ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Defcon 1]

1. The difference here is not just about the concept but prototype as well as funding, Similar generations for example the latest imported hardware is actually conceived in late 70s with prototyping and got funded in next half decade or so unlike Tejas.

The discussion is on the article. The article doesn't mentions funding, but simply ridicules EFT for making first flight of TD in 1986 and late entry into service.

2. We are talking about a third world country such as India who depend on other nation for material technology back then and even today to some extend, Very unlikely the case with first world countries, Their development phases and technological access is proof of it.

India never depended on foreign nations for critical technology for LCA in 1990's other than control laws. During the 1990s when the nuclear tests happened, Engine was still going to be Kaveri, and radar was still going to be completely Indian. Only FBW was the major system impacted due to sanctions. Foreign engine and radar were only decided upon in late 2000s. For European nations, there whole programs were thrown into jeopardy since the projected demand of fighter planes itself decreased, putting questions on its viability. LCA was always undertaken as a research project in India, in the sense that its funding was never dependent on the numbers IAF wanted to induct. ADA was kept separate from HAL, hence, increase or decrease in demand of LCA did not impact the development.

To add a small thing, it was India which did the nuclear tests first which resulted in sanctions, hence we should have predicted the response and make suitable arrangements to get the control laws from elsewhere in case of sanctions since we knew we were going to test nuclear weapons. But if we didn't and ADA's team was thrown out of LM's facility, its totally our own fault. For European countries, end of cold war was an external event they couldn't have prepared for.

3. MK1P/A is a version of MK1, Their is nothing new abt it.

Similarly tranche 3 is a version of EFT. There is nothing new about it. Hence, the article criticism of EFT for not having AESA is incorrect.

4. The so call short legged is work horse of Indian Airforce operational doctorine both in peace and war, Even today their are more sorties done by MIG-21 than SU-30MKI, In future it will remain so as IAF as the number suggest.

What do the number suggest? 120 light LCA vs 250 heavy Su30MKI and 200 odd FGFA? The IAF is not inducting short legged fighters anymore. Both the fifth gen programs are for heavy/medium weight fighters. LCA will be the only light fighter in IAF.

 

[wuzetian]

The discussion is on the article. The article doesn't mentions funding, but simply ridicules EFT for making first flight of TD in 1986 and late entry into service.


India never depended on foreign nations for critical technology for LCA in 1990's other than control laws. During the 1990s when the nuclear tests happened, Engine was still going to be Kaveri, and radar was still going to be completely Indian. Only FBW was the major system impacted due to sanctions. Foreign engine and radar were only decided upon in late 2000s. For European nations, there whole programs were thrown into jeopardy since the projected demand of fighter planes itself decreased, putting questions on its viability. LCA was always undertaken as a research project in India, in the sense that its funding was never dependent on the numbers IAF wanted to induct. ADA was kept separate from HAL, hence, increase or decrease in demand of LCA did not impact the development.

To add a small thing, it was India which did the nuclear tests first which resulted in sanctions, hence we should have predicted the response and make suitable arrangements to get the control laws from elsewhere in case of sanctions since we knew we were going to test nuclear weapons. But if we didn't and ADA's team was thrown out of LM's facility, its totally our own fault. For European countries, end of cold war was an external event they couldn't have prepared for.


Similarly tranche 3 is a version of EFT. There is nothing new about it. Hence, the article criticism of EFT for not having AESA is incorrect.



What do the number suggest? 120 light LCA vs 250 heavy Su30MKI and 200 odd FGFA? The IAF is not inducting short legged fighters anymore. Both the fifth gen programs are for heavy/medium weight fighters. LCA will be the only light fighter in IAF.

Please give examples of European fighter programs that were cut down in the 90's

 

[Defcon 1]

Please give examples of European fighter programs that were cut down in the 90's

Rafale's example:
First pic proves that French defence budget has been declining since 1991 and aircraft procurement took the brunt of those cuts.

Second pics shows how to get procurement back on track, the development time of Rafale was stretched.

Source:
The Arms Production Dilemma: Contraction and Restraint in the World Combat, by Randall Forsberg.

