ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kay]

Tejas can replace Mig 21s in all mission profiles. It can replace Mig 27 in some mission profiles because of lesser range (external fuel tanks/ conformal fuel tanks will decrease payload).
MK2 will replace Mig 27 in all mission profiles.
IAF have to come out and say that they want to induct SEFs for numbers and not capability as it is sending the wrong picture/message. The problem is with numbers and production capacity and not combat capability.
IAFs solution is to buy more planes. Better solution is to ramp up Tejas production. Since IAF is not being honest, the real problem and solutions are not getting discussed.

 

[TPFscopes]

I believe that India is trying to fully indigenise weapons and doesn't see the need to fire such imported BVR missiles. These imported items also come in small quantities and hence not ideal for fitting in multiple planes. Also, since Astra and the Ramjet BVR is under development, there is little need to get foreign BVRs. However, for test purposes, Derby was fired from Tejas. So, fitting other missiles are also possible in a similar way if needed.

General term I can use for the selection of weapon for a fighter jet is "suitability".

Launching cruise missiles from air is not based on direct target acquisition. It is GPS guided. USA's JASSM ALCM has 900km range at 1ton weight. No plane can acquire target that far away, not even big-ass AWACS plane.

Sentence you are referring to, was for BVR combat...

Next, for war, it is better to have large number of planes with lower cost of manufacturing than small number of planes with high cost of manufacturing.

you're shifted your from your last statement...
Anyways, Mk2 will have all that, what we are expecting from it...

The cruise missiles can also be carried under the wing if they are under 1 ton in weight. Nuclear warhead of 100kT can be made in 150kg weight and hence heavier warhead can be avoided to reduce weight of missile. It is wrong to portray all ALCM as exclusively for heavy or medium planes. Only overweight Brahmos is that way.

You can't carry 2 ALCMs even if it will be of 1250kgs each which need heavy pylons which are itself nealy 200kgs with total of 2900kgs + you need external fuel tank (which you can add only 1) which adds 800-1200 as per your desire and here you have a over weight jet already. And you very well know than you should have minimum air combot missiles which you can't carry now.

All in all, you need different jet or much lighter variant of ALCM which is not yet planned.

Anyways this is conceptual outline for Nirbahy on LCA which gives enough drag to lower down the flight radius..

 

[Kshithij]

1. "The aircraft’s internal fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 3.4t are approximately 40% larger than those of its former version. The increased volume is made possible by moving the landing gear from the fuselage of the aircraft out to the inner wings." - SAAB
The ferry range of 3400 Km/ 4000 Km (combat radius 1300 Km/ 1500 Km) is definitely quoted keeping use of external tanks in mind - for marketing.
The combat radius on internal fuel is about 800 Km (expected).
For Tejas, it ia definitely much less.
Whether moving the landing gear out has aerodynamic disadvantages and affects wing-loading, I am not sure.
2. Gripen is better maintanable through easily reachable panels and has low flying cost per hour than F-16 (don't know about Tejas)
So obviously it is a good plane.
JF 17 is an evolved Mig-21. Maybe someone can do a comparison between Gripen and JF17. Aerodynamically they can be comparable, but Gripen wins on range, weapon systems, avionics, fuel loading. Even in pure airframe comparison, Gripens can pull higher G-s. JF 17 may have better sustained maneuverability and smaller turning radius.

As for Brahmos- it is heavy as it is a kerosene fuelled liquid ramjet. Tejas can be loaded with plenty of other standoff missiles / glide bombs.

Combat radius of gripen is 600km, not 800km. F16 has 550km combat radius with internal fuel. If moving landing gear has disadvantages, it must be reflected in gripen too.

Gripen is 2 metres longer than Tejas, has lesser composite and is more difficult to assemble and manufacture due to extra canards.

MK2 will replace almost all fighters except the heavier ones. Mirage, Jaguar, MiG21, MiG27 are all of similar weight class but significantly inferior and definitely replaceable by Tejas.

