ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kshithij]

The moment that weird old man said that the world's Lightest 4.5th/4th generation fighter is "overweight", i decided to stop watching. But then i continued anyways, till he said that the Tejas mk2 will be somewhere in the vicinity of the Mirage2000.
Closed the video right away. lol

Overweight for its thrust. F404 is not the right engine

 

[Babloo Singh]

I guess as far as Tejas Mk 2 is concerned, all the noise & feeling of slowdown is due to Kaveri.
Looks like we are moving ahead on Kaveri with Safran's help.
Things will need to slow down till we start testing & get exact data like fuel consumption, weight & CG

A few 100 kg lighter Mk1A equipped with Kaveri which is lighter & more fuel efficient than GE 414, will kill the urgency factor for Mk 2. As it will improve both the range & performance of Mk 1A.

But if Kaveri turns out to be heavier and less fuel efficient than GE 414, Mk 2 will need to provide for more internal fuel & our option of using Kaveri on Mk1A goes off the table as it will reduce already limited range of Tejas1.

We will see urgency & definite movement on Tejas & Single Engine Fighter only in second half of next year...

 

[pmaitra]

This is what Prasun Sengupta has to say about recent LCA negativity

"HAL can provide the same type of consultancy (provided by Dassault), but to date no one has answered why HAL’s contribution in such areas was not sought since the late 1980s! The only one who can answer this is Dr V S Arunachalam, the then DRDO Chief in the late 1980s who successfully convinced the then PM Rajiv Gandhi to adopt the totally flawed methodology of developing the LCA Mk.1. It was evident to any qualified person (I.e. a licensed aeronautical engineer) by 2006 itself that the LCA Mk.1’s design & developmental roadmap was totally flawed & unacceptable to the prospective end-users (more about it explained below). But all this emerged in full-view only since 2015 when the stark truth could no longer stay hidden through denials!

Only those with blinkers on will view the issue as being negative or positive, as opposed to making an objective, emotion-less assessment of ground realities. One must NEVER be passionate about such matters, since injection of emotions clouds one’s final judgement. Now, let’s get the foundational fundamentals right:

1) Anyone seeking to develop a 4th-gen MRCA must receive substantial technical & industrial support from an established aircraft manufacturer from the detailed design stage itself. Was this the case with the LCA project? Definitely not, since the DRDO’s ADA was left in total charge of the LCA’s developmental effort.

2) The person heading ADA ought to be a licensed aeronautical engineer who understands the mandatory need for an optimally engineered end-product. Have any of ADA’s Directors to date been licensed aeronautical engineers? NO.

3) As per universal practice, ONLY a licensed aeronautical engineer will understand that whenever any combat aircraft is being developed, it is MANDATORY to start flight-testing the initial prototytpe aircraft with its on-board cannon & internal self-protection suite ALREADY INSTALLED. Why? Elementary: internal cannopn-firing involves generation of exhaust gases & kinetic recoil that have consequences for engine air-intake design/positioning configuration & the latter affects the structural integrity of the airframe. Until these 2 factors can be quantified through flight-tests, the airframe service-life can NEVER be established. Similarly, internal self-protection suites using EW jammers radiate energy that affects the performance of other avionics LRUs, i.e. electromagnetic interference (EMI). Hence, unless the compatibility of the EW jammer with other on-board mission avionics is established, the optimal performance of the entire mission avionics suite can never be ascertained. Has all this been done so far? NO. Cannon-fire tests/qualification & internal jammer-avionics compatibility tests should have been undertaken as far back as 2006. Since this wasn’t done & still hasn’t been done (contrary to global practices), virtually the entire LCA developmental effort tantamounts to putting the cart before the horse. Again, only licensed aeronautical engineers—not internet fanboys or techies engaged in CAD—are able to comprehend suich mandatory real-life realities. Hence, all that is outstanding for the IAF to do is say & convincingly prove (through easily available empirical data) that the airframe design/robustness Tejas Mk.1 & Tejas Mk.1A is UNSOUND from a flight-safety standpoint & that will be the final nail in the coffin of these two aircraft variants!!!

