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.

CuriousBen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
58
Likes
20
Flight Test Update...

LCA-Tejas has completed 2302 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Aug-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-93,LSP5-209,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-24)


26 flights since July 30th, so close to a flight a day. In May/ June/ July we had close to 140 flights. More than 300 flights overall this year. Hope to see this continue and getting IOC-2 ready in September or even October would be a very welcome development at this stage.
It is certainly an encouraging development. And I hope that it works out.

a) However , I wonder why was the focus to speed up work not given earlier , lets say if maybe 3/4 years ago the same focus was given , then maybe it would have resulted in FOC being materialized during this time. If the answer to the question is that the top decisions makers of IAF were committed "not to" , and the HAL was "non committed and lethargic" , then it sums up one thing,
with those foreign money criminal elements and equally criminal lethargic people, who would need enemies !

b) Does anyone have an idea if the tejas will fly with the kaveri engine this year ?
 

Ganesh2691

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
216
Likes
297
Tejas flight update

Flight Test News

LCA-Tejas has completed 2309 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Sep-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-282,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-213,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)

From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2302 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Aug-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-93,LSP5-209,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-24)
 

dealwithit

New Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
371
Likes
305
Naval prototype is Grounded ... It will be fitted with new landing gear.. And will make trails agian from october
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
For one, the MKI has a very powerful large aperture antenna. The first radar version gives the MKI a first look capability on LCA irrespective of the RCS difference. That's because the RCS difference isn't very significant. The French claimed MKIs had superior situational awareness against Rafales and Mirage-2000s with the same radar during exercises. 100NMI according to the French.

The phase 1 upgrade which is already happening will double that already overwhelming capability.

The phase 2 AESA upgrade will quadruple that capability. So while the LCA will be looking for a MKI at a 100-150Km distance due to antenna size limitations in a normal non-electronic environment, the MKI will be looking at LCA class fighters from a greater height and distance of 400 - 500Km and with a theoretical shoot to kill range of 100 - 300Km vs LCA's theoretical kill range of 50 Km.

By the time Su-30 gets 300 Km BVRs . LCA too will get stealth external weapon bays like it is being done on Super hornet evolution and Silent Eagle program for f-15.

Then the RCs of a fully loaded tejas with six air to air BVrs will be just 0.3 sq meters, No ASEA radar will detect a 0.3 sq meter RCs target at any distance greater than 60 or 70 Kms . So tejas will still have the lower RCS advantage over any SU-30 type no matter how longer a BVR it carries and how powerful a radar is mounted on them,

it is just basic physics , it won't vanish any time soon, Not certainly till the ennd of Su-30s and Tejas service life span,


. For your Info even the PAKFA is supposed to have the 0.5 sq meter RCS with it's BVR missiles in it's internal bomb bay.

Tejas has a kill range of 50 Km only in your Phd thesis. Go to Wiki and check out what are the missiles that will be eligible for tejas and see their range, Leave Akash mk-1 and Mk-2. ADA chief himself has stated on the record that Tejas mk-2 will have the interface to fire meteor 120 Km range BVR just like Grippen.
In a dense electronic environment the MKI's radar capability won't be significantly diminished due to the higher ratings of the radar. On the other hand the LCA's radar capability will be diminished. Apart from that's its EW suite won't be able to keep up against MKI's ECM capability for two reasons. One the MKIs EW suite is simply far far more advanced than what is being planned for LCA. Second, the MKI simply delivers much more power and hence is more useful at longer distances. So all electronic advantages lie with MKI.

There will be three tejas mk-2 in air for every SU-30 in air if you compare the latest lifecycle costs, SO a single Su-30 jamming suite will have to suppress all three tejas radars simultaneously , never going to happen in real time, especially with latest ASEA radars.


Also much bigger emissions from SU-30 will give a trackable targeting co ords from much longer distances for long range radar homing missiles, SO higher power radar has advantages and disadvantages at the same time.
In terms of aircraft capability, the MKI has greater speed, greater altitude options, greater turn rates, roll rates , greater climb rates, overall greater maneuverability and overall greater combat sustainability and survivability.

