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.

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
p2prada

Actually I used to think the same. But a LM official pointed it out to me, like a decade back.

That the MKI is a typical Delta-canard configuration like the Eurocanards. When I asked him the reason for it, he pointed out the wing tip station.

I don't really mind if I am wrong with this though. But this was told to me by someone reliable.

Sorry for not noticing the tail on the 6teen. Completely forgot. The same for JF-17.

@Satish
All modern aircraft have swept wings, most have backward sweep while Su-47 has forward sweep. Wing Sweep is just the angle between the fuselage and wing when you look from the top. Also, Triplane means canards+wing+tail.

@Shiphone
About the TWR...

If we take F-16's empty weight to be 8.5 tons, internal fuel at 1.5 tons and 2 100Kg missiles. With a thrust of 12.9tons(127KN) we will get T/W of 1.26. If we take empty weight of 8.5t, full internal fuel at 3 tons and 200Kg of missiles we get 1.1. More realistic and much closer to the wiki figure even after taking full internal fuel.

With the same config, LCA will give a T/W of 0.91.



E.R.sakthivel says

IF YOU APPLY THE SAME YARDSTICK TO LCA THEN YOU CAN EASILY REALIZE THAT YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN MISCALCULATING LCA'S TWR, LET ME CORRECT IT.

The Lca's empty weight is 6560 kgs and its half internal fuel capacity is 1228 kgs. Two 100 kg air to air missiles add another two hundred kgs .The total weight is 7988 kgs the thrust is 85 kn The t/w ratio is (85/7988 kgs) is actualy 1.064. that's what was quoted BY ad IN BANGALORE AIRSHOW IN 2011 AND CARRIED in wiki.SO IT IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH i HOPE YOU WILL ACCEPT IT NOW.
tHE MIRAGE HAS A TWR OF 0.91 ONLY AND NONE OTHE THAN THE GREEK AIRFORCE CHIEF HAS SAID IN F-16.NET
lamoey
Posted: Apr 05, 2005 - 07:01 PM
Forum Veteran



Joined: Apr 25, 2004 - 06:44 PM
Posts: 609

Status: Offline
Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:

"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."

He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:

"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."

He ends by saying:

"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."

To me this captures it in a nutshell.
So when IAF is happy to upgrade mirages( with the twr of 0.91 ofcourse) and use them in service for another 20 years with 1.5 billion dollar upgrade why are they showing bee stung faces to LCA.That too all its eleven test pilots have openly said that LCA handles better than mirage through out the tested flight envelope and they say it is a very sharp turner and cornering craft and they praise whole heartedly ADA's fully digital fly by wire software, what is the fuss the ACM is making about?

Did you add pilots weight and lubricating oil weight as shipon said. Empty weight always includes lubricating oil weight. They dont fill lubricating oil in varying quantities for every mission.

Also since you yourself has said the LCA is a high altitude interceptor and it need not fly more than 300 kms to meet its adversary and need not comeback to same home base as attacking F-16s( since they can always land in any nearby border airbase from pakistan has to go to the same home base .It can even afford to reduce a bit of fuel and carry more missiles. So in a defending battle the LCA is on even strongerr ground.No one can dispute that.
Half internal fuel on such small aircraft is utterly useless. Let's not forget that during CAP, they will "ALWAYS" carry drop tanks. So before engagements, tanks are dropped and the small fighters always try to get into fights with full fuel. Without full fuel the fight won't go in their favour, especially with heavier aircraft around like the Flanker. It is the same for J-10/Mirage-2000/Rafale/EF etc and the reason for some of them lugging around heavy drop tanks for extra fuel.

Mirage-2000 has the disadvantage of being underpowered, but I guess there are other aspects like drag and lift which were better managed. So, it will have to rely on extra AB time and burn more fuel as compared to 6teen and 29. 2000 isn't as good as the Mig-29 in the same flight envelope. 29 vs 6teen in dog fights was one sided whenever Archer was used. Otherwise, 6teen had the energy advantage as usual. With the Aim-9x even that advantage is gone, but the 29's design improved in other ways. All 3 aircraft have reduced thrust in our conditions, but the Mirage-2000 will perform the best over the Himalayas with F-16 being the worst.

Half fuel load almost always applies to heavier aircraft like Flankers, Eagles and Raptors.




The greek airforce chief implies with higher instataneous turn rates mirage can shake off F-16 and with lower speeds in low altitude high ITR specs it can get behind an F-16 , and even though the F-16 in front can do a higher sustained turn rate , The mirages with high ITR can use their superior nose turning authority and get a lock with mica missiles and get a kill. Note that new gen heat seeking missiles will use the surface heat of F-16 for targeting so it is very difficult to survive with flares as no EW will help here.


 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Also over high himalayan airspace the Lca will have advanages over J-10s and F-16s. Since J-10 too is a delta wing adoption of the heavier viper with smaller wing area in its delta and with comparitively higher wing loading , The LCA will have the edge over here as well. That's what I said that Lca has a flat rated engine( the kavery of course, I dont know about GE engine) optimised for indian conditions .

