Bharat Karnad: Stop wasteful military deals

[p2prada]

A nice pic to showcase my point.

In this mission, 4 Flankers are carrying 16 AAMs (4 on each aircraft) and a payload of 8 tons in bombs. To match the same, you need 8 LCAs to carry 8 tons in bombs and 4 LCAs with anywhere between 16 AAMs+ tanks. To match the Flankers's range you need two tankers added to the formation.

So let's add up the costs if we consider the Flankers are Rafales with tanks. Now, 1 LCA = 3 Rafale. So for the cost of 4 Rafales we get 12 LCAs. Excellent, they add up. But now we also need two tankers added to the equation. IAF is paying nearly $1.5 Billion for 6 tankers. Basically each tanker is more expensive than 2 Rafales. So, LCA needs the support of an asset that costs 4 Rafales just to match Rafale's range.

Basically, IAF needs to spend money equivalent to 8 Rafales on LCA compared to just buying 4 Rafales and get the same level of capability. You don't need a PhD in mathematics to figure out which is cheaper.

Coming to the costs itself. In reality, 1 LCA != 3 Rafale. According to official ADA estimates, LCA Mk1 is supposed to cost Rs. 180 Crores. MKI costs Rs 250 Crores. Rafale is expected to cost Rs 500 Crores. LCA Mk2 is expected to cost Rs 210 Crores. Obviously, this was before the decision to upgrade LCA with AESA was taken. So as of today, the current LCA Mk2 cost estimation is a secret. They don't really know how much it will cost, but it is nearly guaranteed to cost more than the MKI. Basically, one Rafale will cost anywhere between 1.5-2 times that of LCA Mk2 and not 3 times.

In the end we will be spending money on nearly 12 Rafales just to get the capability of 4 Rafales if we go for LCA. This is not even considering the type of infrastructure we will need to run so many LCAs and support aircraft + base defenses and security personnel. Where will we get the talent pool from for so many pilots?

If you consider mission profiles, just 4 Rafales are doing so much work that you still have 3 more groups of 4 Rafales each in the same squadron each doing the work of more than one whole squadron of LCA + tankers. Apart from the numbers advantage, there is a huge difference in technology maturity between what ADA can provide for LCA and what's already there on Rafale.

 

[Decklander]

@p2prada, I have not compared LCA Mk1 but Mk2 with these ac which will have an additional one ton of fuel capacity, two more additional pylons, avionics nearly at par with Rafale. Mk2 will be truely multirole ac and be capable of performing all roles which Rafale can. You can check the ASR issued by IAF for that.
every ac in the world has limitations on its G limits if loaded with bombs/Drop tanks. The max G limits are given for A2A role only. When I stated that you have to clean up the ac to get into combat, I meant that you drop all loads except A2A Missiles.
In my calculations I have relied on only internal fuel and taken bombload as the max load capacity. Mk2 with 3.4 tons of fuel, single engine can out range 4.6 tons capacity of twin engined Rafale when compared in any configuration but its total load capacity is lower than rafale.
Regarding Turn around time, I can tell you that what is normally stated is for minimum safety concerns. No air force uses those turn around times.
What I suggest is that you do a calculation based on your criteria for rafale and Mk2. let us take into consideration the whole fleet numbers for both the ac. use cost of acquisition as a bench mark which is 3 LCA Mk2 for one rafale. use the turn around time for both ac same-90 mins. Do your maths and tell me which one emerges above. It is as simple a calculation as 2+2=4. You won't even need a calculator.
I am a great fan of Rafale but I am not a blind follower. With delays in signing the deal for Rafale, we now have a situation wherein we must have a complete relook at the MMRCA. Let us go for Mk2 in large numbers and dump rafale completely. Su-30MKI does everything which Rafale does. Lastly, if you may know that when a strike departs or arrives back, fighters get airborne again to give them cover and establish CAP. So we have a very big reqt for such ac which can do multiple sorties in a day for much less cost. finally I request you to pls do not use F-16 as a bench mark for Mk2 range abilities. Pls compare their wing areas and engines to decide which will have lower fuel consumption as the MTOW of Mk2 is much lower than F-16 blk-60.
Regarding having to create 3 times the infra and menpower, Pls calculate The cost advantage of a single engine over a twin engine and equate them with life cycle costs and tell me which one will be cheaper to own overall. FYI, even MK2 will have an engine change time of less than an hour. Whatever IAF learnt during the trials of MMRCA candidates has been demanded by them in MK2.

 

[Decklander]

A nice pic to showcase my point.

In this mission, 4 Flankers are carrying 16 AAMs (4 on each aircraft) and a payload of 8 tons in bombs. To match the same, you need 8 LCAs to carry 8 tons in bombs and 4 LCAs with anywhere between 16 AAMs+ tanks. To match the Flankers's range you need two tankers added to the formation.

So let's add up the costs if we consider the Flankers are Rafales with tanks. Now, 1 LCA = 3 Rafale. So for the cost of 4 Rafales we get 12 LCAs. Excellent, they add up. But now we also need two tankers added to the equation. IAF is paying nearly $1.5 Billion for 6 tankers. Basically each tanker is more expensive than 2 Rafales. So, LCA needs the support of an asset that costs 4 Rafales just to match Rafale's range.

Basically, IAF needs to spend money equivalent to 8 Rafales on LCA compared to just buying 4 Rafales and get the same level of capability. You don't need a PhD in mathematics to figure out which is cheaper.

Coming to the costs itself. In reality, 1 LCA != 3 Rafale. According to official ADA estimates, LCA Mk1 is supposed to cost Rs. 180 Crores. MKI costs Rs 250 Crores. Rafale is expected to cost Rs 500 Crores. LCA Mk2 is expected to cost Rs 210 Crores. Obviously, this was before the decision to upgrade LCA with AESA was taken. So as of today, the current LCA Mk2 cost estimation is a secret. They don't really know how much it will cost, but it is nearly guaranteed to cost more than the MKI. Basically, one Rafale will cost anywhere between 1.5-2 times that of LCA Mk2 and not 3 times.

In the end we will be spending money on nearly 12 Rafales just to get the capability of 4 Rafales if we go for LCA. This is not even considering the type of infrastructure we will need to run so many LCAs and support aircraft + base defenses and security personnel. Where will we get the talent pool from for so many pilots?

