ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[sasi]

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
~
Yup it is multirole,anyway Hal website says-
~
Tejas is a single engined, light weight, highly agile, //multi-role supersonic fighter//. It has quadruplex digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System (FCS) with associated advanced flight control laws. The aircraft with delta wing is designed for 'air combat' and 'offensive air support' with 'reconnaissance' and 'anti-ship' as its secondary roles.
~
Extensive use of advanced composites in the airframe gives a high strength to weight ratio, long fatigue life and low radar signatures. Aeronautical Development Agency is the designated project manager for the development of LCA.
Specification :
~
Length : 13.2 m
~
Span : 8.2 m
~
Height : 4.4 m
~
Max Take of Weight : 13.5 t
~
Payload : 5.3 t
~
Speed : 1.6 M
~
Radius of Action : 300 km
~
Take off distance : 1700 m
~
Landing distance : 1300 m
~
Service Ceiling : 16 km
~
Power Plant
§ GE 404F2/J-IN20 (1 in no.) (General Electric)
~
§ Turbofan engine
§ Max. Thrust : 5618 kgf
_

 

[Kunal Biswas]

LCA Tejas`s Digital Flight Control Computer..

 

[p2prada]

Escort what? We don't have any bombers.

We do too, Jaguars.

Mig-21s are currently used to escort Jags and Mig-27s.

Will later be handled by LCA and MKI.

 

[p2prada]

Also will add there is no such term call Point defense fighter any more as its obsolete when Jet era arrive..

LCA / MIG-29 / SU-30MKI / MIG-21 are area defense interceptors (or area defense fighters)..

Wrong. There are two categories for interceptors. One of them is called point defence fighter where the aircraft has very low endurance and range. It is heavily dependent on speed to get this done. Eg: Mig-21, LCA, EF-2000, Rafale(in the particular role), Mig-29 etc.

Some of these aircraft like EF and Rafale are more advanced and can handle other roles like air superiority. Comparatively LCA Mk1 and Mig-21 are entirely meant for point defence.

The other is area defence interceptor where radar range and weapons load are most important, apart from speed. Eg: F-14, Mig-31.
If LCA does not have a 400Km radar and 10+ BVR loads, then it cannot be an area defence interceptor.

Now, let's not try and change accepted terminology with one that suits the agenda.

Point defence is still not obsolete, because MKI with 25-50% fuel can perform that role very well.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Post Number : #171

Point defense Fighter :

Is located at the defended target, able launch on demand, climb to altitude, manoeuvrings and then attack the bomber in a very short time before the bomber can deploy its weapons.The role of manned point defense designs was reassigned to unmanned interceptors—surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)—which first reached an adequate level in 1954–1957.SAM advancements ended the concept of high-altitude bomber operations.

^^ There is no term exist as Point defense fighter after post WW2 era..

Area defense fighters:

Area defense interceptors (or area defense fighters) were large designs intended to stay on lengthy patrol and protect a much larger area from attack, depending on great detection capabilities and high speed to reach targets.

--------------------------
--------------------------

Wrong. There are two categories for interceptors. One of them is called point defence fighter where the aircraft has very low endurance and range. It is heavily dependent on speed to get this done. Eg: Mig-21, LCA, EF-2000, Rafale(in the particular role), Mig-29 etc.

Some of these aircraft like EF and Rafale are more advanced and can handle other roles like air superiority. Comparatively LCA Mk1 and Mig-21 are entirely meant for point defence.

The other is area defence interceptor where radar range and weapons load are most important, apart from speed. Eg: F-14, Mig-31.

If LCA does not have a 400Km radar and 10+ BVR loads, then it cannot be an area defence interceptor.

Now, let's not try and change accepted terminology with one that suits the agenda.

Point defence is still not obsolete, because MKI with 25-50% fuel can perform that role very well.

-------------------------------------------------------

You have merely copied my post again except the underlined part, this doesn't qualify your post at least..

