ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Pulkit]

Saurav jha's tweet

@Kunal Biswas @ersakthivel
"MoD is fully cognizant of the potential of the Light Combat Aircraft programme. They are looking at ways to boost production rates."
Just a query:
1)Are they going to make IAF realise there fault?
2)Is IAF going to order more?

If the answer is "No" then:

1) To Boost Production are they gonna invest more?
2)Are they starting another assembly line without confirming orders?
3)Will this not make it un economical?

If they answer to initial two questions is "yes"

Then What??? Hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

 

[ersakthivel]

Parrikar takes dig at Armed forces for Repeatedly changing Staff requirements on Indigenous weapons systems | idrw.org

Finally an empowered educated Defence minister calls the import lobby bluff, which was long suspected as the true reason behind changing specs repeatedly, which resulted in delays in crucial projects.

 

[smestarz]

@Kunal Biswas @ersakthivel
"MoD is fully cognizant of the potential of the Light Combat Aircraft programme. They are looking at ways to boost production rates."
Just a query:
1)Are they going to make IAF realise there fault?
2)Is IAF going to order more?

If the answer is "No" then:

1) To Boost Production are they gonna invest more?
2)Are they starting another assembly line without confirming orders?
3)Will this not make it un economical?

If they answer to initial two questions is "yes"

Then What??? Hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!

IAF already realizes the folly of defying NDA govt in which BJP has complete majority. It is no longer a UPA rule where one smaller party can blackmail the govt. So IAF is not in position to be giving orders, but like they are to accept the orders from the Parliament and MoD.

If this is game of chess you see, all the MoD has to do is
1. Promote the officers who see Tejas as an important part of IAF over the officers who see "Rafale or bust"

2. The ACM has just a year or so at helm, what would be his achievement? Guess nothing, Govt can wait him out of required.

3. Govt has already said that US$ 22 billion is too expensive that makes it US$ 175 million a plane, and the only ToT we get is about fuselage and wings, we are already doing the same and need not spend US$ 100 million a plane to learn that, do we? BTW just to give u a figure
US$ 100 million per plane will be there for installing jigs and lines (yes we have to pay for it) and in this cost of US$ 100 million we can produce 2-3 Tejas planes, this is only breakdown for you. Give it a thought.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ssault-rafale-wins-mmrca-297.html#post1017537
Based on the above, it is a no brainer.

4. GoI decides the Funds for IAF, IAF does not earn any funds, maybe IAF forgets that..

Now, it is upto the IAF to give order, or to be told by the govt to stop being a wimp and order after all if GoI only gives money to order Tejas and the spares for the planes it uses, what you expect IAF to do?

Let me tell point something, all the MoD has to do is tell IAF , "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" you think the entire IAF will resign?
I think only some of the top brass would retire, and honestly that would be perfect to restructure IAF to make it more answerable to the govt and not play like they are power brokers.

Answered you Hurray !!! your turn.

 

[saik]

repeatedly changing requirements is fine.. but when a requirement is frozen, it has to be guaranteed locked up and signed for a version/tranche/block of weapon systems. minor updates are fine as long as the requirements doesn't require to change designs entirely.

this is not rocket science for forces and drdo to have an agreement on block-wise r&d, production engineering and upgrades operations support. simply put, a cmmi approach will clear the rut.

 

[Pulkit]

IAF already realizes the folly of defying NDA govt in which BJP has complete majority. It is no longer a UPA rule where one smaller party can blackmail the govt. So IAF is not in position to be giving orders, but like they are to accept the orders from the Parliament and MoD.

If this is game of chess you see, all the MoD has to do is
1. Promote the officers who see Tejas as an important part of IAF over the officers who see "Rafale or bust"

Haha thats laughable ask any body no one will appreciate intervention of govt in defense. The thing need to be done is kill the kickbacks

2. The ACM has just a year or so at helm, what would be his achievement? Guess nothing, Govt can wait him out of required.