Meaning, MKI can outturn, outrun and outclimb LCA on any day. At the same time it can sustain combat operations 4-5 times longer. A sustained dog fight time limit is 5 minutes for LCA, it is 25 minutes for MKI. The MKI has far more fuel to burn and burns it less slowly during cruise flight.

ive the specs with source before tumbling out with stats, For your info LCA mk-2 will have an engine more powerful with no significant weight addition massively improving it's TWR vis a vis any fighter on the planet.
the heavier engines on Su-30 will have to support the massive dead empty weight of Su-30s which are built for long range, heavy fuel load, heavy weapon load requirements, with significant momentum penalties

not a rosy proposition when you face a high TWR low weight , fighter with very low wing loading along with lower fuel load and weapon load specs.

Especially in close combat for the same cost one SU-30 has to duel with 3 tejas fighters the odds are not as rosy as you suggest.
A regular MKI mission can go on for 3-4 hours while LCA needs to land back in 40 minutes on internal fuel. MKI currently does not carry any external fuel, but with external fuel, the LCA can manage a one hour 10 minute mission at most. If you compare fuel loads, LCA can fly a little over 1 hour with around 5 tonnes of fuel while MKI can stay in the air for 3.5 hours with 9.5 tonnes of fuel. It has a lot to do with drag and payload. MKI can carry a larger payload and still better the LCA any day.
LCA was built with very low wing loading , high TWR, close combat interception of heavy dead weight long range fighters like SU-30. So it is meaningless to compare the flight times of both tejas and Su-30.

In close combat tejas will carry out missions in 300 km around border area along with ops over domestic air space, so no time on station penalties, here,
Technically, there is no chance at all. On paper, a MKI can be beaten by the LCA class only if the pilot makes a heinous mistake.
Or people like you post such incorrect stuff to mislead gullible Su-30 pilots lulling them to complacency.
truth is opposite big fighters won't fare as mighty as their specs when confronted with more in number nimble state of the art low RCS , high TWR, low wing loading fighters like tejas in close combat ,

There is something called visual stealth that you have completely forgotten, as well
The difference between Rafale and LCA isn't as overwhelming, but Rafale's A2G capability and EW suite is simply outstanding and incomparable to LCA's. In certain respects even MKI is currently deficient in some capabilities the Rafale brings in.
Exactly that is why it is a waste of money to pour 20 billion dollars on the rafale. while for the same price we can get about 600 or 700 tejas mk-2 fighters, making the skies of India a sentinel .

EW suits evolve over time and will be added in MLUs nothing specific to airframe though.
As for crash rate, nearly 200 MKIs or more are already operational with 4 crashes. 0 LCAs are operational with 0 crashes. Moot.



While it is disappointing that the Mig-21s are being pushed beyond their limits, however the comparison is moot. LCA doesn't exist while 200+ Mig-21s do. The LCA is years away from being combat ready.



.
1.A clean config RCS of 0.3 (not really known , but lets take the statement that it will have a third of Mirage -2000 RCS at face value),

2. Six air to air missiles with 0.5 (as said by Decklander)X 6 = 3 sq meters will give an RCS of 3.5 meter max to LCA mk-1 in lightly loaded quick response air to air interception role .

If you do the same calculation for Su-30 then it's clean config RCS of 5 sq meters + 3 sq meters(same 6 X 0.5 sq meter load out) will give a cumulative RCS of minimum 8 sq meters for SU-30.

So even if SU-30 has 30 percent more radome dia giving it a more powerful radar it will present 2.5 times more RCS to the 30 percent smaller dia radar of the LCA Tejas, So in practical terms the big radome dia of Su-30 will hold no significant advantage over much smaller RCS of tejas.


So tracking by both the radars may happen simultaneously in real time with no significant advantage for either one of them,

But what happens after tracking is very interesting,

Say a squadron of 20 tejas fighters fire all their 0.5 sq meter BVRs on a squadron of 20 SU-30, and both start evading maneuvers ,

What happens after that?