Gripen has better turning radius than JF17 due to delta wing. Gripen is much better than JF17 in performance. But, JF17 is easy to maintain and obtain spare parts. Gripen is a hotch potch assembly of components from various countries and is a big problem. SAAB also does too much TOXIC gimmicks that makes one sick of it and makes it appear less trustworthy

 

[Kshithij]

General term I can use for the selection of weapon for a fighter jet is "suitability".

Sentence you are referring to, was for BVR combat...

you're shifted your from your last statement...
Anyways, Mk2 will have all that, what we are expecting from it...

You can't carry 2 ALCMs even if it will be of 1250kgs each which need heavy pylons which are itself nealy 200kgs with total of 2900kgs + you need external fuel tank (which you can add only 1) which adds 800-1200 as per your desire and here you have a over weight jet already. And you very well know than you should have minimum air combot missiles which you can't carry now.

All in all, you need different jet or much lighter variant of ALCM which is not yet planned.

Anyways this is conceptual outline for Nirbahy on LCA which gives enough drag to lower down the flight radius..
View attachment 21734

Yes, I agree that Nirbhay can't be used. I am just saying that a 800kg ALCM (600kg missile +200kg warhead) of 400km range can be derived from Nirbhay by shortening it.

Nirbhay first needs to mature for this. But, definitely possible. Turkey has SOM missile with 600kg and 300km range, for example

 

[TPFscopes]

Yes, I agree that Nirbhay can't be used. I am just saying that a 800kg ALCM (600kg missile +200kg warhead) of 400km range can be derived from Nirbhay by shortening it.

Nirbhay first needs to mature for this. But, definitely possible. Turkey has SOM missile with 600kg and 300km range, for example

Actually, Nirbhay in present form with max 1500km, can directly strike Afghanistan from almost 200-300km inside the Indian territory. LCA won't add any advantages to these kind of long range missiles because of its low combat radius. If we aim Pakistan than we have no need of Nirbhay ALCM as it (in GLCM form) can hit almost any part of Pakistan from various launch vehicles parked parallel to the border...
AFAIK, There is no such projects arised from DRDO with short range ALCM like Nirbhay-mini but lets hopw for a look into the future...

 

[Kay]

Tejas can be fitted with something like the Delilah missile
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile)

 

[TPFscopes]

Tejas can be fitted with something like the Delilah missile
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile)

I'm expecting any desperate use of cruise missile on LCA but if someone really want to ALCM for LCA than I have some foreign option (Indian can also develop something like them).

1. Naval Strike Missile - Norway

Weight 410 kg (900 lb)
Length 3.95 m (13.0 ft)
Warhead 125 kg (276 lb) HE blast-fragmentation
Operational range
NSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ (profile dependent)
JSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ low-low-low profile, 555 km (345 mi; 300 nmi)+ hi-hi-low profile

2. RBS-15 - Sweden

Weight 800 kg
Length 4.33 m
Diameter 50 cm
Warhead 200 kg HE blast and pre-fragmented warhead.
Operational range
70 km for RBS-15 Mk. I and II
250 km for RBS-15 Mk. III

3. MBDA CVS401 Perseus ( france)

Weight 800kg
Length 5m
Warhead A 200kg main warhead with an additional 2 x 40–50kg inertially guided effectors from lateral bays.
Operational range (expected) mach-5 speed
300km class


All these missiles have very decent range with required weight ranges. Along with RBS-15 will be the part of weapon package of Gripen-E and MBDA Perseus can be the part of LRU package of IAF rafales.

 

[pmaitra]

This is what you said. Key words, "off-the-shelf", "maturity" and "home countries".

Entered Indian service before it achieved "maturity".

How did you come up to this conclusion? India was the only user for a decade. It was/is a multinational effort.

