ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Decklander]

Sir but the F 414 INS6 is still not ready and how can we already know about the SFC? It is not available in the public domain also. Additional fuel means additional weight during take off

Thrust is reqd to overcome drag, drag is dependent on many things of which weight is one of the reasons. In short, additional wt will not have any serious effect as the additional thrust will give far bigger benefit. I explained that when I used the example of F-16.

 

[SATISH]

Thrust is reqd to overcome drag, drag is dependent on many things of which weight is one of the reasons. In short, additional wt will not have any serious effect as the additional thrust will give far bigger benefit. I explained that when I used the example of F-16.

But weight also accounts to one of the reasons right. And the GE 414 INS6 still has to come out of incubation so let us reserve the talk about how much thrust it can deliver and how much thrust it can deliver in the LCA. The air intakes seem to be a problem and the redesign of it is still to be seen.

And according to you extending the length of the airframe and the wingspan might provide extra lift but will also impose drag on the airframe.

 

[ersakthivel]

Su-30 MKIs true lifecylce cost will be many times more than Tejas mk-1.

The cost of SU-30 MKI was finalized and paid when gold was six times cheaper compared to dollar , that too decades ago .

SO comparing that Su-30 MKI price of the 1990s with the unit cost of tejas mk-1 on today's price is misleading .

And with air to air refuelling options in buddy mode the fleet of LCA needs no tankers to stay in the air. And it is once again the specific fuel consumption and the fuel fraction and not the total volume of fuel that determines how long a fighter stays in the air. Tejas mk-2 will have comparable fuel fractions (the weight of fuel / loaded weight of the fighter).



Because heavy fighters like SU-30 MKI has to burn more fuel to stay in the air. It is an inescapable physical reality. And it always helps to have more number of less detectable fighters for interception and close combat . Numbers are absolutely essential in close combat . After the BVR missiles firing is done , in the close combat area, 1 big fighter vs 3 small similarly capable small fighters will always result in advantageous position for high in number smaller fighter fleet.

Su-30 MKI will mostly be used as strike fighter and interception role will be done mainly by RAFALE and Tejas , when IAF needs to do both types of missions at the same time. If SU-30 MKI is be all an end all of fighters, why is IAF going in for MMRCA tender?


Also the max take off weight is a combined function of the thrust of the engine , the lift needed from the wing area , and the minimum take off distance needed to lift the specified weapon load specified by the ASR , along with the crucial factor of the need to take off from high altitude air ports with meaningful weapon load.

We just can not say the larger wing area of tejas is irrelevant , since the F-16 lifts more weight with lesser wing area than the tejas only due to its higher thrust engine. Other crucial factors that would have determined the wing area of tejas are be need for taking off from high altitude air fields with meaningful weapon load and the minimum take off distance required in the hot indian climate along with the ITR spec in ASR of tejas.

According to reports the wing area of tejas mk-2 will be increased , because ADA wanted to maintain the same wing loading for tejas mk-2 as that of the Tejas mk-1.

And last of all IAF with its spare maintanence capacity creating an AMCA like fighter is a sad joke being played on the nation by IAF. One should look at the time taken by Dassault to finish the RAFALE to the F-3 standard and the EADS for the TYPHOON to see the stupidity in IAF claim!!!!!!!!!

If that is the right course of action then why are the French, US ,and Russian air forces not designing their own stealth fighters and leaving the task to dedicated design firms?

The only way IAF can do it is to fake some some JV route like it is being done on FGFA and import another russain fighter in a different Indian name with substantial import content and call it their own product to continue running the endless import gravy train.May be with ADA and HAL it won't happen and , even if a some delay happens on the first fighter like Tejas atleast successive fighters will be fully indian and completed in time like the Guided Missile program which is now yielding periodic new and more powerful missiles.

Before designing it's own fighters IAF can do well to give the reason for not taking any action on the HPT-35 offer made by HAL for more than a decade!!!!!!!!


For a fighter force that can not release ASRs with long term vision and even for trainers it is simply too much to ask for.

 

[p2prada]

All this you can say if you can show us the iaf asr of 1985 and that of 2004. Otherwise whatever you have said will be not hold water.

Bit and pieces have come out in open source. But official info has come out from ADA that LCA Mk1 will not match beyond 80% of IAF's ASR.

And by the way even the 1985 specs were extremely forward for the time aa they were given with countering the newly bought f solahs of the pad.

Nope. A little better than Mirage-IIIE. Nowhere close to Mirage-2000 and F-16.

You have to come upwith hard facts to say that it is not a 4 th gen fighter.

Substandard T/W that doesn't even use the full engine power. Less than relevant load carrying capability. Integration problems with radar which only fires R-73 missiles as of today. Yeah, eventually it will fire Derby, but not with the current radar problems. Anything else?

Past post of yours I get the logic and I agree with you partially. But there too the onus lies with Tue iaf for not having enough foresight to see light aircrafts are going to be history soon. It is they who.asked for q light fighter as an ajeet replacement.

Shit happens. That's one thing IAF never foresaw clearly. Of course, LCA type fighters are still relevant because PAF still uses small fighters, but even that will change the next decade once PAF gets the requirement for heavier fighters. You simply can't beat the on-station time of large fighters.

 

[p2prada]

From where you drew the above conclusion. Do you have any source of IAF not changing the ASR. The original ASR or that of 90's calls for Top Speed to be Mach 1.5 at tropopause, STR to be 17 deg , weapon load of little over 2.5 ton and radar to track fighters from 80km -90km with no actual BVR launching capabilty, just 60km - 70km engagement.

There was no major change in performance criteria. ADA upped the requirements by themselves, but not the core performance requirements. They promised the usage of better technology to achieve it.

It was always 4 tonnes. Not 2.5 tonnes.

It was later revised in 2004 to 20 deg STR, 3.5 -4 ton of weapon carrying capability and top speed of Mach 1.8 and radar to able to launch BVR from 80km-90km to mention some of these.

Incorrect. BVR capability requirement is much older, not 2004.

Surely it was too late and Tejas failed to achieve Mach 1.8, but managed to fulfil ASR in other departments.

LCA's top speed requirement is still mach 1.6. It won't achieve that without shedding a lot of load, and definitely not in the time it takes to reach such speeds. The highest speed is still mach 1.4. Surface level speed is still below Mach 1.

How you came up to the conclusion that LCA is a 1980's design.