3. Govt has already said that US$ 22 billion is too expensive that makes it US$ 175 million a plane, and the only ToT we get is about fuselage and wings, we are already doing the same and need not spend US$ 100 million a plane to learn that, do we? BTW just to give u a figure
US$ 100 million per plane will be there for installing jigs and lines (yes we have to pay for it) and in this cost of US$ 100 million we can produce 2-3 Tejas planes, this is only breakdown for you. Give it a thought.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ssault-rafale-wins-mmrca-297.html#post1017537
Based on the above, it is a no brainer.

I am anti Rafale and pro Tejas Camp. Even called Tejas Fan boy so I agree with you.What was your point here????

4. GoI decides the Funds for IAF, IAF does not earn any funds, maybe IAF forgets that..

Now, it is upto the IAF to give order, or to be told by the govt to stop being a wimp and order after all if GoI only gives money to order Tejas and the spares for the planes it uses, what you expect IAF to do?

Yes GOI only decides and allocate funds they do not choose the weaponary they have to rely on these so called defense experts to buy anything.
It is Army ,IAF,Navy who have the right to choose there gadgets and not MOD. MOD doesnot decided anything in regard to it apart from the funds. Prioritization of what to buy is not done by MOD.

Let me tell point something, all the MoD has to do is tell IAF , "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" you think the entire IAF will resign?

Again I cannot say anything apart from laughing....MoD And Defense are linked,dependent and not controlled by each other so we need both on the same page...
And its just not for Tejas but for Arjun and many other projects.

I think only some of the top brass would retire, and honestly that would be perfect to restructure IAF to make it more answerable to the govt and not play like they are power brokers.

Every person who retired has said in favour of domestic arms but while they are on chair they behave anti Domestic products

Answered you Hurray !!! your turn.

Kindly read the context of what I wrote before replying i think u missed my point

 

[Pulkit]

repeatedly changing requirements is fine.. but when a requirement is frozen, it has to be guaranteed locked up and signed for a version/tranche/block of weapon systems. minor updates are fine as long as the requirements doesn't require to change designs entirely.

No its not fine once the requirements are set there should be no changes requested.The impact of those minor minor changes are huge

this is not rocket science for forces and drdo to have an agreement on block-wise r&d, production engineering and upgrades operations support. simply put, a cmmi approach will clear the rut.

Yes It is not rocket science and block wise upgradation is fine but for that you need to trust the product first.Sync between DRDO and Defense forces can never be made....

 

[sgarg]

The western style products are possible only when BOTH R&D and manufacturing are mature. And maturity comes from competition.

Our governments in the past were anti-competition.

We need 2-3 units of everything. We need two HAL sized aerospace companies freely competing each other. We needs at least two - preferably 4 aviation design houses like ADA. For example 2 for fighter aircraft, 2 for helicopters, 2 for air launched missiles etc.

Our country needs to change its mindset if security is to be ensured. Otherwise there are plenty of enemies who would come again and plunder the country.

 

[biswaranjanrath.sipu]

What about lca sp 2 ? Is there any news about it and in which stage it is in now ? Finally has any body any idea about refueling probe for tejas ,will sp 2 come with refueling probe ?

 

[sgarg]

What about lca sp 2 ? Is there any news about and in which stage it is in now ? Finally is any body has any idea about refueling probe for tejas ,will sp 2 come with refueling probe ?

I do not think SP2 will come with refueling probe. But it may have the new radome, which will increase the range of radar.
I expected HAL to deliver one more SP this fin. year. Let us see if it happens.

 

[saik]

pulkit:

If I draft for MTOW, and say 85kN wet is enough and agreed, then it is frozen. you can't change that as it would change the turbine designs.

If I draft for 8G, having a turn rate x, AoA of y, then changing it to x+ \delta x, y+ \delta y would only cause me to work out my control laws and that does not significantly impact the designs can be allowed as tranche updates.

