LCA Mark II will immediately replace Mig-29 in IAF: Air Marshal

[Deino]

The LCA Mk2 is still in the design stage, but the final design is expected to be frozen pretty soon. Check post 44 for one of the canard designs.

Anyway, it is expected to be in the same class as the Gripen E. It will have an MTOW of 17.5T versus the 13.5T for LCA Mk1A.

Thanks a lot for your reply and indeed, I missed post #44. However what surprises me and even if I can understand the increase in size and capability, this means an additional increase in time for testing. To a certain degree this ca. 30% increase in mass is comparable to the evolution from the legacy F/A-18 Hornet to the E/F Super Hornet.

 

[randomradio]

Thanks a lot for your reply and indeed, I missed post #44. However what surprises me and even if I can understand the increase in size and capability, this means an additional increase in time for testing. To a certain degree this ca. 30% increase in mass is comparable to the evolution from the legacy F/A-18 Hornet to the E/F Super Hornet.

ADA claims they need only 3 years from first flight to IOC, expected in 2025. So it's to be seen if they can actually achieve their deadline.

 

[Deino]

ADA claims they need only 3 years from first flight to IOC, expected in 2025. So it's to be seen if they can actually achieve their deadline.

I must admit, given their latest track record I'm quite sceptical. three years is quite a feat...

 

[Sine Nomine]

Wow so this 19000 hrs figure for Jf17 is fake??

Everything is fake,whole program is fake and only exists on PDF and Media.

 

[randomradio]

I must admit, given their latest track record I'm quite sceptical. three years is quite a feat...

ADA's argument is most of the baseline technologies are already ready, so the amount of time required for testing is not a lot. After all, the LCA Mk2 is directly transitioning from LCA Mk1 in a very short time. A lot of stuff expected to go on the Mk2 will be tested on the Mk1.

For example, the new AESA radar is already being integrated on the LCA Mk1. It has finished multiple rounds of testing from a helicopter.

The radar and EW suite for the Mk2 are expected to hit near production standards even before the Mk2 makes it to first flight.

So the main hurdle will be validating the airframe and FCS, which shouldn't take long considering the experience with Mk1.

 

[Deino]

...
So the main hurdle will be validating the airframe and FCS, which shouldn't take long considering the experience with Mk1.

Yes, but as if "only" the airframe and FCS is de fact a new aircraft and again, given the validating the regular Tejas' airframe and FCS I won't hold my breath.

 

[randomradio]

Yes, but as if "only" the airframe and FCS is de fact a new aircraft and again, given the validating the regular Tejas' airframe and FCS I won't hold my breath.

Working out the FCS for the Mk1 was our very first attempt. Everything had to be done quite literally from scratch, even constructing the R&D facilities, test facilities and so on.

But the problem with the delays with Mk1 was the airframe itself, not the FCS.

And let's not forget the LCA's naval prototypes with the LEVCON. Even China is yet to demonstrate STOBAR take off and arrested landing on an original design. India worked out the mechanics in a very short three years with the second naval prototype.

The first 6 years of the LCA program was spent for demonstration. Flying in different geographies, different configurations and so on. It was only in 2008 that the LCA actually became a fighter program. That was when the LSP-2 took flight with the new definitive engine, and even this was nothing but demonstration. And it was only in 2010 that we saw the first fighter models which would normally be called a prototype in advanced nations, with the first flight of LSP-3 and 4. 2010 was also when the govt had to make regulation changes and convert the LSPs into unofficial prototypes because the actual "prototypes" were no different from TDs.

To put things in perspective, the LCA's LSP-3 equivalent in terms of configuration would be the J-20's first prototype, 2011. And LSP-8 is the J-20's 2017 equivalent. So Mk1 has skipped the LRIP stage and directly moved to IOC deliveries. Hell, if you wanna nitpick, the first two serial production models were LRIP/IOC hybrid equivalent, with SP-3 onwards being IOC versions. Which means a fighter configured LCA first started flying in 2010 and achieved IOC in 2013. Full flight envelope was opened up in 2015 on an SP version, one of the reasons why the IAF okayed the development of Mk1A. And the IAF demonstrated 8G manoeuvres in Bahrain in Feb 2016.

So the actual timeline doesn't look as bad as it has been portrayed to be, right?

 

[Deino]

Working out the FCS for the Mk1 was our very first attempt. Everything had to be done quite literally from scratch, even constructing the R&D facilities, test facilities and so on.

But the problem with the delays with Mk1 was the airframe itself, not the FCS.

And let's not forget the LCA's naval prototypes with the LEVCON. Even China is yet to demonstrate STOBAR take off and arrested landing on an original design. India worked out the mechanics in a very short three years with the second naval prototype.

The first 6 years of the LCA program was spent for demonstration. Flying in different geographies, different configurations and so on. It was only in 2008 that the LCA actually became a fighter program. That was when the LSP-2 took flight with the new definitive engine, and even this was nothing but demonstration. And it was only in 2010 that we saw the first fighter models which would normally be called a prototype in advanced nations, with the first flight of LSP-3 and 4. 2010 was also when the govt had to make regulation changes and convert the LSPs into unofficial prototypes because the actual "prototypes" were no different from TDs.