This the specs for J-10 from wikipedia

Specifications (J-10A)


General characteristics
Crew: 1[12]
Length: 15.49 m (50.82 ft)
Wingspan: 9.75 m (31.99 ft)
Height: 5.43 m (17.81 ft)
Wing area: 33.1 m² (356.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 9,750 kg (21,495 lb[36])
Loaded weight: 13,000 kg (28,600 lb)
Useful load: 6,000 kg[36] (13,200lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg [12][36] (42,500 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Dry thrust: 79.43 kN / 89.17 kN (17,860 lbf / 20,050 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 122.5 kN[12] / 132 kN (27,557 lbf / 29,101 lbf)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[24][37] Mach 1.2 at sea level[7]
g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²[7])
Combat radius: 1,600 km (with air to air refueling), 550 km (without air to air refueling)[30][36] ()
Ferry range: 1,850 km[36] ()
Service ceiling: 18,000 m[36] (59,055 ft)
Wing loading: 381 kg/m² (78 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.96 (with AL-31); 1.017 (with WS-10A).

Their WS-10 A is not yet finished. So at present they too have a lower thrust to weight ratio than LCA. For the 120 kn thrust of AL engine it has to lug its own weight of 10 tons ,200 kg missiles and 1.5 ton fuel I suppose it cannot have any better TWR than LCA.

Also the LCA's wing loading is 247 kg/sq.meter, J-10 has 381 kg/sq met, clearly inferior flight envelope than LCA is guarenteed.

Much worse for the F-16 431 kg/sq meter is the wing loading of F-16. No wonder it failed in high altitude tests in MMRCA competition. That is also the reason that PAF sat tight in kargil conflict. Other wise the suicide bomber nation would have buzzed the himalayan air space in kargil conflict.

They know fully well that the 337kg/sq meter indian mirages will shove their ass with passive heat seeking missiles and until the hit is taken the F-16 wont even be aware of mirages presence if vectored properly by ground radar. that's also why IAF is so sweet toothed towards mirages. The Lca which has even lower wing loading than mirages and even higher TWR than mirages will score damn good in any interception duties performed by MIRAGES

The Lca's wing loading of 247 kg/sq.meter and TWR of 1.07 will whoop any ass that can roam the indian airspce. It will have the lowest RCS mind you in a no AWACS based one on one fight. SO No other non stealth fighter in asia will detect an LCA and aquire a lock and fire a long range missile, before LCA does the same to them.

So how does LCA achieves all these? Not by any special physics. It sacrifices its range and uses the deadly combination of greater than 1 TWR and fantastically low wing loading with the cranked delta fine tuned in F-16 XL with highest corbon composite body and a brilliant digital fly by wire tech.

It's low alt performace is enhanced by wing root twist and Flow compression chambers just under the wing before the inlet.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
 for LCA
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



Shipone says

and back to the T/W topic.

ersakthivel quoted the TWR data of F16 and M2K...

so I'm afraid the TWR data of these 2 jets were calculated in this way.

T= afterburner Thrust
W=standand status fighter with half internal fuel + 2 short range AAM............no drop tanks and any other external payload

So with 1230 kg fuel and empty weight of 6560 plus the 200 kgs for air to air missiles as per international convention the LCA mk-1 has a thrust to weight ratio of the twr comes to about 1.06432 bang on what is qouted in wiki as per ADA's specs in aerindia 2011 of 1.07. So nothing wrong in my post I guess
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
HAL should just have bought the design of this very nimble jet...

Rockwell X31





 
Last edited by a moderator:

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
Dear Ersakthivel

For last few days you have put in a LOT of time and effort in explaining LCA's capabilities
to all forum members

Many many thanks to you :namaste:

Unfortunately in this forum we have very few technocrats and once a knowledgable member
[ like P2Prada in the case of LCA ] has made up his mind to denigrate a particular DRDO product
it becomes impossible for Non technocrats to counter them
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Unfortunately in this forum we have very few technocrats and once a knowledgable member
[ like P2Prada in the case of LCA ] has made up his mind to denigrate a particular DRDO product
it becomes impossible for Non technocrats to counter them
Why? There are knowledgeable members on this forum without a technocrat tag who can argue for the LCA. But what's there to defend in a paper plane? Even IOC parameters have not been met since decades to the point where we may end up with an flying AMCA prototype before the actual LCA sees a proper induction.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Thanks Pankaj Nema .

So please let me explain a few more salient point regarding the design of Lca and why it wont be obsolete ,however much tecnocrats(!!!!) like P2PRADA spew venom over a well engineered product.


1. Why deltas are always contermproary

The super sonic flight was dream unrealized from the time of earlier aviation.In World war 2 days the propulsion was piston engine only.They cant produce enough power in any meaningful manner to exceed the speeed of sound i.e 640 meters/second.So crossing the speed of sound and the effect of the shock waves when the speed of sound is exceeded by a fighter on it airframe were far beyond the reach of mortals.

Only when the germans introduced the jet fighters the the idea dawned that the speed of sound can be breached because the jet propulsion is a light weight high power system that can enable higher speeds to cross mach level i.e the speed of sound. Then bigger and and powerful jet engines started raining. Then suddenly the speed of sound was within grasp. F-104 starfighter was the first one to mach 1i.e the speed of sound or so I guess .

when speed of sound is crossed The shock waves produced by the nose cone resembles exactly the wake effect of a speeding boat on water If any portion of wing which is in the way of the shock wave will experience massive turbulence and undesierable effects. So typical longer wings on traditional crucifix fighters were a liability. Because the outter part of the wing encountered the shock waves .

So all the triangular area around the fuselage has to be used for lift, as they wont encounter the shock waves. This triangular area around the fuselage not affected by shock waves is called a delta. That is why modern delta figters like mirage and f-22 has the arrangement of needle line fuselage in the center of triangular delta shaped wing.

