ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Rahul Singh]

^^ It is hybrid. Elta's 'panel' and 'processor' with rest from LRDE.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Something for good time.

 

[Rahul Singh]

LCA Mk-1 Brochure

As always Thanks BR.

 

[Rahul Singh]

World said "No can't sell you Digital fly-by-wire controls" even France said "Can't sell you Digital, if wanna buy, take Analog". Developed ourselves and went to US they said "it will not work"..... "Your DFCC is junk, not working" ......"Oh faults with our simulator not Indian...how can...don't tell.......oh you were here.......leave it, lets go testing".......... Pokhran........... "Go back you Indians"...."Don't think about the data"...........CLAW team "Look(see picture) what we did ourselves our DFCC enables Tejas fly with asymmetrical load".

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Even our LCA Mk1 is able to take on any Pakistani fighter besides the F-16 blk52, am I wrong?

Any fighter with good BVR capability and ECM can take on latest fighter on the market..
Dont fall for US marketing terms like block this or that..

LCA is far better than what i just told u..

 

[Armand2REP]

What BVRAAM is the Mk1 going to carry?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What BVRAAM is the Mk1 going to carry?

R-77, Astra, Derby at present..

In future looking forward FOR MBDA Meteor..

 

[Armand2REP]

R-77, Astra, Derby at present..

In future looking forward FOR MBDA Meteor..

At present? Only thing I have seen integrated is the Archer.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

At present? Only thing I have seen integrated is the Archer.

BVR test are not known yet to public channels, though the radar on LCA can fire all those i mentioned above..

 

[thecoolone]

We never had a single failure in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE
India ensured its place among an elite group of countries making a fighter jet from scratch when the indigenous multi-role Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas got initial operational clearance this week. A key part in this success was placed by the avionics and flight control systems that were designed by DRDO's Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE). PS Krishnan, distinguished scientist and Director, ADE gives Anirvan Ghosh an inside view of Tejas's journey and the challenges faced along the way

It took the Tejas 1,500 test flights and 23 years of development to get to this point. Isn't that too long?

You have to see that it started as a thought process in 1983 and there was no funding at that point. For the next ten years, we firmed up the requirements and then went into project definition phase. We went to France and Germany and took their expertise in fixing up the aerodynamic configuration. Post that we were ready with a firm proposal and the funding finally started from the second half of 1992. It did take time, but we had to go through the proper processes.

Then there were the sanctions after Pokhran II. How did that affect the development of Tejas?

Let me be clear — we perhaps got delayed by two years. On the day the sanctions came into force, our team was in the US offices of our partners there (Lockheed Martin and BAE Inc.). The team was working on integration of software with the hardware of the LCA. Suddenly we were asked to leave the offices, and we were not even allowed to take back the designs we were working on the systems there, and those were almost ready to be tested. We had to again develop it from memory, because we weren't allowed to copy our own stuff, which delayed the whole thing.

You are saying that you had to spend some time recovering what you had already worked on and then build on it?

Exactly. But the sanctions also spurred us on to do better, and to make the entire fighter aircraft on our own. So in the next few years, we did not just recover what we had lost back then, but also went some steps ahead and achieved the expertise that we had tied up with the US companies for. So now we had what they had but need not rely on them anymore. So ultimately that did delay us, but also made us stronger.

Was there a point where you were close to losing faith because of the difficulties that cropped up?

Never really. When we came back from the US, I was called by Dr APJ Abdul Kalam (who was then the scientific adviser to the Prime Minister). I met him in his office, along with my boss at that time. He asked me directly, "Can you guys do it?" and I replied, "Yes." At that time I just thought we could and didn't think much about the odds. When I did, well of course we were up against quite a few obstacles.

What was driving you at that point in the face of those odds and how did you ensure the team stayed motivated?

The thought that alternatives simply wouldn't do. Here we were making the fly-by-wire system, which would control the aircraft like anautomated system. Procuring the same from MNCs would have firstly cost more and made us just a small cog in the wheel. Here we were staring at odds but we also had the chance to create a new wheel, to invent a new system. This was a challenge we all rose up to. I told my team at ADE that they had a chance to create history and be a part of creating something that had never been done before. They were up for it and responded. In all the 1,500 flights we have had so far, we never had one single failure. Those included Tejas in its stages as tech demonstrators, prototype vehicles and limited series production (LSP).