Where did I say LCA is a 80s design? I am saying LCA is a 50s or 60s design. F-22 is a 80s design. F-35 is a 90s design and so is PAKFA. F-16 is also a 60s design, but it is still levels higher than LCA due to the addition of Block 30 and higher. Any aircraft with the latest design is using technologies from the previous decade or even before that. Just because LCA's latest stuff inside is new doesn't mean the aircraft itself is new.

For a small. lightweight fighter like Tejas, if one is asking it to carry 4 ton of weapon, the fighter must have higher wing area, and it can only be achieved by delta wing but to increase lift it has been designed as cranked delta structure. EW system,radar,avionics & ability to carry different type of weapons by LCA is unmatched to the indigenous effort of our respective adversaries until j-10B.

Completely and hopelessly incorrect.

And comparing it with Mirage III, I seriously doubt your judgmental ability. In today's modern warfare, instead of airframe & structure, avionics & electronics plays a major role and tell me what alternative IAF(other than Su 30) has that can be used as a better alternative for interception role, even Rafale is not suited as it is more of a ground strike fighter than air dominance.

The whole package is necessary and not just bits and pieces. And all of this is restricted by the principle underlying design of such a system. LCA Mk1 is roughly better than a Mirage-IIIE with BVR capability in its core sense. But LCA is unable to use its full engine power which prevents it from being better than the Mirage-IIIE. It has its uses as a trainer though. And a very good trainer, mind you.

Just mention the specs of Tejas, which you think is not acceptable for using it as a interceptor platform for intercepting fighters in South Asian region.

What are you talking about?

 

[p2prada]

Sir with the increase in thrust there will be increase in specific fuel usage also. Wouldnt it be a burden on the already small range of the LCA?

That's already being looked into for the Mk2. While there is an increase in fuel consumption along with the increased load, there is also greater finesse in the overall aerodynamics of the platform which means lesser drag, better control of the CoG because of better internal estate, let's not forget a better engine too.

The MK2 will see an increase in fuel load, but the purpose of the increase is to give it the same kind of capability as LCA Mk1 when it comes to range and endurance. So, LCA Mk2 will be able to do everything the LCA Mk1 does + a bit more while carrying a full assortment of weapons.

However, I still have the same opinion as before. While LCA Mk2 is good for IAF, it simply won't be ready in time. ADA has "promised" 2014 first flight and 2016 induction. I would say induction will happen only the next decade along with FGFA. They are simply overestimating their capabilities while underestimating the design deficiencies on LCA. If Saab took the better part of the decade developing the Gripen E/F, then how long would we take?

The bigger question is what the LCA can offer all the way in 2020 rather than what it is offering now.

 

[Sridhar]

Flight Test News
LCA-Tejas has completed 2348 Test Flights Successfully. (08-Oct-2013).


(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-375,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-161,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-65,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

from

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)

 

[ersakthivel]

It is once again a cheap motivated misinformation campaign to repeat again and again that top speed achieved by LCA is just mach 1.4 . It has achieved mach 1.6 achieved in hot Indian climate as per the ada website.

And it's design top speed is mach 1.8, which is not yet tested for. Even the 20 billion dollar MMRCA winner has mach 1.8 as top speed that too only in standard test conditions. No one can say how much it will achieve in hot indian climate. It is generally known that all fighters will slip a bit when it comes to achieving their top performance in hot climate.

And at sea level it's top speed is same as that of SU-30 and Mg-29 that is 1350 Km per hour.

And it is another another cheap motivated misinformation campaign to suggest that to achieve these top speeds of mach 1.6 at service ceiling and 1350 Km per hour (just above mach 1) at sea leve LCA has to shed a lot of load . It is a load of crap. The top speeds at sea level and service ceiling for any fighter is always mentioned for clean configuration. No fighter can carry it's full load and achieve the advertised top speeds at sea level and service ceiling with weapon loads.

The same is the case for max Gs pulled , max STR and ITR achieved. All are only given in clean config. Some people are deceiving others by saying only LCA has to shed a lot of load to achieve these top speeds.

Regarding weapon load IAF has changed the BVR missile spec to more weight and more launch stress inducing missiles which resulted in redesign of wing and reduction in weapon load.

Also once testing telemetry equipment is taken off the LSPs another 0. ton will be added.

Taking its weapon load to around 4 tons. Which is what carried on any fighter for a normal mission.

The claim that it has fulfilled only 80 percent of IAF ASR is also crap, because it's flight envelope is opened only till 80 percent of it's capacity,

Within this 80 percent opening it has achieved close to 22 deg AOA and 20 deg STR which is nothing to complain about.

Once the spin recovery parameters test is completed it will achieve the remaining 20 percent of it's flight envelope , which is the norm in all fighter test flight program.

And by no stretch of imagination a fighter like LCA which has

1. a 4 ton pay load ,
2.capable of firing 120 KM range BVR
3.with one of the lowest RCS helping it to approach the enemy fighter closer before being detected
4.capable of launching laser guided long range ground attack munitions
5.with comparable leading STR and ITR specs

is going to be history, What is going to be history is the fighters like Jaguar, and MIG-21, 23 and 27(400 of which serve in IAF as on date!!!!!!) which have none of the above capabilities .

It is stupid to say it has sub standard T/W capacity. specs of the fighter won't depend on TWR alone.

A combination of TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds which determine the close combat specs of a fighter,

It exceeds IAF's blue eyed beauty Mirage-2000 in all these parameters in a significant manner.

IAF is spending 40 million dollar a piece for upgrading to each Mirage-2000. Even after these upgrades the60 Mirage-2000s will have lesser TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds and lesser climb rate than the Tejas Mk-1.

Only Su-30 MKI and Mig-29s can exceed the tejas that too by about around ten percent only in close combat specs.
Both are twin engined fighters with many times higher clean config RCS than the Tejas . And their reliability and availability rate is piss pooe compared the GE-414 equipped Tejas.

Some times in a squadron of Mig-29s the availability rate is single digit only.

Even in the recently concluded IAf's Iorn fist exercise both the Su-30s that were to turn up and bomb the ground targets failed to turn up. But Tejas which is undergoing flight tests turned up did the BVR missile launching and groun bombing and returned without any glitches.

Eve as late as last year the entire Su-30 MKI fleet was grounded after a few faults were discovered after a couple of SU-30 MKIs crashed . ANd remedial measures are being taken up.

So Tejas is as modern and as reliable and as effective as any other fighter in IAF.

Because it is ours we can introduce any new weapons in future without begging permission from the OE makers and it will be upgraded on regular basis,

The tejas mk-1 it self will carry both the akash mk-1 and MK-2 which will have 80 Km and 120 Km range in future.

