ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

• Still if people think Mig 21 after bison upgrades

Which still has
1.puny weapon load, range,
2.obsolete ITRs & STRs
3.tendency to suddenly spin out of control at certain flight profiles, with no prior warning,
4.crappry Kyopyo radar with obsolete tracking range,
5..No modern BVR Missiles,
6.unfit to operate with any decent loads in high Himalayan conditions,
7.obsolete non fly by wire flight control systems,
8.no composite high RCS airframe,
9.obsolete engine tech,
10.poor turn around time,
11. With No all glass cockpit,
12.with No DRFM based AESA jammers,



is in the class of Tejas mk1A ,

Well, any one can guess the motive of these guys in this thread.

Other than the IAF roundel on the fuselage there is nothing in common between these ,"glorified" Mig 21 "class" fighters & Tejas.

Tejas mk2 is also a light fighter.

Since ADA doesn't want to suffer fools who continuously crap that tejas is a point defence Mig 21 "class" fighter
They just changed the name is my opinion

So guys getting convulsions can take rest.

LOL.

 

[ersakthivel]

AMCA advance medium combat Aircraft,

Then how to call Tejas, mk1, mk2?

What nomenclature we use for FGFA?

 

[dumdumdum]

Tejas now comes to Uttar Pradesh?

"...Rs 700 crore has been invested in Lucknow for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft "
"
“At Naini we are making harnesses for the Light Combat Aircraft and the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter. With Boeing, we will train locals for manufacturing harnesses,”

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-industrial-corridor/articleshow/65367133.cms

 

[Sancho]

Payload is a useless criterion? - most laughable!!!
With 1/20 of fuel tank full, any aircraft can double its 'payload' - but what's the point?? What operational good does that achieve?

Yes it is and if you had tried to understand what I wrote in my last post, you would have understood it, because all the above wast already explained.

The operational good => see Mig 29K example

No you can't double the payload, since payload is limited by weight and size limitations of each hardpoint. LCA has a payload of up to 3.5t, that doesn't mean all hardpoint can carry the same weight or size of payloads. So if you want to take off with maximum payload, from a shorter distance, or if your empty weight is too high to take off with MTOW, you can reduce fuel and refuel in air.

The key criteria for load capability of any fighter is not payload, but the number and limitations of the weapon stations, as well as the need of external fuel tanks.
Any MKI, or F18 Block 3 with CFTs, has load advantages over Rafale, => although they have less payload on paper.

A Gripen E and the EF, can carry more Meteor missiles than Rafale, because of more weapon stations that can use that missiles, => although they have less payload on paper.

An EF can carry 4 x 1000lb LGBs + fuel tanks, because it has 4 weapon stations for those weapons and the GBU 16 integrated, while Rafale has only 2-3 weapon stations for A2G weapons, but no 1000lb bomb integrated yet, => although the EF has less payload on paper.

 

[Sancho]

It's a lie to argue that IAF Insisted on HMDS Hobs combo just because gehad wS inferior.

IAF asked it because it is a good weapon system to hv.

And once again you expose your lack of knowledge on Tejas and the whole LCA programme.

IAF never required HMS for LCA in any ASR, all it needed was good flight performance and a close combat missile, which initially was R60 and in the 90s was revised to R73.

In 2007, IAF confirmed that the MK1 can't meet the ASR, because of the overweight, drag and low thrust issues, which is why they suggested to develop the MK2.

As a direct result, in a 2009 the MK2 development was sanctioned and the MK1 requirements were revised to combine R73 to HMS and the MMR.

So yes, HMS for LCA MK1 was a fix for the lack of performance, while the long term solution was to add a higher thurst engine to meet the ASR.

 

[Sancho]

The idea that Su30 will fly with 4 BVR missiles and 5tons of ground bombs, first dump the bombs and then get back to aerial patrolling does not appear reasonable. IFR is a very dangerous thing as the refueling tanker can be easily targeted. IFR is a difficult process and takes lot of synchronisation and few minutes of time. The bulky plane to refuel is a big target for enemy SAM, AAA or fighters. It is best to simply land the fighter, refuel and reload, get back up quickly


Bison upgrade also was not enough to make MiG21 worthy. It was able to intercept but not maintain air superiority. The payload of MiG21 was also minuscule and hence not fit to carry any strikes. Tejas can carry much higher payloads to do multirole missions

First of all, you have a flawed idea about IFR, because the tankers won't be used in contested air space and IAF also use MKIs with buddy refuelling kits.

