ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[tejas warrior]

I don't mind if they make political benefits out of it.. as long as they support it.

 

[Yumdoot]

@ersakthivel,

The official chinese government sites all mention J-10 as RSS and I personally don't subscribe to the Chinese are stupid argument that is typically sold on internet. They have their limitations but engineering acumen is not such a big talent that the Chinese cannot make it.

Having said that I believe that in a one on one the LCA will have the edge despite the LCA development cycle being slower. The bombing does not require a one on one competition so there too LCA more then matches up. For the J-10 the good thing going for it is that since it is bigger there is a lot of room for:
1) going wrong on designs
2) dropping weight and matching up with lighter low wing loaded planes.

Sukhoi variants too are already flying from bases in occupied Tibet. Also if they are talking about J-11 etc replacing J-10 then again we should think about why they are doing it. As it is the Chinese bases are very well equipped take both types in. Currently the news shows that they have stationed only smaller number but it can be deception too.

J-17 was definitely a bad way to go about making planes. Just the way the FBW work for LCA was confiscated and sacntioned. The JF-17 too suffered sanctions. Chinese and Indians both were stupid to even think of relying on the Americans in any manner except at transnational and both paid the price they deserved to pay for their own respective stupidity. JF-17 never really recovered but LCA did and is going strong.

The F-16 may have abandoned RSS. I don't know, nor do I track it. F-16s are historical development patterns. I am interested in only the look forward development possibilities and J-10 does allow some of it. For example, I am really impressed by the fact that instead of waiting endlessly for engines they simply jammed a Su-30 engine into it. So in future what stops ADA from similarly jamming a single FGFA engine into a much larger LCA variant. With that much power at your disposal you may actually be able to shift some of the warload inside the fuselage and do a lot lot more. The air is not going to behave differently with a scaled up LCA. But the differential between the volume to area ( r : r^2 ) of a near cylinderical fuselage will allow for a significant jump in the internal volume relieving you from many of the challenges with current LCA. But this shows how aware Chinese designers must have been of the limitations they were facing. Surely our designers would have done equally if not better but for extraneous reasons which have prevented India from having its own military aviation in last 70 years.

F-16 with its evolving light bombing roles may actually not need RSS any more. In any case F-16 was known to be easily turnable from an RSS to Stable frame, per one of its designers. On top of that early F-16s were said to be positively stable at or around Mach 2. But F-16 from here on is a nearly dead design unless the Americans take interest in it, which they are not.

 

[Yumdoot]

I don't mind if they make political benefits out of it.. as long as they support it.

View attachment 9193

Really appreciative part is that even a non-office-bearer like Amit Shah is taking interest and expressing support. Generates confidence.

BTW the 45th Squadron of Bharatiya Vayu Sena was flying Mig-21Bison before and seems to have had some interesting history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._45_Squadron_IAF

['QUOTE]
History[edit]
The squadron was raised on 15 February 1957[citation needed], with de Havilland Vampires, as a Ground-Attack and Close Air Support unit. Later The Vampires were replaced by MiG-21Bison. The MiGs are withdrawn from squadron sevice in 2002 which were operated from Naliya. It is the first operational squadron of the indigenous fighter jet HAL Tejas From 1 July 2016.[1] The Squadron will operate from Yelahanka Air Base, Bangalore for nearly two years before it moves to its designated locations at Sulur near Coimbatore.[2] It is also the first fighter Squadron to be part of the Southern Air Command of IAF headquarters at Thiruvananthapuram.

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965[edit]
On 1 September 1965, during the Indo-Pakistani War, No. 45 Squadron IAF responded to a request for strikes against a counter-attack by the Pakistani Army (Operation Grand Slam), and twelve Vampire Mk 52 fighter-bombers were successful in slowing the Pakistani advance. However, the Vampires encountered two Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-86 Sabres, armed with air-to-air missiles; in the ensuing dogfight, the outdated Vampires were outclassed. One was shot down by ground fire and another three were shot down by Sabres.[3][4] The Vampires were withdrawn from front line service after these losses.