If you consider mission profiles, just 4 Rafales are doing so much work that you still have 3 more groups of 4 Rafales each in the same squadron each doing the work of more than one whole squadron of LCA + tankers. Apart from the numbers advantage, there is a huge difference in technology maturity between what ADA can provide for LCA and what's already there on Rafale.

you are grossly wrong here. Let me explain why?
1. Single engine LCA mk2 will have internal fuel capacity of 3.4 tons and droptank capacity of 2.5 tons giving it a max fuel capacity of 5.9 tons v/s rafale which has twin engines and 4.6 tons of internal capacity with another 4 tons of fuel in droptanks.
2. with max internal and external fuel both ac will have similar range but Mk2 will be able to carry only 3 tons of load while Rafale will be able to carry 5.5 tons of load.
3. for one rafale cost you get three Mk2 so for each Rafale, 3xMk2 can carry 9 tons of load to the same range as Rafale.
just remember that a jet engine uses nearly 60% of the energy generated just to run itself so a single engine ac will always have advantage in terms of range.
if you lose one rafale and you lose one LCA Mk2, what will be the equation? remember Lancaster? The war scenerio will completely change once the rafale fleet dips below a critical figure due to combat losses or unservicibility. While it will not be so for MK2

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada, I have not compared LCA Mk1 but Mk2 with these ac which will have an additional one ton of fuel capacity,

I know you are comparing Mk2 to Rafale. That's why I also said it costs way more than the 180 Crores for LCA Mk1. Probably more than MKI too.

Mk2 will not have one tonne extra fuel capacity. The objective of the Mk2 is to match Mk1's range, so the fuel capacity will only be a bit more to offset the 10KN increase in power.

two more additional pylons,

It is the same 7 pylons. The wing and fuselage will not undergo major changes. They are merely refining Mk1.

This is the IAF version of Mk2. Notice there are only three pylons on the wing, not 4 like on Rafale and MKI.

More pics,
Livefist: AERO INDIA: Tejas Mk.2 High Rez

avionics nearly at par with Rafale.

Not even close to nearly. The standards Rafale has already achieved LCA will achieve only during MLUs in another 15 years after induction. You are overestimating DRDO. We don't even have a prototype AESA radar developed. The basic specs on LCA Mk2 is quite modest and more in the upgraded Mirage-2000 standards. They talk of sensor fusion, but there aren't enough sensors on LCA to match Rafale.

The French spent over $20 Billion developing Rafale. We are barely spending $3 Billion. We don't even know if half the stuff promised for Mk2 will even come to pass.

Mk2 will be truely multirole ac and be capable of performing all roles which Rafale can. You can check the ASR issued by IAF for that.

Rafale's electrical power output itself will be twice that of LCA's. You can do more with 80-100 KW of power than 50 KW. Other than that Rafale can carry much heavier electronics and more capable ones too. It has a much larger avionics bay after all.

every ac in the world has limitations on its G limits if loaded with bombs/Drop tanks. The max G limits are given for A2A role only. When I stated that you have to clean up the ac to get into combat, I meant that you drop all loads except A2A Missiles.

If LCA drops all its load, then it won't have A2A missiles anyway. LCA will continue to do what Jaguar, Mig-27 and Mig-21 do. Nothing will change. We will remain like PAF.

In my calculations I have relied on only internal fuel and taken bombload as the max load capacity. Mk2 with 3.4 tons of fuel, single engine can out range 4.6 tons capacity of twin engined Rafale when compared in any configuration but its total load capacity is lower than rafale.

You are comparing Gripen E with Rafale. LCA Mk2 won't carry 3.4 tonnes of fuel, as I mentioned before.

Rafale needs just 65 KN of combined thrust to maintain a speed of Mach 0.9 at medium altitude. That's 50% thrust rating.

Regarding Turn around time, I can tell you that what is normally stated is for minimum safety concerns. No air force uses those turn around times.
What I suggest is that you do a calculation based on your criteria for rafale and Mk2. let us take into consideration the whole fleet numbers for both the ac. use cost of acquisition as a bench mark which is 3 LCA Mk2 for one rafale. use the turn around time for both ac same-90 mins. Do your maths and tell me which one emerges above. It is as simple a calculation as 2+2=4. You won't even need a calculator.

Won't all this depend on the quality of the pylons, weapons, carriage, software etc? It is not an equal measure.

Also, what if I have only 5 guys? How long will 3 LCAs take compared to one Rafale with 5 guys.

I am a great fan of Rafale but I am not a blind follower. With delays in signing the deal for Rafale, we now have a situation wherein we must have a complete relook at the MMRCA. Let us go for Mk2 in large numbers and dump rafale completely.

How does that help? Where is the guarantee that LCA Mk2 will succeed. Even ADA is not sure. They have only ordered 9 engines. They have asked for more engines based on the progress of Mk2.

You are comparing a paper tiger to a real one. Even construction of Mk2 has not started.

I am no fan of LCA. But if you bring in a 5th gen fighter, I am not fan of Rafale either. The day you bring in a better fighter than that 5th gen, I will go for that too. The advantages Rafale has over LCA, the F-35 has over Rafale.

finally I request you to pls do not use F-16 as a bench mark for Mk2 range abilities. Pls compare their wing areas and engines to decide which will have lower fuel consumption as the MTOW of Mk2 is much lower than F-16 blk-60.

Mirage-2000 is a better comparison. LCA and M-2000 have similar wing designs, missions parameters and payloads. Only that Mirage-2000 has better pylon config in comparison. Mirage-2000 has a ROA of 640NM with 8 250 Kg bombs and 2 large 2000L tanks.

Regarding having to create 3 times the infra and menpower, Pls calculate The cost advantage of a single engine over a twin engine and equate them with life cycle costs and tell me which one will be cheaper to own overall.

Rafale is good for 7000 hours and engines are good for the Rafale's airframe life. There is no way LCA will match these parameters.

As for fuel consumption, the M88-4Es are significantly more fuel efficient than the F-414 versions.

You can't really put a figure on other factors, but you can say Rafale will have better MTBF of avionics. So, in the end it will really depend on how well HAL has been able to indigenize spares and support. Rafale is said to need 35% less maintenance than Mirage-2000. Reliance is trying to setup a second line of spares and support for Rafale.

Nevertheless, the cost of the support assets will significantly outclass the cost of Rafale over its lifetime.

If you consider 300 LCAs + 25 tankers are needed to match 100 Rafale. Just multiply by three the acquisition costs of the same and you will get a rough figure of lifecycle costs. 300 LCAs at $50Million for one = $15 Billion, 25 tankers at $250 Million = $6.25 Billion. Total = 21.25 Billion. Lifetime = $63.75 Billion. 100 Rafale at $100 Million = $10 Billion. Lifetime = $30 Billion. It is not exact, but it is obvious the difference is too much.

