ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kshithij]

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 MK2 is not an interceptor. It is a full fledged aircraft. It is smaller than Gripen E in size and weight but has same thrust and hence probably higher payload than Gripen E.

Only according to media and foreign lobbyists it is an interceptor, not in real life.

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

I don't know about length of Brahmos NG. But, current version is 8+ metres long. NG may be thinner but not shorter as they are going to use scramjet with no oxidizer in fuel mixture.

I would say maximum permissible length is less than 6 metres in MK2. Brahmos mini may or may not fit due to length, but it will not fit due to weight. Maximum payload per hardpoint is 1.2ton under fuselage and 2 inner wing hardpoint.

Nirbhay is different from Brahmos as Nirbhay uses turbofan engine and is much more efficient per kg of fuel. So, smaller nirbhay will be meaningful. Brahmos is supersonic and uses turbojet. Turbojet is inefficient and speeds above 0.8Mach have higher drag which also increases Brahmos fuel consumption. Smaller brahmos will be wasteful. Even guided bombs travel about 60km when dropped from a fast moving plane from 10km height


PS- Next time POST ONLY 1 REPLY WITH ALL CONTENT. DON'T SPAM THE THREAD WITH A DOZEN REPLIES. YOU CAN QUOTE ALL THE MESSAGES YOU WANT TO REPLY TO AND REPLY THEM ONE. BY ONE

 

[ersakthivel]

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

Dassault converted its mirge-2000 to mirage 4000 in no time

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-4000/

may be the carrier requirements of french & common EU proposal for a joint fighter (Typhoon, but french parted midway) meant that there was no oreder for this fighter

 

[binayak95]

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 ,

My problem lies with trying to make the Tejas a one stop solution for all applications... that is simply complicating an already complicated program.

Lets first make it an Air Defence fighter capable of handlings itself against likely aggressor aircraft and worry about ground attack and interdiction roles later.

Perhaps, we can create a genuine ground attack aircraft based on the Tejas program later on. For now, let the Mk1A mature first.

There is no pressing need to make the Tejas into a cruise missile platform, and no point in forcing DRDO to further complicate the Brahmos M project to accommodate one fighter, when several others can carry it in its present config.

 

[binayak95]

Tejas MK2 is not an interceptor. It is a full fledged aircraft. It is smaller than Gripen E in size and weight but has same thrust and hence probably higher payload than Gripen E.

Only according to media and foreign lobbyists it is an interceptor, not in real life.

The Mk2 doesn't exist as of now... and neither the IAF nor the govt is holding its breath to wait for the Mk2; the Mk1A is an interceptor simply because of payload and loiter time constraints.

When the Mk2 comes up, then we can argue for/against integrating ALCMs, ground attack munitions.

PS: make the Mk-2 twin engined!!

 

[ersakthivel]

My problem lies with trying to make the Tejas a one stop solution for all applications... that is simply complicating an already complicated program.

Lets first make it an Air Defence fighter capable of handlings itself against likely aggressor aircraft and worry about ground attack and interdiction roles later.

Perhaps, we can create a genuine ground attack aircraft based on the Tejas program later on. For now, let the Mk1A mature first.

There is no pressing need to make the Tejas into a cruise missile platform, and no point in forcing DRDO to further complicate the Brahmos M project to accommodate one fighter, when several others can carry it in its present config.

Do you know the exact complications that will result in designing Brahmos mini , by the inclusion of tejas? I dont of , it any.

These are not step by step processses, making it an interceptor & then developing ground attack, then make it some thing else.

tejas was designed to be multi role from the word go it is one now, falling short of IAF ASR in some areas & exceeding it in another areas, which is common in all figher development programs,


Already the lenghy two inner board pylons of tejas are rated for 1.2 tons,

If naval mig29 inner pylons too are rated for roughly similar weight then what is the complication?

pressing needs & oridinary needs apart, developing a common subsonic LACM & light brahmos version that can arm as many fighters in IAF save lot of duplication work & makes the missile program cost effective

 

[ersakthivel]

The Mk2 doesn't exist as of now... and neither the IAF nor the govt is holding its breath to wait for the Mk2; the Mk1A is an interceptor simply because of payload and loiter time constraints.

