ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[TPFscopes]

If I may jump in here, we already have some infos on that:

HAL Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) T Suvarna Raju

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3767_HAL_developing_LCA-1P_with_AESA_Radar.htm

But you are right, without having a proper MK1A airframe, the new AESA radar and EW selected and integrated, not even HAL will be sure about the specs.

It seems the quoted report is quite older than the below one:

Improvements planned on the Tejas Mk.2, apart from the more powerful engine and attendant expansion of op envelope, include new sensors, new indigenous actuators, and a new indigenous avionics architecture. The variant will also involve the removal of 250 kg in ballast weight, a further half ton weight reduction through revised design factors, performance improvements by “aerodynamic refinements of geometry”, an internal electronic warfare suite (incorporate in the Mk.1A plan)

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/06/revealed-the-lca-tejas-that-the-iaf-has-chosen.html

In this article, they are talking about the improvements planned for mk2 over mk1/mk1a

Anyways this ballast weight is available when we already have MMR on test platform.

this issue getting quite interesting..

 

[Sancho]

It seems the quoted report is quite older than the below one:

Yes the livefist article came later and was a very good one to understand the compromise the MK1A is meant to be. But the article I posted is afaik, the only one where an official that is actually involved in the MK1A development, gives specific figures, that's why I consider it as a reliable report to give us an idea about the ballast weight.

 

[TPFscopes]

Yes the livefist article came later and was a very good one to understand the compromise the MK1A is meant to be. But the article I posted is afaik, the only one where an official that is actually involved in the MK1A development, gives specific figures, that's why I consider it as a reliable report to give us an idea about the ballast weight.

In the article you posted he said, the 210kg Ballast will be replaced with 250 AESA & EW , it means he is completely ignoring the weight of MMR which is currently being integrated with test prototypes (with both MMR & Ballast weight).

Either the article writer missing something while writing official's words or official was trying to hide something. Isn't it?

 

[darshan978]

In the article you posted he said, the 210kg Ballast will be replaced with 250 AESA & EW , it means he is completely ignoring the weight of MMR which is currently being integrated with test prototypes (with both MMR & Ballast weight).

Either the article writer missing something while writing official's words or official was trying to hide something. Isn't it?

Where is ballast situated rear side or front?

 

[TPFscopes]

Where is ballast situated rear side or front?

Let Me clear one thing that Developers and Manufacturers are taking Ballast weight as a part of aircraft where what here I stated as Dead Weight (They call it as Ballast weight). I the last post from @Sancho ADA official was taking about the dead weight which is planned to be replace by Radar & EW in all production variants and it will be possible only after FOC (Integration and certification of all weapon and systems)


Ballast weight

Dead Weight placed in place of Radar which will be replaced with Radar..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Published on Nov 28, 2017 :

Singapore Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Tuesday hailed India's indigenously-built multi-role light combat aircraft Tejas as "very very capable". Ng took a half-an-hour flight in the two-seater plane piloted by Air Vice Marshal A P Singh at the Kalaikunda airbase in West Bengal. "This is the reason why our air force trains with your air force. Pilots are superb, planes are pretty good," Ng said.

==============


Published on Nov 28, 2017

India's indigenous light combat aircraft, the Tejas, which is being inducted into the Air Force - has a new brand ambassador. Ng Eng Hen, 59, the Defence Minister of the island nation of Singapore, flew in the rear cockpit of the plane from the Kalaikunda airbase in West Bengal. "I am not a pilot," said Dr Ng, asked about whether Singapore plans to buy the Tejas. "But I can say it felt like I was riding in a car; it was really smooth."

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Not suited for air to ground ops? Guess how many bombs most Jaguars carry when they're on strike sorties? And guess what test pilots have to say about how a Jaguar handles when it is loaded with bombs and fuel amounting to just about 4000 kgs when taking off from an airport such as Bangalore on a summer day. And this is a dedicated strike aircraft that can barely defend itself.

4*1000 lbs bombs = 2000 kgs
2*1000 kg drop tanks = 2000 kgs

Total payload is 4000 kgs with internal fuel in that configuration. And with that, the Jaguar can barely get off the ground. A dedicated strike aircraft that is a class larger than the Tejas and it can just about carry 4000 kgs of payload realistically.

The Tejas can carry 4*1000 lbs bombs on its inboard pylons but without the mid-board pylons being wet it couldn't carry drop tanks in that configuration. So, they're now undergoing trials to certify the mid-board pylons for drop tanks as well. That work is in progress and should allow the Tejas to be able to pretty much do what a Jaguar can do while being able to defend itself far better, with 2 Python-5s on the outboard pylons.

Not to mention how much more it can do in the air to ground strike role versus the airplane it was designed to replace- the MiG-21.

Tejas Mk1 (LSP-7) with 4 X 1000 lb dumb bombs and 1 centerline 725 ltr drop tank

pic credit- Tejas LCA FB page

=========

Source : @Archer

 

[tharun]

Not suited for air to ground ops? Guess how many bombs most Jaguars carry when they're on strike sorties? And guess what test pilots have to say about how a Jaguar handles when it is loaded with bombs and fuel amounting to just about 4000 kgs when taking off from an airport such as Bangalore on a summer day. And this is a dedicated strike aircraft that can barely defend itself.

