nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
News on LSP 4 and LSP 5
Broadsword: LSP-4 and LSP-5: update and pics
Broadsword: LSP-4 and LSP-5: update and pics
HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
- Status
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
I thought not to open a new thread, so just posting the news here
Defence works to unmanned vehicle production, DEMA comes of age - ExpressIndia.Com
Defence works to unmanned vehicle production, DEMA comes of age
Pune July 08 First lot of off-the-shelf products to include mini UAV and fuses for armaments; land sought at Talegaon, Dehu Road for Defence industry cluster
For over 15 years, the city-based Defence Equipment Manufacturers Association (DEMA), a consortium of 38 small and medium enterprises, developed and tested sub-systems and components as required by the Defence sector. Realising that the time has come to graduate into active production, DEMA is now working on the first lot of off-the-shelf products which will include a mini Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and fuses for armaments, to be ready by 2010.
Now we will be developing and producing multi-disciplinary systems and put them up for off-the-shelf purchase, said DEMA President D S Kamlapurkar. Around 10 of DEMAs members have formed a separate manufacturing entity - by the name of DEMA Mechatronics which will engage in the development, manufacturing and marketing of the complete systems.
By 2010, DEMA Mechatronics plans to build up the capacity to produce around 100 UAVs and 2 lakh variable time fuses and around 50,000 proximity fuses per year. We will initially manufacture around 2 lakh variable time fuses and gradually increase the number to 5 lakh per year, said Kamlapurkar. We are also venturing into indigenous production of proximity fuses.
The UAV will be an upgraded version of the Vihanga Netra, the first effort of the DEMA consortium using Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) funds, said Yogendra Jagirdar of Jagirdar Aeroproducts, which is in charge of designing and making the UAV aircraft, its field-testing and operation. This will be our second attempt at manufacturing UAVs after the Vihang Netras, he added.
There will be additional features like night vision compatibility, map overlays and the ability to lock on to a target. It will be a wheeled version, compact compared to the Vihang Netra, and weighing 25-40 kg. It will possess a range of 10 km, an altitude of 1.5 km and a speed of 100 km per hour.
Dema is planning the UAV for the civil sector as well. The UAV can be used for non-defence forces as well, like the police or even paramilitary troops for surveillance, said Kamlapurkar.
While fuses and UAVs are DEMAs priority projects for full-fledged production right now, some of its members are also involved in producing moving targets and the association will gradually delve into the production of smart weapons.
At present the Vihang Netra is being used as a moving target and we are planning to produce more targets for defence use. We also plan to produce smart mines, which are activated by remote, shoulder rocket launchers etc. The technology is already a part of some other products and we will just have to adapt them to develop the proposed products, explained Kamlapurkar.
Dema has been requesting the Ministry of Defence and the State and Central governments to grant 5-100 acres for a Defence industry cluster near Pune. The plan is to allocate each unit on one-acre plots. We have located land at Talegaon and Dehu Road, said Kamlapurkar who added that DEMA would be sending a detailed proposal on the cluster demand to the MoD soon.
Defence works to unmanned vehicle production, DEMA comes of age - ExpressIndia.Com
Defence works to unmanned vehicle production, DEMA comes of age
Pune July 08 First lot of off-the-shelf products to include mini UAV and fuses for armaments; land sought at Talegaon, Dehu Road for Defence industry cluster
For over 15 years, the city-based Defence Equipment Manufacturers Association (DEMA), a consortium of 38 small and medium enterprises, developed and tested sub-systems and components as required by the Defence sector. Realising that the time has come to graduate into active production, DEMA is now working on the first lot of off-the-shelf products which will include a mini Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and fuses for armaments, to be ready by 2010.
Now we will be developing and producing multi-disciplinary systems and put them up for off-the-shelf purchase, said DEMA President D S Kamlapurkar. Around 10 of DEMAs members have formed a separate manufacturing entity - by the name of DEMA Mechatronics which will engage in the development, manufacturing and marketing of the complete systems.
By 2010, DEMA Mechatronics plans to build up the capacity to produce around 100 UAVs and 2 lakh variable time fuses and around 50,000 proximity fuses per year. We will initially manufacture around 2 lakh variable time fuses and gradually increase the number to 5 lakh per year, said Kamlapurkar. We are also venturing into indigenous production of proximity fuses.
The UAV will be an upgraded version of the Vihanga Netra, the first effort of the DEMA consortium using Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) funds, said Yogendra Jagirdar of Jagirdar Aeroproducts, which is in charge of designing and making the UAV aircraft, its field-testing and operation. This will be our second attempt at manufacturing UAVs after the Vihang Netras, he added.
There will be additional features like night vision compatibility, map overlays and the ability to lock on to a target. It will be a wheeled version, compact compared to the Vihang Netra, and weighing 25-40 kg. It will possess a range of 10 km, an altitude of 1.5 km and a speed of 100 km per hour.
Dema is planning the UAV for the civil sector as well. The UAV can be used for non-defence forces as well, like the police or even paramilitary troops for surveillance, said Kamlapurkar.
While fuses and UAVs are DEMAs priority projects for full-fledged production right now, some of its members are also involved in producing moving targets and the association will gradually delve into the production of smart weapons.
At present the Vihang Netra is being used as a moving target and we are planning to produce more targets for defence use. We also plan to produce smart mines, which are activated by remote, shoulder rocket launchers etc. The technology is already a part of some other products and we will just have to adapt them to develop the proposed products, explained Kamlapurkar.
Dema has been requesting the Ministry of Defence and the State and Central governments to grant 5-100 acres for a Defence industry cluster near Pune. The plan is to allocate each unit on one-acre plots. We have located land at Talegaon and Dehu Road, said Kamlapurkar who added that DEMA would be sending a detailed proposal on the cluster demand to the MoD soon.