4) As for LCA versus MiG-21, don’t compare apples with oranges, i.e. 4th-gen MRCA with 2nd-gen MRCA. If you want to compare quantum of testers reqd/used, then do so between the LCA & Rafale or LCA & Gripen or F-16 Block 70. MiG-21 obviously requires far less testers since it does not possess the quantum of on-board avionics the LCA Mk.1 does. Human resource is always the most expensive component of any institution & that’s why the manpower-levels of the IA & IAF have stayed frozen & have not had any increases since the 1990s-hence don’t delude yourself with wrong assumptions."

What is a "licensed aeronautical engineer?"

A person who has a degree in aeronautical engineering or aerospace engineering will be able to do the job. A person with a degree in physics and specialization in fluid mechanics would do a good job at designing air frames.

What's up with licensing? A degree from a university is the license. A few research publications add weight to the license.

The author is speaking like a layman.

 

[kstriya]

Assembling Tejas is good work HAL is doing but can someone highlight what value additions is HAL doing to the project from the years of experience it has from assembling other types of aircraft????

 

[proud_indian]

Assembling Tejas is good work HAL is doing but can someone highlight what value additions is HAL doing to the project from the years of experience it has from assembling other types of aircraft????

what kind of value addition do you expect? There is an SOP that needs to be followed that HAL can't interfere with.

 

[Kyubi]

What is a "licensed aeronautical engineer?"

A person who has a degree in aeronautical engineering or aerospace engineering will be able to do the job. A person with a degree in physics and specialization in fluid mechanics would do a good job at designing air frames.

What's up with licensing? A degree from a university is the license. A few research publications add weight to the license.

The author is speaking like a layman.

Something like DGCA conducts written examination for pilots and engineers .
It also issues licences to defence personnel

International civil aviation organization , European Aviation Safety Agency issues licences for aeronautical engineers

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[piKacHHu]

What is a "licensed aeronautical engineer?"

A person who has a degree in aeronautical engineering or aerospace engineering will be able to do the job. A person with a degree in physics and specialization in fluid mechanics would do a good job at designing air frames.

What's up with licensing? A degree from a university is the license. A few research publications add weight to the license.

The author is speaking like a layman.

He is not speaking like layman! He is talking in context of USA where design engineers are required to obtain Professional Engineers (PE) license in areas where consequences of design error are significant. It is customary for architecture and civil engineers in US to obtain PE to work in large infrastructure projects. Even for aeronautical engineers, they may require PE license for applying to design positions.
The license is not required for engineer grads doing only CFD studies or component design, however, for those who involve in conceptualizing, designing & modifying aircraft, such licenses are required. Those who undergo through the qualification exam learn more about qualification criteria, benchmarking & testing, safe operational envelop, & safety criteria apart from fundamentals of aerospace engineering.

Refer: http://www.careerprofiles.info/aerospace-engineer.html

Licensing

At first, aerospace engineers do not need to have a license. However, as they gain more experience and responsibility, a license becomes required. Licensed aerospace engineers are called professional engineers (PE). In order to become licensed, an engineer must have:

• A degree from an engineering program accredited by ABET
• A passing score on the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam
• Relevant work experience
• A passing score on the Professional Engineering (PE) exam
  Several exams are required for licensure. The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam comes first, and can be taken as soon as an engineer has a bachelor's degree. If the engineer passes this exam, he or she becomes known as an engineer intern (EI), or an engineer in training (EIT). The next exam is called the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam, and can only be taken after the EI has gained enough experience on the job.
  
  Every state's licensing requirements are different. In some states, professional engineers must take further courses in their field, or else they lose their license. State licenses are typically valid in other states, depending on the particular requirements for licensure in that state.
  

 

[SELVAM]

A blatant misinformation campaign by sushant singh in Indian express. Did we hav any law to prosecute this prostitutes who write whatever for few dollars from foreign arms manufacturers.

Tejas and beyond: How short the IAF is of fighters, what options it has now

http://indianexpress.com/article/ex...-of-fighters-what-options-it-has-now-4946876/

 

[Compersion]

we need replace the pesky and long serving mig-21s ...

would like to have the LCA Tejas platform improved further and further and update. like the different block versions for f-16. thats where industry and different pockets of skills and development can be setup.

 

[rohit b3]

Let's suppose, if HAL delivered all 40 (IOC + FOC) LCAs by 2020 and production of MK1A will be scheduled for 2022 (as it is continuously getting delayed because of FOC delay). Now tell me, what to do with all human resources who don't have anything to do for almost 2 years?

Practically, they can start its 3rd production in 2019 but they will not start the production untill or unless MK1A will not get finalised.

