ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[halloweene]

My bad, i stand corrected.

 

[halloweene]

That was not directed at you. You are mistaking my reply to some one else as an attack on yourself.

My bad and apologies then.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

@Ripples
.
tejas was never meant to replace mig21. It was to replace mirage
.
here is link : http://hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008030958701000.htm&date=2008/03/09/&prd=th&
.
and we will get rafale when they chinese will have 5th gen fighters......
.
like you said, everyone feel china is more powerful than its actuall strength, then what guaranty iaf doesn't feel it ? Tejas along with 30MKI will be enough.
.
buying a plane of 200 million! Isn't that funny cause heavy fighters are less costlier than this middle weight fighter

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

All the new technologies of rafale are just modified within 2 years. The meteor missile was fired 2 years ago. The aesa radar is not comparable to aesa of tejas mk2( which later will be fixed in tejas mk1). And for a single piece it costs over 200 million ie 7-8 tejas mk1
.
for just 2 squadrons of rafale, we can have 15 squadrons of tejas.
.
now you will say how will tejas match j20.... But rafale too will equally vulnerable against j20. One squadron loss of rafale means 2 billion approx. And its just 250- 270 million for tejas. And tejas carries less payload meaning less rcs so it will be harder to detect tejas than rafale @Mad Indian

 

[Defcon 1]

I suppose we will know how much the Rafale costs in terms of unit price when HAL announces the figures, or the Parliament. We already know how much it costs the French.

Parliament figures will only tell us the amount at which the contract was signed. They won't tell us the actual amount paid. There will lot of difference between the two. For example, lets say one of the cost components of the cost of a particular silicon wafer for electronics. In the model, Dassault will promise to charge you for the actual cost of the wafer and write an optimistic estimate to win the tender. When the delivery is being made, suddenly the cost of that wafer would have risen by 200% due to "unforeseeable circumstances". Your government will be forced to pay the escalated price.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel


Dude I gave the date you asked- rafale deal will be signed before the end of 2015 and full induction of the jets will be completed before 2025.
Now I dare you for the fourth time to give a date for LCA mk.2 prototype, LP, SP, and the timeline for full induction:accepted:

You have no need to dare me out, I am not afraid of anybody's technical genius here, since I am not making up cooked up stories here.

I have no fear of being proved wrong as I accept a mistake when pointed out, instead of shamelessly remaining silent to weather it out, a tactic adopted by some famous guys here.

Most of my claims have source embedded, so that you can check them out. I am not ranting eternally like a mad dog ,that tejas is below Mig-21 because of lower topspeed here.

Expect serial production of tejas mk2 around 2020. I have already replied to you about the reasons for delay in teajs mk1 program . But since tejas mk2 is an improvement over mk1 it wont take long.
Same with the gripen with out any sanctions gripen E development was done within two years as some folks here claimed. There are many commonalities between both the program.

Since you are a big fan boy of the DRDO, lets see how much trust you yourself have towards LCA and DRDO

Nobody is a fan boy any org here. If rafale costs a 50 million dollar per piece extra than the present 200 million dollar ,
even then I would support, provided it has te 5th gen stealth airframe design adding to its impressive other capacities.

In the absence of 5th gen stealth airframe on rafale and the presence of potent SU-30 MKi-tejas combo with FGFA waiting in the wings, rafale addresses neither a tech gap or a capability gap as it is made out to be for the price it commands.

And rafale will have to operate in Tibet airspace where J-20(with much lesser unit cot than rafale) will fly. So it is neither cost effective nor capability leader for IAF.

Claims about even 5th gen tech on LCA would mean jack shit when it is yet to fly

What is the famed 5th gen BS?
AFAIK,
It is about mastering the following tech,
1.Relaxed Static Stability, low wing loading , high ITR, compound delta air frame,
2.Mastery in control laws and 4 channel fly by wire tech,
3.High composite percentage(for weight reduction) enabling better thrust to weight ratio,
4. A reliable high thrust to weight ratio engine,
5.Low observable airframe shaping, with internal weapon bays
6.ASEA radar tech,
7.Supercruise due to the combo of points 3 and 4.


In this list first three were cleared with tejas ,

And the fourth reliable engine tech will be there in four of five years as a logical progression of k-9 effort, may not be class leading in engine TWR figure, but it will be good enough for PLAF and PAF engine tech.

The 5th Lo shaping and bays are not space age techs considering todays computer simulation techs.

The 6th will be there in five years or so , Even if it is not we can procure from market as a stop gap measure, we are no longer under sanctions.

The seventh is a matter of accepting some limitations in range and pay load tailored to our K-9 or K-10 tech.

So if logical rational view is taken (other than buying the latest and greatest from the market as is the practice till now) , We can develop a cost effective 5th gen bird by 2025 -2030 time frame, if we base it upon tejas airframe , like the Chinese based their j-20 on Mig1.44 , in the form of tejas mk3 as repeatedly insisted by V.K .Saraswath but did not find any favour with IAF whos mind is already made up on RAfALE -FGFA combo sidelining tejas and AMCA to bit players.