Your Examples defies most literature, Twisted self made facts specifically to qualify your assumptions are not worth my time..

As a good gesture, I would resume when you come with some reliable facts to support la la land theories..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Do NOT use Abuse to Win Arguments..

 

[ersakthivel]

Mr P2 PRADA,

If you have learnt so much from Gambit in the past 3 years and so much more from various forums ,

Why don't you answer basic questions I posted in the post no-167?



Thats why without understanding any thing you are blindly calling a fighter which can stay in air for more than two hours(with least inducing conformal fuel tanks in mk-1, and with a ton more internal fuel+fuel in conformal fuel tank in mk-2) ,with large fuel fraction compared to it's weight, with more than 1 as TWR and hold more than 4 long range BVRs and close to 5 or 6 40 km range WVR ,quadreplex reduntant fly by wire fighter as point defence fighter.

All airforces that will have grippen NG will use it in the same area defence and strike roles, with multiple launcher racks,
IAF will use RAFALE with multiple ejector launcher racks,

Tejas too will be used in the same way,with multiple ejector launcher racks,
Because all the fighters have more than 1 as TWR , so no problem with miniscule extra drag produced by multiple ejector launcher racks,

I never said rookie F-22 pilots,
The pilots of rusting MIG-21s with simulator experience of 2 years can become experts on TEJAS,
Are do you expect them to be banished with their rusting migs like in the days of egyptian pyramida?
SO there is no need for you to smell any non existant farting,

Once the TEJAS becomes operational all stuffs like conformal fuel tanks and multiple launcher racks will be introduced,
The harping on picture shows your trivial desire to raise silly questions again and again,

If LCA does not have a 400Km radar and 10+ BVR loads, then it cannot be an area defence interceptor.

A fighter with 10 BVRs costs at least three times more if you include full lifecycle costs in foreing exchange calculation than Tejas,And it will be visible on enemy radar atleast 50 km before TEJAS And its RADAR emissions will be detected atleast 800 kms infront of it.

Sukhoi is a strike fighter, Just because MIG went bankrupt it is doning the role of airdominance fighter,thats all.That doesn't mean everyone should sing peons forever for it.

TEJAS can have stealth coformal external weapon bays then it's RCS with weapons load will drop below 0.5 sq meter as it is designed with RCS reduction ideas from the design phase it self,

If it is designed with stealth conformal external weapon bays like silent eagle version of F-15, then it has the ability to launch a BVR with longer range before being detected by the enemy,the most important criterian in any area defence mission,

However even if you introduce stealth conformal external weapon bays on sukhoi it will still have more than 5 sq mt RCS and can be seenby the enemy before twice the distance required by TEJAS .

If one looks at things without prejudice all the potentials will be visible, Otherwise it will be a classical", glass is half empty, half full" arguments forever.

.So propogating views like, If LCA does not have a 400Km radar and 10+ BVR loads, then it cannot be an area defence interceptor is quite silly.

IF PEOPLE HAVE LOGICAL VIEW POINTS TO POST AND COUNTER THE OTHER GUY'S VIEW THEY CAN DISCUSS IT CALMLY WITHOUT USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

WHATEVER WILL BE THE OUTCOME OF THIS DEBATE , TEJAS AND IT'S FURTHER DEVELOPED MODELS WILL CONTINUE TO SEE SERVICE IN IAF. IT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.

So there is no need to be combative here.

 

[p2prada]

You have merely copied my post again except the underlined part, this doesn't qualify your post at least..

Regardless, you are trying to put Mig-21 and LCA (150-300Km fighters) at the same level as 1000-1500Km fighters like Mig-31, Su-27/30, F-15 and F-22.

 

[ersakthivel]

Some of these aircraft like EF and Rafale are more advanced and can handle other roles like air superiority. Comparatively LCA Mk1 and Mig-21 are entirely meant for point defence.