The RCS for tejas will reduce ten fold to just 0.3 sq meter , but for SU-30 it will reduce by just 40 percent to 5 sq meters,

So in theory 20 tejas fighters will vanish from the big powerful radar of Su-30 because no su-30 radar can pick up a sub 0.5 meter Tejas target from any distance les than say 50 Km. So how will the Su-30 give mid course guidance to it's BVRs to home in on Tejas ?

The 120 KM range BVrs have their own active seekers , but they can detect tejas only from a closer distance of say 18 Km.

Simply there is no way Su-30 can guide it's 120 Km or 240 Km BVR on tejas in this circumstances.

But still all the 20 tejas will see the big 5 sq meter clean config SU-30 on their radar screen as big as foot ball. So with their discreet ASEA radars(in MK-2 , and will definitely come in as MLU in MK-1 as well) they will continue to guide them on the much bigger RCS SU-30.

So who told you that SU-30 radar will look first, fire first, fill first at all times when it comes to air to air BVr combat?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
With age comes experience. How many pilots exist in India today with over 1000-2000 hours on Tejas? Tell me. You can guess what all our top and experience pilots are flying today. Some of our best pilots are on the Mig-21 and Jaguar squadrons. The LCA is just a baby. A new pilot, no matter how experienced will still be learning to fly the LCA. If you look at LCA's development schedule, IOC and FOC are just the start for IAF. The 40 LCAs will still undergo 5 years of test flying within the IAF. It will be 5 years after induction that ADA will be withdrawn from the project and IAF will be given free lease on the aircraft. Meaning until 2020 IAF will only be flying mostly test sorties on basic MK1 fighters while waiting for MK2 version. Flying the aircraft as a death machine will start years later.

These are technical BS if a war comes in 2020 0r 2018 , Do you think IAF doesnot know how to use them? with all the skilled pilots with decades of experience over many fighters? stupid thought.

What you are forgetting is LCA improves on the Mirage performance, So IAF is not a stranger to the tactics to be employed on low wing loading deltas. Ans all the test pilots who have flown the LCA for the past decade are from IAF. SO comprehensive material from them on what tactics would have to be followed on Tejas won't take all of five years , if all heads come together, and there is something called simulator you have totally forgotten.
As an example, JF-17 was given IOC in 2006, it has still not achieved FOC. It should receive FOC either this year end of early next year, whenever they receive the Block 2 that is. As of today they have three squadrons and all three are trainer and conversion squadrons. Only the earliest pilots and only a handful of jets are combat capable as of today. That's 6 years after induction. It won't be any different for LCA too. By the time LCA is ready for actual combat missions, Mig-21s will be long gone.
Don't compare a junk program to a flight test program that lasted over 13 years with 2300 incident free comprehensive test flights spread over more than 10 platforms .

No one knows which avionics is going to be added in JF-17 to make it modern, But people know which radar LCA has and what missiles will be there with no doubts.

Considering the "state of the art engine and chinese avionics " on board JF-17, it will be obvious JF-17 will never be combat ready for an air war with tejas, So why drag this here?

So if fund starved PAF inducted junks with no FOC , it can't be taken as a yard stick for Tejas FOC with any stretch of imagination!!!!!!!!!

LCAs won't be of much use against China. Mostly MKIs and Rafales in that area, all the top air force stations in the area belong to MKIs and Rafales. It is doubtful whether LCAs will even be placed in the North-East.

Tejas is tailor made with low wing loading for the high altitude himalayan areas, It can do pretty well against J-10s and chinese flankers on any day. Don't compare piece by piece. Compare cost Vs cost . For the same lifecyle cost of one Su-30 you can induct 3 tejas fighters if you take today's exchange rate,

then compare why 600 tejas fighters won't do well against 200 chines flankers , with all the points raised in the previous post. less said the better about the J-10s , due to lack of engine power over high himalayas , it is already renamed as bomber from it's earlier fighter designation according to some reports on the net.


