ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Twinblade]

What do they do in between IOC and FOC??

Develop training methods, tactics and logistics base.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Will they start series production after IOC 2 or FOC?

 

[nirranj]

Develop training methods, tactics and logistics base.

They do all this in one year timeframe??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The production will start As soon as IOC2 given in November..

==========

Some of these are already on for some time..

Will they start series production after IOC 2 or FOC?

They do all this in one year timeframe??

 

[p2prada]

What do they do in between IOC and FOC??

Develop training methods, tactics and logistics base.

No, they will take the time to finish another 1000 odd test points in 1000+ flight hours. Like getting to 26 degree AoA, 8G limit, achieve consistency in performance and more along with BVR weapons tests, final calibration of the radar and so on.

Tactics and logistics will happen in the 5 years after FOC because pilots need 500-1000 hours to develop tactics while maintenance crews will need a vast database of over thousands of hours to set up a logistics database.

2 squadrons are enough for this. Training will obviously happen from the start of course.

 

[Defcon 1]

Production target = 10/year??? how are we going to find export orders with this limited production... Also for replacing the 200+ Mig 21's, we need atleast one squadron (17+) aircrafts rolled out of the Assembly lines...

It will be good to set the production targets at 25 crafts P.A. in line with HAL's negative buffer practice...

I don't know from where are you getting your info but LCA will not replace 200+ Mig 21s. Only 120 will be manufactured for IAF as per the current plan. However recent delays in the FGFA program might result in more orders for LCA Mk2

 

[Somreet Bhattacharya]

Are they still using the LITENING pods?? What about the MMR then??..

 

[ersakthivel]

USAF pilots named 'reagan and moose69' who directly participated in cope 2005 exercises posted there.
Here are some excerpts-
Quote:Ragins


As far as what is posted on the internet regarding news stories and who beat who, you can make your own decisions. I would venture to say that the stories of the outcome of the exercise were already written before we flew 10.5 hours across the South Pacific to get there. What really happened there? Both sides had set of notional missiles with notional ranges. Guns kills were based on aspect and range with no regard to stability of WEZ or tracking solutions. Both sides fought hard, but also had integrity for the debrief and no-one tried to skirt around the facts. Sometimes the IAF killed the Vipers and sometimes the we killed the IAF...but a lot of the operations were not designed as IAF vs USAF. Most were mixed configs on both sides.

We got some gun footage and so did they. They made some mistakes and so did we...that's what happens and you learn from it. But, throughout the entire exercise, there was not one safety incident. The USAF lost no fighter sorties due to maintenance the entire two weeks and the IAF only lost one. For two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months.

Quote:Moose69


We started off on the first day with mixed formations doing fingertip flying, which was really cool. Next was some BFM, ACM, and Tactical intercepts. Then came the BVR Air Combat Tactics with us flying in mixed LFE formations with Su-30s, Mig 29s, Mig-27s, Mig-21 Bisons, and Mirage 2000s. The last phase was HVAA (High Value Asset) OCA and DCA. We did get into close combat with every jet they had and it was awesome... Their Sus and Migs really have a lot of power and it was impressive to see how they handled in BFM. The SU-30 was soooo easy to spot those because it makes the F-15 look like a Viper. One thing to note on the BFM strategies was that their pilots would do maneuvers that we had not really thought of before...I am not saying that we didn't know how to react to it, I just mean that when we saw them do a certain maneuver we would think "wow, I never thought of doing that before"....so it was good learning on both sides.

