ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Immanuel]

dont know where you get the idea of k-10 for lca mk-2, as it is work on k-10/11 hasn't even begun yet, it certainly wont go on the lca mk-2, mk-3 is possible but only if the k-10 outperforms the F414 but i doubt that, the k-10 will have 90 to 100kn thrust while a 120KN EPE will be available for the mk-3 if needed which should allow near f-22 style aerial performance. The kaveri will end up in the mca.

 

[p2prada]

Firstly, LCA mk-2 wont have K-10 engine for a quite a long time, K10 is still a long way off from being ready. for the forseeable future, it will remain the GE F414 and once this engine proves itself, they'lll just go for an uprated EPE if needed for mk-3. well you're wrong on a lot of counts, the new mk-2 will have higher payload ability of over 5000kg that too without any change in wing design or a drastic change of the aircraft.

The mk-2 is little over 1 m longer and about 20 cm taller than the mk-1, everything else is kick ass, firstly because it too will recieve a lot of new gen avionics, it will have AESA mostly likely one derived from the EL2052, even Raytheon's RACR is on offer for the lca mk-2, it will have a range of weapons like r-77, Astra, Derby and Python-5 may be even Meteor, it has a very low rcs as it is, the range of the aircraft will also be higher. Being lighter than the NG, the aircraft will be able to supercruise faster than the NG. LCA's current performance is pretty good as it already out performs the mirage/f-16, the new engine will allow aerial performance better than the rafale, ng and may be even EF.
TRISHUL: Tejas Mk2 MRCA's R & D Effort Gathers Pace

LCA is a light fighter. The Gripen NG is more in the realm of F-16IN. Cannot compare the 2 in anyway.

No matter how good the Mk2 is the LCA will not be able to achieve the MMRCA requirements as that of Gripen NG.

Also, it is funny how you say the LCA Mk2 cannot have K-10 but it can have the RACR. Don't forget the AESA upgrade as well as K-10 upgrade are supposed to happen in MLUs. The AESA has been written off for LCA mk2 by IAF. They are happy if DRDO can deliver a regular PESA.

The LCA won't be getting the 120KN EPE core. It will be the regular 98KN core. At 120KN, the LCA will be inferior to that of the LCA Mk1 in capability.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

LCA is a light fighter. The Gripen NG is more in the realm of F-16IN. Cannot compare the 2 in anyway.

No matter how good the Mk2 is the LCA will not be able to achieve the MMRCA requirements as that of Gripen NG.

What is he engine in f-16 and Gripen? Please state the facts? What is the size of the F-16 engine and Gripen Engine?

Also, it is funny how you say the LCA Mk2 cannot have K-10 but it can have the RACR. Don't forget the AESA upgrade as well as K-10 upgrade are supposed to happen in MLUs. The AESA has been written off for LCA mk2 by IAF. They are happy if DRDO can deliver a regular PESA.

The LCA won't be getting the 120KN EPE core. It will be the regular 98KN core. At 120KN, the LCA will be inferior to that of the LCA Mk1 in capability.

How will it be inferior to Mk1 if there is more thrust?!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rahul Singh]

Don't have enough time these days to get into long-long discussions but definitely make a point that a jet fighter which will be 0.5 m - 1 m longer than base model and feature engine with 15% more thrust (+20 % dry) in addition to all those gizmos will not be just a Light MRCA. 20 % more dry thrust (atleast) is making it awfully hard to believe that combat load capacity won't increase even more when one more fact that MK-2 will feature refined aerodynamics is added.

 

[p2prada]

Don't have enough time these days to get into long-long discussions but definitely make a point that a jet fighter which will be 0.5 m - 1 m longer than base model and feature engine with 15% more thrust (+20 % dry) in addition to all those gizmos will not be just a Light MRCA. 20 % more dry thrust (atleast) is making it awfully hard to believe that combat load capacity won't increase even more when one more fact that MK-2 will feature refined aerodynamics is added.

Let's not forget there would be an increase in empty weight as well. This will nullify the other advantages. The NG is only 200Kg higher than Gripen C, but it's capabilities are much more than Gripen C.

The LCA mk1's internal estate isn't particularly good. So, this affects aerodynamics. Increase in length would primarily be to accommodate more avionics and also more fuel. The Mk2 may have a better internal estate because of the extra length. But the avionics carried on the NG is simply ahead of the planned upgrades for the Mk2. Let's not forget that AESA is meant for MLUs and not for FOC, whereas NG will come with an AESA radar installed for FOC.

