ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: World-Beaters: The fly-by-wire FCS will take India to new heights (Part-III-B)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We had 4 designers and 4 testers in 1993. No man power, no experience. No tools and 50 per cent of us were ladies. And, the government rule says that if you are woman, you can't work beyond 6 pm. But with all issues revolving around the LCA project, we decided to give everything.

During those days it was a remote building and we were scared to move around after 6, due to snakes. Permission was denied to get our two-wheelers inside, despite all these issues. Once, Dr Kalam came to the lab and he had to encounter a snake. The rest is history. We were given permission to get the vehicles.

We had to a huge challenge to make the design document within 3 months. We used to go home sometimes at 2 am and family life went for a toss. Some of our colleagues left the job due to the tough conditions. We stuck on and from that batch, there are only 3 scientists left, including me. (The others are: Asha Garg, Sc F and Sreekalakumary, Sc E.)
Even we impressed the GE A/C management with our ETS: Gurdev, Group Director


The GE A/C management was very impressed with the systems given by ADE. They even invited us (ADE) to bid for developing such systems for their own projects. This was definitely a never-heard-before in DRDO. A total of 5 such ETS have been built and are the workhorse for ATP, HSI, V&V, PIL open loop/ closed loop, fault free tests at HAL Iron Birds. These systems are operational since 1995 and have been used for all DFCCs & software operational in various LCAs fling so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for the guys who are lying through their teeth that IAF waited 25 years for tejas and all the delays of tejas program is due to the faults of ADA , the above link is a clear rebuttal of their argument,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was none other than philip rajkumar Airmarshal from IAF who was deputed to LCA program who stated in his book, Tejas story, "IAF dropped the ball from 1993 to 2006. It onlt came on board after 2006 and started issuing design changes to suit them , this further delayed the program"


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here is what P Rajkumar (IAF) who was involved with the LCA says -

quote -

Philip Rajkumar on May 1, 2012 at 6:01 am said:

philip rajkumar

I worked in the LCA project for nine years from 17 Sep 1994 to 31 Aug 2003 (actually 17 days short of nine years!). I was deputed to ADA by the IAF to oversee the flight test programme of the Technology Demonstration phase of the project. Having been on both sides of the fence i have a few points to make.
1. Development of a capable aeronautical industry is a small step by small step evolutionary process.Infrastructure and skill sets of the work force have to be built up over decades with considerable effort. All this requires investment of money and managerial resources. Mainly due to financial constraints and lack of vision in the IAF, HAL and the GOI we allowed capabilities built up during the Marut and Kiran programmes to atrophy. While the world leapt ahead with several technological innovations like fly by wire,digital avionics and use of composites for structures HAL did not run a single research programme because it was not the practice to do research unless it was linked to a specicific project.
2.The LCA project is where it is today thanks to one man-Dr VS Arunachalam who as the SA to RM in 1985 had the gumption and clout to go to the GOI and convince them that India could build a fourth generation fighter. It was a leap of faith no doubt.
3. HAL feels wronged about being asked to play second fiddle to ADA. This pique continues to hurt the project even today.
4. Without help from Dassault of France,BAE Systems UK, Lockheed Martin of the USA and Alenia of Italy we would not have succeeded in developing the fly by wire flight control system,glass cockpit,and composite structures for the two TD aircraft.
5. So far the flight safety record of the programme has been good. I pray every day that it remains that way. The loss of an aircraft early in the programme would have surely lead to its closure.
6.All pilots who have flown the aircraft say its handling qualities are very good. It means it is easy to fly and perform the mission.

7.It needs to be put into IAF sevice as soon as possible to gain more experience to iron out bugs which are sure to show up during operational use.

8.Programme management could have been better. IAF is to blame for washing its hands off the project for 20 years from 1986-2006. A management team was put in place at ADA in 2007.

9.Dr Kota Harinarayana and all those who have worked and continue to work have done so with great sincerity and dedication.
10.Indian aeronautics has benefitted immensely from the programme. It is a topic for separate research.

11. It was a rare privilege for me to have been given an opportunity to contribute to the programme by setting up the National Flight Test Centre and putting place a methodology of work which has ensured safety so far.

12. According to me the project can be called a complete success only when the aircraft sees squadron service for a couple of decades. We will have to wait but it is progressing on the right lines and we as a nation have nothing to be ashamed of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tejas Debate Continues | TKS' Tales

http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Defence/17threport.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project definition phase of the programme was launched in 1987.

In 1991,
Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED – Phase 1) was launched at a
project cost of Rs. 2188 Cr involving design, production of 2 technology
demonstrators, 2 prototype vehicles, one static test specimen and associated
ground and limited flight tests. This work was completed in 2005.[/QUOTE]

In 1999, FSED-Phase 2 was launched at a project cost of Rs. 3302 Cr involving
3 additional prototype vehicles (including a trainer variant) and production of 8
aircraft under limited series production.


Currently, two TDs and two prototype vehicles (PVs) are undergoing flight
evaluation and a cumulative of 567 flights have been completed as of end Oct
06 covering a flight envelope of 1.4 Mach and 15 Km altitude.

The trainer
variant : is under build and is expected to be ready for engine ground run by
Dec 2006. Further a programme for design and development of naval variant of
LCA has been launched subsequently in 2003 at a project cost of Rs.949 Cr
involving development of two prototypes.