It is the official words of HAL Chris that if they start metal cutting today than first MK1A will be available after 3 years. He also said that LCA will get FOC by mid 2018 or Dec 2018 for sure.after 2018 you may count 3 years for first MK1A, only if IAF sign the contract by the end of 2018 or early 2019.

We need an urgent change in policies, if GoI/MoD likes to see LCAs in IAF in healthy numbers.

Thats the whole point!
Tejas mk1A was promised from 2020 or 2021 at best so that @ 16 a year all deliveries would be completed by 2024-25.
Apart from that personally, i have been hoping for the Tejas mk2 to fly by 2022 so that it can enter service by 2024-25 and pushed down the Navy's throat, before starting deliveries to the IAF from 2027.

FOC should be irrelevant now as there are no design changes between IOC and FOC. And the only slight design change i see in the mk1A is the shaving off 300-500 kgs.

My point basically is, Tejas is already delayed by a decade. HAL needs to work on war footing to make up for some part of it. But they seem lethargic and just giving Taarik pe Taarik.

 

[rohit b3]

Overweight for its thrust. F404 is not the right engine

Are you aware that the GE404 gives Tejas a TWR ratio of 0.96(at 100% fuel), which can be termed as "Good" to say the least, and the best when it comes to comparable light fighters like the Gripen C ,JF17 and FA-50?

On the other hand, i have never seen people complaining that the Gripen C's TWR is actually 0.90, while the Gripen E's is even worse at 0.89.

 

[TPFscopes]

Thats the whole point!
Tejas mk1A was promised from 2020 or 2021 at best so that @ 16 a year all deliveries would be completed by 2024-25.

Practically, MK1A will be available for first flight by 2020 than after contract will get signed and production will get started. If production start from 2021 than first MK1A will get delivered within 24-36 months. Rest you can calculate the delivery schedule at 16 units/year.

Apart from that personally, i have been hoping for the Tejas mk2 to fly by 2022 so that it can enter service by 2024-25 and pushed down the Navy's throat, before starting deliveries to the IAF from 2027.

As per Official figures MK2 FOC (IAF) is possible not before 2025.

FOC should be irrelevant now as there are no design changes between IOC and FOC. And the only slight design change i see in the mk1A is the shaving off 300-500 kgs.

No FOC requirements for MK1A. But contract will be signed only after first flight of MK1A.

My point basically is, Tejas is already delayed by a decade. HAL needs to work on war footing to make up for some part of it. But they seem lethargic and just giving Taarik pe Taarik.

It is very general case with Sarkari tags..

 

[Kshithij]

Are you aware that the GE404 gives Tejas a TWR ratio of 0.96(at 100% fuel), which can be termed as "Good" to say the least, and the best when it comes to comparable light fighters like the Gripen C ,JF17 and FA-50?

On the other hand, i have never seen people complaining that the Gripen C's TWR is actually 0.90, while the Gripen E's is even worse at 0.89.

It is not good enough for carrier roles. Carrier roles need 100kN thrust for Tejas MK1A and even more for Mk2.

Compare with MiG29 which has empty weight of 11tons, 3.5 ton fuel and 5.5 ton payload (total of 20ton) with 2 engines of 88.5kN each (total 177kN). Tejas has 6.7ton+2.4ton+3.8ton (total of 13 ton) for 90kN engine.

Thrust to weight at full load is 0.885 for MiG29 and 0.692 for Tejas. Navy also said the same thing - Tejas is incapable of taking off from ski-jump at full payload. You are looking at full fuel without payload. In that case Tejas can take off from carrier. But that is not a good way of judging.

 

[Steven Rogers]

It is not good enough for carrier roles. Carrier roles need 100kN thrust for Tejas MK1A and even more for Mk2.

Compare with MiG29 which has empty weight of 11tons, 3.5 ton fuel and 5.5 ton payload (total of 20ton) with 2 engines of 88.5kN each (total 177kN). Tejas has 6.7ton+2.4ton+3.8ton (total of 13 ton) for 90kN engine.

Thrust to weight at full load is 0.885 for MiG29 and 0.692 for Tejas. Navy also said the same thing - Tejas is incapable of taking off from ski-jump at full payload. You are looking at full fuel without payload. In that case Tejas can take off from carrier. But that is not a good way of judging.

Tejas mk1 for navy has dry weight of 8900kgees, (said by an official at Aero Indian 2017) .