 

[ersakthivel]

If a fleet of enemy fighter is detected in Indian skies the LCA is the most effective fighter to intercept them even now,

because once LCA comes within 120 KM range and launch all it's long range BVRs it will have just two small dia close combat WVR missiles as external stores. SO at that condition it's cumulative RCS will be still less than 1 sq meter,

So a 3 sq meter RCS Tejas (with 4 long range BVR missiles )which was visible from 200 Km and above will suddenly vanish from the radar screens of any of the present PAF and PLAF fighters, at the all too important 120 Km BVR missile firing range!!!

If external stealth compliant weapon bays are added (as it is being done on Hornet and F-15 eagle ) there is a good possibility that the RCS of tejas will come below 0.5 Sq meter even with it's full air to air weapon load of four long range BVR missiles and as many WVR missiles .

In that condition it can't be detected by any of the PAf and PLAF fighters from any distance higher than the 50 Km. No other fighter in the IAf has such low RCS. They all have more than 1 sq meter RCS even in clean config with no weapon load !!!!!!!!

SO it is stupid to claim that tejas with such unsurpassed close approach capacity is history.

Even the much acclaimed FGFA is supposed to have 0.3 sq meter RCS !!!!!!! just around the same figured for a clean config tejas!!

SO even if the opposing fleet consists of PLAF flankers like SU-30 MKI, their radar can not detect the below 1 sq meter RCS tejas to guide their 120 Km range effectively on Tejas.

But Since enemy flankers will have an RCS of close to 5 sq meter in even clean config Tejas will have no difficulty in guiding it's BVR missiles on them from farther ranges.

The same argument stands good against all the Mig-29 , SU-30 clones in PLAF and even the PAF F-16 regardless of any blk.

IF their radar can not identify the sub 1 sq meter RCS tejas from 120 Km , how can they guide it's BVR on them.
This capability is absent in all the 700 or so fighters present in IAF fleet now,

It is not for nothing makers of TYPHOONs , TEJAS and RAFALEs are trying to achieve sub 1 sq meter RCS in clean config.Even though a lame argument that with all external weapon load their RCS will exceed 3 sq meter and can be detected from more than 200 Km distance , future add ons like external weapon bays that give minimal or negligible RCS will reduce their RCS below 1 sq meter even with their full air to air load.

Thats why these fighters are called 4.5 th gen and all other fighters in service are called legacy fighters including the famed flankers like Su-30 MKI.

Many hot heads who routinely beat down Tejas with all sob stories never acknowledge this crucial fact which makes Tejas a cut above the rest from all the fighters In IAF's present fleet!!!!!!!!!!.

Add to that the small Tejas will be very hard to be seen visually from the cockpit of the big enemy foghters in close combat. But the tejas pilot can always pick up the huge F-16 and PLAF flankers with ease .

Without even acknowledging these simple facts many people are indulging in unabashed slander against Tejas with God knows what intent!!!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA Tejas, MIG-21s and IAF - Opportunity missed - hope it is not lost!

Some more news on Tejas and Indian aeronautical scene in general below,

http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/store/we-also/avia/avia-apr-aug-03.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HF 24?

That's right. Dr Kurt Tank, a German designer,
and his group of designers of the HAL Design
Bureau, developed the HF 24 (or Marut, as it
was called). It was quite a special project – India
was trying to come to grips with the design and
development of a fighter aircraft for the first

time! Marut's aerodynamic design concepts
were comparable to those of the developed
world, but it failed to achieve its design
supersonic performance because the engine
around which it was designed was not
eventually available.

Why, what went wrong?

It's quite a long story. The idea was that HF-24
would use a reheat version of Bristol Siddley's
Orpheus 703. Bristol Siddley, at that point of
time, was offering this version both to India and
the NATO countries. But NATO unexpectedly
dropped their project. Bristol Siddley then
offered to develop the reheat version for India
at a cost of Rs 5 crores. The offer was rejected.
This was a serious blunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to save a princely sum of % cr for Indian exchequer the higher ups of India govt buried the HF-24 and opened the flood gates of imports !!!!!!!!!

Shocking to say the least.

But if you combine it with wikileaks revealations that a son in law of the former air chief, and couple of crown princes of the dynasty who vied with one another to front for multi nationals for the DPSA platform tender whose winner was Jaguar(the direct beneficiery of the demise of HF-24!!!), we can see some thing very interesting

 

[rvjpheonix]

If a fleet of enemy fighter is detected in Indian skies the LCA is the most effective fighter to intercept them even now,

because once LCA comes within 120 KM range and launch all it's long range BVRs it will have just two small dia close combat WVR missiles as external stores. SO at that condition it's cumulative RCS will be still less than 1 sq meter,

So a 3 sq meter RCS Tejas (with 4 long range BVR missiles )which was visible from 200 Km and above will suddenly vanish from the radar screens of any of the present PAF and PLAF fighters, at the all too important 120 Km BVR missile firing range!!!

If external stealth compliant weapon bays are added (as it is being done on Hornet and F-15 eagle ) there is a good possibility that the RCS of tejas will come below 0.5 Sq meter even with it's full air to air weapon load of four long range BVR missiles and as many WVR missiles .

In that condition it can't be detected by any of the PAf and PLAF fighters from any distance higher than the 50 Km. No other fighter in the IAf has such low RCS. They all have more than 1 sq meter RCS even in clean config with no weapon load !!!!!!!!

SO it is stupid to claim that tejas with such unsurpassed close approach capacity is history.

Even the much acclaimed FGFA is supposed to have 0.3 sq meter RCS !!!!!!! just around the same figured for a clean config tejas!!

SO even if the opposing fleet consists of PLAF flankers like SU-30 MKI, their radar can not detect the below 1 sq meter RCS tejas to guide their 120 Km range effectively on Tejas.

But Since enemy flankers will have an RCS of close to 5 sq meter in even clean config Tejas will have no difficulty in guiding it's BVR missiles on them from farther ranges.

The same argument stands good against all the Mig-29 , SU-30 clones in PLAF and even the PAF F-16 regardless of any blk.

IF their radar can not identify the sub 1 sq meter RCS tejas from 120 Km , how can they guide it's BVR on them.
This capability is absent in all the 700 or so fighters present in IAF fleet now,

It is not for nothing makers of TYPHOONs , TEJAS and RAFALEs are trying to achieve sub 1 sq meter RCS in clean config.Even though a lame argument that with all external weapon load their RCS will exceed 3 sq meter and can be detected from more than 200 Km distance , future add ons like external weapon bays that give minimal or negligible RCS will reduce their RCS below 1 sq meter even with their full air to air load.

