ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Twinblade]

@Twinblade can you explain the reason for it further ?

"DRFM jamming is
the preferred mode of
jamming due to home on
jam and counter-
countermeasure modes in
modern surface to air and
air to air missiles. "

Before DRFM, the preferred way of jamming was to flood a frequency or band with with noise to deny the radar or seeker return data. Modern missile seekers have modes built into them that will simply lock on to the jamming signals.

 

[bennedose]

Should India spend Rs 1000cr on a single fighter jet? | idrw.org

The Rafale is definitely needed even if India makes a decisive turn to convert to locally designed and manufactured aircraft simply because a shift to local make will be accompanied by much pain - there will be failures and setbacks and I think this is a good time in history for India to arm itself with imported stuff and stay safe while we move on to indigenous stuff.

Without the Rafale - there will be (as there already is) a loss of squadron strength and a gradual loss of operational readiness (in other words, loss of effective warfighting ability)

Of course the Rafale will come - neither India nor France are insane. India has a way of totally clamping down on some news - like what has been happening with IJT.

 

[CuriousBen]

The Rafale is definitely needed even if India makes a decisive turn to convert to locally designed and manufactured aircraft simply because a shift to local make will be accompanied by much pain - there will be failures and setbacks and I think this is a good time in history for India to arm itself with imported stuff and stay safe while we move on to indigenous stuff.

Without the Rafale - there will be (as there already is) a loss of squadron strength and a gradual loss of operational readiness (in other words, loss of effective warfighting ability)

Of course the Rafale will come - neither India nor France are insane. India has a way of totally clamping down on some news - like what has been happening with IJT.

I hope that we do not impose such dependency, as we always get held to ransom.

What LCA tejas brings to Indias defence and military industrial complex is a giant opportunity to set things right. This needs to be encashed.

One of the right things about the LCA tejas has been the "constructive pressure" put by everyone on the DRDO / ADA/ HAL to perform within time. This was accepted by a top official Further , since now more than anything there is a strong "will power" and a proper prioritization and focus, we should be optimistic that we get the best locally and if worst case we do get anything imported we better get it at a right price, lets say at 1/3 the current price quoted.

I have realized one thing from operations management, that nothing is impossible to achieve technically. The problem comes mostly from humans interference. Either who are lethargic or not committed. To overcome human interference we need strong leadership and I could see that Mr Chander has delivered ( Mr anthony also should be given due credit).

France and USA are no fool ,that's correct,
But wicked and crafty yes. They will not hesitate to deal with Pakistan anyhow and supply them Nuclear submarines and nuclear capable mirage 2000-5.
They are ruthless and they will not hesitate to start a war by themselves, as war means big business to USA , Russia ,UK and France.

 

[ersakthivel]

What is the the difference between the Spectra and Tejas' EW suite? From what I have understood spectra gives rafale the ability to detect another aircraft using that aircraft's radar emissions to pinpoint that aircraft.Isn't the Tejas RWJ capable of doing that? I read that the RWR aboard Tejas has geolocation capability. So it too can pinpoint enemy aircraft without switching on its radar. Isn't that what it means? @p2prada @Twinblade @ersakthivel

The spectra like suit has nothing to do exclusively with RAFALE ,it is the name french have given it for the total ew package.

And from day one of its flight decades back RAFALE didnot even carry one.As platform matures such ew packages are developed for all fighter platforms,

Also the passive triangulation method of grippen is not specific to it. It is a separate package done and added later on like air to air missiles or add on external fuel tanks.

So once tejas matures it too will have all kind of suits. Since DRDO is good enough to integrate sensor fusion nodes for AWACS, these things are not much impossible.

However the first priority is to produce tejas in numbers these things are add on development.

Anything that emits radio waves in any manner whether ASEA or PESA will be picked up in future no matter what their makers claim about the low probability of intercept mode.It may be difficult today but with the huge pace of developments in electronics anything that emits heat or radio wave will be picked up in due course.

with dedicated ew fighters getting introduced any kind of exclusive claim to superior ew packages alone is not enough to give the edge. Once you are in hostile air space these small add ons count for nothing.

it is once again the numbers and cost, where tejas will always hold the edge over any other 4.5th gen combo in indian skies

 

[ersakthivel]

The Rafale is definitely needed even if India makes a decisive turn to convert to locally designed and manufactured aircraft simply because a shift to local make will be accompanied by much pain - there will be failures and setbacks and I think this is a good time in history for India to arm itself with imported stuff and stay safe while we move on to indigenous stuff.