The only hope is the naval air arm , which will get three carriers may adopt this prudent approach as seen in their seed funding of 1000 Cr in tejas mk2 program when IAF was in eternal sulky mood.

So it is no jacksh!t as you assume it to be. If ASR fundamentalism of wanting all in one platform is done away with, like the Chinese are doing it can be done.But if we adopt the same approach as in thecase of this MMRCA cirus the AMCA will simply be another lab rat like Tejas and Arjun.

Stop this Dude , prude business, You might have noted that despite the provocation from you I did not indulge in any name calling. I did the same with your famed mandarin guru till things flew off the handle.

 

[ersakthivel]

All the new technologies of rafale are just modified within 2 years. The meteor missile was fired 2 years ago. The aesa radar is not comparable to aesa of tejas mk2( which later will be fixed in tejas mk1). And for a single piece it costs over 200 million ie 7-8 tejas mk1
.
for just 2 squadrons of rafale, we can have 15 squadrons of tejas.
.
now you will say how will tejas match j20.... But rafale too will equally vulnerable against j20. One squadron loss of rafale means 2 billion approx. And its just 250- 270 million for tejas. And tejas carries less payload meaning less rcs so it will be harder to detect tejas than rafale @Mad Indian

With IRST and higher radio band radars coming into play in the next decade, there would be no walkover for 5th gen. Reason enough to strongly support tejas as it too can sport them in 5th gen time frame.

All other crucial techs like RSS airframe piloted by 4 channel fly by wire, low wing loading compound delta, low RCS giving wait saving composites are present on tejas as it does on any 5th gen airframe.

So it is a fallacy to keep on saying tejas is below par and not fit to equip 14 squadrons of IAF as stated by MOD to parliament as late as last year.It was designed to replace them all with true multi role capability and a radar bigger than rafale.

An effective tejas mk3 with stealth airframe and smaller internal weapon bay based on the control laws and fly by wire tech of tejas, can be made faster as a stop gap between FGFA and AMCA(which will take longer as ASR for it was being updated regularly.) As it will share many LRUs with tejas its development will be faster and it will be very cost effective also.

And the limited internal payload will give a lighter airframe with excellent internal fuel ratio doing away with range limitations of tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

And I seriously cant understand the logic of people who claim non sense like LCA >>> Rafale and other shit. If it is so, LCA should win all the export orders around the world hands down considering how cheap it is claimed to be! Is it possible that the entire world is conspiring against the Tejas alonng with co-operation from IAF and MOD?

God I am starting to sound like a paki

For export orders to happen, a 20 to 30 per year total of 300 planes is a must for fabulously lower costs, an objective that is consistently being sabotaged by import lobbies and higher defence leadership citing made up excuses.They just want to turn into a struggling tata nano production line . Don't want it turn into spanking Suzuki Swift product line.

Why is rafale costly, because it has not crossed 200 production figures yet and has a weak budgetary support due to the peace dividend in Europe .

With many of the European nations and American Allies committed to huge F-35 numbers , its potential customers are not many, because many other countries find it costly.


With 126 orders tejas too will meet the same fate, no profit motivated private sector giants(indian or MNC) will come forward to invest in production and support of subsystems on Tejas (which will result in further lower costs, reliability of parts,easy maintenance ,and improvements in batches).

With just 8 0r 10 annual production figure(for 126 order number there is no justification for HAL to invest in top of the line high capacity high tech production line for tejas.) nothing much can be invested in production line facilities.

Which is the primary reason for the tardy development of tejas PVs and LSPs till now, no motivation in HAL to cater to this bird that was severely neglected by IAF itself till 2006.
and even HAL wont give it any higher priority , because they wont see it as a bigger profit center than rafale and future FGFA.

 

[ersakthivel]

Rafale deal won't see significant profit margins for anybody. It should be less than 10%. Only certain unique govt to govt deals end up with such profit margins and are extremely rare.

Really? You did not even know who pays for an engine in a fighter making program. then wih what authority you are making this claim?

ADA set the bar high because they didn't know what they were doing at the time. They haven't delivered. If you don't know yet, LCA Mk2 is still in the drawing board. They are yet to start making the first prototype.

ADA set the bar to the mirage because anything else is born obsolete and meet a fate worse than HF-24 marut.Even now many retired and retiring Mig-21 drivers are pompously declaring that Tejas does not meet he ASR(which is kept on "upgraded " to reflect the latest threat perception. Then how can a lesser quality glorified Mig-21 advocated by many will meet it? Answer it will be another lab rat rejected mid way in development stating that time has come to move on with tech. )

How is LCA with General Electric's engines indigenous? Or are you talking about some future project which will be ITAR free, like AMCA?

Hmmm, who told you we will never develop an engine to replace this GE engine in mid life upgrade?
Just give me one fighter in PLAF that has domestic engine till now? Did Chinese stop development of j-31, J-20, J-10 JF-17 because they did not have an engine?
Will SAAB shut shop because Gripen E has an American engine?

Saying sanctions and sanctions is not worth it, because we are buying so much from americans that has no hope of any mid life upgrades with local stuff like Apache and troop transport giants.

The aircraft have a lot of life in them. It is not a waste of money.