The delta wing i always meant for trans sonic and super sonic speeds., I.e near sound speeds and higher than sound speeds. But the problem with deltas are they are difficult to handle at lower speeds, take off and landing. Because the large drag produced by larger wing's surface area makes them perform worse than straight crucifix shaped (+) wing and fuselage arrangement.
So as a compromise to harness the power of modern jet engines to reach supersonic speeds ,and at the same time avoiding the shock waves that flow outside the triangulad delta area around fuselage the wings started to be swept back, like an arrow head. The mig-21 is a classic example of this . That was the compromise. But still the empty space contained in the arrow has to filled by wing if we have to get much higher performance,i.e in the delta shape. But the bad low speed low handling charecteristics of deltas was the problem .

Because of the bad low speed handling charecteristics the pilot has to operate the elevons and tail fins in an expert manner that too in a narrow range.Otherwise he will risk losing control. To avoid this swing wing aircrafts like TORNADO came in. That is when they take off the wings are straight like crucifix (+) form. Once they attain higher altitude wings folded into a delta form like folded hands.

Initially French were also partners in tornado. But they pulled out. The problem with this approach was the enormous weight of the huge hydraulics to fold the wing into delta shape.it resulted in a massive increase in aircraft weight and lower TWR and very costly and cumbersome aircraft to maintain

Meanwhile with the advent of computers microprocessors were there to assist the pilot in the complex manouvering required for delta.Since if a software based approach is adopted that can save the complexities of the pilot. They perfected the fly by wire software on their already existing mirage-lll which were a delta.

Most of the development of a digital fly by wire delta fighter is spent in writing ,implementing ,correcting and validating the fly by wire software. Every flight has to incrementally test every risky parameter of the flying envelope in a calculated ,careful manner.

That's why people misunderstand the IOC speed and anlge of attack of Lca as a short coming. They think that it is the highest capability of a fighter. But the truth is the LCA is more capable than the IOC parameters , but those excess capabilities have to be fine tuned and validated.

2.Comparision of deltas and non deltas.

The deltas have higher lift, higher climb rate, better Instantaneous turn rate-ITR(ability to turn suddenly to escape from a dogfight or to avoid a missile lock) and good high altitude chercteristics because the lower pressure in high atmosphere reduces drag.
The non deltas have better low speed handling , Higher STR-sustained turn rate. That is they can quickly complete a circle in low altitude due to lower drag on their smaller wing area.




2.why F-16 is not delta in the true meaning of the word delta.
Because eventhoug it is called a cropped delta the wing area is haif that of a true delta, so smaller wing area for the load to lift.it is called high wing loading. Because since the lower wing area is there to lift the 10 ton load of aircraft it cannot manouver better through out the flight envelope. And since in high atmosphere the air pressure is lower its smaller wing area cannot grip the air enough to produce lift. So the fighter will have bad dogfighting abilities in higher atmosphere vis a vis true deltas.

These are all basic aerodynamics .No amount of Ew capability or modern missile capability can ever change the basic properties of a fighter. A lion is a lion, a cheetah ia s cheetah, each excelling its area of operation.

3.How deltas excell over other wing forms.
Even in lower altitudes the high ITR of deltas can be used to shake off a F-16. The mirage can avoid stall even in low altitude low speeds. So a delta chased by F-16 in low altitude can turn instantly to avoid the missile lock. And slow down suddenly to let F-16 pass in front i.e when both have no missiles.

But a delta can never complete a full circle in low altitude faster than the F-16, So a better idea is to climb faster using their higer lift and start manouvering in vertical. Even though F-16 has a higher TWR it cant manouver in a climbing fight as well as deltas.

Even if F-16 escapes a delta in a vertical plane the chasing delta still hold the advantage as it is good at high altitude manouvers than F-16.Mirages have poor TWR than LCA , that's why many people give a lower mark to mirages in this aspect. But LCA has a TWr of 1.07 compared to mirages 0.91, So they will be far better.



4.Why heavy fighters have no tangible advantage over LCA.
The heavy fighter are simply meant for longer ranges. Soviet union and America have vast air spaces and their reach is global, So they design heavy fighters. But they too have lighter single engine fighters for defensive roles. AS P@PRADA said fighter per fighter the heavy fighter holds the advantage. If an LCA meets a heavy fightein no AWACS no dedicatd EW craft support,The Lca 's chances are not bright.

Because the low powered Radar of the LCA mk-1 can be jammed heavy fighter's high powered jammer. The low powered jammer of LC A cant jam the high powered radar of F-15 eagle. But not as straight forward as it seems. heavy fightercan have 250 Kn thrust, but the power sent to radar and jammer is a fixed and smaller fraction of this. If Lca is upgraded with same powered EW then it can match heavy fighter
But there is something called RCS. The bigger heavy fighter can be detected by LCA faraway if AESA radar and EW suit is tailored with same power ofheavy fighter .Not an impossibility .But P2PRADA will vehemently oppose this. If LCa flies lower all its missiles will be hidden under its wings, with a stealth compliant pylons there will be no reflection from the fins of missiles. So the argument that clen configuration smaller RCS is worthless when external missiles are slung out is not so authentic it seems.
So LCA will fire the missile first.The heavy fighter wont because it hasnot detected LCA. Once heavy fighter gets a missile warning it has to jettioson fuel drop external weapon load to escape from missiles. No heavy fighter can escape from long range missiles with full load from a missile fired within the kill box of a missile.

