. Disinvestment matters.

It will be difficult to speculate if the GE victory will place the MRCA deal in Super Hornets favor. It is important to remember that IAF places the MRCA deal higher than the LCA project. Common engines may seem like reduced headaches in logistics. But, IAF has always operated in seemingly difficult logistics environment since the inception of the IAF in 1932. So, IAF may ignore the Super Hornet if it sees it is getting more from other fighters. Super Hornet may seem a cheaper option compared to Rafale or EF-2000. But, the MOD has given an assurance that cost will not come in the way of choosing the right fighter as has been happening since eons. So, in case of the MRCA disinvestment does not matter.

The players are still playing.

 

[nitesh]

ok guys something from horse's mouth

Livefist - The Best of Indian Defence: "No Connection Between Tejas MK-II Engine and MMRCA": IAF Chief

IAF chief Air Chief Marshal PV Naik today asserted that there was "no connection" between the GE F414 engine selection for the Tejas MK-II and the Indian MMRCA competition. He was asked if the F414's selection would provide any considerably advantage to the two platforms in the MMRCA that were powered by the same engine. His reply: "No, there is no connection."

 

[jatkshatriya]

a rough sketch....i made this a litlle longer and narrower than the original LCA...more aerodynamic.

 

[gogbot]

well yaa i can..but need to have an idea of what changes will be made in the aircrafts airframe...will canards be added?...i gotto have an idea

a rough sketch....i made this a little longer and narrower than the original LCA...more aerodynamic.

The Tejas-mkII will have no changes to the airframe. Any one who tells you otherwise , is most likely ill-informed.
The Design has been frozen and will not be altered.

The only changes that might happen , will be to the Air intakes. And that's only if it is necessary for any kind of re-design due to the New Engine.
Otherwise internals will be Re-jiggered to slot in the engine. Maybe Adjustments for the power requirements of the AESA radar.
Radar absorbent paint is also very unlikely.

Also i believe LCA already has a HMD.

New avionics will be very cool no doubt
.

Some look at HAL's avionics

ALH Dhruv Cockpit: Old & New

Weaponized Dhurv

LCH front cockpit form Display

LCH front cockpit from the prototype

LCA Tejas cockpit Pre-LSP5

I can see some major improvements in this area.

 

[EagleOne]

The Tejas-mkII will have no changes to the airframe. Any one who tells you otherwise , is most likely ill-informed.
The Design has been frozen and will not be altered.

The only changes that might happen , will be to the Air intakes. And that's only if it is necessary for any kind of re-design due to the New Engine.
Otherwise internals will be Re-jiggered to slot in the engine. Maybe Adjustments for the power requirements of the AESA radar.
Radar absorbent paint is also very unlikely.

Also i believe LCA already has a HMD.

imo- they will be change in areodynamic sturcture apart from intakes since IAF want a refined structure .