For EFT and to some extent Gripen:

The Swedes have always had to scramble to sell the Gripen in the face of intense competition from new and used American (especially used F-16s), Russian, and European jet fighters. EADS, the manufacturer of the Eurofighter, threatened to upset the Swiss Gripen deal by offering 22 second hand Eurofighters for half of what the new JAS 39Es cost. This sort of thing is possible because several nations are cancelling orders for Eurofighters, an aircraft designed at the end of the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, orders for Eurofighters were cut and continue to be cut. This has created a market for used Eurofighters, which compete with used F-16s. While the new Gripen was more suitable to Swiss needs, a 50 percent discount was very attractive. The Swedes had to sweeten their deal to handle the threat of second-hand Eurofighters.

https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Gripen-Abides-11-24-2014.asp

Edit: Adding another source for EFT:

The EFA was in trouble again by 1992, under threat from the “peace dividend” expectations of European parliaments. Germany threatened to pull out altogether, after initially chopping numbers to 140, while Italy and Spain reduced the size of their planned buys. After much political bickering, the programme survived with revised build numbers, but serious delays were incurred.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

 

[wuzetian]

Rafale's example:
First pic proves that French defence budget has been declining since 1991 and aircraft procurement took the brunt of those cuts.

Second pics shows how to get procurement back on track, the development time of Rafale was stretched.

Source:
The Arms Production Dilemma: Contraction and Restraint in the World Combat, by Randall Forsberg.

For EFT and to some extent Gripen:

https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Gripen-Abides-11-24-2014.asp

Edit: Adding another source for EFT:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

Thanks a lot buddy. The irony is now we are finding Rafale while our own Tejas is struggling.

 

[Defcon 1]

Thanks a lot buddy. The irony is now we are finding Rafale while our own Tejas is struggling.

What do you mean by finding Rafale? Anyways, I believe we should have this discussion on some other thread if you want. I don't think mods will approve us discussing Rafale on LCA thread.

 

[Certified Gipsy]

The discussion is on the article. The article doesn't mentions funding, but simply ridicules EFT for making first flight of TD in 1986 and late entry into service.


India never depended on foreign nations for critical technology for LCA in 1990's other than control laws. During the 1990s when the nuclear tests happened, Engine was still going to be Kaveri, and radar was still going to be completely Indian. Only FBW was the major system impacted due to sanctions. Foreign engine and radar were only decided upon in late 2000s. For European nations, there whole programs were thrown into jeopardy since the projected demand of fighter planes itself decreased, putting questions on its viability. LCA was always undertaken as a research project in India, in the sense that its funding was never dependent on the numbers IAF wanted to induct. ADA was kept separate from HAL, hence, increase or decrease in demand of LCA did not impact the development.

To add a small thing, it was India which did the nuclear tests first which resulted in sanctions, hence we should have predicted the response and make suitable arrangements to get the control laws from elsewhere in case of sanctions since we knew we were going to test nuclear weapons. But if we didn't and ADA's team was thrown out of LM's facility, its totally our own fault. For European countries, end of cold war was an external event they couldn't have prepared for.


Similarly tranche 3 is a version of EFT. There is nothing new about it. Hence, the article criticism of EFT for not having AESA is incorrect.



What do the number suggest? 120 light LCA vs 250 heavy Su30MKI and 200 odd FGFA? The IAF is not inducting short legged fighters anymore. Both the fifth gen programs are for heavy/medium weight fighters. LCA will be the only light fighter in IAF.

This is NOT true. When LCA Tejas was conceived in 1986, it was immediately decided that the first prototypes would fly using the General Electric F404 GE F243. A parallel program was initiated to develop an indigenous engine, mainly because we did not want Tejas project to get destroyed due to lack of a reliable engine and steady supply of the same for production phase like the case of Marut. If the new indigenous engine was successful, it was then planned to be used in the production versions of LCA, not in the prototype versions. So right from the start, Tejas was dependent on a foreign engine to test the prototype and take the first flight.

Jane's book clearly documents this in his list of engines, where he dedicates an issue for kaveri engine. (Gunston, Bill (Ed.) (15 June 2006). "GTRE Kaveri" in Jane’s Aero-Engines, Issue 14. Coulsdon, Surrey, UK: Jane's Information Group Limited )

Not only did we decide in the initial project definition phase on the foreign engines to by used for Tejas prototypes, even the type of design that should be used for the Tejas was after collaboration and help in the project definition phase from France's Dassault aviation. The foreign collaboration on the flight control system with LM was the other area where we were dependent on foreign help right from the project definition stage.

The then Scientific advisor to the defense minister and DRDO chief Dr. Arunachalam made the decision on his own and forced the decision to use delta wing design (Recommendations on design by Dassault Aviation based on their experience on Mirages and Rafale?) on the two chief and extremely talented engineers of ADA. Both the engineers Dr. S.R Valluri and Dr. Raj Mahindra resigned from their positions in ADA and said that they are not ready to dance to the tunes and directions from Mr. Arunachalam(Delhi) on how the design should be and they have too much of interference from Delhi, without any independence to the design team.