During examination of Demands for Grants (2004-05), the Committee were
informed that initial operational clearance of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is planned by
2006 and final operational clearance by 2008. In Action Taken Reply to the same
Report, the Ministry furnished revised schedule stating that initial operational
clearance of LCA would be over by March 2007 and final operational clearance by
2009.


During examination of Demands for Grants (2005-06), the Committee were
informed that initial operational clearance would be over by the year 2010. In Action
Taken Reply to this Report, the Ministry informed that initial operational clearance is
planned by 2008 and final operational configuration by 2010.

5.4 The Ministry has furnished reasons for delay in induction of Light Combat
Aircraft (LCA) as under:
Reasons for delay in Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) of LCA are
"¢ Technology difficulties
"¢ Non availability of systems design & high safety standards

Foreign Exchange crunch of 1991
"¢ Revision of development strategy by increasing indigenous content in
aircraft & ground facilities
"¢ Sanctions imposed by USA in 1998
Redesign of Composite Wings to cater for Weapon definition changes
specified by Indian Air Force (IAF) during Jan 04.

"¢ Indigenous development & integration of Obsolescence-free Open
Architecture Avionics Systems
Integration of interim Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment specified by
IAF during 2005

"¢ Extensive on ground evaluation, simulation & testing of indigenous
equipment, systems, software & aircraft.
"¢ Extensive Independent Verification & Validation (IV & V) of complex
airborne software to ensure fight safety
"¢ Co-ordination & integration effort by many work centres to type certify
indigenous equipment systems.
The present status of this project is as given below:


"¢ Confidence in LCA as a flying machine is high and IAF has placed
procurement order for 20 LCA with the manufacturing agency (M/s
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.) for inducting one LCA Squadron into
operational service. Production Phase of LCA has also been initiated
concurrently with FSED Phase to gain time advantage.

"¢ There was no cost over-run in LCA FSED Phase 1 programme. As on
date, there is no cost over-run in LCA FSED Phase 2 Programme also.
43
"¢ Production Standard LCA comprises 65% of indigenous equipment (Line
Replaceable Units).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following is the reply of the government in parliament regarding LCA program,

Reply of the Government

The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been
initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs
560.00 Cr.

This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase (PDP). After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into TechnicalDevelopment Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase.

The Full Scale Engineering
Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost
of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983). The scope of FSED
Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build
operational proto-vehicles at a later stage.

LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles.

The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov"Ÿ2001.

The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely, Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons,sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the
Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-à-vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II
programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31
Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop
& productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds.



The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to :

ï‚· Complexity of the system design and very high safety standards lead to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.
ï‚· Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM)
was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft
contemporary


ï‚· Due to non-availability of indigenous "žKaveri Engine"Ÿ design changes were carried out to
accommodate GE404 engine of USA.
ï‚· Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.
ï‚· Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft
contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence
free open architecture avionics system).


ï‚· US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and
developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production
cycle took time. The need for revision of FSED Phase-II fund sanction was mainly due to :
ï‚· To neutralize the effect of inflation/delivery point cost against the sanctioned level at
2001 and the increase in manpower cost of HAL.
ï‚· To meet the programme management expenditure due to extended time line till Dec 2012
ï‚· Maintain and operate 10-15 aircraft for four years upto 2012
ï‚· To maintain & upgrade the design, development and test facilities upto 2012, in keeping with modern technology.
ï‚· To complete the activities which were not costed in the original estimates.

Cost Revision Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc.

, recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr).

Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.LCA (Tejas) Programme is progressing satisfactorily as per schedule mutually agreed with IAF to meet their requirements.

Flight Test phase on nine Tejas aircrafts to obtain IOC for Tejas, which is mandatory for induction of Tejas into IAF is in advanced stage. Establishment of Tejas production facilities for the production rate of eight aircrafts per annum is progressing concurrently with development activities. On 31 Mar 2006, IAF has executed the contract with HAL for production of 20 Tejas aircraft (series production) powered by GE-F404-IN20 engines in IOC configuration and production activities are in progress. Follow on order of another 20 aircraft is in an advanced stage of negotiation between IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: CLAW-ING AHEAD: Tejas clan who overcame tech denials turns 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was 20 years ago when Kalam took the decision to form the national CLAW team with scientists and engineers mainly chosen from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL).

"In 1992, ADA floated a global tender seeking consultancy for developing six critical technologies, including developing CLAW for Tejas. They got responses for all five technologies, barring CLAW, which nobody was willing to part with India due to its strategic nature," recalls NAL's acting director, Shyam Chetty.


It was on June 2, 1992, when Kalam had his first meeting of the CLAW clan in Bangalore, with CSIR-NAL as the nodal centre. "We started everything from ground zero and (Dr) Kalam had a huge impact on us.

Most of the team members worked for close to 18 hours every day. We are delighted that today our CLAW is one of the successful part of Tejas that is getting into the Indian Air Force's inventory. We have completed all parameters for the initial operational clearance (IOC) phase," said Shyam.
In the process, the CLAW team also mastered Wake Encounter Simulation – a critical area for the Tejas programme. "Wake simulation is a very complicated and challenging modelling control problem. Aerodynamics is simulated by splitting the aircraft into seven components and computing forces and moments on each component," said NAL sources.