The Mk2 will have inferior payload to the NG anyway. Saab says NG will carry 6.5 tons compared to ADA's goal of 5 tons on LCA Mk2. More importantly let's not forget the NG will have way more hardpoints than LCA, which simply makes the biggest difference in payload.

LCA isn't meant to be a fully multirole aircraft like the NG. It is only meant to fill IAF's ASR from 1986. NG is more of a 2007 ASR, more advanced meant for much higher requirements.

 

[Immanuel]

LCA is a light fighter. The Gripen NG is more in the realm of F-16IN. Cannot compare the 2 in anyway.

No matter how good the Mk2 is the LCA will not be able to achieve the MMRCA requirements as that of Gripen NG.

Also, it is funny how you say the LCA Mk2 cannot have K-10 but it can have the RACR. Don't forget the AESA upgrade as well as K-10 upgrade are supposed to happen in MLUs. The AESA has been written off for LCA mk2 by IAF. They are happy if DRDO can deliver a regular PESA.

The LCA won't be getting the 120KN EPE core. It will be the regular 98KN core. At 120KN, the LCA will be inferior to that of the LCA Mk1 in capability.

AESA during MLU? LCA mk-2 with AESA will take off circa 2014 when the first one is ready, for now lca mk-2 will have the 98kn core but 120kn epe core can be fitted on the lca mk-3 incase kaveri k-10 isnt ready by decade end. only the lcamk-1 will have pesa, lca mk-2 will feature AESA mostly one based on the el-2052. Except for the payload ability being less than Gripen NG, lca mk-2 will be able to be as multirole as a fighter can get, it will be able to deploy
Astra, R-77, Derby, Python-5, Popeye-2, kh-31a/p, kh-35, kh-59 me, sudharshan, paveways as well Griffin lgbs,KAB-1500L laser guided bombs and other russian bombs possibly Betab anti runway bombs, bombs like CBU-97/105SFW will also be integrated. Such a wide load of weaponry will allow it to reach out and touch targets as far as nearly 300km, plus with a single cbu-105 sfw it can kill 40 vehicles. All such weapons will be integrated and the aircraft will make a place for itself within the af.

 

[p2prada]

AESA during MLU? LCA mk-2 with AESA will take off circa 2014 when the first one is ready, for now lca mk-2 will have the 98kn core but 120kn epe core can be fitted on the lca mk-3 incase kaveri k-10 isnt ready by decade end. only the lcamk-1 will have pesa, lca mk-2 will feature AESA mostly one based on the el-2052. Except for the payload ability being less than Gripen NG, lca mk-2 will be able to be as multirole as a fighter can get, it will be able to deploy
Astra, R-77, Derby, Python-5, Popeye-2, kh-31a/p, kh-35, kh-59 me, sudharshan, paveways as well Griffin lgbs,KAB-1500L laser guided bombs and other russian bombs possibly Betab anti runway bombs, bombs like CBU-97/105SFW will also be integrated. Such a wide load of weaponry will allow it to reach out and touch targets as far as nearly 300km, plus with a single cbu-105 sfw it can kill 40 vehicles. All such weapons will be integrated and the aircraft will make a place for itself within the af.

AESA isn't coming in the production models. It is part of the MLUs.

Even though the LCA is said to be multirole, it's primary mission is still interception, the same as the Mig-21. As for weapons, all aircraft in our inventory can be modified to fire the same. It's low wing loading isn't designed for low altitude flight.

But in strike role, the Jaguar is superior to the LCA in every parameter.

120KN is completely useless on LCA. It won't be able to do anything of importance with such a powerful engine. IAF's requirement is 90 to 95KN, and that's what LCA will get.

 

[Immanuel]

By 2014 LCA mk-2 with AESA will take off on the prototype, you do understand operational MLU for tejas is more than 15 to 20 years away? Mid life upgrade, it happens mid life, tejas hasn't even begun full scale operations, first squadron will be up by next year. Work on the real tejas mlu will begin circa 2018 and the oldest aircraft will begin being upgraded by 2025. mlu for tejas mk-2 will only happen around 2030. AESA will be standard on the lca mk-2 and will be on board every production aircraft.

Offcourse it can perform low alt. strikes, its one of the most well designed aircraft in the world, interception is just part of its role, its well on its way to be the most economical fighter in our inventory, its simple and elegant. Offcourse other aircraft can recieve those weapons but they haven't. fact is the lca mk-2 could be fitted with the epe some time later during mlu.

