ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

That Aux intake has been redesigned. See LSP-7 and LSP-8

That's actually the APU air intakes.

Auxiliary air intakes are different. Examples below.

Jaguar

LCA. The grey patch on the intake.

 

[Twinblade]

That's actually the APU air intakes.

Auxiliary air intakes are different. Examples below.

I meant the APU intake bu typed auxiliary intake. Thanks for correction.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Anybody validated the roll rate? Have they sped it up in the video or not? @p2prada, @Twinblade, @ersakthivel

 

[sayareakd]

great video of LCA, found on BR, enjoy it................

http://api.smugmug.com/services/emb...8991139&albumKey=nmrgS8&width=1024&height=768

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There are few things we should do first ..

1. Lets display Multiple tejas with diffrent config like A2G mode, A2A mode and Anti-Ship mode ..

2. Let them first display them in Aero India first ..

3. A second assemble line should be available, HAL present line is better for national cause ..

A slow rise is more appreciated than sudden actions ..

One thing we should start doing in the right earnest is to let Tejas participate in Major Airshows in the world , Paris , UK , Dubai , Maks.

Send 2 Tejas one on ground display and one flying , let the business and aviation folks see it perform would certainly raise many eyebrows via its performance.

With the cost and technology involved Tejas would be competitive against its peers of similar class and has good export potential.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Interestingly this has been offered, Can it be used on Tejas .. ?

source : Rafaut, Armaments Interface Expert – Adaptors

............................,

..............................

 

[Twinblade]

Interestingly this has been offered, Can it be used on Tejas .. ?

source : Rafaut, Armaments Interface Expert – Adaptors

Theoritically, it can be integrated, but not to a lot of effect. Once you load two 1200 liter tanks and a laser designator pod, what payload capacity are you left with ? give or take 1-1.5 tons. That would mean two BVR missiles, two WVR missiles and probably two 500lbs bomb on twin rack off the center pylon.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Still, There is place for one more ..

Lets deduct those fuel tanks, And lets focus on a Kargil senerio ..

Today if Tejas are used in similar conflict, With those Rack it can deploy more firepower given than availability of Sudershan LGB kits ..

Theoritically, it can be integrated, but not to a lot of effect. Once you load two 1200 liter tanks and a laser designator pod, what payload capacity are you left with ? give or take 1-1.5 tons. That would mean two BVR missiles, two WVR missiles and probably two 500lbs bomb on twin rack off the center pylon.

 

[Twinblade]

Still, There is place for one more ..

Lets deduct those fuel tanks, And lets focus on a Kargil senerio ..

Today if Tejas are used in similar conflict, With those Rack it can deploy more firepower given than availability of Sudershan LGB kits ..

What kind of radius and loiter time can one expect just on internal fuel ? It is a light fighter, not a bomb truck. It cannot loiter long enough to attack targets over a reasonably large area. If you load 10 smart bombs on it, it will have to fly 300 km, designate 10 targets in give or take half an hour and come back. Unless all the targets are pre-planned and pre-loaded, most of those bombs would be coming back before the aircraft gets a chance to use them. 3-4 smart bombs tops, two wvr missiles and two drop tanks would be a more reasonable load profile.

 

[bennedose]

Anybody validated the roll rate? Have they sped it up in the video or not? @p2prada, @Twinblade, @ersakthivel

Maybe the other video was slowed down? When something American, Chinese or Paki looks spectacular, the video is never considered speeded up. Why do people lack confidence that Indian stuff is genuine and not speeded up. I think we are a nation whose collective self confidence has been battered down to such an extent that we simply must cast doubt on anything Indian that looks good.

Just askin..

 

[p2prada]

What kind of radius and loiter time can one expect just on internal fuel ? It is a light fighter, not a bomb truck. It cannot loiter long enough to attack targets over a reasonably large area. If you load 10 smart bombs on it, it will have to fly 300 km, designate 10 targets in give or take half an hour and come back. Unless all the targets are pre-planned and pre-loaded, most of those bombs would be coming back before the aircraft gets a chance to use them. 3-4 smart bombs tops, two wvr missiles and two drop tanks would be a more reasonable load profile.

With such loads at 300 Km distance, LCA will barely have 10 minutes before having to come back.

Anybody validated the roll rate? Have they sped it up in the video or not?

Which video?

I have seen earlier claims of the LCA's videos being sped up, but there was nothing different from what I had seen at air shows. About the video you are talking about, I have to see it to give a more definite answer.