Atlantique incident[edit]
Indian Airforce No.45 Squadron involved in Atlantique incident on 10 August 1999. Two MiG-21Bison from No.45 Squadron IAF intercepted and shot down Pakistani naval reconnaissance plane.[5][6]
['/QUOTE]

Badla pura hua. Mogambo khush hua.

 

[vram]

Sorry I am late to the party. For 15 years I have been following the Tejas Saga. Through thick and thin I have believed in this small bird but one with massive ambitions for India.
Right from the time when I was in junior school right through my college till now in my work life I have ensured that i kept abreast with the program.
Quite an emotional day.

 

[tejas warrior]

The journey from KH-2001 to LA-5001 took three days short of 15 and half years.
Nation witnessed today a fine aerobatic display of LA-5001 by the CO on the eve of the squadron formation ceremony.
Here, we present couple of images from today's display and the ceremonial welcome..

"Repost only with #Tejas_LCA #FLYING_DAGGERS"

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

View attachment 9122 #TejasSquadron Rear fuselage assembly work for SP-9 started at HAL https://t.co/Q3KmOZviZR @sonicshots007 @cyka_man https://t.co/k3lVosNt4Z

So now atleast sp9 is on the line 3 almost done that is 6 airframes on assembly line

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

The OneIndia report above is by Ananth Krishnan who has by now developed a reputation for not colouring his own reportage by his personal prejudices and hopes. I had put an unattributed quote from him only because I have faith in his reportage.

Brahmos-Mini is going to be 6 meter 1.5 tons, same as Nirbhay currently is. That is why they are saying that Nirbhay as it is can be mated to Su-30MKI. But to mate a Nirbhay to LCA the DRDO is reported to have claimed a need to shorten the Nirbhay by 25% ie. to a length of 4.5 meters. To swap a Tejas+Nirbhay variant for this Brahmos+Tejas variant, you will obviously have to reduce the Brahmos size to 4.5 meters too. But we already know Brahmos Mini is 6 meter.

The NLCA even in the Mk-2 version will have to use its excess capacity for extra internal fuel and not for heavier pylon load. So my suspicion is that they will persist with 1200 kg pylons or even if they re-design they will take it only till around 1500 kg. But that still does not solve the volume problem even for NLCA Mk-2.

However if you still insist in mating a high supersonic missile to later Tejas variants then you must look at changing Brahmos into a XASM-3 type missile (which will be a major major re-design effort):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XASM-3
Weight 900 kg (2,000 lb)[1]
Length 5.25 m (17.2 ft)[1]
Engine Integral Rocket Ramjet[1]
Operational range 150 km (81 nmi; 93 mi)
Speed Mach 3

Your 2 Brahmos Minis on one NLCA (presumably Mk-2) seems too much of an outlier to me. That will cut down the range of NLCA very badly and make NLCA shine on the radar like Bappi Lahari. You are asking for major trouble.

In any case LCA has only enough range to make itself felt at the borders. To hit beyond that you must rely on longer ranged Sukhois. Think about loiter times, ingress and egress speeds and altitudes, self protection capabilities, survivability etc.

An LCA with a stealthy Nirbhay variant is something we should look at seriously. Both to give LCA penetration capabilities and in general to screw the opponent from multiple directions. Something that Su-30MKI with Brahmos Mini will not be able to do, because the combo is going to be quite expensive for a real war.

But nlca is super to be 1.5 MTR longer
Maybe that will solve the Missie length probem

 

[Saichand K]

====================================================

 

[tsunami]

Congratulation to every one.

It is being said that by the end of 2018 Tejas Mk-1A will be operational.
How realistic this timeline is??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lets keep this thread purely technical based ..

I don't mind if they make political benefits out of it.. as long as they support it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Firstly, Cong t to all ..

On second note, Gents please make sure this thread is about its original topic. We all don`t appreciate some random kamikaze member knee-jerking around without even going through few pages back..