If LCA is not going to be placed in North east, why did under go trials in LEH? photo ops, perhaps?
As of today, the permanent home base for the 2 MK1 squadrons will be Sulur in Tamil Nadu. Mk2s, we are inducting only 4 squadrons. So two squadrons each in two AFS in the western border supporting the 5 Jaguar squadrons, all of which are placed in the west like Punjab(2), Maharashtra(1) and UP(2). Mig-27s will be gone before MK1s are fully inducted and replaced with Rafales.
Don't make out as if Punjab and maharastra are some desolate sub saharan desert areas. When placed there IAF Tejas squadrons wil have to face the upgraded PAF F-16 (to Blk 52 level, with long range BVRs) , And if IAf considers them to be good enough for the job, then it goes without saying it can shoot down any PLAF fighter over Himalayan skies .
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Let @p2prada reply to the first half of your point. It will be better for him to comment.

Gripen NG has been in service since 1997 and till date has produced almost 240 aircraft and is in the service of 2-3 nations. So please do not compare LCA with it.

How many different world class fighters have Sukhoi Bureau, Mikhoyan, or LM or Boeing have made in the last 4-5 decades. When they offer a new aircraft then the reliability and performance of those 4 decades backs their offering. The same is not the case with HAL. Maybe in 2020 or in 2025 they may have the same credibility or capacity.

I once again repeat that you cannot say that a aircraft on the design stage is better than a aircraft which is being used in active service. At best you can say that based on the specs our offering will be better. Actual performance and specs on the drawing sheets are two different things and in my limited experience the divergence can be pretty steep.

If I want to buy a Formula 1 car I would rather go to a Ferrari or a Mercedes rather than go to Honda or Suzuki or even Volvo.


What is the reply of @p2prada is not the point,

I know very well what he will reply , when cornered,

I asked your views on the statements made by @p2prada

The one that entered service with Sweedish airforce in 1997 is not grippen NG. It is Grippen C/D .

Not a single production version Grippen NG fighter exists, forget about IOC, FOC, there is only one demo version exists.

Yet IAF saw the wisdom in allowing Grippen NG to participate in MMRCA tender, In case it won , Indian tax payer would have paid through their nose for the development of this NG version, which would have been sold to export markets with huge revenues.

First the PAKFA is supposed to be an answer for F-22 and it was supposed to be delivered with two seater version. Now the clean config RCS of FGFA will be bigger than the clean config RCS of Tejas at 0.5 sq meter according to russian sources themselves..

if we add stealth external weapon bays to tejas mk-2 , then both may carry the same number of air to air missiles with matching RCS , now compare the prices.

Also two seater version won't be coming along and now it is cancelled.Still no one says it is not right for IAF to have backed the fighter without seeing full production version, Why?

An aircraft will exceed or match another aircraft in operational stage, only if the corresponding design principle is applied at design stage itself. Fighter design nowadays is not about lets see what comes at the end of the design process.

If your super rich you can buy forever from Ferrari, but with your currency busting we can not afford to bankroll the Ferrari and Mercedes of the world forever.

What about our Himalayan neighbor about whom we are mortally afraid forever, Does he also stand in the Q before the ferrari firm?


And why did the top speed of russian ferrari (FGFA ) has been reduced from Mach 2.5 to Mach 2?

And dd IAF know all the finished fighter specs of FGFA before they entered into the program before they backed it with firm orders of 200 ?

Did they know what is the final clean config RCS of FGFA when they gave a commitment of 200 to Sukhoi?

No is the answer to all the questions.

Do you think IAF would have accepted a stealth fighter with primitive radar blocker (employed in Super hornets of yore)for exposed engine blades from ADA in AMCA?

A big No is the answer.They would have taken ADA to the cleaners for this single inept solution which will definitely lead to detection and tracking by future highly sensitve ASEA radar.

Even the chinese J-20 and J-31 does not employ this exposed engine blades with radar blocker solution. So Sukhoi too is not ferrari or mercedes when it comes to 5th gen fighters.

The Sukhoi has just evolved the Su-30 design to 5th gen stealth with no thoughts about serpentine intakes for stealth.even Chinese introduced serpentine intake for better stealth compliance. Why has IAf not insisted on this feature in FGFA from Sukhoi?

Then why a different yardstick needs to be applied for tejas mk-2 for bulk orders?

Isn't it a common fact that all fighters will fall short of the top 5 or ten percent extreme design specs as we are witnessing on FGFA?



