HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[halupridol]

The "project" LCA, to build an independent industry that is able to develop fighters indigenously in the long run, had higher importance than the "fighter" LCA itself.

well,that sums it up,doesnt it

 

[sancho]

well,that sums it up,doesnt it

That still hasn't changed, IAF still puts hope on the LCA, the indigenous radar or engine development, IN went for the development of N-LCA for the same reasons of setting up an industry to develop a naval fighter, not to get a capable carrier fighter and even today, IAF is ok with AMCA if it helps to develop indigenous NG techs and capabilities, even if they don't need fighter. So the hope is still going on, but the industry at some point must start to deliver something!

 

[帅的一匹]

How could you hope Indian navy will induct a single engine fighter like LCA?

Indian navy will not induct a single engine fighter like LCA, especially on the carriers.

 

[rockstarIN]

FYI, it was IAF who rejected the two aircraft which HAL were assembling before IOC-2 saying since the metal is cut before IOC-2, they will not be inducting those two aircraft. Now tell me how can someone expect an aircraft to be produced in just 3 months(Please don't compare HAL with US and China). It takes between 9-12 months for the first aircraft to come out of assembly line.

Sp series is nothing but the latest lsp . Actually HAL clearly did not meet the target

 

[Manindra]

How could you hope Indian navy will induct a single engine fighter like LCA?

Indian navy will not induct a single engine fighter like LCA, especially on the carriers.

It would be Tech demonstrator which helps development of heavy naval fighter.

 

[sancho]

It would be Tech demonstrator which helps development of heavy naval fighter.

If that would be the aim, it would be great. Sadly it isn't and they want to order number of N-LCA MK2s.

 

[Black Widow]

It would be Tech demonstrator which helps development of heavy naval fighter.

It will be TD and Filler both. Navy want 5th Gen Desi fighter for upcoming Carriers there are 2 aproaches for that
a) Develop and Deploy NLCA to learn all challenges. and integrate the learning in next gen fighter
b) Scrap N-LCA and start from scratch on next gen fighter.

As I remember comments from former naval chief he opted Option (a)...

Filler: N-LCA will be filled in hi-low configuration with MiG29. So that due to some reason if MiG29 K is not available, Carrier will have good number of Figters.

How could you hope Indian navy will induct a single engine fighter like LCA?

Indian navy will not induct a single engine fighter like LCA, especially on the carriers.

We will... We will induct a good number of Single engine N-LCA on our Carriers..

 

[sms]

How could you hope Indian navy will induct a single engine fighter like LCA?

Indian navy will not induct a single engine fighter like LCA, especially on the carriers.

We'll induct good number of Single engine LCAs.
Remember, till introduction of Mig-29, IN always used single engine jet e.g. Sea Hawk, Sea Vampire, Sea Harrier

 

[sancho]

a) Develop and Deploy NLCA to learn all challenges. and integrate the learning in next gen fighter
b) Scrap N-LCA and start from scratch on next gen fighter.

N-LCAs only use is, to gain industrial know how for navalising fighters, but doesn't give us anything on designing and developing a stealth fighter, not even how to develop a catapult capable fighter. So it's a mid way that we need!

a) Develop NLCA MK1 purely as a tech demo project, to learn all challenges of design, develop and production of a carrier fighter. and integrate the experience to start a new carrier fighter development
b) Scrap N-LCA MK2, since it neither provides operational nor additional industrial advantages
c) Start from scratch on next gen fighter with own stealth design challenges and use the experience gained from the N-LCA Tech Demo project to navalise it

 

[surya kiran]

N-LCAs only use is, to gain industrial know how for navalising fighters, but doesn't give us anything on designing and developing a stealth fighter, not even how to develop a catapult capable fighter. So it's a mid way that we need!

a) Develop NLCA MK1 purely as a tech demo project, to learn all challenges of design, develop and production of a carrier fighter. and integrate the experience to start a new carrier fighter development
b) Scrap N-LCA MK2, since it neither provides operational nor additional industrial advantages
c) Start from scratch on next gen fighter with own stealth design challenges and use the experience gained from the N-LCA Tech Demo project to navalise it

It would have made a lot of sense, if we start the next fighter with carrier operations in mind and then think of the IAF version. It could also, be that the N-LCA will get deployed in Andaman and that's as far as it will go? Btw, is the N-LCA capable of STOL or CATOBAR?

