ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Decklander]

If you carefully inspect the pictures of Su-27 and PAKFA then you will find,
1. Compared to Su-27, we have one more control surface in PAKFA in the form of LEVCON.
2. In PAKFA Rudder act as Vertical Stabilizer as well as air brakes while in Su-27 we have vertical stabilizers as well as small rudder.

So control surface in 5th generation aircraft as compared to 4th generation has increased(not the static area but moving surfaces area) especially in case of PAKFA, of course to increase its maneuverability.

There is another very important aspect that all these RSS and unstable designs have MAWs-Mission adaptive wings wherein even their leading edge flaps, slats, flaps, ailerons all act differently to provide controlability.
If you look at LCA & M2K design you will know that movement of these surfaces helps in controlling the movement of CP to a large extent and so we can't say that such measures help reduce control surface area w.r.t a conventinol layout stable design.
The reqt of surface area of controls reduces only in canard designs.

 

[CuriousBen]

Ans-1, Yes LCA is far superior to Mig-21 which it will replace. IAF shud buy them in large numbers and I fail to understand the order of just 40 ac when IAF operates over 250 Mig-21s. Even if we count the 99 F414INS6 engines, the total is less than the fleet of Mig-21s which they plan to replace. Seems IAF plans to import some more ac and kill LCA somehow or the other. They wud have succeeded had it not been for IN which forced them to rethink.
Ans-2, Yes and I love it as It is Indian design.

Ans-3, The real rating of F414INS6 is 108Kn but for some reason HAL went for 98KN. IN wants 118KN from this engine.
Ans-4, I have already posted what I think is needed in LCA MK2 to make it better and surpass all expectations. IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design.

No one protect you if your own wife wants to kill you who sleeps in your bed. LCA needs to be saved from only IAF as they are ones who are going to fly it. So who will save LCA from IAF?

Well Sir , allow me to express my thanks.

Your Ans-3 has thrown good light.

Continuing with Ans-3, do you mean that the engines dimension and weight is the same F414INS6 ( allows 118 kn) as compared to F404-XXX.
I.e. can F414INS6 be fitted into the tejas n lca frame without any modification to the design ?
If yes, then ideally IN should go for F414INS6.

However if the F414INS6 impacts the design then there might be a reason to go with 98KN ... considering the tiny aircraft mindset of the ADA and HAL. Maybe they want to play it safe and do it right the first time on a frozen design, as it would allow them to stay focussed.
Every product gets versioned and with subsequent versions the earlier defects get eliminated , new features get added . Some new problems gets introduced is a different matter ...

Based on your answers , I find my faith eroding in the IAF.

incidentally my faith in the Indian Navy had also eroded when these well trained MARCOS, played politics first ,then delayed response, and then refused to engage the terrorist in the taj hotel ( citing that they were not well trained . thoo..)... If we as a nation have such soldiers , who fail us then same old history of India will repeat... i.e. a nation betrayed by its own people.

History is not told correctly in india, here it goes...
remember 1757 - betrayed at plassey,
why go back to the ghori muslim invasion , came at the behest of a rajput king .. result delhi succumbed
remeber the anglo-sikh war, again betrayel by so called sikh...
remember 1857 - sikhs / gorkhas did not oppose british. British awarded them later

Truth is bitter, however truth will never be suppressed .

Now , its very clear that internal enemies are more than external.

What can we do ... sigh .. submit ? be sacrified .. sorry boss ! sacrifice the enemy.

edmund bruke or someone had said - the only reason why evil survives and succeeds, is because, good people like you and me sit there and do NOTHING !

To begin with - I have loved LCA and I will extend the support to LCA whole heartedly
However I will hope that we speeden the success story and at least make it export worthy whereby the efforts of 20 years can be rewarded... e.g.the akash missile, its now having orders worth 30,000 crores.

IAF or not, carry on LCA ! I dont believe in prayer. Lets hope the few good men who make and fly the aircraft , control its ( and our great country's) destiny.

