ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
SO it is totally stupid to call Fourth Generation aircraft as out dated

Otherwise IAF would not be spending BILLIONS on Mirage and Mig 29 upgrades.
:facepalm:

You again. Who said 4th gen is outdated "today?" It will obviously be outdated when 5th gen are in enough numbers. That's 2025 at best.

Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 upgrades are totally different from LCA inductions. Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 will be active until the 2025 time period that I gave for it to become irrelevant and hence will be discarded after that.
 

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
:facepalm:

You again. Who said 4th gen is outdated "today?" It will obviously be outdated when 5th gen are in enough numbers. That's 2025 at best.

Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 upgrades are totally different from LCA inductions. Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 will be active until the 2025 time period that I gave for it to become irrelevant and hence will be discarded after that.
Yup me again . Kind of NICE for you to be pleased with me coming back :p

And mind you I will continue to irritate you with both
ie the usefulness of LCA and the 4 th GEN plane as long as you are in this forum :thumb:
 

Jim Street

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
279
Likes
126
Country flag
Fourth Generation aircraft will remain active till 2040 at least

Fifth generation aircraft are just too FEW in number today

Only 187 F 22 are present today

F 35 will be made in huge numbers ie more than 2000

And there is a huge waiting list for F 35

PAK FA and J 20 will start serial production only after 2020

SO it is totally stupid to call Fourth Generation aircraft as out dated

Otherwise IAF would not be spending BILLIONS on Mirage and Mig 29 upgrades



.
By 2040, multirole aircrafts like Rafael will take place of Mirages and Migs. LCA MK3 (with AESA, stealth features will be in FOC or start inducted)

Su30MKI's postion will be taken by FGFA. AMCA will start taking place of Rafael.


Investing in Mirages and Mig 29 is due to bad planning and delay in LCA and MMRCA.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Investing in Mirages and Mig 29 is due to bad planning and delay in LCA and MMRCA.
The MRCA deal was always linked to LCA's failure. It was only after LCA failed for real that MRCA was launched.

The initial plan for LCA was to have it inducted in 1991, then 1996, then moved to 1999, then 2006, then 2009, then 2011, now it is 2013 for one version and 2016 for another with numbers decreasing from potential 500-600 to 250 to 123 today.

Kool-aid for anybody who guesses the next induction date correctly. :namaste:

All this time the specs hasn't changed a lot beyond some requirement for new generation avionics. Actually Austin says the specs for LCA were originally at the level of a JF-17, but DRDO dug their own grave by promising specs as we see today. It is reported in FORCE's interview with the ACM of the era.

Only the realities of today(J-10 achieving maturity, J-20 being worked on) forced GoI and IAF to replace the old MRCA deal in favour of the Medium MRCA requirement due to obsolescence of light aircraft.
 

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
MMRCA was the LOGICAL next step after the success of Mirage 2000 in Kargil war

IAF wanted 126 Mirage 2000 -5 GOI went a step further and went for the latest
planes like Rafale

LCA was always about replacing the Mig 21
 

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
LCA has NO connection with MMRCA

MMRCA was necessary as China is agressively marching towards an ALL 4 th gen PLAAF
such as J 10; J 11 Su 30 and SU 27

LCA's delay has led to IAF ordering more SU 30 mki
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
MMRCA was the LOGICAL next step after the success of Mirage 2000 in Kargil war

IAF wanted 126 Mirage 2000 -5 GOI went a step further and went for the latest
planes like Rafale

LCA was always about replacing the Mig 21
LCA was supposed to be a Mirage-2000 class aircraft to replace Mig-21, basically as a point defence aircraft and an interceptor. It was much later that IAF asked ADA to rename the program from an interceptor to a fully multirole air superiority aircraft. LGBs, air to ground missiles etc were very new when LCA was mooted. As time passed LCA was also to be equipped with LGBs bringing it on par with Mirage-2000 from the late 90s.

In the meantime, Mirage-2000s were to be bought in order to fill the void that Mig-21s left behind as they were reducing in number really fast, both through phasing out and through crashes, followed by the delays in LCA's induction.

