ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

Sort of like I didn't read this wall of text either .

Next time I will try some illustrated stuff for people with reading and comprehension issues!!!!

Yea I read that thread and couldn't help but laugh at the mental gymnastics you guys engaged in trying to justify that keeping ammo right in the front is safe .
A mine can also set off the ammo kept right next to the driver on the arjun . There are enough pictures of burnt out abrams in Iraq to attest to the fact .

Well Mr. Know all,

Ammo in arjun is not kept under the armpit of the driver. it is kept in safe canisters so seep through explosions and fire from mines wont reach it like the way it did in T-72s operated by IPKF in Srilanka and blew them off in deadly ammo cook off.

With out even knowing this simple fact, you are calling that thread metal gymnastics!!!!

Those burnt out abrams were hit by RPGs, not by mine. SO this confirms you don't know that simple fact either!!!!

Entirely expected of some one from Prasson Sen guptha school of defence institute!!!

Please don't try to rebut me post for post, without even having the basic understanding of what is being discussed , and become the laughing stock of DFI.

 

[ersakthivel]

There are always people who want to 'feel smart'. That is their weakness. They are smart but they are weak, so they give in to their feelings. I read that article by Prof. Prodyut Das in the hope that he would present some radical analysis and conclusion. A non-engineer like me understood easily that he is not even bringing into picture the really cool stuff about LCA.

And to start an article with "cause more worry than cheer. The postponements are now routine" and moving up the challenge to "The real troubles will begin then" and interspreding the write up with comments like "ADA is an organization that is risk averse" and then finally to make a insipid / limpid statement like "I think if we just focus on the weight reduction and we will get a useful enough warplane. After that only minor tweaks – may be the wing tweak should be done" should be declared by law a blasphemous KLPD, punishable by a banning from the world wide web.

The really funny part is the one that reads after "Everyone loves a good drought". WTH.

I will be shocked to death, if the mighty prof writes anything true about tejas and calls it even marginally better than mig-21,( the ultimate martian God of war according to the prof)!!!

I can count on prof das to maintain his strategic silence in this matter forever.

but this THRISUl guy is really a strange beast,

he wrote that no one in ADA has any clue about tejas mk2, (because according to him without canards tejas mk2 can not cut it)

I wrote ten or twenty detailed comments (all of them published in the last 5 pages of this thread),

he is busy deleting them furiously for hours!!!

Even one of the readers in his blog commented why the comments are not there,
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2015/02/the-great-aero-india-2015-tamaasha.html

Anonymous said...
@prasun
Sakhtivels comment - apparently 100 planes handed to USAF without IOC- is it true then?-you did not refute this one.
That aircraft ditch their armaments when making a run from a bvr.
There were a few more but I cannot seem to find them now on this forum.
I understand you countered well , my point was that some of his points and yours together gave a better understanding of one aspect of pilot tactics to a lay person like me. Something I would never know,read or be able to find by myself.

Cheers
Wellwiser

But he is also maintaining a very strategic silence till now!!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

Defenseblog-njs.blogspot.com: French Rafale pilots Impresed by Tejas

 

[MANT!]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

What I see Tejas is as a "Capability Builder" aircraft (at least in the recent articles I've read about it online) IOW it's not about being the best fighter in it's class, but giving India the capability of completely producing fighter aircraft, the best in class can come later.
I think this was tried before, but that aircraft, the HF-24, was a good first effort but didn't give the nation the full capability it needed to build on it. This aircraft does. The Tejas is an aircraft that can grow, be modified to fulfill a variety of different roles, later being the basis for an entire aircraft industry (to include civil aircraft production, where the big money is)
The most important thing I can see now is the logistics train, production, supplier procurement, maintainability, spare parts procurement, excess capability not only production of the aircraft with the high tech goodies that go into it and that's what appears to be going on, unlike the HF-24.

When I was in the USAF, the logistics train was one of the best in the world, keeping mission capable rates for most of the aircraft in the inventory at an average of 80%, this has been improved upon since.(this figured into planning and force multiplication).

