"beautiful" LCA

Since this thread is once again active, I'll post some news to bring it to speed:

Air Force to buy 40 fighter aircraft

During Aero India, the primary vendor for the HAL LCA, namely the IAF, agreed to the intial order of 20 + 20 a/c. This represents satisfaction with the product and confirmed committment to the last phase of the induction process: end-user trials wherein IAF trains and integrates itself with the LCA type while giving feedback back to HAL for its 'second tranche'/full-scale production and subsequent induction

The initial aircraft tender cost is only $22.8mil, and is expected to be lower with full-scale production. These a/c will be inducted in 2008 with the GE-F404-IN20 engine, and full production from 2010 with Kaveri.


India developing LCA trainer version

HAL is developing a Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) for the LCA. It is also developing a Combat Attack Trainer (CAT) which will replace the Hawk AJT by 2010.

The LIFT will be like other IAF aircraft-specific trainers (MiG-21 Mongol, etc.) in that it will be operationalized in wartime, whereas the CAT, Hawk, while potentially operationalizable, likely will not be.




Images of the CAT









7 LCA prototypes to fly by March next year

The seven prototypes will hurry the clearance process, which will be completed by 2008.

The early designs to AST 403 (which led to the Typhoon eventually), began with the P.96 and progressed through to the P.120 (which was virtually the Typhoon we see today) between 1976 and 1986.

If you know about the history of the Typhoon you will be aware of the turmoil with France joining and then being thrown out etc tec, suffice to say that at one point it looked as if a UK only fighter would have to be produced, BAe proposed a private venture single engine light fighter which the RAF weren't too keen on but BAe hoped to win them round and also take on the export market with their design which was the P.106. When the project appeared to be gathering momentum within BAe it was noticed that the P.106 also seemed to meet the Indian LCA requirement perfectly and a joint programme was investigated.

When Germany and Italy then decided to rejoin the UK in a new fighter programme the Govt insisted that BAe put its full weight behind the project and the P.106 was virtually 'given' to India with BAe willing to act as a sort of 'consultant' while the 'main event' was obviously the Eurofighter Typhoon as far as the UK was concerned.

Now obviously the Tejas owes nothing to this design except maybe its vaguest stats (size, weight, engine thrust etc) but the wind tunnel model pic does look very similar to the original BAe proposal to me.

I've dug out an original magazine picture, the accompanying article with it actually mentioned possible collaboration with India but I remembered the date wrong, this article dates from 1982.

Awesome info, man. Thanks

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
Here's an interesting pic I came across. A wind tunnel model of an early LCA design displayed at Aero-India. Note the canards and a more traditional delta wing with very little fuselage blending.



The mastering of the cranked delta and its complementary fuselage design has enabled super-maneuverability making canards useless in the final LCA design. The lack of canards also improves its RCS

[edit on 25-2-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

when i'd been to aero india, i saw this model at the NAL(national aerospace labs) stall. i could'nt quite identify which aircraft it was.

but then after i visited th Grippen stall, i realised this was just like the grippen.i came back and took another look and confirmed.

that model looks 100% like the grippen...i swear

more info : www.eurofighter.starstreak.net...

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

that model looks 100% like the grippen...i swear

maybe 75%, I grant you, but the wings, canards, projections over the air intakes etc are pure P.106.

However, I failed to mention that the 1982 article I took the picture from actually said collaboration was possible with India and/or Sweden, I omitted this as I felt it wasn't relevant to the discussion but as you pointed out a similarity between the model and the Gripen, it suddenly is.

the Gripen had already been designed at this time and looked very close to the P106 which is why a joint venture was mooted, indeed today BAE Systems own something like 40% of the Gripen programme and market the plane themselves, even thought the plane that was built has nothing to do with the P.106.

It can all get very confusing.

Originally posted by chinatea
IT'S indian's pride?Cmygod!

Can't see any of the images, so can we just assume that LCA stands for something like Losers Copying Aircraft?

This is off topic but centurion just reminded me of something, I notice that Indiia has a project known as MRCA. Back in the '70's this acronym was used by Panavia for what was to become the Tornado, to those who doubted that the thing would ever be built (and after TSR 2 etc who could blame them) it came to stand for 'Mother Rileys Cardboard Aeroplane'

And so the thread has come full circle.

Psssst. There are what we call "pages" between his first and this last. Try reading them before again parading around your lack of humor.

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
And so the thread has come full circle.

Psssst. There are what we call "pages" between his first and this last. Try reading them before again parading around your lack of humor.

sorry, I thought it was funny.

Originally posted by waynos
This is off topic but centurion just reminded me of something, I notice that Indiia has a project known as MRCA.

MRCA stands for Medium Ranged Combat Aircraft. It's not a project, but a generic acronym (not India-specific) used to define a class of aircraft. In this case, as I posted earlier, for the interim replacement of MiG-23s, -27s and Jaguars in the next decade, before the MCA project is completed.

It would be India's last major foreign aircraft purchase.

edit- oops, I dont mean medium ranged. The correct acronym is MULTI-ROLE



sorry, I thought it was funny.