 

[kseeker]

There are no serious technology challenges ahead: P S Subramanyam | Business Standard

How good is the Tejas, which now has an initial operational clearance?

As a technologist I would say that many improvements have been made in the last three years. We have successfully addressed all the apprehensions the Indian Air Force (IAF) had.

Today there are no serious technology challenges ahead. This year, we have test-flown the Tejas from IAF bases like Jaisalmer, Uttarlai, Jamnagar and Gwalior. In all these places, we operated the aircraft ourselves, while the IAF watched.

We demonstrated that we could turn around the same aircraft after a gap of an hour or so. On occasions, one Tejas did three sorties a day. The IAF technicians and maintenance officers eventually told us that they now see an aircraft that is reliable enough for combat operations.

Is the Tejas Mark I ready for war?

From the standpoint of operational preparedness, Initial Operational Clearance provides the capability of firing missiles, dropping laser guided bombs, conventional bombs and practice bombs. These weapons have been fired with sensors --- inertial navigation systems, and radar and laser systems. That show the Tejas performs well as an integrated weapons platform.

But there are many weapons systems that are still not fitted?

All that is pending is the integration of the "beyond visual range", or BVR, missile. We are obtaining a BVR missile from Israel for integration and demonstration.

Inflight refuelling capability, and the integration of a BVR missile and a gun are capabilities that will be achieved before the Tejas gets Final Operation Clearance. The IOC clearance, according to conventions world wide, are this --- conventional and guided bombs and close combat missiles.

Given the long time that IOC has taken, what would you say is a realistic date for getting FOC?

I'm targeting FOC for end-2014. This is realistic because the design processes are not starting now. The inflight refuelling system was ordered a year ago. Design and development for this has been on-going and some of the work is already half completed. So I am confident.

Is the Tejas going to be a hangar queen" or is it easy to maintain?

I'm glad that the IAF has pushed us to ensure that this aircraft is maintenance friendly. We have had IAF technicians and officers on the shop floor with us when we prepare the aircraft for sorties. They watch for difficulties in maintenance.

Based on their suggestions, which they convey to us through "Requests for Action", we have carried out some 200 design corrections to make the Tejas more maintenance friendly. We are trying to reduce the "maintenance man-hours per flight-hour".

This exercise has been done over the last three years and the IAF now believes that Tejas is maintenance friendly. Notwithstanding that, Maintenance Evaluation Trials will be carried out in a couple of months. I always say that when we buy a car, we don't just want it to go at 140 kmph. More importantly, we want it to be available to us everyday.

You've set ambitious timelines for the Tejas Mark II. Are they unrealistic?

We are close to finalizing the engine contract with General Electric, the chosen vendor. By the first quarter of the next year, i.e. March 2014, the preliminary design would have been frozen. Somewhere in 2018, the Mark II will be ready for productionisation. This time there will be no prototypes. We will design for production. We have learned from the mistakes we made in the Tejas.

Besides, there is no ambiguity in the Mark II, as there was in the Mark I. There are not likely to be any changes in the engine, radar, missile, communications. The equipment is known.

The navy is concerned at the lack of progress in the Naval LCA

The naval Tejas is a different challenge. We had incorrectly thought that deriving a naval variant from an air force variant would be easier. But, as we learnt, it is the other way round.

We began with an undercarriage built for the air force Tejas. But landing on an aircraft carrier involves a much higher descent rate, which means the landing gear must be much stronger. When the aircraft catches the arrestor hook, the deceleration is enormous. When we did the load analysis, the whole bottom gear had to be re-engineered.

I will not hesitate to say today that deriving a naval variant from an air force variant of the Tejas is a sub-optimal solution. But, having learnt this, the Mark II will be an optimal solution. We will not do any derivative from the air force version. It will be, ab initio, a naval design.

After the Tejas, ADA has been pushing hard for a programme to develop an Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA)? Where is that?

There is no approved programme yet, but the DRDO had approved a feasibility study which we have done. We are trying to arrive at the specifications of an engine that can give us supercruise (i.e. flying at supersonic without afterburner) but that kind of engine is not readily available. So we are deliberating on whether we should start designing an engine ab initio, or improve upon an existing engine. The IAF is very keen on the AMCA.

How long would this take to enter service?

The AMCA would need 7-10 years for development, and so would enter production only in the mid-2020s. We would require time for building prototypes, stabilising the design, establishing a production line. We would gain expertise from the (Indo-Russian) Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) programme.