Secondly, Mig 21 and LCA are interceptors, not air superiority fighters. They neither have the operational range / endurance, the missile load, or sensor capabilities, to dominate an entire air space, but are meant to defend certain areas only.
Also even the Mig 21 was used in CAS roles, with light unguided bombs, just as LCA can do strikes with light modern payloads, but comes nowhere near MMRCAs or MKIs, be it in weapon load, weapon variety or as explained the simple mix of A2G loads and a full set of BVR/WVR missiles.
But combine light class fighters with BVR capabilities, to fighters with larger radars, or even AWACS and you have a missile lauch platform, that is hard to detect and can be deadly for superior fighters too. That's what IAF proved with Mig 21st in Cope exercises against USAF and that was largely the aim behind the LCA development too.

 

[Sancho]

They just changed the name is my opinion

And there you have the problem! :biggrin2:

"Opinions" without any base knowledge of the topic, or even without any common sense behind them, remain highly amusing, but totally pointless.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Secondly, Mig 21 and LCA are interceptors, not air superiority fighters. They neither have the operational range / endurance, the missile load, or sensor capabilities, to dominate an entire air space, but are meant to defend certain areas only.

This is your opinion. MiG21 is an interceptor whereas LCA tejas has good maneuverability, payload and sensor capability. Range is low but is still acceptable for nearby neighbours which are not wide territory anyways. So, small range Tejas can still work well.

MiG21 bison had empty weight of 6tons, MToW of 10tons, internal fuel of 2.3tons. The payload was about 1.3 tons excluding pylons. This does not compare well to tejas whose payload is 3.5 tons without pylons. You can't simply compare MiG21 to Tejas.

Also even the Mig 21 was used in CAS roles, with light unguided bombs, just as LCA can do strikes with light modern payloads, but comes nowhere near MMRCAs or MKIs, be it in weapon load, weapon variety or as explained the simple mix of A2G loads and a full set of BVR/WVR missiles.

With 1.5ton payload, what CAS role can MiG21 play? How can you compare 3.5ton with 1.3ton payloads? Why is MMRCA the standard? Isn't the main intent of a plane to do a strike? CAS is not same as strike. CAS does not require highly maneuverable and expensive planes. Planes like MiG27 or Jaguar or A10 is good enough. We are speaking of fighter planes. Fighters are meant for strike and air dominance. So, dropping payloads on important targets like TEL, SAM, airbase, ammunition depot or enemy planes is the main goal of fighters. To simply drop cheap bombs on targets, we might as well use other cheaper options.

But combine light class fighters with BVR capabilities, to fighters with larger radars, or even AWACS and you have a missile lauch platform, that is hard to detect and can be deadly for superior fighters too. That's what IAF proved with Mig 21st in Cope exercises against USAF and that was largely the aim behind the LCA development too.

If you are using AEWACS guided missile, things will be very different. Even MiG21 can be used to fire BVRAAM guided by AEWACS. By the way, despite small size of Tejas, it is a bit chubby and has large diameter body which can house large AESA radar. There is no reason to claim that Tejas is only useful with AEWACS

Repeatedly insisting that Tejas is like Mig21 without giving proper data to show comparable statistics is only an attempt to spam and derail the thread

 

[Sancho]

You can't simply compare MiG21 to Tejas.

Yes you can, because both are light class fighters, meant for the same limited roles, at the low end of the fleet, which also were and will be used with the same mentioned tactics. That's why LCA is a direct replacement for the Mig 21!

If you are using AEWACS guided missile, things will be very different. Even MiG21 can be used to fire BVRAAM guided by AEWACS.

It's not the missile that is guided by AWACS, but the fighter is guided to and away from targets. As I said, read up about IAFs exercises and you will understand the benefits of light class fighters, if used with the right tactics, to counter it's shortfalls and make use of it's advantages.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Yes you can, because both are light class fighters, meant for the same limited roles, at the low end of the fleet, which also were and will be used with the same mentioned tactics. That's why LCA is a direct replacement for the Mig 21!

MiG21 is ultra light class. That is different from light class aircraft. Difference of MToW of 40% and 3 times more payload is not a comparable figure. Do not mistake ultra-light for light class. There is no correlation other than the one which you gave artificially.

if MiG21 and Tejas were identical, there was no need to replace Mig21 with Tejas at all.