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
A Complete News Magazine on National Security
‘I am confident that the new engine will satisfy the IAF and they will release the order for more number of aircrafts beyond 40’
Intro: Programme Director (CA) and Director, Aeronautical Development Agency, P.S. Subramanyam
One keeps hearing conflicting stories on the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). What is the update on the project?
To understand the LCA, it is necessary to go to the beginning. People say that the project started in 1983. The truth is that the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) itself was not available in 1983. All that had happened was that the country had conceptually decided on a need for the LCA and a sanction of Rs 560 crore was made. It took about five to six years to arrive at a definition of what the LCA should be. The ASR was given in 1985 and by 1988 we understood what the air force was looking for. After this, we started the project definition studies and the summary of these studies stated that seven prototypes should be made as is normally done all over the world. But in 1990-91, the government felt that so much of a risk could not be taken and the requirement of seven prototypes was split into two phases: two technology demonstrators (TD) followed by five prototypes. In the TD stage we were told that no sensor or weaponisation was required; only certain technologies were to be demonstrated. In April 1993, an amount of Rs 2,188 crore was allocated only for the TD, implying that before this, funds were not available to launch the full scale programme. The technologies needed to be demonstrated were composite-based wing structure, digital fly-by-wire flight control system, all digital avionics and computer-based control of electro-mechanical systems.
In January 2001, the TD1 was flown and the government saw the promise in the programme. In November 2001, the government gave the go-ahead to start work on the proto-vehicles (PV), which are basically meant for sensors and weapons’ integration. Till this time, the government did not fund us to make a fighting machine or PVs for which funds to the tune of Rs 3301 crore were released then. The sanction fund of Rs 3,301 crore is not only for the proto-vehicles but for the limited serial production (LSP) of eight aircraft, including the infrastructure needed for them to establish a production line of eight aircraft per annum. This was the turning point for the programme. In June 2002, we flew the TD2 and in November 2003, we flew PV1.
There was a transformation at this stage as we realised that an entire generation of electronics had changed by 2001. Fortunately, by 1998-99, we decided to make the entire avionics of the aircraft with an open system of architecture. Hence, the PV2 that flew in December 2005 was with an open system of architecture. The advantage is that it allows us to tackle obsolescence of electronic hardware. In this process, we were able to make nearly 80 per cent of avionics indigenously. Today, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is very happy with us on this issue because we have the most current concept of avionics in the aircraft. In December 2006 we flew PV3, and in April 2007 the LSP1 version. The LSP2 was flown recently in June 2008. Today, we have seven aircraft in flying condition: TD1, TD2, PV1, PV2, PV3, LSP1 and LSP2. Our first trainer aircraft is round the corner, probably in another two months. We are now very close to programme completion. We are looking for Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December 2010 and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) by 2012. In March 2006, the IAF placed the order for 20 aircraft in IOC configuration.
Today, in terms of the aircraft, we look at two major aspects. The first is the flight envelope expansion, implying the altitude and speed of the aircraft as well as acceleration and manoeuvres. In this respect, we have already validated all the parameters except the angle of attack. We are presently, at 20 when the required is 22. The second aspect is sensors and weapons integration. We have integrated the day and night attack sensor system, what is called the Litening Pod and the helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for slewing the radar and litening pod towards the target. What is now pending is radar integration and release of weapons. We did the sea trials in June 2007 at Arakonam. In November 2007, we fired a close combat missile (CCM) from the aircraft in Goa and recently (May 28-June 4) we completed the hot weather trials in Nagpur.
What more needs to be done before you go for IOC?
Nothing more for IOC. Only for the FOC, we are planning to integrate the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile and some more conventional weapons.
If nothing else is left to be accomplished before IOC, why are you waiting till 2010?
We have to do a lot of testing to characterise the performance of the aircraft and give that data to the IAF and demonstrate weapon system performance.
But isn’t this done after the IOC when the maturity and maintainability of the aircraft is validated? I want to give user most of the performance data of the fighter version before the IOC is done.
How many flying hours have you done till now?
There are two things here: number of flights and flying hours. The flying hour aspect is really insignificant. We have done a total of 895 flights.
But how many flying hours have you done?
Could be 500 hours.
Aren’t these less?
The flying hours are not important. For any evaluation, the important thing is the number of test-points. Mere flying does not add any value to the test-points that have to be covered. There are many test-points that have to be validated. For example, I want to see the altitude and speed changes that the aircraft can do in a given time. Besides, I also need to perform certain manoeuvres, like a roller coaster and so on to characterise the aircraft. Generate enough data to chatacterise the aircraft.
There were reports that all parameters were not met during the hot weather trials. The reports mentioned that the acceleration was less.
The idea of the hot weather trial is to find out how aircraft performance changes with temperature, as the engine performance decreases with the rise in temperature. While I am satisfied with the acceleration that we got, this may not really be the desired one. We used GE 404 F2J3 engine for the test. However, the latest test of LSP 2 was done with GE 404 IN20 engine, which is slightly more powerful than the earlier one. The IAF, in what are called the Air Staff Requirements (ASR), is asking for certain parameters to be met. Both the engines now fitted on the LCA do not meet the ASR completely. But what is expected from these engines, they have performed during hot weather trials.
If the aircraft does not meet the ASR of the IAF, then how will the user have confidence in the machine?
I would say that our design has performed. The engine is designed to perform against the drag parameters that it has done. However, this falls a little short of IAF’s ASR. It will only be possible to meet the ASR if we go in for a new engine.
Where is this new engine?
Currently, some studies are going on. By the end of this year we propose to go to the IAF to tell them about the short-listed engines, which would be close to ASR. The air force will decide what is best suited to them.