Seller nation didn't induct the platform, further upgradtion and modification was carried by OFB.
India specific changes and refinement (armour, fcs, optics, air conditioning etc.) were done by OFB not OEM. Kunal Biswas has a detailed list.



Never said they were/are. I talked about the clownish attempts of IA & IAF to induct them on similar lines as the aforementioned items.

To develop one weapon system, it takes a lot of iterations of design, testing (simulation as well as prototype), optimization, before it is put into production. In many cases, after initial induction, further modifications are carried out using inputs from the operator.

• This is true for T-72. A bulk of the design effort that went into T-72 also went into T-90.
• Ditto for MiG-29 and Sukhoi-27/30. These were neither designed by Mikoyan-Guryevich Design Bureau (MiG), nor by Sukhoi Design Bureau. If you are interested to know who designed it, ask.
• The British developed the Vickers Mark I but then went on to develop it further and proceeded to Mark II and Mark III. For you kind information, the UK built the first 90 Vickers Mark I/Vijayanta tanks. Part of the design also overlapped with the UK's Chieftain tank, which was inducted by the UK.

In all of these cases, the designs attained maturity in the home countries.

Whatever they did was for their own needs. India specific requirements are not the requirements of the home countries. For example, adding canards to Sukhoi-30 was not the requirement of the USSR, so that does not count. As a mater of fact, adding canards increases drag and that was the reason why the Soviets did not add canards. Don't tell me they did not know about canards. They knew it very well. They even installed canards in the Tupolev-144, that too retractable ones. Guess why it was retractable? Again, because it increases drag.

P.S.: You ask me how I came to my conclusions. I will return the favour and ask you how you arrived at your conclusions that I responded to?

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

To develop one weapon system, it takes a lot of iterations of design, testing (simulation as well as prototype), optimization, before it is put into production. In many cases, after initial induction, further modifications are carried out using inputs from the operator.

• This is true for T-72. A bulk of the design effort that went into T-72 also went into T-90.
• Ditto for MiG-29 and Sukhoi-27/30. These were neither designed by Mikoyan-Guryevich Design Bureau (MiG), nor by Sukhoi Design Bureau. If you are interested to know who designed it, ask.
• The British developed the Vickers Mark I but then went on to develop it further and proceeded to Mark II and Mark III. For you kind information, the UK built the first 90 Vickers Mark I/Vijayanta tanks. Part of the design also overlapped with the UK's Chieftain tank, which was inducted by the UK.

In all of these cases, the designs attained maturity in the home countries.

Whatever they did was for their own needs. India specific requirements are not the requirements of the home countries. For example, adding canards to Sukhoi-30 was not the requirement of the USSR, so that does not count. As a mater of fact, adding canards increases drag and that was the reason why the Soviets did not add canards. Don't tell me they did not know about canards. They knew it very well. They even installed canards in the Tupolev-144, that too retractable ones. Guess why it was retractable? Again, because it increases drag.

P.S.: You ask me how I came to my conclusions. I will return the favour and ask you how you arrived at your conclusions that I responded to?

I'm curious about the "real" designers of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Who or what were they ? AFAIK the more radical features like blending wing roots into the fuselage came after TsAGI did studies and wind tunnel testings.

 

[pmaitra]

I'm curious about the "real" designers of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Who or what were they ? AFAIK the more radical features like blending wing roots into the fuselage came after TsAGI did studies and wind tunnel testings.

Yes, you are correct.

It is TsAGI - Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute.

They designed and refined the design. Then they handed the design to Mikoyan-Guryevich and Sukhoi Design Bureaux. The former built a smaller plane, and the latter a bigger plane.

Even the Tupolev-160 was not designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau. It was designed jointly by Myasishchev Design Bureau and TsAGI.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

How feasible is it to convert a single engined light fighter like Tejas into a semi-autonomous drone ?