ADA sources told Express that the CLAW team has made the life of pilots simpler. "He is fed only what he needs. The HOTAS (Hands on Throttle-And-Stick) ensures that the pilot is at absolute ease during his mission," sources said, adding, "Tejas is an unstable platform and it is CLAW that acts as its brain."


The success story of CLAW did not come easy for those involved. The bad publicity that Tejas got in early days and low salaries ensured that most of the team members (men) had a tough time in finding suitable brides. "Yes. It's true and many of our team mates faced this problem.

Our job profile was such that no father dared to give her daughter. Some of my colleagues even had to undergo counselling. All that is past and we are all happily married now. But can't believe how 20 years flew past," said a senior NAL scientist
.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
For guys who are shamelessly parroting that LCA program was well funded and all the reason for the delays are only due to inept people at ADA and DRDO this post and a few posts above show a snippet of difficulties faced in the program.

Hope these ranters stop their pet peeve and stop littering the forum with e-waste in the form of meaningless hate filled posts aimed at reducing the thread quality.They can take out their motivate vengeful personal grouses elsewhere or continue to be rebutted with slap in the face posts like this.

These guys faking to be champions of the IAF point of view are in fact undermining the long term viability of the IAF by repeatedly dumping tons of shit on Tejas . because it would be simply impossible for IAF to stand the might of combined PLAF and PAF fleet with bank breaking forever imports.

So ranters saying tejas is worse off than pre historic Mg-21s are actually trying to bury any hopes of locs mil-aviation industry , because they too know the truth is some thing else.


Since most of the future fighters of PAf-PLAF fleet will be economical optimal chinese produced versions.


Because if tejas too is to be restricted in future to the mythical vastu compliant number of 126(which was also the fancy number preferred by IA for Arjun MBT order lots!!!) then any bright engineering or basic science graduate will never consider the option of joining indian mil-aviation industry, since there will be none in the future other than screw driver tech TOT peddling HAL!!!

Only a 300 plus order for tejas mk-2with second production line in private sector hands(either TATA, RIL, L&T or mahindra, who ever qualifies) will give us the eco system to develop AMCA, otherwise it too will spend it life as a lab test animal like Arjun and tejas are now doing. And all export prospects will be simple whistle in the wind.

When I see retires useless IAf types dumping on tejas prospects just when such a hope is expressed, I can clearly see whose hand is behind such rants.



Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: The Iron Bird Team: A Tejas story never told before!
--------------------------------------------------


There were many stumbling blocks in this entire chronology of testing the DFCC OFP at Iron Bird test facility. It started with the sanctions, post Pokharan – II, which made the path tougher and darker and then it was Y2K havoc, which led to providing jobs to anybody who could operate a computer.

These disturbances blew off many experts from within the Tejas program and especially those working on FCS and particularly at Iron Bird. The Iron Bird saw an Avalanche breakdown and was left with just a handful of inexperienced engineers.

But that didn't stop the 'left out team' to continue with it efforts as it was the zenith of the project. Dr. B Subba Reddy singlehandedly took the completion of Iron Bird testing as a challenge and with those handful HAL engineers and few scientists from ADA delivered the DFCC hardware and the software to the aircraft.

The team used to put almost 16 hours a day to utilise the system as per the schedule, to analyse the mammoth data captures, to go through each and every plots and figures before clearing the tests and offering the results to the certifying agencies. There were many problem reports / snags generated in the process and finally the product came in the form of OFP V4019, declared almost bug free.


The team was so cautious in its approach that with a single failure at the end of the prescribed 50 hours of fault free testing at Iron Bird, the clock was reset to zero and the entire test was redone amounting to a total of almost 110 hours of fault free testing. This enormously boosted the pilot's confidence and made them eager to take off the actual wings.

Prior to this fault free tests the team of Tejas pilots have undergone rigorous closed loop failure testing covering all the possible IFCS, electrical and hydraulics failures and studying and responding to them.

This exercise also made them aware of handling the situation for possible failures on aircraft as they were to fly for the first time an indigenous fighter plane with fly-by-wire technology. Such an exercise was possible only at Iron Bird and the team left no stone unturned to offer it in totality to the pilots.
And the first flight happened, the nation applauded it, but nobody hailed Iron Bird team.

Dr. B Subba Reddy was transferred to other division for administrative reasons and the program suffered another setback as he was also the deputy director of National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas. Some temporary arrangements were done from HAL side to fill the void left by Dr. Reddy, but to no avail.

However the core Iron Bird team with the support of ADA was strong enough to deliver the products (the software versions with updates) in time. The HAL saw the Iron Bird team as an unproductive group of people since they were not directly contributing to the production targets of HAL and the approach continues till today. ADA celebrated the milestones of Tejas project with its scientists and between these two approaches, the Iron Bird team was left out unacknowledged at every occasion. The question still remains unanswered: "Whose baby is this Iron Bird, anyway?"

With the project directors of Tejas raising their voices at various forums, the Iron Bird team was finally augmented with HAL manpower in the year 2007 and currently boasts of 18 engineers of various domains.