Thats why these fighters are called 4.5 th gen and all other fighters in service are called legacy fighters including the famed flankers like Su-30 MKI.

Many hot heads who routinely beat down Tejas with all sob stories never acknowledge this crucial fact which makes Tejas a cut above the rest from all the fighters In IAF's present fleet!!!!!!!!!!.

Add to that the small Tejas will be very hard to be seen visually from the cockpit of the big enemy foghters in close combat. But the tejas pilot can always pick up the huge F-16 and PLAF flankers with ease .

Without even acknowledging these simple facts many people are indulging in unabashed slander against Tejas with God knows what intent!!!!!

I accept a lot of things what you have said but fighters don't just carry bvr missiles but also wvr. Also don't you think that tejas is too small to have weapon bays? Where will you make one?

 

[rvjpheonix]

MOD Edit: Unnecessary content truncated.

I am staying out of this one. I agree with him that tejas has got a pretty good radar but not so much on tracking and detection. I do know that it is not frontal RCS RCS that is crucial but all round. However doesn't tejas have the same randome dia as the rafale? It won't be as effective as that of rafales radar due to less.thrust but if I.remember right the radar has a detection range of of 120 kms for.a 3 m^2 target. That means all the targets other than stealth will be seen well before this range? In your last post you haven't mentioned r77 or astra mk 2? Won't mk1 use these as it has the interface to fire 120 km range bvr? Or are these reserved for mk2? By the way why don't you think it possible to guide tejas to the target passively? Mig 31 could do so so qssume the mkis are capable of doing so too.

 

[ersakthivel]

I accept a lot of things what you have said but fighters don't just carry bvr missiles but also
wvr. Also don't you think that tejas is too small to have weapon bays? Where will you make one?

How much area does an external weapon bay require?

In place of pylons these weapon bays can be mounted taking up the space of Pylons, SO no extra space is needed. Whats more if properly designed they can have lift enhancing aerodynamic profiles as well.

When Tejas can carry huge 1200 liter external fuel tank and two smaller external fuel tanks on it's wings why can't a properly designed stealth weapon bay take it's place.

Also keep in mind that the fighters like Hornets and F-15 Eagles too were not designd with stealth external weapon bays in mind from their first flight .

Twenty years after service they are getting it means any fighter can get it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup/

Gammon, who has worked on the Hornet since the first days of the original F/A-18A classic model jets, says that the CFTs won't add any cruise drag at high subsonic speeds, but it will have a negative impact on drag at transonic speeds–but the company has done a lot of engineering work to try mitigate that. In fact, Gammon notes, at low air speeds, sometimes overall drag with the CFTs is actually lower than a clean aircraft's. - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/t....ausairpower.net/USAF/000-FA-22A-10.jpg[/IMG]

 

[ersakthivel]

Before Tejas Mk II is brought in, experts should weigh all the pros and cons



These are: More powerful engine F-414-GE-INS6; New Flight Control Computer; Upgraded avionics; Retractable In Flight Refuelling probe; On Board Oxygen Generating system (OBOGS); AESA radar; Cockpit upgrade; New Electronic Warfare(EW) suite; and Ability to super cruise (fly supersonic in level flight in dry power).

These changes will lend value throughHigher thrust; More ordnance carrying capacity; Better avionics; Longer endurance with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites. This factor will also enhance the operational performance.

ADA's contention that all this can be done within two years is based on the example of the Swedish Gripen NG (called Gripen E for in-service usage). ADA has also sought guidance through consultancy from Saab for the Mk II. Before proceeding further, we need to factor in some extremely relevant points, otherwise this comparison becomes rather odious.

"¢ The Gripen E is an off-shoot of the highly successful Gripen A/B/C/D. The Tejas Mk I is yet to enter service.

But doesn't the IAF know what are the capabilities of tejas mk-1 even now? If it has capabilities comparable with Grippen C/D(it seems to be) then years of operational service has no relevance when it comes to validating Tejas mk2

"¢ Saab has over 75-year-old history of design and development of fighter aircraft vis-a-vis ADA/HAL's nascent experience in producing fighter aircraft.

Still the First Grippen demo crashed and SAAB went to US firm for consultations on the all too crucial Fly by wire tech!!!!

By comparison the ADA seems to have done pretty well in this crucial field concerning the safety of the fighter with no external help!!!!!

So what use is SAAB's 65 year old experience if it can not get the Fly by wire flight control software correct even for testing phase?

"¢ ADA's record of non-adherence to consultants' recommendations, especially when it runs against their grain and involves redoing certain aspects of work, is well known.

It depends on many constraints, time utility and adverse effects on other areas also. People don't appoint consultants and pay them to simply over rule them. For example TATA appointed a high flying foreign consultant in the 1990s regarding streamlining of their complex business empires .The consultant gave many recommendations , which include selling off many non core business. TATA MOTORS was one among them if my memory is right. The consultants did not see TATA MOTORS surviving the onslaught of multi nationals. In fact many indians thought so. Now TATA MOTOR owns Jaguar and Land Rower and turned in a record profit last year . It is also one of the top 10 truck makers in the world.

But TATAs sold off many non core stuff like Hamam soap and many other units as per the recommendations, So not every one follows all the recommendations of consultants

"¢ Then there are consultants who merely review your work and either tell you that it is okay or withhold comments that may rock the boat. It is to be seen how much Saab would be involved; ADA should be absolutely clear that Saab will neither build/design this aircraft for them nor give them a blueprint to follow.

ADA never expects SAAB to build a fighter to compete with grippen NG!!!!!. They must be very naive if they think so,

Let us take a cursory glance at the summary of how Saab went about making the Gripen E, which has fairly similar improvements as envisaged for the Tejas MK II. The stated aims of the Gripen E were: Increased thrust; Decision support; Sensor fusion; Superior HMI; Improved communication; More weapon stations; Superior target acquisition; Airframe upgrades; External sensors; General systems upgrade; New avionics architecture; and Electronic Warfare

These changes led the demonstrator aircraft (the NGs) to achieve the following:Enhanced range; More payload; New sensor suite/weapons/electronic countermeasures; Engine with higher thrust; AESAradar; New avionics system; More internal fuel; and Super cruise ability. This also permitted reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy (very significant in the Indian context).

The programme followed a time-bound schedule that went through the following steps:

Did the Sweedish airforce changed specs three times in between with lack of foresight like our beloved airforce? If it did so surely there would have been no time bound development in NG program.

"¢ Early 2006: Demonstrator development started in Saab with the aim to fly in 2008

"¢ 27 May 2008: Maiden flight of the Demonstrator(NG). This segment of the test programme was concluded in only 79 test flights with the new engine (414), larger internal fuel tank and more pylons (increased payload).

