IDN TAKE: WHY BUILDING A TWIN-ENGINE LCA MAKES SENSE

[Zarvan]

The Rafale deal had lumbered on for years, the fundamental mistake made by our policy makers was to pursue a full-fledged technology transfer regime for the fighter, instead of allowing complete manufacture in France which would have helped in its accelerated delivery at a significantly lower price point. Thankfully, PM Modi announced a government to government (G2G) purchase of 36 Rafales, the PM got the job done and he did what he had to do to respond to the urgency of the situation. This gives the IAF breathing room to make a proper choice about the long term.

The IAF needs to reach the 45 squadrons mark as soon as possible. That 45 squadrons should consist of a good mix of heavy, medium and light aircraft. The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is the heavy aircraft and is supposed to reach a total number of 272 which would comprise of 15 squadrons but one must take into consideration periodic crashes and low availability due to regular maintenance. The Rafale and Mig-29 would be the medium jets for about 8-10 squadrons. Then a single engine fighter including 60 Mirage-2000 and new TEJAS Mk-II would be the light aircraft and should be some 20 squadrons in total. This last category includes the Mig-21 and Mig-27 which will be phased out in the next few years. So the need is urgent, to say the least.

The LCA Tejas Mark-I in its current form is not fully operational so the IAF may not depend upon it and so the Mark-I in the IAF would be 2 squadrons at the most. Essentially the Air Force is pinning its hopes on the upgraded Mark-II form which has an upgraded engine providing more power, advanced avionics, a contemporary EW suite, but this version will not be available for production till about 2019-20.

Sweden's SAAB has offered to help India with fighter development of single-engine fighters for the IAF. However, in the end, the IAF will wind up with a product that it no longer wants and which will cost a hell of a lot more than it wanted to spend as a force multiplier. Simply put, in the real world if the Air Force wants something cheap then we have to build an indigenous fighter.

Now, let us see what the problem really is, every defense analyst seems to believe that the light combat aircraft has to be a single-engine combat fighter. That is the wrong problem to solve. The real reason the TEJAS was not successful is that it is horribly underpowered. HAL does not have as much experience as SAAB in designing fighter jets and the proof is that the TEJAS Mark-I weighs more than the comparable SAAB Gripen and is less aerodynamic. Now if we pay SAAB to learn how to improve the TEJAS then we pay a huge amount of money as nothing comes free in this world.

So instead of asking SAAB for help, why don’t we solve the problem ourselves? My contention is that a twin-engine fighter jet can do everything a single engine TEJAS was supposed to do and is a hell of a lot easier to design. If India were to design a larger TEJAS using two GE-F404 engines to power it, the unit cost will be under 50 million and it will work on day one. Buying additional GE-F404 engine will not add to the cost as in the case of F414 engines and GE will be glad to supply the engine as it will add substantial cheer to its balance sheet. I am certain that the very first prototype will do everything better than the TEJAS. We have to bear in mind that AMCA will be a totally independent line of development when compared to the TEJAS.

The advantages of a twin-engine design are many, first, it will have increased speed and maneuverability, the jet will have enhanced range because it can carry more fuel and with refueling, it can be extended to well over 2000 km. It can carry larger combat loads. It is also less susceptible to mechanical failures or combat damage. It can carry larger combat loads. At high altitudes, using two engines will have tremendous supplemental benefits, as losing a single engine jet over water or land is a much more life-threatening experience. System redundancy is a tertiary benefit of multi-engine aircraft, since losing engine results in only a 50% loss in total available thrust, plus redundant generators and hydraulic pumps will allow the aircraft to fly. In addition, having two engines will reduce training losses.

Why does India want to make the twin-engine F-18 Hornet in India when it can design and develop one of its own. Of course, HAL has its hands full with a kichadi of projects that it cannot handle mainly because of its low-tech jigs, archaic production methodologies, inadequate, inefficient, intractable manpower, and dreadful infrastructure nightmares. The judicious solution would be to synergise the manufacture of the new jet to the very nascent private defense industry. ADA will continue to provide state-of-the-art systems and technologies just as in the case with HAL.

TEJAS has provided Indian engineers valuable knowledge and experience to design and build a cutting-edge contemporary fighter, the long gestation period taken to develop the TEJAS will come in handy when designing and manufacturing the twin-engine jet. This invaluable traction should be put to good use. The name of the game is no longer that you have an accumulation of aircraft that are identical, but instead that you have variants each honed for a specific mission.