If you are proposing a new engine then why are you at this stage talking about the IOC?
The reason the general ASR has not been met is because the aircraft has grown heavy. The IAF is fully aware of this. So when it asked for a squadron of the LCA, even before the IOC it means that they have specific utility for this aircraft, with its present parameters. For example, the aircraft at present gives 6g manoeuvres while the eventual requirement of the ASR is 8g. But that is at the FOC stage. What we have demonstrated to them today is a de-rated performance which is still acceptable to them for the initial squadron. This however, can be enhanced later.
The world over nobody talks of a new aircraft with less than 1,000 flying hours. But you seem satisfied with 500 flying hours. What is the reason for that?
It is the test points that matter, not flying hours. Earlier, we did not have the drop tanks and each flight used to be 30-35 minutes. The recent flights that we have undertaken have been as long as 90 minutes. This can accommodate more test points per sortie. You can ask the air force if they will be happy with more flying hours but fewer validations of test-points. The answer will be no. Moreover, between now and the IOC, I will still be required to validate more than 3,000 performance test-points. Hence, I am looking at 500-600 more flights, which will further increase the flying hours. If I am ready with my sensors, weapons and drop tanks, I do not have to worry about how many flying hours the aircraft has done but, I have to worry about test-points completed. For your information, the deputy chief of air staff does a review of the project with us once every month. He is clear that unless flying is done to validate test points, it is no good. If I am able to complete my remaining 3,000 plus test points in another 500 hours of flying, I will be very satisfied. There are no specified numbers of flying hours or test flights for IOC completion. Right now, we are doing 20 test flights per month. With more aircraft available, both the IAF and I feel that we can go up to 30 test flights each month and I can test five to 10 test-points per test flight. As I mentioned, the key test-points that we are looking to validate are various manoeuvres and weapon system performance.
Will you able to meet the production requirement of 20 LCA by 2011?
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is the production agency. We have about 7,000 parts to be fabricated. Of this 60-70 percent work has been outsourced as that kind of technology is available in the country. They are capable of achieving it.
You mentioned that you have achieved the angle of attack of 20, while you need to go to 22. How will you do this without knowledge transfer from an outside partner especially when there are reports that you have been in unsuccessful talks with Boeing on this issue?
My experience with flying is that we are very conservative when assessing our test-points. We are very conservative with our assessments whereas in actual operational flying such rigidity need not be followed. We need to increase the angle of attack very carefully but optimally. Let me explain it this way. Without consultancy, I will achieve the desired angle of attack in probably 100 flights. With consultancy, I may require just 50 flights.
You have essentially made two points. One, that the only important thing is validation of test points and not flying hours; and two, if you validate optimal test points you will be able to achieve the desired angle of attack in short duration.
Given that you are already looking for a new engine, what is the future of Kaveri engine, being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE)?
Let us be realistic about the engine. Making a gas turbine engine for a fighter jet is a very complex issue. Very few countries in the world have been able to develop it successfully. Since starting the LCA programme, the weight of the aircraft has grown up significantly; yet I must tell you that at 6.5 tons the LCA is one of the lightest aircraft of its class in the world. Kaveri engine was fine for the LCA programme when it started. But as we have shifted the goal-post, which is the LCA weight, the Kaveri engine does not meet the ASR requirement. In the meantime, I am also requesting GTRE that technologies are available in the world to make the Kaveri engine fulfil the ASR requirements. Even if they take more years instead of four to make an indigenous engine with collaboration from outside, it would be very good. The IAF has said that its requirement of LCA could be in significant numbers. Once the suitable indigenous Kaveri is made it can be fitted to the LCA still under production. The Kaveri has given a good performance which is not easy to get. If we are able to bring Kaveri to the desired standards, it will be a major achievement. If you discontinue Kaveri now, you will kill the engine technology in India.
Are you satisfied with pace of programme?
I suggest you take a holistic view of the programme unlike the aircraft development programme in the rest of the world. In this programme, the initial sanction was only for technology demonstrators. Funds were not available for stock-piling the equipments and parts for continuing the programme, many of which became obsolete over time. Also, during the technology demonstration phase, the emphasis was not on operational over view. The development phases were sequential instead of being concurrent.
When will you do Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) validation? Isn’t it done after the IOC?
I will do it in the LSP3 aircraft scheduled for August 2008. The design, development and ground testing of the MMR are over. I will start with the test flights in September 2008.
How closely is the IAF reviewing this project?
The Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) reviews the progress every month. The Chief of the Air Staff reviews every three months. When we reach a stage of 1,000 flights we will take stock of major course corrections and decisions.
Do you have any orders from the Indian Navy?
We don’t have any orders right now. However, we have been given funds for two prototypes as they want to see the performance of the aircraft.
At this stage, what is your roadmap for the LCA programme?
I am clear that I will get another 20 aircraft order from the IAF in the second half of 2008. Moreover, by 2012-2013, I am certain to demonstrate the re-engined aircraft to the IAF. I am confident that the new engine will satisfy the IAF requirements and they will release the order for number of aircrafts beyond 40.
Will the FOC be on the present engine?
Yes, the FOC be on the present GE 404 IN20 engine by 2012. However, around this time, I will also fly the aircraft with the alternate engine.
Will you demonstrate the BVR technology with the present engine for the FOC?
Yes. The navy has already specified the Israeli missile. However, the IAF is still to decide on this issue.
What has the Tejas programme achieved for the country?
I think we need to look at things in the right perspective. The LCA programme has lifted the technology plane of India. For example, in the area of composite structures, 90 per cent of the surface area of the LCA is made of composites, which is the highest in the world. Among the technologies are digital fly-by-wire, digital avionics and computer-controlled electro-mechanical systems. There are more than 45 computers networked and made to work together in the aircraft which is a technology challenge. The country has mastered the fourth generation technologies and is marching towards the fifth generation technologies. All this is due to the Tejas programme.
