ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

An amusing read

soure---http://www.stratpost.com/mmrca-trials-chance-to-match-highest-take-off-record

The flight trials for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) currently underway, are not only a test for the selection of aircraft into the Indian Air Force (IAF), but also an opportunity for the six contenders to set records for a take-off from the highest altitude in the world, from the runway at Leh.

While Boeing's F/A-18 was the first to be tried, the company finds itself unable to comment on any 'milestones' that might have been achieved.

And another snippet is grippen was not tested there according to the discussion there. These are not my words, members.

But just to get a measure of the challenge, StratPost also spoke to Lockheed Martin. The company's single-engined F-16 is currently undergoing flight trials for the MMRCA and is next in line to take-off from Leh.

Leh is considered one of the more challenging tests for the aircraft being tried, with them required to touch down, switch off and take off again from there. While Leh is by no means the coldest runway in the world, it is certainly the highest.

The idea is to gauge how well the aircraft perform at high altitudes (in this case, the highest), in cold temperatures and in conditions of thin air. While Lockheed Martin was not able to give details of the ongoing performance testing, it has provided StratPost with records of the experience the F-16 has had in these conditions.

The highest location from where the F-16 has taken off so far is Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado at an elevation of 6,035 feet. Colorado Springs is also the location of the United States Air Force Academy. Peterson Air Force Base, according to John Giese of Lockheed Martin, could also be safely considered the location with the thinnest density of air from where an F-16 has taken off. Leh is at an altitude of around 10,500 feet.

With restrictions being placed on information about the trials that could be given out by the participating companies, Giese had this to say. "Let me put it this way. We have been aware of this. We have great faith in the aircraft." Is it going to be a big deal for Lockheed Martin? The vendor seems well aware of the bragging rights that come with a take-off from Leh. "Let's just say that after this trial, Colorado Springs will no longer be the highest place from where an F-16 would have taken off," he says, with an excited grin that can be sensed even over the phone.

The coldest location the F-16 has operated from is the Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, where temperatures routinely drop to -30 degrees Celsius. The northernmost latitude from where the F-16 operates is Main Air Station at Bodo in Norway, above the Arctic Circle at 66.5 degrees North, where the average winter temperature is 0 degrees Celsius. Leh sees temperatures that fall well below – 20 in winter.

Lockheed Martin also submits in the context of density of air that, "The F-16 being offered to India is fully certified for flight operations up to 15.24 km (50,000 ft). At 15.24 kilometers high, the atmospheric pressure is only 110 millibars, (1.6 pounds per square inch), which is 1/9th of the atmospheric pressure at sea level."

Interestingly, sources from the IAF point that the aircraft being tried out from Leh during the colder months will be the ones which will undergo the ultimate test. This situation is being considered less than ideal by some, as the test conditions can then fail to be equally stringent on all the contestants. But the extensive, year-long scheduling required for the trials leaves little option but to space out the testing and schedule each aircraft to land and take-off from Leh at different times of the year.

This means mot that they didnot take off and were junked. But they could not lift meaning ful loads at these heights.
The reason is power to lift ratio of these fighters are so poor due to their higher wing loading. But all of these are damouflaged under mislesding higher TWR

LCA cleared the high altitude trials at leh.


The problem isn't flying at high altitudes, its taking off at high altitudes. The rarefied atmosphere at high altitudes results in less air supply to the engine which results in reduced thrust. Taking off requires the most amount of thrust from the engine generally. Engines also sometimes have problems in starting up after being shut down in extremely cold weather.

The Hindu wrote that 4 out of 5 tested aircraft failed.

These 5 tested ,4 of these failed.



And they are guessing which 4 of them failed. It is a top secret though. No one will say a word. But LCA which cleared it is long ridiculed as obsolete.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I doubt so, recently IAF and DRDO talking in same tone about HAL management and manufacturing facility..

In fact IAF is saying same words what DRDO repeated.. ( Link posted few pages back )

IAF was never interested in overseeing the work of the LCA development and joined

Though one thing is right that is when sanctioned were applied, LCA Engines were blocked that time they could have look else where but both sat ideal..

Though its not just IAF but DRDO itself and HAL too, And before all these Gov is not really interested in such programs..

 

[ersakthivel]

Well you underestimate the Russians in the field of engine technology and aerodynamics. Lyulka had started building the jet engine as late as 1944 but the problem was he wasn;t funded much because the Russians were more interested in rocket propulsion as it had more power and thrust. They were making ramjet engines even before the ME 262 arrived. After World War II the brits and Soviets had cordial relationships and so the Brits transferred a few Rolls Royce engines for the MiG 15 but the main problems faced by the Russians was to know the alloys of the core which they got through espionage...remember to read the story of the russian spy shoe.

Where did we go wrong when we are making MiG 21s for decades along with Jaguar and then Sukhoi but cannot acheive anything in LCA? Poor management and allocation of work load.

for example the IAF was never interested in overseeing the work of the LCA development and joined in only after the first flight. GTRE was not the right choice for engine design but HAL because they have seen more engines in their time compared to the GTRE. And GTRE;s scientists had an ego larger than this universe that they never consulted the HAL. Above all ADA never had the experience to design a 4th gen fighter aircraft but still wanted to go alone. We had a lot of spin offs because of that but we ended up with an unsatisfactory product which can be called as a third generation aerodynamic design with a 4.5 generation airframe materials and a third gen radar.