With the advent of stealth ucavs they can have dedicated high powered radar and ew payload to counter the big fighter, or dedicated Ew aircraft can out score the heavy fighter;s radar and Ew suit.
But if the heavy fighters are invaders the lca with the support of AWACSS and ground based radars and ucavs can be an equal match.
5.Why LCA be wont be irrelevant even against the J-20 threat

The j-20 too cannot evade detection from long range modern IRST carrying stealth UCAVS. Since ucavs emit lesser engine heat than J-20 the J-20 cannot detect stealth UCAV as well before it being detected. So if ucavs supply target information the LCAA can fire a missile. However modern a aesa radar J-20 can carry it cant detect Lca before its RCS detection range
 

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
Dear Ersakthivel

For last few days you have put in a LOT of time and effort in explaining LCA's capabilities
to all forum members

Many many thanks to you :namaste:

Unfortunately in this forum we have very few technocrats and once a knowledgable member
[ like P2Prada in the case of LCA ] has made up his mind to denigrate a particular DRDO product
it becomes impossible for Non technocrats to counter them
Dude it is important to have a balanced discussion. Most of your posts are fanboy posts, it doesn't help in longer run. Lets just be honest for a second and accept that LCA has shortcomings, and if you believe in the contrary, argue with you opponent with sound arguments rather than shooting them by keeping the gun on other's shoulders.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
defcon says
Dude it is important to have a balanced discussion. Most of your posts are fanboy posts, it doesn't help in longer run. Lets just be honest for a second and accept that LCA has shortcomings, and if you believe in the contrary, argue with you opponent with sound arguments rather than shooting them by keeping the gun on other's shoulders.
What is the meaning of balanced discussion gentleman? Posting bull shit with out any aerodynamic basics. It seems you haven't been to any serious forums where people discuss fact and figures in a gentlemanly manner quoting authentic sources and not contradicting themselves in subsequent posts and without using words like

1.dude
2.fanboy
3.fvk
4. grow brains
5. bullshit
6. you pulled this figure out of your ass.
7. kiddy argument

These and numerous other foul words spit out by P2Prada doesn't lead to enlightened discussions. I too resisted from using these kinds of words and other intemperate language at first. I did resist the temptation of using these words in the first few posts I made. But he grew even more belligerant later on. That's why I paid him back in his own coins.

If he has any arguments to make ask him to make it quietly, firmly, with authentic source. I am always ready to answer and accept my mistakes.

In no other forum you can get away with posting stuff without authetic source detail , and in no other forum you can get away with denigrating a source as authentic as wiki . In wiki no one can put wrong information because it can be edited by others with authentic correction. In a bracket above every figure numbers are maintained for checking. The site is full of authentic links.

I still have enough authuentic information to post. You just cannot say Lca is obsolete with one statement from God know's with what intention ACM naik.


If one cannot understand the meaning of IOC,Foc and the basics of flight envelope expanding testing process in between what can I do?.ADA clearly mentions flight envelope is being expanded. Once GE agreed for engine sales, The Lca has become a reality.

It's low wing loading,
TWR of 1.07,
cranked delta with wingroot twis tdesign,
reaching an AOA of 22 degree and still expanding
carbon composite airframe
And the sea level speed of 1350 km/hr over GOA carried in INDIAN EXPRESS national daily.
It directly translates to mach 1.9 at high altitude as good as any other fighter in IAF barring sukhoi

all make it a concrete reality


If P2PRADA says

that it can never mach 1.6 in high altitude.
And for LCA alone a sea level sped of 1.1 mach cant translate into 1.9 mach at High altitude while it can for other fighters
It's AOA is only 16 degree and can never exceed it
And LCA can never beat F-16.

all with out a single authentic source


How can you organize a informed well meaning authentic debates.

Since you are vouching for honesty in debate please post the shortcommings of LCA with sound and source quoting authentic arguments, I am looking forward to it.


THANKS
 

agentperry

New Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
when MOD decides it does not see shortcoming of a product. it shuts the mouth of generals and load them with whatever they think is necessary after negotiating it with NSA and the CCS. the point is that india has only 5 squadron of fighters to defend its airspace. LCA is so important nower days like it was never before.

cut the crap of all the technological inefficiency because iaf liek other forces wants to ride fancy planes but their primary responsibility is to defend indian air space be it by flying a ww2 spitfire or ultramodern t-50. moreover what you want from a fighter
maneuverability
high acceleration
good and effective radar
good jamming and anti jamming capability
large no of bvr and wvr missiles

where the hell ground attack capability like AoA comes up? why people are event hinking of comparing it with multi role rafale or f-16? its a simple bird made to defend air space in recent clashes- load missile and other components, install a badass engine, engine with vectoring technology. thats it. we are not going to pitch up against russia or usa or japan with high level of sophisticated weaponry. its simple pakistan air force( low no but priority set) and chinese plaaf ( mindless production line)
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
The time honoured principle in any authentic forum is not posting anything without authentic source.

