ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

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

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

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

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

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

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kharavela

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
519
Likes
799
Country flag
Correct me if im wrong, but IAF has already placed an order for 20 Tejas mk1 (under IOC config), and had promised a follow on order of another 20 Tejas mk1(FOC config).
The first 20 Tejas order is already placed and no changes will be made to that. All 20 can be expected to be delivered by 2017.(Sp-01 - Sp-20)
The 120 Tejas mk1A they are talking about is a replacement order for another 20 Tejas mk1(FOC config) which is expected to start delivery from 2017.
So a total of 140 Tejas? (20 Tejas mk1 and 120 Tejas mk1A)?
The first 20,along with the 8 LSP models, would surely be used for pilot training, and later could be upgraded to Mk1A standards.
Can someone confirm this?

If I goes by news and understanding, we are going to have:
20 Tejas mk1 - IOC
20 Tejas mk1 - FOC
120 Tejas mk1 - Mk1A : Orders will be placed if ADA/HAL can make promised improvements.
No, both of you are not correct.
20 nos Tejas MK1 in IOC configuration => Ordered by IAF, No change to that.
20 nos Tejas MK1 in FOC configuration => Replaced by 100 nos Tejas MK1 A/P configuration.
Total comes to 120 nos.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Correct me if im wrong, but IAF has already placed an order for 20 Tejas mk1 (under IOC config), and had promised a follow on order of another 20 Tejas mk1(FOC config).
The first 20 Tejas order is already placed and no changes will be made to that. All 20 can be expected to be delivered by 2017.(Sp-01 - Sp-20)
The 120 Tejas mk1A they are talking about is a replacement order for another 20 Tejas mk1(FOC config) which is expected to start delivery from 2017.
So a total of 140 Tejas? (20 Tejas mk1 and 120 Tejas mk1A)?
The first 20,along with the 8 LSP models, would surely be used for pilot training, and later could be upgraded to Mk1A standards.
Can someone confirm this?
If I goes by news and understanding, we are going to have:
20 Tejas mk1 - IOC
20 Tejas mk1 - FOC
120 Tejas mk1 - Mk1A : Orders will be placed if ADA/HAL can make promised improvements.
No, both of you are not correct.
20 nos Tejas MK1 in IOC configuration => Ordered by IAF, No change to that.
20 nos Tejas MK1 in FOC configuration => Replaced by 100 nos Tejas MK1 A/P configuration.
Total comes to 120 nos.

I all I also believe as of now the total number ordered proposed Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk1A is 120.
It could be 20 IOC MK1 20FOC MK1 80 MK1A
OR
20 IOC MK1 100 MK1A
Depending on the rate of production and the timely development of MK1A.

The question now is .... As I have read in few reports that Mk2 is scrapped is it true?????
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Tejas, once combat-ready, will be able to outgun the Pakistan JF-17 fighters
NEW DELHI: The indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft will be able to thrash the Pakistani JF-17 'Thunder' fighters in "reach, punch and ability to kill and survive in an engagement", top Indian defence officials asserted.

But that will be possible only when the Tejas is ready with an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, mid-air refuelling, long-range BVR (beyond visual range) missiles and advanced electronic warfare capabilities. Moreover, the single-engine fighter has to undergo 43 "improvements" out of the 57 "weaknesses" detected in its maintainability, which will ensure it can land and take off again within an hour, the officials said.
Tejas remains crucial to make up the depleting numbers in IAF, which is down to just 35 fighter squadrons and will reach its sanctioned figure of 42 squadrons only by 2027 or so. With a limited range of just over 400 km, the Tejas will basically be used for "air defence" to take on incoming enemy fighters or "close air-to-ground" operations to support the Army.
Commentary: The author is Rajat Pandit. He is dead wrong about close air-to-ground support. HAL LCA is not a CAS aircraft. I can say that with certainty. The rest of the article seemed legit.
 

Yumdoot

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
@pmaitra,

You are talking about the history of CAS. The future is already unfolding in the form of inexpensive G3OM, LGB kits and even the improvement in good old ASP sights. Look at what the Russians are doing in Syria with just the dumb bombs. My guess is that such a thing must also be there already on the french supplied Mirages we hold and some sort of early versions may have been tried on the Mig27s too, quite successfully. And you can be sure that Indian R&D would separately be working on such things itself, in future if they have not already done it.

If you approach the CAS vs High Alti Ground Strike debate from the POV of the aircraft planform then you will be forced to compare latest generations of delta wings with the wings designed in and before 1975 - that would be 40 years old at least. Those days the sights were pretty hopeless from longer distances, LGB and PNT were known only in science fiction perhaps, the glide bombs were unheard of and the CAS-ed sobs on the ground did not have things like Shoulder fired SAMs and light weight radars.

I don't think we are ever going to see the CAS operators risk it the way they did prior to Kargil (in the case of India). And other countries have taken this lesson even before that. I think you too need to slacken your views about the CAS vs High Alti Ground Strike, as both have begun to merge.