So 100 Rafales cost three times less than 300 LCAs and 25 tankers. Of course, this is not counting the expense of infrastructure and manpower.

Actually, this is not far away from the truth. That's why all air forces who can afford it are moving towards heavier aircraft. The ones with lighter aircraft need simply need more numbers to match capability and this increases costs because they end up spending more than necessary. Light aircraft air forces cannot match Rafale's capability, nor can they buy as many tankers or AWACS. In the end they will be stuck with modest capabilities. Since you are overestimating LCA Mk2's capabilities, the equation is more imbalanced in Rafale's favor.

Anyway, we are simply playing with fantasy numbers. In the end we can't build hundreds of LCAs and the govt won't sanction that many anyway. Even if we don't induct Rafales, hundreds of LCAs is simply a waste of time. 6 squadrons is plenty. It will give time for HAL and ADA to learn the nuances of building an aircraft and commit more resources to AMCA instead.

The point of the Rafale is to catch up with squadron numbers, infuse technology into our industry and provide a proven strike capability. LCA is not an answer to any of the three.

 

[p2prada]

you are grossly wrong here. Let me explain why?
1. Single engine LCA mk2 will have internal fuel capacity of 3.4 tons and droptank capacity of 2.5 tons giving it a max fuel capacity of 5.9 tons v/s rafale which has twin engines and 4.6 tons of internal capacity with another 4 tons of fuel in droptanks.

I have already explained this.

if you lose one rafale and you lose one LCA Mk2, what will be the equation? remember Lancaster? The war scenerio will completely change once the rafale fleet dips below a critical figure due to combat losses or unservicibility. While it will not be so for MK2

How will LCA kill Rafale?

There are 4 Rafales for every 12 LCAs. Regardless, strike oriented LCAs cannot carry AAMs, A2A oriented LCAs will not carry LGBs. But Rafales carry both.

Lancaster equation is valid only if the capability is similar. A Rafale with 2 LGBs and 6 AAMs will kill 8 LCAs carrying only LGBs and R-73s. There is a huge difference in air to air capability here. And this is just considering the number of missiles carried. What about sensor capability where Rafale beats LCA in so many parameters?

Take the example of Arab-Israeli wars. The handful of F-15s gave the Arabs a drubbing the likes of it not seen before. The Lancaster equation did not count in this situation.

In the end it will be the force with Rafales that will become the aggressive force while LCAs become defensive. The Swedes decided to go for a defensive force with the Gripens. They didn't need dozens of tankers for such a role. That's not a luxury we have, especially when dealing with China.

 

[Decklander]

Bro, we can probably discuss & argue for eternity till MK2 actually comes out. What you have posted is old info and latest info about Mk2 is closely guarded. We have uncorroborated info that we will see a 0.5m insertion ahead of the cockpit to accommodate better bigger radar and IRST and maybe inbuilt Laser designator. We will also see 0.5m insertion behind cockpit to increase fuel capacity. LCA has a width of main fuselage of 1.2 m, max height of 1.6m behind cockpit and with 0.5m insertion of fuel capacity with better location of cart and other systems we will have that fuel capacity.
1.2x.0.5x1.6 gives an additional volume of 960 ltrs with additional fuel being put into better tanks we will have an addition of nearly 1300 ltrs in capacity which is equal to one ton at 25*C fuel temp.
You are grossly wrong on thrust vs fuel consumption. The fuel consumption is called SFC for jet engines. two engines of Rafale with 50Kn dry thrust have an SFC of 0.78, the Dry thrust of F414INS6 is 62KN with an SFC of 0.8. The jet engine is most efficient in its operating range of 85%-92% RPM. Above and below that, the SFC gets bad. But the fuel consumption is directly related to thrust demanded. A twin engined ac has its engines operate at sub optimal RPM but due to lower RPM they consume less fuel compared to a single engine ac needing same amount of thrust. However the change over takes place once you reach optimum RPM for SFC. So MK2 will get more bang for the buck spent meaning it will have higher cruise speed compared to Rafale and so for even a shorter flight time, will out range it. The basic thumb rule for fighter engines for last five decades has been that MTOW in kilograms is restricted to thrust in pounds x 1.1, meaning, Mk2 with 62Kn engine producing about 14k pounds shud be good for an MTOW of 15.4tons but Mk2 has only 14 tons as MTOW while Rafale with 2x50kns means 22.5k pounds of thrust will be restricted to 22.5x1.1=25 tons as MTOW.
So Mk2 has growth potential while Rafale will need more powerfull engines. Now let us examine the excess thrust of Mk2 with optimum thrust of Rafale, In many of the peak summer conditions of India, Rafale will run out of thrust to lift max load while MK2 will have thrust reserve to lift full load. Mk2 can efford a drop of 10% of thrust while still be capable of lifting its MTOW. 10% drop of thrust means a temprature gradient of 20*c above the flat rating of an engine.
As I told you that I have been in the biz of flying ac for last three decades, using wiki figures to argue about ac is the last thing we shud do.

 

[Decklander]

I have already explained this.



How will LCA kill Rafale?

There are 4 Rafales for every 12 LCAs. Regardless, strike oriented LCAs cannot carry AAMs, A2A oriented LCAs will not carry LGBs. But Rafales carry both.

Lancaster equation is valid only if the capability is similar. A Rafale with 2 LGBs and 6 AAMs will kill 8 LCAs carrying only LGBs and R-73s. There is a huge difference in air to air capability here. And this is just considering the number of missiles carried. What about sensor capability where Rafale beats LCA in so many parameters?

Take the example of Arab-Israeli wars. The handful of F-15s gave the Arabs a drubbing the likes of it not seen before. The Lancaster equation did not count in this situation.

In the end it will be the force with Rafales that will become the aggressive force while LCAs become defensive. The Swedes decided to go for a defensive force with the Gripens. They didn't need dozens of tankers for such a role. That's not a luxury we have, especially when dealing with China.

For some reason you are misrepoting the capability of Mk2. It will have multiple racks on one pylon while most pylons of Rafale are load limited and can be used only for A2AMs. Infact two out of 14 of its pylons have severe capability restriction. It also can't carry 14 A2AMs on its pylons as it has problems of stability inspite of Repeatedly sold shit stability.

