ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Kunal Biswas]

MK2`s performance specs are not disclosed yet, MK1`s has ..

MK1 combat range is 500kms and ferry range is 1100kms without fuel tanks or refueling according IOC-2 config published on PIB , With extra fuel tanks the range is nearly 3000kms according to Janes defence ..

What is the ferry range ,combat radius and combat air patrol range of Tejas Mk-2
How many hours it can stay in air without refueling

 

[ersakthivel]

PART 1: Big Surprises In LCA Navy NP1's Ski-Jump Fight
When the first prototype of India's LCA Navy (NP1) roared off the ski-jump at the Shore-based Test Facility (SBTF) for the first time on December 20 last year, no one from the team observing the jet from the flightline and from telemetry stations knew that something unseen had happened. Something that would only become known later in the day when performance data was analysed. And it was good, solid news, much needed for a team that has seen little more thanquestions, derision and barely veiled bemusement. Importantly, it was the first time the team felt it had an answer to the 'what use is this platform, really?' question.
first time in 2012, had remained mostly on ground for the next two years, undergoing an extensive undercarriage re-design. In 2013, it climbed cautiously back into the air before going supersonic last year, and finally getting set for a shot off the simulated shore-based carrier deck in December 2014.

According to sources on Team LCA-N, "For a ski jump launch, the final design intent is to have a zero rate of climb after ramp exit to get the best performance of the aircraft. This places a great premium on the ability to fly at the maximum possible angles of attack with adequate control and also to have a complete understanding of the thrust available."

And that's where it gets interesting.

Top sources on the team say the NP1 was flown a few times conventially before the ski-jump test to soak up the thick sea-level air in Goa. As expected, engine performance was markedly better. Spirits were high, but as has become the norm on milestone tests in the Tejas programme, there was pervasive nervousness. Surprises can be nasty. And the ski-jump test would leave no recovery time if something went wrong. As the Team says, "The first attempt at any new activity is fraught with uncertainties and potential surprises. Given the 'leap off the edge' nature of the first launch, all the major possibilities of failure were identified and options to handle them were built into the plan."

The test flight team decided to lock 5.7 degrees as the minimum climb angle for the NP1 once it made the leap off the ski-jump. When the aircraft actually did roar into the sky, the actual minimum climb angle was observed to be in excess of 10 degrees. Also, the NP1 achieved an angle of attack after ramp exit of 21.6 degrees, giving the team healthy new margins to work with in terms of performance. Simply put, the aircraft performed better than the team ever thought it could.

Now you can argue that safety margins always allow for bumps in performance, but the number crunch that evening demonstrated that the NP1 had exceeded expectations healthily.

The test team's verdict: "This is certainly a welcome bonus for an aircraft that has been so often derided for lack of thrust, and this excess will be accounted for in future launches. Also the angle of attack after ramp exit reached 21.6 degrees which augers well for utilisation of even greater angles of attack for launch. It should certainly allay fears over the use of such high angles of attack and remove much of the pessimism that has surrounded the utility of the programme."

The NP2 single seat naval fighter prototype that took to the air yesterday will join sea-level flight test next month and quickly demonstrate its own carrier compatibility before long. The LCA-N team, in the meanwhile, has its spirits up. The Indian Navy, which has ordered six of LCA Navy Mk.1 has indicated, albeit unofficially, that the Mk.1 platform is likely never to see actual carrier service. While the performance surprises of December aren't likely to change that, the numbers have changed. And that's something.

So design calculations on tejas NP are solid perhaps.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-the-teeth-IAF-needs/articleshow/45926119.cms

Bengaluru: There was joy at HAL and ADA on Saturday with the LCA Tejas being finally handed over to the IAF after decades of hard work. But is it the mean machine the IAF is looking for as its struggles with outdated aircraft, depleting squadron strength and India losing its air-power edge to its neighbours? The first series production LCA may have been handed over, but IAF is pushing Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and HAL to make it more combat-worthy. It wants four main additions -- a Russian gun, upgraded software, long-range missiles and mid-air refuelling capability.