No no, i get your point. But obvious question is why develop a dedicated all new air launched anti-ship missile when Navy's principal carrier born fighter (NLCA MK-2) can't carry it? I mean what could be logic behind mating it with Mig-29Ks but not NLCA MK-2s? I am sure Navy which will always be largest user of Brahmos will look into it.

NLCA is longer than MK-1 and with more load carrying capability it can carry more and yet go farther. Below is the pic of FC-1 carrying C-802A which is a +6m long missile. Considering NLCA is only 0.5 m shorter than FC-1 i don't think length is a problem.

Later versions of F-16 are not RSS , and reverted to stable flight profiles because of extra weight of avionics & weapon loads with even way higher thrust engines,

SO I doubt whether J-10 can be a RSS fighter while it has way higher empty weight than even the F-16!!

It has faced so many crashes in prototypes & in service with faulty flight control law issues,

J-10 , JF-17 are patently wrong way of developing fighters, they are in effect monumental waste of time of chinese design enginners!!

3 Km or $ km runways doesnt matter, You cant take off with meaningful loads if you have high wing loadings in the high altitude rarefied himalayn airfields,

Even much higher powered F-16s failed in Leh test leg of MMRCA, SO I see no reason for any "imagined shortfall" of tejas vs J-10,

Even the F-16 with way lower emtpy weight cant out turn tejas in high himalayn altitudes, which is what the primary theater of operations in any himalayan war, higher turn rates at lower altitude sea level is meaningless in these areas!!

So imagine how poorly J-10 will fare on these Himalayan heights versus tejas which cleared its high altitude leh test with meaningful loads with no issues, no fighter in IAf is leh capable from day one of operation other than tejas!!!

PLAF has silently admitted that J-10 is a flop in tibet & is replacing it with soviet flanker copy cats was the last piece of news heard on the "Ashely tellis" rated J-10!!!

Tejas mk1 A is also getting ASEA and all the tejas 40 mk1s which are being fitted with 2032 can be upgraded with ASEA later,

ASEA or no ASEA J-10 was not built with minimal radar signature like tejas, rafale & typhoon, SO tejas will always be the first to find, track, lock & fire a BVR missile in combat with J-10s,

tejas has even higher radome dia that 1000 crore rafales,

SO the combination of low RCS, higher radome dia makes tejas as deadly a fighter in its class as any!!!

@ersakthivel,

The official chinese government sites all mention J-10 as RSS and I personally don't subscribe to the Chinese are stupid argument that is typically sold on internet. They have their limitations but engineering acumen is not such a big talent that the Chinese cannot make it.

Having said that I believe that in a one on one the LCA will have the edge despite the LCA development cycle being slower. The bombing does not require a one on one competition so there too LCA more then matches up. For the J-10 the good thing going for it is that since it is bigger there is a lot of room for:
1) going wrong on designs
2) dropping weight and matching up with lighter low wing loaded planes.

Sukhoi variants too are already flying from bases in occupied Tibet. Also if they are talking about J-11 etc replacing J-10 then again we should think about why they are doing it. As it is the Chinese bases are very well equipped take both types in. Currently the news shows that they have stationed only smaller number but it can be deception too.

J-17 was definitely a bad way to go about making planes. Just the way the FBW work for LCA was confiscated and sacntioned. The JF-17 too suffered sanctions. Chinese and Indians both were stupid to even think of relying on the Americans in any manner except at transnational and both paid the price they deserved to pay for their own respective stupidity. JF-17 never really recovered but LCA did and is going strong.