The team is headed by one Mr Sanjay Sharma, who has been associated with Iron Bird testing from the early days. It was his initiative that Iron Bird team still remains capable and efficient despite various setbacks. He also guides a team of 7 highly skilled engineers deputed to National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas at NAL. A big section of HAL higher management still remains unaware of the facts, potential, pains and achievements of the team.

We may be happy with the participation of private industry in the field of aeronautics, but the crude fact is that whenever an aerospace company or a venture has been established, it has eaten away the cream of the industries like HAL, ADA, and ADE etc. There are many who have been offered plum positions and fat salaries for similar work in these private establishments. And believe it or not, some of the delay in the Tejas project can be attributed to this very fact also. People of the level of project director, AGM etc. had redefined their loyalties and jumped to a world of leisure and comfort. In spite of these alluring offerings to the core people associated with the Tejas program the program had continued without much deceleration and the 'Tejas Loyals' came out with flying colours. Most of these crazy people have even never seen their salary slips from past many years.

Ask them their basic pay even today and they will start looking at the skies, not for a clue but to tell the world, Tejas is our actual pay that we have earned. The soldiers at the borders have the obsession of dying for the country, we, at Iron Bird live with that and are always ready to die with that furore.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

power_monger

New Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
E R Sakthivel,I would say holddown. FOC of Tejas should shutup most of its critiques.I believe we will get most of the Paramaters of Tejas including Payload,combat radius,AOA and other details more accuratly when its FOC is achieved.
 

Zebra

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
:thumb:

F404-GE-IN20 Engines Ordered for India Light Combat Aircraft

F404-GE-IN20 Engines Ordered for India Light Combat Aircraft | Press Release | GE Aviation
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has ordered an additional 24 F404-GE-IN20 afterburning engines to power the first operational squadron of Tejas fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Value of the order is in excess of $100 million and follows an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes.
So another lie that the 162 crore mentioned as the cost of tejas was without engine is nailed,

Thats something I always suspected but did not contradict earlier because i did not have the link,

thanks,
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
the mirage-2000 was flying in IAF with just canons for the first three years,

40 Su-30s spent an entire decade in IAF service without weaponization till SU-30 MKI standard was developed, Then they were returned back and new Su-30 MKi was delivered,But IAF paid money in advance a decade back.

100 F-35s have joined US armed forces till there is not even a watered down IOC!!!!

Just 500 test flights old PAKFA will join Russian airforce in a years time, with a substitute engine, substitute radar and God knows what else?

Thousands of T-90s ordered and close to 600 delivered, all of them night blind in desert along with malfunctioning electronics in indian desert conditions. Now IA is floating a tender to fix external AC for T-90 to resolve this problem. Russians could not set right the problems themselves!!!



There are reports that SU-30 MKIs are frequently encountering engine failures and often landing on engine, And their cockpit displays going blank in mid air!!!

So this missing dead lines is not such a big thing as it is made out to be, Right now twjas mk-1 is far more matured and reliable than many mig fighters of IAF.Thats why it was released for service with safety and reliability certificate in IOC-2 with release to service document specifying the specs.

For the guys tomtoming that tejas was funded to the nose, there is an inconvinient detail in the article,

Right now there is only one tejas prototype that is in IOC-2 standard(doubtful because both LSP-7 and LSP-8 were production standards as previously reported). All others are hand built because of varying specs from IAF from PV stage to LSP-8 stage,

if the program is funded with great alacricity as claimed then there should be more than three or four LSPs with IOC-2 standard.

The production line for tejas was set up after a great delay, as if every one was betting that tejas will never achieve IOC-1!!! Till then it was produced from antiquated jag production line in HAL. Tht is the reason for delays in LSP program and this is hobbling the fighter even now,

If a new production line was set up a couple of years earlier anticipating IOC-1 and 2 we would have had 5 or 6 IOC-2 models at our hand by now. The delay is the reason why SP-1 is still to clear ground run.

HAL asked 1000 cr from MOD for setting up a production line years earlier, as usual MOD sat on the proposal and after a long delay asked HAL to contribute 500 cr and get the rest from IAF and Navy!!!

We dont know when the funds arrived and when production started. So delays are not going to stop any time. ADA asked for 4000 cr in a LSPs rolling out in parale mode in 1987itself.

But after protracted wrangling 2000 cr was set aside with program truncated to a sequential two TDs first, a few PVs later to proof the concept before embarking on the crucial LSP phase where actual operational fighter was built based on the concept.That too after protracted bargaining from Abdul kalam in the teeth of IAF opposition.

Till 2006 IAF did not jin the project in any meaning ful way as per Air marshal Philip rajkumar. Only after that it asked for close to 250 changes and major changes in FSED phase-II all of which except a dozen(reserved for mk2) are fulfilled by ADA

So
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Why rafale is a Big Mistake- bharath karnad article in 25th july indian express a must read for people expecting IAF to bring home the trophy with rafale.


As per the article The cost of east rafale is expected to be above 209 million dollars per piece with short maintanence contract!!!!


Thts why it couldnot win a single contract from countries that have more GDP per capita than india like brazil, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, south korea, Singapore.


Uk is getting 5th gen F-35 vertical take off landing version at a much lower price of 165 million dollars per piece !!!!


An additional order of 50 or 60 Su-30 MKI with robust funding and expansion of production line and manpower in R&D, production makes rafale deal superfluous for IAF.