 

[CuriousBen]

Ans-1, Yes LCA is far superior to Mig-21 which it will replace. IAF shud buy them in large numbers and I fail to understand the order of just 40 ac when IAF operates over 250 Mig-21s. Even if we count the 99 F414INS6 engines, the total is less than the fleet of Mig-21s which they plan to replace. Seems IAF plans to import some more ac and kill LCA somehow or the other. They wud have succeeded had it not been for IN which forced them to rethink.
Ans-2, Yes and I love it as It is Indian design.

Ans-3, The real rating of F414INS6 is 108Kn but for some reason HAL went for 98KN. IN wants 118KN from this engine.
Ans-4, I have already posted what I think is needed in LCA MK2 to make it better and surpass all expectations. IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design.

No one protect you if your own wife wants to kill you who sleeps in your bed. LCA needs to be saved from only IAF as they are ones who are going to fly it. So who will save LCA from IAF?

Sir,
Ans-4, I have already posted what I think is needed in LCA MK2 to make it better and surpass all expectations. IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design

I don't understand "IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design".
Could you please elaborate the above.

 

[p2prada]

Sir,
Ans-4, I have already posted what I think is needed in LCA MK2 to make it better and surpass all expectations. IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design

I don't understand "IMHO even MK2 is not capable of fully exploiting of the potential of LCA design".
Could you please elaborate the above.

LCA needs to break away from the tag of small fighter and go for a larger design. Something like the F-16C to a F-16A. Bigger, better, badder. Saab is currently doing that with Gripen E/F.

The wing is big enough to allow for a longer fuselage with minimal changes. A higher thrust F-414EPE will take care of thrust issues.

Longer fuselage will allow for more avionics and fuel and will push it in the medium weight category like B52 and B60.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Going for a bigger design is what not Tejas LCA are design for as they are light fighters, the advantage they have ..

1. Low maintenance Cost.
2. Low Operational Cost.
3. High Sorties.

Such fighter are extremely valuable in in War of ' attrition ' ..
MK2 is a upgrade of MK1 itself, It not going to be something what AMCA is design for ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Keep Tejas thread till Tejas ..

 

[Decklander]

Going for a bigger design is what not Tejas LCA are design for as they are light fighters, the advantage they have ..

1. Low maintenance Cost.
2. Low Operational Cost.
3. High Sorties.

Such fighter are extremely valuable in in War of ' attrition ' ..
MK2 is a upgrade of MK1 itself, It not going to be something what AMCA is design for ..

Upto about 16 tons weight it will remain in the same category. The same engine, airframe and better avionics +fuel is what this ac needs. Actually it is not so much about the length which the designers are worried about, they seem to be interested in keeping its empty weight low. IMHO, let empty weight rise by another 500 kgs, but get the fuel capacity up by one ton and more space for avionics.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sir, What is about the new engine weight so does the extra fuels weight ? The length wont be a serious factor as everything else is design accordingly ..

Please do correct me if i am wrong ..

Upto about 16 tons weight it will remain in the same category. The same engine, airframe and better avionics +fuel is what this ac needs. Actually it is not so much about the length which the designers are worried about, they seem to be interested in keeping its empty weight low. IMHO, let empty weight rise by another 500 kgs, but get the fuel capacity up by one ton and more space for avionics.

 

[Decklander]

Sir, What is about the new engine weight so does the extra fuels weight ? The length wont be a serious factor as everything else is design accordingly ..

Please do correct me if i am wrong ..

I see no problem except that the FBW codes will need to be rewritten which may prolong the induction of MK2 in service. But it is worth the effort. F414INS6 is a 108KN engine as derived from F414EPE TRL-6 engine. Now compare this thrust level with that of M2K and you will find that LCA even with weights and length same as M2K will have better TWR.

 

[Ganesh2691]

Tejas flight update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2340 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Oct-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-373,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-158,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-62,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

 

[rohit b3]

What about the September IOC-2 deadline?

 

[ersakthivel]

Unstable ac has its CG behind the CP in all phases of flight so it tends to pitch up always.
LCA is a great design which is under exploited due to the fixation of its designers. This ac can be made as good as Rafale or even better if ADA sheds its fixation with size. IMHO LCA will realise its true potential if its length is increased to say 14.5m which will create more space for avionics and fuel and it gets a 11ton engine (108KN). They must insert a section at the rear to make it unstable from RSS as that will give it outstanding takeoff perf and also even better combat agility. these shud be rather easy to include considering it is already a RSS FBW design.