4*1000 lbs bombs = 2000 kgs
2*1000 kg drop tanks = 2000 kgs

Total payload is 4000 kgs with internal fuel in that configuration. And with that, the Jaguar can barely get off the ground. A dedicated strike aircraft that is a class larger than the Tejas and it can just about carry 4000 kgs of payload realistically.

The Tejas can carry 4*1000 lbs bombs on its inboard pylons but without the mid-board pylons being wet it couldn't carry drop tanks in that configuration. So, they're now undergoing trials to certify the mid-board pylons for drop tanks as well. That work is in progress and should allow the Tejas to be able to pretty much do what a Jaguar can do while being able to defend itself far better, with 2 Python-5s on the outboard pylons.

Not to mention how much more it can do in the air to ground strike role versus the airplane it was designed to replace- the MiG-21.

Tejas Mk1 (LSP-7) with 4 X 1000 lb dumb bombs and 1 centerline 725 ltr drop tank

pic credit- Tejas LCA FB page

=========

Source : @Archer

Meanwhile jaguar length is 16 meters and combat radius is 900km
If we increase tejas length to 16 meters we can increase the range and carrying load.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This is where MK2 comes in picture, its payload specs will be better but not range as both were designed for very different roles in different times.

Meanwhile jaguar length is 16 meters and combat radius is 900km
If we increase tejas length to 16 meters we can increase the range and carrying load.

 

[Kshithij]

Meanwhile jaguar length is 16 meters and combat radius is 900km
If we increase tejas length to 16 meters we can increase the range and carrying load.

Jaguar has poor maneuverability. I am highly suspicious if Jaguar can even travel that long one way trip without getting shot down.

Jaguar has 2 engines of 25kN each for a total of 50kN. Naturally, it consumes low fuel per kilometre travelled. Jaguar performs worse than Subsonic cruise missiles when it comes to payload delivery due to its large RCS and poor maneuverability.

Tejas is a multirole plane which can perform all kinds of jobs. It can defend itself and dogfight when necessary. Jaguar is useful only to attack 'Primitive people' or after all enemy airforce and air defence is taken out

 

[darshan978]

Let Me clear one thing that Developers and Manufacturers are taking Ballast weight as a part of aircraft where what here I stated as Dead Weight (They call it as Ballast weight). I the last post from @Sancho ADA official was taking about the dead weight which is planned to be replace by Radar & EW in all production variants and it will be possible only after FOC (Integration and certification of all weapon and systems)


Ballast weight
View attachment 21857

Dead Weight placed in place of Radar which will be replaced with Radar..
View attachment 21856

Whats left now for FOC BRO i think all things like IFR , BVR DONE!

 

[TPFscopes]

Whats left now for FOC BRO i think all things like IFR , BVR DONE!

IFR, Cannon, python-5 validation are important amongst remaining task for FOC...

 

[Kshithij]

IFR, Cannon, python-5 validation are important amongst remaining task for FOC...

They need to test the cannon too?

The cannon has just 125 rounds. Even if there is a chance to fire, it will be over in 1 second. The cannon is a big sham.

 

[Sancho]

It can defend itself and dogfight when necessary. Jaguar is useful only to attack 'Primitive people' or after all enemy airforce and air defence is taken out

Actually, LCA MK1 is as much a strike fighter as the Jaguar and as vulnerable against enemies as well, the IOC verion even more than the Jag, since the gun and the Python V missiles will come only the FOC.
Jags and LCA share load similarities, because they have comparable numbers of weapon station, with the only advantage of LCA being the dedicated pod station. But when it comes to defending itself, while being in strike config, both are highly limited, since they can't carry BVR missiles and have to carry a SPJ pod on 1 hardpoint, which leaves just a single WVR missile. So no matter if we send Jags or LCAs, escorts fighters are unavoidable.

 

[Kay]

They need to test the cannon too?

The cannon has just 125 rounds. Even if there is a chance to fire, it will be over in 1 second. The cannon is a big sham.

1 sec between life or death...

 

[Kshithij]

Actually, LCA MK1 is as much a strike fighter as the Jaguar and as vulnerable against enemies as well, the IOC verion even more than the Jag, since the gun and the Python V missiles will come only the FOC.
Jags and LCA share load similarities, because they have comparable numbers of weapon station, with the only advantage of LCA being the dedicated pod station. But when it comes to defending itself, while being in strike config, both are highly limited, since they can't carry BVR missiles and have to carry a SPJ pod on 1 hardpoint, which leaves just a single WVR missile. So no matter if we send Jags or LCAs, escorts fighters are unavoidable.

LCA has fired Derby BVR. So, don't go into IOC version technicality. Certification is for useless people. What is needed is the ability. LCA has shown this. Just because it was not certified, doesn't mean it is unable to fire BVR.

Next, pods are kept in the side of fuselage and doesn't necessarily use a hardpoint. I too initially thought that a hardpoint is wasted, but it is not so. Pods are small and can be fitted under alternative locations. Jaguars don't have load similarity except officially. Jaguar has 50kN engine (2 engines of 25kN) while Tejas has 90kN engine. By what logic do you expect similar loading? Number of hardpoint is not everything.