Quote:Moose69


Lets start with the Bison in WVR and BVR...thse are all on the unclass side of course. There were never any true 1v1 BFM against Bisons because, lets face it, it's an old airframe and can in no way turn with the Viper. There were, however, some TI to ACM with Fulcrums and Bisons together. Now keep in mind that we were fighting with fictitious weapons, and the Bison felt it had the best advantage to blow through a WVR engagement and "light the candle". On the LFE side, they did openly (because I was in an integrated "package" with them) stick with the floggers as strikers. I thought the fact that they would also do TI and 1v1 ACM with Fulcrums was interesting too.
Now the Fulcrum, I thought, has the most powerful engines as a ratio of aircraft size. Everytime one would take off it would do a slow climb at high AOA and then power out of it, a few times it looked as if it was going to stall at any moment...it was truely impressive to watch. The guys who had incentive rides in the fulcrum were impressived with it's power and maneuverability. It is a large aircraft and was not too difficult to spot in the air unless they were using haze or the sun to their advantage. Their engines tended to smoke significantly.

Quote:Moose69


As for BFM, we were all impressed with how the Fulcrum performed...very close to the viper.

Quote:Moose69


The Su-30 can perform very well, especially with an experienced pilot who knows his airplane. Their squadron commander was an outstanding pilot whom we all respect deeply. If the Su-30 ever gets into WVR without being spotted (you can see the guy a looong way off), then you are going to have your hands full.

Quote:Moose69


I am sure that they are impressed with the USAF F-16s but whether or not we were there to sell them Vipers is way above my pay-grade. As for the MKIs, they only did BFM for a few days and then split. The MKI is the pride of their fleet and the SU-30ks are eventually going away. There were only a couple of pilots that flew against them and from what I am told it handled nicely. I am not sure of what I can talk about in that area.

Quote:Moose69


The Mirages are great in BFM because they are hard to see. Their delta wings give them a good instant turn capabililty too. I would say that in a BVR arena it is essential to have the aircraft on your radar if you want to do anything...In the dogfight arena.....if you don't have visual on the aircraft then you have already lost.
I don't think I can get into details about radars but the Mirage seemed like a pretty nice jet in all arenas.

Quote:Moose69


As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets over 200 hours a year in the front seat...Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
I would feel comfortable against the MKI only in BVR...the thing has thrust vectoring for crying out loud

Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised.

Quote:Ragins


One question that I would like to address is that of the MiG-29 vs the Mirage. I had the priviledge to fly against the Fulcrum in ACM and the M2000 in BFM. I would say that the Fulcrum has the exclusive reign of power, but would not weight that in excess of the M2000's ability to point it's nose (which is quite impressive...trust me). However, we did not get the chance to fly with the MiG-29s in BVR combat. The M2000s could hold their own quite well (in combat as well as on the golf course). Once again, I think it is a good example of the real question being of pilot, techinique, and above all else reaction making the real difference.


The point to note here is the talk about nose pointing ability of deltas like Mirage-2000,

which is due to the high lift forces produced at trans sonic close combat scenarios,

due to their low wing loading delta wing(more lift per KG carried), that gives the ability to make a sudden turns instantaneously, i.e instantaneous turn rate , generally referred to as nose pointing ability, in the bolded part of the pilot's comments.

It gives a fighter the ability to point it's nose instantly at the enemy and obtain a lock and fire solution with their High off bore HMD enables WVR missiles.

Tejas has much lower wing loading and , higher thrust to weight ratios than the Mirage-2000, which means it will have much better ITR ,i.e nose pointing ability.

And Tejas is even more smaller than the Mirage-2000 which was called as extremely difficult to spot , a trait essential in close combat.

SO even though the LCA is called a MIG-21 replacement, It's ASR called for better specs than the MIrage-2000 in this vital area.

 

[p2prada]

Are they still using the LITENING pods?? What about the MMR then??..

Both are used together on all aircraft.

 

[ersakthivel]

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse

 

[SajeevJino]

Guide me if any Errors ..Thanks

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Made this one sometime back, though it have some errors..
@SajeevJino, note number 4 weapon station, It too design to carry ASHM and Bombs so does BVR etc..

 

[Defcon 1]

Guide me if any Errors ..Thanks

my comments:
1. In BVR, only Astra and Derby will be used. Russian missiles cannot be integrated with LCA. Thats why we are going for Derby till Astra is operational.