And not cooking up your own arguments the way P2PRADAA does like

A friend of mine in LM told me,
many F-16 pilots say so and so,
F-22s and J-20s having unknown super duper all supressing EW suits against awacs and IRST payload UCAVS,
The LCA's lower RCS is worthless(If it is so why are Eurofighter fans and RAFAEL fans crowing about the lower RCS of their planes?)
LCA is not 4.5 gen because I say so
.It is a useless 3 rd gen obsolete airframe.
The J-20 can launch a k-100 type 800 kg 6 meter missiles, without giving even a source for all of us to know Whether J-20 has 8 meter long bomb bay opening doors,
smaller LCA cannot carry a long range air to air missile,
only lower range missiles are permited for smaller aircraft and longer range missiles are only for longer range aircraft.
LCA's pylon cant be strengthened for longer range future missiles.
LCA has cranked delta because it can afford it and other figters cant afford it.

I can string lots and lots of pearls of wisdom like this from P2PRADA's post. No knowledgable person worth his salt will sit quiet and accept all this madeup stuffs. He says kunal biswas is good only for his nice pictures, and nothing else.The way he contemptuously dismisses anyone who differs is really insulting. This not an olympic competition for foul languages, throwing insults,asking others to shut up,dumping unsubstantiated statementss as facts.

I too have done engineering , And my college professors wrote books on the subjects they were teaching. they never used such languages with us novices in those days. By sying these foul words you are discrediting the noble intentions of men like

ABDUL KALAM who inspired the CLAW team ,when all their work wass confiscated by US after nuclear explosions to start anew,

KOTA HARINARAYANA who dedicated so much to this LCA

RAJIV KOTIAL the test pilot who risked his life flying the first test flight after telemetry failiure

PHILIP RAJKUMAR and so many test pilots who risked thier invaluable lives to give inputs to make it a pilot's dream plane,

The ADA team which kept the figter one full year on the ground testing and retesting again and again to safeguard the life of the pilot in the first test pilot withstanding stoic criticism regarding the delays

The member of CLAW team while recieving 7000 salary while their peers selling soaps and toothpastes with MBA degree getting 30000 salary,resisting the temptation to geta visa and fly to US and making LCA happen instead.Even their marriage prospects bombed by the bad press

Guys like GEORGE FERNANDEZ who hid the letter from BOEING chief warning to not to allow the first flight ,because it is dangerous.

I am keeping my guns on these proud shoulders while arguing mate,thats all.But it is a shame to hurl insult at all these peoples with useless, sourceless,factless cooked up statements
 
Last edited:

shiphone

New Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
2,483
Country flag
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]
quite interesting Wiki spec

with 2.46 tons of internal fuel ,LCA could only fly 850 KMs or a 40-minute sortie (from wiki as well)

but with extra 3125L(2.5 tons) external fuel, LCA has a ferry range of 3000KMs

-------------------------
and I'm afraid the current LCA just achieved 1.6 (or just 1.4?)mach max speed and +6G limit...
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
AgentPERRy
when MOD decides it does not see shortcoming of a product. it shuts the mouth of generals and load them with whatever they think is necessary after negotiating it with NSA and the CCS. the point is that india has only 5 squadron of fighters to defend its airspace. LCA is so important nower days like it was never before.

cut the crap of all the technological inefficiency because iaf liek other forces wants to ride fancy planes but their primary responsibility is to defend indian air space be it by flying a ww2 spitfire or ultramodern t-50. moreover what you want from a fighter
maneuverability
high acceleration
good and effective radar
good jamming and anti jamming capability
large no of bvr and wvr missiles

where the hell ground attack capability like AoA comes up? why people are event hinking of comparing it with multi role rafale or f-16? its a simple bird made to defend air space in recent clashes- load missile and other components, install a badass engine, engine with vectoring technology. thats it. we are not going to pitch up against russia or usa or japan with high level of sophisticated weaponry. its simple pakistan air force( low no but priority set) and chinese plaaf ( mindless production line)
Sound suggestion mate. The LCA is a part of the warfigthing system in conjunction with AWACs Stealth UCAvs and ground radars, it is supposed to intercept enemy planes with as modern a long range BVR missile as India can afford and and fly in great number of swarms as defender. it is not a jamesbond who goes to the four corners of the world to save her majesty

As I explained it has no particular shortcommings that will handicap it from this task. Intrusive bombing and shock and awe will be the domain of SUKHOIs , rafaels, and PAKFAs. In conjuction with these majestic fighters the LCAA will rain the skies with most modern BVR missiles, and these missiles can be taken over and guided by PAKFAs, and SUKHOis, as they are considered as mini AWACs planes.

The LCA flies in front with the help of lower RCS and launch its missiles. It's smaller RADARS and EW suits need not wrestle with enemy aircraft's larger EW suit and RADAR s. This is the age of DATALINK gentlemen. An operator sitting in texas launches a missile over PAk and taliban terrorists die on the ground.Even if it has to dogfight it can do a honouable job, with amazingly lower wing loading . The dogfight is tactics. Any opponent formulates a tactic to take on his rival analysing all strength and weaknesses of the crafts involved. Only LCA can give us the number.

Even in HImalayan theater I dont see J-10s and F-16 s excelling LCA due to their higher wing loading. Especially with our strategic relations with israel and US nothing in latest missile or radar tech is beyond the reach of LCA.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
quite interesting Wiki spec

with 2.46 tons of internal fuel ,LCA could only fly 850 KMs or a 40-minute sortie (from wiki as well)

but with extra 3125L(2.5 tons) external fuel, LCA has a ferry range of 3000KMs

-------------------------
and I'm afraid the current LCA just achieved 1.6 (or just 1.4?)mach max speed and +6G limit...