The F-16 may have abandoned RSS. I don't know, nor do I track it. F-16s are historical development patterns. I am interested in only the look forward development possibilities and J-10 does allow some of it. For example, I am really impressed by the fact that instead of waiting endlessly for engines they simply jammed a Su-30 engine into it. So in future what stops ADA from similarly jamming a single FGFA engine into a much larger LCA variant. With that much power at your disposal you may actually be able to shift some of the warload inside the fuselage and do a lot lot more. The air is not going to behave differently with a scaled up LCA. But the differential between the volume to area ( r : r^2 ) of a near cylinderical fuselage will allow for a significant jump in the internal volume relieving you from many of the challenges with current LCA. But this shows how aware Chinese designers must have been of the limitations they were facing. Surely our designers would have done equally if not better but for extraneous reasons which have prevented India from having its own military aviation in last 70 years.

F-16 with its evolving light bombing roles may actually not need RSS any more. In any case F-16 was known to be easily turnable from an RSS to Stable frame, per one of its designers. On top of that early F-16s were said to be positively stable at or around Mach 2. But F-16 from here on is a nearly dead design unless the Americans take interest in it, which they are not.

@Rahul Singh,

I am also not denying your hopes. Being an Indian I would love to see the NLCA Mk-2 with Brahmos-NG. I actually feel quite confident arguing in favour of such a combination.

What I still do not have confidence in is that the Indian Navy will be able to mate NLCA Mk-2 with Brahmos-NG and then willing have it fly from its carriers. Land based flying by Indian Navy is an altogether different topic and even two Brahmos-NG should be doable. But on carrier at the most 1 Brahmos-NG looks believable (or 2 of the XASM-3 which weigh in only slightly heavier than the C-802s). In fact unlike you I don't see NLCA Mk-2 as the principle naval fighter either. It sounds too maximalist to me.

Look at it like this:
1> We have 45 Mig-29K already capable of carrying Brahmos-NG, as and when it comes. The count is the same (IOW sufficient), as the SFC Sukhois which come in at 42 specifically meant for carrying Brahmos-A (2.5 tons / 9 meters).

2> Mig-29K is a 17.3 meter long plane with 2 engines of 88KN each. NLCA will be a 14.56 meter plane with 1 engine of 98KN.

3> My guess is there is a scaling constraint at work here. Su-30MKI (245KN) which can carry only 1 Brahmos-A will be able to take 3 Brahmos-NG. While the MRCA capability that comes in with Mig-29K (166 KN) will be able to manage only 2 of the Brahmos-NG. So there may actually be scope for carrying 1 Brahmos-NG with a NLCA Mk-2, provided off course the Brahmos-NG does not turn out too long for NLCA Mk-2. Currently, I have no view if the Brahmos-NG is too long or not for that purpose.

In such a situation we have to look at other aspects too. Like for example the limitations of Brahmos itself. There actually are aspects of Nirbhay that are going to make it just as lucrative a weapon, probably even superior in some crucial ways (not yet acknowledged in popular folklore). Though that would be an altogether new topic.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Published on Jun 30, 2016
First squadron of Light Combat Aircraft Tejas has been inducted into Indian Air Force in Bangalore.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Published on Jun 30, 2016
The Indian Air Force (IAF) will today raise the first squadron of home-grown Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas with the induction of two aircraft into the force. Message of religious harmony marked the induction ceremony of Tejas.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Published on Jul 1, 2016

‘DD News’ is the News Channel of India's Public Service Broadcaster 'Prasar Bharati'. DD News has been successfully discharging its responsibility to give balanced, fair and accurate news without sensationalizing as well as by carrying different shades of opinion.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The 40-year-old test pilot is the commanding officer of the IAF's 45 squadron nicknamed Flying Daggers. With 3,000 flying hours experience, Rangachari was part of the Mirage 2000 squadron before flying the multi-role Tejas since a year.

"I could do only horizontal profile and not vertical due to the cloudy sky. It's an excellent aircraft and generation ahead of other fighters in the world. Being the only of its kind (light combat), it's not comparable with other military aircraft," Mr Rangachari asserted.

"For flight demonstrations and aerobatics, we do not carry weapons, though Tejas is capable of flying with four-tonne payloads, including missiles and bombs and hitting targets accurately," Mr Rangachari claimed.