"¢ 27 October 2009: Introduced AESA (limited version), MAW and SATCOM. Flown and tested in 73 flights including flights with a larger drop tank. Next step planned was to introduce new avionics.

"¢ By 19 December 2012 the demo aircraft had accumulated over 250 hours.

"¢ 15 July 2013: Saab started the assembly of the Next Generation Gripen, the Gripen E. First to be constructed is the front fuselage of the first pre-production test aircraft 39-8.

"¢ 15 August 2013: Saab claimed they reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy

"¢ 2018: Delivery of first Gripen E planned for the Swedish Air Force. Saab managed the weight issue rather cleverly through extensive use of aluminium alloys and composites for the airframe. The major lesson that this remarkable programme brought was that it is extremely important to work with the customer to achieve success in record time.

Whatever done or claimed by SAAB has no merit in this discussion. SAAB got all the help from all foreign partners with active support unlike India which was hobbled by tech denial regime till now. So it is not proper to compare the old time lines of Tejas to old time line of Grippen NG.

truth is if no future export orders are won there are no guarantees about Grippen NG time lines,

If ADA manages to come out with a much better fighter than tejas mk-1 , it is enough. A few year time over run can easily be overcome with more orders for Tejas mk-1. So it is no more the case of pilots dying because of the delays in tejas mk-1.

Challenges for the Tejas Mk II

ADA has certainly conducted some studies on this subject, but the extent to which they have proceeded and the results achieved are shrouded in secrecy. Educated guesses from within ADA vary from the 'let's see how it goes' to the more horrifying prospect that it may do 'less than the MK I'.

Why should the author place so much trust on the later views???!!!!!
How come he determined those later views were visionary and telling the truth?

The latter view seems to justify ADA's reluctance to even part with the projected improved performance figures. Remember, unlike the Gripen E, the Tejas Mk II will first have to contend with the shortcomings and flaws that it will inherit from the Mk I. These include:

"¢ Weight reduction;

"¢ New engine F414 fitment requirements;

"¢ Re-design of air intakes;

"¢ Better cooling of the avionics bay;

"¢ Estate management of ancillaries fitted around the engine to facilitate a swift engine change (Gripen engine change takes 33 minutes); and

"¢ Brakes

CEMILAC has already given many recommendations on weight reduction including changing the engine mounts to composites and ADA chief himself has said on record that composite content will be increased form 40 percent in mk-1 to 60 percent in mk-2

Length and diameter of fuselage will be is increased to cater to the needs of new engines

Air intake is enlarged to cater to the needs of bigger engine.

And since higher thrust is there a bigger power gen can be put up to cater to the increased cooling needs.

Naturally with more fuselage dia and length estate management will be better no doubt about it.

These are only representative and by no means, exhaustive. Corrective measures for all shortfalls will have to be addressed along with the challenges that the new design will throw up.

The new design features would include modification of the fuselage to accommodate the larger and heavier F414 engine. This would entail lengthening the fuselage, strengthening the fuselage and redesigning the contours. More thrust being produced by this engine (35 per cent more than the F404) means more fuel consumed and hence, the necessity for larger capacity fuel tanks. The obvious penalty would be in adding more weight, changing the area ruling (contours of the fuselage) which would increase the drag index, thereby negating some of the advantages of having a more powerful engine.

According to the CEMILAC report more lengthened fuselage will help in reducing the drag by 3.7 dbms . This recommendation which was not implemented in mk-1 because the extra weight will negate engine thrust , it fits hand in glove with the bigger thrust engine along with lengthened fuselage in mk-2

So trouble is expected from extra drag from lengthened fuselage. In fact it will benefit the mk-2 as per CEMILAC recommendations.

More fuel consuming more thrust engine will give more power so for the fuel consumed enabling the fighter to travel more distance is the general idea.

The addition of more weight would be counter-productive. However, some saving grace could be sought from redistribution of segments of the avionics components/LRUs and those of the new radar to get rid of the 200kg ballast that is carried in the nose bay to keep the centre of gravity within limits, an unheard of solution in good modern day fighters, only exception being Chinese fighters.

By replacing the 200 Kg ballast with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites, IRST , and retractable fuel probe it can be ensured that Cg positioning needs are catered to along with improving the fighter performance many fold!!!!!!!!!!

The air intakes would have to be redesigned to ensure full benefit is derived from the new engine. This is one area that ADA has shied away from doing for decades. It is both understandable and acceptable that they lack expertise in this area, but it has to be addressed, so why not get specialist help for this.

LSP-7 and 8 have aux air intake and ADA propose to enlarge the air intakes in Tejas mk-2. SO I see no problem here. Considering the lifting of crippling tech denial regimes air intake redesign can be done with external consulatnts if needed

Fool-proof cooling of the avionics bay is a safety requirement, since this area houses much sensitive equipment, including the four channel cards for the quadruple fly-by-wire system of the Digital Flight Control Computer, which, if affected by thermal transfer due to inadequate cooling, can have disastrous consequences. The quadruple control system will come to naught if all four systems fail in quick succession. Other sensitive equipment can also get degraded and thereby, jeopardise mission accomplishment.

Higher power from bigger generator on board should essentially take care of this problem.

Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine.

Did IAF specify 33 minutes engine change in it's 2004 ASR? Or is IAF specifying it now?

With a Hot Refuelling (engine running after landing) and rearming with air-to-air missiles, the Gripen is back in the air in 22 minutes. Hot refueling is not permitted by Indian Oil, who seems to dictate the Tejas operational efficiency. The IAF could circumvent this issue by getting their own refuellers that are manned by IAF personnel. (I wonder whether Indian Oil is aware that air to air refueling does not require the engines to be shut down in the air! So much for their safety practices).

Well precautions on test flights should not be construed to imply that in air to air refuelling Tejas will have to switch off the engine!!!!!!!!!!

There are a host of other issues that have been swept under the table ever since the first aircraft was designed and manufactured. Unless each one of them is addressed, their ghost will always return to haunt this programme.

Nothing is swept under the carpet , If IAF pus realistic demands along with some financial backing without revising ASR in between there will be no dirt under the carpet!!!!!!!!

So, how does this translate into time required and cost involved?ADA has no clue and that is a charitable observation.

Uncharitable a best!!!!!

Having been brought up for decades on self-delusion, delays and cost overruns, that have always been condoned, they no longer acknowledge the word 'accountability'.