Would we have both the AMCA and the FGFA?

These are two different classes of aircraft and there is no clash between them. The FGFA is a 30 tonne class heavy fighter with a long range. The AMCA would be a 20 tonne medium fighter, with an extreme range of about 1000 km.

Nor does it clash with the MMRCA. The Rafale is an early-1990s design. It does not fall into the 5th generation in terms of stealth characteristics. So the air force sees a place for the AMCA in its future fleet.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It fits the senerio for CAS that i am talking, Must see that i did mention Kargil ..

On the other hand, 300km is doubtful ? Is that based on military thrust or with AB or both ..

What kind of radius and loiter time can one expect just on internal fuel ? It is a light fighter, not a bomb truck. It cannot loiter long enough to attack targets over a reasonably large area. If you load 10 smart bombs on it, it will have to fly 300 km, .

 

[smartindian]

can anyone spread some light on actual range of lca tajes radar

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The final specs should be 150km, And over seas 300km ..

can anyone spread some light on actual range of lca tajes radar

 

[ersakthivel]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-128.html#post828833

The aircraft is still in development, so give it time. Final MMR specs are supposed to be around 100 Km detection for a 5m2 target and a tracking range of 85 Km for a 5m2 target. These are a little better than Kopyo-M specs meant for Mig-21 Bison. I think even RDY-3 and Zhuk-ME specs are the same today. The move to AESA should considerably improve radar performance on Mk2. For Mk1 this is plenty.

Wrong, just read Karan .M's post in BR. the norm used for fighter sized target for radar tracking is 2 sq meter RCS in IAF,

If It is correct then the MMR right now with 40 Km radar tracking range for 2 sq meter target will be good enough for a 5 sq meter target in 60 to 70 Km range.

This is nothing to do with MMR.

Quartz nose cone will be available in 2014 jan as per some reports . SO the range for 2 sq meter targets will be 80 plus and comparable to all the MMRCA contenders bar TYPHOON and the US ones with ASEA.

 

[ersakthivel]

It fits the senerio for CAS that i am talking, Must see that i did mention Kargil ..

On the other hand, 300km is doubtful ? Is that based on military thrust or with AB or both ..

Loiter time and range all depend upon the fuel fraction not the fuel load.

tejas mk-1 has comparable fuel fractions with many other fighters of its class.

Also in air to air loads with one external fuel tank and other pylons filled with Missiles , it will still retain a better fuel fraction ratio of around 0.3. SO there is no problem with range or loiter time.

it was already discussed threadbare in combat aircraft evolution and technology in this forum before.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...craft-technology-evolution-10.html#post828978.

Su-30MK: 34.9%（Empty weight: 17,700 kg，Internal fuel: 9,500 kg）

Rafale: 31.4% ~ 33.6%（Empty weight: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg，Internal fuel: 4,680 ~ 4,800 kg）

JAS-39NG: 30.6%（Empty weight: 7,100 kg，Internal fuel: 3,130 kg）

MIG-35: 28.6%（Empty weight: 12,000 kg，Internal fuel: 4,800 kg）

Tejas: 27.0%（Empty weight: 6,500 kg，Internal fuel: 2,400 kg）


JF-17: 26.3%（Empty weight: 6,450 kg，Internal fuel: 2,300 kg）

JAS-39C: 25.0%（Empty weight: 6,800 kg，Internal fuel: 2,268 kg）

This is a fair comparison of fuel fractions with just internal fuel , and the same percentage will more or less reflect with external fuels also,

because in the 3.5 to 3.7 ton external weapon load for longer range missions of tejas,

a centerline fuel tank with close to a ton of fuel will be present.

And as the normal practice in any strike missions there will be fighters tasked with full air to air loads as escorts and fighters tasked for ground strikes with more of a strike load out.

So if we take into account the price we have to pay for carrying similar loads in fighters abroad then tejas will always deliver more for the budget allocated for IAF or for any other air force,

because it has the lowest cost per ton of weapon load delivered with all the latest 4.5th gen techs.


So Tejas mk-1(which still has 400 KG of flight test equipment on board, removal of them will lead to even better fuel fraction) itself has much better fuel fractions than grippen C/D with more TW ratio and lower wing loading,

Tejas mk-2 will easily compare to RAFALE which has just 4 percent more in fuel fractions than Tejas mk-1.