However new realities forced GoIs hand to induct better aircraft than what was planned earlier. That and our economic progress allowed us to have deeper pockets and more options.

So, IAF sent out new MRCA RFPs for 126-200 aircraft, ordered 82 more MKIs as immediate Mig-21 replacements, signed a PAKFA deal with Russia and asked ADA to take their "own sweet time" to finish LCA. In the meantime they also asked ADA to begin work on AMCA as their next new program parallel to LCA.

If LCA had arrived in time, there would have been no MRCA deal.
 

EzioAltaïr

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
257
Likes
74
LCA was supposed to be a Mirage-2000 class aircraft to replace Mig-21, basically as a point defence aircraft and an interceptor. It was much later that IAF asked ADA to rename the program from an interceptor to a fully multirole air superiority aircraft. LGBs, air to ground missiles etc were very new when LCA was mooted. As time passed LCA was also to be equipped with LGBs bringing it on par with Mirage-2000 from the late 90s.

In the meantime, Mirage-2000s were to be bought in order to fill the void that Mig-21s left behind as they were reducing in number really fast, both through phasing out and through crashes, followed by the delays in LCA's induction.

However new realities forced GoIs hand to induct better aircraft than what was planned earlier. That and our economic progress allowed us to have deeper pockets and more options.

So, IAF sent out new MRCA RFPs for 126-200 aircraft, ordered 82 more MKIs as immediate Mig-21 replacements, signed a PAKFA deal with Russia and asked ADA to take their "own sweet time" to finish LCA. In the meantime they also asked ADA to begin work on AMCA as their next new program parallel to LCA.

If LCA had arrived in time, there would have been no MRCA deal.
Actually it would still be necessary, as the production rate of Tejas is only about 10 a year, and we have a shortfall of 3 Squadron, alongside IAF's plans to add 6 squadrons after that. With the MiG 21s on their way out, the need for planes would be even higher.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
This cartoon was created to mock DRDO during the LCA's IOC-I function.



This was the time when the Air Chief called the LCA a 3rd generation aircraft.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,775
A presentation with a lot of information on Composite structures of LCA Tejas and NAL Saras.

[scribd]104503623&access_key=key-27hv7w3r2eelirr39pj3&page=1[/scribd]
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
p2prada
The specs for F-16 in wiki
General Characteristics Edit
 Crew: 1/2
 Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
 Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
 Height: 16 ft (4.88 m) A squadron flying their F-16 Block 60 in formation
Added by Cypher3
 Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
 Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
 Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
 Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
 Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
 Powerplant: 1× F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
 Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
 Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)
Performance Edit
 Maximum speed:
 At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
 At altitude: Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h) clean configuration
 Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
 Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
 Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
 Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
 Thrust/weight: 1.095

It is clearly mentioned as clean configuration in the most authentic manner.Still you are lying it that it can fly mach 1.2 with decent combat loads over the desert of Pakistan. Do you think people here are bloody fools.The first version of a massively underpowered tejas managed over 1350 km/h.See what is the potential if it gets a bigger powerfull engine in MLU. Now Lca which has a t/w ratio of 1.07 can manage this where is the drag man.It is only in your mind. This is what was managed by f-16 block 60 with a t/w of 1.095