"The squadron has six test pilots, 20 technicians to fly the LCA and more fighter pilots will join us, as we induct two more of them this year and three more next year when delivered by HAL," Mr Rangachari said.

Source : http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/flying-tejas-felt-like-being-on-top-of-the-world-1426973

 

[abingdonboy]

The OneIndia report above is by Ananth Krishnan who has by now developed a reputation for not colouring his own reportage by his personal prejudices and hopes. I had put an unattributed quote from him only because I have faith in his reportage.

Brahmos-Mini is going to be 6 meter 1.5 tons, same as Nirbhay currently is. That is why they are saying that Nirbhay as it is can be mated to Su-30MKI. But to mate a Nirbhay to LCA the DRDO is reported to have claimed a need to shorten the Nirbhay by 25% ie. to a length of 4.5 meters. To swap a Tejas+Nirbhay variant for this Brahmos+Tejas variant, you will obviously have to reduce the Brahmos size to 4.5 meters too. But we already know Brahmos Mini is 6 meter.

The NLCA even in the Mk-2 version will have to use its excess capacity for extra internal fuel and not for heavier pylon load. So my suspicion is that they will persist with 1200 kg pylons or even if they re-design they will take it only till around 1500 kg. But that still does not solve the volume problem even for NLCA Mk-2.

However if you still insist in mating a high supersonic missile to later Tejas variants then you must look at changing Brahmos into a XASM-3 type missile (which will be a major major re-design effort):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XASM-3
Weight 900 kg (2,000 lb)[1]
Length 5.25 m (17.2 ft)[1]
Engine Integral Rocket Ramjet[1]
Operational range 150 km (81 nmi; 93 mi)
Speed Mach 3

Your 2 Brahmos Minis on one NLCA (presumably Mk-2) seems too much of an outlier to me. That will cut down the range of NLCA very badly and make NLCA shine on the radar like Bappi Lahari. You are asking for major trouble.

In any case LCA has only enough range to make itself felt at the borders. To hit beyond that you must rely on longer ranged Sukhois. Think about loiter times, ingress and egress speeds and altitudes, self protection capabilities, survivability etc.

An LCA with a stealthy Nirbhay variant is something we should look at seriously. Both to give LCA penetration capabilities and in general to screw the opponent from multiple directions. Something that Su-30MKI with Brahmos Mini will not be able to do, because the combo is going to be quite expensive for a real war.

There is just ZERO point in developing this kind of capability EXCEPT for the export market. The LCA (Mk.1/Mk.1A/Mk.2) in Indian service will ONLY ever be used as a rear guard for A2A and CAS support, it will never be involved in deep penetration or strike missions into enemy airspace so there is little need (for Indian users) to intergrate long range CMs like the Brahmos or Nirbhay. Let's not lose sight of what the LCA is, it is a beast for the role it is intended but it is NOT a Rafale or Su-30MKI and let's leave it to these heavies to take the fight to the enemy. The LCA won't be used as the tip of the spear, it will be second wave picking off the stradlers and supporting ground operations whilst the Rafale, MKIs and FGFA (hopefully AMCA in the future also) clean out the skies.

Having said that, a Bhramos-M launch capability on the LCA may be a VERY attractive option to friendly nations (I'm thinking of VN primarily but others will emerge).

For Indian users, I think it is more important to focus on expanding the A2A weapons and SDB muntions intergrated with the LCA so the ASTRA and Derby-ER/I-Derby should be targeted for sure and multi-rack ejectors are VITAL and I don't understand why the ADA haven't introduced them on the LCA as of yet; a few racks of the the Spice 250 will make the LCA truly deadly. I also would think it highly appropriate to intergrate the LCA with the CBU-105.

 

[abingdonboy]

No no, i get your point. But obvious question is why develop a dedicated all new air launched anti-ship missile when Navy's principal carrier born fighter (NLCA MK-2) can't carry it? I mean what could be logic behind mating it with Mig-29Ks but not NLCA MK-2s? I am sure Navy which will always be largest user of Brahmos will look into it.