So did the IAF went ahead with Su-30 MKI after throughly satisfying itself with the first production version fully developed by the Russians. No. 40 Russian SU-30 series fighters spent their teething time in IAF stables not in the paid for configuration and they were recently returned to Rusia in exchange for the Full SU-30 MKI version. It is not something you would not have known I think.

Even Russian airforce has now ordered the SU-30 MKI in the name of SU-30 SM for their fleet all thanks to combined hardwork by various Indian agencies including the much maligned HAL.

SO when IAF was ready to pay for SU-30 MKI with specs only in their ASR sheets making a song and dance over tejas is not fair to the young pilots whose fate is being tied with Mig-21s.

If at all IAF wanted it would have given orders for 50 or so tejas mk-1 6 or 7 years before

with needed modifications done after the FOC

like they did with the initial SU-30 batch which did not conform to their specs.

Even sweedish airforce did not insist on 2 or 3 IOCs and one FOC along with 2300 test flights for their 1997 induction of grippen, it gave immediate orders a few years after the prototype flew. thats why grippen program is in an advanced stage compared to tejas,

Since IAF did not give a firm committed order of 50 or 80 Tejas mk-1 production of LSPs has become a low priority job for HAL.That was one of the reasons tejas was delayed as well because why do you expect HAL invest in a brand new production line for tejas with no firm commitments from IAF?

So we can see the rudimentary shapings on tejas prototype wings all due to the obsolete production line through which tejas is being produced. Only now HAL has asked money for investing in modern production tech for tejas from MOD and it is still not cleared by MOD. All of this is going on because of the lack of interest shown by IAF from the start.

Even AM Rajkumar in his Tejas story book has written that IAF came on board tejas only after 2006 and raised many requests for action numbering around 200 which further delayed the program.



If IAF gives a bigger order and asks for urgent deliveries HAL can set up a higher capacity production line along with firm orders for engines for speedy deliveries. So making 400 Tejas fighters in ten years at 40 an year is no rocket science,

Why if IAF give orders in the vicinity of 400 many domestic firms too will be willing to jump in , Remember reliance tying up with Dassault and TATAs tying up with Boeing in MMRCA. Because then it is sure to have even export orders.

Why is IAF not insisting on it? If it wants faster deliveries. They are still setting their eyes on RAFALE , FGFA only with just lip service for tejas. But the reality in the form of dwindling forex reserves and falling Rupee will bite them soon.

Lets see how things fare then.

Purely from air defence perspective tejas mk-2 will be on par with the Grippen NG as both carry the same engine and same empty weight , and even the same air to air missiles in the form of Meteor. Why tejas mk-2 will have a slightly bigger radome dia than the grippen NG too.So there is nothing wrong in IAF chiefs remarks that tejas mk-2 will be on par with grippen NG.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brahmastra11

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
206
Likes
159
kudos to ersakthivel.. very well pointed.

@ sob : it was p2prada who started comparing Gripen with Tejas and not otherwise.. Please care to check history of Tejas thread..
@ersakthivel : Could you post this to MOD and IAF under the tag of "Open letter to IAF & MOD" and publish in couple of medias ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
Let me re-re-clarify few of the posts I had on this. The LCA take off in Iron fist is with full AB. You must have noticed the nose wheel compressing down, that is when full mil power is applied, the AB is engaged after brakes release as the brakes can't hold so much of power.
Do not ever compare a deck launch whether ramp or cat launch as the ship always goes into the wind and you have good about 20-25kts of wind on deck. headwind of 20 kts has the same effect as an IAS of 20kts. This results in considerably short take off and landing distances. An ac gets airborne or lands on IAS and not ground speed. So a headwind will result in lower take off and landing rolls.
LCA MK1 IMHO today is as good as Gripen-C with lower load carrying ability. MK2 will be superior to M2K & Gripen NG and will be able to hold its own against any 4.5 gen ac.
N-LCA MK1 will be used to establish Operational flying Training unit for IN like IAF had MOFTU/HOFTU. MK1 is fit for deck service and will be used in the same role as the T-45 Goshawk Trainer of USN. MK1 has very limited weapon load from Deck launch but can carry couple of AAMs+Rocket launchers+practice bombs and has no restriction with about 1.5tons of load to operate from the deck. This can be an ideal platform to teach operations from deck to rookie pilots before they move onto proper sqns.
IN wants to establish its own Pilot training academy and does not want to be at the mercy of IAF. IN will have its own basic trainers soon and it is already replacing Kirans with Hawks for stage-2 and Naval Orientation Flying course. The stage-3 will be only for fighter pilots based on N-LCA MK1.
So is it correct to say that N-LCA Mk-1 will be limited to training only sir?
 