Without the Rafale - there will be (as there already is) a loss of squadron strength and a gradual loss of operational readiness (in other words, loss of effective warfighting ability)

Of course the Rafale will come - neither India nor France are insane. India has a way of totally clamping down on some news - like what has been happening with IJT.

RAFALE is needed if it comes at 60 million or 80 million dollars , not at 1000 cr per fighter!!!!!

RrAFALE brings some advantages no one can deny that, but with our expanding cruise missile arsenal and the far cheaper stealthier aura in the works this advantage is not worth the 1000 cr per plane tag.

there will always be a question mark over this deal considering the price and the jet not being in the 5th gen stealth category.

mass producing tejas is the only way to make indian airspace secure.

Actually it is the introduction of RAFALE which will have a crippling blow on the squadron strength of IAF.

Because for a third of the budget we can have twice the number of tejas mk-2s in air.

Now you yourself consider whether RAFALE adds to IAF strength or not.


may be when tejas was not ready there was a need for RAAFLE. But with tejas almost finished and delivered there is no justification for the huge cost involved.

thats why A.K. Antony is already pegging tejas numbers in IAF alone to 200 opposed to earlier 120. he has clearly said that tejas mk-2 will replace most of the Mig series fighters in IAF giving twice the combat capacity for the same number of Migs it is replacing.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...craft-technology-evolution-11.html#post836703

Some clarifications for the grippen C Vs tejas mk-1 comparison in the link above which are relevant to this thread.

First of all tejas was never built with the aim of having 5.5 tons empty weight and 13.2 ton MTOW,

it's original mtow was 12.5 tons with 5.5 ton empty weight.

The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec.

Now with 6.5 ton empty weight it lifts 13.2 ton mtow,SO not much of a deviation from original 4 ton pay load even though it's empty weight has gone up after the FSED- phase -II from IAF for higer launch stress inducing higher weight R-73 WVR missiles.

Even after a ton increase in empty weight it has achieved a top speed of mach 1.6 and design speed is supposed to be 1.8 mach.

So it is wrong to attribute tejas weight carrying capacity reduction to a ton increase in empty weight.Most of the structural stiffening as per new demands from IAF which led to tejas weight increase by 1 ton did not affect the performance specs of tejas other than just 0.4 ton decrease in weapon weight.

it's top speed , STR and Mtow all increased after the one ton weight increase, not decrease.

And to say Grippen is the king we need comparison in indian hot climate conditions for range with equal payload and equal altitude flight.

Also we need to check if grippen C lifts it's full weapon load with full internal fuel in inidan hot climate conditions which significantly degrades the engine thrust levels due to high atmosphere temp.

As F-16 XL vs F-16 analogy showed that the increased wing area of F-16 Xl compared to F-16 resulted in the increased range with increased weapon load!!!!, all due to lower wave and interference drag components of the shape.tejas has similar shaping of F-16 XL wings,

while grippen has a very busy frontal fuselage populated with canards, and air intakes all jutting out at right angles contributing hugely to wave and interference drag.

Wave and interference drag must be much worse for grippen than tejas because it presents two planes to the rushing air namely wing and canards,along with a boxy airintake at the front, where the cross section also increases suddenly.

Tejas has much more stream lined frontal fuselage with less drag due to absence of canards at right angle to fuselage and the two huge boxy air inlets,Also tejas has superb wing upper fuselage blending which further reduces those two components of drag,

And the sudden cross sectional increase at around 4 meters along the length of fuselage in teja shas nothing to do with range or drag as this comes into effect only in supersonic flight(even that seems to be resolved now)Also we must note that Grippen too has sudden cross sectional increase along the fuselage length at the point of air intake just like tejas.In fact pretty much all fighter planes do

SO right now fair comparison is fuel fraction which takes nothing away from tejas in comparison with grippen C.

Also how come grippen with an empty weight of 6.8 and loaded weight of just 8.5 ton have a higher range than tejas , with just internal fuel only config?