There is no self delusion, and monumental delays and cost over runs compared to similar fighter programs abroad when their air forces did not revise their dump preliminary ASRs many times in between

HAL keenly aids and abets this philosophy. Before the 'go-ahead' is given to this project, a complete feasibility report must be produced by the two Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), clearly stating the aim of this exercise, with details of changes planned, the improved performance that would accrue and realistic timelines, plus costs.

If it delays the program by four or five years, Is that acceptable to IAF. Did Sweedish airforce insist upon it? Or dos the author know ADA has not made any preliminary design study and doing it on happy go lucky philosophy?

It would not be out of place, based on past performance, to state that performance, costs and timelines will have to be critically examined and the casual figures bandied about by non-involved individuals/bodies must be totally ignored. If the Gripen E, with Saab's extensive experience, is realistically pitched at 12 years from conception to manufacture to delivery of first aircraft to the Swedish Air Force, it would behove ADA/HAL to add on a few more years to the Tejas Mk II. At a conservative estimate of 16 years (your guess is as good as mine), does this version of the aircraft really add value to the IAF, when it would have already inducted the fifth generation aircraft?

There were no financier for Grippen E full fledged development . ANd it's development was predicated on it winning a few export orders which will make the program viable. this is certainly not the case with Tejas mk-2

A Viable Alternative

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centred around the Indian Navy's requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all round performance.

If IAf does not piggy back on Navy requirement , there will be howls of protests saying that IAf is saddled with lesser fighter while navy is getting a better fighter, and cris to replace this obsolete Tejas IAF mk-1 with some imported stuff will be very loud.

The navy's requirement is well focused on the engine, though they would not be reluctant to avail of any other benefit that this aircraft would bring as a bonus. The IAF's configuration for the MK II, though discussed internally, is still not frozen. Therefore, to consider a viable alternative is not too late.Give a serious thought to modifying the Mk I with all the changes envisaged for the Mk II, other than the engine change. The only major challenge is to redesign the air intakes to ensure optimum pressure recovery. The rest would entail only modifications and improvements.

If IAF gives 80 or so orders for tejas mk-1 , it will be a worth while alternative for ADA to tinker with the design.

But You can't expect ADA to spend all it's energies in fiddling with mk-1 design for just 40 orders from IAf, that too it was just 20 in the beginning!!!!!!

The question that comes up is whether a serious study has been done to explore this alternative. It would not need rocket science to presume that the time, effort and money required to do this would be far less than design and development of a 'new' aircraft. Whether this version is called theMK IAor Mk II is of no consequence, since such nomenclature is pure semantics.

The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?

People attrbute the so called thrust shortfall to air intake design always, Has enough thought spared on thinking about , whether thrust shortfall is due t hot and arid indian climate?

The other unresolved issues that have defied a solution are not because of ADA's capability, but their reluctance to address them, since it is far easier to sweep them under the carpet, to be looked at later. 'Later' has arrived now and procrastination cannot be condoned any further. The work force, which is familiar with the MK I and is relatively unoccupied, can now be gainfully diverted to carrying out structural and other reviews to resolve pending issues, instead of waiting to tackle the MK II, as and when it emerges.

Will this avatar of the Tejas meet the requirements of the Indian Navy? Has ADA measured what the static thrust of the engine is in the MK I as of now and determined how short it falls of the manufacturer's figure? Unless that is known, how can we aim to achieve the latter? A comprehensive study would provide the answer. In the event that the enhanced initial thrust still falls short of the navy's requirement, the F 414 may be the only answer, but not in the form that ADA envisages the Tejas Mk II. Before giving a 'green light' to the Tejas Mk II, a transparent study of the enhanced performance, with specific facts and figures, along with a realistic timeframe and cost, must be scrutinised by a competent body of the users (IAF and IN) and financial wizards, lest the taxpayers money is again squandered away. Is anyone listening?

Did Sweedish airforce impose so many conditions before SAAB embarked on Grippen A/B?
Has IAF imposed such conditions before buying the MIG-21, 23, 29, and Su-30 MKI?
How did Jaguar with faulty nav attack system making it worthles for the primary DPSA task inended found it's way into IAF?
HAs IAF imposed such through studies on FGFA project before deciding to particiapte?
Or till date does IAF know what will be the final specs of FGFA?
Ultimate aim of such no holds barred no end in sight examinations mentioned above will only result in more delays.
More powerful engine will increase the close combat specs of tejas manifold. It is surprising that there is no mention of this in the article,

One simple question from the days of TD-1 flight , did Tejas capability increased step by step or decrease step by step? Why such tons of pessimism over a project about which no one knows?

Why should all the scientists in ADA are painted as betrayers of national interests like this?

The USAf backed F-22,and F-35 , and French did back RAFALE until it got to the F-3, Many airfoces are backing TYPHOON till tranche-III tht too with no ground attack capability worth the money being poured in,Compare it with the backing tejas gets!!!!!!

It was our good fortune that the missile program had no interference from the forces. If that is so till AGNI-V we would not have inducted a single missile saying this is wrong and that is wrong!!!!!!

Aim of the Tejas program is to translate national scientific talent into a viable fighting machine aimed at low 300 or 400 in the high-low mix.It is not aimed at satisfying every fancy and dream of IAf after seeing the specs of grippen NG from MMRCA contract!!!!!
So all fighters that can not change their engine within 30 minuts should be retired from service?
Only God knows!!!!!!!!!

estate management of ancillaries around the engine will only become better with more lengthened and higher dia fuselage won't get worse.

 

[ersakthivel]

The length increase in fuselage is not being done to increase fuel load. This si done to improve fineness ratio, by increasing the length by 0.5m over the Mk1.

The fuel is being increased because they can use the increased length.

In cross sectional area of the Tejas, between the 5mtr and 6mtr. There is sudden jump in cross sectional area.

According to CEMILAC report changing it to gradual increase with lengthened fuselage will reduce 3.7 dbsm drag and enable tejas to achieve better top speeds and trans sonic acceleration.

This crucial fact is not acknowledged by the author of the above report and worse he claims that this length increase will increase drag which is wrong.

Also SFC of GE 414 is better than GE404 at same levels of thrust.
The SFC is higher when you push the GE414 beyond the limits of 404.
So in normal operating speeds we can see an increased range for the same fuel on GE-414 not decreased range due to higher thrust.