The LCA has lost relevance for the IAF but may be a great stepping stone for the navy as the Naval aviation wing is going to enter a new phase from now on.

we were making mig-21s, but we never tried to make a tuboprop trainer or even a jet trainer like hawk,before the inception of ADA in 1984. No one seriously tried. Not that talent was not there. The IAF didnot fund anything and co ordinated anything with effectively with HAL. That's all.ADA too choose design team among the HAL designers.

But despite the heavier criticism of N LCA the NAVY has set aside 400 cr for N-LCA.Why?

 

[ersakthivel]

The LCA video at Leh shows that it was carrying 2x 1200 ltr drop tanks and 2 R-73 dummies so its a standard air-defence configuration. It has taken off in the same config in around 400-500 meters at Bangalore and at Leh


Lower wing loading LCA is an aircraft that has a very large wing surface area compared to its size, so it generates quite a bit of lift (since lift is directly proportional to surface area of lifting body) .LCA could do well at Leh and met the parameters

But, here are the details of the LCA's Leh test- and we could guess that similar tests were conducted on the MRCA candidates.
- 4 take-offs and landings (Tejas performed energetically it seems)
- These included early morning start ups after overnight cold soaks. The LCAs were parked overnight in open blast pens with temperatures going down to -20 deg C.
- All systems performed flawlessly the next morning, although the startup as expected, was a bit laboured, but all other systems were unaffected by the extreme conditions and cold soak
- This despite the fact that the LCA had issues with its fuel system at the time of the Leh trials.

But the famed MMRCA contenders could not do it. Single engined or double engined 4 out of 5 failed amd grippen was not tested according to HINDU report.And the sixth the grippen was not tested according to the report.

They could not lift meaningful loads at these heights as per the specs set by IAF,single or double engine not withstanding.
The reason is power to lift ratio of these fighters are so poor due to their higher wing loading. But all of these are camouflaged under misleading higher TWRs like 1.27 and so on.While these twrs and higher STRs look spectacular in airshows,they are supremely inept in himalayan heights during the lack of lift from smaller wings.

These smaller wings lead to lower drag in sea level and that all turn in much better performance at airshows. But their vertical agility with meaningful loads in Himalayan height is inferior to Tejas despite whatever suggested by Higher AOA and superior TWR and Higher STR at lower altitude.People saying that twin engine drafts will whoop whoop any single engine craft should answer this.



Both the F-16 and F-18 didn't turn in stellar performance at LEH.But LCA cleared the high altitude trials at leh.

 

[SATISH]

we were making mig-21s, but we never tried to make a tuboprop trainer or even a jet trainer like hawk,before the inception of ADA in 1984. No one seriously tried. Not that talent was not there. The IAF didnot fund anything and co ordinated anything with effectively with HAL. That's all.ADA too choose design team among the HAL designers.

But despite the heavier criticism of N LCA the NAVY has set aside 400 cr for N-LCA.Why?

THat is because the IAF never knew what to do as it was the first time for them also. No the DRDO dosent want a Liason officer from the IAF to oversee the work. Why should you create a new team called ADA and why not make it into a subsidy organization of HAL till it matures?

The navy right now has the infra in place for them to bring in their needs. It was a 400cr for development and 500 cr for aircrafs. But the navy is not using it as it's frontline aircraft as the navy already has one. The MiG 29k. But the airforce has only the old MiG 21s which the LCA must replace soon.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Keep topic till LCA..

MRCA and AMCA have different threads, If not open new onces..

 

[ersakthivel]

THat is because the IAF never knew what to do as it was the first time for them also. No the DRDO dosent want a Liason officer from the IAF to oversee the work. Why should you create a new team called ADA and why not make it into a subsidy organization of HAL till it matures?

The navy right now has the infra in place for them to bring in their needs. It was a 400cr for development and 500 cr for aircrafs. But the navy is not using it as it's frontline aircraft as the navy already has one. The MiG 29k. But the airforce has only the old MiG 21s which the LCA must replace soon.

That is what I am stressing. The IAF should have identified the need for some turbo prop trainers and hawk like jets with the experience from HAL's mig-21,29 building skills. and identifies a suitable engine off the shelf.

They never attempted to build anything based on any russian or british engine.
If they have started off these simple projects with Mig-21a being fairly new they could have fully learnt how to co ordinate with designing organisation, and how frequent changes in specs will delay and ultimately diminish the product. Now the wrangling over AMCA is starting again.

This incompetence of the HAL/IAF combine forced the government to set up ADA.Note that the MARUT was designed by HAL.The aircraft failed.Because a suitable engine was mot identified at first by the IAF/HAL combine and decades was lost sfter this fiasco. That's why ADA was set up.Even though kaveri failed they had factored GE engine for prototype and testing as a backup.If the HAL/IAF combine excercised a suitable fallback MArut would have stunned the world.