For tejas empty weight is 6.5 ton and loaded weight is 9.8 ton, so what is the extra weight in tejas's higher loaded weight which is omitted in grippenC?

The difference between the loaded weight and empty weight of Tejas is 3.3 tons.

The difference between loaded weight and empty weight of grippen C is just 1.7 tons.

Most probable explanation is that ADA included the weight of ammo, pylons, two shortranged WVR missiles and litening pod and some other things in take off clean and SAAB did not include them in their take off clean.

Why this particular gent who made the comparison table chose to omit it?


IMHO grippen c does not carry that much more weapon than tejas and with 300 Kg extra empty weight has no chance of having a hihger range than tejas in inidan hot conditions.

 

[ersakthivel]

So both tejas and grippen C carry same weapon load and tejas may end up with better range due to lower empty weight if proper comparison is used perhaps,

 

[ersakthivel]

Long journey to the sky - The Hindu

I don't understand from where these editorial writers get their fancy ideas like,

1.It has been 30 years in the making,

Funding for two TDs released in 1993 and the first TD flew in 2001. IOC in 2013.how many years in total?

That to under the teeth of crippling sanctions.Some body wrote something called LCA on a file in 1983 in MOD does not mean the project started at that date.

Most of the 500 CRs released in 1983 went to infra set up , up keep and maintaining the facilities , because of the grounding of marut there was nothing called indigenous design talent for designing a world class fighter like tejas.

With the 580 cr funding alloted in 1983 most of the project definiton work finished by 1989 and for want of money funds for TDs were not released till 1993 ,

facing stiff opposition from IAF (which just wanted a monkey Mig-21 upgraded version),that too only after some serious intervention from Abdul kallam which resulted in the program running on truncated modes with Two Tds first to be built and prove all the techs. Till the two Tds proved all the tech no LSPs or Pvs joined the flight test team in a hurry.

Also the newer IAF demands for long range BVrs and newer high launch stress inducing hevier weight highly lethal R-73 missiles in 2004 resultd in the wing redesign of tejas in FSED-II resulting in more delay,

2.The IOC certifies that the aircraft can fly, the FOC that it can fight.

With the IOC tejas is cleared for combat operations to fight with lethal high launch stress inducing WVR missiles like R-73 and laser guided bombs, And once the BVR missile firing is finished only thing that needed to be upgraded in tejas is the soft ware configuration not hardware.

Since it encountered no problems in the much more demanding HMDS cued high off bore lethal WVR missile like R-73 at various angles (this capacity is not present in the 1000 cr RAFALE bird right now.) and droping 500 Kg bombs with pin point accuracy, hardly any issue is expected in long range BVR firing.

Tamil Mani the Dg aeronautics has said integration work is already underway to fire the Astra from Tejas ,even though it is not part of IOC.
Once the issue with radome sorted out it can easily fire the astra mk-1 and mk-2 to 80 km and 100 plus Km range on fighter sized targets .

3. Going by the track record of the LCA project, all this could take the deadline for the FOC from December 2014 to mid-2015.

The IOC-2 is delivered on the dotted lines promised earlier , even after entertaining many detailed requests for actions numbering around 250 from IAf from 2006 onwards(only in 2006 the IAf joined the program in a serious manner according to Philip rajKumar who is an authority on tejas.)

4.Then too, the payload and agility of the Tejas will not match the IAF's expectations

Tejas completed a vertical loop in twenty seconds in aeroindia 2013 within its 6G and 20 deg AOA restrictions.FOC limits is 26-28 deg AOA nd 8Gs. So what is the complaint?

IAF test pilots have on record stated that take offs in Tejas are sharper than Mirage-2000(IAf wanted to buy 124 Mirage-2000s straight away in after their performance in precision bombing in Kargil war!!!!)

Tejas has ten percent more TWR than Mirage-2000 and 25 percent lower wing loading than Mirage-2000. SO it will beat any 60 million dollar per piece upgraded Mirage-2000 hands down and most of the F-16 fighter fleets and J-10 fleets of PAf and PLAF in mk-1 itself.

As I pointed out earlier in the two posts above tejas has almost the same weapon carrying capacity of grippen C(i wonder why aerodynamite experts are still keeping quiet with out countering it bullet for bullet!!!)