Rafale will add another logistics line for IAf at a prohibitive cost!!! Even the French airforce is cutting down rafale orders for its air force !!! and expects Indians to pick up the bill.


The deal is a financial disaster for IAF and sound the death knell for the indian mil aviation industry with useless order numbers for tejas mk2!!! On the same lines marut was retired with a token order number from IAF.


Arun jaitley taken aback by the cost of deal asked for numbers to be reduced to 80 and IAF accepted in a jiffy, showing that there is no deep strategic need for rafale!!!


the three tier ai force structure advocated by IAF(all of a sudden after 2004 when NDA govt opened up the straight 126 mirage-2000 request by IAF into MMRCA tender fearing corruption allegation!!!)


So there was no need for the three tier air force as late as 2004 and now all of a sudden we need a three tier airforce!!!


Rafale is nothing but a financial disaster waiting to happen to IAf which will drastically reduce IAF squadron strength (because we could induct 5 tejas mk-2 for th ost of each rafale!!!)


There is nothing that rafale can do on its own that can not be done by Tejas mk-2, Su-30 MKI and the future FGFA.


This is why indian weapons need reservation.because ten only proper and timely funding will be delivered to indigenous projects with full service backing . other wise the same Arjun vs T-90 and rafale vs tejas mk-2+Su-30 MKI saga will repeat again and again leading to fading away of any hope for indian mil aviation industry.

The civilians at the top never understand that all the so called deep TOT deals are mere humbug. because no one deliver their cutting edge techniques to the other guy for a few fighters more purchase. It is their IP right and they will never part with it.

Despite the deep TOT fo Su-30 MKI we are practically doing all the stuff for tejas mk-1 and mk-2 all by ourselves right from the nose cone to the sorting out the brakes issue.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
@p2prada

I have a friend who is a veteran of IA and is a DRDO engineer now . His opinion of DRDO is exactly what you and @Bhadra were claiming to be. He says DRDO is overfunded with several state of the art stuff but they never utilise it because it is just like any other typical Govt office where all the employees sit on their asses and do nothing. No wonder the projects are delayed so much.

And before the hypernationalistic morons who think they only have the moral right to critise stuff jump with crap about other stuff DRDO achieved, please take a moment to consider that they are just doing their damn job for which they are fully paid with the tax money we give. And getting something done does not mean they can sit their asses on other projects which are also paid from our tax money with no accountability

PS: @p2prada , Is there any significance to the number 10000 ? Seriously, considering the abuse you get here, its a wonder why you have lasted here so long. Anyway, I just liked all the posts in this thread because they are very informative and also for acknowledging your good work here before you leave. Thanks for the info:thumb:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/314-iaf-mirage-2000-a-3.html


Ha, ha, Ha, Ha,

Guess who is extolling the low wing loading RSS airframe's plus points!!!!! The same guy who is mercilessly beating down tejas for the past couple of years!!!!!!!!

Now as per group captain and award winnin test pilot Suneeth krishna's statement even in mk-1 version tejas is "at least " equal to upgraded mirage-2000.

tejas has even lower wing loading and a cranked delta with digital fly by wire leading the upgraded mirage-2000 in all the three segments

Specs aren't everything. The new RDY-3 radar on the Mirage-2000 is a generation ahead of the BARS. I am primarily talking about the Mirage-2000s ability to deliver strike packages. I made some changes in the list too.

The Mirages delta wing design and its low wing loading makes it highly maneuverable in dog fights. It turns quickly, climbs and descends quickly too.


tejas has a cranked delta which is a further improvement over mirage's delta with strakes and even lower wing loading with take offs sharper than mirage-2000 and even has more Thrust to weight ratio compared to mirage-2000. So tejas can do better than mirage-2000 in all depts mentioned above.

When the Americans brought F-16s for Cope India exercises, it was the Mirage-2000s which were punishing the F-16s and not the Su-30k.
So tejas mk-2 has no problems with PAF F-16s , I hope

As for the work over kargil, the fighters needed to fly upto 30000ft and drop down into a steep dive by 10000ft and delivery the package and pull up before the enemy fires their MANPADS. Fighting the thin air and turbulence is not something a Mig-27 or jag can do. Again, the characteristic of the delta wing design. Had the Pakistanis had SAMs, even the Mirage-2000s would have found it difficult while the SAMs would have plucked the Jags and Mig-27s from the air easily. Even the MKI would have difficulty in such situations.

Same with tejas
The MKI is an excellent bird in the air. It's airframe is designed for high drag, similar to the Mirage-2000. But, its weight and the engine power restrictions will create problems when it comes to pulling up after a bombing run.

Also, the IAF dropped only 9 250kg LGBs(2250kg) over Kargil while the rest of the packages were dumb bombs. The total ordnance dropped amounted to 55000+kg. So, the total LGBs dropped was only 4% of the total. Out of 9 LGBs, 8 were dropped by Mirages and 1 by a Jaguar.