‘I am confident that the new engine will satisfy the IAF and they will release the order for more number of aircrafts beyond 40’
Intro: Programme Director (CA) and Director, Aeronautical Development Agency, P.S. Subramanyam
One keeps hearing conflicting stories on the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). What is the update on the project?
To understand the LCA, it is necessary to go to the beginning. People say that the project started in 1983. The truth is that the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) itself was not available in 1983. All that had happened was that the country had conceptually decided on a need for the LCA and a sanction of Rs 560 crore was made. It took about five to six years to arrive at a definition of what the LCA should be. The ASR was given in 1985 and by 1988 we understood what the air force was looking for. After this, we started the project definition studies and the summary of these studies stated that seven prototypes should be made as is normally done all over the world. But in 1990-91, the government felt that so much of a risk could not be taken and the requirement of seven prototypes was split into two phases: two technology demonstrators (TD) followed by five prototypes. In the TD stage we were told that no sensor or weaponisation was required; only certain technologies were to be demonstrated. In April 1993, an amount of Rs 2,188 crore was allocated only for the TD, implying that before this, funds were not available to launch the full scale programme. The technologies needed to be demonstrated were composite-based wing structure, digital fly-by-wire flight control system, all digital avionics and computer-based control of electro-mechanical systems.
In January 2001, the TD1 was flown and the government saw the promise in the programme. In November 2001, the government gave the go-ahead to start work on the proto-vehicles (PV), which are basically meant for sensors and weapons’ integration. Till this time, the government did not fund us to make a fighting machine or PVs for which funds to the tune of Rs 3301 crore were released then. The sanction fund of Rs 3,301 crore is not only for the proto-vehicles but for the limited serial production (LSP) of eight aircraft, including the infrastructure needed for them to establish a production line of eight aircraft per annum. This was the turning point for the programme. In June 2002, we flew the TD2 and in November 2003, we flew PV1.
There was a transformation at this stage as we realised that an entire generation of electronics had changed by 2001. Fortunately, by 1998-99, we decided to make the entire avionics of the aircraft with an open system of architecture. Hence, the PV2 that flew in December 2005 was with an open system of architecture. The advantage is that it allows us to tackle obsolescence of electronic hardware. In this process, we were able to make nearly 80 per cent of avionics indigenously. Today, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is very happy with us on this issue because we have the most current concept of avionics in the aircraft. In December 2006 we flew PV3, and in April 2007 the LSP1 version. The LSP2 was flown recently in June 2008. Today, we have seven aircraft in flying condition: TD1, TD2, PV1, PV2, PV3, LSP1 and LSP2. Our first trainer aircraft is round the corner, probably in another two months. We are now very close to programme completion. We are looking for Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December 2010 and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) by 2012. In March 2006, the IAF placed the order for 20 aircraft in IOC configuration.
Today, in terms of the aircraft, we look at two major aspects. The first is the flight envelope expansion, implying the altitude and speed of the aircraft as well as acceleration and manoeuvres. In this respect, we have already validated all the parameters except the angle of attack. We are presently, at 20 when the required is 22. The second aspect is sensors and weapons integration. We have integrated the day and night attack sensor system, what is called the Litening Pod and the helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for slewing the radar and litening pod towards the target. What is now pending is radar integration and release of weapons. We did the sea trials in June 2007 at Arakonam. In November 2007, we fired a close combat missile (CCM) from the aircraft in Goa and recently (May 28-June 4) we completed the hot weather trials in Nagpur.
What more needs to be done before you go for IOC?
Nothing more for IOC. Only for the FOC, we are planning to integrate the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile and some more conventional weapons.
If nothing else is left to be accomplished before IOC, why are you waiting till 2010?
We have to do a lot of testing to characterise the performance of the aircraft and give that data to the IAF and demonstrate weapon system performance.
But isn’t this done after the IOC when the maturity and maintainability of the aircraft is validated? I want to give user most of the performance data of the fighter version before the IOC is done.
How many flying hours have you done till now?
There are two things here: number of flights and flying hours. The flying hour aspect is really insignificant. We have done a total of 895 flights.
But how many flying hours have you done?
Could be 500 hours.
Aren’t these less?
The flying hours are not important. For any evaluation, the important thing is the number of test-points. Mere flying does not add any value to the test-points that have to be covered. There are many test-points that have to be validated. For example, I want to see the altitude and speed changes that the aircraft can do in a given time. Besides, I also need to perform certain manoeuvres, like a roller coaster and so on to characterise the aircraft. Generate enough data to chatacterise the aircraft.
There were reports that all parameters were not met during the hot weather trials. The reports mentioned that the acceleration was less.
The idea of the hot weather trial is to find out how aircraft performance changes with temperature, as the engine performance decreases with the rise in temperature. While I am satisfied with the acceleration that we got, this may not really be the desired one. We used GE 404 F2J3 engine for the test. However, the latest test of LSP 2 was done with GE 404 IN20 engine, which is slightly more powerful than the earlier one. The IAF, in what are called the Air Staff Requirements (ASR), is asking for certain parameters to be met. Both the engines now fitted on the LCA do not meet the ASR completely. But what is expected from these engines, they have performed during hot weather trials.
If the aircraft does not meet the ASR of the IAF, then how will the user have confidence in the machine?
I would say that our design has performed. The engine is designed to perform against the drag parameters that it has done. However, this falls a little short of IAF’s ASR. It will only be possible to meet the ASR if we go in for a new engine.
Where is this new engine?