5.The supersonic LCA's General Electric F404 engine — an indigenously developed engine did not quite cut it — will allow only short-range missiles and laser-guided 500-kg bombs, less weaponry than was originally budgeted for.

Another wrong statement. There is no relation between engine thrust and long range missiles!!!!!!! Is it the fighter aircraft's engine that is going to power the long range BVR missile or the missiles own motors?

If the Ge-404 enables tejas to lift 3.5 tons then why people are saying long range BVRS can't be included in those 3.5 tons when the radar has the range to target at 120 Km ?

Originally "budgeted for " weapon weight is 4 tons and now it carries 3.5 tons as per ADA poster in aeroindia-2013. with an MTOW of 13.2 ton against the 12 ton mtow of original ASR. SO what is the fuss?

6.The limited thrust of the engine will also curtail its agility

tejas has ten percent more TWR than Mirage-2000 and 25 percent lower wing loading than Mirage-2000. SO it will beat any 60 million dollar per piece upgraded Mirage-2000 hands down and most of the F-16 fighter fleets and J-10 fleets of PAf and PLAF in mk-1 itself.

7.But what the IAF is waiting for is Tejas Mark II, which is to be equipped with the more powerful GE 414 engine. For that, however, the aircraft may need to be re-engineered, and the process could well take another 10 years or more.

mk-2 is navy's requirement to offset the higher weight of landing gear reducing weapon load of tejas naval version.And IAF joined in it is the original view.Mk-1 is perfectly good for most of the IAF's needs.mk-1 can far exceed the fighting potential of 60 million dollar per piece upgraded Mirage-2000s. So what is the complaint?

8.The ADA says the Tejas Mark 1 is better than its contemporaries, such as the French Mirage 2000, the U.S. F-16 and the Swedish Gripen. Moreover, it has not met with a single accident during trials. But perhaps its greatest advantage is that at Rs.180 crore apiece, its cost is just one third that of similar aircraft even though more than a third of its parts, including the engine, are imported. Its operational costs too will be lower.

But why people don't believe ADA statement? If not they can atleast believe IAF test pilot statement and the simple fact tejas has ten percent more TWR and 25 percent lower wing loading than Mirage-2000.

I have posted all the statements in the post above and some more in the comments section of the article itself. lets see the response,

 

[ersakthivel]

cranked arrow wing form and high level of wing upper fuselage blending which results in lower clean air plane drag,visible in the photos above.


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1983/November 1983/1183f16xl.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importance of High Turn Rate


For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.


With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.


All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.


The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage.

The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section.

It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.

Although the wing area is more than double that of the standard F-16 (633square feet vs. 300 square feet), the drag is actually reduced.

The skin friction drag that is a function of the increased wetted (skin surface) area is increased,

but the other components of drag (wave, interference, and trim) that are a function of the configuration shape and arrangement are lower so that the "clean airplane" drag is slightly lower during level flight, and forty percent lower when bombs and missiles are added.

And although the thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is lower due to the increased weight, the excess thrust is greater because the drag is lower – and excess thrust is what counts.


The larger yet more efficient wing provides a larger area for external stores carriage. At the same time, the wing's internal volume and the lengthened fuselage enable the XL to carry more than eighty percent more fuel internally. That permits an advantageous tradeoff between weapons carried and external fuel tanks.


Through cooperation with NASA, more than 3,600 hours of wind-tunnel testing refined the shapes that Harry Hillaker and his designers conceived. More than 150 shapes were tried, with the optimum design now flying on the two aircraft at Edwards.

In the loaded configuration, the F-16XL can penetrate at low level at airspeeds fifty-to-ninety knots faster than the basic F-6 when similarly configured. In fact, at every corner of the performance envelope, the aircraft has power in reserve, according to members of the Combined Test Force at Edwards.

Attack maneuvers resulted in G forces ranging to +7.0. With the heavy bomb load aboard, the F-16XL is cleared for maneuvers up to +7.2 Gs, compared with 5.58 Gs in the F-16A. This demonstrates how the designers were able to increase the aircraft weight while maintaining structural integrity and mission performance.