Yes I can. The MKI needs TVC and canards for being effective. The Mirage does not need them. You can't simply put TVC and Canards on the Mirage and expect it to fly better than the MKI. It does not work that way. The Mirage 2000 has a delta design while the MKI has a triplane. 2 wholly different designs guided by completely different design principles.

neither does tejas needs canards or TVc, that is what ADA found out in wind tunnel testing that canards dont add anything significant to tejas performance in wind tunnel testing and only adds to 3feet extra fuselage length which will lead to further weight increase in low TWR. Notice that the gripen exactly has three extra feet length than tejas due to canards.

There are things both planes can do that are unique to them. The Mirage-2000(LCA, Rafale, Gripen, EF-2000) comes on top when it comes to high altitude bombing while the MKI is an effective air superiority platform.

That's the very reason the Su-34 looks completely different from the other Flankers. The aerodynamics is better suited for bombing than other roles.

The RDY-2 was inducted in 1999. It has undergone modifications. The Irbis is as yet a paper radar system. The Irbis is meant to be better than the RDY-2 anyways. Mirage 2000 cannot deliver as much power as the MKI.

Cobra only has historical significance when it was first shown to the public in 1991. It is not used in dog fights because the fighter looses too much energy doing it. There are other maneuvers not shown to the public that are used for dog fights.

So even without cobras tejas will be a nightmare for PAF F-16s!!!1

What we already have is a nightmare for Pakistan
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
keeping aside the discussion which one is better ?How much is the cost?etc etc...
Does any one has any idea when is HAL going to make deliveries?
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
It is all right for defense forces...just a small glitch....don't forget they come with foreign brand name and a lot of kick backs....

the mirage-2000 was flying in IAF with just canons for the first three years,

40 Su-30s spent an entire decade in IAF service without weaponization till SU-30 MKI standard was developed, Then they were returned back and new Su-30 MKi was delivered,But IAF paid money in advance a decade back.

100 F-35s have joined US armed forces till there is not even a watered down IOC!!!!

Just 500 test flights old PAKFA will join Russian airforce in a years time, with a substitute engine, substitute radar and God knows what else?

Thousands of T-90s ordered and close to 600 delivered, all of them night blind in desert along with malfunctioning electronics in indian desert conditions. Now IA is floating a tender to fix external AC for T-90 to resolve this problem. Russians could not set right the problems themselves!!!



There are reports that SU-30 MKIs are frequently encountering engine failures and often landing on engine, And their cockpit displays going blank in mid air!!!

So this missing dead lines is not such a big thing as it is made out to be, Right now twjas mk-1 is far more matured and reliable than many mig fighters of IAF.Thats why it was released for service with safety and reliability certificate in IOC-2 with release to service document specifying the specs.

For the guys tomtoming that tejas was funded to the nose, there is an inconvinient detail in the article,

Right now there is only one tejas prototype that is in IOC-2 standard(doubtful because both LSP-7 and LSP-8 were production standards as previously reported). All others are hand built because of varying specs from IAF from PV stage to LSP-8 stage,

if the program is funded with great alacricity as claimed then there should be more than three or four LSPs with IOC-2 standard.

The production line for tejas was set up after a great delay, as if every one was betting that tejas will never achieve IOC-1!!! Till then it was produced from antiquated jag production line in HAL. Tht is the reason for delays in LSP program and this is hobbling the fighter even now,

If a new production line was set up a couple of years earlier anticipating IOC-1 and 2 we would have had 5 or 6 IOC-2 models at our hand by now. The delay is the reason why SP-1 is still to clear ground run.

HAL asked 1000 cr from MOD for setting up a production line years earlier, as usual MOD sat on the proposal and after a long delay asked HAL to contribute 500 cr and get the rest from IAF and Navy!!!

We dont know when the funds arrived and when production started. So delays are not going to stop any time. ADA asked for 4000 cr in a LSPs rolling out in parale mode in 1987itself.

But after protracted wrangling 2000 cr was set aside with program truncated to a sequential two TDs first, a few PVs later to proof the concept before embarking on the crucial LSP phase where actual operational fighter was built based on the concept.That too after protracted bargaining from Abdul kalam in the teeth of IAF opposition.

Till 2006 IAF did not jin the project in any meaning ful way as per Air marshal Philip rajkumar. Only after that it asked for close to 250 changes and major changes in FSED phase-II all of which except a dozen(reserved for mk2) are fulfilled by ADA

So
 

charlie

New Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,151
Likes
1,245
Country flag
the mirage-2000 was flying in IAF with just canons for the first three years,

40 Su-30s spent an entire decade in IAF service without weaponization till SU-30 MKI standard was developed, Then they were returned back and new Su-30 MKi was delivered,But IAF paid money in advance a decade back.

So
I don't know where you got this info, but it's completely wrong.

Come on a whole decade without weaponization, our airforce ain't that bad

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/1062-2/Su-30k.jpg

Unit: No.24 Squadron
Serial: SB007

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/1072-2/Su-30c.jpg
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
I don't know where you got this info, but it's completely wrong.

Come on a whole decade without weaponization , our airforce ain't that bad

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/1062-2/Su-30k.jpg

Unit: No.24 Squadron
Serial: SB007

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/1072-2/Su-30c.jpg
it seems that the fighters carries weapons. I was wrong on the weapons part.Sorry for that.


They were not upto the SU-30 MKI standars with specified avionics and capability was what I was saying, I misquoted it as without weapons.

thanks for pointing that out.

later they were exchanged for newer 40 SU-30 MKI versions , once SU-30 MKI development standard was complete.