 

[p2prada]

For some reason you are misrepoting the capability of Mk2. It will have multiple racks on one pylon while most pylons of Rafale are load limited and can be used only for A2AMs. Infact two out of 14 of its pylons have severe capability restriction. It also can't carry 14 A2AMs on its pylons as it has problems of stability inspite of Repeatedly sold shit stability.

I am only reporting what ADA has been reporting. According to them, LCA Mk2 will match Mk1 in range. It won't see an extra tonne in fuel capacity. This is not my personal view.

The pylons that have load limits on Rafale for A2A are plenty for the design.

This one has 6 AAMs, 3 250 Kg LGBs, one SCALP-EG, one Exocet and tanks. An impossible config on LCA. Depending on mission, the Rafale can carry only bombs, only cruise missiles or only AAMs, all with tanks. The pylons with lower load limits are only meant to carry AAMs. This gives Rafale the flexibility to carry anything while protecting itself.

Apart from that there is a certain capability that LCA cannot handle. That is carrying heavy bombs of 1 tonne and more. Bunker buster missions will need such large bombs and LCA cannot do that. I don't know if LCA will ever carry out such missions. Rafale can carry 3 1000 Kg bombs.

LCA can't carry BVR missiles while carrying LGBs, even with multiple racks. It is an either-or situation. The center pylon isn't capable of carrying BVR missiles. The inner-most hardpoint is for tanks. The midwing hardpoint is for bombs. The outermost hardpoints cannot carry anything more than 120 Kg. While LCA Mk2's wings will be better strengthened, the outermost hardpoints will forever carry only WVR missiles, no multi-ejector racks there.

 

[Decklander]

I am only reporting what ADA has been reporting. According to them, LCA Mk2 will match Mk1 in range. It won't see an extra tonne in fuel capacity. This is not my personal view.

The pylons that have load limits on Rafale for A2A are plenty for the design.

This one has 6 AAMs, 3 250 Kg LGBs, one SCALP-EG, one Exocet and tanks. An impossible config on LCA. Depending on mission, the Rafale can carry only bombs, only cruise missiles or only AAMs, all with tanks. The pylons with lower load limits are only meant to carry AAMs. This gives Rafale the flexibility to carry anything while protecting itself.

Apart from that there is a certain capability that LCA cannot handle. That is carrying heavy bombs of 1 tonne and more. Bunker buster missions will need such large bombs and LCA cannot do that. I don't know if LCA will ever carry out such missions. Rafale can carry 3 1000 Kg bombs.

LCA can't carry BVR missiles while carrying LGBs, even with multiple racks. It is an either-or situation. The center pylon isn't capable of carrying BVR missiles. The inner-most hardpoint is for tanks. The midwing hardpoint is for bombs. The outermost hardpoints cannot carry anything more than 120 Kg. While LCA Mk2's wings will be better strengthened, the outermost hardpoints will forever carry only WVR missiles, no multi-ejector racks there.

LCA Mk1 was created as replacement for Mig-21 with very limited ground attack capability. But Mk2 will see hardening of pylons and will be able to carry 1.5 tons on inner pylons which means that it will be able to fire SCALP nad outer pylons hardened to carry one ton each. The strength of pylons automatically goes up based on what is the strength of main frame. Pls have patience. You will get much more than what is desired.
The wings of B747-400 dip by 10 feet after being loaded with fuel and that adds to the overall strength of the ac.

 

[p2prada]

LCA Mk1 was created as replacement for Mig-21 with very limited ground attack capability. But Mk2 will see hardening of pylons and will be able to carry 1.5 tons on inner pylons which means that it will be able to fire SCALP nad outer pylons hardened to carry one ton each. The strength of pylons automatically goes up based on what is the strength of main frame. Pls have patience. You will get much more than what is desired.

The thing is according to both IAF and ADA LCA Mk2 is basically what LCA Mk1 should have been. It will just come with more modern avionics.

IMHO, there is excessive hope for the aircraft for what is just supposed to be an improved Mk1.

I suppose we can agree to disagree here. In time things will get more clear.

 

[Decklander]

The thing is according to both IAF and ADA LCA Mk2 is basically what LCA Mk1 should have been. It will just come with more modern avionics.

IMHO, there is excessive hope for the aircraft for what is just supposed to be an improved Mk1.

I suppose we can agree to disagree here. In time things will get more clear.

yes I agree to disagree with you here. Infact ADA & HAL have also gone wrong in not upgrading the ac when it became apparant that it is going to overshoot the targetted weight and its consequences on performance shud have been foreseen.

 

[ersakthivel]

There are additional fuel tanks in Tejas mk-s schematics released by ADA, And there is no need to set aside fuel for higher power engine in cruising range calculation!!!!!

In long range cruise all fighters fly at their optimum fuel consumption consumption speeds.

Since Fuselage dia is going to be increased through out the fuselage length by for higher dia Ge-414 IN S 6 , We should note all the fuel tanks along fuselage will have increased fuel capacity.

And Wing area is also slated to be increased to maintain the same low wing loading. Since Tejas has high wing fuselage blending it will also add more space for fuel storage,

To add to that percentage of composites is slated to increase to 60 percent from the 40 percent for tejas mk-1 . SO there may not be more total weight increase as the higher level of composites will offset the weight increase.

And Since tejas mk-2 has no need to conform to one of the original constraints of mk-1 namely matching it in length to share same hanger space. It frees up tejas designers to arrive at optimum fuselage length for the engine thrust , wave drag and fuel needs .

It is so easy to say that the Tejas mk-2 is what mk-1 should be. But we must bear in mind that when Tejas mk-1 was being developed we were under International sanctions with Nuclear tests. And now GE is offering it's latest 414 version with upper thrust limit of 120 Kn for tejas mk-2. Thats why Tejas mk-2 is a true MMRCA now even though it will have just around 6 ton plus empty weight.

Also for the same cost of one RAAFLE we can have four Tejas mk-2s with 28 pylons allowing for a different combination of weapons .

And not just 28 pylons , we have 4 ASEA radars of the same RAFALE size and four IRST suits and 4 Ew suits if we employ 4 Tejas mk-2 for the cost of one RAFALE all spread out casting a wide net with various seeker shooter combo and radr switch On and Off combinations.

Even if RAFALE has twice the electricity gen onboard not all of it will be reserved for ASEA radar and EW suit. Most of it is needed to operate two huge canards and higher hydraulic demands of bigger control surface actuators.

So if we go for a clear break up of electricity needs , then we can see how just one EW suit consuming X amount of electricity in one RAFALE can score over Y amount of electricity using 4 Ew suits of tejas that are spread out across the sky casting a wider net.