As to the Tejas' competition, the FC-17 conversely gives Pakistan experience in joint ventures, something India has done many times with Russia (as an example.) but it won't enable the Pakistani government to build it's own aircraft without a lot of foreign help, often, as India has found out, that foreign help is withdrawn at the most critical times.

If I was in charge, this program would be allowed to grow even more than it is now, but that's my opinion..

 

[sgarg]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

IAF is indeed creating serious roadblocks in LCA Tejas programs by imposing requirements not needed at all. The existing radar and nose cone are sufficient for the role of a strike fighter (which is likely to fly with bombs and close combat missiles). Such a fighter does not need refueling probe. Long distance LCA Tejas mission is unlikely in view of large fleet of Su-30, so refueling in the air is very unlikely.

The latest delays are over an imported nosecone and a refueling probe. This state of affairs is completely unacceptable. However as it happens in India, the government typically keeps a distance from armed forces. Nobody has questioned IAF why it needs these items and why it keeps making demands at the last moment.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Really nice, Where i can rate his pictures ? ..

 

[Khagesh]

Beautiful work.

Tarmak had some good concept drawings of how NLCA could come up (circa 2010):

Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: Coming soon....LCA Navy: July 6 launch in Bangalore

Seems pretty potent.

 

[Khagesh]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/LCA3.jpg
http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/lca/lca_navy_1.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/3948-3/lca-navy.jpg

More pics circa 2010

 

[SajeevJino]

Really nice, Where i can rate his pictures ? ..

in DeviantArt Sir,

Hal Lca Tejas by LPBS2012 on DeviantArt

 

[Pandora]

Really nice, Where i can rate his pictures ? ..

Deviant art ,sanjeev just provided the link.

 

[ersakthivel]

Prof. Prodyut Das: The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

What are all the mischevious ideas behind this table of comparison?

 

[ersakthivel]

Prof. Prodyut Das: The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

What are all the mischevious ideas behind this table of comparison?

LCA weight is 6500 kgkg with pilot-75 Kg, gun-100 Kg, ammo-300 kg, 6 pylons-200 kg, 2 WVR-210 kg, =7385 Kg+ 1250 kg of internal fuel(half fuel weight)=8635 Kg
So TWR at half fuel weight with pylons and two WVr missiles is =0.97

This combined with the lowest possible wing loading of 242 Kg per square meter give tejas a very good combo of wing loading and TWR.

other fighters like f-16 may have more TWR, but they have higher wing loading. it means the area from which they generate lift for sudden turns is lesser for them compared to tejas mk1.

the reason tejas has lower TWR than F-16 is it has to support much larger wing area than f-16.

SO when we take these two factors into combo we can see the effectiveness. because mirage-2000 with much lower TWR than tejas and much higher wing loading than tejas has been favored by none other than greek airforce chief for even close combat , because the higher Instantaneous turn rate and higher G on set rate given by the combo of low wing loading and high TWR gives the first shoot advantage for mirage-2000 in dog fight over F-16.

With tejas mk1 comfortably ahead of mirage-2000 in both the specs there should be no worry for tejas at all in close combat with even the famed f-16s of PAF.

So how the prof rates tejas mk1 between Gnat and Mig-21 is a mystery to me!!!

I have not even included terms like high alpha and Relaxed Static Stability air frames here. because the RSS airframe of tejas mk1 is said to give negative stability to tejas mk1 through out its flight envelope according to a research paper , (even in super sonic flight is the assumption).

This factor also adds to better agility of tejas.
All the so called drag for not followign Whitcomb's rule more rigidly comes into play only in super sonic flight regime, not in subsonic flight regime of WVR combat speeds.

So no drag issues here also.

Also in an F-16 vs F-16 XL comparison the G on set rate for F-16 XL was far more. In fact the low wing loading f-16 XL(a tail less , canard less compound delta like tejas) beat the high wing loading normal F-16 in all crucial combat specs and was considered an evolution over normal f-16 design.tejas was modelled on F-16 Xl.