So all things point out to better performance for tejas mk-2 over tejas mk-1 unlike the fears raised in the article below,
Before Tejas Mk II is brought in, experts should weigh all the pros and cons
because with increased fineness ratio by increasing fuselge length, Tejas mk-2 will encounter les wave drag while with increased fuselage width for fairings meant to house gear box under the wings Grippen NG will encounter more wave drag with the author is unaware of,

 

[Abhi9]

Good News On LCA
Finally, Tejas gets electronic warfare systems

Finally, Tejas gets electronic warfare systems

After eight years of research and postponement, India's first indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas, positioned at HAL Bangalore, has finally been fitted with electronic warfare (EW) systems.

Now, new test flights will happen with electronic warfare anytime during November or beginning of December. The 2,348 test flights of the LCA so far have not had electronic warfare. The new test flights will bring in new data and information for further development of the aircraft and the electronic systems.

Sources in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) told Deccan Herald that the LCA Prototype Vehicle-1 (PV-1) has now been fitted with a radar-warning receiver, a radar-warning jammer, laser warner, missile-approach warner, emitter, and a flare dispenser. The systems are now undergoing ground trials with aeronautical engineers simulating multiple threats to the aircraft and then examining its response.

The results of the ground trials will help fine-tune the electronic systems for the actual test flights. The ground trials will take about a fortnight or a month. So, test flights will be held in mid-November or December.

Engineers and scientists working on the project say the radar receivers and jammers will track enemy signals from air and ground, while the emitter will watch out for missile launches from ground. Systems to track missiles from air and enemy aircraft will also be part of the LCA. The entire system has been developed by both Indian and Israeli engineers and scientists.

The fitment of the electronic systems has an interesting history. For almost eight years, a section of the aeronautical community has been resisting its fitment, anxious that the add-ons may cause a first crash, which has never happened so far in the LCA's test-flight history. They have been very keen on securing the operational clearance, initial as well as final from the Indian Air Force, even if the LCA did not have the electronic system.

Their reasoning was that once the IAF certified it as operationally worthy, they would have a successful product to showcase to the world. Also, the LCA has had a perfect record of test flights and no one wished to risk an add-on on the LCA that had not been tried. The idea was to defend the 'zero crash' record.

This was made known sometimes explicitly to engineers and scientists working on the electronic systems, who, however, had been pressing for very long that the systems ought to be fitted and trials conducted to be able to fine-tune them. This difference of perception on the LCA persisted for long, and one consequence was, no vehicle or version of the LCA was identified for many years to fit the equipment. This caused delay of over five years in launching the electronic systems on the LCA and to questioning of the very purpose and objective of building the systems.

After haggling for over eight years, it has been finally decided to instal the electronic systems on the LCA prototype Version-1. But there's a catch here. The PV-1 has not flown for very long and has been parked in the hangar with later versions of the LCA undertaking the test flights. The PV-1, which began flights in around 2001-02, has completed 242 test flights after which it has been grounded. Now, there is a bit of anxiety about how an aircraft that has not done flights for long will perform with the new electronic warfare systems.

The confidence, however, is that the aircraft may perform well because its health has been under check almost daily and every department concerned will certify that all parts of the aircraft are flight-worthy. Without this certification, the PV-1 will not be allowed to fly. But once it passes the certification, the LCA PV-1 will become the first vehicle to fly with electronic warfare systems.

 

[ersakthivel]

That doesn't mean much of anything. If you are talking about Mk1, then size of the array matters not. If you are talking about Mk2, then we don't know anything yet to compare since we do not know what level of processing will be used on Mk2.

The size of the array puts a physical max limit for the radar's range,

If the size of the array is smaller there is no way a radar can detect faraway target.

So if the latest tech is used on MK-1 production radar array(the Israeli 2052 collaboration suggests it is) and MK-1 has enough power from the on board generator for the processing elements in the arrays then regardless of the fighter on which is fitted(RAFALE or TEJAS ) the radar power , detection and tracking range is the same for same dia radome.

If Tejas mk-1 has a comparable radome dia as RAFALE, then logic suggests that it's on board electricity generator provides enough power for the array elements.

We don't have to look at the total power out put of the generator on board. Why? Because bigger twin engined fighters like Su-30 and RAFALE will need higher power from the generator to operate their more power hungry bigger control surfaces.

So if Tejas mk-1 has 12 Kw generator and RAFALE or SU-30 has 20 KW generator on board it does not mean that all he higher power out put from the 20 KW gen goes to radar alone. The control surfaces of bigger fighters will sap more power than the small control surfaces of TEJAS.

SO to get a clear pic we need to know the exact break down of the power needs of EW suites, control surfaces, and radar arrays.

But logic demands if Tejas MK=1 or MK_2 has a radome as big as RAFALE its got to get same amount of power from the on board generator powering the latest array elements in the radome.

Any missile that goes on SU-30 MKI can be fitted on tejas mk-1 or mk-2. We need no ones help on this count. Why?
Because the mission computer and radar computer of Su-30 MKI is indian made. ANd the integration of R-77 or the about to be test fired AKASH with su-30 MKI is totally under indian control.

So there is no bar on any air to air missile that presently goes on SU-30 MKI to be fitted on Tejas mk-1 or MK-2. We ned noon'e permission on this count. Grippen which has a smaller radome dia than the Tejas mk-1 and the RAFALE which has the same radome dia as Tejas mk-1 have already test fired the 120 Km range meteor missile. So it is not correct to insist that other than derby and R-73 , nothing can be fitted on Tejas until it is demonstrated.

In fact the principle fighter that is supposed to carry the ASTRA is Tejas, So there is no point in suggesting that Tejas mk-1 or mk-2 can't be used to fire AKASH mk-1 and MK-2 untill it is demonstrated. It is akin to arguing that Grippen which entered service decades before METEOR debuted is not to fit to fire the missile!!!!!!!

RAFALE and GRIPPEN entered squadron service even before METEOR made its debut. Still both the fighters are firing it decades of their FOC. SO why a different rule book for Tejas?


120 Km tracking and detection range is the official figure for Tejas MMR, There is no different theory about it.

And the pointless bit about sensors and shooters, Any fighter can be a sensor and any fighter can be a shooter depending upon their position in the sky in the air war.

In future it will mostly the UCAVS which will be primary sensors . For God's sake he F-22 fleet won't be grounded the moment F-15 fleet retires from service for lack of sensors!!!!!!!!! or Is it going to be???!!!!

It is ideal to SU-30 MKI with Tejas in seeker and sensor combo.

Why?

Because the larger RCS SU-30 MKI which can be detected at a longer distance than Tejas mk-1( even with external stores of four air to air missiles Tejas mk-1 will still have a fourth of clean config Su-30 MKI RCS!!!!!!)stays at a safe distance behind with a large cache of long range missiles as a second line of defence,

and the lesser RCS Tejas can optimally fly in front using the data from SU-30 MKI fire control radar. We can use the MIg-29 or RAFALE which too have smaller radar than the Su-30 MKI in the same way just like Tejas.