From the inception TEJAS has been concieved to carry 650 mm dia radar, 4 ton weapon load ,carefree pilot handling with DIGITAL QUADREPLEX REDUNTANT FBW , with higher combat range, So there is no point in clubbing it with MIG-21 which has 1.5 ton wepon load, laughable radar range and unforgivingly tough to fly DESIGN.

Well the famed makers of MIG-21 didn't even thought it fit to fix it with decent ejection seat ,it was done by us after the death of so many young pilots.

But stangely there are many people who accuse the so called delay in TEJAS program as the reason for the death of 400 pilots with a jaundiced eye, My question is

Did ADA prevent the MIG design team from fitting it with any decent reliable pilot life saving EJECTION seat system in the first place?

More than half the fleet of MIGs were lost within their service life ,Was ADA responsible for it?
Compare that to the MIRAGE safety record in IAF, which too is a single engine fighter, for which IAF was ready to place additional 126 orders.

If you compare the reliability of mirage engines to the dangerous nature of MIG's design and terrible engine quality it will become obvious even to a lay man where mig-21 stands and where fighters like TEJAS and MIRAGE stand?

 

[p2prada]

Thats why without understanding any thing you are blindly calling a fighter which can stay in air for more than two hours(with least inducing conformal fuel tanks in mk-1, and with a ton more internal fuel+fuel in conformal fuel tank in mk-2) ,with large fuel fraction compared to it's weight, with more than 1 as TWR and hold more than 4 long range BVRs and close to 5 or 6 40 km range WVR ,quadreplex reduntant fly by wire fighter as point defence fighter.

What conformal tanks? Don't make ADA employees laugh.

Tejas too will be used in the same way,with multiple ejector launcher racks,
Because all the fighters have more than 1 as TWR , so no problem with miniscule extra drag produced by multiple ejector launcher racks,

Drag is not miniscule.

I never said rookie F-22 pilots,

Only rookie pilots use simulators in order to increase experience. Fighter maneuvers are done on real fighters over many years. Maintenance of fighters is done by a real maintenance team who take years to learn their trade. Commanders need to see actual ground results to determine the efficacy of an aircraft. None of this is done on simulators.

An aircraft induction is a minimum 10 year process, not 2.

The pilots of rusting MIG-21s with simulator experience of 2 years can become experts on TEJAS,

Most of them will retire with the Mig-21. There are too few LCAs for fighter conversion. Most of the remaining pilots will move to aircraft like Rafale and MKI because of the numbers being inducted. There are 120 Mig-21 Bisons and 80 obsolete Mig-21s. That's a little over 120 operational pilots and an unknown number from the grounded fleet. Regardless, a 500 hour Mig-21 pilot is still a Zero hour LCA pilot. Unlike in other cases, the LCA pilot will have to learn his aircraft from scratch. In the case of Rafale, ALA pilots will already have a regulated flight manual ready for transfer in order to convert IAF pilots from Mig-27 and Bisons to Rafale.

Once the TEJAS becomes operational all stuffs like conformal fuel tanks and multiple launcher racks will be introduced,

CFT installation is a 5+ year process. It is not done overnight. If they start now, they will end only at the end of the decade.

It is nice if LCA has multi-ejector racks. But we don't have any today. If they come in the future, then it is only part of your wishlist.

You are expecting too much from too little.

It seems any discussion with you only results in deletion of my posts. I literally had nothing to do during the weekend, the only reason why I discussed with you. End of posting.

 

[ersakthivel]

What conformal tanks? Don't make ADA employees laugh.



Drag is not miniscule.



Only rookie pilots use simulators in order to increase experience. Fighter maneuvers are done on real fighters over many years. Maintenance of fighters is done by a real maintenance team who take years to learn their trade. Commanders need to see actual ground results to determine the efficacy of an aircraft. None of this is done on simulators.

An aircraft induction is a minimum 10 year process, not 2.