So, LCA MK1 can actually protect itself and deliver the payload effectively. Also, you forgot the maneuverability part. Jaguar is hopeless in it. Tejas has good maneuverability and hence can evade attacks to a good extent.

@TPFscopes why validate Python-5 when Derby has been validated? Is it necessary that all brands of AAM must be validated before use to ensure compatibility? Is the same procedure also needed to validate Python-5 on Su30 too? Or is it especially for Tejas?

 

[TPFscopes]

@TPFscopes why validate Python-5 when Derby has been validated? Is it necessary that all brands of AAM must be validated before use to ensure compatibility? Is the same procedure also needed to validate Python-5 on Su30 too? Or is it especially for Tejas?

You should need to differentiate between CCM and BVR as both are AAM but has different range classes.

By the way, both are from same brand i.e. Rafael. Integration is all depends on source codes integration than after validated by live trials.

 

[Sancho]

Just because it was not certified, doesn't mean it is unable to fire BVR.

Yes it does, because flight testing or just making some test launches, doesn't mean the missile is fully integrated and can be used in war scenarios. That's why the FOC is so important for the LCA programme, because it gets LCA to the capability level, to take over A2A roles of the Mig 21, even if flight performance will remain limited.

Next, pods are kept in the side of fuselage and doesn't necessarily use a hardpoint. I too initially thought that a hardpoint is wasted, but it is not so.

That depends on the fighter and on the pod itself. The Elta SPJ pods IAF uses, are always integrated on a weaponstation and we already know that IAF complained about that, which is why this was proposed as a solution:

Jaguars don't have load similarity

A standard guided strike load for both fighters would be:

1 x LDP
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb LGBs
2 x WVR missiles (1 if you add the SPJ pod)

Both have no hardpoints for BVR missiles left, which leaves them with the minimum self defence capability, 1 or 2 WVR missiles.

 

[pmaitra]

I've read that ballast is present on IAF Tejas.

Don't know about ballast on naval tejas,

Even the air force version's landingbgear was overweight.

So HAL has many times claimed that they can reducec300 kg weight from landing gear & other areas even in mk1.

In the initial phases tejas was designed in a very cautious conservative manner, leading to excess weight as precaution.

Now with all parameters validated & stress on all areas known optimization will happen.

The naval tejas landing gear is even more over weight is what I read. That too will be addressed based on consultation from foreign defence majors as sanctions are no more in force now.

All these info is based on what I read from interviews of HAL & ADA personalities.

That's one of the reason ADA claims that Tejas mk1 despite 0.5 meter fuselage plug in , won't weigh much heavier, because these weight reductions will equal extra weight .

These weight optimization is going to happen in mk1A is HAL's claim. That's why HAL says that IAF mk1A itself will cater to IAF needs , however we will hv to wait for clarity to emerge on mk1A final spec

To know how much weight reductions are gonna happen in mk1A.

Anyways, All three variant have Ballast weight and the lowest is in LCA trainer.
In LCA (AF) , the landing gears preferred during design are too light comparable to the present one. Maybe because of precautions for crash landings. Tho who have no experience in jet aviation may compare it with other heavier class fighter
LCA

F-35 (much heavier jet than LCA)

Rafale:

You can even compare gears with JF-17 which has almost half Weight gears.

Problem is that we can't replace these landing gears with lighter one because it will need major modification which further require all certifications again. And IAF,ADA,HAL , non of them agree for further delays

Adding Ballast is a very usual process in aviation and it is done for maintaining CG and enhancing the flight performance. It is very similar to adding weight clips on wheel while doing wheel alignment of a car or other vehicle. It was not a part of design but later added during correction whenever required. More experience in jet designing will reduce the amount of Ballast weight.

Anyways, you may feel odd, but NLCA has the lightest Ballast weight.

Due to extra precautions, ADA made the airframe slightly heavier than the required as per design which will be reduced in further production airframes. And it will be between 300-400kgs. And it will be get balanced by reducing or shifting the Ballast.

As far as NLCA is concerned, it has extremely heavier gears than AF LCA because carrier landings are officially known as simulated crash landings with wire assisted breaking. Hence all carriers borne (not VTOL) jets have strengthened landing gears either it is F/A-18 or Rafale-M or any other jet.

=======

Mod edited.

Sorry guys, I erred in my previous post. I meant to say that the landing gear was strengthened in the Naval-LCA.

I got ballast weight confused with weight of the landing gear. In Naval-LCA, they had to use stronger landing gear and therefore, the landing gear was heavier.

@TPFscopes

Yes, now that you mention Naval-LCA has least ballast, and couple this with a heavier landing gear, this makes me wonder, would that not push the Centre of Gravity aft thus increasing the probability of a deep-stall?

@ersakthivel

I am assuming that 0.5 fuselage plug-in will increase the fuselage length. Again, this will shift the Centre of Gravity. Which way, that is something worth finding out.

 

[cyclops]

When will the next Tejas model be handed over to the IAF?