 

[Kshithij]

Tejas mk1 for navy has dry weight of 8900kgees, (said by an official at Aero Indian 2017) .

Impossible with full payload. It is possible to reduce the weight of Tejas by reducing the radar ability as air to air combat may not be priority and reduction in EW, jammer etc. But payload and fuel has to he there. 9 ton is too less for anything

 

[BON PLAN]

Successful Flight Tests For the Active Array Radar Offered by Thales to HAL’s Tejas
October 16, 2017forceindia0 Comment
The tests conducted during summer 2017 at the Cazaux air base in France focused on metrological analyses of the radar performance.

Thales has developed an active array radar that meets the specific needs of HAL, to equip the 80 Tejas Mk1A multirole LCA operated by the Indian Air Force. The radar has successfully completed an initial flight test campaign designed to measure its performance level.

In order to meet the needs of the Indian manufacturer HAL, Thales is offering a lightweight, compact active array radar. The latter is a result of Thales’ expertise as regards the development and mastery of active array technologies – as demonstrated by the RBE2 radar installed on Rafale – combined with the operational reliability of this combat-proven technology. The RBE2 radar has actually been operated by the armed forces since 2012.

The tests conducted during summer 2017 at the Cazaux air base in France, on a test bench aircraft, focused on metrological analyses of the radar performance. These test flights proved that the radar is fully operational and perfectly corresponds to the specific requirements of HAL for its combat and air superiority missions. It is therefore ready and able to adapt to the tight schedule imposed by the Mk1A LCA.

Thales radar is an advanced Fire Control Radar (FCR) designed for air-to-air superiority and strike missions, based on fully solid-state Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) technology, enabling the radar to achieve long detection ranges, high mission reliability and multi-target tracking capabilities.

“In four months, thanks to our solid, proven experience with the RBE2, we’ve been able to carry out successful flights to test the performance of the key features of the radar which we’re offering for the TEJAS Mk1A light fighter. This is a clear guarantee of its extremely high degree of operational reliability, immediately, and clearly sets us apart from our competitors as regards to this call for tender”, said executive vice-president, Defence Mission Systems activities, Philippe Duhamel.

The Thales radar is compliant with the requirement and provides simultaneous modes of operation supporting multi-mission capabilities for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea operation modes, and weapon deployment.

If Thales offered a light AESA radar for the Tejas, I found highly regretable not to see it on the french Mirage 2000D MLU... Too costly for our budget !

 

[BON PLAN]

If the Thales radar is chosen it would be Mica as there would be no cost of integration.

a mecanical integration at least.
I would be surprised if IAF don't exige the ASTRA integration.

 

[BON PLAN]

36+36 was always on the cards, as maintaining 36 will be tough. But the next 36 should not cost more than $ 6.5-7 billion. And having 2+2 squadron for Pak & China will be good with an option to shift one squad in emergency.

Less than that.
Dry Rafale cost less than 95€ million, so less than 112$ million each.
112 x 36 = 4 $ billion at max.
Add some spares, some weapons.... saying 5 or 5.5 $billion.

If you don't add new air base accomodation, and for 2 more squad it's the case) no more fixed costs to be added.

On french air base we could park nearly 60 planes (Nancy with Mirage 2000D and Saint Dizier with Rafale). You have some margin...

 

[Steven Rogers]

Impossible with full payload. It is possible to reduce the weight of Tejas by reducing the radar ability as air to air combat may not be priority and reduction in EW, jammer etc. But payload and fuel has to he there. 9 ton is too less for anything

That weight went up due to structural modifications on existed mk1 and heavy landing gear. Mk2 has addressed that and it will not only decrease the weight, but will have thrust to weight greater than gripen E.... 7tons weight expected, the plan is to decrease around 6k tons.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

That weight went up due to structural modifications on existed mk1 and heavy landing gear. Mk2 has addressed that and it will not only decrease the weight, but will have thrust to weight greater than gripen E.... 7tons weight expected, the plan is to decrease around 6k tons.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Naval planes need arrestor wires to arrest the plane. The landing gear and fuselage must be pretty sturdy. So, the weight won't decrease. Also, MK2 will be bigger and even some decrease in weight due to change in design will be made up by increased size. Fuel and payload are extra. Total weight can't be 9ton if you include payload and fuel. If you think otherwise, give me the break up