Then you have more patience than I, friend. After 7 pages of carefully deconstructing idiot sloganeering by jingoes and willful ignorants, I've lost the humor in gleefully inane one-liners about the subject some four pages ago.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

[edit on 7-3-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

I wasn't dissing it, the fact that it uses the letters MRCA (which stood for Multi Role Combat Aircraft on the Tornado) and centurions 'play' on LCA just reminded me of a story from the 70's. No offence was intended.

Sorry, my initital post at 10:43 wasn't directed at you, but at that hilarious gent centurion1211. I should have mad that clear in the post.

Maybe centurion needs to be introduced to asterix/obelix...!!

Here are some more pics of the Tejas, from unusual angles, which give a better idea of how the plane is shaped

Since i figured out the LCA is a better plan overall then the FC-1, what about other planes around India such as the F10(j10), F16?

The FC-1/Thunder is a cheap, simple BVR platform based on the MiG-21. It lacks any sophisticated avionics and weapons suite, has less capable engine, etc. and thus is outclassed by even the IAF MiG-21 Bisons. However, it is a good plane for its limited role and the limited Pakistani budget; though even with the planned 150 plane induction, it would go very little toward negating IAF superiority which only grows each passing year. The Paks are hedging all bets on the J-10 but I very much doubt they'd get their hands on it anytime soon (decade-plus.) By that time, given even planned inductions by IAF, it would be in a similar position to the effectiveness of JF-17 induction today.

On paper, the Tejas's specs are superior to the J-10, which has an identical role in the PLAAF.

However, the first tranche of J-10s are already inducted, whereas the Tejas will reach fullscale production around 2010. Doubtlessly, the second+-tranche J-10s would by then have upgraded avionics, engine, etc. that would make it more comparable. However, the Tejas would still be relatively superior, unless the J-10 is drastically modified ultra-fast by then; in RCS given its smaller size, high-use of composites, shape, and active radar-cancelling technologies; cost; also, avionics and weapons remains a sore spot for the J-10. These are confirmed technologies of the Tejas which are already, openly under development. And apart from the self-congratulatory rumor mill, I've yet to see any real info for exactly what's planned for the J-10's upgrade.



[edit on 11-3-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

Oops, forgot about F-16s. Pakistan operates a couple sqns of very early model block 15 F-16s, which are suffering heavily fom sanctions, lack of spares etc. Only about 20 are flyable, and almost a dozen are known to be canabalized for parts. They are known to hardly get any flying time. Yet, today, these aircraft remain the most potent in the PAF.

They are inferior to the JF-17, and are easily outclassed by any IAF fighter. It is well-known that IAF have developed unique anti-F-16 tactics, from IAF's unfettered access to Israeli F-16s (incidently, many technologies developed in the IAF Su-30MKI-program found its way on the IsAF F-16I Sufa, and vice versa), and these tactics were refined and proved during the heavy training against RSAF block 50/60 F-16s. Furthermore, RSAF has been virtually been handed a base to train at in India, and RSAF pilots will continually go up against IAF planes. (The cooperation works both ways. RSAF train against the MKI as well, which their arch-nemisis Malaysia will be getting in knocked-down form as the MKM)

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004


HAL is developing a Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) for the LCA. It is also developing a Combat Attack Trainer (CAT) which will replace the Hawk AJT by 2010.

i doubt. the hawk deal was just signed and the IAF have'nt been operating hawks yet. IMO the CAT might compliment the hawk for training IAF pilots.

Besides, India has been offered joint development of a next gen trainer by sukhoi. i've got some pics of it. i'll post em next time, no time, exams approaching, gotta go.bye

Im back...


S-54 vital statistics


DIMENSIONS:
Wingspan 9.08 m (29 ft 9 1/2 in)
Length overall 12.30 m (40 ft 4 in)
Height overall 4.47 m (14 ft 8 in)

WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS:
Weight empty, equipped 4,790 kg (10,560 lb)
Max T-O weight 9,410 kg (20,745 lb)
Max landing weight 7,130 kg (15,718 lb)
Max wing loading 356.2 kg/m2 (72.94 lb/sq ft)
Max power loading 154.75 kg/kN (1.52 Ib/lb st)

PERFORMANCE (estimated):
Max level speed:
at height Mach 1.55 (890 knots / 1,650 km/h / 1,025 mph)
at S/L Mach 0.98 (645 knots / 1,200 km/h / 745 mph)
T-O speed 98 knots (180 km/h 112 mph)
Landing speed 92 knots (I7O km/h 106 mph)
Service ceiling 18,000 m (59,050 ft)
T-O run 380 m (1,250 ft)
Landing run 500 m (1,640 ft)
Range with max fuel
at S/L 440 nm (820 km/510 miles)
at height 1,080 nm (2,000 km/1,240 miles)
G-limits +9/-3

ARMAMENT:
Number of hardpoints: 6(?): 2 wingtip, 4 underwing
Air-to-air: R-77, R-73
Air-to-surface: X-29T, X-29L, X-31A