rvjpheonix

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
Could you share your thoughts on the roadmap for the LCA-Tejas programme and the milestones you are looking going forward to?

After the IOC clearance, we are going to work towards FOC in which we will envisage the flight envelope of the aircraft from the 22 degree of angular attack to 24 degree of attack and the manuevering of the aircraft from 6 g to 8 g. Also we will integrate new missiles. For FOC we have to achieve the inflight refueling, which will give extended flying hours. And towards FOC target realisation we are integrating a 23 mm gun and also some other conventional weapons indicated by the Air Force. So before the FOC completion, all these activities are achievable. By 2014 December we will achieve full FOC reaching all objectives and that will see 20 Aircraft ordered by IAF. We hope that within about five years, the 40 aircraft ordered by IAF 20 in the IOC configuration and 20 in the FOC clearance configuration can be delivered. And during this process, some refinement of the software and some of the hardware if necessary will also be done. @Kunal Biswas sir this is from aero mag jan-feb issue from ada directors interview. Does it mean the tejas will have IFR probe in mk1 stage itself fro lsp 6?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Twinblade

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
sir this is from aero mag jan-feb issue from ada directors interview. Does it mean the tejas will have IFR probe in mk1 stage itself fro lsp 6?
It is as it says it is. The IFR probe would be on the second production block and retrofitted on the first block.
 

Dinesh_Kumar

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
518
Likes
231
b) Does anyone have an idea if the tejas will fly with the kaveri engine this year ?
I hope so too, but the way I see it, following factors are important:

1> To fit Kaveri on the LCA, as a pure development exercise , we first need a spare LCA aircraft, stripped down of extra weight (ext. fuel tanks, mounting hardpoints, probably avionics, etc.) so we can have a lighter LCA by about 200-300 kg and have some advantage in thrust to weight ratio. As we are racing towards IOC 2 and FOC goals in 2014, spare aircraft for such an exercise may not be available among the 9 air frames presently with us. (LCA induction is higher priority than Kaveri development, and GE -404 engine is available) To prepare such an air frame, along with a Test Schedule, planning and procuring fuel, test pilots to be made available, (remember ADA and GTRE are different agencies), permission to use HAL runways. etc. will easily take a month's time. Also, special safety equipment on the LCA is required as the Kaveri engine is not yet proven and reliable. Maybe a different version of the FADEC control system for testing (only basic features available, not all modes, code is simpler and bug free) needs to be made available from ADA.

2> A reliable Kaveri engine having run around 150 + hours on the engine test bed, with about 50 KN thrust normal and 73 KN thrust with afterburner (de-rated for more reliability, higher power in later flights) should be made available. Also. special measuring equipment fitted at various points like air flow devices, temperature sensors, throttle position sensors, etc are to be integrated into the engine. Spare engine should also be made available, so if first engine is damaged, testing can go on. To prepare these engines, along with Test Schedules , a ground monitoring crew of engineers, as well as preparation of Test Reports after testing completed (for further actions in development) it will easily take 2 months.

3> Lot of infrastructure already available with HAL and ADA can be used to save time, for such a theoretical exercise (Test Pilot team, Runways and Comm. Tower, 2 Way Communication equipment, Fuel and Ground Handling) but permission to use it must be sought from high levels in MOD. Will anyone in MOD give such permission in absence of clarity? Will the Project Leader be strong, or a weakling?

Sir, your question throws up even more questions than answers.......
 

Twinblade

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
I hope so too, ....................................................