Did you succeed in retaining more of the core team and talent after the pay commissions's pay hike?

That came later when the team had already done a major portion of the work. Surely, the pay hikes by the government have allowed us to retain talent. Before that some people did move out of the project and went in the private sector where they were better paid. But when I met them later at some event, they said that they missed working on cutting edge technology and making something entirely new.

Now you are working on the Regional Transport Aircraft as well as the unmanned aerial combat vehicle?

Yes, we are making the flight control systems for that project which is headed by NAL. The flight control system and data link packages of Aura (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) will be designed and developed jointly by ADE and Defence Electronic Application Laboratory, Dehradun.

Many private and public agencies worked on the Tejas. They are now collaborating on the transport aircraft. Does this lead to confusion and delays?

No, because the parameters are clearly defined. In fact, this happened smoothly also because of BAE North America. When we were partnering with them, they had formulated the methodology on how various agencies would work, and we followed it rigorously.

There are certain things like wake penetration, and others that the IAF chief said need to be ironed out and the deadline is June. Will you be in a position to meet the deadline?

Of course, we already have done most of it. There are some control loss trials, which are essential before it can be operationalised. Those flights will be completed before June. No modifications are required as I see it, but then we will have a clearer picture post the tests and then whatever changes are needed will be implemented.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-flights-of-tejas-ade/articleshow/7294743.cms

 

[Kunal Biswas]

~ TEJAS ~

OH YEAH!

 

[ppgj]

Sir-- Please-- we are talking of LCA as it is now.

i am also talking of LCA as it is now!!

We would have been proud if it had been used to validate technology.

validating is a precursor to induction via IOC (already happened) and validating more making it combat ready at FOC, a stage which should happen in 18 months to 2 yrs - a normal time for any fighter.

Not thrust on IAF.

thrust on IAF?? IAF has a team at ASTE to oversee day to day LCA development. do you even know that?? have you heard of what the test pilots speak of LCA?? don't read quotes of the press in a way to suit your belief. LCA mark 1 though a little underpowered can replace many platforms in IAF post FOC.

Your optimism stems from what will happen in the future.. Of course it is good to be optimistic. But have a balance please.

my optimism stems from the fact that the LCA as of now has far outgrown from it's original plan. this is India's baseline to build on... you need to think of "balance" wrt now and the future. the ACM himself took back his words but you are not!!! while you stick to his one-off comment at IOC function you you don't stick to his clarification later. there it is - "balance".

LCA AOA? WHY ARE TALKING OF THINGS ada DOESN'T KNOW themselves or even if they know have never divulged.

are you part of ADA?? what do you know that others don't know about LCA AOA?? why don't share?? why not discuss it threadbare and conclude?? simply saying ADA hides and sundry does not help. since you talk about being a tax payer why don't file RTI or even write to MOD and clear your doubts??

 

[p2prada]

Thanks, any better source than VK Thakur? One time this person had entire rant against Anjun centered around its imaginary1000HP engine.

This news is all over the internet.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/01/28/stories/2009012857481400.htm

Theoretically it can. Even 1 LCA squadron can replace 1 Mig-21 squadron and 1 Jaguar squadron in role wise. But decision has to be taken by IAF as nobody else can. Order for second squadron came after LCA testing reached a level. I will not be surprised if IAF orders one more squadron by time LCA approaches FOC.

Theoretically and Practically are 2 different far reaching terms. Practically LCA cannot replace Jaguars. Only MMRCA can.

Like i had said, there is nothing from ADA or IAF on scale of modification in Mk-2 and instead of going wild with my speculations i will wait until at least till AI-11. There will be a presentation on MK-2 by ADA. Detailed and official information on Mk-2 is very expected. On side not, it's the scale of modification which will decide time to IOC and FOC.

Time will decide that. And also time will tell you that LCA Mk1+ MLU is not equal to LC Mk2. It's like saying F-18+MLU = F-18 SH or Mig-29+MLU= Mig35.

Oh yes there is. But when enemy approaches close to striking distance interceptors are sent to stop them and force them out. And interception doesn't always means engaging with weapons. USN had and has long range radars and had specially developed interceptors named F-14s to intercept any approaching and sniffing flying object close to battle group. F-14s were purposefully developed to intercept any Russian jet or bomber and force them out and they did multiple times. Your example of Flankers flying over carrier can only be true if USN had failed to detect and track them. Something which can happen only in case when their radars were not functioning as they should have. Or they simply failed to live upto claim something which is often translated as "Performance Guarantee".