Have a look at this bureaucratic ego games right from the start of the project.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tic-hassles-serious-differences/1/348124.html

Note carefully that the GE engines that we used were planned well at the start and were bougt even before the post Pokrhan sanctions, which is why we were still able to test the prototype jet's first flight in 2001, though it was planned in 1999, but had to be postponed till 2001 as we were kicked out of the US after Pokran and their cooperation for flight control system cancelled. Our scientists and software designers then developed our own Fly by wire system and the flight took off in 2001. After 2001, we were stuck up because f sanctions where we could not buy any more GE engines for the production phase and Kaveri was stuck up with deep shortcomings in the expected outcomes. It was in 2002, that GTRE made public that "Kaveri had a tendency to "throw" turbine blades, which required securing blades and also digital engine control systems from SNECMA". Again we were in sanctions period and only in 2003, we decided to procure 14 more engines from GE, but an improved version IN20, for which ADA paid money to GE and the first engine was delivered in 2006 for the limited series production units.

Between 1998 and 2006, it was a period of great uncertainty for Tejas and every one at first thought that Tejas would never fly and even if it flies with the already procured foreign engine, will not be able to get into production series due to kaveri's failure and therefore the fate of Tejas would be the same as Marut.

Some important sources:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tic-hassles-serious-differences/1/348124.html
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/09/stories/08090006.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/biz/2002/09/16/stories/2002091600190300.htm
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri&nojs=1

 

[Certified Gipsy]

Here is another report on Tejas and Kaveri from 2009-10. https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=15

 

[Certified Gipsy]

Source: LCA Tejas Facebook

Answer to one of questions, It seems AoA of 26 degree has been achieved.

Q>When will the AoA be increased to 26 deg?
Ans>Already flight tested. Will be in the final version for FOC.

This was achieved in 2014 itself and the air force now wants it to be 28. As per Saurav Jha, reaching 28 is possible and being done currently.

http://www.news18.com/blogs/india/s...-prospect-for-make-in-india-10879-748651.html

What is the AoA of MiG 21?

Also does anyone know what the latest combat radius of Tejas is? Still 500 km as in IOC ( http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102056 ) or have they increased it beyond that?

 

[wuzetian]

What do you mean by finding Rafale? Anyways, I believe we should have this discussion on some other thread if you want. I don't think mods will approve us discussing Rafale on LCA thread.

It was a typo - I meant funding Rafale

 

[Defcon 1]

This is NOT true. When LCA Tejas was conceived in 1986, it was immediately decided that the first prototypes would fly using the General Electric F404 GE F243. A parallel program was initiated to develop an indigenous engine, mainly because we did not want Tejas project to get destroyed due to lack of a reliable engine and steady supply of the same for production phase like the case of Marut. If the new indigenous engine was successful, it was then planned to be used in the production versions of LCA, not in the prototype versions. So right from the start, Tejas was dependent on a foreign engine to test the prototype and take the first flight.

View attachment 11343

Jane's book clearly documents this in his list of engines, where he dedicates an issue for kaveri engine. (Gunston, Bill (Ed.) (15 June 2006). "GTRE Kaveri" in Jane’s Aero-Engines, Issue 14. Coulsdon, Surrey, UK: Jane's Information Group Limited )

Not only did we decide in the initial project definition phase on the foreign engines to by used for Tejas prototypes, even the type of design that should be used for the Tejas was after collaboration and help in the project definition phase from France's Dassault aviation. The foreign collaboration on the flight control system with LM was the other area where we were dependent on foreign help right from the project definition stage.

View attachment 11344

The then Scientific advisor to the defense minister and DRDO chief Dr. Arunachalam made the decision on his own and forced the decision to use delta wing design (Recommendations on design by Dassault Aviation based on their experience on Mirages and Rafale?) on the two chief and extremely talented engineers of ADA. Both the engineers Dr. S.R Valluri and Dr. Raj Mahindra resigned from their positions in ADA and said that they are not ready to dance to the tunes and directions from Mr. Arunachalam(Delhi) on how the design should be and they have too much of interference from Delhi, without any independence to the design team.