I was reading this article and it reminded me of this cheesy 2005 film "Stealth". Back then the concept belonged in sci-fi, but now seems like we're approaching the plausibility zone.
https://arstechnica.com/information...ombat-tactics-experts-in-simulated-dogfights/

I understand the tech needed to enable something like this is probably beyond F-35 level, and we're nowhere near that, but atleast I hope the theoretical research isn't out of the minds of DRDO scientists.

 

[Kshithij]

How feasible is it to convert a single engined light fighter like Tejas into a semi-autonomous drone ?

I was reading this article and it reminded me of this cheesy 2005 film "Stealth". Back then the concept belonged in sci-fi, but now seems like we're approaching the plausibility zone.
https://arstechnica.com/information...ombat-tactics-experts-in-simulated-dogfights/

I understand the tech needed to enable something like this is probably beyond F-35 level, and we're nowhere near that, but atleast I hope the theoretical research isn't out of the minds of DRDO scientists.

We haven't been able to get AI (Artificial Intelligence) yet. So, as of now, humans are better than machines sensor. Drones can't maneuver, attack or evade like humans. So, it is not advisable to convert tejas into drone.

It is better to use a dedicated drone with turbofan engine for bombing sorties. Air to air combat may be impossible for drones as of now

 

[ezsasa]

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????

It was decided post 2014 that HAL is going to be a lead integrator, which itself is a big task. No other company in India has the purse to fund integration at such a large scale. Their revenue is around 15k crores, which is not a joke.

 

[ersakthivel]

Already discussed about this..
You are contracting yourself by claiming that Tejas is LCA and OTOH you want all that shit on LCA.

Let me repeat my words..



=>

Please give us your calculation for

1. the length of the proposed brahmos mini,

2.The max cruise missile length permissible on the center & two inner pylons of tejas,

3. What is the drag co efficiebt of proposed brahmos mini, Is it higher than the present external fuel tanks, or lower,

4. How much is the actual combat radius of tejas in various mission profiles,

5.How much will be the percentage of reduction in comabt radius due to fitting brahmos mini or any cruise missile on tejas.

6.How much will be the addition to Tejas's combat radius because of thee integration of brahmos mini or any other cruise missile on tejas,

7. The inability or ability of DRDO to design a brahmos mini to suit, the center, or two inner pylons of tejas, , mig29 & non center pylons of Su-30 MKI

8. What is the max permissible length & weigh of munitions for each of the seven tejas hard points,


That will provide an informative objective discussion rather than subjectives opinions,
Thanks

 

[binayak95]

Why are we debating installing cruise missiles on the Light Combat Aircraft?
The Tejas is basically, an interceptor, with the ability to deploy munitions for ground attack as well. It simply doesn't have the inherent range and payload to do the job of a true strike aircraft.

There is no shortage of either ALCMs or aircraft to carry them in the Indian Air Force and Navy.

We have Kh-35 for use with MiG-29Ks and Su-30MKIs and Harpoons for use with Jaguars.

And now, we have the Brahmos for the Su-30s; not too distant future, we'll have the Brahmos NG to deploy from all the aircraft mentioned above, and Rafales armed with the formidable SCALP as well.

Aur kya chahiye??

 

[ersakthivel]

F16 can carry two 1.2 ton fuel tanks while still being able to carry 4.6 ton additional payload. Tejas can only carry two 1 ton fuel tank and additional 1.7 ton payload (1Bomb, 4BVR). Tejas is delta wing and aerodynamically unstable, thus decreasing its range (for equal ratio of fuel to weight) as more payload induced drag is added.

Tejas has 7 hardpoints with only 3 hardpoint capable of carrying large payloads in Tejas. If 2 of them are fuel tanks, the payload will be left with 4 BVR missiles and 1 bomb for a total of 1.7ton.

F16 has 11+2 hard points (2 hardpoint can be racked for BVR) with 5 being capable of carrying big bombs. Even if 2 are occupied by fuel, it can still carry either of the two -
1)3 bombs, 4 BVR and 2 WVR
2)1 bomb, 8 BVR and 2 WVR

BVR are replaceable with WVR in all cases




If Brahmos has weight of more than 1.2 ton, Tejas hardpoint won't be able to hold it without damage to airframe. If it is smaller, then its range will be 150km which will. Be too low to be meaningful.