Considering the latest news that PV-1 is being configured for EW role. If one of the four Tejas is configured as EW aircraft then the 1 EW Tejas mk-2 and 3 tejas mk-2 combo will have enormous advantage over any other group of fighters for the same price,

Other than the two outer wing pylons of Tejas which are rated for around 200 Kg all other pylons are rated for 800plus Kg .

 

[p2prada]

Infact ADA & HAL have also gone wrong in not upgrading the ac when it became apparant that it is going to overshoot the targetted weight and its consequences on performance shud have been foreseen.

Yes. ADA never expected LCA's weight to increase. GTRE never expected they would need greater thrust than 75KN. I wonder what were they thinking with the performance cap of 75KN for Kaveri. It's like they never expected LCA will need more power and more avionics as time passes. There was no real synergy between ADA and GTRE. ADA asked for a 75KN engine and GTRE made one. After that it was all downhill. At least now, there are less chances in goofing up. The F-414 comes with a good potential for growth and can cater to weight increases on Mk2.

 

[ersakthivel]

ADA did not ask for 74 KN engine from GTRE. It asked for 84 Kn engine and GTRE managed a 81 Kn engine is what the latest info is, twisting facts makes no one a genius,

ADA never expected the sudden demand from IAF to change the so called Mig-21 replacement thrust on its head with exact length and width parameter will be changed in mk-2 to carry more than half of Mig-21's weight in fuel and 70 percent of Mig-21's weight in Weapon load to ranges comparable to Mirage-2000 with 120 Km range BVR in mk-2, along with IRST and in flight refueling along with full internal EW suit.

If IAF change ASR every decade without even allowing a limited production run like Grippen A/B, C/.D before going for NG and refuse to part with a single penny from their budget Tejas mk-2 can't arrive on a magic carpet at mk-1 date either.

And for a Mig-21 replacement design frozen on 1989 has to wait for five years with no funding due to trenchant opposition from import lobby and if Nuclear sanctions set back the fly by wire software effort by another 5 years , how can Mk-2 be expected to arrive in Mk-1 avatar itself.

It is like jumping from the kettle to the stove for the ADA. First bad economic situation in the 1990s and trenchant opposition from IAF accounting for the first 5 years of delay. And then when truce was achieved after mediation from Abdul Kalam for two TDs first and PVs and LSPs later route ,

suddenly nuclear test sanctions cutting off the fly by wire development effort for another few years. So how can mk-2 arrive on MK-1 date.Who offered Ge-414 IN S6 with 98 tons wet thrust in the 1980s to us so we can blame ADA for not developing Mk-2 straight away?

After producing and inducting hundreds of TYPHOONS the EADS is yet to configure it for ground role . And it is being done in tranches. SO there is no way gasping for a mk-2 to arrive at mk-1 date,

RAFALE and TYPHOON in comparison took close to two decades to come up to this level despite no funding delays no sanctions and supportive airforces accepting them in tranches to be upgraded later as tech evolves.

It is not that IAF does not know this approach, it is practiced for imported fighters like SU-30 MKI, Jaguar and FGFA ofcourse , by putting Indian tax payer money in those about to be go belly up foreign aviation majors buying them at whatever leel of readiness and maturing them in IAF with Indian tax payer money.

Ofcourse when Su-30 MKI experiences engine shaft issues and fly by wire bugs resulting in a few crashes it is quietly taken up at the top level and resolved with out a pin drop sound.

But when it comes to tejas all the creatures come out of wood work in the retiring Imported Air Force to call it Mig-21 ++, three legged cheetah , and the excruciating 30 years wait.

But when it comes to tejas there will be so many IOCs and FOCs and nagging complaints forever.

ADA never put forth the requirement for tejas. The requirement of Tejas was finalized a year before ADA was incorporated . And ADA was formed only after HAL refused to take up tejas project after the butter smooth joint effort with IAF in Marut ,

Marut was left in the lurch after GOI refused to pay a princely sum of 5 Cr for Bristol Siddley for a better powered engine in those no sanction days.

 

[ersakthivel]

America's F35s: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run
AUGUST 19, 2013
POSTED IN: DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, HEADLINES, SECURITY
warplane development had accelerated right past all its problems.

Any one can read the above article when unrealistic ever changing set of contradicting demands are made at the same time by technically illiterate force personnel.

That has what happened to Arjun and Tejas . Force people willfully or ignorantly sabotaging what could have been successful programs abroad with ever changing demands without knowing a shit about design process where every parameter changed at the mid project makes the project protracted , and some times below par and unviable. It is a miracle that In ArJUN and Tejas we still have a class comparable project, despite both the efforts hobbled by ever changing demands from technically illiterate force personnel.

America's F35s: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run
AUGUST 19, 2013
POSTED IN: DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, HEADLINES, SECURITY


Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassedby even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF "is a dog "¦ overweight and underpowered," according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF.


Indeed, the military should have been concerned more than 40 years ago. "What you have to understand is that problems with the F-35 are the result of pathological decision-making patterns that go back at least to the 1960s," explained Chuck Spinney, a retired Defense Department analyst and whistleblower whom one senator called the "conscience of the Pentagon."

Among the pathologies inherent in the F-35"²s design, by far the most damaging is the result of a peculiar institutional obsession by one of the new plane's three main customers. Early on, the Marine Corps contrived to equip the JSF as a "jump jet," able to take off and land vertically like a helicopter"Š—"Ša gimmick that the Marines have long insisted would make its fighters more flexible, but which has rarely worked in combat.

The JSF comes in three variants"Š—"Šone each for the Air Force, Navy and Marines"Š—"Šall sharing a mostly common fuselage, engine, radar and weapons. The wings and vertical-takeoff gear vary between models.

Altogether the three F-35 variants are meant to replace around a dozen older plane types from half a dozen manufacturers, ranging from the Air Force's maneuverable, supersonic F-16 to the slow-flying, heavily armored A-10 and, most consequentially, the Marines' AV-8B Harrier, an early-generation jump jet whose unique flight characteristics do not blend well with those of other plane types.

Engineering compromises forced on the F-35 by this unprecedented need for versatility have taken their toll on the new jet's performance. Largely because of the wide vertical-takeoff fan the Marines demanded, the JSF is wide, heavy and has high drag, and is neither as quick as an F-16 nor as toughly constructed as an A-10. The jack-of-all-trades JSF has become the master of none.