Have a look at this bureaucratic ego games right from the start of the project.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tic-hassles-serious-differences/1/348124.html

Note carefully that the GE engines that we used were planned well at the start and were bougt even before the post Pokrhan sanctions, which is why we were still able to test the prototype jet's first flight in 2001, though it was planned in 1999, but had to be postponed till 2001 as we were kicked out of the US after Pokran and their cooperation for flight control system cancelled. Our scientists and software designers then developed our own Fly by wire system and the flight took off in 2001. After 2001, we were stuck up because f sanctions where we could not buy any more GE engines for the production phase and Kaveri was stuck up with deep shortcomings in the expected outcomes. It was in 2002, that GTRE made public that "Kaveri had a tendency to "throw" turbine blades, which required securing blades and also digital engine control systems from SNECMA". Again we were in sanctions period and only in 2003, we decided to procure 14 more engines from GE, but an improved version IN20, for which ADA paid money to GE and the first engine was delivered in 2006 for the limited series production units.

Between 1998 and 2006, it was a period of great uncertainty for Tejas and every one at first thought that Tejas would never fly and even if it flies with the already procured foreign engine, will not be able to get into production series due to kaveri's failure and therefore the fate of Tejas would be the same as Marut.

Some important sources:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tic-hassles-serious-differences/1/348124.html
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/09/stories/08090006.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/biz/2002/09/16/stories/2002091600190300.htm
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri&nojs=1

Lots of problems in your posts. Below are my points:
1. First of all, I have already said that FBW was impacted due to sanctions, I don't know why you have written the same thing in your post. I have also mentioned that since the sanctions were triggered by us, we could have planned better.
2. Collaboration with Snecma and Dassault was not impacted because of sanctions since France never sanctioned us.
3. Bureaucratic egos and delays are our own fault, not sanction's
4. I am not saying that GE engines were not supposed to be used for prototypes. But the program was never "dependent" on them. We could have bought other engines for prototypes and LSPs if GE engines were not available. And anyways, availability of GE engines was not hampered due to US sanctions. I can prove it if you want. So your whole point about LCA engine facing problems due sanctions is invalid. Only FBW was impacted, which added some 18 months to the flight of the prototype. Sanctions were removed soon after. Rest of the delays were result of our faults.

 

[Certified Gipsy]

^^

I ain't here to wake up someone that is pretending to sleep. You believe what you want to believe and don't have to try too hard to force your view on others,.

 

[Defcon 1]

Lots of problems in your posts. Below are my points:
1. First of all, I have already said that FBW was impacted due to sanctions, I don't know why you have written the same thing in your post. I have also mentioned that since the sanctions were triggered by us, we could have planned better.
2. Collaboration with Snecma and Dassault was not impacted because of sanctions since France never sanctioned us.
3. Bureaucratic egos and delays are our own fault, not sanction's
4. I am not saying that GE engines were not supposed to be used for prototypes. But the program was never "dependent" on them. We could have bought other engines for prototypes and LSPs if GE engines were not available. And anyways, availability of GE engines was not hampered due to US sanctions. I can prove it if you want. So your whole point about LCA engine facing problems due sanctions is invalid. Only FBW was impacted, which added some 18 months to the flight of the prototype. Sanctions were removed soon after. Rest of the delays were result of our faults.

Edit: In point 4, the first flight delayed was of TD, not prototype. Mistyped. Mods, kindly correct my original post and delete this one if possible.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

LCA-Tejas FOC Deadline Further Delayed To Middle Of 2017

Status of LCA Tejas
Commodore CD Balaji, Director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) said that the final operational clearance (FOC) for the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft – Tejas – that was recently inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF), is expected to get further delayed to the middle of 2017.
Commodore CD Balaji told The Sunday Express on the sidelines of a symposium on “Technologies in Defence and Internal Security” organized by the Indian Institute of Technology-Gandhinagar (IIT-Gn) on Saturday.
“The LCA has completed about 3270 flight tests…. We are expecting to receive the final operational clearances by the middle of next year,” he said.
Squadron Strength
All squadrons of Tejas will be made up of 20 planes in total, including four in reserve. As per the plan, while 20 would be inducted under the "Initial Operational Clearance", another 20 will be inducted later with Beyond Visual Range Missile (BVR) and other critical features. The IAF plans to induct over 80 aircraft with better specifications.
The upgraded version of Tejas, with Active Electrically Scanned Array Radar, Unified Electronic Warfare Suite, mid-air refueling capacity and advanced beyond the vision range missiles, will cost between Rs 275 crore and Rs 300 crore. While the idea to have an indigenous fighter aircraft was conceptualized in the 1970s, the actual work started only in the 90s and the first flight took place in January 2001.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/10/lca-tejas-foc-deadline-further-delayed.html