For those interested in targeting this is a golden period and the science of targeting will essentially enable low wing aspect planes like Mig21s and LCAs to perform not very differently from the Su-25s, albeit by different methods.
 
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
110
Likes
41
What are the improvements Identified for MK1A??

1. AESA Radar
2. Long range BVR Missiles
3. Reduced weight by ??? Kg
4. ??
5. ??
.
.
.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
@pmaitra,

You are talking about the history of CAS. The future is already unfolding in the form of inexpensive G3OM, LGB kits and even the improvement in good old ASP sights. Look at what the Russians are doing in Syria with just the dumb bombs. My guess is that such a thing must also be there already on the french supplied Mirages we hold and some sort of early versions may have been tried on the Mig27s too, quite successfully. And you can be sure that Indian R&D would separately be working on such things itself, in future if they have not already done it.

If you approach the CAS vs High Alti Ground Strike debate from the POV of the aircraft planform then you will be forced to compare latest generations of delta wings with the wings designed in and before 1975 - that would be 40 years old at least. Those days the sights were pretty hopeless from longer distances, LGB and PNT were known only in science fiction perhaps, the glide bombs were unheard of and the CAS-ed sobs on the ground did not have things like Shoulder fired SAMs and light weight radars.

I don't think we are ever going to see the CAS operators risk it the way they did prior to Kargil (in the case of India). And other countries have taken this lesson even before that. I think you too need to slacken your views about the CAS vs High Alti Ground Strike, as both have begun to merge.

For those interested in targeting this is a golden period and the science of targeting will essentially enable low wing aspect planes like Mig21s and LCAs to perform not very differently from the Su-25s, albeit by different methods.
You are saying that CAS roles have begun to merge. I agree, with the caveat that what was historically done from low altitude can be done from high altitudes, thus there is no need for providing air support from close. My objection is on a different plane. It is risky and irresponsible to use an aircraft like LCA for low altitude ground support.
 

jackprince

Turning into a frog
New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
5,149
Likes
17,916
Country flag

If you see the comment section, it is very much evident that the paid media of import lobby has failed miserably to generate apathy towards LCA. The India is really changing, who would have thought so many people actually takes interest in defence matters just about 5 years ago?
 

Illusive

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,691
Likes
7,368
Country flag

If you see the comment section, it is very much evident that the paid media of import lobby has failed miserably to generate apathy towards LCA. The India is really changing, who would have thought so many people actually takes interest in defence matters just about 5 years ago?
This crying won't stop even after its inducted. Godforbid this plane ever crashes, these guys will have a field day. But there's a saying, hatti chale bazar, kutte bhoke hazzar.
 

Yumdoot

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
You are saying that CAS roles have begun to merge. I agree, with the caveat that what was historically done from low altitude can be done from high altitudes, thus there is no need for providing air support from close. My objection is on a different plane. It is risky and irresponsible to use an aircraft like LCA for low altitude ground support.
You bet!

I would not say that Strike and CAS have merged. The basic necessity is still very different. Former needs to kill major nodes on the enemy's network while the later has to be answerable towards the advancing ground troops. But I think the envelop has widened for both.

So yesterday you did CAS from say 4 km & inwards. Today you can do that say 10 km & inwards. Tomorrow it will be even more.

Just the same way people had never thought that a Ground Strike PGM can be released from stand-offish 100 km (glides) to 300 km (Brahmos). This too will grow and get complicated in future, with the imminent rise of hypersonic vehicles.
 

Kharavela

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
519
Likes
799
Country flag
http://swarajyamag.com/technology/stop-complaining-about-the-tejas-it-is-a-great-indian-achievement/

In the bickering over minor details surrounding the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft’s performance, the larger picture is being overlooked.

‘India doubles down on crappy homemade jets‘, proclaims one analyst. ‘Modi pushes ‘obsolete’ made-in-India plane on reluctant military‘, a newspaper headline asserts. A third suggests that the jet ‘could hurt [the] Indian Air Force‘. With the Indian government deciding this September to limit the purchase of French Rafale multi-role fighters to just 36 airframes and acquire 120 Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) instead, criticisms of the Tejas seem to have surfaced with renewed vigour.

The arguments are not new: The jet is old, they say. 32 years in the making. There are 53 shortfalls in performance. 20 permanent waivers have been granted by Air HQ. The useful combat radius is only 300 kilometres. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is down to 35 fighter squadrons from a sanctioned strength of 42, and cannot afford the risk of inducting an unproven design.

While these figures are all technically correct, the absence of proper context makes them appear more damning than they should. More importantly, the narrow focus on cherry-picked performance parameters fails to take into account the larger picture: the one that puts the achievements till date (and there have been many) in the context of the industrial, economic, and strategic environment in which the project was undertaken. It also neglects longer-term economic and security benefits that have accrued as a result of this effort, the strategic implications of which go beyond any one individual program.