Their absence will affect the IAF's operations and a final clearance will be elusive. An advanced electronic warfare suite is also a requirement. "The LCA has already been built, and to meet these requirements, we have to disrupt the structure. But work is on, the gun has been integrated with a prototype and accommodation of refuelling is on. The other things will also be ready," ADA chief PS Subramanya told TOI.

Kota Harinarayana, called the Father of the LCA, said: "The aircraft is combat-ready. They should begin using it, understand the platform and then upgradations can be made." He said, "The Su-30 platform, four times the size of LCA, isn't equipped with electronic warfare. Have we stopped using it? When India purchased the Mirage-2000 series, the plane couldn't carry any weapons. Why did we buy it?" The IAF continues to push HAL and ADA for the changes before the final clearance is granted.

The IAF's discontent with the project has been apparent over the years which saw the aircraft having to get a second Initial Operation Clearance while the Final Operation Clearance is still elusive. Subramanya said not all of the first 20 of 40 aircraft to be delivered to IAF will lack these. "The first 20 will be in the IOC configuration but we're making sure that 35 meet FOC standards. All these requirements will be met from let's say the fifth series production aircraft," he said. The IAF though will not settle for anything less.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
* To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
* Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
* Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
* Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
* I just hope the Tejas Mk-I does not end up going the BAC TSR.2 and CF-105 Avro Arrow way.
* We need some strong statements in support of the HAL Tejas. And the strongest statement would be an order for 4 more squadrons of Tejas MK-I

 

[Compersion]

How much better is Tejas MK1 compare to our current Mig 21+

If we operating the Mig 21+ in large number until today and even now and have many pilots, infrastructure trained and using it. If Tejas MK1 is better to Mig 21+ ... the destination and objective (replace Mig 21+)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

IMHO, Tejas MK1 are more modern than Upgraded MIR-2000, Comparing them to MIG-21+++ is futile ..

But again for the knowledge, Here a fruitless comparison =========== >>

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Hybrid MMR - 100 plus Km for a 5 sq meter target, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training

Combat Radius : Tejas +500Kms, Bision limited to under 300kms ..

---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing on ..

How much better is Tajas MK1 compare to our current Mig 21+

 

[akshay m]

heard this in bharat rakshak
know not ,who this guy is , but i will share this

Septimus P. said

I hear different, I hear an Indian 5th gen light weight fighter single engine concept design has been shared with the DM/Chief of DRDO, this could be the other single engine possibility that the DM talks about. So far the designer has had a few meetings, we will hear more in the coming months. All chatter points to a revolutionary new 5th gen design which is unlike any other anywhere. If this chatter is to be believed, we are in for a treat soon. The designer had a meeting even last week.

The other single engine fighter is certainly not the 'Gripen'

but saurav jha says differently????

 

[tejas warrior]

IMHO, Tejas MK1 are more modern than Upgraded MIR-2000, Comparing them to MIG-21+++ is futile ..

But again for the knowledge, Here a fruitless comparison =========== >>

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Hybrid MMR - 100 plus Km for a 5 sq meter target, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training

Combat Radius : Tejas +500Kms, Bision limited to under 300kms ..

---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing on ..

Thanks sir !!

 

[tejas warrior]

heard this in bharat rakshak
know not ,who this guy is , but i will share this



but saurav jha says differently????

Can someone please provide mode details.. I wish this is true.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Among these would be a programme to integrate technologies developed as part of India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft [AMCA] programme into the Light Combat Aircraft [LCA], Tejas. This variant would be identified as Mark III.

The Mk. 3 is to have up to 70% composite content, almost double the current version's level, and could be powered by India's Kaveri turbofan, if that troubled program gets back on track."

Source : Stealth version of India's Light Combat Aircraft [LCA] Tejas, Mk. 3 on the cards - AA Me, IN

Can someone please provide mode details.. I wish this is true.