Now lets not compare the jag to the LCA, low level strike, the lca will out run jag without a sweat. Jag no doubt a wonderful fighter but lca is far better in everyway.

Point about a 120kn engine being useless for lca can be said about EF, su-30mki and Rafale too, its easy to say that having added thrust doesn't give them any added advantage but fact is offcourse there are advantages, higher supercruise speeds, faster turns, climbs, more energy to evade missiles.

 

[rahulrds1]

p2prada

About LCA/Arjun Mk2, We can say,

"The moment you think of giving up...., think about the reason why you held on for so long"

 

[Rahul Singh]

Let's not forget there would be an increase in empty weight as well. This will nullify the other advantages.

The LCA mk1's internal estate isn't particularly good. So, this affects aerodynamics. Increase in length would primarily be to accommodate more avionics and also more fuel.

Nullify is great! How much weight MK-2 is expected to gain because of 0.5 m long fuselage and 0.5 m longer nose? At 6.5 ton LCA is 13.20 m long, not very had to predict with 1 m increase or at 14.20m (which is not even 10% over the present length) how much it would be?

Here few things needed to be mentioned.

*It is not the more powerful engine alone which will improve the performance rather it will a bunch of improvements which will instead.

*Length is being increased to accommodate extra electronics and more fuel but one can't also deny that it might also mean re-distribution of internal hardware and re-shaping of center fuselage for better aerodynamics.

*Prime reason for reduced performance in MK-1 was smaller (than required) air intake and it had much of its influence on acceleration, combat payload, drag/lift etc. With MK-2, ADA is not getting powerful engine alone but also appropriate air intake which will let engine work at optimum level (unlike that one in MK-1) and hence won't face problems like MK-1 faced.

All in all there will a quantum leap in performance from MK-1 and there are ample reasons to believe it.

The NG is only 200Kg higher than Gripen C, but it's capabilities are much more than Gripen C.

The Mk2 may have a better internal estate because of the extra length. But the avionics carried on the NG is simply ahead of the planned upgrades for the Mk2. Let's not forget that AESA is meant for MLUs and not for FOC, whereas NG will come with an AESA radar installed for FOC.

The Mk2 will have inferior payload to the NG anyway. Saab says NG will carry 6.5 tons compared to ADA's goal of 5 tons on LCA Mk2. More importantly let's not forget the NG will have way more hardpoints than LCA, which simply makes the biggest difference in payload.

LCA isn't meant to be a fully multirole aircraft like the NG. It is only meant to fill IAF's ASR from 1986. NG is more of a 2007 ASR, more advanced meant for much higher requirements.

NG is not 200 kg heavier than 'C' model rather than 'D' model which itself is some 300Kgs heavier than 'C'. If some Swedish posters are to be believed that NG is nothing but re-engined and re-engineered D model. So effective weight increase is anywhere above 500 kg in comparison to present C model.

Well it is upto your belief that MK-2 wont carry AESA from day one. As far as i recall ADA brochures from AI-11 had only MMR written and in no case it means a rotating dish MMR only, AESA and PESA both are MMR. Furthermore if Prasun Sen Gupta is to be believed than MK-2 will have AESA integrated even before it gets engine.

Where it is started that NG is having better avionics than MK-2 can have in future? In contrast LCA might even get same AESA MMR.

About the payload. It's very very interesting. Gripen is a jet from cold temperate region and LCA is from a mix of hot tropical, hot humid tropical and desert region and all the data generated is as per its performance in these reasons. Now how hard it is to understand one simple fact that engine performance decreases with environment and colder stands for positive and hotter for negative/reduced performance. And another one that combat load, range etc depends hugely on actual thrust. Do we have IAF documented test data of Gripen performance in public and why should one believe that SAAB is using anything but SAF data only for preparing brochures? Still i don't claiming that MK-2 will have equal combat payload lifting capability but alos not refraining from saying that whatever difference might be it would be more or less irreverent in Indian conditions.

NG has 8 hard points 1 pod attachment while MK-1 has 7 hard points and one pod attachment. Not a big difference. One can also say MK-2 might also extra hard-points.

LCA MK-2 will be a fully multirole fighter jet like NG and Mk-2 is not going to be as per 1986 ASR which even MK-1 surpassed in terms of technology and reduced perforce in MK-1 is because of IAF moving away from 1986 ASR in addition to some design features.