Currently, some studies are going on. By the end of this year we propose to go to the IAF to tell them about the short-listed engines, which would be close to ASR. The air force will decide what is best suited to them.
If you are proposing a new engine then why are you at this stage talking about the IOC?
The reason the general ASR has not been met is because the aircraft has grown heavy. The IAF is fully aware of this. So when it asked for a squadron of the LCA, even before the IOC it means that they have specific utility for this aircraft, with its present parameters. For example, the aircraft at present gives 6g manoeuvres while the eventual requirement of the ASR is 8g. But that is at the FOC stage. What we have demonstrated to them today is a de-rated performance which is still acceptable to them for the initial squadron. This however, can be enhanced later.
The world over nobody talks of a new aircraft with less than 1,000 flying hours. But you seem satisfied with 500 flying hours. What is the reason for that?
It is the test points that matter, not flying hours. Earlier, we did not have the drop tanks and each flight used to be 30-35 minutes. The recent flights that we have undertaken have been as long as 90 minutes. This can accommodate more test points per sortie. You can ask the air force if they will be happy with more flying hours but fewer validations of test-points. The answer will be no. Moreover, between now and the IOC, I will still be required to validate more than 3,000 performance test-points. Hence, I am looking at 500-600 more flights, which will further increase the flying hours. If I am ready with my sensors, weapons and drop tanks, I do not have to worry about how many flying hours the aircraft has done but, I have to worry about test-points completed. For your information, the deputy chief of air staff does a review of the project with us once every month. He is clear that unless flying is done to validate test points, it is no good. If I am able to complete my remaining 3,000 plus test points in another 500 hours of flying, I will be very satisfied. There are no specified numbers of flying hours or test flights for IOC completion. Right now, we are doing 20 test flights per month. With more aircraft available, both the IAF and I feel that we can go up to 30 test flights each month and I can test five to 10 test-points per test flight. As I mentioned, the key test-points that we are looking to validate are various manoeuvres and weapon system performance.
Will you able to meet the production requirement of 20 LCA by 2011?
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is the production agency. We have about 7,000 parts to be fabricated. Of this 60-70 percent work has been outsourced as that kind of technology is available in the country. They are capable of achieving it.
You mentioned that you have achieved the angle of attack of 20, while you need to go to 22. How will you do this without knowledge transfer from an outside partner especially when there are reports that you have been in unsuccessful talks with Boeing on this issue?
My experience with flying is that we are very conservative when assessing our test-points. We are very conservative with our assessments whereas in actual operational flying such rigidity need not be followed. We need to increase the angle of attack very carefully but optimally. Let me explain it this way. Without consultancy, I will achieve the desired angle of attack in probably 100 flights. With consultancy, I may require just 50 flights.
You have essentially made two points. One, that the only important thing is validation of test points and not flying hours; and two, if you validate optimal test points you will be able to achieve the desired angle of attack in short duration.
Given that you are already looking for a new engine, what is the future of Kaveri engine, being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE)?
Let us be realistic about the engine. Making a gas turbine engine for a fighter jet is a very complex issue. Very few countries in the world have been able to develop it successfully. Since starting the LCA programme, the weight of the aircraft has grown up significantly; yet I must tell you that at 6.5 tons the LCA is one of the lightest aircraft of its class in the world. Kaveri engine was fine for the LCA programme when it started. But as we have shifted the goal-post, which is the LCA weight, the Kaveri engine does not meet the ASR requirement. In the meantime, I am also requesting GTRE that technologies are available in the world to make the Kaveri engine fulfil the ASR requirements. Even if they take more years instead of four to make an indigenous engine with collaboration from outside, it would be very good. The IAF has said that its requirement of LCA could be in significant numbers. Once the suitable indigenous Kaveri is made it can be fitted to the LCA still under production. The Kaveri has given a good performance which is not easy to get. If we are able to bring Kaveri to the desired standards, it will be a major achievement. If you discontinue Kaveri now, you will kill the engine technology in India.
Are you satisfied with pace of programme?
I suggest you take a holistic view of the programme unlike the aircraft development programme in the rest of the world. In this programme, the initial sanction was only for technology demonstrators. Funds were not available for stock-piling the equipments and parts for continuing the programme, many of which became obsolete over time. Also, during the technology demonstration phase, the emphasis was not on operational over view. The development phases were sequential instead of being concurrent.
When will you do Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) validation? Isn’t it done after the IOC?
I will do it in the LSP3 aircraft scheduled for August 2008. The design, development and ground testing of the MMR are over. I will start with the test flights in September 2008.
How closely is the IAF reviewing this project?
The Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) reviews the progress every month. The Chief of the Air Staff reviews every three months. When we reach a stage of 1,000 flights we will take stock of major course corrections and decisions.
Do you have any orders from the Indian Navy?
We don’t have any orders right now. However, we have been given funds for two prototypes as they want to see the performance of the aircraft.
At this stage, what is your roadmap for the LCA programme?
I am clear that I will get another 20 aircraft order from the IAF in the second half of 2008. Moreover, by 2012-2013, I am certain to demonstrate the re-engined aircraft to the IAF. I am confident that the new engine will satisfy the IAF requirements and they will release the order for number of aircrafts beyond 40.
Will the FOC be on the present engine?
Yes, the FOC be on the present GE 404 IN20 engine by 2012. However, around this time, I will also fly the aircraft with the alternate engine.
Will you demonstrate the BVR technology with the present engine for the FOC?
Yes. The navy has already specified the Israeli missile. However, the IAF is still to decide on this issue.
What has the Tejas programme achieved for the country?