 

[SATISH]

That is what I am stressing. The IAF should have identified the need for some turbo prop trainers and hawk like jets with the experience from HAL's mig-21,29 building skills. and identifies a suitable engine off the shelf.

They never attempted to build anything based on any russian or british engine.
If they have started off these simple projects with Mig-21a being fairly new they could have fully learnt how to co ordinate with designing organisation, and how frequent changes in specs will delay and ultimately diminish the product. Now the wrangling over AMCA is starting again.

This incompetence of the HAL/IAF combine forced the government to set up ADA.Note that the MARUT was designed by HAL.The aircraft failed.Because a suitable engine was mot identified at first by the IAF/HAL combine and decades was lost sfter this fiasco. That's why ADA was set up.Even though kaveri failed they had factored GE engine for prototype and testing as a backup.If the HAL/IAF combine excercised a suitable fallback MArut would have stunned the world.

Well That is the problem of IAF and we can go on for decades but the scientists were equally at fault and didnt want an uniformed officer to point out the mistakes early on. So in the end both of them turned out a product which cannot be used by the IAF....and the same is continued to the AMCA program too.

And Marut was designed by a legend called as Kurt Tank who also churned up students like our former President.But the IAF and the HAL just wasted the Mrut as no country was ready to provide engines for us then.

 

[ersakthivel]

Well That is the problem of IAF and we can go on for decades but the scientists were equally at fault and didnt want an uniformed officer to point out the mistakes early on. So in the end both of them turned out a product which cannot be used by the IAF....and the same is continued to the AMCA program too.

And Marut was designed by a legend called as Kurt Tank who also churned up students like our former President.But the IAF and the HAL just wasted the Mrut as no country was ready to provide engines for us then.

Do you know the details of the high altitude evaluation of MMRCA birds? And why 4 out of 5 failed? Don't you think that low wing loading of tejas will aid in better performance of tejas at this high altitude himalayan region? Because lift will also play a crucial part in vertical agility not just TWR and climb rate alone .

And also the sudden increase in cross section from X=5000 mm to 6000mm , not in proper compliance with whitcomb rule ,which results in wave drag which makes it harder for tejas to cross the sound barrier in sea level may have been due to the fact that IAF insisted on a bigger radar compared to the smaller size of aircrat.What is your opinion on that?

Because the CEILMAC report by S.K.JEBAKUMAR does not say the complaint, that whitcomb rule was not follwed,when it comes to more critical area like wing fuselage combined area. It also suggests that nose plug extension before the cockpit can solve this problem.

So other than this x=5000 mm to x=6000 mm area of the fuselage length ,the report doesnot mentions the non adherence of whitcomb rule through out the length of fuselage.When some foreign consultants were involved in consulting during the initial stage of tejas ,they were astonished to hear the radar specs.

 

[ersakthivel]

That's why the ADA chief and IAF chief sitting across a table finalising ASR is a wrong thing for LCA or AMCA or whatever. A committee of inter disciplinary experts from BARC,ISRO,DRDO cruise and ballistic missile division and ,Super computer experts should hammer the ASR for AMCA and decide the specs, and freeze the design. If IAf wants better fighters than that it should be allowed to buy foriegn stuff. By this way the country will progress in the fighter tech.

If INDIA is good enough to send chandriyan to moon ,build super computers and build best cruise missiles,and ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs,
What is this fighter tech so big deal about? Note most of the tech employe by USAF fighters were finalised after NASA's X-flight program, Before crossing the high atmosphere sealing and crossing the sound barrier US built many prototype test vehicles called X flights to validate the tech. But IAF is asking all of them to be validted on production odel.

 

[ersakthivel]

Interesting read on LCA:

Manoj Joshi December 15, 2011 | UPDATED 11:05 IST
Our Cinderella must step out







It has been called the "Last Chance Aircraft", and worse. Its designers and developers have been excoriated for endless delays. But the time has come to say it: In the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), India may finally have a winner.

We say "may" because the "last mile" is often the most difficult one to cross. This requires first, an emphatic ownership of the step-child by its primary operator, the Indian Air Force(IAF), its chosen manufacturer, the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and its parent, the Ministry of Defence. Second, and most importantly, it needs a serious managerial boost so that the production of the aircraft- whose significant bugs have already been worked out-can be undertaken on a modern industrial scale.

Winner

But the payoffs are tremendous. The country gets a highly capable multi-role fighter which it can acquire in significant numbers at a reasonable cost. It also gets a potential weapons system which it can export, for commercial gain, as well as to push its military diplomacy. It would be fair to say that the LCA is the only significant weapons system created by the country's vast defence research and production base which can compete with contemporary products -including the Chinese JF-17- and win.

Though the IAF says that it is committed to bringing the aircraft into squadron service, its current plans cater for just two squadrons of the aircraft, where they ought to be really talking of several. But that is not entirely the IAF's fault; the process of productionising the aircraft has been excruciatingly slow and past delays have made the IAF leery of putting their eggs in the LCA basket.