World war origins


In many ways, America's new, universal jet was born in the confusion, chaos and bloodshed of World War II's jungle battlefields.

In August 1942 a force of U.S. Marines stormed ashore on Guadalcanal, part of the Solomons island chain in the South Pacific. Less than a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. and its allies were still fighting a defensive action against Japanese forces. The Guadalcanal landing was meant to blunt Tokyo's advance.

But the lightly-equipped Marines ended up surrounded and all but abandoned after Japanese ships wiped out a portion of the Allied fleet. The Navy withdrew its precious aircraft carriers, and for months the Japanese planes, opposed by only a handful of Marine fighters flying from a crude beachhead airstrip, pounded the hapless Americans.

Robert Leckie, a Marine rifleman on Guadalcanal, described one of his squadmates breaking under the strain. The rattled Marine grabbed a light machine gun"Š—"Ša totally ineffective weapon against airplanes"Š—"Šand charged against a strafing Japanese Zero fighter. "He could not bear huddling in the pit while the Jap [sic] made sport of us," Leckie wrote in his memoir Helmet for my Pillow.

Luckily, the Marine survived his nearly suicidal confrontation with the Zero. But as an organization, the Marine Corps was forever changed by its exposure on Guadalcanal. "The lesson learned was that the U.S. Marine Corps needed to be able to bring its air power with it over the beach because the large-deck Navy aircraft carriers might not always be there," said Ben Kristy, an official Marine historian.

In the 1950s and '60s the Corps bought hundreds of helicopters, a new invention at the time. But what it really wanted was a fighter plane that could launch from the same amphibious assault ships that hauled Marine ground troops. These big assault ships had flat helicopter flight deck areas, but with neither the catapults nor the runway length to support the big, high-performance planes favored by the Navy.

The Marines wanted a "jump jet" capable of taking off from these helicopter decks with a short rolling takeoff and returning to land vertically, lighter because of all the fuel it had burned.

Besides launching from amphibious ships, the new planes were touted to fly in support of ground troops from so-called "lilypads" —100 foot concrete patches supposedly quickly installed near the front lines.

.

Thanks to what Kristy described as "very, very shrewd political maneuvering," a small group of Marine officers alternately convinced and tricked Congress, the Navy and the U.S. aerospace industry into taking a chance on the Harrier. The Corps ended up buying more than 400 of the compact planes through the 1990s.

 

[p2prada]

For some reason, I completely missed this post. I would just like to point out three things here. I'm disputing your assertion of a 1m increase in length, thrust/MTOW rule and hot conditions.

What you have posted is old info and latest info about Mk2 is closely guarded. We have uncorroborated info that we will see a 0.5m insertion ahead of the cockpit to accommodate better bigger radar and IRST and maybe inbuilt Laser designator. We will also see 0.5m insertion behind cockpit to increase fuel capacity. LCA has a width of main fuselage of 1.2 m, max height of 1.6m behind cockpit and with 0.5m insertion of fuel capacity with better location of cart and other systems we will have that fuel capacity.
1.2x.0.5x1.6 gives an additional volume of 960 ltrs with additional fuel being put into better tanks we will have an addition of nearly 1300 ltrs in capacity which is equal to one ton at 25*C fuel temp.

This is with the belief that there would be a total extension of 1m for the entirety of the aircraft. Meaning LCA Mk2 will be 14.7m long from the previous measure of 14.2m. And that 0.5m of the extra space will be used for fuel.

I just want to point out that according to previous figures, the 0.5m is primarily meant for increasing the capacity of the avionics bay and not add more fuel tanks or increase the size of the fuel tanks. The only increase in fuel will come in the wings which will be slightly larger to compensate for that added 0.5m length for extra avionics space. So, even if LCA has increased in length by 1m, the front end of the aircraft is only for the radar and assorted equipment, the rear for extra avionics space. Any increase in fuel is only to compensate for the 10KN increase in power compared to what was needed on the earliest requirement for a 5.5 tonne LCA Mk1.

The basic thumb rule for fighter engines for last five decades has been that MTOW in kilograms is restricted to thrust in pounds x 1.1, meaning, Mk2 with 62Kn engine producing about 14k pounds shud be good for an MTOW of 15.4tons but Mk2 has only 14 tons as MTOW while Rafale with 2x50kns means 22.5k pounds of thrust will be restricted to 22.5x1.1=25 tons as MTOW.

What you are talking about is bringing about major modifications to the airframe and payload.

Overall we don't plan on making major changes to either aircraft until they reach their MLUs. That's at least 15 years away after induction. If you look at current IAF upgrade plans, both Jaguar and Mig-29 will undergo engine modifications and will deliver extra thrust to compensate for increases in weight. That means IAF has already catered for this rule on older aircraft and will be seen through on newer aircraft as well.

So Mk2 has growth potential while Rafale will need more powerfull engines.

I agree only if we consider that there will be no overshoot of weight goals for LCA Mk2.

However according to you LCA Mk2 will have 3.4 tonnes of fuel. If we add the basic LCA Mk1's empty weight of 6.4 tonnes to a payload of 5 tonnes and fuel load of 3.4 tonnes we get 14.9 tonnes. Let's not forget our dear pilot, shall we? So let's make that 15 tonnes MTOW. So, there is no real growth potential here anyway.

Of course, here I have taken LCA Mk1's empty weight for LCA Mk2. This we know won't be possible because LCA Mk2 is expected to carry more advanced and a larger component of avionics. If we take LCA Mk2 to be closer to 7 tonnes, then MTOW is 15.4 tonnes and this puts it on the same level as Rafale's growth potential. Of course, all this is considering LCA Mk2 won't drastically overshoot weight goals.

Now, if LCA is expected to have a 14 ton MTOW then we will have to reduce either fuel load or payload. Empty weight won't reduce, since you have also contended that Mk2 will have strengthened wings by a huge factor to carry 1000 Kg munitions from the current 500 Kg. (Practically impossible. They are struggling to increase MKI's ability to carry 30% more payload on just one pylon while you have doubled LCA's capability on 2 pylons + dual rack for BVR missiles).

So, your figures should be impossible, don't you think? You have tried to keep LCA Mk2's empty weight the same while increasing the length by 1m, increased fuel by 1 tonne and gave it an unreasonable payload increase to 6.5 to 7 tonnes for carrying 2 1000 Kg bombs and still claim that LCA Mk2 will be 14 tonnes at MTOW with such figures. Completely unreasonable. You created a MCA out of an LCA with LCA weight specs. Basically, you are bringing in the exact specs of Gripen E and pasting those on LCA. At least Gripen E is advertised to have a MTOW of 16.5 tonnes.