I have a feeling that N-LCA will be one such Unstable design as the increase in weight due to tailhook and heavier landing gear will shift its CG further aft.

even TYPHOON becomes stable once it crosses into super sonic speed. I guess it is the same with RAFALE as well.

So tejas too will become stable platform once it crosses sound barrier,

Since for all these three fighters the center of Lift (or pressure -CP) will move behind Center of gravity in super sonic flight.

I don't know F-22 , and F-35 will remain unstable in high super sonic speeds.

Logic suggest it is not the case. SInce the in super sonic speeds the massive lift force caused by the huge wings of all these 5 fighter planes will move the center of Lift (or Center of Presure ) behind the center of gravity and make them stable is my guess.

Surely if this is what happens to similar TWR TYPHOON and RAFALE and tejas Mk-2 then the same must happen to F-22 and F-35 as well,

Because all five fighters share the common RSS or unstable flight profiles with very low wing loading , and high TWR with some sort of compound delta wings.

So the aerodynamic loadout of Tejas is as modern as any 4.5th or 5th gen fighter.

Agreed that a one meter extra fuselage length along with 120 Kn EPE engine request from IAF will transform the Tejas Mk-2 into different beast.

But the IAF which routinely asks for the better powered engines (it even vetoed the GTRE-SNECMA Jv complaining that the engine won't meet their thrust expectations) is very shy on this count.

Are the people pushing for RAFALE fearing with such engine thrust tejas mk-2 will dangerously come close to RAFALE and it will become very difficult to push for 20 billion dollar import gravy train called MMRCA(will exceed 40 billion if lifecycle costs are taken into account!!!)?

Is this the reason why IAF is not pushing for GE-414-EPE 120 KN version for the tejas mk-2?

It is very strange course of action from IAF , since the GE is ready to offer 120 Kn engine and Navy is pushing for this 120 Kn EPE version, to coyly say 108 Kn (that too in bump mode only) is enough!!!!!

Surely someone must know.

 

[ersakthivel]

What about the September IOC-2 deadline?

The most important requirement for the IOC-2 , i.e the engine relight test is complied with. SO there won't be any major issues, I guess.

 

[Decklander]

even TYPHOON becomes stable once it crosses into super sonic speed. I guess it is the same with RAFALE as well.

So tejas too will become stable platform once it crosses sound barrier,

Since for all these three fighters the center of Lift (or pressure -CP) will move behind Center of gravity in super sonic flight.

I don't know F-22 , and F-35 will remain unstable in high super sonic speeds.

Logic suggest it is not the case. SInce the in super sonic speeds the massive lift force caused by the huge wings of all these 5 fighter planes will move the center of Lift (or Center of Presure ) behind the center of gravity and make them stable is my guess.

Surely if this is what happens to similar TWR TYPHOON and RAFALE and tejas Mk-2 then the same must happen to F-22 and F-35 as well,

Because all five fighters share the common RSS or unstable flight profiles with very low wing loading , and high TWR with some sort of compound delta wings.

So the aerodynamic loadout of Tejas is as modern as any 4.5th or 5th gen fighter.

Agreed that a one meter extra fuselage length along with 120 Kn EPE engine request from IAF will transform the Tejas Mk-2 into different beast.

But the IAF which routinely asks for the better powered engines (it even vetoed the GTRE-SNECMA Jv complaining that the engine won't meet their thrust expectations) is very shy on this count.

Are the people pushing for RAFALE fearing with such engine thrust tejas mk-2 will dangerously come close to RAFALE and it will become very difficult to push for 20 billion dollar import gravy train called MMRCA(will exceed 40 billion if lifecycle costs are taken into account!!!)?

Is this the reason why IAF is not pushing for GE-414-EPE 120 KN version for the tejas mk-2?

It is very strange course of action from IAF , since the GE is ready to offer 120 Kn engine and Navy is pushing for this 120 Kn EPE version, to coyly say 108 Kn (that too in bump mode only) is enough!!!!!

Surely someone must know.