 

[Sancho]

MiG21 is ultra light class.

Lol and the is an ultra heavy "medium class fighter", because it's MTOW is nearly twice of Gripen E?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Lol and the is an ultra heavy "medium class fighter", because it's MTOW is nearly twice of Gripen E?

Your comment does not make sense

 

[Sancho]

Your comment does not make sense

:biggrin2: Exactly! Because there are no further divisions into ultra light or ultra medium..., there are only light, medium and heavy fighters , dependent on MTOW above 15t and above 30t. So making up some new ultra weight class, just to ignore the fact that Mig 21 and LCA are in the same light weight class (just as Gripen E and the F18 are in the medium weight class), makes no sense!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

:biggrin2: Exactly! Because there are no further divisions into ultra light or ultra medium..., there are only light, medium and heavy fighters , dependent on MTOW above 15t and above 30t. So making up some new ultra weight class, just to ignore the fact that Mig 21 and LCA are in the same light weight class (just as Gripen E and the F18 are in the medium weight class), makes no sense!

No one calls ultra-medium. The word ultra is used for the high or low end tier only. Medium tier has no 'ultra'. Ultra means extreme and extremes can't be medium. This is english language.

You are taking MiG21 and HF24-Marut and comparing them to Tejas? These are 3rd generation 10ton class planes. The software has its own weightage, better and lightweight designs have their own weightage, payload has its own weightage. If you are trying to compare sensors, then you must look at software part, not weight class. 10GB of software data weighs the same as 10TB of software. Softwares and sensors are not compared by weight.

Tejas has 40% more MToW, 200% more payload and extraordinarily high softwares capability. You may classify it as light, but if you classify 10ton and 14ton plane in same class, then you are having 40% difference which becomes absurd. You have to call MiG21 as 3rd generation ultra-light class interceptor plane whereas Tejas is 4.5 generation light class multirole plane

Generation - based on Software
Weight class - based on MToW
Roles like multirole, interceptor - Payload and speed

 

[Sancho]

These are 3rd generation 10ton class planes.

As already explained, the fighter generation or capabilities, have nothing to do with the "weight" class if a fighter.

The Mig 21 and Tejas are light class fighters,...
...just as Mirage 2000 and Rafale are medium class fighters,...
...or Su 30 MKI and Su 57 are heavy class fighters

So making up non existing terms and comparing the fighters on capabilities doesn't matter, because the only criteria for the weight class is the MTOW.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

As already explained, the fighter generation or capabilities, have nothing to do with the "weight" class if a fighter.

The Mig 21 and Tejas are light class fighters,...
...just as Mirage 2000 and Rafale are medium class fighters,...
...or Su 30 MKI and Su 57 are heavy class fighters

So making up non existing terms and comparing the fighters on capabilities doesn't matter, because the only criteria for the weight class is the MTOW.

If you intend to say that F18 and Mirage 2000 are medium class fighters, then your classification needs to be changed. Can't say that a plane that is 80% more MToW is in same class. Sorry, such classifications without meaningful limits is not sensible. If you classify a car with a tank just because they move on surface, it does not make sense. If you classify helicopter and planes as aircrafts, they again make no sense. No one cares for your classifications if you end up classifying without a purpose

 

[Sancho]

such classifications without meaningful limits is not sensible.

=>

there are only light, medium and heavy fighters , dependent on MTOW above 15t and above 30t

There are limits, you just keep ignoring them.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

=>



There are limits, you just keep ignoring them.

Limits must be meaningful. How is 15.5ton aircraft similar to 29.5ton aircraft to warrant being in same category? How is a 4ton Gnat aircraft similar to 14ton Tejas? How will you classify B2 bomber plane in weight category? Its MToW is 170tons!

 

[ersakthivel]

And once again you expose your lack of knowledge on Tejas and the whole LCA programme.

IAF never required HMS for LCA in any ASR, all it needed was good flight performance and a close combat missile, which initially was R60 and in the 90s was revised to R73.

In 2007, IAF confirmed that the MK1 can't meet the ASR, because of the overweight, drag and low thrust issues, which is why they suggested to develop the MK2.

As a direct result, in a 2009 the MK2 development was sanctioned and the MK1 requirements were revised to combine R73 to HMS and the MMR.

So yes, HMS for LCA MK1 was a fix for the lack of performance, while the long term solution was to add a higher thurst engine to meet the ASR.