SO please findout and post. Als why are you dobting that LCA crossed 1.1 at sea level in GOA .If you have faith in that statement then Lca can do mach 1.9 in altitudes as per general spec. This crossing of 1.1 mach at GOA sea level is recent. CAn you clarify date of your news that it did 1.6. Whether that dates predate GOA date or what?
 
Last edited:

shiphone

New Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
2,483
Country flag
so you can't read or understand?

you'd better find the news for us when and where LCA achieved 1.9 mach? actually even the 1.6 mach one ..the 1.4mach news is not difficult to find...TOI or CAG report

no one deny the 1.1 mach outside the Goa, I have been watching this project for 7 years(I got to know LCA project in 1990's when I was a pupil)...I have read the news about 1.1M at sea level ..... since you said LCA has achieved 1.9.or 1.6 mach ,you'd better give us the proof...

------------------------
BTW you'd better think over the so called official WIKI specs ...especially the relation between the fuel and ranges...we might have to rethink about the internal fuel

------------------------
as I said
the empty weight doesn't include the hydraulic oil,lubricating oil , the ammo of the guns. the weight of pilot and all other weapons ...
so when you do your maths ,you'd better think about this...
and without carrier , the missile can't be launched. the carrier weights.
the pilot weights.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
quite interesting Wiki spec

with 2.46 tons of internal fuel ,LCA could only fly 850 KMs or a 40-minute sortie (from wiki as well)

but with extra 3125L(2.5 tons) external fuel, LCA has a ferry range of 3000KMs

-------------------------
and I'm afraid the current LCA just achieved 1.6 (or just 1.4?)mach max speed and +6G limit...
The range figure is actually combat radius. Ferry Range with internals is around 1800Km.

Also, the G limit and speed are not wrong. The max speed LCA has ever reached is Mach 1.4 and the current goal for FOC is 1.6. The maximum G limit LCA is expected to reach for IOC is 6G, but it wasn't achieved and are waiting for IOC-2. G limit for FOC is 8 and for all subsequent production models of Mk1.

Official AoA figure released was 16 degrees back in early 2011, the expected figure for IOC was supposed to be 22degrees. But this was supposed to be tested on LSP-6 which hasn't yet flown. LSP-6 was also supposed to test RAM, not a big deal. On the other hand, LSP-7 has already been flying. So, the AoA doubts persist and in case HAL does not finish LSP-6 in time then there would be more doubts on the IOC-2 function. Anyway by end 2011 ADA did mention that they have achieved a slightly higher figure for AoA.

Radar had a lot of issues, but it is not a problem anymore. We have a decent radar for the LCA. Rather you can say LRDE has been rather successful in many of their ventures. I think one can say Israeli companies as development partners helped.

So, as of 2011 FOC is expected in
, but this was considering IOC-2 was achieved by mid 2012. Now I believe IOC-2 is only in Feb-March 2013.

There are two things that we can only speculate on though. One, that the LSP-6 was either rejected or pushed to the FOC timetable due to some trouble. If it was rejected then we can guess the 22deg AoA was achieved on other prototypes. Second, FOC may be achieved at the scheduled time if HAL pushes up production at extra costs. The current rate is 8/year, maybe 12/year would mean a faster FOC to compensate for the loss of 9 months. If not FOC may come only in early 2015.

Also, FOC comes with a lot of other hurdles to cross, opening up the flight profile to higher specs and integration of the BVR(Derby with perhaps the DASH IV). While the latter may not be a problem, the former has always been a big problem even for IOC.

I don't know if J-10 came with such troubles due to an equally long development cycle, but IAF wouldn't induct a half finished aircraft so easily when better options are available.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
so you can't read or understand?
You must have read his posts already. Don't make the same mistake I made.

There were two specs available for LCA right after 2011. One was the specs originally meant for LCA with an empty weight of 5.5 tons, thrust of 80-85KN and a speed of Mach 1.8. The other was the actual specs achieved by ADA during the IOC function. The one on wiki is a mix of both the specs. The dimensions are correct for Mk1 while some of the performance figures are as planned for Mk2.

Wing loading is correct for Mk1 though, at 9.5 tons that is the figure we get. Original figure was 221Kg/m[SUP]2[/SUP]. G limit, range and radius are for the 5.5t airframe.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
So, as of 2011 FOC is expected in
, but this was considering IOC-2 was achieved by mid 2012. Now I believe IOC-2 is only in Feb-March 2013.
Correcting Hyperlink:

So, as of 2011 FOC is expected in mid 2014, but this was considering IOC-2 was achieved by mid 2012. Now I believe IOC-2 is only in Feb-March 2013.
 

Sridhar

House keeper
New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,062
Country flag
Vice Chief of the Air Staff Air Marshal D.C. Kumaria, who was in Bangalore on Friday, said after an event that the IAF was tracking the progress of its projects closely. He visited HAL on Thursday evening. "There is much synergy today than there ever was."

He said the LCA was expected to get the FOC by early 2013 and the first squadron to be operational by the end of 2013.

The Hindu : News / National : Our activities are at full throttle, says HAL Chairman
 

Sridhar

House keeper
New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,062
Country flag
It seems this article is not posted here ..

Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)
The author, Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) was the chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from September 1984 to March 1988. He entered the Indian Air Force in 1947 and was awarded the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM) for his exemplary role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War. It was during his tenure at HAL that the design and development of the Advanced Light Helicopter and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was undertaken. He is considered an authority on LCA, and MIGs in particular. Air Marshal Wollen has authored several papers on aviation and here he talks about Tejas and the reason why it is so important.