I have published the above comment in mr. Das's blog's comment section. lets see whether he responds or not,

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

EVERY PENNY OF DEFENCE BUDGET WILL BE SPEND WISELY: PARRIKAR



New Delhi: Stressing that no amount is adequate for the military preparedness to secure the country, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today said he will focus on wisely spending the money allocated to his ministry.

"I will see to it that every rupee is spent wisely," Mr Parrikar said in the Rajya Sabha during Question Hour.


Expressing satisfaction on 13.88 per cent hike in the defence budget over the previous year, the Minister said India was at par with other nations so far as percentage of defence expenditure is concerned. Giving comparable data, he said China spends 8.3 per cent of its GDP on its defence forces while Pakistan 16.2 per cent.

"In principle, nothing is adequate for the defence of the country. I intend to spend it wisely, whatever is allocated to us."

He said the Indian defence budget is decided differently and was not decided the way it was calculated in other countries.

"Quantum-wise, we are reasonably well placed," Mr Parrikar said, expressing satisfaction that substantial support has been given for capital outlay that is kept for the modernisation of the Armed Forces.

Underling his commitment for 'Make in India' initiative in the defence sector, he said all the policy guidelines would be put in place in the next couple of months.

Every penny of defence budget will be spend wisely: Parrikar | Day & Night News

 

[bennedose]

ersakthivel has ripped Prodyut Das a new one on his blog
Prof. Prodyut Das: The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

 

[sjmaverick]

11th March 2015

Development of hi-tech technology from the scratch, lack of skilled manpower and technological complexities were some of the reasons the government today gave for delay in completion of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project.

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Rajya Sabha in a written reply that ab-initio development of state-of-the-art technology, non-availability of trained and skilled manpower in the country, lack of infrastructure, including test facilities, and unanticipated technical issues and complexities were some of the reasons for delay in the LCA project.

He said the initial cost of phase II of full-scale engineering development programme ofLCA Tejas was Rs 3301.78 crore. "Based on modifications required in the aircraft, an additional sanction of Rs 2475.78 crore was granted, which increased the total sanctioned cost of Phase II programme to Rs 5777.56 crore," he said.

Quoting open sources, Parrikar said Tejas performs better on certain perimeters as compared to similar fighters such as Swedish JAS-39, South Korean FA 50 Sino-Pakistani JF 17.

Source : h t t p: / /id rw. org/arch ives/5956 6#m ore-5 9566

Delay in project implementation in now justified by many concerned (MOD/Critics) except for the main customer ..IAF but gradually a shift is observed in spirit by will or compulsion about this gem. I only hope that FOC happens on time and decision related to yearly production rate increase in taken swiftly. In my thought all debates related to capability of this fighter will be taken care by time itself both in terms of IAF drawing out a strategy to use it advantages and avoid limitations (every piece of machinery has both) and inevitable rule of human to evolve and improve (tejas will not be an exception to this rule)

 

[sgarg]

The following is from an IDSA study (under previous UPA government):

Table AA1"‚ Expected IAF ORBAT 2032
Fighter Aircraft
Sl. No. Aircraft No. Remarks
1. Su-30MKI 112 272 Su-30MKI due by 2016–17;77 in line to undergo super 30 upgrade.
2. Super 30 160 Heavy UPG to 4.5 generation.
3. Mirage-2000H/UPG 40 Numbers post losses; due for replacement.
4. MiG-29B/UB UPG 50 ''
5. Jaguar 100 After upgrades;possibly due for replacement.

IAF Equipment and Force Structure Requirements . . .
Sl. No. Aircraft No. Remarks
6. Rafale 126 Rafale, possibly undergoing first mid-life upgrade.
7. LCA Tejas Mk-2 108 Definitive variants with GE414+/Kaveri engines. Possibly undergoing mid-life upgrade. Possibly higher numbers may be there.
8. FGFA 82 Possibly undergoing mid-life upgrade.
9. Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft(AMCA) 10 Entering service; definitive variant under development.
Total 810 Including 154 FGFA, 160 4.5 generation,

I believe the above table is in line with IAF thinking of 45 squadrons for the year 2032. The author of the study points out that IAF needs between 60 and 65 squadrons. The question is if IAF needs 60, why does it ask for 45??