Sir, your question throws up even more questions than answers.......
I was told it would fly in 2013 (very reliable source), but I was told this two years back. Not sure if any slippages have happened during this time period. Regarding the test bed it is most likely to be PV-1.
 

Patriot

New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,761
Likes
544
Country flag
What is the reply of @p2prada is not the point,

I know very well what he will reply , when cornered,

I asked your views on the statements made by @p2prada

The one that entered service with Sweedish airforce in 1997 is not grippen NG. It is Grippen C/D .

Not a single production version Grippen NG fighter exists, forget about IOC, FOC, there is only one demo version exists.

Yet IAF saw the wisdom in allowing Grippen NG to participate in MMRCA tender, In case it won , Indian tax payer would have paid through their nose for the development of this NG version, which would have been sold to export markets with huge revenues.

First the PAKFA is supposed to be an answer for F-22 and it was supposed to be delivered with two seater version. Now the clean config RCS of FGFA will be bigger than the clean config RCS of Tejas at 0.5 sq meter according to russian sources themselves..

if we add stealth external weapon bays to tejas mk-2 , then both may carry the same number of air to air missiles with matching RCS , now compare the prices.

Also two seater version won't be coming along and now it is cancelled.Still no one says it is not right for IAF to have backed the fighter without seeing full production version, Why?

An aircraft will exceed or match another aircraft in operational stage, only if the corresponding design principle is applied at design stage itself. Fighter design nowadays is not about lets see what comes at the end of the design process.

If your super rich you can buy forever from Ferrari, but with your currency busting we can not afford to bankroll the Ferrari and Mercedes of the world forever.

What about our Himalayan neighbor about whom we are mortally afraid forever, Does he also stand in the Q before the ferrari firm?


And why did the top speed of russian ferrari (FGFA ) has been reduced from Mach 2.5 to Mach 2?

.
.
.
..
.
The Sukhoi has just evolved the Su-30 design to 5th gen stealth with no thoughts about serpentine intakes for stealth.even Chinese introduced serpentine intake for better stealth compliance. Why has IAf not insisted on this feature in FGFA from Sukhoi?

Then why a different yardstick needs to be applied for tejas mk-2 for bulk orders?

Isn't it a common fact that all fighters will fall short of the top 5 or ten percent extreme design specs as we are witnessing on FGFA?


.
..
.
.
SO when IAF was ready to pay for SU-30 MKI with specs only in their ASR sheets making a song and dance over tejas is not fair to the young pilots whose fate is being tied with Mig-21s.

.
..
..
.
.
like they did with the initial SU-30 batch which did not conform to their specs.

Even sweedish airforce did not insist on 2 or 3 IOCs and one FOC along with 2300 test flights for their 1997 induction of grippen, it gave immediate orders a few years after the prototype flew. thats why grippen program is in an advanced stage compared to tejas,

.
.
..
.
Well said @ersakthivel you ripped them apart. Some people seems to be on the payroll of russians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brahmastra11

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
206
Likes
159
Just was watching Tejas first flight again.. I think ACM Tipnis has good terms with Tejas project.
 

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
I have a question. Will the first and second squadrons of LCA mk1 be identical or will there be any difference? Thanks in advance.
 

rvjpheonix

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
@p2prada, @Twinblade @ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas sir. The mirage 2000s we have must have gone up gainst the mkis. WHat were the results? There must be some comments by the IAF pilots on the matter. Because however it fared, the tejas is supposed to fare better according to the test pilots who say the tejas is better than the mirage 2000 in essential parameters and because of its lesser rcs and visual stealth in the WVR. It will give s an idea as to how the a sqaudron of tejas can tackle the sukhoi clones of PLAAF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
I have a question. Will the first and second squadrons of LCA mk1 be identical or will there be any difference? Thanks in advance.
In what sense?

Airframe? Avionics? Weapons?

Whatever the FOC aircraft are expected to have, IOC aircraft will be upgraded to that level anyway. It will most probably be done in the few years available after FOC aircraft production is over. PAF is planning on doing the same with JF-17. They will bring Block 1 to Block 2 standards starting from 2015.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top