I think we need to look at things in the right perspective. The LCA programme has lifted the technology plane of India. For example, in the area of composite structures, 90 per cent of the surface area of the LCA is made of composites, which is the highest in the world. Among the technologies are digital fly-by-wire, digital avionics and computer-controlled electro-mechanical systems. There are more than 45 computers networked and made to work together in the aircraft which is a technology challenge. The country has mastered the fourth generation technologies and is marching towards the fifth generation technologies. All this is due to the Tejas programme.
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
This is good news, this will help IAF increas the bombing accuracy
Israel to supply India with Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits
Israel to supply India with Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits
The Indian air force will procure Israel Aerospace Industries' Griffin 3 laser-guided bomb.
Produced by IAI's MBT division, the Griffin 3 is the most advanced version of a combat-proven guidance kit, which turns "dumb" bombs into highly accurate weapons with a claimed circular error of probability of less than 2m (6.5ft).
The conversion kit is compatible with the Mk82/83/84 general purpose bomb series, and comprises a front guidance section and a rear section with steering fins. The Griffin 3 provides a 12km (6.5nm) stand-off range against ground targets, while its flight trajectory and impact angle can be pre-programmed.
MBT claims the kit has a "much lower" price tag than comparable weapon systems.
Israel to supply India with Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits
Israel to supply India with Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits
The Indian air force will procure Israel Aerospace Industries' Griffin 3 laser-guided bomb.
Produced by IAI's MBT division, the Griffin 3 is the most advanced version of a combat-proven guidance kit, which turns "dumb" bombs into highly accurate weapons with a claimed circular error of probability of less than 2m (6.5ft).
The conversion kit is compatible with the Mk82/83/84 general purpose bomb series, and comprises a front guidance section and a rear section with steering fins. The Griffin 3 provides a 12km (6.5nm) stand-off range against ground targets, while its flight trajectory and impact angle can be pre-programmed.
MBT claims the kit has a "much lower" price tag than comparable weapon systems.
Myth_buster_1
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,016
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
23 march
The first article is full of errors:
The IAF ASR is for AoA of 22 not 21 and AoA of 20 has been achieved not 17 as claimed in that article.
The last link you have posted is just a suggestion not the way it will be done.
Kindly read the things properly before posting it.
vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
You sure you posted the right links?
Myth_buster_1
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,016
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
do you have any reference to your claim that LCA with underpowered engine has achieved AOA of 20??
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
kindly check the post no. 603
this is the latest interview published of the program director of LCA the points you are mentioning are old as compared to this, anyway for easy read
Last edited:
Myth_buster_1
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,016
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
It is still below the ASR.
The same interview also states that :
First 40 will not meet the ASR.
LCA at present is only pulling 6gs. ASR has been decreased to 8gs from 9g
Empty weight of LCA is 6.5 tons now. "gained extra 2,000kg of fat"
The same interview also states that :
First 40 will not meet the ASR.
LCA at present is only pulling 6gs. ASR has been decreased to 8gs from 9g
Empty weight of LCA is 6.5 tons now. "gained extra 2,000kg of fat"
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
Myth_buster_1
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,016
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
LCA MK3 - Only by 2025 will an LCA Mk3 flying with a Kaveri engine and AESA be available. 
only 50 years old?..
only 50 years old?..
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
LCA MK3 - Only by 2025 will an LCA Mk3 flying with a Kaveri engine and AESA be available.
only 50 years old?..
You don't read the interviews fully don't you?
The gentleman is suggesting to be done in that way, not the way it will be done. That is a suggestion, not a final verdict.:cheers
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
guys check these article:
Broadsword: Finally, a deadline for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft's new engine
For years, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has argued bitterly with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) --- which is developing India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) --- over who is to blame for the LCA’s low engine power. The IAF accuses the ADA of failing to develop a suitable engine; the ADA retorts that the IAF’s demands for extra combat punch added two tons to the LCA’s original weight of 8 tons. The naval version of the LCA, with its strengthened undercarriage, will be even heavier.
And with the promised Kaveri engine nowhere in sight, the LCA makes do with the underpowered General Electric F-404 engine. An upgraded version, the IN-20, which will power the first two squadrons of the LCA, provides only marginally more thrust.
But now there’s a happy ending in sight. Business Standard has learned that the ADA has a deadline of October 2008 to choose between two foreign engines for powering the LCA. The final choice of engine, which will power several hundred Tejas fighters over the next three decades, is between Eurojet’s EJ200; and the General Electric F-414.
The current GE F-404 IN-20 engine delivers about 82-85 KiloNewtons of thrust, which is adequate for take off and even climbing rapidly, but falls short during combat manoeuvres when the fighter has to turn sharply to fire missiles at enemy aircraft. The EJ200 and the GE F-414 provide 90-95 KiloNewtons of thrust, which the IAF considers adequate.
Both engine manufacturers are lobbying intensively. Which engine is chosen could reverberate beyond the LCA, affecting the selection of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), an $11 billion purchase for which bids have already been submitted. The Anglo-European Eurofighter, a leading contender, is powered by two EJ200 engines. A single GE F-414 engine powers the Swedish Grippen fighter. Both vendors believe that if their engine were selected for the LCA, that could open the door to the MMRCA contract.
The key factor in choosing an engine will be: which one fits into the LCA with the least re-engineering? Each engine has different dimensions and the inlet and exhaust ports are located differently; this means that the LCA airframe will need changes to accommodate the new engine. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Chairman, Ashok Baweja, explains that, “Any change in the basic structure of the aircraft will mean going through the test and evaluation process all over again. This is a time-consuming business.”
Selecting the engine will involve difficult choices. IAF sources say the EJ200 will demand less re-engineering; but the GE F-414 will give up to 5 KiloNewtons more of thrust.