Lca

Specifications (HAL Tejas Mk.1)
Data from tejas.gov.in[82][83] DRDO Techfocus,[84] Aero India 2011,[85]
General characteristics
 Crew: 1
 Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
 Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
 Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
 Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
 Empty weight: 6,560 kg (14,460 lb)
 Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
 Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)
 Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
 Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[86] (12,100 lbf)
 Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[86][87] (19,100 lbf)
 Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
 External fuel capacity: 2 x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1 x 725-litre drop tank under fuselage
Performance
 Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[83][88] (1,920 km/h, 1,195 mph) at high altitude
 Range: 850 km[83] (530 mi) without refueling
 Ferry range: 3,000 km[88] (1,840 mi)
 Service ceiling: 16,000 m[89] (50,000 ft[83])
 Wing loading: 247 kg/m² (50.7 lb/ft²)
 Thrust/weight: 1.07[83]
 g-limits: +9/−3.5 g[90]
And lca will have more insiataneous turn rate than F-16 for sure,like mirage 2000.Nowadays with high off bore sight missiles no aircraft can escape with high sustained turn rate because the chasing pilot need no tpoin his nose at the targets tail for all time.Meanwhile higher instataneous turn rate will help break lock from the chaser.with a couple of higher instataneos turn rate lca can shake off an f-16 from its tail
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
The top sea level speed of tejas is over 1350 km/h.Where is the drag? Can you post the top clean config speed of F-16 in Indian conditions with any reliable source?
That speed is at sea level. Which is very good indeed. The speed of a Mig-29 at sea level is 1240 km/h and that of F/A-18 super hornet is 835 mph (1,350 km/h), Mach 1.1.
While several supersonic aircraft like the F-15E are capable of flying faster than twice the speed of sound, they can only reach these speeds at very high altitudes where the air is thin and extremely cold. At sea level, supersonic aircraft are limited to speeds just above Mach 1 due to the atmosphere's temperature and density ("thicker" air that causes more drag on the aircraft).

So lets finally settle few issues here.At sea level with supposedly under powered engine LCA does speeds on par with top level fighters.It can do a tighter instataneous turn rate and fire high off boresight missiles while dog ftghting with all time greats like f-16. And if it gets a MLU with the proposed GTRE-snecma K-10 it will be a pocket rocket
 

SATISH

DFI Technocrat
New Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,038
Likes
302
Country flag
LCA according to the GSQR never was intended to be a multirole capable aircraft and was never intended to be something like the Mirage 2000. It was supposed to be a replacement for the MiG 21M and the MiG 21 Bis. The LCA was more like a replacement for the earlier gnat when first envisaged in 1983. When the LCA first flew n 2001 it almost lost all relevance as the Air force had moved on to heavier aircrafts which were multirole after the Kargil fiasco and after the operational needs were reconsidered the LCA in that for was no longer needed hence the modified ASQR was placed in 2006.

The LCA was supposed to be a point defence fighter/interceptor with secondary multirole capability but later it had to become a true multirole aircraft. The IAF wanted a Mirage in the LCA. Then came the weight problems because of adding of more advanced avionics and making the aircraft heavier and more capable. This can be clearly seen in the difference between the PV2 and the PV3 the other 4 prototypes built earlier had their testings minimised except to validate a few parameters. Because of the increased weight in the aircraft and increased size of the aircraft the thrust given by the GE 404 IN 20 was insufficient as it could not sustain the flight parameters in high AoA and hence the tender was floated for the new engine to make it capable. The US offered the GE 414 and the European consortium offered the EJ 200 which were rated with 90+ KN thrust and the GE won predominantly as it was similar in design to the GE 404 and was already operated in the Marine environment by the US and also had a higher thrust with lowered cost.

So now we ended up having a Jack of all trades and a master of none type of aircraft.

All the parties involved in this program are to blame. The IAF never deputed any officer to oversee the development of the aircraft and hence the scientists never knew what the airforce was actually expecting the aircraft to do. The DRDO &Co.'s overestimated their capabilities and wanted to go alone in the project and when they realized they didnt have the expertise and capability to build highly complex systems like the Radar antenna and the engine core and wanted a joint-venture the aircraft had been delayed considerable. The IAF also had made a huge contribution in setting the ASQR as they didn't have any visionaries or futuristic thinking capability like today. And also to be blamed is the bureaucracy which didn't fund the program properly.

The LCA would have been a great aircraft if they had come by 2005 but right now there is no relevance for this aircraft in the skies of India as the whole combat doctrine has moved on from being a defensive airforce to a truly advanced airforce capable of doing both offensive and defensive roles.