All RSS ac become stable at about mach 0.8 and not when they are supersonic. They become more stable at supersonic speeds.
Unstable ac like F-22 have trapezoidal wing which maintain CP nearly stationary. A trapezoidal wing with 42* sweepback and 42* sweep forward will act as a straight wing as far as movement of CP is concerned. In addition these ac have the ability to deflect their leading and trailing edges upwards to reduce the movement of CP backwards and finally F-22 has 2D TVC for this very purpose. F-22 is unstable as it is reqd to do aircombat at supercruising speeds and it can't afford to be a stable design at that speed. So they made it to be completely unstable at all speeds.

Regarding LCA MK2, You have hit the nail on the head. IAF has tried its level best to kill this project and now we are in s ituation where the entry into service timelines of Mk2 & Rafale are matching. So why go for Rafale? use just 25% of Rafale deal money to create two separate assembly lines for LCA and boost its production. Increasing the length of LCA by one meter will allow it to get four new fuselage pylons as the present length does not allow space for them. The missiles or stores mounted on the sides of fuselage like those in Typhoon or Rafale will add another 2 tons of loads to LCA bringing its total payload to a stupendopus 7.5 tons or more.
M2K is 14.36m long aircraft and LCA MK2 is going to be 13.7m why not add another 0.7m and make it far far superior to M2K.

IAF is worried about its bribes and so are the baboos in MOD. LCA is becoming more of an unwanted child only for want of bribes.
If I have my way, I will force IAF at gun point to accelerate the FOC for this ac and also ask them to explain as to what problems do they have in inducting this ac when F-35 & F-22 were inducted into USAF while they still had not cleared IOC-1.

 

[CuriousBen]

All RSS ac become stable at about mach 0.8 and not when they are supersonic. They become more stable at supersonic speeds.
Unstable ac like F-22 have trapezoidal wing which maintain CP nearly stationary. A trapezoidal wing with 42* sweepback and 42* sweep forward will act as a straight wing as far as movement of CP is concerned. In addition these ac have the ability to deflect their leading and trailing edges upwards to reduce the movement of CP backwards and finally F-22 has 2D TVC for this very purpose. F-22 is unstable as it is reqd to do aircombat at supercruising speeds and it can't afford to be a stable design at that speed. So they made it to be completely unstable at all speeds.

Regarding LCA MK2, You have hit the nail on the head. IAF has tried its level best to kill this project and now we are in s ituation where the entry into service timelines of Mk2 & Rafale are matching. So why go for Rafale? use just 25% of Rafale deal money to create two separate assembly lines for LCA and boost its production. Increasing the length of LCA by one meter will allow it to get four new fuselage pylons as the present length does not allow space for them. The missiles or stores mounted on the sides of fuselage like those in Typhoon or Rafale will add another 2 tons of loads to LCA bringing its total payload to a stupendopus 7.5 tons or more.
M2K is 14.36m long aircraft and LCA MK2 is going to be 13.7m why not add another 0.7m and make it far far superior to M2K.

IAF is worried about its bribes and so are the baboos in MOD. LCA is becoming more of an unwanted child only for want of bribes.
If I have my way, I will force IAF at gun point to accelerate the FOC for this ac and also ask them to explain as to what problems do they have in inducting this ac when F-35 & F-22 were inducted into USAF while they still had not cleared IOC-1.

I wish we go with Sir Decklanders way ! I thought I was the only one with that opinion.

40 billion dollars ! Jolly good loot of India's money !!
20 billion dollars to begin with, does it go to 60 billion dollars ?

Its unquestionable that India has turned into a banana republic !


I am just trying to read the writing in between the lines Sometime back the proposal of designing and making tejas mk2 deferred in view of the fact that tejas mk1 was not ready. Was it intentional ? As i don't see any reason why Mk2 could not have gone paralllel with mk1.

Coming to a different aspect, does GTRE has the capacity to make 120 KN engines !

Remember Iran. The US sold F 18 to Iran and then these aircrafts were rendered useless by some sort of software or component when the US and IRAN relationship strained.