Till now, the ADA and HAL have built eight prototypes and six limited series aircraft and it has undertaken some 1800 takeoff and landing cycles without (touch wood) a single accident. Pilots swear by its ease of handling and maneuverability. However, according to reports, the true initial operational clearance (IOC) of the LCA has been delayed yet again. The IOC, which means the aircraft can be flown by any military pilot-not just test pilots- was technically available since January 2011, but there are a range of issues that have yet to be sorted out to the air force's satisfaction.

Now, say reports, the final operational clearance will only be available by the end of 2014. This provides an invaluable opportunity to set in train steps that will ensure that the LCA emerges as the first class product that it intrinsically is.

Simultaneously, the efforts to come up with a Mark 2 version of the aircraft with a more powerful GE F414 turbofan engine, have been completed, with the prototype slated to fly by 2014 as well. And, the naval version of the aircraft which is expected to be used by the country's indigenous aircraft carrier is also in its last stages with two prototypes to take to the air soon.

It is important to see the aircraft in comparison with the others that are flying, both as potential adversaries, as well as competitors for the export market. The aircraft under 10 tons of operational empty weight are the American F-16, the Chinese JF-17, the Swedish Gripen. Of these the LCA is the lightest at just 5.9 tons.

In part this is because of its use of carbon fibre composites. The US and the Chinese aircraft have a carbon composites content of near zero, while the more modern Gripen has 30 per cent content by weight. The LCA has 45 per cent, but as much as 90 per cent of the surface of the LCA is made of carbon fibres. This makes it light, strong and rugged, since the carbon fibre composites neither age nor corrode.

Stealth

But its most important quality is that it does not reflect radar beams, unlike the metallic components of aircraft. In other words, this gives the LCA a naturally low radar signature or 'stealth' characteristics. Given its small size anyway, it is, in the words of a former fighter pilot, "virtually invisible" to adversary fighters.

The use of carbon fibre gives the LCA another advantage: with its low operational empty weight, and compared to an aircraft with similar engines, the LCA has greater thrust to weight ratio. The LCA Mk 2 is likely to have 1.53, compared to the other agile fighter, the F-16's 1.64. The Gripen has 1.44 and the JF-17 has 1.28. Indeed, the LCA's rate of acceleration compares favourably with heavy two-engined fighters like the Eurofighter, which has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.64.

Carbon fibre parts do not deteriorate with age or corrode and hence the navalised version of the LCA will prove a big advantage. But it is true that carbon fibre parts are expensive to make and ideally, the process should be automated and procured in large numbers to keep their prices low. India has already invested a great deal in this technology beginning with the Dhruva programme in the mid-1980s and it is one of the world leaders in such technology.

Clearly, its natural stealth characteristics, low operating costs, maneuverability and its sensor and weapons suite make the LCA a real player in the global market. Indeed, according to an air force officer, the performance of the LCA as a fighter exceeds that of the Mirage 2000, even when the latter is upgraded.

Although the IAF has committed itself to inducting two squadrons of 40 LCAs, its actual needs are much greater. As of now the air force puts "close air support" or missions in support to the army in a low priority. But there is great need for the IAF to take up that mission seriously, especially in the mountain areas, and for that the LCA is the ideal machine. Further, the IAF's reliance on heavy and expensive fighters would make its reaction time to emergencies-cruise missile or UAV ingress at the country's periphery-rather slow because they cannot afford to base their expensive assets too close to the border. Here, the LCA provides a quick reaction option as it can be forward based.

Export

The most interesting aspect of the LCA is in relation to exports. This is clearly the one worldclass product which can be used to woo friends and allies, especially in the neighbourhood. The LCA gives India the option to compete with the Chinese JF-17 in a score of countries including Egypt, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

Indeed, there is a wider market, too, if HAL is willing to dream big and do something about it. There is a market for some 3,000 fighters to replace the MiG-21s, F-5s, early model F-16s which will retire in the coming 10-15 years in countries of Eastern Europe, Asia-Pacific and elsewhere. Getting even ten per cent of that market would be a stunning achievement for India.

But to reach that goal, India needs to think big. HAL, is still making its current limited series aircraft by hand, as it were, and it has no experience in sales and marketing abroad. As it is, there will be a need to transform HAL's work culture to make a product to the highest world standards. Equally important would be product support, again an area in which the HAL has not done too well in the past.

But all this cannot be done by the HAL itself. The LCA programme was a national endeavour to lay the foundations for India's aerospace industry. If it is to meet that mandate- and it is on the threshold of doing that- it needs attention right now from the topmost levels of government and the Ministry of Defence

 

[SATISH]

Do you know the details of the high altitude evaluation of MMRCA birds? And why 4 out of 5 failed? Don't you think that low wing loading of tejas will aid in better performance of tejas at this high altitude himalayan region? Because lift will also play a crucial part in vertical agility not just TWR and climb rate alone .

And also the sudden increase in cross section from X=5000 mm to 6000mm , not in proper compliance with whitcomb rule ,which results in wave drag which makes it harder for tejas to cross the sound barrier in sea level may have been due to the fact that IAF insisted on a bigger radar compared to the smaller size of aircrat.What is your opinion on that?