When the Mk2 comes up, then we can argue for/against integrating ALCMs, ground attack munitions.

PS: make the Mk-2 twin engined!!

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ne-to-arrive-in-september-115070600054_1.html

"Aerospace experts like Pushpinder Singh of Vayu Magazine say the benefits of the more powerful F-414 would be negated by its additional weight and the re-design of the Tejas that they say will be needed to accommodate the engine.

Experts also argue the Tejas' constricted air intake will prevent the F-414 from sucking in the air it requires, even with extensive redesign. In that case, the engine would not deliver its rated 98 kN thrust.

Rejecting this view, GE and ADA officials say they will accommodate the F-414 without problem or extensive redesign, and that it will perform to its designed potential.

Their claim is supported by the engine data on the GE website (see graphic), which indicates the F-414 is no larger than the F-404. Nor is it significantly heavier, says ADA."

Lot of "Eggspurts" think mk2 is not needed, because they think GE 414 is 5 tons heavier,1 meter wider, tat will lead to extensive redesisn of tejas mk1 , blah , blah,,,

But they dont even know that Ge 404 & 414 are not very different in size & weight,

The extra thrust doesnt comes from addIng 2 meter length & 2 ton weight to 404, but by thermodynamic & alloy improvemens to core section,

These fools dont even know that as better hot section is available, developers drop stages in jet engines & develop smaller, lighter jet engins that deliver more power than the older heavier, bigger engines,

Also newer jet engines dont develop higher power by having double sized air intakes, that sucks in tons of air,

They do so by by increasing the Turbine Entry temperature (TET), engine pressure ratio, by improving & bettering the thermodynamic efficieny of the hot section, leading to better combustion & higher exraction of thermodynamic work leading to higher jet engine power.

Another side light is GE has alredy APPROVED AIR INTAKE MODIFICATION FOR FITING GE 414 IN TEJAS


Air Intake is modified, GE 404 & 414 are almost similar in size & weight, So what prevents ADA from taking up mk2 & IAF from asking for it?
.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...es-collaboration-for-amca-117021401120_1.html

Then why was tax payer money wasted on these GE 414 engine buys,

If you keep readin Times of india, Indian Express, republic, The Quint, The Wire, news sources, then I can't blame you for beleiving there is no mk2.

 

[binayak95]

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...es-collaboration-for-amca-117021401120_1.html

Then why was tax payer money wasted on these GE 414 engine buys,

If you keep readin Times of india, Indian Express, republic, The Quint, The Wire, news sources, then I can't blame you for beleiving there is no mk2.

you're assuming too much about me. You don't know me.

1. only naive fools read ToI, and other media for news.
2. no matter what you say, the mk2 is on back burner, and there's no airframe/design specs out, yet..
3. I always maintain that the Tejas program is not going to go anywhere, too much time and energy has been invested to create an aerospace ecosystem in the country.
4. The IAF is genuinely impressed by the Tejas in its present form. they badly want to get the mk1A into service and on its way to squadrons; the Southern Command's AOC-in-C taking a sortie was meant to convey that message.
5. I know the services well, especially the Navy, and yes, the IN is keenly monitoring the programme as well. the thought is the Mk2 could be a possible carrier based strike aircraft. But not the Mk1 (and certainly not the MiG-29K)

 

[binayak95]

These are not step by step processses, making it an interceptor & then developing ground attack, then make it some thing else.

Seriously? Then pray tell why some aircraft are created and retained for particularly these roles despite the existence of multi role fighters. Our own IAF maintains two dedicated strike platforms.