 

[p2prada]

By 2014 LCA mk-2 with AESA will take off on the prototype, you do understand operational MLU for tejas is more than 15 to 20 years away? Mid life upgrade, it happens mid life, tejas hasn't even begun full scale operations, first squadron will be up by next year. Work on the real tejas mlu will begin circa 2018 and the oldest aircraft will begin being upgraded by 2025. mlu for tejas mk-2 will only happen around 2030. AESA will be standard on the lca mk-2 and will be on board every production aircraft.

MLUs will happen immediately after 2020 and not 2030. AESA isn't part of the Mk2. It will come in MLUs or possibly in the last batch of the production model.

Work hasn't even started on our own AESA, it will take us 5 to 8 years to build a prototype and start limited production. Pretty much 2020 before we can have a fully functional AESA.

Offcourse it can perform low alt. strikes, its one of the most well designed aircraft in the world, interception is just part of its role, its well on its way to be the most economical fighter in our inventory, its simple and elegant. Offcourse other aircraft can recieve those weapons but they haven't. fact is the lca mk-2 could be fitted with the epe some time later during mlu.

Now lets not compare the jag to the LCA, low level strike, the lca will out run jag without a sweat. Jag no doubt a wonderful fighter but lca is far better in everyway.

You really don't know anything about aerodynamics. Power isn't everything. There is a reason why the Gripen C needs lesser power than LCA and it still flies better than LCA.

The Jag has high wing loading and needs lesser power than LCA in it's role. It is not a high altitude interceptor like the LCA or Mirage-2000. Even the Mirage-2000 is bad in strike roles compared to Jaguar in plains. It only achieves decent capability in high altitudes or performing strike roles in high altitudes.

The Jag is better than the MKI in strike role as well.

Point about a 120kn engine being useless for lca can be said about EF, su-30mki and Rafale too, its easy to say that having added thrust doesn't give them any added advantage but fact is offcourse there are advantages, higher supercruise speeds, faster turns, climbs, more energy to evade missiles.

The biggest problem with EPE would be fuel consumption. The thrust is too much and the tanks too small. Rafale, EF can have high thrust engines because they can carry external fuel and still be as capable as the LCA without fuel tanks and at greater distances. If the LCA is given fuel tanks, it cannot carry anything worthwhile.

Also if the engines are too powerful, the airframe may not be able to handle the stress, you may have to the dump the LCA if it reaches full military thrust in the first flight itself.

You don't have to argue about it. The LCA will only have the 98KN version of the F414, not more.

 

[p2prada]

Nullify is great! How much weight MK-2 is expected to gain because of 0.5 m long fuselage and 0.5 m longer nose? At 6.5 ton LCA is 13.20 m long, not very had to predict with 1 m increase or at 14.20m (which is not even 10% over the present length) how much it would be?

Here few things needed to be mentioned.

*It is not the more powerful engine alone which will improve the performance rather it will a bunch of improvements which will instead.

*Length is being increased to accommodate extra electronics and more fuel but one can't also deny that it might also mean re-distribution of internal hardware and re-shaping of center fuselage for better aerodynamics.

*Prime reason for reduced performance in MK-1 was smaller (than required) air intake and it had much of its influence on acceleration, combat payload, drag/lift etc. With MK-2, ADA is not getting powerful engine alone but also appropriate air intake which will let engine work at optimum level (unlike that one in MK-1) and hence won't face problems like MK-1 faced.

All in all there will a quantum leap in performance from MK-1 and there are ample reasons to believe it.

NG is not 200 kg heavier than 'C' model rather than 'D' model which itself is some 300Kgs heavier than 'C'. If some Swedish posters are to be believed that NG is nothing but re-engined and re-engineered D model. So effective weight increase is anywhere above 500 kg in comparison to present C model.

Well it is upto your belief that MK-2 wont carry AESA from day one. As far as i recall ADA brochures from AI-11 had only MMR written and in no case it means a rotating dish MMR only, AESA and PESA both are MMR. Furthermore if Prasun Sen Gupta is to be believed than MK-2 will have AESA integrated even before it gets engine.

Where it is started that NG is having better avionics than MK-2 can have in future? In contrast LCA might even get same AESA MMR.


NG has 8 hard points 1 pod attachment while MK-1 has 7 hard points and one pod attachment. Not a big difference. One can also say MK-2 might also extra hard-points.

LCA MK-2 will be a fully multirole fighter jet like NG and Mk-2 is not going to be as per 1986 ASR which even MK-1 surpassed in terms of technology and reduced perforce in MK-1 is because of IAF moving away from 1986 ASR in addition to some design features.