Because the CEILMAC report by S.K.JEBAKUMAR does not say the complaint, that whitcomb rule was not follwed,when it comes to more critical area like wing fuselage combined area. It also suggests that nose plug extension before the cockpit can solve this problem.

So other than this x=5000 mm to x=6000 mm area of the fuselage length ,the report doesnot mentions the non adherence of whitcomb rule through out the length of fuselage.When some foreign consultants were involved in consulting during the initial stage of tejas ,they were astonished to hear the radar specs.

Comparisons of a light aircraft with a medium aircraft is going to be futile. Above all the MMRCA were supposed to take off with a full load fuel and full strike package. It is an 18 ton aircraft that you are comparing with a 10 tonne aircraft. And Nose plug extension needs some more visits to the wind tunnel. The Radar is good as it incorporates the Elta 2032 antenna which is the heart...we excelled at the processing but still couldn't pull out a MMR antenna.

Deltas have a very high angle of sweep that is why the whole cranking of the delta. So the performance would be great in a vertical but when it comes to a turning fight the drag created will have a great effect as the delta will bleed more energy already due to the larger wing area and the drag will further reduce precious energy which will be difficult to regain.

And remember speed is essential in launching a long range missile...like Newton suggested in his laws of motion.

When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

So when the aircraft is travelling at Mach 1 then the missile dosent need to cross the sound barrier as it is already travelling at mach 1 So when fired it dosent need to burn further energy to cross the shockwave barrier.

 

[ersakthivel]

Right now tejas weighs 6.5 tons. It has 400+kg of telemetry equipments on board. ANd with some re engineering of display systems a reduction of 300 kg weight is possible claims HAL engineers.Note some weight reduction to the tune of 350 kg was achieved once before on tejas.And substituting some more metal parts with composites the tejas may come near an epmty weight of 5.8 tons or so. Members can post any materials in this regard,whether it is possible or not. The above claims were made by HAL engineers to AJAAI SHUKLA as per his post in BROAD SWORD.


The TWR is calculated with 50% internal fuel, full weapon load for the mission and any additional load which may be required to deliver these weapons. LCA MK1 has an empty weight of 6 tons after refinements. It's internal fuel capacity is 2.4 tons or 3k ltrs using specific gravity as .8 for fuel. With 2 BVR and 4 WVR missiles Plus 50% internal fuel the weight of the TEJAS comes to 8.5 tons. The engine has a thrust of 9.2 tons(according to latest figures from government websites for the new variant of GE engine,it has been updated recently in the site), which gives LCA MK1 a TWR of 1:1.1.

These are the new specs for GE engine.

The Specifications of F404-GE-IN20
Dimensions: Diameter 890 mm, Length 3.9 m
Weights: Max Weight 1,035 kg (2,282 lb)
Engines Performance: Thrust 20,200 lb (9,163 kg) i.e. 90 KN ?

Tejas.gov.in specs about Engine,
F404-GE-IN20
Dimensions: Diameter 890 mm, Length 3.9 m
Weights: Max Weight 1,035 kg (2,282 lb)
Engines Performance: Thrust 20,200 lb (9,163 kg) // that is 89.85 KN

The thrust is recently updated on tejas.gov.in.

These are tejas MK_II's stores specs.

Interception - 1 centerline fuel tank, 4 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles / no fuel tanks, same AAM config
CAP - 2 wing tanks, 2 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles / 1 centerline fuel tank, 4 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles
CAS - 2 wing tanks, 2 x 1000lb LGBs (possibly a twin, or triple pylon for HELINA missiles), 1 x LDP and 2 x WVR missiles / 1 centerline fuel tank, 2 x 1000lb LGBs (possibly a twin, or triple pylon for HELINA missiles), 1 x LDP, 2 x BVR and 2 x WVR missiles

If these figures are true then LCA has as good a TWR as many of the contemproary twin engined fighters.
Remember twin engined fighters have higher empty weight ,higher power needs for their hydraulic actuators,higher weight penalties for withstanding high Gs for their bulky airframe and also a low wing loading.

So I don't think that tejas is irrelevant compared to bigger birds. Especially in higher altitude and in vertical plane. Note that when faced with higher STR fighters like F-16 in lower altitudes LCA can use it's agility in vertical plane to counter the higer STR high wing loading fighter's tight turning manouevres in low altitude. Where the lift generated from LCA's massive wings will better the high wing loading fighters.

The article by MANAHAR JOSHI in INDIA TODAY SAYs

The use of carbon fibre gives the LCA another advantage: with its low operational empty weight, and compared to an aircraft with similar engines, the LCA has greater thrust to weight ratio. The LCA Mk 2 is likely to have 1.53, compared to the other agile fighter, the F-16's 1.64. The Gripen has 1.44 and the JF-17 has 1.28. Indeed, the LCA's rate of acceleration compares favourably with heavy two-engined fighters like the Eurofighter, which has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.64.

Clearly, its natural stealth characteristics, low operating costs, maneuverability and its sensor and weapons suite make the LCA a real player in the global market. Indeed, according to an air force officer, the performance of the LCA as a fighter exceeds that of the Mirage 2000, even when the latter is upgraded.

