ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[aero_sp]

Can any body specify what are those 12 short falls exactly which will be incorporated in MK-II and how are these factors affecting performance of MK-I

 

[aero_sp]

The 100 kg the other poster said was on account of 55 kg of IRST and the 50 Kg by replacement of Ballast by the AESA.

So the LCA Tejas 1P will not have an IRST as such, as the HAL proposal right now exists. But since the GoI has given the go ahead to approach the IAF probably the IAF itself can ask for the IRST.

The articles reads as under (no IRST only AESA):

I don't understand logic of 100 or 50 Kg. If AESA redar will be installed then existing MMR radar will be removed. As mutch as i understant current radar should be weighing more than AESA radar. Do anybody have comparison. Plrase clarify.

 

[power_monger]

I don't understand logic of 100 or 50 Kg. If AESA redar will be installed then existing MMR radar will be removed. As mutch as i understant current radar should be weighing more than AESA radar. Do anybody have comparison. Plrase clarify.

I had read that current radar weighs in 80 kgs where as uttam AESA radar weighs 120 Kgs. But you also need to factor in extra space for AESA owing to its bigger size and power which AESA radar consumes than weight itself.

 

[Khagesh]

I don't understand logic of 100 or 50 Kg. If AESA redar will be installed then existing MMR radar will be removed. As mutch as i understant current radar should be weighing more than AESA radar. Do anybody have comparison. Plrase clarify.

Typically the Ballast in the nosecone is supposed to represent some missing equipment (the MMR during test phase or say a cannon not there) as the report says to strike balance. The MMR would be in the SP-1 which is an IOC machine and in the FOC test machines also. Since the FoC is the focus right now so there may not be any ballast in the FoC machines, since it may not be required.

Please note that it too can happen that the balance may still be off somewhat during tests despite the MMR being present. Say because the MMR weight may be different than what had been budgeted for, while the control laws may still not be updated. In such case you may still need a smaller ballast.

In that manner
Ballast / MMR = approx. 210 kg.
AESA+EW suite = approx. 250 kg
The current LCA Mk-1 does not have an internal jammer also. So probably that is the EW suite update. The difference they may be guessing to be around 50 kgs as the write up says.

Thus there could be a significant benefit of this proposal should the IAF agree.

After this Kunal Biswas suggested the Selex IRST which has combined weight of Sensorhead unit + Processor unit at around 55 kg.

And thus the approx. 100 kg total increase in weight for AESA+EW suite update+IRST.

Actually I have a hunch that they can reduce the weight further too by use of more composites etc. But that is another story.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If i am not mistaking latest report via official source decline such news, The article posted is old ..

I think the report is here some where posted by @ersakthivel

while the twin internal air-intake ducts will be minimally enlarged to cater to the increased airflow requirements of the 98 kN thrust F414-GE-INS6 turbofan built by GE Aero Engines.
source: wiki


MK2 air intakes

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/03/first-look-lca-mk2-air-intake-wind.html

 

[power_monger]

There is no such issue as air-intake issue for LCA.period.This point has been repeated,argued and links have been provided to prove the same yet,we come across same queries and same concerns.

Here is the article link by saurav jha.

The Radiance of Tejas: A bright prospect for 'Make in India'

To address the IAF's 1995 ASR fully, work is now underway on the Tejas Mk-II which will sport a new and more powerful engine in the form of General Electric's (GE's) 98 kilo newton generating F414-GE-INS6 , 99 units of which have already been ordered. The F414-GE-INS6 replaces the current MK-I engine which is the F404-GE-IN20. Contrary to earlier speculation, Dr Tamilmani says that the Tejas Mk-II does not require an intake re-design since the MK-I intake was in any case intended to be used with the Kaveri engine which has a greater mass flow than the current F404-GE-IN20 . Studies have shown that the existing intake can easily handle the additional mass flow from the F414-GE-INS6.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am expecting increase in Tejas numbers, MK1P will increase the demand till MK2 reach production ..

Kunal sir... this 1.5 term was based on the electronic upgradation of the aircraft only right?
how will they phase this.
I mean by 2020 we will have Tejas MK1 40 and Tejas MK2 in production so what can we assume they will start this upgradation immediately once MK is ready ?

 

[Pulkit]

I am expecting increase in Tejas numbers, MK1P will increase the demand till MK2 reach production ..

Is IAF on board for this.
They are not gonna increase the size of order for MK1 or MK1P .
What they are gonna do is ask for all remaining as MK1P and not just MK1 keeping the final order size as 40 only.

Mk2 is 3-4 years away and MK1P will also take 1-2 years so I do not see any increase is order size for that.

 

[brational]

3-4 years, 1-2 years, 20pcs, 40 pcs, 80 pcs, 100 Pcs, Mk 1, Mk 1.5, Mk 1.75, Mk 2.0....
What the hell? 15 years have been passed since first flight, Time for MoD, HAL and IAF to sit together and decide whether they are serious on a homegrown Figher Jet? If not, why burning money and extending deadlines? 31 years and counting.

 

[tejas warrior]

Is IAF on board for this.
They are not gonna increase the size of order for MK1 or MK1P .
What they are gonna do is ask for all remaining as MK1P and not just MK1 keeping the final order size as 40 only.

Mk2 is 3-4 years away and MK1P will also take 1-2 years so I do not see any increase is order size for that.

Probably this is not gonna happen in preset scenario.. else RM will come hard on IAF.

Manohar Parrikar had already criticized IAF/IA for changing requirement at the last moment.