Firstly you have to understand the Ship wasn't operational, nor was it in high seas. It was in a port in Japan undergoing some maintenance and refuelling. Half the crew was probably "chillin" at the beach eating sushi.

This is not 1971, IAF's LRTRs tracks almost everything flying upto 400-500 kms inside Pakistan. Anyway in any BVR combat F-16 Block 50s of PAF will eat any jet of IAF even M-MRCA if it is non american. F-16s radar is awesome and AMRAAM is even far better than any IAF has, what about this? Here logic used is similar to your's "west is best". By the way, LCA is said to have much smaller RCS and will have equally good BVR with MKIs and AEW&C will only add to that. And if your statement "superior tactics used by IAF Mig-21s in bringing down american jets during war games" is true then, oo la la, this time IAF will have Mig-21 ++.

The F-16s radar is just a notch above the RC-400. It is nothing compared to Bars or the Mig-29smt's new radar. The AMRAAMs they are getting are the Aim-120C-5. These AMRAAMs are legacy missiles. They are no match even to our legacy R-77s. They do not have home on jamming, nor do they have longer ranges. Our BVR capability on the Mig-21Bison is superior to the new Pakistani F-16s.

The Bison has a modified engine which generates a lot of power to power the 4th gen electronics. The LCA has superior avionics but they cannot be powered by the F-404 at the specifications required by IAF. That's why the Mk2 has been proposed.

Mirage-2000Hs very much had 'ATLIS' laser designation pod and Matra 1000Lb LGBs before Kargil. Only thing IAF did was managing things together. They even had Pavaway II kits which they fixed on existing 1000LB bombs. Even Israel is said to have great hand in that.

Israel did everything.

Said all, these doesn't represent trouble i had spoken about. There was a huge requirement of Bofors SPH's spares and country like Sweden as expected had imposed ban on any kind to export of defence hardware. And if we go in war again with Gripen expect Sweden to behave do different.

This is taken care of by offset agreements and spares manufacturing in India itself. Pretty soon we will be exporting spares to Europe for which ever fighter wins here.

Don't know why FONA uttered this " extremely hard to maintain them" recently? Leaving that, it is still not clear if americans will share Radar codes with us. And Europeans, lets wait and watch. BTW for some reason MKIs have been sent to Russia for up-gradation and only when examples return the HAL will get its hands wet.

He is talking about Sea Harriers. Everybody knows Sea Harriers are difficult to maintain. Spares were not being manufactured here either. So, the problems you are talking about will not exist in the future.

Oh yes definitely. But it is being said that GTRE SENECMA JV engine will be ready by 2016, so there will be a replacement when need will arise. Since design is our own we know how to modify engine bay and put them. But can we do that in MRCA?

Why will we do that on MRCA? The MRCA clearly need better engines than LCA anyway.

If we take Rafale, Snecma says they will modify Rafale to equip any engine we want.

Yet, like Mirage, LCA has every bit of A2A in it. And in situation like said their own type can become escort something which can't happen in Jaguar's case. Depending upon the tactics in spite of sending more LCAs as escort, IAF can send all of them in multirole configuration, something which again can't happen in Jaguar's case.

You are stuck with one little point which does not even make a difference. If there is a strike package to be delivered, there will be an escort. There is nothing to it. Fighters are made available depending on the target. If it's important, then air superiority fighters will be made available for escort like Mig-29 or MKI.

I don't think when F-16s were sold it was any different and its manufacturer was any either. IAnd if i am not wrong F-16s were never sold with "No Guarantee" tag. In fact F-16s were widely sold yelling superior performance, guaranteed combat superiority, zero compromise and blah blah blah. Yet something like that happened on such large scale.

Arab-Israeli wars. Isn't that enough to scream guarantee.

I rather answer it like, i'll always choose IIM over Harward.

You are definitely ambitious.

Yes, but USAF selected another American not any non american. They have this luxury but they did not invited any from outside. They could have asked BAE to part in competition and field prototypes but they did not. Does it means that they compromised with quality or BAE had no capability to challenge YF-23, YF-22?

Huh! Why will BAE get into a project that they cannot afford? They are in the F-35 project anyway. GB cannot afford 2 stealth programs.

US imports ERA from Germany for their strikers because they know their domestic manufacturers suck big time. GE tried and failed. They transferred deal to a German company for deliveries. See, even US is not pig headed.