But optimists like me tend to look at the brighter side of this failure (Yes LCA is a failed program in my opinion). We have an infrastructure in place right now for building and testing advanced aircrafts which can be a generation ahead than many aircrafts. The electronics research has given a huge know-how on how the trends are moving in the world right now. The scientists right now now what their actual capability is when compared to the countries developing advanced aircrafts in the world right now and the biggest contribution of this program was in the field of material sciences and composites.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Exactly as Satish said. The LCA is no longer relevant as a military platform. It only has relevance as a learning platform for our industry. Hence the IAF will induct enough numbers to assist the industry, that's about it. Not in hundreds or some other number pulled out of thin air.

Btw Satish, the IAF requirement for a Mirage-2000 class aircraft came in 2009, the LCA was overweight even before that. The current Mirage-2000 spec will give it an empty weight of 7 tons with an added increase in length of 1m. The Mk1 is what you were talking about as the Mig-21 replacement.

@ersakthivel

F-16 can do mach 1.2 while loaded with AAMs at sea level. Anyway, the top speed clean load figure is given at high altitudes for the section that you copy pasted, not for sea level.

Also, T/W is not perfectly right for both aircraft. The T/W is what I have already calculated and given for the F-16 and the LCA in my posts to Trackwhack.

Apart from that it is very obvious that being a smaller aircraft the LCA will have more drag while carrying missiles of the same size compared to the larger F-16.
 

agentperry

New Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Exactly as Satish said. The LCA is no longer relevant as a military platform. It only has relevance as a learning platform for our industry. Hence the IAF will induct enough numbers to assist the industry, that's about it. Not in hundreds or some other number pulled out of thin air.

Btw Satish, the IAF requirement for a Mirage-2000 class aircraft came in 2009, the LCA was overweight even before that. The current Mirage-2000 spec will give it an empty weight of 7 tons with an added increase in length of 1m. The Mk1 is what you were talking about as the Mig-21 replacement.

@ersakthivel

F-16 can do mach 1.2 while loaded with AAMs at sea level. Anyway, the top speed clean load figure is given at high altitudes for the section that you copy pasted, not for sea level.

Also, T/W is not perfectly right for both aircraft. The T/W is what I have already calculated and given for the F-16 and the LCA in my posts to Trackwhack.

Apart from that it is very obvious that being a smaller aircraft the LCA will have more drag while carrying missiles of the same size compared to the larger F-16.
as the recent report suggest that india possess only 96 fighter aircrafts, india do need more lcas
 

SATISH

DFI Technocrat
New Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,038
Likes
302
Country flag
Exactly as Satish said. The LCA is no longer relevant as a military platform. It only has relevance as a learning platform for our industry. Hence the IAF will induct enough numbers to assist the industry, that's about it. Not in hundreds or some other number pulled out of thin air.

Btw Satish, the IAF requirement for a Mirage-2000 class aircraft came in 2009, the LCA was overweight even before that. The current Mirage-2000 spec will give it an empty weight of 7 tons with an added increase in length of 1m. The Mk1 is what you were talking about as the Mig-21 replacement.

@ersakthivel

F-16 can do mach 1.2 while loaded with AAMs at sea level. Anyway, the top speed clean load figure is given at high altitudes for the section that you copy pasted, not for sea level.

Also, T/W is not perfectly right for both aircraft. The T/W is what I have already calculated and given for the F-16 and the LCA in my posts to Trackwhack.

Apart from that it is very obvious that being a smaller aircraft the LCA will have more drag while carrying missiles of the same size compared to the larger F-16.
Sorry my bad was thinking of typing the Mig 21MF used for ground attack.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Any idea what's up with LSP-6? It's like a leprechaun. No news about it at all. I don't know if they are stuck with the magic carpet(AoA tests) or the magic paint(RAM). Without it, a LSP-8 is impossible, or at least IOC-2.

They are talking about a Feb-March IOC now, only 6 months away :rolleyes: and no LSP-6 to show for.

Or maybe there will be an IOC-3. :troll:

On a more serious note, they must have moved LSP-6s tests to FOC.
 

Neil

New Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,818
Likes
3,546
Country flag
can LCA be used for training purpose..?? considering we already have deficiency in training aircraft.....serves dual purpose- meets IAF requirement for trainer aircraft and enough order for LCA....just my layman opinion!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top