Re-engineering the LCA to fit in the engine, and obtaining fresh operational clearances, could take up to three years. Meanwhile HAL will manufacture the first Tejas squadron of 20 fighters with the old GE F-404 IN-20 engine. Top MoD sources confirm to Business Standard that the IAF will shortly order a second squadron of Tejas, also with the GE F-404 IN-20. LCA number 41 onwards will be fitted with the new engine.
Comparison of EJ200 and GE F-414 engines:
EJ 2000 GE F-414-400
Power on reheat 90-92 kNewtons 96-98 kNewtons
Inlet diameter 740 mm 777.24 mm
Cross section 430.1 cm.sq 474.4 cm.sq
Mass flow (Kg/sec) 74 78
Weight 1040 kilos 1110 kilos
Centre of gravity Smaller shift Large shift
Design vintage Late 1990s Late 1970s
Growth potential Up to 30% Far less
(Tomorrow: Powering up the first 40 LCAs, with the IN-20 engine... HAL's plan)
Broadsword: Finally, a deadline for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft's new engine
For years, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has argued bitterly with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) --- which is developing India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) --- over who is to blame for the LCA’s low engine power. The IAF accuses the ADA of failing to develop a suitable engine; the ADA retorts that the IAF’s demands for extra combat punch added two tons to the LCA’s original weight of 8 tons. The naval version of the LCA, with its strengthened undercarriage, will be even heavier.
And with the promised Kaveri engine nowhere in sight, the LCA makes do with the underpowered General Electric F-404 engine. An upgraded version, the IN-20, which will power the first two squadrons of the LCA, provides only marginally more thrust.
But now there’s a happy ending in sight. Business Standard has learned that the ADA has a deadline of October 2008 to choose between two foreign engines for powering the LCA. The final choice of engine, which will power several hundred Tejas fighters over the next three decades, is between Eurojet’s EJ200; and the General Electric F-414.
The current GE F-404 IN-20 engine delivers about 82-85 KiloNewtons of thrust, which is adequate for take off and even climbing rapidly, but falls short during combat manoeuvres when the fighter has to turn sharply to fire missiles at enemy aircraft. The EJ200 and the GE F-414 provide 90-95 KiloNewtons of thrust, which the IAF considers adequate.
Both engine manufacturers are lobbying intensively. Which engine is chosen could reverberate beyond the LCA, affecting the selection of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), an $11 billion purchase for which bids have already been submitted. The Anglo-European Eurofighter, a leading contender, is powered by two EJ200 engines. A single GE F-414 engine powers the Swedish Grippen fighter. Both vendors believe that if their engine were selected for the LCA, that could open the door to the MMRCA contract.
The key factor in choosing an engine will be: which one fits into the LCA with the least re-engineering? Each engine has different dimensions and the inlet and exhaust ports are located differently; this means that the LCA airframe will need changes to accommodate the new engine. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Chairman, Ashok Baweja, explains that, “Any change in the basic structure of the aircraft will mean going through the test and evaluation process all over again. This is a time-consuming business.”
Selecting the engine will involve difficult choices. IAF sources say the EJ200 will demand less re-engineering; but the GE F-414 will give up to 5 KiloNewtons more of thrust.
Re-engineering the LCA to fit in the engine, and obtaining fresh operational clearances, could take up to three years. Meanwhile HAL will manufacture the first Tejas squadron of 20 fighters with the old GE F-404 IN-20 engine. Top MoD sources confirm to Business Standard that the IAF will shortly order a second squadron of Tejas, also with the GE F-404 IN-20. LCA number 41 onwards will be fitted with the new engine.
Comparison of EJ200 and GE F-414 engines:
EJ 2000 GE F-414-400
Power on reheat 90-92 kNewtons 96-98 kNewtons
Inlet diameter 740 mm 777.24 mm
Cross section 430.1 cm.sq 474.4 cm.sq
Mass flow (Kg/sec) 74 78
Weight 1040 kilos 1110 kilos
Centre of gravity Smaller shift Large shift
Design vintage Late 1990s Late 1970s
Growth potential Up to 30% Far less
(Tomorrow: Powering up the first 40 LCAs, with the IN-20 engine... HAL's plan)
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
Broadsword: The Tejas LCA: improving performance with the current F-404 engine
The selection of the Tejas LCAs new engine in October --- the choice (as the previous post deals with) is between the Eurojet EJ200 and the GE F-414 --- will provide an extra 10 KiloNewtons of thrust to the Tejas. The new engines, however, will start being fitted onto the third Tejas squadron; the first two squadrons, comprising 40 aircraft, would already be in service with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines.
And so the Indian Air Force (IAF) has asked the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to urgently improve the performance of Tejas LCAs fitted with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines. These will power the first two LCA squadrons consisting of 40 fighters.
I visited HALs Bangalore Complex to see how that is being done. HAL has adopted a three-fold strategy:
1. Improving the air intake.
Top HAL decision-makers pooh-pooh the IAFs contention that the LCAs air intakes are incorrectly designed, resulting in oxygen starvation and incomplete burning and, therefore, sub-optimal engine power from the F-404s. At the same time, however, steps are being taken to improve air intake, without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years. Instead, auxiliary air intakes are being provided on the sides of the Tejas engine housing --- similar to those on the Jaguar (see photos).
These auxiliary air intakes comprise of spring-loaded panels that open when engine suction is very high and provide an additional route for airflow into the engine intakes. As you can see in the photos, the spring-loaded panels can be pushed in by manual pressure.
At critical stages in the flight envelope, such as during take-off, rapid climb, sustained turn and in any case, when afterburners are on the heavy suction from the engines would open the auxiliary air intakes. When the demand for air goes down, such as in level flight, the auxiliary air intakes would close.