Wrong assumptions here. The N-LCA will NEVER be the primary fighter asset of the Navy, it simply makes no sense. It is a LIGHT aircraft by definition and thus ill-suited for carrier ops to begin with. The IN is nurturing the N-LCA for the sake of the local industry and hoping bigger and better things come from it but do not confuse yourself that it will be used as the primary strike asset of the IN. At most the NLCA will support the fleet in CAP/BARCAP but IMO it will see limited operational/deployed service at sea.

It makes A LOT more sense to intergrate the Brahmos on the MiG-29K and Rafale-M that will serve the IN as their primary strike assets and are vastly more suited to do so.

 

[abingdonboy]

http://www.stratpost.com/naval-lca-face-reckoning-as-navy-mulls-catobar-fighters
by Saurab Joshi

This is 100% accurate though, what use does the Indian navy (or any navy) have for a light weight singled fighter like the NLCA Mk.2? I just don't see it.

We can see what kind of scandal the 40 million mirage 2000 upgrade is by simply taking a look at Ranga's comment on Tejas,

His comments are clearly about the 1980s Mirage 2000s not the IAF's upgraded standard the 2000-5 Mk.2 which are easily some of the most deadly and advanced fighters in the world incorporating features from the Rafale.

How can an IAF ,70 percent of whose fleet is mostly obsoleted , near retirement fighters, "feign" disinterest in tejas mk2 is beyond belief for me!!!

Now this is the quesiton, the LCA Mk.2 makes PERFECT sense for the IAF, i don't understand why it seems thy are disinterested in it. I am hoping the positive expereince of the Mk.1A and actually getting their hands on the LCA will see them have a change of heart. I see no reason why the IAF can't commit to 300 LCA (100 Mk.1As and 200 Mk.2s).

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In case you missed the link its an requirement given by IAF to mount such an arsenal into the platform,

Further, from Next year it will be deployed at front lines, The link is posted in this very thread ..

Airforce is highly investing on UCAV and Cruise missiles, Its very obvious that the plan to mount cruise missiles for strike purpose from air within Indian Airspace ..

Unlike other light fighter in IAF, Tejas is far ahead according to commanding officer of dagger squadron ..

==========================

Don`t get on quick conclusions abt Navy, Contrary to your perception of situation IAF pilots see Tejas MK1 is better than that of Mir-2005 ..

There is just ZERO point in developing this kind of capability EXCEPT for the export market. The LCA (Mk.1/Mk.1A/Mk.2) in Indian service will ONLY ever be used as a rear guard for A2A and CAS support, it will never be involved in deep penetration or strike missions into enemy airspace so there is little need (for Indian users) to intergrate long range CMs like the Brahmos or Nirbhay.

Wrong assumptions here. The N-LCA will NEVER be the primary fighter asset of the Navy, it simply makes no sense. .

His comments are clearly about the 1980s Mirage 2000s not the IAF's upgraded standard the 2000-5 Mk.2 which are easily some of the most deadly and advanced fighters in the world incorporating features from the Rafale..

 

[Prashant12]

'LCA Tejas on a par with contemporaries'

The LCA Tejas is on par if not better, with any other fourth generation fighter aircraft, said Commanding Officer Madhav Rangachari.

With around 3,000 flying hours to his credit, Madhav has flown the Mirage 2000 and MiG-21. Asked about his opinion of the LCA Tejas, he said that it is of a high quality in terms of the fly by wire system and the league ahead in avionics than many aircraft of its kind. “I have been flying the aircraft for the past one year now and it has a lot of potential. It will surely do a great job for the IAF. It is a stepping stone and a milestone in the history of the country,” he said.

Madhav explained that the aircraft could carry a maximum payload of four tonnes and travel at a maximum speed of 1.6 times the speed of sound and at its slowest speed of 120 knots to 100 knots.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/555511/lca-tejas-par-contemporaries.html