Members can post any material in this regard.

 

[p2prada]

Satishji,

The LCA's MMR is made in India. The only Israeli thing we use on the radar is the radar processor, perhaps tweaks to the software.

 

[SATISH]

Satishji,

The LCA's MMR is made in India. The only Israeli thing we use on the radar is the radar processor, perhaps tweaks to the software.

Isnt it the other way round where we use the 2032 radar antenna?

 

[ersakthivel]

Some more interesting history of tejas and what happened between 1983 and 1993 can be deduced from the link

The Tejas Debate Continues � TKS' Tales
some excerpts,

Some time in the late sixties, the air force realized that to perform its allotted task, it would need three or four squadrons worth of deep strike aircraft. The Government had taken a decision not to pay for the development of the Orpheus 10 by Rolls Royce. In the absence of a suitable engine the Marut could not be developed to its full potential. A new air craft therefore needed to be purchased from abroad. This need, and the logic there of were written down and presented to the Government.For the next seven or eight years there was nothing beyond a 'proposal' pending with the government.

- The previous two tech upgrade of the Air Force had taken place in 1958-59 (Mystere/Hunter/Canberra/Gnat/Marut) to 1962 (MiG21/Su-7,AN12,IL14,MI4) . It was realized that a major re-equipment cycle would be due in the nineties. The Air Force therefore began talking to HAL in the middle seventies for the need of a modern fighter. It was clearly an air force project for a new induction in the making.

- Initial proposals were prepared by the HAL Design Bureau. In the early eighties Dr Arunachalam appeared on the scene as the SA to RM. He decided to use this opportunity to upgrade the capabilities of the entire aviation industry and jump into 4th generation technologies. To him, it was clearly a DRDO project with a focus on breaking new frontiers; a laudable aim, but clearly at a variance with the air force's project goals.

- It must be understood that the air force had no quarrels with the ambitious goals of the DRDO project. It was however unable to reconcile its own re-equipment needs with the inevitable trajectory of the very ambitious DRDO goals. A compromise had to be reached.

- I do not know if there is a written document recording the compromised understanding for the situation. However, it appears that it was agreed that

Air Force funds will not be used for the development project as the AF will need its allotted money for import of weapons. Air Force will however pledge funds for acquisition of the proposed aircraft when the project reaches the stage of manufacture.

Air Force will provide necessary manpower for flight testing and other requirements as requested by the DRDO

DRDO will be fully in charge of the project.

-To assert its full control over the project, the DRDO created a new design authority entity as the ADA and cut off the HAL design bureau from the loop. A little later, a National Flight Test Centre was created and the ASTE/Flight Test group of the HAL were excluded. These actions generated some interpersonal irritations.

-Dr Velluri became the head of ADA. He wanted some one younger than Dr Raj Mahindra to head the design effort. Dr RM departed. Dr Velluri too did not last very long. He resigned. Dr KH became the head of design. The post of DGADA that Dr V vacated remained unfilled and was held by the SA to RM as an additional charge.



To set the ball rolling, the AirHQ issued an ASR in 1985. By now the Air Force was reconciled to the Idea that the LCA will primarily be an R&D project under the DRDO. Therefore, the ASR reflected all the desires expressed by the scientific community; an unstable platform controlled by FBW technique, an airframe largely built of composites, a glass cockpit, a multi mode radar, an indigenous engine with FADEC, indigenous ECM/ECCM/electronics/weapons/missiles – the works. The ultimate product had to be an aircraft that could be used by the Air Force. Therefore the ASR projected an aircraft that would do everything that a MiG 21 could do, albeit do it a little better.

-The DRDO was still confident of doing the job in a decade. The Air Force was a little more pragmatic. They would have been happy to introduce the aircraft by 2000.

-The GOI provided seed money and accepted the plan for building five prototypes. The project definition phase started, and lasted till 1989. The project Definition Document frightened the IAF. AVM Krishnaswami wrote a critique pointing out the likely pitfalls and suggested that two technology demonstrators be built before building the prototypes for testing the real aircraft.

-There was then a lull for four years.

—There was rapid changes in the Government
—International oil prices rose dramatically
—The GOI was in a financial crisis
—Dr VSA retired and migrated to the USA and was replaced by Dr.APJA as SA to RM
—Dr APJA accepted Khicha's critique.

-In 1993 funding was received for two TDs and work began for actual construction

The problem always is the IAF thinks INDIAN technological capacity is not enough for developing a mirage like fighter.But scientific advisor to Rm like ARUNACHALAm and ABDUL KALAM thought otherwise and proceeded rightly in setting up ADA. SO It was the decision of scientific team to build tejas the way it is.Because these guys with exposure to cutting edge technologies like NUCLEAR BOMB, nuclear reactor and space launch and ballistic missiles never thought for a second that it is inconceivable to design LCA the way it is.But the IAF never believed them .And the MOD would have been in a fix to proceed.This friction is the source of dlay from 1983 to 1993 and fast changing governments and lack of vision all playe their part.