 

[nik22]

Dear @ersakthivel , hope you don't mind(much). I admire your passion for LCA. I am sure no Indian will want it to be a failure. However, you seem to not accept any argument against it. You quote some articles from 80's. Please have open mind to accept criticism and let other people express their opinion.
I am a noob and really do not know anything about aeronautics. I have a keen interest in defense and keep up to date with news. Please consider my comment as an observer.

Thanks!

 

[ersakthivel]

Dear @ersakthivel , hope you don't mind(much). I admire your passion for LCA. I am sure no Indian will want it to be a failure. However, you seem to not accept any argument against it. You quote some articles from 80's. Please have open mind to accept criticism and let other people express their opinion.
I am a noob and really do not know anything about aeronautics. I have a keen interest in defense and keep up to date with news. Please consider my comment as an observer.

Thanks!

mate this is the problem with people who are weaned on the notion that with every new cell phone they buy the technology completely changes,


it is true of cell phones, I completely agree with you an 80s article on electronics is no guide to buy a latest cell phone,


But unfortunately in aerodynamics , as long as air behaves in the same way as it behaved in the 1980(it does is my very humble opinion!!!) what held good for F-16 Xl cranked delta wing holds good for tejas wing form today,


If you still have any doubt you can list the wing loading figures of all modern fighters starting from f-16 A to the F-22 and PAKFA,


You can see a trend of lower wing loading with some kind of compound or cranked delta as the norm not the exception,


F-22 did not have the Super hornet wing shape , it too was some kind of compound delta(some call it diamond shape),
Why did PAKFA wing changed to some compound delta type from the Su-30 wing form?



Because the better wave and interference drag behavior of the compound delta compensates for the higher skin friction drag associated with larger wing area, all the while providing better lift to drag ratio today to tejas as it did to F-16 XL in the 1980s is my idea behind making that post.



Don't say they are stealth because they need to change. Stealth has nothing to do with wing shape, only planform arrangement,

because some people who have zero aerodynamic knowledge here and in many other forums across the net repeatedly post the lie that tejas is draggy and it affects its performance all due to the large wing area,

but all the while praising all other fighters which too have similar lower wing loading figures with large wing area as super performers!!!!.

These guys who have no understanding of aerodynamic simply cite some article by in national newspapers (which are mostly hatchet jobs on behalf of vested interests,) as their source,

Thats why I started cutting and pasting my posts here in the comments sections of the article and try to look for responses.

Till today no journo who write tejas is under powered ,obsolete , 80s tech have neither replied to those comments or cited any other technical source other than their hollow self!!!!

And when guys who had some technical degrees and have some understanding of the stuff they write starts tearing them apart in forums these "hallowed " journos and the all knowing fake experts who post all hilarious stuff in forums cutting and pasting stuff from brochures , simply run away without replying.

If it is a discussion about politics every one can have their own views. But faking non existent expertise and posting misleading information about Tejas ,on which they know nothing useful is simply duping other guys who come to read and learn about fighters like you,

But I don't hate them for that. they are my best friends, philosophers and guides,

because if it is not for a few them , I would not have started posting here and there is no fun for me in posting here.

if you still have any doubts you can start from my first post in this forum in the following link!!!!

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-178.html#post563779



Thanks and welcome to DFI,

 

[ersakthivel]

Dear @ersakthivel , hope you don't mind(much). I admire your passion for LCA. I am sure no Indian will want it to be a failure. However, you seem to not accept any argument against it. You quote some articles from 80's. Please have open mind to accept criticism and let other people express their opinion.
I am a noob and really do not know anything about aeronautics. I have a keen interest in defense and keep up to date with news. Please consider my comment as an observer.

Thanks!

if you see from my first post , I just posted to refute all this cock and bull stories like,

1.I already explained some of it. There are aerodynamic issues which force the LCA to be less than ASQR. It cannot manage top speeds ot Mach 1.8, it is stuck at mach 1.6 for now. The Gs have been reduced to +8/-3 from the required +9/-3.5. AoA of 24o will not be reached. The undercarriage is 1.5 tons heavier. It was 2 tons heavier and was reduced by 500Kg after bringing EADS as a consultant. The thrust to weight of the aircraft is less than 1, that's why they are planning a new MK2 with a new engine.