 

[power_monger]

@Kunal Biswas
beautifull post on comparison between tejas and bison.We should book mark such post.unfortunatly such good post are lost in the ocean of post.

 

[Compersion]

Tejas not Tajas, As much proud you choice to put an Indian Flag under your avatar, Try to call its product name as well, Which are produce none other than Indians themselves ..

Regarding the fruitless comparison =========== >>

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Hybrid MMR - 100 plus Km for a 5 sq meter target, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training

Combat Radius : Tejas +500Kms, Bision limited to under 300kms ..

---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing on ..

Excellent really thanks for that - the typing mistake was not intentional (on something that usually does not happen - and your guidance will only make me be more careful next time which i appreciate). The flag is there for a good reason and will always remain and I am one who wants more Tejas since it is obvious it is much better compared to Mig-21s that jets we have to replace !! I was applying calculations in my mind to guide the transaction to say ...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Consider this my apology, I did`nt meant to be rude, I just got carried away ..

Excellent really thanks for that - the typing mistake was not intentional (on something that usually does not happen - and your guidance will only make me be more careful next time which i appreciate). The flag is there for a good reason and will always remain and I am one who wants more Tejas since it is obvious it is much better compared to Mig-21s that jets we have to replace !! I was applying calculations in my mind to guide the transaction to say ...

 

[Compersion]

Consider this my apology, I did`nt meant to be rude, I just got carried away ..

Please there is no need to apologize it was my (civilian) mistake on something that usually does not happen. I have always typed Tejas (even in previous posts) and there must be a reason why it did not enter into the discussion if not me it would be a good lessons for everyone

People need to learn from you and you have made others better and you have recognized such people before. I am in no way demanding any apology from you and more in fact appreciate your response even more (and i must apologies if this post takes up unnecessary space in this thread which deserves the technical expertise that people like you bring). The Tejas and Mig-21+ analysis is significant and imperative ... we dont need to jump too many steps at once when they best step we can take it the one in front of us. Have a good day :thumb:

 

[sathya]

Can someone with time, do the comparison with mirage 2000 ?

 

[Pulkit]

IMHO, Tejas MK1 are more modern than Upgraded MIR-2000, Comparing them to MIG-21+++ is futile ..

But again for the knowledge, Here a fruitless comparison =========== >>

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Hybrid MMR - 100 plus Km for a 5 sq meter target, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training

Combat Radius : Tejas +500Kms, Bision limited to under 300kms ..

---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing on ..

Excellent really thanks for that - the typing mistake was not intentional (on something that usually does not happen - and your guidance will only make me be more careful next time which i appreciate). The flag is there for a good reason and will always remain and I am one who wants more Tejas since it is obvious it is much better compared to Mig-21s that jets we have to replace !! I was applying calculations in my mind to guide the transaction to say ...

@Kunal Biswas Kindly focus on few more spelling mistakes made by us all. If this is the output I will deliberately do a few.


Honestly a great comparion....

 

[ersakthivel]

Focus Shifts to Tejas MK-2, Project all set to go Critical | idrw.org

Mini Collapse of MMRCA deal has clearly shifted focus back to the development of Tejas MK-2 now. Defence minister Mahonhar Parrikar and Indian air force are closely monitoring the progress of Tejas MK-2 and have begun a monthly review of the project. Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) which is developing Tejas MK-2 is feeling the heat but is confident that things will fall in place soon as a major review of the project will be undertaken soon with all concerned parties.

Tejas MK-2 will get final Technical freeze by the end of this year. project definition of Tejas MK-2 will be completed and the project will finally provide a road map to complete all the tasks to be executed over a fixed period of time before Aircraft is ready for Induction.

Avionics & Radar

idrw.org has learned from reliable sources that final Cockpit design layout for Tejas MK-2 has been frozen, MK-2 will sport Touch based two 6×8 main display with Smart MFDs and one 5×5 smart MFD which will have Day and Night mode .