 

[Harisudan]

I have came across an article about Various lightweight fighters developed across the world in comparison with our LCA..Worth a read..Thought about sharing it here..Here you go..
"The Gripen program was conceived in studies conducted by the Swedish aerospace industry in 1978. The Swedish Government prompted in part by evaluations of the F-16 and F-18 by the Swedish Air Force and issues of economics approved the concept of a new light multi-role aircraft. Later in 1982 the Swedish Parliament voted to approve the project and the Defence Materiel Administration signed a contract for development of the JAS 39 Gripen. The first prototype flew in 1988 and the final flight tests were completed in December of 1996 [20]. By March 2000, approximately 85 aircraft have been delivered to the Swedish Air Force, and there is a possibility of sales to foreign countries [21]. Here too a comparison of the initial development time (up to prototype production) of the Gripen with the LCA, strongly favors the Gripen. One could easily conclude from these two examples that LCA R&D is of a poor quality and severely lags the world standard. The authors feel that such an argument is deceptive; it neglects the fine print here.
Firstly the F-16C/D (Block 50+) is a considerably evolved form of the YF-16 produced 24 years ago. While a good deal of this evolution was to expand on the original idea of a Light Weight Fighter to new roles and deployments, there were also several changes in the control system. The F16C/D that we see on the market today owes a fair bit to the work done between 1978 –1989 on the Advanced Fighter Technology Integration Program, which tested systems like Triplex Digital Flight Control System (3 digital control systems and 1 Analog backup) [22]. The LCA by comparison has begun with a Quadruplex DFCS (All four levels of control systems are digital) this is a considerable advance over the F16C/D. The Gripen for its part has also benefited from this research as it has though the consortium approach, sub-contracted development of several systems to participants of the advanced American programs like Lockheed Martin, Rockwell etc [23].
Secondly in designing the F-16, General Dynamics made use of advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft [24]. The prototype version YF-16 used main landing gear tires from the B-58 Hustler [25], an emergency power unit from the Concorde, an ESCAPAC II ejection seat from the A-4, an air data probe [26] from the SR-71 Blackbird, and servo actuators from the F-111 Aardvark. The actuators in the leading edge flaps were rotary actuators from the F-111 bomb bay doors. The canopy design and the canopy latching system were based on the NASA X-24. Off-the-shelf equipment used in the FSD craft includes a head-up display modified from an A-7 Corsair, nose gear wheel and tire from the F-4, a signal data recorder from the A-10, an oxygen quantity indicator from an F-5E, and a nose wheel steering system from the T-39. The engine, of course, was a modified version of the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine used in the F-15. The same applies to the Gripen where a large number of subsystems were contracted to European and American systems companies [23] and unlike the LCA, Saab did not have to face sanctions.
Thirdly there was a large pool of experience present within the American workforce. The so-called `Fighter Mafia’ of John Boyd, Tom Christie, John Chuprun, Harry Hillaker, Chuck Meyers, Pierre Sprey, Everest Riccioni, and others championed Light Weight Fighter concept [27]. These veteran designers in 1971 pushed the Tactical Fighter Requirements Division of Air Force Headquarters to fund a study titled "Study to Validate Expanded Energy-Maneuverability Through Trade-Off Analysis". General Dynamics and Northrop conducted this work. Fueled by steady funding (about $150,000 total) and the good tradeoff data from the study, the lightweight fighter concept was ready in a very short time. The transition was accelerated by the Packard Commission’s resurrection of prototyping to validate new aircraft and other military programs before they go into production. The Americans thus were able to combine these ideas to produce an airplane of reduced size and price [28]. We must also note that by the time the first generation F-16A rolled out the F-15 and F-111 were already flying and had seen action. Saab Military Aviation has produced a range of advanced fighters like the Saab Draken [29], a Mach 2.0 fighter built in the 1952 and the Saab Viggen [30] a multi-role fighter built in 1967.
When the LCA rolled out the only the other aircraft development effort in India was the aborted HF-24 Marut. The capabilities of the LCA and the Marut are so vastly different, that a fair number of components had to be completely redesigned for the LCA, this adds to the development time and cost. A key point here is that both the Americans and the Swedes drew upon a sea of expertise, technology and institutions that were built up much before the F-16 or the JAS39 came along. India has developed a fighter of similar configuration and the ancillary support and development institutions required to develop this fighter, all in a span of 20 years. This is quite an achievement. However given the cost of developing a complex instrument like a combat aircraft, one is almost tempted to simply buy a ready-made and proven platform from a trusted supplier...."

 

[Harisudan]

It would have made a lot of sense, if we start the next fighter with carrier operations in mind and then think of the IAF version. It could also, be that the N-LCA will get deployed in Andaman and that's as far as it will go? Btw, is the N-LCA capable of STOL or CATOBAR?