This friction still exists.both of them are right in some way.The GTRE failed with the engine, the MMR could not be made in time indigenously. But ADA has mastered the composites and fly by wire and delta design,which are too critical to be left to the whims and fancies of HAL/IAF combine.But the arrival of GE engine has rescued the project and now it is as good as any other IAF fighter(almost 70% of the fleet).

The MK-II will do much better. ANd the experience on MK-1 will be invaluable for tactics building.With the composites ADA promises to reduce it's weight further.AND ADA can truly build the 5th gen fighter with this tecnological background.Meanwhile some part of the LCA project is spilling over into most of the IAF fleet and SUKHOI-MKI is a shining example of it.Built with more composites than russian design and LCA type mission computer and with the comming induction of BRAHMOS, it is at the pinacle of this co operation.

The design capabilities of HAL before the inception of ADA is also mentioned in that post

As I have said in my earlier post, this debate is now infructuous. Switching our attention to the tasks ahead would be more fruitful. However, before I close this debate, I would like to take up the question of 'dropped balls' mentioned by a number of posters, mentioning the HPT 32 specifically. This aircraft was designed and built by HAL on a demand by the Air Force. The performance did not fully satisfy the Air force, but the Air Force accepted it. Over time, many problems cropped up in operating the Aircraft, engine failure during aerobatic training being a main problem.


The engine was an established reliable international item. The failure was assumed to be a aircraft design defect related to fuel supply plumbing. HAL could not put it right but also did not accept design defect as the cause. The Air Force had to abandon the use of the fleet of aircraft. In the early 1980s, the HAL had produced a turbine engined version of the aircraft called HTT34. It never entered air force service. It is being insinuated that it is all the fault of the air force.


I wish to place a poser for the critics. The HTT34 was produced when Air Marshal LM Katre was the chairman of HAL. LMK was actually the driving force behind the development of the HTT34. It was his desire and his drive that made the aircraft fly. From HAL the Air Marshal went on to become the Chief of Air Staff. Yet, the HTT34 did not enter service with the Air Force. Does any one know why?

 

[ersakthivel]

it is a not a right argument to make that the LCA is "heavier" than a Mig21 BIS.
So it is heavier than an "all metal airplane". A clear case of comparing apples to oranges! In fact, you could say that it is heavier than a Spitfire as well! Why going by your logic, the JAS 39 Gripen, too is heavier than a Mig 21 BIS and hence "a failure" , despite the use of composites. What is more relevant is asking how much heavier would the LCA & Gripen have been if both of them were all metal airplanes.

You should compare the LCA with the same class and closest analog out there, the Gripen, and it compares very favorably. As for is "empty weight" vs "operational empty weight" or anything, you know as well as I do, that difference is not going to of the order of 1 ton,. In fact, if you look up the "Clean Take Off Weight" figures published for the LCA (all fluids, full internal fuel, gun ammo loaded and 2 close combat missiles..sort of like just strap in pilot and fly off), it is a very impressive 9.5tons. Now if you work backwards, with fuel at 2.5tons, weight estimate of 2*150 for close combat missiles, some 100kg for ammo weight, it matches up. So yeah, whichever way you slice and dice it, it looks pretty good. So, if you prefer, take the operationally relevant clean take off weight and do the comparison with Gripen, and guess what, it still is pretty competitive.

SO repeatedly calling it as Mig21 "replacement" and equating TEJAS to it has to be stopped. it.That is probably fine if they were building a Mig21 variant, which they evidently weren't.Because the Mk-1 is much capable than mig-21.



LCA was not just about building and delivering of an aircraft to the IAF in time. it was a much bigger and broader plan to build a modern fighter – right from creating a non existant infra, obtaining real data wrt all modern attributes that define a modern aircraft – in short, leapfrog to the 'capabilities' that none were ready to transfer!!

There was no shortcut and no option!! this effort was to piggyback on an actual programme with all the modern attributes (FBW, COMPOSITES, RADAR, ENGINE, AVIONICS, glass cockpit, EW etc..) so that you get real time data which becomes your bible for future projects and concurrently deliver a 'current' aircraft to the user. also remeber this had to be achieved against great odds – meagre budget, sanctions, reinventing the wheel, not so proud participation of the user.

so where are we now?? on the cusp of achievement with both aims realised. the programme timeline pretty much compares with even established players. so why such pessimism?? even if it meant 3/4 years delay, is it not worth when IAF is flying Mig 21s still??

we should consider the the fruits of LCA labour have found their way in – Jaguar upg, Mig 27 upg, su 30mki, IJT design, even Mig 21 upg?? and in futute AMCA too.

besides we do have infra to take care of our future projects with goldmine of data vis-a-vis aerospace needs. so be fair sir.

ADA has done a stupendous job and has given birth to a whole host of private vendors and our money stays with us. "self reliance" has got some 'real' meaning now.

Today's aeronautic ecosystem that exist's is due to ADA's path breaking work. Today they sell things to the IAF which the IAF was importing at outrageous prices from Israel etc. Thanks to the LCA, we have companies in India supported by ADA which started with modules of the MC software, built it upto entire sections of the code, moved onto other avionics projects and today supply the IAF with purpose built software and hardware for various upgrade requirements.