I need to inform you about something and this goes to @Ripples as well. After LCA is inducted it will continue undergoing tests for another 5-10 years until it achieves systems maturity. Normally systems maturity is achieved after 100,000 hours. For an aircraft like LCA that's roughly 30 years with just one squadron, 15 years with two and so on. With more numbers inducted the aircraft will achieve systems maturity faster.

That's why a 300 plus order with 20 to 30 per year induction is needed.

that's why this 126 is enough IAf line reveals the true intent of just making it another lab rat.

With just a handful of aircraft, PAF took 25 years to achieve 100,000 hours for their F-16s. But this doesn't count as systems maturity since the aircraft itself has been flying for hundreds of thousands of hours in the USAF. EF achieved 250,000 hours this year. This allowed the PAF to relatively use the system to the fullest at a significantly faster rate than the USAF would have.

That line of argument is a good reson to shut down all new fighter programs in the world, since unless it succeeds it wont get high induction. SO stating that maturity will take time we can all continue with older planes.

What I mean is after an aircraft has seen 100,000 hours of service it becomes a mature aircraft. MKI also took a few years for the same. So, that's where the advantage becomes apparent. According to Ripples, China will induct the J-20 soon so he questions the validity of inducting a 4.5th gen aircraft, but he has not taken into account the time it will take for the J-20 to mature in service. As radical as a 5th gen is, it will take longer for both IAF and PLAAF to actually learn all aspects of the FGFA and J-20 before it can be used to its fullest capabilities. And this will take time, along with getting the required numbers which should take a decade for both.

Does not matter much. If war comes PLAF wont cite the lack of maturity to send j-20 to war. look at the history of fighters in world war two.

Even though we know that Rafale is coming in nearly a decade late, we should also realize that the aircraft has already achieved maturity and is proven. So, the IAF completely cuts out the time it takes to train crew and employ it in battle.

because unlike the doomed approach adopted by IAF are standing by their product and the future of their aviation industry in the face of international competition.

This decade is when we need the Rafale the most. Normally, we should have begun inducting Rafale back in 2008 or 2010 and it would have been in service for at least 20 years before it becomes less relevant, rather than just 10 years today. We are inducting the FGFA to fight a future war, while we are inducting Rafale to fight a war that can happen within a decade from today. Even after that Rafale will continue being useful because of its qualities at breaching a well defended air space and carrying huge loads at long ranges.

No one neds rafale hen we hve Su-30 MKI, tejas mk1 mk2 and nirbhy combos in aequate numbers .

As for LCA. The LCA Mk1 has not achieved ASR. No need to beat this dead horse because ADA has already confirmed it.

It failed to meet the ASR which was kept on updated. Why don't IAf ask the rafale to validate thrut vectoring engines and 700 mm dia ASEA radar as an ASR uograde in 2009 and see how much time will French take?
See the induction of F-35 wit phased edevelopment to know the truth.

Apart from that it is also not as capable as other jets like Jaguar or Mirage-2000 because these aircraft are proven jets carrying very similar technologies as LCA Mk1 while being significantly better in their areas of performance. To top that our pilots have decades on experience on these jets, unlike LCA which is yet to be inducted. Now this is for LCA Mk1 which is yet to be inducted, so you can only imagine when it will achieve systems maturity. Let's not even begin to talk about LCA Mk2 which is yet to be designed, built, flight tested, cleared for operational flights and then achieve systems maturity. LCA Mk2 is today where LCA Mk1 was in 1990. Even though this program will happen much faster, there are no guarantees where the next roadblock can come up. So, relying on LCA is like the luck of the draw. A gamble. We can't take such a risk. Who could predict the US and Russia will be back at it again over Ukraine? And who can predict when the US will sanction us again.

So how com our pilots jump into rafale cokcpit with years of experience from the start?

Basically, Rafale is fully ready to fight a war within this decade, while LCA Mk2 is to be ready only the next decade, and achieve systems maturity at the end of the next decade, around the same time as FGFA or J-20. And everybody already knows and "most" already accept that Rafale is the better fighter among the two. So, I won't have to bring that up in this post. It's become pointless to even bring it up.

We can have an extra squad of mk1 or two if some delays in mk2 happens.

The Americans achieved systems maturity for the F-22 only in 2008, after 3 years of service. But they are still learning how to employ their aircraft properly. This normally takes a decade. And older aircraft are very important until then because battlefield commanders don't care about specs, they are only concerned with whether it will get the job done. And they rely on a weapons system only after it is proven either in service or in war, and Rafale has achieved at both.

All arguments are not based on real world issues, but mostly hypothetical here.

 

[Jagdish58]

All arguments are not based on real world issues, but mostly hypothetical here.

Areh yaar i do no why you are blewing trumpet in dumb ears

i asked you a question earlier any data you have on this , if yes can you share

But what about the GE-414 engine have we got delivery of first batch or still under contract negotiation & Even the AESA radar of DRDO what is the status

because both are critical for the MK2 project if it has to stick on timeline ??

 

[ersakthivel]

Areh yaar i do no why you are blewing trumpet in dumb ears

i asked you a question earlier any data you have on this , if yes can you share

But what about the GE-414 engine have we got delivery of first batch or still under contract negotiation & Even the AESA radar of DRDO what is the status

because both are critical for the MK2 project if it has to stick on timeline ??