Indigenously developed Uttam AESA radar for Tejas MK-2 has completed Software development for air-air sub-modes and have begun development of software which will allow air-to-ground modes which are crucial for aircraft to carry out high-resolution mapping, multiple grounds moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications will be completed by year end and IAF and ADA along with LRDE will carry out Project Review at the same time .

Engines

ADA along with GE have carried out Computer assessment of the F414-GE-INS6 engine with 98 kN of thrust in Tejas MK-2 aircraft and have concluded that no major changes in Air intakes are required. GE too has confirmed that the development of F414-GE-INS6 engines is progressing well and will be on schedule and GE engineers will be in India Into carry out mating of the engine with the aircraft when first aircraft is ready.

No Prototypes

ADA will produce 3 Production aircraft which will be of Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) standards and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) will happen in next 3 years after the first flight of first Tejas MK-2 aircraft. they're won't be any prototypes and all aircrafts developed for the testing purpose will be identical to each other.

Astra BVRAAM Integration likely

India's first Beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) Astra missile developed by the DRDO will be integrated with the first batch of Production variant of Tejas MK-2 to be delivered to the Indian air force. IAF is keen on getting Astra missile integrated with Tejas MK-I and MK-2 aircrafts. DRDO plans to start production of a missile by 2018-19.

First Flight

While IAF wants first flight of Tejas MK-2 to take place by end of 2017, ADA can only do it by end of 2018 but both are working together to speed up the process and might agree to some level of compromise, since ADA is not building any Prototypes, but an IOC Standard Production aircraft Integration of all crucial components along with weapons and radar will lead to longer build time said sources. Tejas MK-1 and Tejas MK-2 will share less than 30 % of the components with each other and all agencies are working on selecting component suppliers.

Second Production line

IAF and MOD are exploring feasibility of starting Second production line for Tejas MK2 while IAF is still not put a final figure on MK-2 aircrafts they want but it is estimated that final figure might be close to 300 aircrafts till then IAF is committed itself in procuring an initial 83 Tejas Mk 2s and the Indian Navy has expressed its firm requirement for 46 LCA Mk2 for Indian Navy. Talks have been held with Private Defence companies and Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) is emerging as a viable option said source.

 

[ersakthivel]

In 2004,Suddenly IAF mandated the outboard pylons should carry 105Kg WVAAM (R-73),

from old ASR spec of 45Kg WVAAM (R-60).

Plan form has to be stressed to carry 105 Kg R=73 to the tune of 12 G loads(if you wnat to fly 9G, factor of safety has to be 1.5)

The greater level of strength needed to withstand this 105 Kg load at 9G lead to entire redesign of tejas wing.

So when people ask why HAl is late, ADA is late in designing and rolling out LSps, such new design requirements mandate extensive redesign and even more extensive testing and validation of that redesign which will delay any project.

And since the 65 kg increase is in the wing tips , to with stand the torque or momentum loads , entire wing and wing fuselage joining areas need redesign and strengthening, which will lead to some exces weight and Center of gravity correction as well.

On the look of it , it may seem like a simple 60 kg addition in a 132000 mtow plane, but redesign is extremely time consuming .

Hope such nasty surprises are not thrown mid way on tejas mk2.

 

[ersakthivel]

TRISHUL: The Great Aero India 2015 Tamaasha

Prasoon Das Guptha the great is still saying that ,

There's no need at all to seek any help from Saab. GE Aero Engines is already helping ADA to define the redesign parameters of the Tejas Mk2 MRCA's air-intakes, while BAE Systems has from the very outset (since the early 1990s) been acting as ADA's consultant for optimising the flight-control logic that's used by the digital flight-control computer. Dr V K Saraswat is not a specialist on aircraft aerodynamics. He knows everything about only ballistic missiles & liquid-fuel propulsion systems. Instead, the views expressed by experienced aviators like AM (Ret'd) Philip Rajakumar (former CTP or the NFTS) & AM Matheswaran (now strategic adviser to HAL) on such issues matter more & have far greater credibility & their views were published in most of the Show Dailies that were distributed at the AI-2015 expo.