So in indian conditions there won't be no issues with range of tejas mk-1 or mk-2 in useful combat configuration if we take into account that four tejas can be operated for one RAFALE if we include total lifecycle costs and upgrade costs,

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range.

read post no-137 to get a clear picture

SO the ideas posted in post no-2092 in this page as tejas having just 10 minutes time with those loads is as usual total BS.

And a few stupid claims on tejas being ,

"discredited disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight: the low Lift/drag ratio and not so good subsonic cruise ability"


are debunked on the following page as well,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...8-combat-aircraft-technology-evolution-9.html

 

[ersakthivel]

Interestingly this has been offered, Can it be used on Tejas .. ?

source : Rafaut, Armaments Interface Expert – Adaptors

Racks like these can easily be developed and used for tejas,

stuff like external fuel tanks, conformal fuel tanks and stealth external weapon bays are not fighter specific,

they can be added to any fighter provided it has the capability for it.

Since tejas has much lower wing loading,

with excellent lift to drag ratio conferred by the low wig loading as explained with f-16 XL analogy,

and much better Thrust to weight ratio than Mirage-2000,

and much lesser fuel consumption than Mirage's older tech engines,

It can have more or less same ranges as that of Mirage-2000 and significantly larger combat range than Mig-29s which have heavy empty weight due to older engines and all metal body,

So all kind of multiple racks , external stealth compliant weapon bays and conformal fuel tanks are possible for it.

It has a ferry range of 1700 Km (with just internal fuel itself or with external fuel tanks needs to be clarified) according to ADA DG Tamilmani's statement.

Already tejas test pilots have commented it has an envious range for a small fighter and it was reported to have arrived at jamnagar from bangalore after a long flight with substantial fuel reserves for the weapon trials,

 

[ersakthivel]

Maybe the other video was slowed down? When something American, Chinese or Paki looks spectacular, the video is never considered speeded up. Why do people lack confidence that Indian stuff is genuine and not speeded up. I think we are a nation whose collective self confidence has been battered down to such an extent that we simply must cast doubt on anything Indian that looks good.

Just askin..

Anybody validated the roll rate? Have they sped it up in the video or not? @p2prada, @Twinblade, @ersakthivel

When the video was made tejas was flying with a very restricted flight envelope barely covering 70 percent of it's real capability, months before IOC-2

So past FOC the roll rates will be known.

Also with 20 deg AOA and 6G restrictions , tejas comleted a vertical loop in Aeroindia -2013 in just 20 seconds

Giving it a decent Sustained turn rate of 18 deg per second even within the 70 percent of tejas mk-1 capacity which is close to f-16 A/b's full capacity.

In ITR it will beat any fighter hands down as it has the lowest wing loading and better TWR than Mirage-2000.


So final figures for both the STR and ROLL rates along with ITR will be known only after FOC.

many people were posting that it's AOA is restricted to 22 deg in IOC and 24 deg FOC.

Now it's most experienced test pilot Suneet krishna says AOA has already been validated till 24 deg and will be 28 deg for FOC.

not only that AOA increments will go on even after FOC with experiments on LSP-6.

it's wing tunnel models and design calculations predict Cl max increasing till 35 deg AOA and peaking at that point and good control around 30 plus AOA with .


Gi

 

[shiphone]

I can't stand this ... Lies or wrong undertanding repeated for thouands times shouldn't be regonized as the Truth..
-------------------------------------------

I read such misleading statement two weeks ago in post#1823 ( @10-12-13, 12:56 PM in this thread ). I'm surprised that no one want to correct it and some would 'like' that...I know many senior Indian member have put someone---who never learn--on the Ignore list...but some other members should not be mislead due to such non-action...

I would like to put the whole Video of one of LCA's performance on the Aero 2013...so so callel 48' seconds long clip is just a part of it...

[video=youtube_share;hSqvAxj6cJY]http://youtu.be/hSqvAxj6cJY[/video]

if you want to get a intuitive feeling for LCA's Sustained turn ability...I thought you (except that so called LCA expert) should have a look at the video starts @ 1'58''...

Sustained turn Rate is a feature about Horizontal maneuvering..
-----------------------------
about the impact and relation of AOA and G-limits in a Sustained turn...here's a different angles of slope in two kind of Sustained turns under the 2G and 5G limit...

the relation between G limit and centripetal force needed in Sustained turns---note: in this image, the G limit should be the reverse direction of the "Y" force which was not indicated.

the realtion between AOA and lift force to maintian the altitude and provide the centripetal force