R60 to R73 request by IAF on tejas was made in 2004, So it is a lie to say that because Tejas mk1 '"Failed to meet iAF original ASR" IAF added R73 missile.

Tejas first flew in 2001 & WVR missile change was requested by IAF in 2004.


First show theoriginal ASR, then talk,

As usual you are giving misinformation

it was the IAF upgraded requirement for tejas mk1 to carry this deadly HMDS enabled high off bore visually cued no escape R73 E missile which led to detailed wing redesign in the form of FSED-phase-2(Full scale Engineering Development) which started in 2004 and lasted till 2009.


Earlier a lower weight lower launch stress R-60 was initially prescribed as close combat missile for tejas mk1 at its outer most wing station. later this was changed to heavier weight , heavier launch stress inducing R-73 E to be carried at wing tip station, which led to the FSED phase-2.SU-30 MKI also uses this same missile for close combat.

It was this request which led to strengthening of the wing & structures, because this missile was to be fired from extreme point on the wings,



The para above shows that your repeated assertion "Tejas mk1 failed to meet original IAF ASR , so mk2 was ordered by IAF " is just a misinformation.

IAF 's continuous upgradation of ASR was the reason for substantial delays in Tejas .

Tejas mk1 has a TWR of 1.07 with half internal fuel load & just two WVR missiles.

it is ridiculous to call it overweight fighter,

1.Gripen E weighs close to 8 tons in empty weight for 96 KN thrust , What is the TWR of gripen E with half internal fuel & just two WVR missiles? it is just 1

2.Tejas mk1 weighs 6.5 tons for 84 Kn thrust.

so which fighter is over weight & under powered?




1. refuelling probe,
2, software defined radios,
3. Astra BVR missiles
4. FSED phase 2
5.change of WVR missile from R 60 to R73E,etc, etc,

are all evidence for continuous ASR upwards revision requests by IAF .

LGBS , ASEA radars of mk1A were also not on original IAF lists


to deny it all & say that tejas mk1 which has more TWR than Griepn E is an over weight under powered fighter is a flight of fancy.


Mk2 was a naval requirement first of all, because mk1 cant do much on carrier with landing gear overweight,
It was only after Navy

Like gripen C to E tejas mk1 to mk2 is a logical progression.

The only ORIGINAL ASR descrition can be had from Air Marshal MSD WOLLEN's article

which says,

"The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced"

NOW TEJAS HAS A MAX SPEED OF MACH 1.6

SO how come it becomes overweight??


Following is the parlimentary report on tejas program

This following report by MOD in parliament clearly details the "updated" ASR which led to FSED phase-2 in 2004.
===================================================================================
The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs 560.00 Cr. This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase (PDP).

After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into Technical Development Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase. The Full Scale Engineering Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983).

The scope of FSED Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build operational proto-vehicles at a later stage. LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles.

The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov"Ÿ2001. The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely, Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of
preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-Ã -vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31 Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop & productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds. The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to:

(a) Complexity of the system desgn and very high safety standards lead to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.

(b) Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM) was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft contemporary|

(c) Due to non-availability of indigenous "žKaveri Engine"Ÿ design changes were carried out to accommodate GE404 engine of USA.

(d) Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.

(e) Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence free open architecture avionics system).

(f) US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production cycle took time.

The need for revision of FSED Phase-II fund sanction was mainly due to:

(a) To neutralize the effect of inflation/delivery point cost against the sanctioned level at 2001 and the increase in manpower cost of HAL.

(b) To meet the programme management expenditure due to extended time line till Dec 2012

(c) Maintain and operate 10-15 aircraft for four years upto 2012

(d) To maintain & upgrade the design, development and test facilities upto 2012, in keeping with modern technology

(e) To complete the activities which were not costed in the original estimates.

Cost Revision Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc., recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr). Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.

LCA (Tejas) Programme is progressing satisfactorily as per schedule mutually agreed with IAF to meet their requirements.

 

[ersakthivel]

And there you have the problem! :biggrin2:

"Opinions" without any base knowledge of the topic, or even without any common sense behind them, remain highly amusing, but totally pointless.

And there you have the problem! :biggrin2:

"Opinions" without any base knowledge of the topic, or even without any common sense behind them, remain highly amusing, but totally pointless.

If basic knowledge is continuous lying, thats not my game
LOL