HAL designers aver that this would improve the engine performance only in some portions of the flight envelope. They say that during the most critical moments --- which are during sustained turns, in aerial combat --- the auxiliary air intakes would provide only marginally improved performance, if any at all.
A top HAL designer told me, There is some merit in [the IAFs idea] the designers are considering it. There has been a debate for quite some time will it really improve to that extent. Where it really matters it may not give added thrust.. in other places it will give.
Nevertheless, the fitment of auxiliary air intakes is going ahead, partly because this does not require major re-engineering, nor will it delay the Tejas induction in any way. According to HAL, this will take six months to engineer; later LSPs will incorporate the auxiliary air intakes.
2. Reduction of Tejas' weight.
The LCAs designers say that the removal of telemetry instrumentation, which is essential during flight testing, will bring the Tejas weight down by as much as 300-400 kilos. Re-engineering some of the displays and sub-systems within the cockpit will lop off another 300 kilos; the weight reduction of 600-700 kilos is expected to allow the carriage of more weapons.
There is a lack of understanding about what the Tejas weight is, since all kinds of figures are bandied about. Let me clarify: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons carried on its pylons. This could be armament or external fuel tanks; if external fuel tanks are fitted, the weight of fuel will correspondingly bring down the weapons load carried.
But theres a catch! The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So youll have to shed one ton or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments. Thats what happens when a fighters weight goes beyond what was originally planned.
So the reduction of 600-700 kilos may not actually go into making the Tejas more manoeuvrable. This shaved off weight may be made up by allowing the Tejas to carry (close to) its full capacity of external fuel-cum-armament.
3. Increasing control surfaces.
The designers say they are considering adding an auxiliary wing (similar to the Eurofighter) to the front portion of the fuselage to increase the control surfaces, and therefore manoeuvrability. This involves major re-engineering, which cannot be done for the first two squadrons. However, it will be grouped along with the re-design that will be necessary for fitting in the new engine for Tejas No 41 onwards.
The Tejas designers are not unanimous about the utility of an auxiliary wing. Some are of the opinion that the added power that will come from the new engine might make the additional control surfaces superfluous. But the option remains on the table.
The selection of the Tejas LCAs new engine in October --- the choice (as the previous post deals with) is between the Eurojet EJ200 and the GE F-414 --- will provide an extra 10 KiloNewtons of thrust to the Tejas. The new engines, however, will start being fitted onto the third Tejas squadron; the first two squadrons, comprising 40 aircraft, would already be in service with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines.
And so the Indian Air Force (IAF) has asked the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to urgently improve the performance of Tejas LCAs fitted with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines. These will power the first two LCA squadrons consisting of 40 fighters.
I visited HALs Bangalore Complex to see how that is being done. HAL has adopted a three-fold strategy:
1. Improving the air intake.
Top HAL decision-makers pooh-pooh the IAFs contention that the LCAs air intakes are incorrectly designed, resulting in oxygen starvation and incomplete burning and, therefore, sub-optimal engine power from the F-404s. At the same time, however, steps are being taken to improve air intake, without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years. Instead, auxiliary air intakes are being provided on the sides of the Tejas engine housing --- similar to those on the Jaguar (see photos).
These auxiliary air intakes comprise of spring-loaded panels that open when engine suction is very high and provide an additional route for airflow into the engine intakes. As you can see in the photos, the spring-loaded panels can be pushed in by manual pressure.
At critical stages in the flight envelope, such as during take-off, rapid climb, sustained turn and in any case, when afterburners are on the heavy suction from the engines would open the auxiliary air intakes. When the demand for air goes down, such as in level flight, the auxiliary air intakes would close.
HAL designers aver that this would improve the engine performance only in some portions of the flight envelope. They say that during the most critical moments --- which are during sustained turns, in aerial combat --- the auxiliary air intakes would provide only marginally improved performance, if any at all.
A top HAL designer told me, There is some merit in [the IAFs idea] the designers are considering it. There has been a debate for quite some time will it really improve to that extent. Where it really matters it may not give added thrust.. in other places it will give.
Nevertheless, the fitment of auxiliary air intakes is going ahead, partly because this does not require major re-engineering, nor will it delay the Tejas induction in any way. According to HAL, this will take six months to engineer; later LSPs will incorporate the auxiliary air intakes.
2. Reduction of Tejas' weight.
The LCAs designers say that the removal of telemetry instrumentation, which is essential during flight testing, will bring the Tejas weight down by as much as 300-400 kilos. Re-engineering some of the displays and sub-systems within the cockpit will lop off another 300 kilos; the weight reduction of 600-700 kilos is expected to allow the carriage of more weapons.
There is a lack of understanding about what the Tejas weight is, since all kinds of figures are bandied about. Let me clarify: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons carried on its pylons. This could be armament or external fuel tanks; if external fuel tanks are fitted, the weight of fuel will correspondingly bring down the weapons load carried.
But theres a catch! The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So youll have to shed one ton or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments. Thats what happens when a fighters weight goes beyond what was originally planned.
So the reduction of 600-700 kilos may not actually go into making the Tejas more manoeuvrable. This shaved off weight may be made up by allowing the Tejas to carry (close to) its full capacity of external fuel-cum-armament.
3. Increasing control surfaces.
The designers say they are considering adding an auxiliary wing (similar to the Eurofighter) to the front portion of the fuselage to increase the control surfaces, and therefore manoeuvrability. This involves major re-engineering, which cannot be done for the first two squadrons. However, it will be grouped along with the re-design that will be necessary for fitting in the new engine for Tejas No 41 onwards.
The Tejas designers are not unanimous about the utility of an auxiliary wing. Some are of the opinion that the added power that will come from the new engine might make the additional control surfaces superfluous. But the option remains on the table.
- Status
Similar threads