To put things in perspective, the LCA's LSP-3 equivalent in terms of configuration would be the J-20's first prototype, 2011. And LSP-8 is the J-20's 2017 equivalent. So Mk1 has skipped the LRIP stage and directly moved to IOC deliveries. Hell, if you wanna nitpick, the first two serial production models were LRIP/IOC hybrid equivalent, with SP-3 onwards being IOC versions. Which means a fighter configured LCA first started flying in 2010 and achieved IOC in 2013. Full flight envelope was opened up in 2015 on an SP version, one of the reasons why the IAF okayed the development of Mk1A. And the IAF demonstrated 8G manoeuvres in Bahrain in Feb 2016.

So the actual timeline doesn't look as bad as it has been portrayed to be, right?

Thanks again for your detailed explanation and even if I can agree with you in certain things and really do not want to nitpick, I still have some very strong reservations ... but You are correct; time will tell.

Best,
Deino

 

[randomradio]

Thanks again for your detailed explanation and even if I can agree with you in certain things and really do not want to nitpick, I still have some very strong reservations ... but You are correct; time will tell.

Best,
Deino

Of course, the reservations you have are fine. I expect the IOC to be delayed by at least 2 years, and pushed to 2027 instead of 2025, giving the program a healthy 5-year development time. But it's most definitely manageable, which is why the IAF decided to cancel the Gripen/F-16 competition for 100+ jets and have started with MMRCA 2. Originally the IAF planned to have two tenders for 100+ jets in the single and twin engine categories. This shows optimism within the IAF over the LCA program as a whole.

 

[punit]

ADA claims they need only 3 years from first flight to IOC, expected in 2025. So it's to be seen if they can actually achieve their deadline.

U want to believe the claims of ADA ? Joke is on you then !

Yes, but as if "only" the airframe and FCS is de fact a new aircraft and again, given the validating the regular Tejas' airframe and FCS I won't hold my breath.

Tejas Progarm is under one of the most lazy *** department and institutions..
They are full time govt emolyeese and had monoploy till very recently. ..so Work or no work they will get salary+ perks..
Unlike companies where lack of work means less income these fat a.ss clowns has fully secured jobs. So imagine the work culture in such places.

 

[randomradio]

U want to believe the claims of ADA ? Joke is on you then !


Tejas Progarm is under one of the most lazy *** department and institutions..
They are full time govt emolyeese and had monoploy till very recently. ..so Work or no work they will get salary+ perks..
Unlike companies where lack of work means less income these fat a.ss clowns has fully secured jobs. So imagine the work culture in such places.

You are obviously misinformed about ADA.

 

[punit]

You are obviously misinformed about ADA.

Well sir ...the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And so far it's a disaster.

 

[Super Falcon]

No option left for IAF cant buy new jets due to corruption alkegation hitting out decade old MRCA project new project need 10 years to choose like old NRCA now what left is 3 decade old jet to buy only

 

[Deino]

U want to believe the claims of ADA ? Joke is on you then !


Tejas Progarm is under one of the most lazy *** department and institutions..
They are full time govt emolyeese and had monoploy till very recently. ..so Work or no work they will get salary+ perks..
Unlike companies where lack of work means less income these fat a.ss clowns has fully secured jobs. So imagine the work culture in such places.

I must admit; I need to agree with you and as quite an interesting coincidence a few weeks ago, I had a very interesting conversation with someone with very close contacts to the IAF, who was in the session at the time when it came to the table that the Mk.1 version will not achieve the required performance:

In a nutshell, according to his report, the conversation went on something like this:


IAF: the current version of the Tejas will not achieve the required performances ...

HAL / ADA: No, it will

IAF: No, it will not, XYZ is missing ...

HAL / ADA: ok, we will install, it is in planning ...

IAF: Well, if it meets the requirements, we will introduce it, but what about weight increase due to all these systems? The current powerplant is too weak.

HAL / ADA: ok, ... we will solve.

IAF: how?

HAL / ADA: We just take the F414 instead of the F404.

IAF: but that will require a new or redesign of the fuselage, etc.

HAL / ADA: No, it will not ... the USA did that in their F-18 too.

IAF: Yes, but that's what made the Hornet the Super Hornet, a de facto new aircraft.

HAL / ADA: Well, then this will be the Mk. 2.

IAF: but you can not just install a significantly different engine, this requires a redesign due to the other mass relations, distribution of forces, center of gravity, ....

HAL / ADA: ... we will solve

....

As I said, the conversation is only very briefly reflected and possibly somewhat exaggerated formulated, but his tenor was at the end: This is the total fiasco, as in India is generally the attitude: We can do it and we do it differently ... and also if there are existing solutions and concepts that have proven themselves, we consciously do it differently.

In his opinion, the most symptomatic example of this "we do it differently" was at the time the decision for LCA's unusual wing geometry. Original Dornier had submitted a small delta-canard proposal and MBB a pure delta/double delta with - let's say casual - normal wing geometry, in the sense that the double delta wing has a low sweep outside ... only when Dassault in 1987 took over the development it evolved into the current design, where - according to my source - it was actually discussed, you have to turn around the change of sweep, because "we will do it differently"!

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Great news for Pakistan. new coffins will be replacing old coffins. 20 years later india is finally inducting it