I think I am correct on this part.
 
Last edited:

Sea Eagle

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
1,673
Likes
683
LCA Tejas delayed further, to miss Dec deadline India's indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), the Tejas, projected to replace the ageing Soviet era MiG 21 fighter jets, has got delayed yet again this time for six months or so.
The December 2014 deadline for the final operational clearance (FoC) has been put on hold as around 1,700 parametres still need to be validated before the plane is inducted into the Indian Air Force.
These 1,700 parametres — all vital for creating flight manuals and laying down specifics of the single engine plane — just cannot be completed within the next five months, top sources confirmed.
The Ministry of Defence expects that the tests will be completed by the middle of 2015 and only then can clearance be given to fly these planes be given.
The tests are being conducted at the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) of the Aeronautical Development Agency which has been supplied with half a dozen limited series production of the Tejas for carrying out the tests. These planes do some 30 sorties a month which are studied and analysed before moving onto the next step. The test for full integration of the warplanes weapons package and its electronic warfare suite besides the networking to enable pilots to log onto the IAF dedicated net.

In the meantime, the manufacturers of the Tejas — Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) — a Ministry of Defence-owned public sector undertaking, has sought more time to start supplying the jets. The first of the "production series" planes was to be delivered to the IAF in July this year, however, this deadline has been pushed to September, sources confirmed, adding that at least two should be delivered by the year-end.
The IAF on its part has informed the MoD that it will raise a squadron of the planes once it has at least 5-6 of the jets and the remaining can be added in stages. A squadron is normally 18 planes. The HAL has a capacity to produce eight of the Tejas per year. The IAF ordered 40 of the first lot of Tejas Mark-I – that is two squadrons and some war reserves. With these numbers, the IAF wants the HAL to ramp up capacity and increase it to at least 14 planes per year.
Sources said the MoD has moved a proposal that will entail infrastructure cost sharing by the IAF, the HAL and the Navy – the HAL is also making a Naval variant and developed a prototype for operations on the sea borne aircraft carriers.
The initial operational clearance (IOC) for LCA Mark-1 was received in December last year and India has spent nearly US $4 billion (about Rs 24,000 crore) – not much as these are niche technologies. The Mark-I of the plane is powered by the US company General Electric GE 404 engines.
The HAL is planning a Mark-2 with additional features such as upgraded avionics and active electronically scanned array radar and the ability to reach supersonic speed. This will be powered by a GE 414 engine – the same used by the Boeing Super Hornet F-18A.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation
 

Sea Eagle

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
1,673
Likes
683
Quite evident that the first operational squadron of LCA won't come by 2016.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Bharat Rakshak • View topic - LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013
Additionally, I should mention that a similar first order analysis for the LCA yields a range (one-way) of ~1550 km (give or take) assuming only internal fuel of (2500 kg) at 10,000 feet at Mach 0.6 (measured at sea level). This Mach 0.6 requirement in cruise stems from the need to carry only internal fuel and empty weight of the aircraft, i.e. no external fuel tanks.

So for the above flight profile setup, the combat radius comes out to ~700 km.

But this carries no payload and or fuel tanks. Fuel tanks will increase range. Payload and external tanks will increase drag and reduce range. I will try and put up some numbers for that later when I get some time to model the tanks underneath the wings (been wanting to do that for some time but this argument about the LCA range has finally sent me over the deep end 8) ).

Edit: So the addition of two external drop tanks provides an increment of about 33% in drag at the benefit of additional ~1900 kg of fuel. This amounts to about ~2000 km ferry range. Assuming that there is significant burnoff of fuel during climb and recovery, the 1700 km ferry range quoted by the document listed above makes sense.

Bottom line is that you determine what the flight characteristics needs to be to lift X kg of mass of the aircraft at a certain altitude and corresponding atmospheric conditions. If you know the CL-AOA behavior of the wing, the minimum required Mach number in cruise is determined. For the present case, at 10,000 feet AGL, the required Mach number for cruise without payload or tanks comes out to Mach 0.6. This is then used to evaluate the net drag on the fuselage. Again, modeling the induced-drag profile of the mean-camber wing plus a Reynolds number based skin-friction drag model gives you representative CDi and CDo values. The sum of these parameters (plus correction factors for additional drag from fuselage and empennages) gives you a net cruise drag coefficient. Multiply this by the dynamic pressure using the Mach 0.6 conditions and you will get the net required thrust to maintain this constant speed.

For the present case, the required thrust came out to ~0.29 Kg/sec for the LCA, which is below what you get assuming full thrust from engine (~1.232 Kg/sec). The reason for this is that the entire engine thrust is not needed for balancing drag at higher altitudes and moderate speeds. Same reason why all aircraft perform better the higher they climb for the cruise part of their flight.

Knowing the fuel consumption and the cruise Mach number (measured relative to Sea-Level atmospheric conditions) provides you with the ability to calculate how far the aircraft can go if it went in a straight line.

For the LCA, this came out to be ~1550 km as stated previously.

Note that this is all a first order analysis, of course, and only meant to be a sanity check on performance. I used to teach such relatively simple (back of the envelope) methods to students as a way to bypass the complexity of full-up computational methods when quick analysis is required.