2..Funnily, the IAF Mig-21s will be replaced by MKIs instead of LCA, which was the original plan. The Mk2s first flight is said to be in 2014, IOC in 2016 and FOC in 2018. So, Mig-21s will already be phased out by then without seeing a proper LCA replacement.

3..Btw, a particular speed at low altitude does not translate to a particular speed at higher altitude without having it physically tested. The F-35 matches F-22 in subsonic speeds at low altitudes. Subsonic speed at high altitudes, impossible.


4.Nothing internal on LCA Mk1. The aircraft was deemed too underpowered and an internal suite has been rejected. They will be lucky to power the radar alone.

Internal suite is only on Mk2.

5.No, I doubt Gripen C can fly faster than LCA at low altitudes.

6.LCA isn't meant for dog fights, it will have poor low speeds at low altitudes. It can manage dog fights at high altitudes, maybe even better than Gripen or MKI. At least the Mk2 will.

7.The LCA's problem comes from it's higher weight and lower thrust. That's why the Mk2 was mooted.

Due to it's small size and original light weight specs, the canards were not needed. However, LCA will be 14.5m long now while being 7 tons. So, small size(13.5m and 5.5 tons) is no longer an excuse. Still, LCA's specs do not ask for Gripen like performance with AoA at 40o. So, Gripen needed Canards. LCA does not match Gripen's low speed characteristics due to design either.

8.Now, if LCA is tasked to defend the airspace. The incoming enemy has a strike package with escort. What is LCA's priority? Get into dog fights with the escorts or take on the strike package? If LCA fights the escorts, the strike package will deliver their loads and high tail it out of there with the escorts right behind them, leaving the LCA pilots scratching their heads. If the strike package is engaged instead, the escorts can't do a lot while we may face a bit higher attrition. So, you need to understand the operational role of the jet rather than get into some meaningless Bollywood fist fight.

9.ADA's design called for an empty weight of 5.5 tons, not 6.5 tons. This reduced actual payload of 4.5 tons to 3.5 tons. Funny how IAF is to be blamed. Currently the new payload value of 5 tons only reflects IAF's requirement for a 1m longer fuselage for new generation avionics and is only 0.5 tons higher than originally envisioned.

10.The F-404 on a 5.5 ton LCA would have fit the operational requirements. The increase to 6.5 tons spoiled a lot of other design parameters in the process. You can't blame weight gain on IAF. The IAF does not decide all the dimensions and weights, that is ADA's job.

11.Earlier ADA wanted a 5.5 tons design with a payload of 4.5 tons and a thrust of 8-8.5 tons. IAF has now agreed to a new spec of 7 tons, payload of 5 tons and thrust of 9.5 tons. So, IAF has actually decreased requirement a bit. Not IAF's fault.

12.LCA uses far more composites than Gripen (50% more in weight) and still has an empty weight that equals the Mk1. So, the LCA's design is so bad that had they used metal, the increase of 17% in weight would have pushed it past Gripen C which reached IOC at the same time as TD-2 was made. Now do you understand a bit on why Gripen is a better design?

13.I do not yet know the actual data, but I will believe you on this. While the F-35's design specs are poor compared to LCA. The F-35 has reached 16 deg while only a few days short of it's originally planned IOC of 2012. Comparatively LCA reached 16deg sometime in 2008, nearly 10 years after it's planned IOC date of 1999. Difference?

14.Like I said, LCA is designed for high altitudes while F-35 is designed for low altitudes. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

15.So, what do you want in your force? An AWACS is common to both forces. So, the only deciding factor are the missiles and the platform firing it. Let's assume even the missiles are of the same capability. So, now the deciding factor is the platform. Now, which is the better platform, LCA or J-11. Of course the J-11. So, the advantage is where? China

16.For low altitudes wing loading should be very high. The opposite is true for high altitudes. In that effect LCA's comparison should actually be with the EF-2000 or the F-22.

17.In that respect LCA is obsolete as well, even the Mk2. The only reason it will be inducted is because it is "Our Own Fighter." In other words there is no capability boost like FGFA/F-22/J-20. We are inducting LCA because we have to in order to keep squadrons shortfall.

18.LCA cannot reach it's design specification on the Mk1 and this was officially revealed by ADA during the farce IOC-I function for LCA Mk1. All design specs are to be achieved on the Mk2, hopefully. This is again officially mentioned by ADA and the Air Chief.