Focus Shifts to Tejas MK-2, Project all set to go Critical | idrw.org

ADA along with GE have carried out Computer assessment of the F414-GE-INS6 engine with 98 kN of thrust in Tejas MK-2 aircraft and have concluded that no major changes in Air intakes are required. GE too has confirmed that the development of F414-GE-INS6 engines is progressing well and will be on schedule and GE engineers will be in India Into carry out mating of the engine with the aircraft when first aircraft is ready.

So when even GE-414 which produces higher thruat does not mandate any air intake redesign on tejas mk2!!!

but Defence "experts" like Guptha are still redesigning their own tejas mk2 air intake in their garages!!!

But guys like him who dump their "egspertise " on tejas on gullible readers,

To RAD: All canards are active.
Neither the Tejas Mk1 nor the LCA (Navy) Mk1 in weaponised modes fulfill the agility reqmts (especially sustained turn-rates) as mandated in the ASQR & NSQR. That's the very reason why the Tejas Mk2 & LCA (Navy) Mk2 projects are being undertaken. Not only that, all that has been taken up so far as far as their R & D efforts go concern only the cockpit avionics updates.

The ARs are continuously revised upwards by IAF in 1995 and till 2004 , if we look at the sudden requirement of IAF from 40 Kg wing tip missile to 105 Kg wing tip missile.

Can guys like Gupths explain if suddenly IAF asks DAssault to gie rafale the same sized radar as Typhoon ,

and asks Dassault to equip Rafale with brahmos for "Deep Strikes" in Tibet ,

what will be the answer from Dassault. Only a firm No.


may be calling shukla a compromised guy hundred times is more easy than answering such inconvenient questions , perhaps,

No one is willing to go on record about the far more daunting airframe redesigns. And that is because the IAF & IN have both mandated that IRST should be incorporated & secondly, agility should be enhanced by reducing aerodynamic drag.

And this can be done in only two ways: incorporation of active canards (& not LEVCONs) & if that's not possible, then incorporation of thrust-vector control nozzles. And the latter isn't possible since GE Aero Engines hasn't developed such TVC nozzles for the F414 family of turbofans. So, the only option now left on the table for ADA is to incorporate active canards & this in turn will require the MRCA's fuselage to be stretched & when this happens, then wing cord/ wing area too will have to be increased. This, ultimately, will result in a totally new airframe design that will require comprehensive flight-testing for airworthiness certification purposes—a process that will take almost 4 years to complete.

No such canards were added in tejas mk2 design which is nearing completion shows the level of the worth of our DDM folks!!!!

So, if the first of 3 Mk2 prototypes is rolled out between 2018 & 2020, then SP-series Mk2 will start rolling off from HAL no earlier than 2025, & FOC-status will be achieved only three years later in 2028. And that was precisely the reason why this time at the expo no one from ADA or the IAF or IN was even willing to talk about the Mk2 variants. This being the state of affairs, even the mere mention of the AMCA would appear to me to be grossly blasphemous, although the DRDO honchos openly stated during the expo that they once again wanted to opt for imported turbofans for the AMCA!!!

meanwhile our crafty Guptha guy fobs off a pointed query on tejas mk1 areoindia 2013 performance

Subir Bhattacharjee said...
Prasunda,

On your comment regarding LCA Tejas's problems, I read this comment in one forum:

"Even tejas mk1 was not seen flying with its top AOA limit of 26 Deg and 8 plus G limits in any flying limits.

its extreme flight envelope is not yet fully opened.

And even within 6G and 20 Deg AOA limit of AeroIndia 2013 it completed a vertical loop within 21 seconds.

Ask Prasun SenGuptha what will be the thrust to weight ratio of tejas mk2 after GE-414 and what is the wing loading and G limit, AOA limit of tejas mk2 after GE-414 ?

And let him compare those figures with contemporary fighters and then we will see what agility problem remains."