Informed sources believe that IAF is afraid to ask for 60 due to high cost of Rafale (which is to be adjusted at the cost of other programs).

The LCA Tejas numbers are restricted to 108 in this plan. This is a very low number. All the numbers are assigned to Mark-2 variant which makes the plan suspicious (as IAF has already committed to 40 Mark-1 in 2012 - will these units simply disappear by 2032??)

I understand HAL's position that orders are needed before production rate is hiked, as even 8 per year is enough to build 108 by 2032.

The logical thing is to ramp up LCA Tejas numbers, to ramp up Su-30 (and its variants) numbers and induct FGFA, AMCA in larger quantities so that the target of 60 squadrons is achieved by 2032.

 

[sgarg]

GOI should target for 30 LCA Tejas per year, preferably in a new facility under a public-private partnership where both public sector and private sector pool their resources, but the final assembly is in the private sector.

A reasonable target for 2032 should be 15 squadrons of LCA Tejas. Rafale can be replaced with Su-35 and FGFA numbers can be increased - to get the 60 squadrons within the same money.

 

[Khagesh]

There was a comment on Prof. Prodyut's site:

Prof. Prodyut Das: The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

Mukut Pathak7 March 2015 at 07:22
Professor, Your calculation regarding T/W for most aircraft are grossly wrong. you have calculated LCA on the lower side and other aircraft on the higher side. I suggest that you pls re-check your data and calculations. LCA with 6500kgs as empty weight and 9000 kgs as loaded weight has a T/W of 0.6(dry) and 1.0 (A/B). Though I do agree to just few of your points but most are bullshit to say it politely. I am a retd fighter pilot myself and very well understand what you have written here. If calculate wrong, you will arrive at wrong calculations. I do agree to your point that LCA wing shud have been reversed i.e it shud have more sweep in front and less sweep at rear and that engine shud have a bit more dry thrust. LCA does not need more of A/B thrust, it needs more of dry thrust.
ADA has again gone wrong by selecting F414 engine which will give adry thrust of just 62.5KN. EJ-230 wud have done wonders to LCA with its dry thrust of 72KN.

What I want to understand is if this sort of reversal is possible/advisable.

We have seen this kind of wing on UCAV and F-16XL but both these are not meant for high performance dogfights or at least I would believe will have a tough task keeping up.

For a dogfighter esp. the high ITR cut and slash kind, I think a wing should be the way it is currently for LCA. Low sweep closer in and attached to the fuselage at the longest possible axis and High sweep at the outside where the vortex strength would not put unduely higher forces on the extended wing.

F-16XL was also characterised by its high payload capacity. It did gain on the ITR but that I guess was because stock F-16 was poorer on the ITR to begin with. So for F-16XL it made sense to do that but for LCA it does not make as much sense because LCA is not expected to be a bomb truck.

Ah! I don't know. I think you guys need to weigh in.

 

[brahmastra11]

Anybody have Tejas manoeuring route map of Aero India 2015..

 

[sgarg]

There was a comment on Prof. Prodyut's site:

What I want to understand is if this sort of reversal is possible/advisable.

We have seen this kind of wing on UCAV and F-16XL but both these are not meant for high performance dogfights or at least I would believe will have a tough task keeping up.

For a dogfighter esp. the high ITR cut and slash kind, I think a wing should be the way it is currently for LCA. Low sweep closer in and attached to the fuselage at the longest possible axis and High sweep at the outside where the vortex strength would not put unduely higher forces on the extended wing.

F-16XL was also characterised by its high payload capacity. It did gain on the ITR but that I guess was because stock F-16 was poorer on the ITR to begin with. So for F-16XL it made sense to do that but for LCA it does not make as much sense because LCA is not expected to be a bomb truck.

Ah! I don't know. I think you guys need to weigh in.

I think ADA should have the freedom (as a designer) to choose the optimum shape as per their analysis. The Prof Das kind of analysis does not help really. If Prof. Das wanted to make himself count, then he should have contributed to the original design.

Any Tom Dick and Harry can criticize ADA but that does not help in India achieving its targets in aviation.