Most of them will retire with the Mig-21. There are too few LCAs for fighter conversion. Most of the remaining pilots will move to aircraft like Rafale and MKI because of the numbers being inducted. There are 120 Mig-21 Bisons and 80 obsolete Mig-21s. That's a little over 120 operational pilots and an unknown number from the grounded fleet. Regardless, a 500 hour Mig-21 pilot is still a Zero hour LCA pilot. Unlike in other cases, the LCA pilot will have to learn his aircraft from scratch. In the case of Rafale, ALA pilots will already have a regulated flight manual ready for transfer in order to convert IAF pilots from Mig-27 and Bisons to Rafale.



CFT installation is a 5+ year process. It is not done overnight. If they start now, they will end only at the end of the decade.

It is nice if LCA has multi-ejector racks. But we don't have any today. If they come in the future, then it is only part of your wishlist.

You are expecting too much from too little.

It seems any discussion with you only results in deletion of my posts. I literally had nothing to do during the weekend, the only reason why I discussed with you. End of posting.

I never said conformal fuel tanks and multi ejector racks are in service now.

They can be designed for any fighter, if the need arose,

5 year procee can be done by 5 years.PERIOD.NOT IMPOSSILE.
Once design of mk-2 matures all accessories will be added later.
END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[ersakthivel]

picture shows how 4th gen aircrafts are converted to more stealthier version .This is silent eagle with canted tail fins and stealth compliant external weapon bays.

Same kind of modifications are possible in future for tejas also,

 

[ersakthivel]

It illustrates the concept of operation. Since tejas has large wing area ,adaptations like this are no rocket science, easily doable .

 

[ersakthivel]

Another illustration,

Since tejas was designed with RCS reduction aim from the inception it is a much better candidate for this kind of future evolution.

Since the compressor blades are already well hidden no serpentine air intakes are needed, the only thing that has to be done is redesigned air intake with DSI bumps and two canted tail fins in place of one,extensive design effort ,but not un doable

two canted tail fins and external weapon bays will make tejas capable of firing a long range BVR undetected by any fighter , 5th gen or 4th gen.This can be done as TEJAS mk-III as a mid life upgrade, if possible on mk-2 .No hefty R&D fees will be charged by ADA for this.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/R.../Boeing/Boeing_F-15SSE_Super_Silent_Eagle.htm

Some material regarding the upgrade in the above site.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/LCA_Tejas.pdf

SOme official information regarding the RADAR on this link. It says the signal processor of the radar was based the one developed for Israeli LAVI.

And HANDLING quality of LCA is described as very good by all the 15 test pilots of the indian navy and airforce. The article was related to LSP-3 as it is the one with sensors and radars.

 

[ersakthivel]

Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - what's the Tejas' fundamental problem?
The most detailed information you can find on LCA's avionics and repeated uogrades of the avionics to the level of RAFALE is discussed in this thread.

For instance, on the original LCA - you had dedicated mission computers, display processors, video switching units, digital map generators. Each with separate modules & processor units, all as separate boxed LRUs. In the current LCA, all these functions are now handled by a single OAC (Open Architecture Computer) running on high power processor cards, with another OAC on hot standby!

Next - late into the program, the IAF asked for the LCA to have an internal EW capability! Note - NO OTHER IAF aircraft - till date has had an internal EW capability from its procurement. The LCA team has certified both standard jammers & DARE (DRDO) has also developed a state of the art EW suite (high sensitivity multiple receivers connected to a matrix with multiple transmitters).

Last but not least - all those claims of LCA MK1 not meeting ASRs/IAF unhappy are just overwrought.. the LCA MK1 as it stands will handily outperform the bulk of the IAF fleet of MiG-21s and Jaguars in A2A and strike.

If it didn't meet the overambitious requirements set out in the first tranche, that's still ok. The LCA of the 80's had to be as maneuverable as the MiG-29 with high ITRs of the Mirage 2000, and it had no HOBS missiles nor did it have a HMS.

