ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

abingdonboy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,039
Likes
33,588
Country flag
Chinese Chengdu J-10:
First Flight:1998
Introduction:2006
Total Built:400+

Lca Tejas:
First Flight:2001
Introduction:2015
Total Built:21

The first flight between both jets is 3 years apart,but introduction is too late for Tejas.
And the numbers are just jaw droping 400+ in 11-12 years that's 33-36 planes each year.
To the point who is the main culprit and black sheep for the delay of production and introduction of Tejas.
Production of the LCA only begun in mid-2016 as the IAF only agreed to accept the LCA after it had been granted IOC-2, the PLAAF and PAF accept their jets way before any signifcant milestones are attained- it is a different approach, IAF birds will come ready to fight from day one whereas PLAAF/PAF are still under development for years after.
 

TheHurtLocker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
272
Likes
806
Country flag
And the numbers are just jaw droping 400+ in 11-12 years that's 33-36 planes each year.
To the point who is the main culprit and black sheep for the delay of production and introduction of Tejas.
Very true!
The original J10 "A" was mediocre but they kept building them in numbers.
Now they have a true 4th generation J10C and the PLAAF have at least a decade of operational experience with the basic type!
Even the Pak Fizzleya is pursuing a similar strategy from the Block 1(No BVR/PGM capability=complete bakwaas) to the Block two with minor improvements and next to the block three which will be competent(Allegedly).
 

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
Chinese Chengdu J-10:
First Flight:1998
Introduction:2006
Total Built:400+

Lca Tejas:
First Flight:2001
Introduction:2015
Total Built:21

The first flight between both jets is 3 years apart,but introduction is too late for Tejas.
And the numbers are just jaw droping 400+ in 11-12 years that's 33-36 planes each year.
To the point who is the main culprit and black sheep for the delay of production and introduction of Tejas.
Please post the Complete history
* J-10 is basically built by using the purchased blueprints of Israeli NAVI fighter jet. Getting blueprints cuts a huge time delay.
* Also Tejas is also delayed due to the sanctions imposed on India.
*One more thing is the government shifts in India (democratic country) where as China has no such delays due to communist government (single party rule).
* Another reason is the basic quality certifications proposed by IAF that are IOC-1, IOC-2, FOC (where IOC-2 is at top for induction) but in case of China there is no need of such checks.

The results of not getting certifications is that 2 jf-17s are crashed along with their pilots, whereas no such reports made public in China due to non-availability of independent media.
 

TheHurtLocker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
272
Likes
806
Country flag
I think you are missing his point.
Please post the Complete history
* J-10 is basically built by using the purchased blueprints of Israeli NAVI fighter jet. Getting blueprints cuts a huge time delay.
Purchased blueprints or stolen tech whichever may be the reason but they have 400 J10 airframes that the PLAAF can bring into the theatre.
As the Soviets say "Quantity has a quality all its own".
If there was a Tejas (with LSP-3 capability) say in a handful of squadrons, we would not be staring at a massive deficit in Sqn strength.
But I agree with the remainder of your post.

The results of not getting certifications is that 2 jf-17s are crashed along with their pilots,
That is wrong. Neither you nor I(Or any Paki :rofl:) have seen the CoI findings and it would be foolish to ascribe causes.

Edit:
The Su 30MKI is a good case in point here.
IAF got the 30K then the MKI and IIRC, even the IAF specific capability for the BARS went live in 2011... a full 8 years after induction.
And even now the MKI is getting more capabilities(BrahMos A, Astra, Desi PGM), simultaneously with Nashik churning out at least a dozen birds each year!
 
Last edited:

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
I think you are missing his point.

Purchased blueprints or stolen tech whichever may be the reason but they have 400 J10 airframes that the PLAAF can bring into the theatre.
As the Soviets say "Quantity has a quality all its own".
!
India believes QUALITY over Quantity.
Purchasing or even stolen tech will not be equalised with the development of our own.
Development from the scratch always take time but theft or purchase won't need it

I want to add one more information that the Present form of LCA is nowhere similar to the LCA at the starting of the project

I agreed that present Production rate is not satisfactory. But believe that it will be good after FOC, At present we are manufacturing sukhois and hawks at a very decent pace.
 