India Buys 99 GE F414 Engines to Power LCA | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk
Delivery of engines wont cause any in delay in development program , I think.

 

[ersakthivel]

Also with the arrival of simulator tech we don't need the F-16 era 100000 hours to mature into service.

Apart from that it is also not as capable as other jets like Jaguar or Mirage-2000 because these aircraft are proven jets carrying very similar technologies as LCA Mk1 while being significantly better in their areas of performance.

To top that our pilots have decades on experience on these jets, unlike LCA which is yet to be inducted. Now this is for LCA Mk1 which is yet to be inducted, so you can only imagine when it will achieve systems maturity. Let's not even begin to talk about LCA Mk2 which is yet to be designed, built, flight tested, cleared for operational flights and then achieve systems maturity. LCA Mk2 is today where LCA Mk1 was in 1990. Even though this program will happen much faster, there are no guarantees where the next roadblock can come up. So, relying on LCA is like the luck of the draw. A gamble. We can't take such a risk. Who could predict the US and Russia will be back at it again over Ukraine? And who can predict when the US will sanction us again

Joke of the year!!!

Both mirage and jags sre so much below tejas tech level. I don't know why people lie so shamelessly,

jag is a world war two era trainer with all metal airframe with dinosaur era low thrust weight raio config,

What is the clean config frontal RCS of jag?

What is the radome dia of Jag? What is its tracking range? And what will be the max BVR range on both Jag and Mirage?

Impossible flks get so ill motivated to bluff thread after thread that Jag and mirages are better than tejas!!!!

Tejas has a better 4 channel all digital fly by wire tecch, less than a third of clean config RCS and much higher Thrust to weight ratio than Mirage-2000. Even in mk1 tejas is better than Mirage-2000 any day. Mk2 no comparison at all.

Tejas has higher BV range missiles than any Mirage could ever get and has a much lower wing loading than mirage-2000 meaning better climb rates and better high altitude performance.

In no parameter both Jag and Mirage exceed tejas .


Top pilots have experience on these jags and mirages, so tat we should leak forex forever by continuing to upgrad these fighters that are more than 5 decades old in design.

SO why should we buy rafale? We can recruit all the retired pilots of IAF and buy second hand third hand mirages and jags to defend our skies!!!

Such skulduggery , you can never find anywhere in the world.

Already production drawings have been distributed and tejas mk2 program is more than 5 years old commencing in 2009 itself .

Also mk2 is nothing but the asked for improvement over mk1 by navy which was also added on by IAF.

At present there is not a single fighter in IAF barring Mig-29, which has a higher thrust to weight ratio than even tejas mk1. To say mirage and jag can do for a couple more decades better than even tejas mk1 is the lie of the century.

tejas mk2 will have a far better thrust ro weight ratio and lower wing loading than the Su-30 MKI which is the flagship of IAF.

It is stupid to say that mk2 is where mk1 was in 1990.
In 1990 there was no production line for tejas.
no 4 channel all digital fly by wire tech in hand,
no mastering of Relaxed Static stability airframe
no mastering of composite tech,'
no worthwhile avionics blue prints,
no 500 sortie flight testing was done to establish the data base which will serve as common base for all future fly by wire fighters o local development.
no functioning radar tech,
no BVR missile tech like Astra,
no 1000 cr seed funding each by navy and airforce,
No experienced aircraft designers,

Now we have all for tejas mk2

But what tejas mk1 had to endure from 1990 to 2000, but tejas mk2 wont are,

it does not have to suffer the irrational hate filled opposition from retired and retiring Mig-21 drivers who occupied the top slot in IAF with permanent distrust of HAL and ADA,

It does not have to endure Nuclear test related sanctions,

It does not have to be built from decrepit old production lines of HAL with dino era tech,

It does not have to endure tortoise phased turning up of PVs and LSPs from decrepit production lines of HAL.It will have its dedicated production line with similar latest tech in the form of tejas mk1 production line and dedicated, experienced staff who are in line with the tejas tech using the same practice as Tejas mk1

It 's development path is reasonably safe,

It does not have to encounter the jhonny came lately 250 requests for Action by IAf from 2006 to 2014. because most of them barring a dozen was sorted out in tejas mk1 itself.

It does not have to encounter a deep mid way redesign faced by tejas mk1 in 2004 in the form of FSED phase-2 which arose from IAF demand of heavier, higher launch stress inducing WVR missile like R-73 which led to redesign of the whole wing besides other upgrade request from IAF.


But what tejas mk2 wil continue to endure the skulduggery of the DDM BS and mandarin learning gurus .

 

[ersakthivel]

Also we are not the third rate cliente state stupidly following communist USSR as we did till 2000.

Now our legitimacy as nuclear weapon state is accepted world over.

Even if the war consumes entire Ukraine in fire nobody wants to rub the world third largest economy 2030 in the wrong way with multi billion dollar exports and imports.

So this Sanctions phoo,phoo is not needed an more.