Hence, don't generalize requirement change as something rigid. if you become a user, you will realize these finer points.

 

[Pulkit]

pulkit:

If I draft for MTOW, and say 85kN wet is enough and agreed, then it is frozen. you can't change that as it would change the turbine designs.

If I draft for 8G, having a turn rate x, AoA of y, then changing it to x+ \delta x, y+ \delta y would only cause me to work out my control laws and that does not significantly impact the designs can be allowed as tranche updates.

Hence, don't generalize requirement change as something rigid. if you become a user, you will realize these finer points.

@saik first of all add "@" when u quote me so that I know u saying something.

I am no expert in aero but I have worked on floor and design So here is some insight:
You are here talking about 8G and turn rate .... Lets get even basic.
I say you asked for Oxygen control ahead the head of the pilot but later you want it in front do you know how much change that will need?

Just to say alot....

Now lets get to what you are saying:

turn rate and AoA change cannot be done just with the control laws.Design have its own limitation and a way to control it.
Many design cannot even achieve 8G due to the limitation of there frames/structures.

I am not generalizing anything. I am saying once agreed upon dont come back to change anything.

Evolution is a second part where the designer can come to you and tell you i can do this and this better you want it or not?

You can not propose anything new.

 

[ersakthivel]

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

regarding the statement of yours,

"Fuselage lengthening

The requirement of a minimum length of fuselage for a given cross
section (CS) to get the desired Cd0 is well understood. I have always
maintained that the LCA's fuselage was too short for its CS resulting in
a excessive drag. My guess is that at low level she will not do more
than M 0.95 for all practical purposes. Most fighters of this genre have
had fuselage lengths between 14 and 15 mts at least. I am putting below
some figures which you will note relates only to F-404 engine fighters
so the influence of the engine length on fuselage length is avoided.

1. Gripen A 14.1 mts.

2. Lavi 14.39 mts

3. F 20 14.2 mts

4. LCA Mk1 13.2 mts.

There are talks of increasing the fuselage length now. This point
required pondering long ago, perhaps even as the first layout studies
were coming off the printer."

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=g...8&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

gripen wing span =8.41 meters,

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=t...8&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

tejas wing span is 8.21 meters,

So everything seems to be proportional ,

If 14.1 meter gripen A has 8.41 meter wing span,(ratio--1.67)

the 13.2 meter long tejas has 8.20 meter wing span.(ratio -1.61)

nothing exceptionally amiss hers,

 

[ersakthivel]

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

regarding your comments,
The starting point of this estimate is the airframe of the HF 24. It was 2618 kilos including the cockpit canopy but excluding the undercarriage. My estimate is that the LCA airframe is about 10% smaller and should weigh- in all aluminum- about 2400 kilos. If we now factor in the savings due to use of 65% composites the LCA airframe should be 20% lighter. If not then why are we using a strategically vulnerable material like composites? We don't produce the stuff. So the airframe of the LCA should weigh no more than about 1900 kilos. Let us say about 2000 kilos as a round figure. If we now add 2185 Kgs fro all other stuff,
So we see that when added to the airframe weight we get a total 4100-4200 kilos. This gives a margin of 1.2-1.3 tons for all the remaining weights of brackets, cabling, piping, controls, shrouds and other items. Mind you ADA itself had maintained, for decades, that the basic empty weight of the LCA was around 5500 kg only to spring a surprise before IOC that the thing was 1.3 Tons overweight!

1.Does marut had the wing strength to fire R-73 E missile?
2.And what will be the additional weight of supporting excess volume of fuel than marut?
3.How much weight is needed to support much larger wing area of tejas compared to Marut?
4. how much weight is needed to support 13.5 tons MTOW and the stress it puts on airframe when in take off mode?
5. How much more weight is needed to support way higher touch down weight than that of MArut?

if you add them all it will come close to gripen C's empty weight , which supports 200 kg lesser fuel load than tejas and has 25 percent lower wing area than tejas.