TheHurtLocker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
272
Likes
806
Country flag
India believes QUALITY over Quantity.
India disagrees.
General Rawat added that all armies across the world maintain an inventory in the ratio of the 30:40:30. Here 30 percent equipment is state of the art technology, 40 percent is undergoing modernization and the rest 30 percent is obsolete, which requires an upgrade.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...my-chief-bipin-rawat/articleshow/59048195.cms
Quantity is always a vital factor in warfighting. Even for India.

Present form of LCA.......
No disagreements here.But I'm sure you agree with me that the Tejas even in LSP stage was far far better than Type 96/Type 77 and would have replaced them very well.

Anyhow, the past is the past.
 
Last edited:

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indian-army-prepared-for-a-two-and-a-half-front-war-army-chief-bipin-rawat/articleshow/59048195.cms
Bro, old machines fact neither comparable with the uncertified facts

No disagreements here.But I'm sure you agree with me that the Tejas even in LSP stage was far far better than Type 96/Type 77 and would have replaced them very well.

Anyhow, the past is the past.
You are Comparing two machines of different roles.
You can compare a needle with a sword because both have their own significance and can perform their respective role than other
 

TheHurtLocker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
272
Likes
806
Country flag
Bro, old machines fact neither comparable with the uncertified facts
I did not get you here, please clarify.



You are Comparing two machines of different roles.
You can compare a needle with a sword because both have their own significance and can perform their respective role than other
Pretty sure both the MiG 21 versions and the Tejas are meant to perform similar roles.
 

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
I did not get you here, please clarify.
I said this in favour of Gen. Rawat's phrase. I want clarify that those machines which are now obsolete or old are the winners of many conflicts and have all desired quality certifications so they can't be compared with uncertified machines.
Also, at present PLAAF is using f-7 (mig-21) in very large numbers.

Pretty sure both the MiG 21 versions and the Tejas are meant to perform similar roles.
I made my point with reference of Type-96 tank and type-77 APC.

Please clarify what was Type-96/Type-77 in your last post.
 
Last edited:

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
Quality always matters

I have a real-time fact for that.

My neighbour bought a brand new chinese bike in 2015 and sold it in scrap in feb'17 whereas, I have Bullet purchased by my grandfather in 1969 and now I'm still enjoy my rides on it.

This is the actual factor which is always compromised in China. They are economic but not durable in any sector.
 

abingdonboy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,039
Likes
33,588
Country flag
By the way, HAL has the means to churn out 16-24 LCA/year BUT it is because of the measley orders for the MK.1 and MK.1A that they are limiting production to 6-8/year between 2016-2019/20 and 16/year from 2019-20 for the 80 Mk.1A. IF the GoI/IAF commited to 200++ LCA from the outset, HAL would easily be able to ramp production up to 24/year without adding ANY physical infrastructure just by increasing the % of LRUs outsourced to pvt players to around 80-85% (current target is around 60%).

IAF gets to place small orders, bash HAL/ADA for slow deliveries therby justifying phroen maal like the F-16/Gripen which in turn leads to there being no money for more LCA orders....

I hope this $hit is not tolerated and the GoI intervenes and puts those spoilt brats in the IAF in their place. For the cost of 1 F-16 Blk.70, the IAF could order 2-3 LCA Mk.1A, for just 1/3rd of the cost of buying 70-80 F-16s India has created, tested and produced the LCA and ALL of its sub-components and under this banner includes the Kaveri engine and Uttam AESA radar.

If the IAF actually supports the LCA project, they could have their own fighter flying with an Indian engine (Kaveri), with an Indian AESA radar (Uttam) with Indian weapons (Astra/SAAW/etc) within the next 4 years but instead they will continue to throw money down the drain supporting the military industrial complexes of other nations and crying about why India doesn't have its own.