And we too will come up to scratch in engine tech needed for tejas mk1 by 2025 andmk2 by 2030 by the time of engine changes .

On the contrary we have to forever rely on French and Russians for all the crucial parts of all other fighters of IAF(please spare me the 100 percent deeeeeeeeeeeep TOT for SU-30 MKi BS at least this once,)

 

[p2prada]

Parliament figures will only tell us the amount at which the contract was signed. They won't tell us the actual amount paid. There will lot of difference between the two. For example, lets say one of the cost components of the cost of a particular silicon wafer for electronics. In the model, Dassault will promise to charge you for the actual cost of the wafer and write an optimistic estimate to win the tender. When the delivery is being made, suddenly the cost of that wafer would have risen by 200% due to "unforeseeable circumstances". Your government will be forced to pay the escalated price.

And the govt announces this change overtime.

For eg: The actual contract for 190 Su-30s was $3.5 Billion in 2000. This has escalated to over $10 Billion overtime. This was announced in 2011 or 2012 by the MoD.

I suppose we will know the final cost again sometime in 2019 when the MKI production ends, and if someone bothers to bring it up in the Parliament like last time.

It will be no different with Rafale. The escalated price will be included at the time. Looking at the media frenzy surrounding the Rafale deal, they will make a lot of the figures public as the program ends.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-114.html

ACIG Exclusives : Tejas Resources

Ericsson PS-05/A pulse doppler radar
(can count anchored ships and follow road traffic at at least 90 km
and detect typical fighter sized targets at 120 km).
Total mass 156 kg, antenna assembly 25 kg, antenna diameter 0.600 m,
Max power consumption 8.2 kW (114/200V 400Hz AC) and 250 kW 28V.
Predicted MTBF: 170 hours (air operation)
Cooling air: 85g/s at 0oC, Cooling liquid: 3.5kW to be absored.
Electrical interface: MIL-STD-1553B data bus and fibre optic video
output to the display system.
Air to air scanning at 60 (at first 50) deg/s in either 2 120 deg bars,
2 60 deg bars or 4 30 deg bars. Surface mapping and search across 5 x 5 km
to 40 x 40 km with GMTI speed adjustable by the pilot.
Four basic air to air modes: Track While Search, Priority Target Tracking
gives higher quality tracking for multiple targets, Single Target Track
gives highest quality data, Air Combat Mode for short range search and
automatic target capture.

The above is the radar specs of gripen from

JAS 39 Gripen - an overview: Basic data

Antenna diameter 650 mm
Antenna gain 33 dB
TWT Power Output 6.5 kW (increaseable to 10 kW, 10% duty cycle)
Range 120 km against 2 sq.m RCS aerial target, >150 km for surface targets against sea clutter
All Up Weight (AUW) 130 kg

To keep the radar up to evolving standards, a new Advanced Signal and Data Processing Unit based upon Power-PC chips, has been developed to replace the older unit.

The above is the data for Tejas Lca from authoritative source B. harry whose article "the radiance of tejas is the most detailed fact sheet .
ACIG Exclusives : Tejas Resources

The Grippen radar has a 600 mm antenna with 8.5 kw max power consumption and it's makers claim that it can detect fighter size targets at 120 Km. that's why it has become the first fighter to be integrated with 120 Km range BVR missile meteor.

Since tejas has a 650 mm dia antenna and 10 kw max out put for it's MMR it is only logical that it can detect 2 sq meter target from 120 Km as with 600 mm dia 8.5 Km max output MMR grippen manages to track fighter sized(no RCS is given ) targets at 120 Km.

In tejas mk-2 the fuselage dia is going to be increased by more than 120 mm. So there is a prospect of it's tracking range going much higher than the present 150 Km.

rafale has a lesser dia radar than tejas. So it will be interesting to know what kind of power consumption figures are given for rafale radar. Hope people carrying technocrat tags post the info on rafale radar's power rating and compare it with tejas,



Thats why the ADA chief claimed that Meteor launching interface can be present on tejas mk-2 because it has the radar tracking range more than the meteor missile range of 120 Km.

Tejas mk-1 itself can have Astra mk-1(80 Km range) and mk-2(100 plus Km range as it's primary BVR ). Or if IAF demands it can integrate any russian long range BVR in IAF stockpile as it has the radar range equivalent to Su-30
Mki in this regard.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...craft-technology-evolution-10.html#post814686

Some discussion on tejas range compared to other fighters in the link above,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range. A full read of the link above will show how fighter makers abroad indulge in word play when it comes to range and load figures!!! , to fool the people.

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

In the link above how people try to beat down Tejas while saying it is worse than Mirage-2000, JF-17,Mig-21 ,gripen C and what not else. But when some pointed facts are presented people really fumble to prove their false claims and scoot immediately indulging in some clever word play!!!!

But then after the passage of time they simply return back to propagate the "unquestionable truth", that Tejas is worse than Mig-21, Mirage-2000 etc, etc, !!!!!!!

Nothing changes, people simply refuse to accept the truth that they were lying on tejas specs all along.