19.Listen up. An aircraft like LCA will get our pilots killed in a real conflict. There is a reason why the LCA's home base is in Tamil Nadu. If they want to fly their aircraft they can do it there. If they want to get killed, then Assam is the place they need to go.

a technocrat who made all this witch doctor prescription should patiently read ADA's IOC-2 brochure on tejas and test pilot testimonials like Suneet Krishna who was awarded the a prestigious test pilot award last year.

Brochure mentions ,

1.As the AOA of 24 deg reached for IOC-2 target 26-28 for FOC permitted by fly by wire which is as good as any other fly by wire fighter,

2.along with super sonic at all altitudes ,

3. even after reaching a 6500 Kg in empty weight , the mtow increased from 12 .5 ton(original ASR) to 13.2 tons, top speed from mach 1.5(original ASR) to mach 1.6(demonstrated till IOC-2) and a vertical loop completed in 20 seconds with 6g and 20 -22 deg AOA restrictions in aeroindia 2013.



You just don't understand the tons of lies dumped on this fighter in this thread, saying mk-1 is a failure and mk-2 is the real fighter and so much BS. Now as Ajai shukla says that mk-1 is at least as good as the 60 million dollar per plane upgrade of mirage-2000 what is the reply of these guys who spewed ton of bile on tejas,

every one knows as late as 2004 IAF was desperate to buy 124 Mirage-2000s after seeing their performance in Kargil war.

Tejas mk-1 has

1. 25 percent lower wing loading than mirage-2000,

2. 10 percent more thrust to weight ratio than Mirage-2000

3. Will have both the Astra mk-1 and mk-2 with 80 km and 120 Km range , whose equivalent will not be on Mirage-2000 even after upgrades,

4. has a HMD cued lethal high off bore sight launch R-73 close combat WVR which is not present on RAFALE and Mirage-2000 even today and planed to be added to grippen C only in 2007,

even after 60 million dollar per plane upgrade mirage-2000 does not have the capability listed above.

A brand new tejas is worth just 30 million dollars compared to 60 million dollar upgrade for Mirage-2000.

 

[nik22]

@ersakthivel, Thank You !

 

[dealwithit]

@Kunal_biswas @Singh and other senoir members of forum...

We want to see "DFI" in the colors of "Tejas" as tribute to small and first fighter India as developed......for at least some time.
Lets the motion begin........... @ersakthivel. I hope you join....I respect you for your love of Tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal_biswas @Singh and other senoir members of forum...

We want to see "DFI" in the colors of "Tejas" as tribute to small and first fighter India as developed......for at least some time.
Lets the motion begin........... @ersakthivel. I hope you join....I respect you for your love of Tejas.

the reason I support tejas is,
1. It increases the fighting prowess of IAF manifold for the same budget,

2.it leverages country's tech base into a usable product that will usher in military aviation era in india like GSLV is doing for space sector,

3.It can also be deployed in high numbers due to very low cost and provide much needed close air support to the indian soldiers who fight at the front.it is a multi role fighter which can defend itself well when challenged during those operations, which is often overlooked by its detractors.

4.It can be regularly upgraded without the any constraints ,as per IAF wishes,

5.It will curtail massive forex outgo in the long run,

6.It will free indian defence planners from the vice like grip of defence equipment supplier,

7.It will result in export dollars and do its bit to strengthen the Rupee,

8.it will help india to occupy its own strategic space which rightfully belongs to it without constraints from supplier countries,

9.Also the export of tejas to friendly countries will strengthen india's strategic equations with many of its allies around the world, because none of your ally will take you seriously if you can not aid them in their defence.

 

[Kyubi]

@Kunal_biswas @Singh and other senoir members of forum...

We want to see "DFI" in the colors of "Tejas" as tribute to small and first fighter India as developed......for at least some time.
Lets the motion begin........... @ersakthivel. I hope you join....I respect you for your love of Tejas.

well i was thinking about requesting the senior team of DFI to change their back ground pic to tejas, but fell short in asking it . But you did it mate.. i thank you for it !!! may the revolution begin :balle::yoda:

 

[CuriousBen]

Wishful thinking.
Is there a possibility that this information can be shared on national televsion for e.g. ndtv on programs such as big fight ? ndtv had in th past carried out a documentary about LCH and how it had changed the tactical battle in jammu and kashmir by having night fighting capabilities.