Brahmos is not an intelligent maneuverable missile which makes it interceptable. It only maneuvers in the last phase. The drag caused by brahmos can make Tejas plane carrying it to be detectable and hence shot down before it fires. I don't see such heavy missiles as useful at all. USA also found supersonic cruise missile to be wasteful. Nirbhay missile will be more practical, even for Su30 or other planes. It is definitely desirable to have the ability to launch Brahmos from all platforms but one must not expect it to be practical.



Pods in Tejas are kept under left and right edge of fuselage, not by racking wepons. But this decreases range due to drag. Why use external racks instead of making as many things internally as possible?

Tejas is definitely better than import just because it can be mass produced at India's will, even in 10:1 ratio of F16. But it can definitely be improved further and help in better war time management in terms of maintenance, repairs and logistics by increasing the efficiency per plane. Why not wait for MK2 instead of going gaga over MK1A?

Please give us your calculation for

1. the length of the proposed brahmos mini,

2.The max cruise missile length permissible on the center & two inner pylons of tejas,

3. What is the drag co efficiebt of proposed brahmos mini, Is it higher than the present external fuel tanks, or lower,

4. How much is the actual combat radius of tejas in various mission profiles,

5.How much will be the percentage of reduction in comabt radius due to fitting brahmos mini or any cruise missile on tejas.

6.How much will be the addition to Tejas's combat radius because of thee integration of brahmos mini or any other cruise missile on tejas,

7. The inability or ability of DRDO to design a brahmos mini to suit, the center, or two inner pylons of tejas, , mig29 & non center pylons of Su-30 MKI

8. What is the max permissible length & weigh of munitions for each of the seven tejas hard points,


That will provide an informative objective discussion rather than subjectives opinions,
Thanks

 

[ersakthivel]

By your equation, there is no need to induct LCA,f-16 or Gripen. If you are too desperate for war, than you should buy plenty of heavy multi-role jets. Isn't it?

According to me, we spend a large fraction of amount for peace time missions than Wars.

I don't know why you guys are so much excited to have capabilities of heavy class fighters for a Light fighter.


You may get your answer by answering my Question..
We already have R-27ER BVRAAM range of upto 130kms , R-27R/T with range up 70km , MICA missile etc in our inventory than why don't we integrate them with LCA or all Missiles with all fighters as it can enable all fighters to operate from anywhere, along with this it will also reduce inventory headache.. Answer it and get your answer.


Anyways I already about BrahMos-NG issue in my previous post. And as far I know, Nirbhay ALCM specification are still not officially available..

As far as Nirbhay ALCM is concerned, The total length of Nirbhay with booster is slighter more than 6m and booster is almost in 1:5 that is missile without booster is 5m. when you fix it on center pylon of LCA it will still affect landing gear retraction. other terms like flight profile, weight limit etc etc are further issues.. Others issues with LCA is that how will you get your target when you want to attack at longer ranges.

Tejas is slated to serve till 2040 ,

If we pay integration charges for each maler , it wil be a big amount,

Besides Astra is set to replace russian BVRM in even Su-30 MKI,

so it doesnt make econmic sense to integrate all missiles on tejas.

So Nirbhay mini like brahmos mini will be done , once the basic version of Nirbhay is fully developed.

 

[ersakthivel]

Why are we debating installing cruise missiles on the Light Combat Aircraft?
The Tejas is basically, an interceptor, with the ability to deploy munitions for ground attack as well. It simply doesn't have the inherent range and payload to do the job of a true strike aircraft.

There is no shortage of either ALCMs or aircraft to carry them in the Indian Air Force and Navy.

We have Kh-35 for use with MiG-29Ks and Su-30MKIs and Harpoons for use with Jaguars.