This story is incomplete. With the maiden, 20-minute flight of the first Technology Demonstrator of the Light Combat Aircraft on January 4, 2001, one could say it was halfway through. Even at this point of time, it is of enormous interest to nations in the far corners of the world. India has two priorities One, improve the quality of life of a third of its population. Two, keep inviolate its borders, shores and skies. The latter requires military might.

The geo- politics of the region (South Asia and surrounds) is of such a complexity that, despite good intentions of all, major conflicts have erupted; border skirmishes and cross- border terror-ism continue. In fact, right from Day 1 (August 15, 1947) India has faced a military threat; because of this, there is a compulsion to achieve self-reliance in design, development and production of weapon systems e.g. the LCA. It may be noted that some Asian countries, with great economic wealth and technical know why/know how, do not have such a compulsion. Further, success of the LCA program is a must for continuation and enhancement of India's aircraft industry. For these reasons, 33 R&D establishments; 60 major industries and 11 academic institutions participate in the program. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of hype by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as to its capabilities, contemporariness and when it will enter service. This has led to, although not unwarranted, cynicism.
Background Information

An important recommendation of the Aeronautics Committee, which was accepted by Government in 1969, was that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) should design and develop an advanced technology fighter aircraft around a proven engine. Based on IAF 'air staff target' papers, HAL finally completed design studies for a Tactical Air support Aircraft in 1975 and it appeared that HAL would, after a lapse of twenty years, get down to developing a fighter. However, the selected 'proven engine' from abroad, could not be procured and the project fell through. HAL's design and development capability started to decline. Meanwhile, The IAF's requirement for an air superiority fighter (primary role) with air support/interdiction capability (secondary role) in the tactical battle area, continued.

The DRDO obtained feasibility studies from three leading aircraft companies (British, French and German). Use was made of these studies in presenting a case to Government for design and development of an LCA. In an unusual step, a Society was set up to over-see the LCA development program. At its apex is a 15-member General Body, whose president is the Defence Minister. The next rung is a 10-member Governing Body, whose Chairman is the SA to the Defence Minister and Secretary DRDO. The third rung is a 10-member Technical Committee, headed by the DG Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); the latter post has been vacant ever since the first DG resigned in 1986. ADA manages the development program while HAL is the principal partner. The initial projection for completion of the program was totally erroneous and is largely attributable to lack of knowledge and experience. Projections were: first flight in 1990; production to commence in 1994.

Delay in commencement of Project Definition (PD) gave ADA time to marshal national resources (80 work centers spread over the country); to construct buildings, recruit personnel and create infra-structure; and to get a clearer perspective of the advanced technologies that could be indigenously developed and those that would need to be imported. The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out. Concessions or a higher standard of requirements have to be mutually agreed upon by the IAF (customer) and ADA (constructor). Having a Society and Committees is, perhaps, the quickest way to bring about agreement.

The Program

Project definition (PD) commenced in October 1987 and was completed in September I988. The consultant, chosen from four contenders, was Dassault Aviation, France. Engineers, connected with design and development of aircraft know how vital it is to get the 'definition' correct. From this flows detail de-sign, construction and eventually maintenance costs.

After examining the PD documents, the IAF felt that the risks were too high (likely shortfalls in performance, inordinate delay, Cost over-run, price escalations) to proceed further. A Review Committee was formed in May 1989. Experts from outside the aviation industry were included. The general view was that infrastructure, facilities and technology had advanced in most areas to undertake the project. As a precaution, Full Scale Engineering Development would proceed in two phases. Phase 1: design, construction and flight test of two Technology Demonstrator aircraft (TDI & 2); construction of a Structural Test Specimen; construction of two Prototype Vehicles (PVI &2); creation of infrastructure and test facilities. Phase 2: construction of three more PV '5, the last PV5, being a trainer; construction of a Fatigue Test Specimen; creation of facilities at various work centres. Cost of Phase I - Rs.2188 crores, of Phase II - Rs. 2,340 crores. Phase I commenced in 1990. However, due to a financial crunch, sanction was accorded in April 1993 and was marked by an upsurge in work. The critical path in this program has been the design, fabrication and testing of its fly-by-wire flight control system FCS). An electronic FCS is a must for an aircraft with relaxed static stability.

The FCS also provides the pilot 'care free handling'; flight limits cannot be exceeded, which at lower speeds on aircraft like the MiG-23/27 or Jaguar, results in the loss of the aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) is the nodal agency for development of the FCS. One reason for delay of the first flight could have been the unexpectedly large effort required for coding control laws into the FCS software, which were then checked out on Minibird and Ironbird test rigs at ADE and HAL, respectively. The control laws were developed with the aid of real time simulators at ADE and BAe, UK. As a point of interest, a second series of in-flight simulation tests of flight control software took place in July 1996 at Calspan USA on an F-16D VISTA (variable in-flight stability aircraft); 33 test flights were carried out. Another reason for delay was the sanction imposed after Pokhran II in May 1999. Scientists working at Lockheed Martin, USA were sent back; equipment, software and documents were impounded. Herculean efforts brought the FCS software to a standard where the FCS performed flawlessly over 50 hours of testing on TD 1 by pilots, resulting in the aircraft being cleared for flight in early 2001.