So saying it is pointless is going against commonsense.Only a fool would let go of such effective combo of power and lesser RCS of Su-30 MKI and Tejas mk-1.

There is no rule which states that sensors should be less capable than the shooters!!!!!!!. the rule of air war is optimal use of fighters to get the best possible results. nothing else.

Just see how the Indian Navy towed tiny missile boats on bigger warships and destroyed the KARACHi harbor in 1972 war!!!!

In future if stealth UCAVS with higher powered ASEA radars and spectra like suites along with longer range more precise IRST trackers will take the role of sensors. So even if Su-30 MKI is tied up in stealth role tejas mk-1 will use these UCAVs as ten times more effective sensors.

Last of all no PLAF Su-30or MIG-29 clone or Mig-31 is going to detect a clean config RCS Tejas which yss Su-30 MKI as a seeker and has fired all it's long range BVR missile from any distance greater than 20 Km. it will be too late for them

 

[ersakthivel]

TEJAS mk-1 or MK-2,along with RAFALE (it too has a far lower clean config RCS) acting as shooters along with Su-30 MKI seeker will be the one of the most deadly config in south asian skies. Because once Tejas fires all its long range BVRs it's clean config RCS will drop below 0.3 sq meter which can not be tracked by any radar from any distance greater than 30 or 40 Km .

No other presently in service IAF fighters which have far lesser range radars and BVR missiles than Tejas like Mirage-2000 , MIG-29, MIg-21,23,Jaguars have this unique advantage of operating in a seeker shooter combo with SU-30 MKI as all of them have more than 1 sq Km clean config RCS !!!!


So a Tejas pilot can get close to shoot. that is the quintessential criteria for the shooter.

Also a bigger fighter jamming the smaller fighter is exposing itself to track on jamming guidance missile form the smaller fighter, So using your powerful radar and jammer are both useful and dangerous at the same time.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ Ersakthivel Please answer my questions

This latest news about Tejas getting EW systems is confusing on many levels

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/363477/finally-tejas-gets-electronic-warfare.html

1) 2300 Test Flights have already taken place and if EW systems have Not not been
tested or installed so far then HOW many more Test flights will be required

2 ) What will happen to IOC 2 that was supposed to be achieved by Dec 31
Will it again be delayed

3 ) If EW systems are being Installed on PV 1 then What are The LSP 3,4,5, 7, 8
meant for and why LSP planes are not being used for testing EW systems
Because it was declared that LSP 7 and LSP 8 are very much the series production models

4 ) There was a news that the manufacturing of SP 1 and SP 2 have begun
And if EW systems are not installed because they are being tested will
a SP 1 and SP 2 ; which will be handed to IAF and TACDE will they
serve any purpose at all

Since the IAF has to devise its standard operational procedures
regarding LCA MK 1 will a Plane without EW systems be of any use and help

 

[ersakthivel]

@ Ersakthivel Please answer my questions

This latest news about Tejas getting EW systems is confusing on many levels

Finally, Tejas gets electronic warfare systems

1) 2300 Test Flights have already taken place and if EW systems have Not not been
tested or installed so far then HOW many more Test flights will be required

2 ) What will happen to IOC 2 that was supposed to be achieved by Dec 31
Will it again be delayed

3 ) If EW systems are being Installed on PV 1 then What are The LSP 3,4,5, 7, 8
meant for and why LSP planes are not being used for testing EW systems
Because it was declared that LSP 7 and LSP 8 are very much the series production models

4 ) There was a news that the manufacturing of SP 1 and SP 2 have begun
And if EW systems are not installed because they are being tested will
a SP 1 and SP 2 ; which will be handed to IAF and TACDE will they
serve any purpose at all

Since the IAF has to devise its standard operational procedures
regarding LCA MK 1 will a Plane without EW systems be of any use and help

The report seems to paint the installation of EW suite as a top secret scoop unraveling the troubles of Tejas .

truth is it was reported on Ajai Shukla's blog in 2011 itself that PV-1 was being readied for EW role, there was a heated debate over it between me and who else, (you can guess!!!!) in the forum itself.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/02/broadsword-quiz-level-difficult-what-is.html

OKAY, FOLKS... CLEARLY THIS IS A LOST CAUSE! JUST ONE PERSON HAS COME ANYWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH... AND THAT IS ANANDAN (GOLD STAR HEREBY AWARDED TO HIM).

SO HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER: THIS AIRCRAFT --- PV1 --- IS BEING MODIFIED FOR THE ELECTRONIC WARFARE ROLE.

OLD SOLDIERS DO NOT DIE. THEY JUST START RADIATING...!

Installation of Ew suit is not a requirement for IOC for any fighter ;leave alone Tejas.

A ballast simulating the weight of suit placed in nose cone during IOC is good enough. Why?

IOC checks the operational flight capability of a fighter to perform to its full flight envelope in a safe and reliable manner. Nothing else.

What ever type of missile and EW suit and radar to be added on to it has no bearing on IOC of any fighter.

So there is nothing wrong in ADA prioritizing the full flight envelope validating flight trials pertaining to IOC before the Ew suit installation on PV-1 or any platform. Because if you build a car the first thing you want to test is engine , brake reliability safety of passenger in a crash and cornering ability.

Deciding which audio systems to fit comes later. The EW is ofcourse not an accessory like music player. But fitting of EW system has no effect on fighters operational readiness which needs to be checked first. A ballast simulating the weight of the gear is good enough for the purpose.

So even though the report paints the non fitting of EW suit as such serious lapse. In reality ADA is following the priority as is being followed on any fighter program.

Throughout the life time of a fighter many fitments like ew suits , radars and HMD devices are added replaced or upgraded which has no effect on the flying capability of a fighter.

Most of IF fighters have no integral EW suits at all. They were all carried as external pods. So you can guess about the impact of this late EW integration on the IOC all by yourself. Even tejas has an external EW pod as I remember seeing it in a picture.

The gear which the author of the report may refer to an elaborate suite in a specialized version of tejas as mentoned in Ajai shukla's report in PV-1 being readied for EW role or whether it is part and parcel of the regular tejas fighter also needs to be clarified..

Strange are thje ways of indian defence journos when it comes to reporting about indian defence programs.

Often the standard is less than bollywood gossip columns with bloody fools faking themselves as master investigators uncovering serious flaws!!!!!!!!! . Just by giving their own personal effects to twist a routine event.