Back to real point. You are into belief that IAF has no use yet it was forced to buy extra MK-1. I say, IAF has use that is why it is buying and spending 2 billion. By the way P Rajkuamr is taking about 'wish' and 'could be' so did A Baweja but its worthless until and unless either IAF or ADA confirms it.

For some reason Admirals, Generals and Marshalls, retired or not, always have it right. No defence journo or defence contractor is right in that respect.

M-MRCA is a need, not at all waste of time. It is being bought to cater different need. Fact is IAF needs L-MRCA irrespective of M-MRCA even H-MRCA. IAF can neither buy 800 MKIs nor its needs gets fulfilled alone by that much M-MRCAs and neither can +1000 LCA fulfill that requirements. What IAF needs is a mix force of all three.

Will not dispute that. But Mk1 does not fit requirements even as a L-MRCA.

By the way you can continue on with your views about MK-1 but fact is MK-1 is joining Airforce when IAF is saying "32 left and counting(down)".

It's not 32 and counting. It is 40 and counting. Final deliveries will take the tally to 48 LCA. 8 pre production types and 2 squadrons of 20 each.

The first 2 of the 40 will be joining the IAF by June.

The problem is you believe the IAF wasn't arm twisted in buying the second squadron. I believe otherwise, similar to Arjun. you believe the LCA Mk1 will achieve standards of Mk2. I believe otherwise simply because adding 40KN to engine power will need drastic change in airframe. Heck even Su-30 was converted to Su-35 just to equip it with the 117S and the difference in power is only 20KN from Al-31FP.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Armand2REP]

BVR test are not known yet to public channels, though the radar on LCA can fire all those i mentioned above..

Thing is, I don't think BVRAAM trials have occurred yet. There is no reason to keep it secret, it is not China. I suspect it is because DRDO is hoping to get domestic BVRAAM in operation to avoid foreign dependency. If it don't work out, it can always take Derby.

 

[p2prada]

Thing is, I don't think BVRAAM trials have occurred yet. There is no reason to keep it secret, it is not China. I suspect it is because DRDO is hoping to get domestic BVRAAM in operation to avoid foreign dependency. If it don't work out, it can always take Derby.

BVR is to be tested during the IOC and FOC period. The radar can handle BVR locks though.

As of today LCA cannot fire BVR.

@Rahul
One more example of American sacrificing their own technology for foreign. The guns on all Abrams are the German L44. Their own guns were not powerful enough so they junked theirs and bought German.

Another example: The Atlas V is the most successful American satellite launch vehicle in history. It's first stage uses a Russian engine called RD-180. The Americans still have not been able to replace it with their own.

 

[fulcrum]

This whole LCA saga is a typical example of piss poor Project Management.
I wish this LCA didn't exist and it was all a bad dream. But unfortunately it isn't. If only we had taken up the offer when the Russians offered to sell the sovereignty(yeah not just license they offered the Mig-21 completely for 800k or so!) of the Mig-21 back in the late 80s- early 90s, we wouldn't be in this mess, with falling force levels.

And I'd like to add that Mig-21 is the second best interceptor in our Airforce, the first one being the Mig-29. Yeah, MKI is bit slow to be an good interceptor. Anyone with little knowledge of India will knows that this is a big country and interceptors are the most important of all fighters to keep our airspace safe. Yet, this LCA, which is being touted as Mig-21 replacement, can't even reach speeds of MKI. The ACM knows this pretty well and the other handicaps of LCA(poor TWR, costly, dubious G tolerance etc etc) hence his displeasure with the LCA. During the 80s, the poor bastards in the IAF thought LCA would be like a mirage with it's delta wing(Yeah, French named their fighter Mirage due to its speed), but they had no idea of the incompetence of the ADA/HAL. Hiding behind the poor excuse that it is a state owned entity doesn't cut it! China's, heck even Russia's R & D industry is state owned. And we all know Russia's industry is anything but incompetent.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I suspect it is because DRDO is hoping to get domestic BVRAAM in operation to avoid foreign dependency. If it don't work out, it can always take Derby.

Its not DRDO decision but logistic in IAF and its choice..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Its better to keep this thread only to LCA..

 

[Armand2REP]

Its better to keep this thread only to LCA..

The choice of LCA BVRAAM has everything to do with it... n'est pas?