USAF still retains the A-10, the Russians still retain the frogfoot and Su-34, the RAF and Luftwaffe still have the Tornado. No matter how omnirole an airframe is, It'll never be as good as a dedicated planform.
The requirements that the roles (air combat vs ground attack) demands from an airplane aerodynamically are vastly different (maneuverability and energy retention, with good high speed high G turn rates vs low speed stability, high payload capacity and survivability.

there's a world of difference between the two roles, and planes designed for these roles.

 

[ersakthivel]

Seriously? Then pray tell why some aircraft are created and retained for particularly these roles despite the existence of multi role fighters. Our own IAF maintains two dedicated strike platforms.

USAF still retains the A-10, the Russians still retain the frogfoot and Su-34, the RAF and Luftwaffe still have the Tornado. No matter how omnirole an airframe is, It'll never be as good as a dedicated planform.
The requirements that the roles (air combat vs ground attack) demands from an airplane aerodynamically are vastly different (maneuverability and energy retention, with good high speed high G turn rates vs low speed stability, high payload capacity and survivability.

there's a world of difference between the two roles, and planes designed for these roles.

Is USAF designing a new cutting edge replacement for A-10/?
Ans-NO.

Are russians developing a newer stealthier version of Su-34?

Ans --No.

Are the french & English still operating strikers like Jaguar?

Ans -NO. They hv been retired,

Jaguars, Tornados, A-10s are used because they were already designed & operating there,

All new development in 4 plus gen fighters are multi role.

 

[Prashant12]

you're assuming too much about me. You don't know me.

1. only naive fools read ToI, and other media for news.
2. no matter what you say, the mk2 is on back burner, and there's no airframe/design specs out, yet..
3. I always maintain that the Tejas program is not going to go anywhere, too much time and energy has been invested to create an aerospace ecosystem in the country.
4. The IAF is genuinely impressed by the Tejas in its present form. they badly want to get the mk1A into service and on its way to squadrons; the Southern Command's AOC-in-C taking a sortie was meant to convey that message.
5. I know the services well, especially the Navy, and yes, the IN is keenly monitoring the programme as well. the thought is the Mk2 could be a possible carrier based strike aircraft. But not the Mk1 (and certainly not the MiG-29K)

India likely to unveil most advanced version of LCA Tejas in 2019: Report

India is likely to receive the prototype of Tejas MK2, the most advanced version of its indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in 2019, a decade after the project was sanctioned.

India is likely to receive the prototype of Tejas MK2, the most advanced version of its indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in 2019, a decade after the project was sanctioned.

According to a report in Sputnik, the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has floated a tender for the supply of valves and wheel tires for Tejas MK2.

The report says that the request for proposals (RFP) indicates that the speculations over MK2 project not seeing light of the day anytime soon was not correct.

It also adds that the RFP suggests that the HAL may be simultaneously working on MK-1A and MK-2 versions.

The RFP is for both domestic as well as global manufacturers.

The project for design and development of Tejas Mk2 was sanctioned in November 2009.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) had to accept a stepped-down version of Tejas due to the delay in getting the MK2 project off the ground.

The delay, according to the report, was on account of the delay in finalization of the engine contract.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/ind...ed-version-of-lca-tejas-in-2019-report-362906

 

[ersakthivel]

you're assuming too much about me. You don't know me.

1. only naive fools read ToI, and other media for news.
2. no matter what you say, the mk2 is on back burner, and there's no airframe/design specs out, yet..
3. I always maintain that the Tejas program is not going to go anywhere, too much time and energy has been invested to create an aerospace ecosystem in the country.
4. The IAF is genuinely impressed by the Tejas in its present form. they badly want to get the mk1A into service and on its way to squadrons; the Southern Command's AOC-in-C taking a sortie was meant to convey that message.
5. I know the services well, especially the Navy, and yes, the IN is keenly monitoring the programme as well. the thought is the Mk2 could be a possible carrier based strike aircraft. But not the Mk1 (and certainly not the MiG-29K)

The same IAF is refusing to give a design freeze for the next batch of tejas after the production of present lot of tejas according to HAL MD Suvarna Raju, He has indirectly warned that it will delay production .