 

[The enlightened]

Was checking the specs of IAI Lavi,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just see how much Tejas sucks in comparison despite only slightly smaller dimensions

IAI Lavi................................................................................HAL Tejas

Length: 14.57 m (47 ft 10 in)..............................................Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.78 m (28 ft 10 in)...........................................Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.78 m (15 ft 8 in)...................................................Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 33.0 m² (355 ft²)...............................................Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,031 kg (15,500 lb)....................................Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,991 kg (22,025 lb)..................................Loaded weight: 9,500 kg[156] (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg (42,500 lb).........................Max. takeoff weight: 13,200 kg[156] (29,100 lb)

Tejas
Armament

• Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.

Hardpoints: 8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of 3,500 kg external fuel and ordnance

Lavi
Armament

• 1 × 30 mm DEFA cannon
• 7,260 kg (16,000 lb) of stores

 

[Pulkit]

Probably this is not gonna happen in preset scenario.. else RM will come hard on IAF.

Manohar Parrikar had already criticized IAF/IA for changing requirement at the last moment.

Did not get your point.
Whats not gonna happen?
Extended order?
Same order?

or MK1P itself is not gonna happen?

 

[V_Force]

Sir, any info about LCA Tejas SP-2 ??????????

 

[sathya]

Hi, I think we are talking about mk p after the 40 mk1

Since it will be taking 2 years for testing , which most likely extend to another year

I also think in that time we need to order new nose cone according to the wavelength of new radar..

And we were looking for a cooling unit...

 

[tejas warrior]

Did not get your point.
Whats not gonna happen?
Extended order?
Same order?

or MK1P itself is not gonna happen?

I am not a expert like you guys.. but i think Mk1 configuration for FOC have been finalized and remaining 40 will be produced of same configuration.
If IAF try to change Mk1 FOC config to that of MK1.5, Parrikar will come hard on IAF.

 

[Khagesh]

The MTOWs that would have enabled max. payloads for both Lavi and Tejas would make Lavi severely underpowered and somewhat underwinged.

You can only imagine what havoc it would play with the turning rates.

You can get Tejas redesigned to get that kind of hauling performance but then it will not fly properly in Hot-High conditions. And will largely be a straight flyer. For that you already have Jaguars and Mig-27s.

And who actually takes that kind of load in a real fight. There are loads of pics of aircrafts on real missions, on the net.

 

[Khagesh]

Israelis probably wanted that kind of plane because they have a small country where even a F-16 sized plane is something of a bomber.

Probably they thought that a Lavi could be an out and out all rounder. Underload it and turn it into a fighter. Overload it and turn it into a bomber.

Our situation is completely different.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://idrw.org/get-out-of-white-ma...dia-ex-drdo-chief-avinash-chander/#more-65029

"
What do you have to say about CAG’s recent criticism of Tejas? You just said that LCA has helped establish an industrial base. The project has been criticised for being delayed and CAG says that the LCA does not meet IAF’s requirements…

Delay is a relative word. In India, we have a tendency to take up very ambitious time frames. No aircraft can be made in less than 15 years, anywhere in the world. We have to see whether we have built sufficient capability in the system for the next product to be made faster. If you see a product development cycle it is asymptotic. The first product will always take a long gestation time because you are building capability, knowledge and an industrial base. For example, if I have to take LCA Mark II and start today, I am sure within the next eight years we can get the Mark II.

The first nuclear submarine might have taken 20 years, but I am sure the next one will be much faster. We have seen that to be true in the case of missiles. The new missiles have a time frame of five to seven years. We are now competing with the world time cycles. The pilots who are flying LCA are very happy with its performance. Expectations are always going to be more than what we achieve, and it should be so.

Today, if we have a good mature industrial base in the country, LCA should be going on a fast track. We should be producing at the rate of 20-25 per year, to meet the immediate demands and go full blast on delivering the Mark II, which will cover all the gaps. The way LCA is today, it meets all the essential needs of Air Force.
"

"A huge capability exists in the country and you have access to a huge technology base. A lot of Indians who are working in global corporations will be happy to come back and contribute if the opportunity comes in Indian industry.

Secondly, we have to stop thinking small. For too long, we have been thinking at a very low level. Americans have not done this, so how can we do it? We have to come out of this White Man Syndrome. Today, many foreign companies are setting up their R&D centres in India. I read that Daimler is planning to take on 1,000 engineers every year. They have 4,000 as on date, for their R&D centre in India. DRDO has 7,000 engineers. With 7,000 engineers, we want to do missiles, aircraft, tanks, submarines, ships, everything. Where is the ratio? Obviously, government cannot keep on expanding. This has to multiply at the industry and the academic institutions. Once that happens, Indian industries and Indian scenario will change."

 

[ersakthivel]

The MTOWs that would have enabled max. payloads for both Lavi and Tejas would make Lavi severely underpowered and somewhat underwinged.

You can only imagine what havoc it would play with the turning rates.

You can get Tejas redesigned to get that kind of hauling performance but then it will not fly properly in Hot-High conditions. And will largely be a straight flyer. For that you already have Jaguars and Mig-27s.

And who actually takes that kind of load in a real fight. There are loads of pics of aircrafts on real missions, on the net.

F-16 and F-18 failed the Leh test in MMRCA contest

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If i am not mistaking this was proposed by IAF not too long ago ..

MK1P is meant to be ready by 2018, MK2 will fly 2022 and their is long time for induction after many trails this same is not very long for MK1p ..

Is IAF on board for this.
They are not gonna increase the size of order for MK1 or MK1P .
What they are gonna do is ask for all remaining as MK1P and not just MK1 keeping the final order size as 40 only.

Mk2 is 3-4 years away and MK1P will also take 1-2 years so I do not see any increase is order size for that.