The root of this unwarranted—though no doubt well-intentioned—criticism is an ignorance of the scale of the effort that goes into a modern combat aircraft development programme. Many observers tend to see such a programme as a standalone effort by a single development agency. What they overlook, however, is that it is critically dependent on the presence of a vast industrial ecosystem that can supply the components and materials necessary to build high-performance aircraft.

The development of such an ecosystem is a time-consuming, painstakingly difficult, and expensive undertaking fraught with grave risks. It typically goes hand-in-hand with the introduction of homegrown aircraft designs, and progresses as these designs become increasingly sophisticated over the years. This setup has to be sustained with large orders from the end user, or it collapses upon itself.

In the 1980s, when India set out to develop the LCA, every advanced country that was working on cutting-edge fighter projects had two major advantages going for it: Years of experience building military aircraft, and a fully-developed industrial base which could provide in short order the components and subsystems that went into aircraft designs. For instance, the designers of the Rafale drew on decades of experience with advanced fighters like the Ouragan, Mystere, Super Etendard, Mirage-III, and Mirage-2000 for the French air force. They could count on an assortment of well-established French companies such as Dassault Aviation, Sagem, Thales, Snecma, and several others to supply many of the critical technologies that went into the Rafale: composite materials, avionics, radar, flight control systems, engines, and so on. They also had near-unlimited access to a global network of aerospace suppliers like Moog Controls of the UK, Eaton Aerospace of the US, and TITAL GmbH of Germany to procure components and services that French vendors were unable to offer.

In contrast, India’s industrial infrastructure lagged woefully behind that of established industrial powers. The state-owned aerospace company, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was essentially an assembly shop for foreign designs, and had very little experience with large-scale research and development. So dependent were Indian industrial giants on foreign technology, they would routinely import simple tools like torque wrenches from abroad because the technology to make them locally did not exist. There wasn’t a single Indian entity that could build composite airframes, aerospace-grade actuators, ruggedised (or even commercial-grade) avionics, multi-function displays, or high-performance jet engines. Each and every one of these items to be developed, from scratch, by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and its partners, or procured from foreign suppliers. Access to the latter became very restricted after sanctions were applied following the nuclear tests in 1998.

In spite of such hurdles, the achievements have been nothing short of phenomenal: India has developed a fourth-generation fighter from scratch, one that uses several critical technologies and subsystems that have been developed in-house on a shoestring budget. The LCA’s mission computers, electronic warfare systems, man machine interface, flight control systems, composite airframe technology—these have been developed in India and are all flying on multiple IAF aircraft today in the form of upgrades. The MiG-21 Bison, the MiG-27 Upgrade, the Jaguar Darin III—they all source several local subsystems and components developed by Indian entities. The Sukhoi Su-30MKI, which Indian aviation enthusiasts venerate more than any other fighter, owes much of its success to the DRDO-run Project Vetrivale, which was possible only because of the sweat and toil that went into the LCA programme. In the process, the nation has developed a respectable system of specialised companies and suppliers that can contribute to future projects. Astra Microwave, Data Patterns, and Samtel are just a few examples of companies that cut their teeth on the LCA and now offer world-class aerospace components, subsystems and services.

The benefits of the technologies and infrastructure developed as a result of these programmes extend beyond individual projects. Owing to their strategic nature, they have the potential to strongly influence economic and national security outcomes for the better. One could argue that they already do. They have enabled the manufacture of engineered systems for civilian and military use that are tailored to local requirements, as well as spin-offs in other sectors of the economy.

To take just one example, some of the technologies developed in the course of the Tejas’ Kaveri engine programme are now used by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) in the manufacture of gas turbine engines for power generation. If exploited properly, they shall go a long way towards limiting the expenditure of foreign exchange on imported weaponry that generates very little economic benefit. More importantly, they shall empower the nation to take (or threaten) military action while limiting the risks of coercive pressure from hostile countries that might use technology embargoes or the termination of military sales to restrict the supply of critical military equipment.

And that is the real benefit of inducting a locally-made jet in large numbers, even though it may fall short on certain performance parameters. As Shiv Aroor so rightly says, the endless bickering over minute technical details has to stop. The enormity of what has been achieved cannot be allowed to come to naught because the Tejas’ turn rates are a couple of degrees short of what is required, or because the nose cone could be improved to achieve better radar performance.

With a home-grown fighter, the IAF gets a weapon that it can tinker with in unlimited amounts without having to seek approval from vendors guided by their own narrow interests. It gets the freedom to not treat that weapon as a scarce resource that has to be rationed across the breadth of the national border and not worry about treating as a scarce resource. And with the technological know-how as well as an industrial ecosystem largely in place, the development of the next generation of fighter is bound to be a little smoother, a little less uncertain, and constrained by fewer technological hurdles than the LCA was.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top