IAF till date has not come out with a single categorical fact sheet statement explaining that most of the bad news about Tejas are lies .

The same IAF is not clarifying that the Gripen E that is widely touted as a , "compliment" of Tejas is atleast ten years away from production , with not even an IOC in place.

Does IAF know that US top diplomats hv categorically ruled out any meaning ful tech transfer even if india buys F-16 in hundreds, because these are ,"crown jewels of MNCs"?

if IAf , MOD issue a combine statement stating that we will buy 300 tejas fighters in various mks & design freezes, most of the Reliance, TATA, ADANi jvs with MNC fighter makers will be cancelled & they will start courting HAL for a JV leading to 30 plus an year production rate of Tejas, there by releiving the HAL of shouldering all the funds requirement of producing tejas,

This will automatically clear the way for full scale production & export of tejas, surely more than 600 can be built & sold here & abroad,

WHY IAF IS SILENT?

I will beleive you & IAF the day such a categorical statement comes from IAF.

 

[binayak95]

Is USAF designing a new cutting edge replacement for A-10/?
Ans-NO.

Are russians developing a newer stealthier version of Su-34?

Ans --No.

Are the french & English still operating strikers like Jaguar?

Ans -NO. They hv been retired,

Jaguars, Tornados, A-10s are used because they were already designed & operating there,

All new development in 4 plus gen fighters are multi role.

Is the USAF concerned over the F-35's pathetic ground attack ability, and the loss of such capabilities?
Ans -YES

The Armee De l'Air and the RAF retired the Jaguars for lack of funds, not because there was no operational requirements.

Is the RuAF still procuring the Su-34?
And-YES

Yes,Tornadoes, the Etendard, the A-10 are old designs (add the Mig27 and the Jaguar as well) but no one does a better job!

 

[binayak95]

The same IAF is refusing to give a design freeze for the next batch of tejas after the production of present lot of tejas according to HAL MD Suvarna Raju, He has indirectly warned that it will delay production .

IAF till date has not come out with a single categorical fact sheet statement explaining that most of the bad news about Tejas are lies .

Agreed. And that bothers me as much. The IAF is a much factured and divided brass when it comes to the Tejas. Senior pilots and several of the AOCinCs are happy with the program and want it to succeed, others, dead against (I've heard the phrase "over my dead body" literally).

Which is the reason for the delay in the MK2...

 

[ersakthivel]

Agreed. And that bothers me as much. The IAF is a much factured and divided brass when it comes to the Tejas. Senior pilots and several of the AOCinCs are happy with the program and want it to succeed, others, dead against (I've heard the phrase "over my dead body" literally).

Which is the reason for the delay in the MK2...

IAF knows pretty well that GE has approved airintake redesign of tejas mk2,

IAF knows the GE 414 doesnt weigh too much or occupies bigger space,

IAF knows that tejas mk2 redesign is not a deep redesign like Gripen E(where wheels are removed to newly designed fairings to make way for excess fuel tanks required to make gripen compete with other twin engined fighters on range, , leading to 8 ton weight)

IAF knows tejas redesign is just an addition of 0.5 meter plug in fuselage with weight to be maintained under 7 tons,

So why is IAf not issuing a statemet stating these facts, letting fools in mainstream media run a virtual dacoity on tejas program?

 

[binayak95]

IAF knows pretty well that GE has approved airintake redesign of tejas mk2,

IAF knows the GE 414 doesnt weigh too much or occupies bigger space,

IAF knows that tejas mk2 redesign is not a deep redesign like Gripen E(where wheels are removed to newly designed fairings to make way for excess fuel tanks required to make gripen compete with other twin engined fighters on range, , leading to 8 ton weight)

IAF knows tejas redesign is just an addition of 0.5 meter plug in fuselage with weight to be maintained under 7 tons,

So why is IAf not issuing a statemet stating these facts, letting fools in mainstream media run a virtual dacoity on tejas program?