The LCA of today has HOBs missiles (R-73E confirmed, Python reported) and an Elbit DASH HMDS. A couple of degrees in marginal STR is not a showstopper. Similarly, 8G versus 9G in its MK1 - especially given the kind of platforms the IAF is facing, the JF-17 which too has a 8G limitation, is again not an issue.

Are these my views alone? No. They are first hand from the test pilots whom I (and many others) met at a public industry event sometime back. They have no qualms about the combat performance of the LCA MK1 whatsoever.

ight now, there is also talk of a LCA MK3. Apparently the IAF wants to really strengthen up against the PLAAF/PAF (hi-lo combo) and the LCA is its most cost effective choice.

However, one of the key advantages of the 5G program with Russia is the testing & certification part. Right now, India is at the test each & everything mode. Once experience builds up, and both databases and tribal knowledge exists - testing & certification will speed up. These can easily take off years off of a program.

That is going to be a key lesson learnt for the AMCA or whatever the IAF calls it..

 

[ersakthivel]

ADA has followed global prcactices on LCA TEJAS.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /R3687.pdf

TD was used for RAFLE program too..

Lets go to the LCA.

Only after the TDs validated all the flight parameters , "Full Scale Development" i.e FSED for Tejas commenced
,with both the PVs and LSPs, which have full weaponization & sensor suites beingcontinuously added.
It was the IAF which insisted on the pre-condition that FSED would only be launched after the TD phase was demonstrated to their satisfaction due to doubts about the credibility of ADA.

If MOD allowed simultaneous development of LSPs along with TD with needed funds, the program would have been much faster,
But since ADA was just starting out , the IAF didn't believe their credibility, and due to that MOD could not release funds simultaneously for TDs and LSPs like in grippen or PAKFA or J-20 program. So IAF has no one to blame if TEJAS came late.

PVs & LSPs are being used for A2G trials, while PV-1 tests internal EW suite, and LSP-7 is close to the IOC standard. LSPs & SPs will be used to get to FOC .

 

[ersakthivel]

GE Brings Good Things To Hornet, Gripen

Evidence of this trend may be coming to light. At yesterday's roll-out of the 500th Super Hornet/Growler, Boeing program vice-president Kory Mathews confirmed that the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine would be the baseline for the company's offer to India. The idea of the engine has been around for some time, but GE is clearly ready to commit the funds necessary to make the engine a reality.

More details of the engine have been disclosed. It has a new core, based on demonstrations conducted with US government funds in 2004 and 2006, and a redesigned fan and compressor. A third test engine was run in 2010. All the new components use three-dimensional aerodynamics -- that is, more swept, twisted blades -- using technology that has been used on other engines since the F414 was designed 20 years ago.

GE rates EPE engine's new components at a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 (indicating successful prototype testing) and notes that it has developed 17 new or derivative engines successfully from the same TRL.

The new engine offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost. That would take the EPE up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, giving it the best thrust/weight ratio of any fighter engine -- almost 11:1. Alternatively (an option understood to be attracting interest at Saab) the EPE could be delivered with a 10 percent uprate and very generous temperature margins, extending its life and reducing fighter life-cycle costs.

The EPE "will not make much difference at an air show", says Boeing chief test pilot Ric Traven, but dramatically improves the fighter's performance at high speed and altitude, halving supersonic acceleration times. For the Gripen, the extra thrust would translate into further-improved supercruise (supersonic level flight without afterburner) capability.



So the offer of 120 kn engine for tejs does exists , making it one of the most potent 4th gen fighters of the world.It is upto IAF and ADA , MOD combine to decide on this.Especially naval LCA will need more thrust to compensate for the landing gear weight.

It can even be a back up or fall back option for AMCA program , in case if we cannot finish the AMCA engine(130 kn) in time.

 

[ersakthivel]

 

[ersakthivel]

the above is the mock up of of proposed tejas mk-2

the above are the wind tunnel model of tejas with canards tested and discarded as it didnot give any superior performance for the weight and drag penalty the design imposed.