Also you can add extra weight of much more powerful hydraulics that bulge out in fairings to support way bigger wing attached control surfaces of tejas mk1 .

So if we compare with gripen C there seems to be nothing wrong with tejas mk1's empty weight.

Even MTOW for both are more or less the same.

SIr , if you fail to understand my queries , I have nothing to gain by reading the article again.
WHat I said was compare tejas with its peer like mirage-2000, gripen and other euro canards if we are interested in knowing the design similarities or mis match.

All the fighters you used in comparison table share nothing with 4+ gen RSS fly by wire compound delta like tejas,

low wing loading on tejas was proposed with the primary aim of high ITR not for high or low stall speeds(it is another matter no one knows these specs of tejas)

LEVCONS are no fixes !!! Even in 2001 article on tejas by none other than Air Marshal MSD Woolen LEVCONs for naval tejas was proposed for carrier landing requirements.

e without going into specs like a combo of TWR and low wing loading advantage making suggestion on which fighter wing design is best is a suicidal job. Does this mean the russians who designed PAKFA hich has the samelower swept wing root didn't know of these "facts"?

If we accept the suggestion of reversing the wing sweep as proposed by Mr Pathak, who will do the job of vortex generation which is presently done by lower swept wing leading edge root near fuselage. Why this "great design " idea of reversing the wing sweep is not followed by Russians in PAKFA ?

combat radius of tejas mk1 without certification of center line fuselage was given as 500 Km for hot indian climatic condition which saps 10 percent engine thrust and

12 percent wing lift for any other fighter. SO why the fuss?

regarding your comments on bugget of tejas , following is the article written by mr raman Puri and former SA to PM Ashok parthasarathy on tejas,
rom the same Raman Puri, Ashok partha sarathy article,
Superior

As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF's inventory.

So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.

As recently as in 2005, the IAF's requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?

As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.

The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.

It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.

(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).

Sir regarding your comments on tejas being overweight and falling short of ASR,
The following is the description of Tejas ASR by MSD Woolen -" The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec."

As per the link below,

http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page02.html

So now despite tejas empty weight going up to 6500 Kg , it has cleared cold weather trials at leh by taking off with specified weapon load.

note the original MTOW for 5.5 ton empty weight tejas was just 12. 5 tons. Now 6.5 ton empty weight tejas lifts 13.25 tons as MTOW.

if the wing design due to lower aspect ratio is so draggy as you suggested how could tejas take off with 13.25 tons(0.75 tons more than the original MTOW)?

Also how could 6.5 ton empty weight tejas clear leh trials with the specs specified for 5.5 ton fighter?

because if there is such insurmountable drag problem (due a faulty wing design as you suggested) a one ton extra empty weight tejas can not lift 13. 5 tons as MTOW.

What is your explanation for that?
The original take off clean for tejas in 1998 was 8.5 tons. now it is 9.5 tons. original MTOW for tejas was 12.5 tons. now it lifts 13.5 tons.

Also it completed a vertical loop in aeroindia 2013 within 20 -21 seconds(turn rate of 18 deg per sec , ASR specifies 17 deg per sec), even though it was overweight by an extra ton and had close to 400 Kg extra telemetry and air data sensor equipment on board.

At aeroindia 2013 it had an AOA limit of 20 deg, g limit of 6G. Now AOA has crossed 26 deg and G limit may end up 8 plus according to reports in papers.

if the wing design was so draggy how could it be possible for tejas to complete the loop in 20 seconds?

ofcourse for the horizontal loop it took close to 24 seconds.

Since you said that tejas (between GNat and Mig-21 as per your view!!!)wont be able to face JF-17 and F-16 due to poor aspect ratio, draggy air frame and higher empty weight,

Can JF-17 and mig-21 complete the vertical loop in 20 seconds?

in hot indian climate which saps ten percent engine thrust and ten percent wing lift , how much time will be taken by F-16 to complete a vertical loop with 20 deg AOA and 6G limitation, in case if we want to strictly compare the drag regime?