Admin - IDN

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/11/idn-take-why-building-twin-engine-lca.html

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Load of Hogwash. Author has no idea about fighter design.

 

[damiendehorn]

The french went the other way, with the super mirage 4000 and its smaller brother the mirage 2000....the 4000 never found a buyer as the cost escalated. lot of the tech went into building the rafale. India could develop a twin engine version of the LCA but the development costs would be horrendus and complettely out of date when inducted.

better develop from a clean sheet incorporating 5th gen tech.

 

[a.kumar]

Author stop smoking Afghan charas and smell a coffee , India is developing twin engined fighter called AMCA

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

People always take the wrong conclusions from two case studies, the Mitsubishi F-2 and the LCA Tejas.

Lockheed Martin advised Japan on not enlarging the F-16 to make the F-2 design. What Japan ended up with was a heavier, twice-as-expensive aircraft with inferior agility and no meaningful payload increase, that used more fuel for similar or less endurance. What Mitsubishi gained (at the government's expense) was expertise in composite wings, avionics and systems integration & design. This is proving essential for them in the next-generation combat aircraft program likely to be based on their X-2 prototype.

The LCA and JF-17 were attempts to make inexpensive and plentiful mini-Mirage 2000s and mini-F-16s, the aircraft deemed the gold standard by their respective air forces but considered too expensive to procure in sufficient quantities.

Now, the LCA design considerations are easily understandable and it is a capable aircraft, specially considering it has been adaptable to Navy use as well. The problem was the perception that the smallest airframe, a la the MiG-21 and F-5, would also be the lightest and least expensive - designed to world-beating levels, in fact.

Structural engineering needs and the desire to keep adding capability (plus the eventual need to import that capability in this case) put an end to that dream and the LCA became as heavy and nearly as expensive as the original Gripens. Still, the power-to-weight ratio is similar to the Rafale and Gripen. Payload and Combat range also meet the Air Force's requirement.

What Indian industry has gained is again expertise in composites, avionics and systems integration & design. In addition, their experience with the Kaveri has resulted in the ability to actively partner with Safran on future engine development.

The author also repeats the twin-engine fallacy. Please note that, with the reliability of modern engines (post-1950 engines, in fact), flight and combat experience has shown that both single- and twin-engined aircraft are equally survivable; #1 having two of anything just means it is twice as likely to have a malfunction; #2 combat damage on one side of the airframe is not necessarily restricted to the loss of one engine and may also affect control devices; #3 loss of one engine is a mission-abort anyway; #4 engine malfunctions are now more easily resolved and graceful degradation means recovery to airbase is almost equally possible for both types of aircraft.

You don't have to take my word for it; ask the US Navy if they are happy with their single-engined F-35s.

Twin engines have nothing to do with speed or performance as well. Maximum speeds and altitudes are decided by wing and engine inlet design, primarily. Acceleration and turn rates are also dependent on having a sufficient thrust-to-weight ratio, which the LCA has. The Eurofighter Typhoon can easily be fitted with upgraded engines that produce 2,000 pounds more thrust (with almost negligible weight gain) but doing so will garner no further gains in usable agility and performance.

By dint of excellent design and manufacturing, the Eurofighter and the Rafale (inspite of and not because of their twin-engine design) weigh only about as much as the heaviest F-16 and have good performance and range. The lighter, single-engined Gripen E has nearly equal performance and broadly similar combat range and persistence. On the other hand, the extremely heavy Su-30s have actually shorter ferry range than these three models (but do so on internal full).

Anyway, the issue with the LCA is its cost and long development, not capability. The Indian industry, for this expense of time and money, has gained technologies it otherwise would not have been able to develop.

Regards

Oh, and the Rafale (as well as the F-16 Block 52) are primarily useful because of their EW suites - and, thus, in my estimation, 18 and 36 are good procurement numbers for them.

 

[4GTejasBVR]

Yes if it's was year :2005. But it's 2016.

Yes we need to build twin engine fighter. But why 4th Gen?

Yes. Yes. And we already doing it. Called AMCA. Twin engine Stealth Tejas . Even for MK2 instead we should go for Stealth Single Engine MK2. That makes more sense to spend 7-8 years building it

I also belive that we should bring in building partners in AMCA program like Israel, Vietnam and make it more easy to mass production like EF typhoon.