Any aircraft is capable of doing a STOBAR and CATOBAR config only if the under carriages are provided with arrestor hooks with strengthened belly and more rigid landing gears and a T/W ratio of ~ 1..

 

[Black Widow]

N-LCAs only use is, to gain industrial know how for navalising fighters, but doesn't give us anything on designing and developing a stealth fighter, not even how to develop a catapult capable fighter. So it's a mid way that we need!

a) Develop NLCA MK1 purely as a tech demo project, to learn all challenges of design, develop and production of a carrier fighter. and integrate the experience to start a new carrier fighter development
b) Scrap N-LCA MK2, since it neither provides operational nor additional industrial advantages
c) Start from scratch on next gen fighter with own stealth design challenges and use the experience gained from the N-LCA Tech Demo project to navalise it

I like your hate for LCA..

1. Yes u are right , "gain industrial know how for navalising fighters"
2. No one said that "give us anything on designing and developing a stealth fighter, "
3. Why not, may be ? "how to develop a catapult capable fighter"
4. U love it , ain't you? "Scrap N-LCA MK2,"
5. Like LCA "Start from scratch on next gen fighter" -- No one does that.. no one start something from scratch.. Design can be done from scratch but "next gen fighter??" You are contradicting urself

Few things for Naval fighter which is common , whether the plane is stealth or not .. Catapult or STOBAR
a) Strong Undercarriage
b) Landing gear
c) landing and Takeoff capability
d) saline and humid ocean environment.
and could be many more, once I get free time I will list those down..

I have came across an article about Various lightweight fighters developed across the world in comparison with our LCA..Worth a read..Thought about sharing it here..Here you go..
"The Gripen program was conceived in studies conducted by the Swedish aerospace industry in 1978. The Swedish Government prompted in part by evaluations of the F-16 and F-18 by the Swedish Air Force and issues of economics approved the concept of a new light multi-role aircraft. Later in 1982 the Swedish Parliament voted to approve the project and the Defence Materiel Administration signed a contract for development of the JAS 39 Gripen. The first prototype flew in 1988 and the final flight tests were completed in December of 1996 [20]. By March 2000, approximately 85 aircraft have been delivered to the Swedish Air Force, and there is a possibility of sales to foreign countries [21]. Here too a comparison of the initial development time (up to prototype production) of the Gripen with the LCA, strongly favors the Gripen. One could easily conclude from these two examples that LCA R&D is of a poor quality and severely lags the world standard. The authors feel that such an argument is deceptive; it neglects the fine print here.
Firstly the F-16C/D (Block 50+) is a considerably evolved form of the YF-16 produced 24 years ago. While a good deal of this evolution was to expand on the original idea of a Light Weight Fighter to new roles and deployments, there were also several changes in the control system. The F16C/D that we see on the market today owes a fair bit to the work done between 1978 –1989 on the Advanced Fighter Technology Integration Program, which tested systems like Triplex Digital Flight Control System (3 digital control systems and 1 Analog backup) [22]. The LCA by comparison has begun with a Quadruplex DFCS (All four levels of control systems are digital) this is a considerable advance over the F16C/D. The Gripen for its part has also benefited from this research as it has though the consortium approach, sub-contracted development of several systems to participants of the advanced American programs like Lockheed Martin, Rockwell etc [23].
Secondly in designing the F-16, General Dynamics made use of advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft [24]. The prototype version YF-16 used main landing gear tires from the B-58 Hustler [25], an emergency power unit from the Concorde, an ESCAPAC II ejection seat from the A-4, an air data probe [26] from the SR-71 Blackbird, and servo actuators from the F-111 Aardvark. The actuators in the leading edge flaps were rotary actuators from the F-111 bomb bay doors. The canopy design and the canopy latching system were based on the NASA X-24. Off-the-shelf equipment used in the FSD craft includes a head-up display modified from an A-7 Corsair, nose gear wheel and tire from the F-4, a signal data recorder from the A-10, an oxygen quantity indicator from an F-5E, and a nose wheel steering system from the T-39. The engine, of course, was a modified version of the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine used in the F-15. The same applies to the Gripen where a large number of subsystems were contracted to European and American systems companies [23] and unlike the LCA, Saab did not have to face sanctions.
Thirdly there was a large pool of experience present within the American workforce. The so-called `Fighter Mafia’ of John Boyd, Tom Christie, John Chuprun, Harry Hillaker, Chuck Meyers, Pierre Sprey, Everest Riccioni, and others championed Light Weight Fighter concept [27]. These veteran designers in 1971 pushed the Tactical Fighter Requirements Division of Air Force Headquarters to fund a study titled "Study to Validate Expanded Energy-Maneuverability Through Trade-Off Analysis". General Dynamics and Northrop conducted this work. Fueled by steady funding (about $150,000 total) and the good tradeoff data from the study, the lightweight fighter concept was ready in a very short time. The transition was accelerated by the Packard Commission’s resurrection of prototyping to validate new aircraft and other military programs before they go into production. The Americans thus were able to combine these ideas to produce an airplane of reduced size and price [28]. We must also note that by the time the first generation F-16A rolled out the F-15 and F-111 were already flying and had seen action. Saab Military Aviation has produced a range of advanced fighters like the Saab Draken [29], a Mach 2.0 fighter built in the 1952 and the Saab Viggen [30] a multi-role fighter built in 1967.
When the LCA rolled out the only the other aircraft development effort in India was the aborted HF-24 Marut. The capabilities of the LCA and the Marut are so vastly different, that a fair number of components had to be completely redesigned for the LCA, this adds to the development time and cost. A key point here is that both the Americans and the Swedes drew upon a sea of expertise, technology and institutions that were built up much before the F-16 or the JAS39 came along. India has developed a fighter of similar configuration and the ancillary support and development institutions required to develop this fighter, all in a span of 20 years. This is quite an achievement. However given the cost of developing a complex instrument like a combat aircraft, one is almost tempted to simply buy a ready-made and proven platform from a trusted supplier...."