I am wondering who is right here? On one hand, there are recorded interviews of all Tejas pilots, Suneet, Maolankar and others who say that its a great plane. On other hand, IAF's stalling methods say that something is missing in the picture.

What do you say? What is Tejas? is it really MiG 21+++ or Equal to Mirage - 2000? Where is the capability? Finally, when BVR age is dominant, why would you be so concerned with its agility?
February 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM

by typing such blah blah,

To SUBIR BHATTACHARJEE: Firstly, what's shown during air shows are aerobatics, not air combat manoeuvres. Therefore, extreme flight manoeuvres are never exhibited duri8ng such events. Secondly, aerobatics are flown by aircraft in clean formation & not in weaponised configuration. Therefore, doing vertical loops in 21 seconds or 20.5 seconds is just immaterial.

Doing a loop is a perfect way to advertise the agility of the fighter, tejas mk1 at that time carries more than 300 Kg of testing equipment with older instruments in cockpit weighting 400 kg more as per the "much hated Ajai Shukla". So this they will strip off vital equipment BS wont wash!!!!

As for parameters like wing-loading, G-load, AoA limit etc etc, these are just figures asked by adolescent fanboys. In air combat, what matters most is the instantaneous turn rate, sustained rate, climb rate, pitch rate & roll rate—all this when carrying weapons. Has anyone to date from ADA or the IAF released any such figures?

This rubbish by guptha was ripped apart by me in ADA tejas mk1 thread in DFI itself. This is what these "eggsperts " continue to write, TWRT, wing loading, Gs have no relation to ITR and STR!!!!

Has any foreign OEM from the West, Russia or China released any such figures for their MRCAs? Such figures can't be extrapolated from aerobatic manoeuvres performed during air shows. Nor will experimental test-pilots reveal such figures for obvious reasons. Agility still matters when dissimilar air combat engagements involving gun-versus-gun scenarios.

ofcourse brochure lickers will continue to ogle at the lies in those specs, which cant be attained in hot indian climate and expect all of us to believe!!!Even captain maolonkar from IN definitively said that those brochure figures cant be attained here in our conditions in Aeroindia 2013 to karthik in BR ,

may be that will punch a hole in air intake redesign or agility shortfall theory????

With this standard of "eggspertise" why rant against Ajay Shukla??

For him only Mtheswaran and krishnaswamy are from Indian Air force, may be IAF group captain Suneeth krishna and NTSE chief riaz khokar who said tejas is at least equal to upgraded mirage-2000 and superior to mirage-2000 in many key respects are from Isareli Airforce perhaps!!!!

To PART OF THE SYSTEM: VMT, but AMCA? With due respect, I'm not willing to look at anything beyond the Tejas Mk2 MRCA. And if at all AMCA is to be considered, then the FGFA will have to be dropped. There's simply no money to spare for both the FGFA & AMCA. Only one of the two can be procured keeping financial realities in mind.

CAn he use the same logic and say that there is simply no money to buy FGFA and rafale at the same time?
These guys end up confusing people like this,

rad said...
Hi prasun
your confirmation of the canards being active on the LCA is great news. Its going to become more agile when it is fully flight tested. PItching the nose up with the canards is more efficient than pushing the tail down to achieve nose up attitude in a delta wing like the mirage-2k and the LCA. I wont be surprised if the IAF wants the same!.
There was a desi glide bomb with fixed wing ! in AI 2015 please give us dope on that .I wonder why we went that way ,that is fixed wing when world over glide bombs have dual wings.Reminds me of the nirbhay.
What is the position od trhe darin 3 up grade .
Is there any hiccups in the desi awacs so far.
More on the bazalt guided bomb please.

Mr. RA 9 said...
Original designers of Tejas fighter perhaps undermined the importance of Canards and also forgot to include the weapon load within the optimum design calculations.

Mr. RA 9 said...
Canards appear to be like the front wheel driven vehicles which provide instant control and command comparatively better to the rear wheel driven vehicles. So the agility and instant action get improved. This has nothing to do directly with the engine power, because rear driven vehicles are also very popular in the market. Actually the presence of canard may also mean that the original design was somehow under the peril.