Utterly disgraceful.
 
Last edited:

SanjeevM

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,631
Likes
4,503
Country flag
By the way, HAL has the means to churn out 16-24 LCA/year BUT it is because of the measley orders for the MK.1 and MK.1A that they are limiting production to 6-8/year between 2016-2019/20 and 16/year from 2019-20 for the 80 Mk.1A. IF the GoI/IAF commited to 200++ LCA from the outset, HAL would easily be able to ramp production up to 24/year without adding ANY physical infrastructure just by increasing the % of LRUs outsourced to pvt players to around 80-85% (current target is around 60%).

IAF gets to place small orders, bash HAL/ADA for slow deliveries therby justifying phroen maal like the F-16/Gripen which in turn leads to there being no money for more LCA orders....

I hope this $hit is not tolerated and the GoI intervenes and puts those spoilt brats in the IAF in their place. For the cost of 1 F-16 Blk.70, the IAF could order 2-3 LCA Mk.1A, for just 1/3rd of the cost of buying 70-80 F-16s India has created, tested and produced the LCA and ALL of its sub-components and under this banner includes the Kaveri engine and Uttam AESA radar.

If the IAF actually supports the LCA project, they could have their own fighter flying with an Indian engine (Kaveri), with an Indian AESA radar (Uttam) with Indian weapons (Astra/SAAW/etc) within the next 4 years but instead they will continue to throw money down the drain supporting the military industrial complexes of other nations and crying about why India doesn't have its own.


Utterly disgraceful.
I hope this message reaches government and concerned IAF brass and orders are increased.

I also hope TATA should set production lines for Tejas now instead of F-16.

We need numbers. If we can produce number and leave room in current version to incorporate future development, we shouldn't wait for all the development to first take place and then orders will be given. Give the new orders and increase numbers.
 

HarshBardhan

Casper
Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
195
Likes
789
The unstable configuration of LCA demands a highly efficient Integrated Flight Control System (IFCS) to fly the aircraft. Control law resident in the flight control computer synthesizes inputs from pilot's stick and rudder pedals with flight parameters from inertial and air-data measurements to generate commands to the actuators that move various control surfaces. The design of the control law is evaluated using real-time flight simulator for acceptable flight handling qualities. The IFCS ensures stability, agility, maneuverability and carefree handling over the entire operating envelope of LCA. The Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) is the heart of IFCS. It hosts 4 computing channels each powered by an independent 28V DC power input from the aircraft. The four channels are identical and each has one digital module which is the main computing unit for control law and redundancy management, three analog boards and one power supply board, all housing in a single LRU. A high speed serial link connects the four channels under the control of redundancy control software performing system failure detection and control reconfiguration. The digital modules also provide MIL-STD-1533B and RS -422 interfaces to various sub systems including the air data transducers, flight test panel, crash data records and so on. The DFCS features extensive built in test, recording and extensive built in test, recording and extensive signal monitoring.

The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link. The complete air-data system is triplex redundant while rate sensor and accelerometer assemblies are quadruplex redundant.

A solid state crash data recorder (SSCDR) records the aircrafts analog and discrete flight parameters along with the voice and audio transactions.

The quadruplex redundant architecture without mechanical backup has evolved to meet the fail operate fail-safe requirement. The Tejas digital FBW FCS also uses quad redundant electrical power supply dual redundant hydraulic power supply and meets the stringent PLOC requirement of 0.1 failures in million flights.
Provisions for the growth of hardware and software in the avionics and flight control system, available in LCA, ensure to maintain its effectiveness and advantages as a frontline fighter throughout its service life. For maintenance the aircraft has more than five hundred Line Replaceable Units (LRSs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.

 

Kchontha

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2017
Messages
784
Likes
1,208
Country flag
Tejas is approaching its foc slowly and steadily but surely and it is likely to happen in June 2018.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top