Hari,

You are corroborating what I keep saying in multiple platform .

No nation on earth can make a plane from scratch in less than 20 years. F16, FC1, F22, PAK-FA all are evolution of system. Some esteem members confused by "Designed from scratch" with developed from scratch..

LCA is developed from scratch.. (From no knowledge to realization of work)
F22 is designed from scratch... (most of its component were already designed, they just evolved)

 

[Black Widow]

Any aircraft is capable of doing a STOBAR and CATOBAR config only if the under carriages are provided with arrestor hooks with strengthened belly and more rigid landing gears and a T/W ratio of ~ 1..

Exactly...

STOBAR undercarriage is more strengthen than Land base fighter.
CATOBAR undercarriage is more strengthen than STOBAR fighter.

Carrier based fighter's cockpit is designed to look close for better landing operations. So in NLCA pilot can see more closer than LCA.

Carrier based fighters' landing gears are more flexible and strong.. U can see the Naval Dhruv or NLCA landing gears for example.

 

[Harisudan]

I like your hate for LCA..

1. Yes u are right , "gain industrial know how for navalising fighters"
2. No one said that "give us anything on designing and developing a stealth fighter, "
3. Why not, may be ? "how to develop a catapult capable fighter"
4. U love it , ain't you? "Scrap N-LCA MK2,"
5. Like LCA "Start from scratch on next gen fighter" -- No one does that.. no one start something from scratch.. Design can be done from scratch but "next gen fighter??" You are contradicting urself

Few things for Naval fighter which is common , whether the plane is stealth or not .. Catapult or STOBAR
a) Strong Undercarriage
b) Landing gear
c) landing and Takeoff capability
d) saline and humid ocean environment.
and could be many more, once I get free time I will list those down..







Hari,

You are corroborating what I keep saying in multiple platform .

No nation on earth can make a plane from scratch in less than 20 years. F16, FC1, F22, PAK-FA all are evolution of system. Some esteem members confused by "Designed from scratch" with developed from scratch..

LCA is developed from scratch.. (From no knowledge to realization of work)
F22 is designed from scratch... (most of its component were already designed, they just evolved)

Some people here, thinks Indian DPSUs should develop a fighter plane from scratch, within 5 to 10 years, when the know how's of the complicated sub systems and electronics are not available even with DPSUs or any other Indian Industry for that matter..They want engines, radars, EW systems, weapons, sensors, All other related systems within this time period to be developed Indegenously when no international manufacturer is ready to share know hows or products and accessories due to sanctions laid by the west and when already we are facing problems due to low quality spares and accessories by Russians..
Given the above scenario, DPSU's had several time wrongly predicted the timings of events related to aircraft's development..
Yes, that is the only mistake they've done according to me..No where else I could see any mistake or blunder committed by the DPSU's..
But yet the stupid media and corrupted clowns from the forces are satisfied some how in sourcing equipments from foreign suppliers for humongous prices and signing extremely tricky deals which could make us pay our *** out in the future and not support our home grown equipment even if it is little bit lesser in performance compared to the international 4gen aircrafts..They are not ready to make it potent by upgrading in future once when the tech is available with us, but still manage things learn the bird till the maturity is reached in production..
What the Fcuk........????