ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Enquirer]

Guys, Tejas is a fine aircraft (with some design issues - to be fixed in Mk2). As a forum, we should openly acknowledge & discuss the truth/science. Personal likings & opinions are fine, as long as those are not shoved down the throats of others as if they were science!

Constant clamor from folks who falsify science deliberately or due to ignorance does not elevate this forum!

 

[pankaj nema]

Guys, Tejas is a fine aircraft (with some design issues - to be fixed in Mk2). As a forum, we should openly acknowledge & discuss the truth/science. Personal likings & opinions are fine, as long as those are not shoved down the throats of others as if they were science!

Constant clamor from folks who falsify science deliberately or due to ignorance does not elevate this forum!

MK 1 has definite limitations

Therefore IAF has done the right thing by asking for an AESA equipped BVR fighter
That is MK 1A - till MK 2 comes along

Even the latest tweet by Saurav Jha quoting IAF chief said that they were looking forward to the BVR capability for FOC

Mk1 And Mk 1 A will both be very useful in Air Defence ,Interception and CAS

But to say that we don't need RAFALES because we have Tejas is simply foolish

IAF has to not only prepare for present day wars but also keep a close look on the evolving technologies and make plans for them

All this within the budget

 

[ezsasa]

ON TEJAS weapons configuration as per HAL website, what is CCM?

 

[Enquirer]

ON TEJAS weapons configuration as per HAL website, what is CCM?

CCM -> Close combat missile (another name for WVR)

Also that config is old. Here's the new weapons config on Mk1A.Note the twin-missile rack for CCM/Short-range-AAM.
(there's a decent chance SPJ could be consumed inside the belly):

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas can c

@ersakthivel The best use of Tejas is
With long range BVRAAMs and an AESA radar

That is purely as an interceptor
In this interceptor role we can also use drop tanks

The moment we load LGBs the combat radius and loiter time decreases

We will need a large number of BVR equipped fighters to shoot down the 250 odd JF 17s

And the 80 odd F 16s that the Pakis will throw at us to blunt the IAF offensive

For pakis victory lies in holding back the IAF
For Five days

Low wing Loading is useful for WVR dog fights

The future wars will be won by the side who wins the BVR battle

Therefore this growing need and demand for AESA

What prevents the JF 17 to fire BVR shots at IAF fighters to make them abort their missions

The answer to one BVR missile is another BVR missile

Therefore we are going for Mica , Meteor Astra and Derby ER

Missile seekers, communication between missile & the fighter firing it,
Are the weakest link in BVR kill chain.



They won't measure up to low band jammers, DRFM based AESA jammers & sophisticated EW suits,MAWS in future,

So if JF 17 relying on BVR combat alone is not gonna be accepted by any serious air force.

Fighters got to hv kinematic skills.

If it is WVR HMDS ,visually cued HOBS missiles like R73 E are very effective.

But the same cant be said about BVR Missile

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen C has the same engine as our M K 1
But much better combat radius

You can fight or bomb the enemy only if you are flying in the air

If you are out of fuel you have to turn back

This obsession with wing loading and
WVR is meaningless

Once you have secured a Lock on with an AESA and fired a BVR missile the enemy will be forced to break away and take evasive action

The FOC on MK 1 is held up because of BVR capability

Tejas has fired the R 73 WVR long back

All JF 17 s will get AESA and BVR AAMs

See these combat radius figures by MNCs are brochure BS.

What is quoted by HAL for tejas is actual combat radius under useful lo lo intrusion flights , into any territory.

What MNCs quote is radius with three full external tanks, & very low Air combat missile loads,

That too for high altitude flying.

They make no sense.

It's actually glorified ferry range.

All BVR missile trials are completed for tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

[Mod Edit -- Stop acting like children and use the ignore function --]


http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1

The wing planform was altered in a cranked-arrow delta wing (120% larger than the original F-16 wing), with extensive use of carbon composite materials (in the upper and lower layers of the skin) to save weight. Weight savings in the wings alone amounted to 600lbs. or 272kg. The wing is of multi-spar design with the leading edge sweep angle ranging from 50º to 70º, and is 2,800lbs (1,179 kg.) heavier than the original. The increase in internal volume (both by lengthening the fuselage and expanding the wing) allowed for a 82% increase in internal fuel capacity, while the increased wing area allowed the incorporation of up to 27 stores stations. Despite the apparent lengthening of the fuselage involved with the program, the new XL designation does NOT stand for "extra large".