India to push back FOC Deadline for LCA-Tejas again

Reliable well-informed sources close to idrw.org have confirmed that indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas’s Final Operational Clearance (FOC) might be further delayed and might be pushed back to the middle of next year . FOC was expected by mid-2016 for Tejas, later which was shifted to year end or and later pushed back to Q4 for fiscal 2016-17 but now it might be pushed back to Q2 fiscal in 2017-18 . Integration of Air-to- Air Refuelling probe with LCA Tejas and its trials are still due and delays in their deliveries from Cobham U.K , further pushed FOC. HAL has begun testing new designed quartz radome but Further, radar testing needs to be carried out before new radome can replace older ones . A further test of Israeli origin Beyond-Visual- Range Air-to- Air Missile (BVRAAM) Derby missile needs to be carried out along with test firing of fifth generation Air- to-Air Close Combat Missile, Python 5 which still are pending. Tejas had earlier successfully test fired the BVRAAM Derby missile. Commodore CD Balaji, director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) said that the final operational clearance (FOC) confirmed the development .
http://idrw.org/india-push-backs-foc-for-lca-tejas-again/

LCA TEJAS FOC DEADLINE FURTHER DELAYED TO MIDDLE OF 2017

We should bring in TATAs for making of tejas. Each years, one squadron by HAL and one by TATA. They should also be entrusted with the task to redesign many parts and to take a continual improvement process like US does in case of F 18. With each squadron, weight should go down as well as improvements must take place. A long back, i had heard about the redesign of wings to give it more strength and make it light in weight.

 

[WolfPack86]

We should bring in TATAs for making of tejas. Each years, one squadron by HAL and one by TATA. They should also be entrusted with the task to redesign many parts and to take a continual improvement process like US does in case of F 18. With each squadron, weight should go down as well as improvements must take place. A long back, i had heard about the redesign of wings to give it more strength and make it light in weight.

Yes you are right Tata is the only option to increase production rate of Tejas. I love Tejas, if we improve tejas very similar to F-18 like Tejas MK1A, Tejas MK2 and Tejas Mk3 is stealth design very similar F-35.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Yes you are right Tata is the only option to increase production rate of Tejas. I love Tejas, if we improve tejas very similar to F-18 like Tejas MK1A, Tejas MK2 and Tejas Mk3 is stealth design very similar F-35.

As I had said earlier, We need to take an approach similar to what Russia took in making of PAKFA. They picked up Basic Su version design and added stealth to it. I do not want Tejas to be as stealthy as F35 (Because it will take too long time to design and compromise lots of aerodynamic and thus range) but a lots of stealth can be added to it.

 

[WolfPack86]

As I had said earlier, We need to take an approach similar to what Russia took in making of PAKFA. They picked up Basic Su version design and added stealth to it. I do not want Tejas to be as stealthy as F35 (Because it will take too long time to design and compromise lots of aerodynamic and thus range) but a lots of stealth can be added to it.

Like semi stealth design in Tejas and some internal bays for missiles and bombs

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Like semi stealth design in Tejas and some internal bays for missiles and bombs

Whatever. Like euro fighter shall also be fine.

 

[charlie]

We should bring in TATAs for making of tejas. Each years, one squadron by HAL and one by TATA. They should also be entrusted with the task to redesign many parts and to take a continual improvement process like US does in case of F 18. With each squadron, weight should go down as well as improvements must take place. A long back, i had heard about the redesign of wings to give it more strength and make it light in weight.

Well nobody wants to produce LCA as of now because they don't see much revenue in it as HAL will also be producing it.

If TATA produces LCA it will much more expensive.

 

[WolfPack86]

Whatever. Like euro fighter shall also be fine.

Okay that seems very good idea

 

[Chinmoy]

This was achieved in 2014 itself and the air force now wants it to be 28. As per Saurav Jha, reaching 28 is possible and being done currently.

View attachment 11345

http://www.news18.com/blogs/india/s...-prospect-for-make-in-india-10879-748651.html

What is the AoA of MiG 21?

Also does anyone know what the latest combat radius of Tejas is? Still 500 km as in IOC ( http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102056 ) or have they increased it beyond that?

View attachment 11346

If the ferry range is that of 1700 km, assume its combat radius to be anywhere between 500 to 700 km. But is this ferry range is with or without drop tanks. I am safely assuming it without the drop tanks, as per open source range of Tejas is 3000 km.