So what I am going to from now on whenever the same mad dog rants like Tejas is worse than Mig-21,gripen C, mirage-2000 etc, etc,

is to gently remind them the last time they ran away with tails between their legs on these very same points rather than getting into lengthy arguments,

Lets see whether they have an newer updated source to start afresh,

 

[Pulkit]

Dho daala......

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-114.html

ACIG Exclusives : Tejas Resources



The above is the radar specs of gripen from

JAS 39 Gripen - an overview: Basic data




The above is the data for Tejas Lca from authoritative source B. harry whose article "the radiance of tejas is the most detailed fact sheet .
ACIG Exclusives : Tejas Resources

The Grippen radar has a 600 mm antenna with 8.5 kw max power consumption and it's makers claim that it can detect fighter size targets at 120 Km. that's why it has become the first fighter to be integrated with 120 Km range BVR missile meteor.

Since tejas has a 650 mm dia antenna and 10 kw max out put for it's MMR it is only logical that it can detect 2 sq meter target from 120 Km as with 600 mm dia 8.5 Km max output MMR grippen manages to track fighter sized(no RCS is given ) targets at 120 Km.

In tejas mk-2 the fuselage dia is going to be increased by more than 120 mm. So there is a prospect of it's tracking range going much higher than the present 150 Km.

rafale has a lesser dia radar than tejas. So it will be interesting to know what kind of power consumption figures are given for rafale radar. Hope people carrying technocrat tags post the info on rafale radar's power rating and compare it with tejas,



Thats why the ADA chief claimed that Meteor launching interface can be present on tejas mk-2 because it has the radar tracking range more than the meteor missile range of 120 Km.

Tejas mk-1 itself can have Astra mk-1(80 Km range) and mk-2(100 plus Km range as it's primary BVR ). Or if IAF demands it can integrate any russian long range BVR in IAF stockpile as it has the radar range equivalent to Su-30
Mki in this regard.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...craft-technology-evolution-10.html#post814686

Some discussion on tejas range compared to other fighters in the link above,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range. A full read of the link above will show how fighter makers abroad indulge in word play when it comes to range and load figures!!! , to fool the people.

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

In the link above how people try to beat down Tejas while saying it is worse than Mirage-2000, JF-17,Mig-21 ,gripen C and what not else. But when some pointed facts are presented people really fumble to prove their false claims and scoot immediately indulging in some clever word play!!!!

But then after the passage of time they simply return back to propagate the "unquestionable truth", that Tejas is worse than Mig-21, Mirage-2000 etc, etc, !!!!!!!

Nothing changes, people simply refuse to accept the truth that they were lying on tejas specs all along.

So what I am going to from now on whenever the same mad dog rants like Tejas is worse than Mig-21,gripen C, mirage-2000 etc, etc,

is to gently remind them the last time they ran away with tails between their legs on these very same points rather than getting into lengthy arguments,

Lets see whether they have an newer updated source to start afresh,

 

[Punya Pratap]

Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs | idrw.org


Winston Churchill, as the First Lord of Admiralty in 1911, is credited with "technological prescience" by British commentators for building the 12-inch gunned Dreadnought-class battleships. When the First World War began, the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet was the British force to keep Kaiser Wilhelm II's seaward ambitions in check even as an unprepared army was mowed down by the German juggernaut, in the opening phase.

Remarkably, the Churchillian kind of prescience was manifest in Jawaharlal Nehru's nursing a weapons-capable nuclear energy programme because he believed India could not afford to miss out on the "nuclear revolution" as it had done the "gun-powder revolution" consequenting in its enslavement. And, in the conventional military field, it was evident in his seeding an indigenous defence industry with combat aircraft design and development at its core. Nehru imported, not combat aircraft but, a leading combat aircraft designer—the redoubtable Kurt Tank, progenitor of the Focke-Wulfe warplanes for Hitler's Luftwaffe. Tank succeeded in putting an HF-24 Marut prototype in the air by 1961 and in training a talented group of Indian designers at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

By the time the Tank-trained Raj Mahindra-led team designed the successor Marut Mark-II, Nehru was gone and neither Lal Bahadur Shastri nor his successor, Indira Gandhi, unfortunately had the strategic vision or technological prescience to provide political support for it. Indira permitted the purchase of the British Jaguar aircraft for low-level attack, leading to the termination of the Marut Mk-II optimised for the same mission. It ended the chance of India emerging early as an independent aerospace power in the manner Brazil and Israel have done in recent years. The inglorious era of importing military hardware was on. The resulting vendor-driven procurement system has decanted enormous wealth from India to arms supplier states—Russia, UK, France, the United States, Israel and Italy.

Arun Jaitley, the BJP finance minister-cum-defence minister, is saddled with the familiar problem of too many high-cost government programmes and too little money. He has an opportunity to reduce the huge hard currency expenditure involved in buying foreign armaments and reverse the policy of ignoring indigenous options and private sector defence industrial capability. He can give the lead to the Indian military as the British Treasury had done to the Admiralty in 1918-1938 by pushing for the development of aircraft carriers when the Royal Navy was stuck on the Dreadnought.