 

[Enquirer]

[Mod Edit -- Stop acting like children and use the ignore function --]

Also, 'wing loading' is just a mathematical ratio that exists irrespective of you liking it or not....like Body-mass-Index!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

MK 1A combat radius is simply not sufficient for deep strikes

Therefore IAF is asking for AESA and BVR
So that it can take long range BVR shots

MK 2 will have the combat radius of Mirage 2000

Tejas MK 1 A will always play a supporting role
Because of its limited loiter time
Which is caused by limited internal fuel

By 2022 we will have 36 Rafales but how many Mk 1A will be available, nobody can say

Do you know what combat radius is and how it is defined? Mirage 2000 has combat radius about 10-15% more than Tejas as that is the additional fuel it has for its fuel guzzling engines. Tejas will fly with at least a centreline drop tank of 800l and drop it after crossing the border which will give additional range. In fact, if Mirage 2000 does not carry a drop tank initially, it too will suffer from lower range.

Tejas is good enough to make strikes to the delth of Pakistan which is 400-500km. The PGM like Garuda, Garuthmaa etc can go to about 30-100km gliding before hitting targets. SAAW can also glide to some extent. NGARM can also propel itself. Overall, there is enough for striking in the neighbourhood.

You can't insist that Tejas will always play supporting role. This is not bollywood dance where one hero and one heroine dance and all others are supporting roles.

You can keep dreaming that Mk 1A will decimate PAF and all its Air bases on its own

But that is not going to happen

Without Rafales and Super Sukhois we cannot win future wars , that is why we need them

All acquisitions are made with regard to future scenarios

By the way SEAD means Suppression of Enemy Air Defences( not what you wrote )

Which is followed by DEAD ie Destruction
Of Enemy Air Defences

Su30 MKI and Tejas are enough for India. Rafale is not needed. It is just an extra and not some kick-ass ninja turtle. Although, the real intended Tejas is Tejas MK2, Tejas MK1A should do reasonably well too.

Your bias that 'since acquisition is made, it must be right' does not hold grounds. Unless you can give a proper reason as to why Tejas MK1A is incapable of taking down all PAF planes, your rant will hold no grounds. Give me specific drawbacks that prevent Tejas from destroying PAF and SEAD roles. Don't simply say combat radius is not good. Give more specific answers with statistics.

Tejas MK1 production is not an issue. The production depends on orders and technology progress. If the technology is developed that suits the requirements, production will go forward quickly. There is no special disadvantage that hinders Tejas production while the production of Rafales can go fast.

Using wing-loading as a defining parameter is essentially a FANCY way of saying BIGGER WINGS ARE BETTER!! If you don't understand the above statement then don't even bother reading further and debating further.

Everything in a successful design is OPTIMIZATION of ALL aspects of the aircraft: thrust, weight, drag, lift, flight control software, aerodynamic design etc. etc etc.

Tejas Mk1/Mk1A has 30% higher wing area than Gripen (38.4 m2 vs 30 m2), as such around 30% better 'wing loading'. Is Tejas 30% better in Turn rate, AoA etc compared to Gripen? If you can't prove that then I do hope you won't be like ersakthivel and continue drumming a trash can!! Merely speculating that it may have better turn rate is total BS! Also, you and ersakthivel must think that engineers at SAAB are schmucks who couldn't build a BIGGER wing for Gripen!!!
The reality is that Gripen has better performance than Tejas (yes, even in STR) due to BETTER aerodynamic DESIGN!
Tone deaf folks can continue to drum an empty trash can and believe they're making music - but its quite annoying to those who have any sense of pitch!!!

You are correct that larger wing loading does not always mean better flight performance. Excess wing loaing can cause parasitic drag which hinders maneuverability. But, wing loading of Tejas in the balanced level.

Tejas has no canards and despite that has a turn radius of 350m. One can expect Tejas to have better fuel efficiency that Gripen C due to the same reason - less drag from canards but same performance.

 

[Enquirer]

You are correct that larger wing loading does not always mean better flight performance. Excess wing loaing can cause parasitic drag which hinders maneuverability. But, wing loading of Tejas in the balanced level.

Thanks.
Just a minor correction: Larger wing leads to lower wing loading - it's like load per unit wing area.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Thanks.
Just a minor correction: Larger wing leads to lower wing loading - it's like load per unit wing area.

Yes, My bad. It should have been just "larger wings" instead of "larger wing loading"

 

[Kshithij]

MK 1A combat radius is simply not sufficient for deep strikes

Therefore IAF is asking for AESA and BVR
So that it can take long range BVR shots

How is combat radius related to AESA radar or BVR?

Tejas MK 1 A will always play a supporting role
Because of its limited loiter time
Which is caused by limited internal fuel

Supporting role means what? What is that you have to support?

By 2022 we will have 36 Rafales but how many Mk 1A will be available, nobody can say

It is by 2023 that India will have 36 rafales. Tejas MK1 and MK1A will be definitely more than that

Without Rafales and Super Sukhois we cannot win future wars , that is why we need them

Su30 MKI is enough. There is no need for more Rafales. Super Sukhoi is also optional.