One danger of the US engines is that I hope these dont have trojan horses , whereby these will be remote controlled by a radio controlled from space satellites , whereby the engines stop functioning if the LCA tejas however around the military bases of USA right in the middle of the Indian Ocean , at diego gargia.

Point is , what stops a success story in aero engines ...lack of motivation or poor program management or the internal enemy or lack of technical know-how.

The German army in their invasion of Poland had aimed at the head and killed 4000 of the top Polish officers and generals.
Since criminas rules in india due to an apathetic and indifferent society, I am concerned if these people might think about sabotaging the plan by eliminating the scientists/ engineers one by one .....I hope that does not happen... If yes then then who shall save the average indian citizen like you and me !

 

[dealwithit]

Tejas will achive IOC 2 by year end : BROWNE at AF day : Experts CAS address.

 

[rohit b3]

Regarding LCA MK2, You have hit the nail on the head. IAF has tried its level best to kill this project and now we are in s ituation where the entry into service timelines of Mk2 & Rafale are matching. So why go for Rafale? use just 25% of Rafale deal money to create two separate assembly lines for LCA and boost its production. Increasing the length of LCA by one meter will allow it to get four new fuselage pylons as the present length does not allow space for them. The missiles or stores mounted on the sides of fuselage like those in Typhoon or Rafale will add another 2 tons of loads to LCA bringing its total payload to a stupendopus 7.5 tons or more.
M2K is 14.36m long aircraft and LCA MK2 is going to be 13.7m why not add another 0.7m and make it far far superior to M2K.

IAF is worried about its bribes and so are the baboos in MOD. LCA is becoming more of an unwanted child only for want of bribes.
If I have my way, I will force IAF at gun point to accelerate the FOC for this ac and also ask them to explain as to what problems do they have in inducting this ac when F-35 & F-22 were inducted into USAF while they still had not cleared IOC-1.

We all know the truth, yet we are helpless. The Brits looted us , now the World is looting us . 20 BIL$ =1241600000000 Rupees. Just imagine how much transformation this can bring to both our Military and Civil requirements. If we buy only Tejas mk1 with this money, it will get us more than 600 Tejas.

Lets get straight. Browne is the corrupted seed. He's gettin a good kickback off this. The French are desperate. Dassualt may almost close down if this deal does not work for them, they will anyhow make this deal work.

MOD babus are gettin some "peanuts" of this. AK "good- for- nothing"Antony has no idea whats going on.

Rupee is falling cause of imports.

Rafale will complete all its delivery by 2025, and from 2030 it will already be old and subsequently outdated.

The "Negotiations" with Dassualt they talk about is, i feel, about how much kickbacks they are gonna recieve. Not about Cost or Specs.


Cant we,citizens of India, do anything about it? Are we that helpless in "Democratic" India?

 

[Sridhar]

Flight Test News
LCA-Tejas has completed 2344 Test Flights Successfully. (08-Oct-2013).


(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-374,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-159,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-64,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

LCA-Tejas has completed 2340 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Oct-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-373,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-158,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-62,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

 

[Defcon 1]

Increasing the length of LCA by one meter will allow it to get four new fuselage pylons as the present length does not allow space for them. The missiles or stores mounted on the sides of fuselage like those in Typhoon or Rafale will add another 2 tons of loads to LCA bringing its total payload to a stupendopus 7.5 tons or more.
.

Sir I beg to disagree with you on this point. mtow at least in case of mk1 is not limited by pylon carrying capacity but by the engine power. That is why capacity of external stores is limited to 3.6 tonnes while the pylon capacity is higher. Using same logic I believe the speculated figure of 5 tonne for mk2 should also be constrained by engine power. So increasing the hardpoints will not result in increase in stores capacity.

 

[Decklander]

Sir I beg to disagree with you on this point. mtow at least in case of mk1 is not limited by pylon carrying capacity but by the engine power. That is why capacity of external stores is limited to 3.6 tonnes while the pylon capacity is higher. Using same logic I believe the speculated figure of 5 tonne for mk2 should also be constrained by engine power. So increasing the hardpoints will not result in increase in stores capacity.

I fully agree with you. pls read my post in relation to 108KN thrust F414INS6 engine which I stated shud be used for increased length LCA.