Space constraints prevent any meaningful description of materials, technology, facilities, processes developed for execution of the project. Military aviation enthusiasts may read a monograph on Aeronautical Technology that has attained maturity through DRDO efforts; much of this technology finds application in the LCA project. The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced. The aircraft will be powered by a Kaveri engine (more information follows) and is to operate from the Indian Navy's Air Defence Ship, under construction. Launch speed over a 12 deg ramp is 100 kts; recovery speed during a no flare deck landing, using arrester gear, is 120 kts. Take off mass 13 tonne, recovery mass 10 tonne. Most stringent requirements are that the airframe will be modified: nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach; wing leading edge vortexes (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach and strengthened undercarriage. Nose wheel steering will be powered for deck maneuverability.

During early flight development, the TD aircraft will be powered by a single GE F404 F2J3 engine (7,250 kg reheat thrust). The indigenous Kaveri engine, under development by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) is slated for installation in a PV aircraft. Over 7,000 hours of ground testing of the core engine (Kabini) and four prototype Kaveri engines, together with flights in a Tu-16 test-bed aircraft would have been completed. Engine components have been produced by several manufacturing units, including HAL, where the exclusive Cellular Manufacturing Facility (CNC machining) was established in November 1988. A concurrent engineering approach has been followed to provide engines early in the LCA's flight development. Salient engine features include the 3 stage fan; 6 stage HP compressor with variable geometry IGV, I and II stators; annular combustion chamber; cooled single stage HP and LP turbines; modulated after-burner; fully variable, convergent-divergent nozzle; length 3490 mm; max diameter 910 mm; dry thrust 52 kN; reheat thrust 81 kN; thrust weight ratio 7.8. The 'Achilles heel; in the successful development of the LCA, in the opinion of this author, is the Kaveri engine.

Points of view

In the late eighties India's aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden's; and yet India follows a more arduous design/development route for its LCA, compared to Sweden for its JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404). France (Dassault Aviation) built and exhaustively flew a demonstrator aircraft (Rafale-A) before embarking on construction of Rafale prototypes. Over 2,000 flights were completed by September 1994 when first Flight of a production Rafale was still 20 months away. At that point of time, Dassault Aviation had built or flown 93 prototypes, of which at least fifteen went into production after sixteen years elapsed from 'first-metal-cut' of the Rafale demonstrator to entry into service. Current plans for the LCA is ten years. And what of India's past record? Just a hand-ful of trainer aircraft designed and productionised. The story is similar for the Typhoon (earlier Eurofighter 2000). It was seventeen years from 'first-metal-cut' (EAP) to squadron entry in 2000. One more timeframe needs to be noted. It took Gripen six and a half years from first flight (prototype) to entry into squadron. For the LCA, four and a half years is the target! The quantum of test flying hours required to attain Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is about 2000 hours; an impossible task in four and a half years. Concurrent production will shorten service entry time, but this will not enable the present target to be reached.

The LCA remains a high-risk project. All too often glitches occur in development of a fly-by-wire FCS. The Typhoon is an example; this, despite vast experimental work for over a decade by leading aircraft manufacturers in the UK and Germany (Jaguar, F-104, EAP). Engine development is the most complex of all activities. There are sure to be problems during flight development of the Kaveri, GTRE's first engine. Teething problems after service entry will occur; and major reliability improvements will be required in the first decade of its exploitation. Engines of the Russian fleet of fighters operated by the IAF (MiG-21 BIS, MiG-23BN/27M MiG-29) have this in-service history. Proceeding from this, four points emerge:


(a) India has its best designers, engineers, scientists, academicians working on and contributing to the project. They are devoted and tireless in their efforts to success-fully complete the project. They need support (not blind support) of the polity, defence services and bureaucrats. Public support will follow, provided there is honest transparency;

(b) Costs of the project will escalate. (Checks and balance are necessary, but let there be no inordinate delays, as have occurred in the past;

(c) The future of the aircraft industry, military and civil, depends on success of the LCA (and ALH, Saras, HJT-36) project; and,

(d) It is unlikely that the LCA will attain initial operational clearance (IOC) before 2010.When it is achieved, it will be an industrial success of magnificent proportion, and is sure to receive the acclaim it deserves.

A few words on the final operational clearance (FOC). The entire avionics and weapon systems are con-figured around three 1553 B data bus. Mission oriented computation/flight management is through a 32 hit computer. Information: from sensors (e.g. multi-mode radar, IRST, radar/laser/missile launch-warning receivers); from the inertial navigation System with embedded GPS; from targeting pod (FLIR, laser designator) are presented to the pilot on a head-up-display and head-down-displays. A helmet mounted target designator steers radar and missile seekers for early target acquisition (during a 'close-in' air-to-air engagement with a Vympel R-73 missile, currently the best dog-fight' missile in the world). Laser guided bombs and TV guided missiles, require a pilot to initially 'zero-in' the laser designator or missile-mounted TV camera, on the ground target. Considerable engineering effort and expertise is necessary to achieve avionics-weapon integration and to prove the integration by live trials. Success here means FOC. Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.

There will be setbacks in the flight development phase. All major engineering projects suffer them. For instance, India's first two SLVs failed disastrously. The Prime Minister was present at the first launch at Sriharikota; so was this author. Disappointment was everywhere but no recrimination; only determination to get it right. Loss of a demonstrator aircraft or prototype could take place; lives could be lost, leading to questions/debate. Therefore, let the recent transparency in the program continue, even intensify; let it be honest, 2010 is not far, for a first' program of this magnitude and complexity.

This article is reproduced with the permission of the author. It first appeared in Indian Aviation, Opening Show report, Aero India 2001.

Tejas - Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top