You are still stuck with numbers. No. Numbers and specs aren't everything. The Gripen is a wholly superior design compared to the LCA. It has superior flight characteristics compared to LCA in every flight regime. Even with low wing loading the Gripen is faster than the LCA in all altitudes.

In laymans understanding it's like comparing the Honda Unicorn to the Bajaj Pulsar. The specs are all the same. But quality of the Honda, the life, fuel efficiency etc is all better than the Bajaj.

The NG only develops on an already superlative design. It is a far superior product to the LCA simply because the Swedes have more experience.

About the payload. It's very very interesting. Gripen is a jet from cold temperate region and LCA is from a mix of hot tropical, hot humid tropical and desert region and all the data generated is as per its performance in these reasons. Now how hard it is to understand one simple fact that engine performance decreases with environment and colder stands for positive and hotter for negative/reduced performance. And another one that combat load, range etc depends hugely on actual thrust. Do we have IAF documented test data of Gripen performance in public and why should one believe that SAAB is using anything but SAF data only for preparing brochures? Still i don't claiming that MK-2 will have equal combat payload lifting capability but alos not refraining from saying that whatever difference might be it would be more or less irreverent in Indian conditions.

As for this, the Swedish climate is much worse than the LCA's operating environment like Bangalore where it is being tested.

Also it is the opposite. Colder stands for decreased performance while hotter stands for increased performance because of air density. And when I say colder, I mean to say the ice cold temperatures of Sweden as compared to Bangalore's 26deg C average temperature.

The Gripen was built and tested in a much more demanding environment than LCA. Bangalore is at a higher altitude so, the 3.5 tons payload is decreased to 3 tons along with a 20% decrease in thrust due to a less denser air. Comparatively the Swedish air isn't as dense as Bangalores.

Gripen uses SAF data while LCA uses ADA data. I believe the SAF data would be more accurate. ADA used to use false data or you could say the end goal designs about LCA until recently when it did not meet performance parameters.

As an operational fighter, the Gripen's data is not objectionable as compared to LCA's untested data.

 

[sathya]

if mk 2 LCA takes so much time to test and induct .., isnt it better to go for more structural improvements in the same period ? y only minor changes?

 

[Shaitan]

@p2prada Thank you for being un-bias and not feeding people some real bs..

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada Thank you for being un-bias and not feeding people some real bs..

It is unfortunate how people assume we can build the best stuff without any real proof of achievement. I am glad the scientists don't claim the same things. SAAB openly claims performance of the Gripen to be superlative and they are right. That aircraft is incredible while we have one aircraft that barely even fits ASR.

Bring the JF-17 in and it would be the same situation even after considering the Chinese have better infrastructure and experience.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

@p2prada Thank you for being un-bias and not feeding people some real bs..

Negative comments ofter look like Unbiased comments.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

if mk 2 LCA takes so much time to test and induct .., isnt it better to go for more structural improvements in the same period ? y only minor changes?

Structural changes would make it an all new aircraft and will require all the testing all over again. Minor changes are acceptable.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

It is unfortunate how people assume we can build the best stuff without any real proof of achievement. I am glad the scientists don't claim the same things. SAAB openly claims performance of the Gripen to be superlative and they are right. That aircraft is incredible while we have one aircraft that barely even fits ASR.

Bring the JF-17 in and it would be the same situation even after considering the Chinese have better infrastructure and experience.

The best stuff is F-22, can we build it..No. Can we build a better aircraft than JF-17, yes!

Its your mistake to think people should run before they can walk. This is like asking someone to be born a grown up.

This is not like cheering after you lose a football match like old people do.. This is like rooting for the quarter back when he is rushing towards the goal. You want to say Booo to your own team mate when he is trying to kick a goal?

 

[p2prada]

The best stuff is F-22, can we build it..No. Can we build a better aircraft than JF-17, yes!

Its your mistake to think people should run before they can walk. This is like asking someone to be born a grown up.

This is not like cheering after you lose a football match like old people do.. This is like rooting for the quarter back when he is rushing towards the goal. You want to say Booo to your own team mate when he is trying to kick a goal?

Nothing you talk makes sense. My team is the army and the rest of the services.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Nothing you talk makes sense. My team is the army and the rest of the services.

Another dull escapist comment, so the rest of India does not mean anything? All the other fields means nothing to the nation as a whole then.

Without sacrifice and risk there is no life, it is better to bet on Indian stuff and refine them rather than buy Russian stuff and then fix all the teething problems. I rather fix the teething problems of an Indian tank than a Russian tank.