ADA had the foresight to develop 2-3 vendors for each such project and these are now in the position that they are even garnering offsets. Point is dear sir, ADA had two objectives – build up the infrastructure and capability – which they have done, and deliver a product to the users satisfaction – which they are still working on. The second is making steady progress as well.

we are codeveloping with the russians – the PAKFA and here too, the experience and systems developed for LCA will come in handy for the HAL – mainly in composites, EW, IFF, displays etc. besides we move on to our own fifth gen AMCA.
LCA products like MC/OAC/RWR/CDMS/ILSS/HUD/MFD/HOTAS/EW/COMPOSITES/SMS (among others) which have found their way in Mig 27s, Jaguars, Mig 29s, IJT, SU 30MKIs.

 

[p2prada]

Isnt it the other way round where we use the 2032 radar antenna?

The opposite. The antenna is LRDE's. The back end may be Israeli or was Indianized. The radar processor was definitely Israeli.

This is the 2032 antenna.

Completely different. LRDE was successful with only the antenna and a few other components I suppose.

 

[ersakthivel]

according to

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2010/04/lca-tejas-finally-gets-radar.html

Defence Aviation has learnt that the radar was a Hybrid version of Israel's Elta EL/M-2032 which is currently in service with Indian Navy on its Sea Harrier fleet. The radar is mechanically steered and most components are of Indian origin. The processor of the radar is of Israeli origin similar to that found on the EL/M-2032. There was some confusion regarding the type of radar but it has now been confirmed that it is Doppler pulse radar.

The achievement is significant as this bring the LCA-Tejas closer to receiving the Initial Operation Clearance (IOC). All the necessary tests to receive the IOC are done and now only tests related to the radar remain. It's expected that these will be completed in 6 months and after that the LCA will enter service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) which has ordered 40 units of LCA's in IOC configuration. The first aircraft is expected to enter service during the second quarter of 2011.

Note that the LCA MMR is basically the hardware from the original MMR (LRDE antenna, TWT, receiver-exciter/data processor, combined with Israeli signal processor & Israeli software).In addition to the MMR, the LSP-4 had an onboard radar warning receiver, [an] electronic countermeasure system (ECM), and new avionics software.Radar is already integrated on LSP-7 and is working fine. March 2012.

During the test flight, performance of the aircraft systems including Multi-mode Radar (MMR), Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), Auto-pilot and Instrument Landing System (ILS) was satisfactory, providing a moment of pride for all the stake holders which include ADA, HAL, IAF, CEMILAC, DG AQA, ADE and NAL among others.




Other than the signal processor of 2032 which is israeli , most components and and most design features are the work of LRDE.The LRDE has made significant head way in aesa .It has applied for patent for it's Lband ASEA radar antena . It is seeking help in the miniaturisation of ASEA .Eveen chinese don't have a qualified asea. The french,EADS are still perfecting it.The russuians are still perfecting it.Other than US no other country has a production model validated asea radar.And most of the radar components in indian EMBRAER- awacs program is also done by LRDE.





According to B.V. Ramesh, project director of LRDE's LSTAR programme, an LRDE-developed X-band AESA radar could be fitted on the Tejas by 2014.But how far the ASEA radar is finished is still not known.Neither how long it will take to be enter production. Two modules of the AESA radar have already been launched. Ramesh also disclosed that the LSTAR (Long-range Solid State Active Phase Array Radar), which is a sort of a forerunner to India's Airborne Early Warning and Control System programme, has been approved by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification, integrated and tested on ground-based systems, and qualified for airborne applications. And a production agency, Astra Microwave, has been identified for it.


The recent interview with Saraswat notes that they have developed a 1/8th prototype AESA array at LRDE and are testing it. How do we know this is Indian? DRDO's local partner, Astra Microwave mentions their work on X Band FCR (and that they have supplied prototypes to LRDE design) in a recent report. That would actually indigenize the entire radar, with complete control of the new AESA MMR in Indian hands.

 

[ersakthivel]

By just looking at wet thrust numbers to compare two engines is wrong. If EJ200 is taken as an example it has a dry/wet thrust of 60/89 kN while 414 gives out 62.3/98 kN. Further EJ200 weighs 989kg giving it a thrust to weight ratio of 6.18/9.18 while 414 weighs 1110 kg giving it a thrust to weight ratio of 5.72/9 (again dry/wet).

So my point is that Snecma supported 90kN engine can replace 98kN 414 and even provide performance advantages (as it could have better dry twr). if SNECNA -GTRE K-10 weighs lesser than GE-414 the lesser 8 kn thrust doesnot matter as a weight reduction of 200 or so kgs will make up the shortfall.


So to effectively replace 414 in Mk2, the GTRE_SNECMA engine would have to give 60kN/90kN dry/wet thrust while weighing about 990 kg.

The M88 has thrust of 50/75 kN while weighing only 897 kg giving it a twr of 5.7:1/8.5:1 (dry/wet) which isn't that much lesser than what f414 gives.

Just for comparison f404 gives twr of 4.8:1/8.3:1, which is way less than any of the three engine we talked about.