Now let us examine the excess thrust of Mk2 with optimum thrust of Rafale, In many of the peak summer conditions of India, Rafale will run out of thrust to lift max load while MK2 will have thrust reserve to lift full load. Mk2 can efford a drop of 10% of thrust while still be capable of lifting its MTOW. 10% drop of thrust means a temprature gradient of 20*c above the flat rating of an engine.

Would agree if we say LCA Mk2 will remain as an adequately modified Mk1 and not some Gripen E level aircraft with less thrust and more payload. Would definitely not agree if Mk2 is with your specs. The original design of LCA Mk1 exceeded Rafale's thrust by a pretty good margin.

Of course, I would also agree with what you already think about Rafale. But I suppose our enemies may have inferior aircraft and will be affected a lot more than Rafale will. Anyway, Rafale won't really lift 9.5 tonnes of payload based on already existing figures for weapons config. I mean Rafale can at best carry about 8-8.5 tonnes of weapons and fuel at its highest capability. That's ~5 tonnes of external fuel and ~3-3.5 tonnes of weapons. 9.5 tonnes is just the theoretical limit like the 5.5 tonnes on LCA Mk1.

As I told you that I have been in the biz of flying ac for last three decades, using wiki figures to argue about ac is the last thing we shud do.

I agree, so a more reasonable Mk2 config should be worked out instead. A config where the range at full payload is modest, weapons carriage options are limited and EW capability is adequate for an escort mission. Basically, a light fighter aircraft that can put up a decent fight in WVR and demonstrate a greater BVR capability vs contemporary aircraft. This is what LCA is designed for.

Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to point out why you are severely overestimating LCA Mk2 or light aircraft in general.

 

[Decklander]

For some reason, I completely missed this post. I would just like to point out three things here. I'm disputing your assertion of a 1m increase in length, thrust/MTOW rule and hot conditions.



This is with the belief that there would be a total extension of 1m for the entirety of the aircraft. Meaning LCA Mk2 will be 14.7m long from the previous measure of 14.2m. And that 0.5m of the extra space will be used for fuel.

I just want to point out that according to previous figures, the 0.5m is primarily meant for increasing the capacity of the avionics bay and not add more fuel tanks or increase the size of the fuel tanks. The only increase in fuel will come in the wings which will be slightly larger to compensate for that added 0.5m length for extra avionics space. So, even if LCA has increased in length by 1m, the front end of the aircraft is only for the radar and assorted equipment, the rear for extra avionics space. Any increase in fuel is only to compensate for the 10KN increase in power compared to what was needed on the earliest requirement for a 5.5 tonne LCA Mk1.



What you are talking about is bringing about major modifications to the airframe and payload.

Overall we don't plan on making major changes to either aircraft until they reach their MLUs. That's at least 15 years away after induction. If you look at current IAF upgrade plans, both Jaguar and Mig-29 will undergo engine modifications and will deliver extra thrust to compensate for increases in weight. That means IAF has already catered for this rule on older aircraft and will be seen through on newer aircraft as well.



I agree only if we consider that there will be no overshoot of weight goals for LCA Mk2.

However according to you LCA Mk2 will have 3.4 tonnes of fuel. If we add the basic LCA Mk1's empty weight of 6.4 tonnes to a payload of 5 tonnes and fuel load of 3.4 tonnes we get 14.9 tonnes. Let's not forget our dear pilot, shall we? So let's make that 15 tonnes MTOW. So, there is no real growth potential here anyway.

Of course, here I have taken LCA Mk1's empty weight for LCA Mk2. This we know won't be possible because LCA Mk2 is expected to carry more advanced and a larger component of avionics. If we take LCA Mk2 to be closer to 7 tonnes, then MTOW is 15.4 tonnes and this puts it on the same level as Rafale's growth potential. Of course, all this is considering LCA Mk2 won't drastically overshoot weight goals.

Now, if LCA is expected to have a 14 ton MTOW then we will have to reduce either fuel load or payload. Empty weight won't reduce, since you have also contended that Mk2 will have strengthened wings by a huge factor to carry 1000 Kg munitions from the current 500 Kg. (Practically impossible. They are struggling to increase MKI's ability to carry 30% more payload on just one pylon while you have doubled LCA's capability on 2 pylons + dual rack for BVR missiles).

So, your figures should be impossible, don't you think? You have tried to keep LCA Mk2's empty weight the same while increasing the length by 1m, increased fuel by 1 tonne and gave it an unreasonable payload increase to 6.5 to 7 tonnes for carrying 2 1000 Kg bombs and still claim that LCA Mk2 will be 14 tonnes at MTOW with such figures. Completely unreasonable. You created a MCA out of an LCA with LCA weight specs. Basically, you are bringing in the exact specs of Gripen E and pasting those on LCA. At least Gripen E is advertised to have a MTOW of 16.5 tonnes.



Would agree if we say LCA Mk2 will remain as an adequately modified Mk1 and not some Gripen E level aircraft with less thrust and more payload. Would definitely not agree if Mk2 is with your specs. The original design of LCA Mk1 exceeded Rafale's thrust by a pretty good margin.

Of course, I would also agree with what you already think about Rafale. But I suppose our enemies may have inferior aircraft and will be affected a lot more than Rafale will. Anyway, Rafale won't really lift 9.5 tonnes of payload based on already existing figures for weapons config. I mean Rafale can at best carry about 8-8.5 tonnes of weapons and fuel at its highest capability. That's ~5 tonnes of external fuel and ~3-3.5 tonnes of weapons. 9.5 tonnes is just the theoretical limit like the 5.5 tonnes on LCA Mk1.



I agree, so a more reasonable Mk2 config should be worked out instead. A config where the range at full payload is modest, weapons carriage options are limited and EW capability is adequate for an escort mission. Basically, a light fighter aircraft that can put up a decent fight in WVR and demonstrate a greater BVR capability vs contemporary aircraft. This is what LCA is designed for.

Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to point out why you are severely overestimating LCA Mk2 or light aircraft in general.