[

Mk1 And Mk 1 A will both be very useful in Air Defence ,Interception and CAS

Tejas is a supersonic or high speed plane, not CAS plane. Strike role and CAS are vastly different. CAS is something done by MiG27 or A10 warthog.

Tejas can strike into territory well and MS Dhanoa himself confirmed this.

But to say that we don't need RAFALES because we have Tejas is simply foolish

We don't need rafales because we have Su30 MKI made in India.

 

[Sancho]

PERFORMANCE SHORTFALLS ARE THERE.

BUT THESE ARE NOT SHORTFALLS FROM ," ORIGINAL ASR ISSUED ".

So finally you admit, what most people with knowledge about LCA already knew for years. But sad that 1 truthful sentence, had to be followed with denial and distractions again.

 

[Sancho]

therefore when IAF tried to combine the features of both the fighters, physics got into the way

We brag about the high use of composites in LCA, which suppose to be light weight, but somehow our fighter ended up with similar empty weight as comparable light weight fighters, that were build with standard materials.
Drag issues were created by design flaws, which had to be corrected later too.

This then lead to the fact, that the initial conclusion to have an engine with around 80kN was not enough to meet the goals for speed, turn rates or G-limits.
So were the goals the problem, or the issues in the development?

It's always easy to blame IAF, but that doesn't help our defence industrial development, if we always look for excuses to shift the accountability from our scientists, who messed things up. And it's not like LCA was the only project that saw similar overweight, drag or size problems!
LCH, IJT, Saras suffered weight and drag issues, even Arjuns size and weight are the main problems.

We can only improve, if we admit to our mistakes and learn from them.
Making performance concessions all the time and leave the forces with less capable material to defend the country, is not a solution.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

We brag about the high use of composites in LCA, which suppose to be light weight, but somehow our fighter ended up with similar empty weight as comparable light weight fighters, that were build with standard materials.
Drag issues were created by design flaws, which had to be corrected later too.

This then lead to the fact, that the initial conclusion to have an engine with around 80kN was not enough to meet the goals for speed, turn rates or G-limits.
So were the goals the problem, or the issues in the development?

It's always easy to blame IAF, but that doesn't help our defence industrial development, if we always look for excuses to shift the accountability from our scientists, who messed things up. And it's not like LCA was the only project that saw similar overweight, drag or size problems!
LCH, IJT, Saras suffered weight and drag issues, even Arjuns size and weight are the main problems.

We can only improve, if we admit to our mistakes and learn from them.
Making performance concessions all the time and leave the forces with less capable material to defend the country, is not a solution.

Gripen also uses composite materials. In addition, Tejas has much larger wings which also add to the weight.

Gripen C has 25% composite by air frame weight . Tejas is 45% by weight composite. The composite has 2/3rd weight of aluminium, 5% more dense than Magnesium. The airframe is generally made o aluminium and magnesium and hence the savings by composite is about 25% of weight only. So, without composites, the weight would have been higher by about 10-12% of airframe weight for Tejas and about 6-7% airframe weight for Gripen. The airframe is not the only thing that has weight. Several other things like engine, mission computers, seats, fuel tank, wiring, radar etc also have weight. The airframe weight amounts to about 2-3tons only. So, the savings of 10-12% is just savings of 200-350kg weight for Tejas. Composites more have to do with RCS, rigidity and ease of assembly.

Despite larger wings, Tejas weighs 150kg less than Gripen C. This itself is the goal achieved by the extra composite of 5% of airframe weight.

The idea of Tejas was based on economic consideration of India and the requirement to mass manufacture a plane with ease. Tejas was the right plane for 1995-2000. But project once started can't be abandoned in the way and hence must be completed and later increased in size by designing a similar but new plane.

There is no colossal mistake involved in Tejas itself but the mistake was in the initial idea of getting a cheap plane. The idea of compromising quality to get cost advantage was the mistake. technology of the plane is good enough.

 

[Sancho]

So, without composites, the weight would have been higher

And that's bad, not good! Because the expected weight reduction did not happen, which is why the planned empty weight was not achieved.

There is no colossal mistake involved in Tejas itself but the mistake was in the initial idea of getting a cheap plane.The idea of compromising quality to get cost advantage was the mistake.

Not really, using modern composites, developing an own FBW system, own radar and at least in the planned time frame, state of the art glass cockpit and avionics, was the opposite of a cheap and quality compromising!
In fact it showed the modern technological standard and potential LCA should have got as a 4th gen fighter, if it would had been successful in time. Only the low operational costs of light class fighters, made it a cost-effective choice to operate it in high numbers.
If we wanted to develop a cheap fighter, we would had gone the other way around and aimed on materials and tech standards of 3rd gen fighters available in the IAF fleet and would have taken off the shelf techs, at least for the initial orders.