Add about 30% on drag increment for the external payload on this one (~8% each for one large bomb plus pylon effects). The range is then reduced to around ~1190 km. Combat radius is reduced to around ~500 km or less.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Bharat Rakshak • View topic - LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013
Additionally, I should mention that a similar first order analysis for the LCA yields a range (one-way) of ~1550 km (give or take) assuming only internal fuel of (2500 kg) at 10,000 feet at Mach 0.6 (measured at sea level). This Mach 0.6 requirement in cruise stems from the need to carry only internal fuel and empty weight of the aircraft, i.e. no external fuel tanks.

So for the above flight profile setup, the combat radius comes out to ~700 km.

But this carries no payload and or fuel tanks. Fuel tanks will increase range. Payload and external tanks will increase drag and reduce range. I will try and put up some numbers for that later when I get some time to model the tanks underneath the wings (been wanting to do that for some time but this argument about the LCA range has finally sent me over the deep end 8) ).

Edit: So the addition of two external drop tanks provides an increment of about 33% in drag at the benefit of additional ~1900 kg of fuel. This amounts to about ~2000 km ferry range. Assuming that there is significant burnoff of fuel during climb and recovery, the 1700 km ferry range quoted by the document listed above makes sense.

Bottom line is that you determine what the flight characteristics needs to be to lift X kg of mass of the aircraft at a certain altitude and corresponding atmospheric conditions. If you know the CL-AOA behavior of the wing, the minimum required Mach number in cruise is determined. For the present case, at 10,000 feet AGL, the required Mach number for cruise without payload or tanks comes out to Mach 0.6. This is then used to evaluate the net drag on the fuselage. Again, modeling the induced-drag profile of the mean-camber wing plus a Reynolds number based skin-friction drag model gives you representative CDi and CDo values. The sum of these parameters (plus correction factors for additional drag from fuselage and empennages) gives you a net cruise drag coefficient. Multiply this by the dynamic pressure using the Mach 0.6 conditions and you will get the net required thrust to maintain this constant speed.

For the present case, the required thrust came out to ~0.29 Kg/sec for the LCA, which is below what you get assuming full thrust from engine (~1.232 Kg/sec). The reason for this is that the entire engine thrust is not needed for balancing drag at higher altitudes and moderate speeds. Same reason why all aircraft perform better the higher they climb for the cruise part of their flight.

Knowing the fuel consumption and the cruise Mach number (measured relative to Sea-Level atmospheric conditions) provides you with the ability to calculate how far the aircraft can go if it went in a straight line.

For the LCA, this came out to be ~1550 km as stated previously.

Note that this is all a first order analysis, of course, and only meant to be a sanity check on performance. I used to teach such relatively simple (back of the envelope) methods to students as a way to bypass the complexity of full-up computational methods when quick analysis is required.

Add about 30% on drag increment for the external payload on this one (~8% each for one large bomb plus pylon effects). The range is then reduced to around ~1190 km. Combat radius is reduced to around ~500 km or less.

The Beta Coefficient...: Search results for lca

Some interesting statements on combat range of tejas in different profiles, presented by Vivek Ahuja

Low altitude air space penetration flight profile (4x 250 kg bombs, fuel max internal and all available external)combat radius of 700 Km,

high altitude PGM attack profile (2 LGBs , all available external and internal fuel)- a combat radius of 1200 Km,

HAL gives a radius of action up to 500 Km for tejas, but does not specifies the fuel or weapon combo along with flight altitude,

Mirage-2000 has a fuel fraction of around 30 percent similar to tejas,

So I think there won't be any significant difference combat range between the two fighters if similar altitude and roles are assigned with optimum load capacity for each fighter,

we need to know what is the combat range of jags in indian hot arid climatic conditions. that is the key. Simply wiki figures are not enough.

needs some clarification as well,
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/314-iaf-mirage-2000-a-3.html


Ha, ha, Ha, Ha,

Guess who is extolling the low wing loading RSS airframe's plus points!!!!! The same guy who is mercilessly beating down tejas for the past couple of years!!!!!!!!

Now as per group captain and award winnin test pilot Suneeth krishna's statement even in mk-1 version tejas is "at least " equal to upgraded mirage-2000.

tejas has even lower wing loading and a cranked delta with digital fly by wire leading the upgraded mirage-2000 in all the three segments
:dafuq:What does that have to do with what I have written in any way? Seriously?:rolleyes:
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
:dafuq:What does that have to do with what I have written in any way? Seriously?:rolleyes:
Sorry.Nothing to do with your posts. Actually about the guy targetting 10000 number here.

That was his own words in extolling the sensible aerodynamics of Mirage-2000. But the tejas mk-1 which scores over Mirage-2000 in each and every one of those virtues he calls it below Mig-21.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Sorry.Nothing to do with your posts. Actually about the guy targetting 10000 number here.

That was his own words in extolling the sensible aerodynamics of Mirage-2000. But the tejas mk-1 which scores over Mirage-2000 in each and every one of those virtues he calls it below Mig-21.
He calls it below Mig 21 only in interception. You have not explained why he is wrong...

Also, he is right in most of the things he says about DRDO from what I heard from my friend and so may be you should try thinking from a neutral perspective on it rather than from a hypernationalistic one. Just a suggestion
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top