There are two far-seeing decisions he can take. With the US bid of $840 million for 150 M-777 light howitzers (without technology transfer) rejected as cost prohibitive, Jaitley can instruct the army to test and induct the modern, ultra-light heliportable gun, to outfit the new offensive mountain corps, produced jointly by a private sector company and an American firm, Rock Island Arsenal, that'll cost less than half as much. And he could terminate the Rafale contract and, importantly, restore responsibility for the Tejas programme to the IAF, which was kept out of it by the science adviser—SA—to defence minister V S Arunachalam in the 1980s. It will mean IAF funding further developments in the Tejas programme from its own R&D budget which, according to an ex-senior defence technologist, can be increased to any amount, and was the course of action recommended by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and SA. It will render IAF accountable to Parliament.

The choices before the BJP government are stark. Is it pragmatic to channel in excess of $30 billion to Paris that'll keep the French aerospace sector in clover and help amortise the multi-billion Euro investment in developing the Rafale, which has no customers other than IAF? Or, use the present difficulties as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure the Indian military aviation sector? This last will involve getting (1) HAL to produce the low-cost (`26 crore by HAL's reckoning) Tejas Mk-1 for air defence with 4.5 generation avionics, low detection, and other features, for squadron service, and to export it in line with prime minister Narendra Modi's thinking and to defray some of the plane's development costs, and (2) ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights) and having it ready for production by 2019—the dateline for Rafale induction.

With the Rafale potentially out of the picture and IAF left with only a limited-capability Tejas for air defence, security needs for the next 15 years until the Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft enters IAF in strength, can be met by buying additional Su-30s and MiG-29s off-the-shelf and/or contracting for larger numbers of the Su-30s to be built by HAL with a deal to get the private sector to manufacture the required spares in-country, all for a fraction of the cost of Rafale. Some Service brass do not care for Russian aircraft but Su-30MKI and MiG-29 are already in IAF's employ, and are rated the two best warplanes available anywhere (barring the discontinued American F-22) for combat and air defence respectively. A new Su-30MKI, moreover, costs $65 million, which is slightly more than what India forks out for upgrading the 30-year-old Mirage 2000.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace. The Tejas air defence variant will have entered squadron service and the larger Mk-2, close behind, occupied the MMRCA slot. The lessons are that indigenous weapons projects demand integrated effort, weapons designers need to be less diffident and Indian military ought to helm indigenous armaments projects. Jaitley can ensure these things happen.

The author is professor at the Centre for Policy Research and blogs at Security Wise | Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

 

[Mad Indian]

All the new technologies of rafale are just modified within 2 years. The meteor missile was fired 2 years ago. The aesa radar is not comparable to aesa of tejas mk2( which later will be fixed in tejas mk1). And for a single piece it costs over 200 million ie 7-8 tejas mk1
.
for just 2 squadrons of rafale, we can have 15 squadrons of tejas.
.
now you will say how will tejas match j20.... But rafale too will equally vulnerable against j20. One squadron loss of rafale means 2 billion approx. And its just 250- 270 million for tejas. And tejas carries less payload meaning less rcs so it will be harder to detect tejas than rafale @Mad Indian

Great analysis as usual. Kudos

 

[Jagdish58]

Winston Churchill, as the First Lord of Admiralty in 1911, is credited with "technological prescience" by British commentators for building the 12-inch gunned Dreadnought-class battleships. When the First World War began, the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet was the British force to keep Kaiser Wilhelm II's seaward ambitions in check even as an unprepared army was mowed down by the German juggernaut, in the opening phase.
Remarkably, the Churchillian kind of prescience was manifest in Jawaharlal Nehru's nursing a weapons-capable nuclear energy programme because he believed India could not afford to miss out on the "nuclear revolution" as it had done the "gun-powder revolution" consequenting in its enslavement. And, in the conventional military field, it was evident in his seeding an indigenous defence industry with combat aircraft design and development at its core. Nehru imported, not combat aircraft but, a leading combat aircraft designer—the redoubtable Kurt Tank, progenitor of the Focke-Wulfe warplanes for Hitler's Luftwaffe. Tank succeeded in putting an HF-24 Marut prototype in the air by 1961 and in training a talented group of Indian designers at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

By the time the Tank-trained Raj Mahindra-led team designed the successor Marut Mark-II, Nehru was gone and neither Lal Bahadur Shastri nor his successor, Indira Gandhi, unfortunately had the strategic vision or technological prescience to provide political support for it. Indira permitted the purchase of the British Jaguar aircraft for low-level attack, leading to the termination of the Marut Mk-II optimised for the same mission. It ended the chance of India emerging early as an independent aerospace power in the manner Brazil and Israel have done in recent years. The inglorious era of importing military hardware was on. The resulting vendor-driven procurement system has decanted enormous wealth from India to arms supplier states—Russia, UK, France, the United States, Israel and Italy.

Arun Jaitley, the BJP finance minister-cum-defence minister, is saddled with the familiar problem of too many high-cost government programmes and too little money. He has an opportunity to reduce the huge hard currency expenditure involved in buying foreign armaments and reverse the policy of ignoring indigenous options and private sector defence industrial capability. He can give the lead to the Indian military as the British Treasury had done to the Admiralty in 1918-1938 by pushing for the development of aircraft carriers when the Royal Navy was stuck on the Dreadnought.