2. The max weight that any hardpoint can bear is 1200 kg. Hence 1500 kg bombs cannot be used.
@Kunal Biswas

The station no 7 will not carry any BVR according to this:

LCA Tejas - Specifications: Weapons

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1500Kg it cannot but 1500 lbs it can = 681 kg bomb, Tejas use 1000lb Laser guided bomb for test now..

Indeed but why again, Other aircraft use, Why not tejas ? @ersakthivel

2. The max weight that any hardpoint can bear is 1200 kg. Hence 1500 kg bombs cannot be used.
@Kunal Biswas

The station no 7 will not carry any BVR according to this:

LCA Tejas - Specifications: Weapons

 

[Defcon 1]

1500Kg is wrong info also same Chart says 1500 lbs = 681 kg bomb, Tejas use 1000lb Laser guided bomb for test now..

Indeed but why again, Other aircraft use, Why not tejas ? @ersakthivel

I think that was 1200 litres to be exact. Don't exactly remember. If somebody remembers please post it here.

There was a problem with datalink between tejas and missile I think, Russians were not ready to give us source codes (read this all a long time ago, sorry for the rusty memory). Only our russian aircraft use russian missiles, we can't integrate them with other aircraft.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I have edited my post ..

Russian did not allow this, Though there are chance we may see French BVR on MK2 as well as MK1..

I think that was 1200 litres to be exact. Don't exactly remember. If somebody remembers please post it here.

There was a problem with datalink between tejas and missile I think, Russians were not ready to give us source codes (read this all a long time ago, sorry for the rusty memory). Only our russian aircraft use russian missiles, we can't integrate them with other aircraft.

 

[SajeevJino]

Made this one sometime back, though it have some errors..
@SajeevJino, note number 4 weapon station, It too design to carry ASHM and Bombs so does BVR etc..

Thanks Sir

Some Doubts

can it carry Three AShM in 3,4,5 and two AShm and a Drop tank in 3,4 and 5

The maximum hard Point Weight is 1200 ..so No chance of 1500KG ordnance

 

[Defcon 1]

Thanks Sir

Some Doubts

can it carry Three AShM in 3,4,5 and two AShm and a Drop tank in 3,4 and 5

The maximum hard Point Weight is 1200 ..so No chance of 1500KG ordnance

Actually Tejas will never carry AShm, it is not built for that. AShm will be carried by NLCA which is still under development and only the mk 2 version of NLCA will be deployed in combat. We don't have the planned hardpoint capacity of NLCA mk2. So it is very early to say which AShm it will be able to carry and on which hardpoints. Thanks

 

[SajeevJino]

my comments:
1. In BVR, only Astra and Derby will be used. Russian missiles cannot be integrated with LCA. Thats why we are going for Derby till Astra is operational.

2. The max weight that any hardpoint can bear is 1200 kg. Hence 1500 kg bombs cannot be used.
@Kunal Biswas

The station no 7 will not carry any BVR according to this:

LCA Tejas - Specifications: Weapons

The hard points 1 and 7 only lack of BVR firing or the Heat seekers too

Any problems to integrate Python 5 BVR ..Some where I read that The missile had Launch after lock function the first missile in operation in this kind

or feared of close range BVR Combat

I think that was 1200 litres to be exact. Don't exactly remember. If somebody remembers please post it here.

There was a problem with datalink between tejas and missile I think, Russians were not ready to give us source codes (read this all a long time ago, sorry for the rusty memory). Only our russian aircraft use russian missiles, we can't integrate them with other aircraft.

But there are some Photos out there LCA carrying two R 73 Missiles

and of course Russia in talks to Rafale to carry Kh 31

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MK1 can carry three ASHM, KH-35 as originally planned and Harpoon in future..

can it carry Three AShM in 3,4,5 and two AShm and a Drop tank in 3,4 and 5

The maximum hard Point Weight is 1200 ..so No chance of 1500KG ordnance