 

[ersakthivel]

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

why have you left out the all important Lift to drag ratio in his comparison?

Why have you not added gripen, typhoon and rafale in the comparison list we could all have known the crucial facts?

while all other legacy fighters he listed in his comparison table are the past,

and

tejas, gripen, rafale, typhoon all Relaxed Static Stability , 4 channel all digital Fly by wire tech are the future with roughly similar specs , and have a vortex inducing canard or compound delta design for higher ITR flight regime important in this missile age, are left out.

Why?

very different from the specs of Gnat, JF-17 and Mig-21,

The half fuel empty weight TWR of tejas mk1 is 0.97, from where Mr. Das gets 0.87 is a mystery to me!!!!


SO "First the bad news:" and then the "And now the good news – if you are prepared to think differently!" are all same wrong diagnosis!!!!.


None other than the greek airforce chief himself has said that Mirage-2000 can not be beaten by F-16 on any day.because he says the higher Instantaneous turn rate(ITR) of Mirage -2000(which has ten percent lower thrust to weight ratio and ten percent lower wing area compared to its weight than tejas mk1!!!) allows the pilot to have a first look, lock and fire solutions on F-16. Ofcourse Instantaneous turn Rate is not included in that comparison table at all !!!!

tejas mk1 itself has far better thrust to weight ratio and far lower wing loading than updated Mirage-2000 itself!!! and as per IAf group captain and award winning test pilot Suneeth Krishna's claim tejas mk1 is "at least equal to updated mirage-2000". SO why should tejas mk1 have a hard time with F-16 A and JF-17 ?

So when a Mirage-2000 can win over F-16 A using this trait, how can you justify the absurd claim from Mr. Das that tejas mk1 is inferior to mig-21?

If we compare the aspect ratios of tejas with gripen, PAKFA , typhoon and F-22 , you can pretty much see that lower aspect ratios are no exception in these large compound delta with low wing loading RSS fly by wire tech?

In a pointed effort to confuse the reader you have only included older positive static stability higher wing loading lower wing area fighters like JF-17,F-16 and Mig-21 to make it look as if the lower aspect ratio of tejas mk1 is a big design mistake!!!!

 

[cobra commando]

Sqn Ldr Suneet Krishna(Retd) inspecting the aircraft — at Bengaluru, Aero India 2015

Sqn Ldr Suneet Krishna(Retd) getting ready to fly the Tejas — at Bengaluru, Aero India 2015

 

[cobra commando]

 

[ersakthivel]

tejas is equal to 45 million per dollar plane upgraded mirage-2000 is Suneeth Krishna's original statement.

1.Even if you spend hundred million dollars pre plane the radar of mirage-2000 will be smaller than tejas mk1.

2.the thrust to weight ratio of upgraded mirage-2000 will be lower than tejas mk1.

3.The wing loading (fighter weight in KG/ wing area in sq meters) of upgraded mirage-2000 will be higher than tejas mk1.

4.The frontal clean config RCS of upgraded mirage-2000 will be 3 times higher than tejas mk1, meaning mirage-2000 can be detected by enemy radar much farther away than tejas.

5.The longest range BVR missile to be fired by mirage-2000 will have way lesser range than the proposed Astra for tejas mk1.

6.Both the Instantaneous turn Rate and Sustained Turn rate of 45 million dollar per plane upgraded mirage-2000 will be lower than the 26 million dollar per plane tejas.

7.The 45 million dollar per plane upgraded Mirage-2000 still wont be able to fire the deadly visually cued R-73 E HMDS enabled 90 deg high off bore missile, which was fired by 26 million dollar per plane tejas eons ago.

8. the 45 million dollar per plane upgraded Mirage-2000 still wont have an equal to DRFM based state of the art EW suit of tejas mk1.

SO on all 8 counts the mirage-2000 will fall below tejas mk1.