There are two far-seeing decisions he can take. With the US bid of $840 million for 150 M-777 light howitzers (without technology transfer) rejected as cost prohibitive, Jaitley can instruct the army to test and induct the modern, ultra-light heliportable gun, to outfit the new offensive mountain corps, produced jointly by a private sector company and an American firm, Rock Island Arsenal, that'll cost less than half as much. And he could terminate the Rafale contract and, importantly, restore responsibility for the Tejas programme to the IAF, which was kept out of it by the science adviser—SA—to defence minister V S Arunachalam in the 1980s. It will mean IAF funding further developments in the Tejas programme from its own R&D budget which, according to an ex-senior defence technologist, can be increased to any amount, and was the course of action recommended by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and SA. It will render IAF accountable to Parliament.

The choices before the BJP government are stark. Is it pragmatic to channel in excess of $30 billion to Paris that'll keep the French aerospace sector in clover and help amortise the multi-billion Euro investment in developing the Rafale, which has no customers other than IAF? Or, use the present difficulties as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure the Indian military aviation sector? This last will involve getting (1) HAL to produce the low-cost (`26 crore by HAL's reckoning) Tejas Mk-1 for air defence with 4.5 generation avionics, low detection, and other features, for squadron service, and to export it in line with prime minister Narendra Modi's thinking and to defray some of the plane's development costs, and (2) ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights) and having it ready for production by 2019—the dateline for Rafale induction.

With the Rafale potentially out of the picture and IAF left with only a limited-capability Tejas for air defence, security needs for the next 15 years until the Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft enters IAF in strength, can be met by buying additional Su-30s and MiG-29s off-the-shelf and/or contracting for larger numbers of the Su-30s to be built by HAL with a deal to get the private sector to manufacture the required spares in-country, all for a fraction of the cost of Rafale. Some Service brass do not care for Russian aircraft but Su-30MKI and MiG-29 are already in IAF's employ, and are rated the two best warplanes available anywhere (barring the discontinued American F-22) for combat and air defence respectively. A new Su-30MKI, moreover, costs $65 million, which is slightly more than what India forks out for upgrading the 30-year-old Mirage 2000.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace. The Tejas air defence variant will have entered squadron service and the larger Mk-2, close behind, occupied the MMRCA slot. The lessons are that indigenous weapons projects demand integrated effort, weapons designers need to be less diffident and Indian military ought to helm indigenous armaments projects. Jaitley can ensure these things happen.

Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs | idrw.org

 

[Mad Indian]

What is the famed 5th gen BS?
AFAIK,
It is about mastering the following tech,
1.Relaxed Static Stability, low wing loading , high ITR, compound delta air frame,
2.Mastery in control laws and 4 channel fly by wire tech,
3.High composite percentage(for weight reduction) enabling better thrust to weight ratio,
4. A reliable high thrust to weight ratio engine,
5.Low observable airframe shaping, with internal weapon bays
6.ASEA radar tech,
7.Supercruise due to the combo of points 3 and 4.


In this list first three were cleared with tejas ,

And the fourth reliable engine tech will be there in four of five years as a logical progression of k-9 effort, may not be class leading in engine TWR figure, but it will be good enough for PLAF and PAF engine tech.

The 5th Lo shaping and bays are not space age techs considering todays computer simulation techs.

The 6th will be there in five years or so , Even if it is not we can procure from market as a stop gap measure, we are no longer under sanctions.

The seventh is a matter of accepting some limitations in range and pay load tailored to our K-9 or K-10 tech.

So if logical rational view is taken (other than buying the latest and greatest from the market as is the practice till now) , We can develop a cost effective 5th gen bird by 2025 -2030 time frame, if we base it upon tejas airframe , like the Chinese based their j-20 on Mig1.44 , in the form of tejas mk3 as repeatedly insisted by V.K .Saraswath but did not find any favour with IAF whos mind is already made up on RAfALE -FGFA combo sidelining tejas and AMCA to bit players.

The only hope is the naval air arm , which will get three carriers may adopt this prudent approach as seen in their seed funding of 1000 Cr in tejas mk2 program when IAF was in eternal sulky mood.

So it is no jacksh!t as you assume it to be. If ASR fundamentalism of wanting all in one platform is done away with, like the Chinese are doing it can be done.But if we adopt the same approach as in thecase of this MMRCA cirus the AMCA will simply be another lab rat like Tejas and Arjun.

Stop this Dude , prude business, You might have noted that despite the provocation from you I did not indulge in any name calling. I did the same with your famed mandarin guru till things flew off the handle.

I asked a very simple question on whether you can confidently give dates for the LCA mk.2 to fly, to enter LP and SP and full induction into the force and you have deliberately avoided answering it as it is "THE" single most factor regarding LCA as of now and have instead given your usual LCA techno babble.

I will repeat again, even if LCA had 5th gen tech, it would mean jack shit as it is not gonna fly anytime soon when it is actually needed.

BTW dude, its very irritating when you avoid the questions deliberately and stick with non-sequitors. NO wonder @p2prada ignores you. If you are not gonna provide a date for your precious LCA, I am gonna stop replying to you