For the sake of argument lets assume that AAP does have a chance.
If at all Aam Aadmi party is serious about eradication corruption from defence then such information might give them enough fodder to think, so they might take lca to the next logical milestone earlier than planned and stop wasteful expenditure.
AAP is poor in terms of defence awareness at the moment, and so it would make sense if knowlegdable member of the forum can make the party aware.
I say wishful thinking because the party does not realize how much loss the country suffers by importing stuff.
Also Arvind Kejriwal j, with all due respect , make a self - defeatist comment , that we will make India - " sone ki chidiya" . .....
why not a "PLATINUM KA BAAZ/garud" , whereby no one show the eye , for India like Israel is lives in a domestic neighboorhood.

However , what will get the confidence of all would be a comparative exercise between Tejas and present aircraft of IAF, just like it was done between Arjun and T90.
If the product speaks for itself then whats to worry about.?

 

[CuriousBen]

Wishful thinking.
Is there a possibility that this information can be shared on national televsion for e.g. ndtv on programs such as big fight ? ndtv had in th past carried out a documentary about LCH and how it had changed the tactical battle in jammu and kashmir by having night fighting capabilities.

For the sake of argument lets assume that AAP does have a chance.
If at all Aam Aadmi party is serious about eradication corruption from defence then such information might give them enough fodder to think, so they might take lca to the next logical milestone earlier than planned and stop wasteful expenditure.
AAP is poor in terms of defence awareness at the moment, and so it would make sense if knowlegdable member of the forum can make the party aware.
I say wishful thinking because the party does not realize how much loss the country suffers by importing stuff.
Also Arvind Kejriwal j, with all due respect , make a self - defeatist comment , that we will make India - " sone ki chidiya" . .....
why not a "PLATINUM KA BAAZ/garud" , whereby no one show the eye , for India like Israel is lives in a domestic neighboorhood.

However , what will get the confidence of all would be a comparative exercise between Tejas and present aircraft of IAF, just like it was done between Arjun and T90.
If the product speaks for itself then whats to worry about.?

 

[ersakthivel]

Wishful thinking.
Is there a possibility that this information can be shared on national televsion for e.g. ndtv on programs such as big fight ? ndtv had in th past carried out a documentary about LCH and how it had changed the tactical battle in jammu and kashmir by having night fighting capabilities.

For the sake of argument lets assume that AAP does have a chance.
If at all Aam Aadmi party is serious about eradication corruption from defence then such information might give them enough fodder to think, so they might take lca to the next logical milestone earlier than planned and stop wasteful expenditure.
AAP is poor in terms of defence awareness at the moment, and so it would make sense if knowlegdable member of the forum can make the party aware.
I say wishful thinking because the party does not realize how much loss the country suffers by importing stuff.
Also Arvind Kejriwal j, with all due respect , make a self - defeatist comment , that we will make India - " sone ki chidiya" . .....
why not a "PLATINUM KA BAAZ/garud" , whereby no one show the eye , for India like Israel is lives in a domestic neighboorhood.

However , what will get the confidence of all would be a comparative exercise between Tejas and present aircraft of IAF, just like it was done between Arjun and T90.
If the product speaks for itself then whats to worry about.?

What is AAP got to do with tejas? And what is the meaning of this post?

 

[pmaitra]

Dear @ersakthivel , hope you don't mind(much). I admire your passion for LCA. I am sure no Indian will want it to be a failure. However, you seem to not accept any argument against it. You quote some articles from 80's. Please have open mind to accept criticism and let other people express their opinion.
I am a noob and really do not know anything about aeronautics. I have a keen interest in defense and keep up to date with news. Please consider my comment as an observer.

Thanks!

But unfortunately in aerodynamics , as long as air behaves in the same way as it behaved in the 1980(it does is my very humble opinion!!!) what held good for F-16 Xl cranked delta wing holds good for tejas wing form today,

I have to say, @ersakthivel made an excellent comeback. Good one.

This is what a debate should look like. Counter the points, instead of sitting on the fence and pointing fingers.