The importance in the whole LCA programme was not on being cheap, but on building up a modern aviation industry and gain know how and experience. That's why ADA/DRDO and HAL went on modern material and tech developments, sadly on their own, instead of using available partners right away and not after messing things up.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

And that's bad, not good! Because the expected weight reduction did not happen, which is why the planned empty weight was not achieved

Having unrealistic expectation does not make sense. Eve MiG21 weighed 5.5tons. Expecting Tejas, a much bigger fighter to weigh as much is absurd. However, if you take the plane without engine, it weighs as much as the requirement. You want lighter weight, you should go for MiG21 type small plane with composites

Not really, using modern composites, developing an own FBW system, own radar and at least in the planned time frame, state of the art glass cockpit and avionics, was the opposite of a cheap and quality compromising!
In fact it showed the modern technological standard and potential LCA should have got as a 4th gen fighter, if it would had been successful in time. Only the low operational costs of light class fighters, made it a cost-effective choice to operate it in high numbers.
If we wanted to develop a cheap fighter, we would had gone the other way around and aimed on materials and tech standards of 3rd gen fighters available in the IAF fleet and would have taken off the shelf techs, at least for the initial orders.

The importance in the whole LCA programme was not on being cheap, but on building up a modern aviation industry and gain know how and experience. That's why ADA/DRDO and HAL went on modern material and tech developments, sadly on their own, instead of using available partners right away and not after messing things up

LCA programmes was based on economic consideration in addition to building infrastructure. That does not mean India wanted useless 3rd generation ones which can't get anything done. This was the short sighted, penny wise pound foolish attitude that made Tejas a lesser useful plane. Technological problems would not stop anyone from increasing size of the plane. The Tejas MK1 is small and that is the problem. Had it been a bigger plane, there would have been no need for MK2. The reason to make MK2 is because the airframe of MK1 is small. All other aspects like FBW, avionics etc could have been upgraded

 

[ersakthivel]

So finally you admit, what most people with knowledge about LCA already knew for years. But sad that 1 truthful sentence, had to be followed with denial and distractions again.

WHAT I SAID WAS ,PERFORMANCE SHORTFALL FROM ,"REVISED ASR", NOT the original ASR.

As usual you are twisting my statement,

Performance shortfall will be there , even if NASA designed LCA in the 90s ,

With ASR , that asks for a single engine ,
80 Kn,

5.5 ton empty weight MULTI ROLE fighter,

Which can lift 4 ton weapon & 2.5 ton fuel,

with F16 STR, & MiG 29 ITR,


That too with a capability to lift meaningful load from high altitude Himalayan heights,

Because such a fighter exists only in the dream world.


So we can actually call it a STUPIDITY OVERLOAD from ASR framing section of IAF.(that too has to be realised to be believed)


Anyway fighters with high ITR hv their own sets of tactics to take on high STR fighters.

That can be perfected with practice.

Because only Gripen E & Tejas mk2 both of which are in design phase , with 96 KN engine alone will meet the ASR.


So no use bluffing that ,"LCA is a MIG 21 Class fighter" repeatedly here.


Especially , when you can't even provide a link to original ASR.

ROFL.

 

[Sancho]

LCA programmes was based on economic consideration in addition to building infrastructure. That does not mean India wanted useless 3rd generation ones which can't get anything done.

First of all, even a decade after LCA concept was created, 3rd gen fighters proved their worth in Kargil and that's why IAF wanted more M2Ks.
Secondly, no a programme that is based on by that time, advanced materials and techs is not meant to be cost-effective, so that claim is wrong too.

It's strange how you try to talk LCA down, to just a cheap fighter, only to have an excuse, why it development went wrong.

 

[ersakthivel]

[Mod Edit -- Please refrain from using derogatory adjectives --] here don't even understand that Gripen STR & ITR are given for atmospheric conditions as per International standards,

Where temp , humidity are all far lower than indian conditions at which tejas STR, ITR figures are given.

Surely no typhoon , Gripen, rafale can repeat those Brochure spec STRs, ITRs, AOA s at indian high temp, high humidity conditions.

So simply bluffing larger wings of tejas is of no help in giving it better specs is barking down the fool's alley.

Ask gripen C to take off with the same loads & at same runway length as tejas mk1 does in Leh & you will see the difference.

But fools who think wing loading is nothing will never learn.

THOSE FOOLS CAN TABULATE THE THE
WING LOADINGS OF FIGHTERS FROM

MIG 21 era

To

F22 & PAKFA era

Then they can know why fighter designers are increasing wing loading, & designing larger wing area fighters.