Bro, I don't like IAF's duplicity with the MoD's import mafia either. But, hey, don't shoot the messenger. I barely know a few officers of the IAF. Navy related stuff, sure, I can listen to you!
Jokes aside, the Tejas Mk2 should have been already in full-scale development. But it is not. Will it change anytime soon, unlikely! So, these debate seems pointless. All we can do is argue over it.

 

[ersakthivel]

if proposed SNECMA GTRE kaveri jv yields a local jet engine, that will be huge boost for mk1A program as well,

But some how these coherent facts supporting tejas programs are not uttered either by HAL, MOD or IAF,
Only ADA chiefs are begging for support on tejas mk2 effort in interviews to various reporters.

 

[binayak95]

if proposed SNECMA GTRE kaveri jv yields a local jet engine, that will be huge boost for mk1A program as well,

But some how these coherent facts supporting tejas programs are not uttered either by HAL, MOD or IAF,
Only ADA chiefs are begging for support on tejas mk2 effort in interviews to various reporters.

The SNECMA GTRE joint push for a Safranised Kaveri is the one ray of light that I see for the Tejas Mk-2. That is a potential game changer, can upend everything. Lets see.

 

[FactsPlease]

if proposed SNECMA GTRE kaveri jv yields a local jet engine, that will be huge boost for mk1A program as well,
But some how these coherent facts supporting tejas programs are not uttered either by HAL, MOD or IAF,
Only ADA chiefs are begging for support on tejas mk2 effort in interviews to various reporters.

I don't get what you mean those last words. So is Mk2 YET being developed or not?

 

[Kshithij]

Bro, I don't like IAF's duplicity with the MoD's import mafia either. But, hey, don't shoot the messenger. I barely know a few officers of the IAF. Navy related stuff, sure, I can listen to you!
Jokes aside, the Tejas Mk2 should have been already in full-scale development. But it is not. Will it change anytime soon, unlikely! So, these debate seems pointless. All we can do is argue over it.

if proposed SNECMA GTRE kaveri jv yields a local jet engine, that will be huge boost for mk1A program as well,

But some how these coherent facts supporting tejas programs are not uttered either by HAL, MOD or IAF,
Only ADA chiefs are begging for support on tejas mk2 effort in interviews to various reporters.

MK2 was an old proposition and is already under way. Considering the behaviour of media, there is no need to tell anything to it.

Kaveri was already in final stage. Itvwas only fine tuning left. As Snecma said - 75% was completed. This means all critical components were completed. So, it is only a matter of time. Snecma only offered consultancy and test facility. No one offers engine ToT. Otherwise, Saudi will be willing to pay 50 billion dollars for Engine ToT.

Consider Kaveri to be a done deal. In about 2 years, it will fly.

@FactsPlease yes, MK2 is on the way. Minister of state for defence told that MK2 will get FOC by 2025. This is possible only if it is already progressing now.

 

[TPFscopes]

1. the length of the proposed brahmos mini,

I don't know about length of Brahmos NG. But, current version is 8+ metres long. NG may be thinner but not shorter as they are going to use scramjet with no oxidizer in fuel mixture.

check out your own source, It has some numerical figures.
But you can also assume some figures by comparing both:

Length of BrahMos GLCM is 8.4m length and 0.6 in Dia.

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

1. Only 1 pylon is allowed for weapon and Drop tank integration.
2. Length which do not put obstacle between Landing gear mechanism and co passenger weapons and pods.

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

optimized drop tank. for LCA, rest you can get what you want?

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

Already discussed. first you need to get it fixed on it that will force you to completely rely on internal fuel.

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,

Long range cruise missiles can't help LCA because of low payload and combat range.

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

Already discussed,

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

weapons should be aerodynamically stable so that they'll not damage others while launch..

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

Astra will compliment Russian couterpart, it will not replace Russian missile as of now..

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

As discussed, No plan surfaced as of now...