Mk1 is just 13.2m long and will see an increase of 1m to take it to 14.2m. There is not likely to be any addition in afirframe weight but yes we will have to account for avionics package which will be just about 150kgs extra. I have the weight figures of the additional equipment being installed. The complete package of RWR,LWR & MWR weighs less than 40 kgs while the ASPJ which will borrow the stuff from the warning receivers will be about 60 kgs as it will be cooled by internal ECS. In addition some older generation equipment will be replaced by newer generation more compact avionics which will be smaller in size and lighter. The IRST will add another 50 kgs.The fuel weight will increase as the avionics are mounted above the main fuel tank so when you elongate the avionics bay, you also automatically increase the fuel capacity. The fuel capacity will also see a rise due to the fact that MK2 will be slightly wider than MK1 and also have slightly bigger wings.

So we are looking at a figure of 14.2m length. OEW(including pilot @90kgs) of 6600kgs, Internal fuel of 3.4 tons giving a loaded weight of 10 tons to that you add 5.5 tons of weapon load and we arrive at a MTOW of 15.5 tons.
LCA is aerodynamically better than Gripen and if Gripen-E can supercruise with F414 engine, I am pretty sure that even Mk2 with increased Finesse ratio will also be able to super cruise.

 

[ersakthivel]

EMPTY WEIGHT OF TEJAS ( Target Weight was around 6 ton and not 5.5 ton )

TD-1 ------ 6,780 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation
TD-2 ------ 6,670 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation
PV-1 ------- 6,430kg (reduced 350kg of weight)

the above empty weight of Tejas from the link below which quotes WWW.LCA-TEJAS.ORG

PV-1 had flight testing equipment . according to sources these equipments weigh around 300 KG extra . bu no source for that.

Air Marshal Rajkumar wrote about TD1

"It was therefore not very surprising that the aircraft tipped the scales at 6,780 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) against a targeted weight of around 6,300kg. Program managers very wisely decided to launch a weight reduction exercise."

regarding PV-1, he wrote

"The airframe weighed 6,430kg when complete which meant the weight reduction exercise had reduced 350kg of weight, a praise worthy achievement."

.

And further B. Harry whose article Radiance of tejas is considered most accurate says this about weight reduction exercise,
Originally projected to achieve 500 KG weight reduction from TD-1's 6780 KG. the designers finally achieved 746 Kg of reduction on PV-1, So it takes the PV-1 weight to around 6 tons. PV-1 still has flight test equipment on board,

Further weight reduction from PV-1 onwards is proposed to be achieved by reducing the number of LRUs by combining many functions into one and removal of telemetry equipment,

And it said that further design optimization was on to reduce the weight of the metal parts further, and it will reach the 5.5 ton empty weight target eventually for Mk-1 is what he says,

Further the Cemilac also issued weight reduction advices with replacing few engine mountings with composites and many other measures,

So if we get the final weight of SP-1 we will see clarity on the issue,

And with further weight optimization tejas is supposed to lift 4 ton external load with 12.5 ton max take off weight and 13.5 ton all up weight is B. harry's statement,

fuel tanks are one 486 KG in front of the plane, 1200 Kg for wing fuel tank, 800 Kg for fuselage fuel tanks totalling 2.5 tons in mk-1

Mtow 12.5 ton with 4 ton weapon load means 12.5-4=8.5 tons-2.5 tons for fuel=6 tons empty weight,

This is what i read somewhere about weight reduction in LSP-7 and 8, forgot the link,

the removal of on-board telemetry instrumentation has reduced the 'Tejas' Mk1 LSP-7's weight by 400kg.

Secondly, by re-engineering l of the cockpit-mounted AMLCDs and related sub-systems, 300kg weight in reduced in on LSP-8. if any one has more info they can please post,

And considering the Leh take off of LCA with two heavy external fuel tanks in under 12 seconds (at higher altitudes it is tough to lift heavy weight) it is possible it can carry 4 ton external stores with 12.5 ton MTOW and 13.5 ton all up weight.

So with a new fuel tank in the extended fuselage plug in front and extra volumes on the center line fuselage tank and substantially large capacity owing to increased wing area due to the need to have the same wing loading will lead to all around fuel weight increase in mk-2 ,


With percentage of composites slated to go up from the present 45 percent in weight to 60 percent in weight in mk-2 there may not be much weight increase is what the designers say. And still further weight reduction exercises are in progress for mk-2.

So we can expect mk-2 to have a much better fuel fraction than mk-1 .

 

[ersakthivel]

Indian Tejas ,Light Combat Aircraft ,Tejas may be battle ready by 2015 ,Indian fighter planes | TechEyeTech
quotes empty weight as 5680 kg and MTOW 13.5 ton for MTow for tejas mk-1,
Is it real?

 

[p2prada]

Mk1 is just 13.2m long and will see an increase of 1m to take it to 14.2m.

Thanks for the correction.

So we are looking at a figure of 14.2m length. OEW(including pilot @90kgs) of 6600kgs, Internal fuel of 3.4 tons giving a loaded weight of 10 tons to that you add 5.5 tons of weapon load and we arrive at a MTOW of 15.5 tons.

We differ on the length of the fuselage, fuel capacity and payload. For me these are 13.7m, 2.8 tons fuel and 5 tons payload.

I don't know if you still believe F-414INS6 will have a thrust greater than my figure of 98 KN (not bump thrust). Since you gave a figure of 62 KN earlier for LCA, then I guess you agree that LCA Mk2 (at least IAF version) will have a 98 KN engine.

If you agree that LCA has a 98KN engine, then LCA's T/W according to your figures for A2A role with 6 AAMs will be (6.6+3.4+1) = 0.91 at 100% fuel or 1.07 at 50% fuel.

If we take my estimated figures of 6.6+2.8+1, then we get 0.96 at 100% fuel and 1.1 at 50% fuel.

I have taken an estimate of 6.6 tons OEW because T/W at empty weight gives 1.5, similar to what was required on LCA Mk1. Also, the T/W ratios are quite compliant with what 1985 ASR LCA figures should have been with 0.96 at 100% fuel and 1.1 at 50% fuel and 1 ton weapons.

In fact, your figures are exactly what LCA Mk1 had as of Jan/Feb 2011. Which means your figures make LCA Mk2 underpowered and overestimated. Of course, you can claim LCA Mk2 will have higher thrust rating to balance out your figures, but that is highly unlikely looking at Boeing's and GE's official releases.

Then I don't know why you have added internal laser designator and IRST. IMO, they will be carried in pods like they are today. A Litening pod is more robust and has more features and makes the internal designator unnecessary. A pod hardpoint is already available. I would understand if LCA came with internal weapons bays, but with external weapons, an internal system is unnecessary. As for an IRST housing. Okay, since your claim is for a 1m length increase, the nose will allow one.