For posting this rebuff and ten or twelve deleted comments(all listed in tejas IV thread here)

sakthivel ramasamy said...
Fuselage stretch is only to reduce drag by 5 percent , not with the aim of adding canards or levcons for the all important IAF version. ANd already wing area was increased to keep the same wing loading. So whatever needed structural changes were already done.

mk2 won't follow the TD first PV later and LSP after that. It will follow built for SP model straight away and SU-30 MKI was inducted with no IOC, FOC and english manuals on a silver plate given to IAF by russians. And already 100 F-35s are in USAF with not even an IOC.

It was the green field nature of tejas mk1 and stringent objection from IAf which led to tejas mk1 project being made to tow the time consuming TD-PV-LSP- model from antiquated jag production line. mk2 will have brand new high tech tejas mk1 production line and established vendor chains for quicker program realization. And any delay can easily be offset by ordering additional tejas mk1 fighters.
February 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM

my comments were deleted , giving such reason,

To SAKTHIVEL RAMASAMY: Why they're being deleted? Simply because you're copying/pasting rants drafted by retards who have no clue about what exactly was revealed by ADA, DRDO & CEMILAC officials during successive press-conferences on February 19 & 20 & which were later reported in various AI-2015 Show Dailies. In case you or those retards are interested in finding out more about such press-conferences, then I suggest you start collecting these Show Dailies & read their contents, since the 'desi' newspapers never published the details of any of these press-conferences.

The guy doesnot know those comments I copied were made by myself here!!!!

And bluffs more,'

To PAWAN: Retards like SAKTHIVEL RAMASAMY never factor in the fact that for aerobatic demonstrations, combat aircraft NEVER fly with their maximum fuel loads in order to ensure more-than-usual high thrust-to-weight ratios. In fact, dedicated formation aerobatic teams like the ones of the Russian Air Force fly stripped-down Su-27s & MiG-29s that are devoid of even MMRs & other related combat mission avionics. Consequently, to assume that the flight manoeuvrability characteristics displayed by a MRCA during aerobatic demonstrations also applies in equal measure to the very same MRCA when armed with its weapons load & carrying more internal fuel, is outrageously preposterous.

All fighters do display at the same condition to advertise their turn rates, So why is it different only when it comes to tejas mk1, especially when it had more than 700 Kg extra load with testing equipment and more bulky iolder instruments in cockpit?

All fighters display their agility only in clean config, which one displays it in loaded config Mr guptha?

 

[Compersion]

I am more keen to understand the role of the engine and type of engine in Tejas and Tejas MK2 ... if the engine production is secure and confirmed i sense no reason why we cannot do many more orders and production for Tejas and Tejas MK2. we ought to be more confident in our approach.

I thought there was a clear and well-defined agreement that we would also get TOT from GE for the engines and they would supply them to be used in Tejas MK2. Wish everything is fine

The US manufacturer has won a deal to supply 99 F414-INS6 turbofans for the Tejas MkII, following a selection decision by India's Aeronautical Development Agency.

"GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under a transfer of technology arrangement," says GE India chief executive John Flannery in a 1 October statement.

"The F414-INS6 is the highest-thrust F414 model and includes state-of-the-art technology to meet India's demanding air force and naval requirements," GE says. This includes full authority digital engine control software.

India picks GE's F414 for Tejas MkII fighter - 10/1/2010 - Flight Global

 

[Pulkit]

I am more keen to understand the role of the engine and type of engine in Tejas and Tejas MK2 ... if the engine production is secure and confirmed i sense no reason why we cannot do many more orders and production for Tejas and Tejas MK2. we ought to be more confident in our approach.

I thought there was a clear and well-defined agreement that we would also get TOT from GE for the engines and they would supply them to be used in Tejas MK2. Wish everything is fine



India picks GE's F414 for Tejas MkII fighter - 10/1/2010 - Flight Global

Confused with your query Kindly elaborate.....