And now, we have the Brahmos for the Su-30s; not too distant future, we'll have the Brahmos NG to deploy from all the aircraft mentioned above, and Rafales armed with the formidable SCALP as well.

Aur kya chahiye??

Tejas is a multi role combat .

It has a multi mode radar & mission computer which can simultaneously tackle both air to ground & air to air mission profiles , like any othe Omni role or multi role fighter like rafale, Eurofighter, F 16, F18 can do,

It can fire LGBs, 120 Km BVR missiles as well,

Besides three of its pylons are rated above 1 ton.

While center line pylon faces nosewheel restriction, there is no length restriction on two of the inner wing pylons which can support 1.2 ton each.

Also on record DRDO chief has said to Ajai Shukla that they will develop a common version of brahmos mini that can arm Mig-29 naval version, tejas &outer pylons of Su-30 Mki,

besides it is imperative to develop a Brahmos mini for naval Mig 29s of Indian navy,

At that time DRDO will certainly take into acount tejas cruise missile requirement because adding tejas requirements with Naval mig 29s & IAF mig 29s requirement makes brahmos mini development cost effective & economical.

Also developing a brahmos mini or subsonic LACM for that is interoprable across many IAF platforms that will serve till 2030 is an eminent common sense affair.

like Astra is being slated for bothe Su-30 MKi & tejas, if possible in futre with mig-29 ,

 

[Babloo Singh]

How feasible is it to convert a single engined light fighter like Tejas into a semi-autonomous drone ?

I was reading this article and it reminded me of this cheesy 2005 film "Stealth". Back then the concept belonged in sci-fi, but now seems like we're approaching the plausibility zone.
https://arstechnica.com/information...ombat-tactics-experts-in-simulated-dogfights/

I understand the tech needed to enable something like this is probably beyond F-35 level, and we're nowhere near that, but atleast I hope the theoretical research isn't out of the minds of DRDO scientists.

Well tech needed to enable it is available....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_A_rEZoXSg

 

[ersakthivel]

I'm expecting any desperate use of cruise missile on LCA but if someone really want to ALCM for LCA than I have some foreign option (Indian can also develop something like them).

1. Naval Strike Missile - Norway

Weight 410 kg (900 lb)
Length 3.95 m (13.0 ft)
Warhead 125 kg (276 lb) HE blast-fragmentation
Operational range
NSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ (profile dependent)
JSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ low-low-low profile, 555 km (345 mi; 300 nmi)+ hi-hi-low profile

2. RBS-15 - Sweden

Weight 800 kg
Length 4.33 m
Diameter 50 cm
Warhead 200 kg HE blast and pre-fragmented warhead.
Operational range
70 km for RBS-15 Mk. I and II
250 km for RBS-15 Mk. III

3. MBDA CVS401 Perseus ( france)

Weight 800kg
Length 5m
Warhead A 200kg main warhead with an additional 2 x 40–50kg inertially guided effectors from lateral bays.
Operational range (expected) mach-5 speed
300km class


All these missiles have very decent range with required weight ranges. Along with RBS-15 will be the part of weapon package of Gripen-E and MBDA Perseus can be the part of LRU package of IAF rafales.

What is a ,"desperate use of cruise missile"?

& not so desperate relaxed use of cruise missile,

I haven't come across such battlefield scenarios so far,

IAF 's recent buys are all multi role fighter, not interceptors or strike fighters

So it is only logical to expect IAF to ask DRDO to develop a common smaller version of brahmos, subsonic LACM, BVRM like Astra that is interoprable across most of IAF fighters,

rather than inegrating all the misiles in its invntory in each of its fighters,

None of the above will ever be bought for tejas, if we go by the winds of change that led to scrapping of spike missile buy.

Requirements of IAF is huge, & DRDO has completed tech for cruise missile. so locl make in india cruise missile is the most propable option in my opinion.