ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

.

From Dr.Vivek Ahuja BRF


LCA vs Mirage 2000

At mach 0.4 does the mirage-2000 have 18 deg turn rate?

Even F-16 A had just 17 deg turn rate at those velocities if my memory serves me right!!!! SO does mirage-2000 have a higher turn rate than F-16 A ?

I am no journo. I am only a foolish jingo like everyone else. But my handle is shiv, not shiv aroor and I have been around from when shiv aroor was still a twinkle in his father's eye. I would appreciate not being confused with shiv aroor or being thought of as a journo.

Sir, Since you are SHIV in BR,

I am watching those posts Ahuja's in Br with interest.

Can you ask Ahuja to clarify on this single point ,

Can Mirage 2000 complete a vertical turn in 19 -20 seconds with 20 deg AOA limit and 6 G limit at an altitude 1000 plus meter above sea level at 30 plus degree atmospheric temp , like tejas mk1 did in aeroindia 2013? using the flight stream solver?

I really doubt it can do it, because even rafale completed that vertical loop in only with the same twenty odd seconds in Aeroindia 2013 in bangalore under the same condition.

Also the thrust vectoring and canard enabled Su-30 MKI takes the same twenty seconds to complete a vertical loop.

And in Aeroindia2013 or 2011 , I haven't seen typhoon, F-16 F-18 and Gripen completing the vertical loop in less than twenty seconds.

In case you have any info on that please post.

Also can his software accurately predict all the vortice effects of cranked delta wing on tejas? Because mirage-2000 has simple straight delta , tejas has a bit more complex wing with cranked double delta with a varying slopes for leading edge and conical camber

SO at altitude 15000 ft, fuel weight as the same percentage as that of mirage-2000 at mach 0.5 for the same conditions what is the STR of tejas mk1, above or below 14 deg?

ALso he once tried to explain his software to core CFD guys of ADA , and they were not interested because they have much higher competence in much more complex and accurate CFD models themselves.

because many test pilots including Suneeth krishna who had flown Mirage-2000 had rated tejas better than mirage-2000, but the graphs tell another story.

take offs in tejas are sharper than Mirage-2000 is the exact words I remember.

Also Late NTSE chief Riaz Khokar has clearly said that in many key respects LCA was better than mirage-2000 even in 2013, when Tejas hasn't crosses 20 deg AOA and 6Gs.

SO I dont think they cant be wrong.

Also regarding drag, most people use the old Cemilac report , which talks about WAVE drag "in the context of tejas mk1 failing to reach mach 1 in sea level conditions ".

But it has crossed the sea level supersonic speed in Goa hot weather trials in POWERLESS flutter test dive from 4 Kms to one Km , "while pulling out of the dive".

So how accurate is to use this argument for corner velocity (much lower than supersonic speeds) as the reason for lower Sustained turn rates ?

And ADA data points released for tejqas which Vivek Ahujha took were pertinent to indian atmospheric temp, which saps ten percent of engine thrust and twelve percent of wing lift compared to colder climates in which I assume Mirage-2000 data was released by Dassault, is my assumption.

Don't know. There are quite a few papers by Anand Kumar which shows that their simulations had good fidelity. In one paper, he did match results with the LCA wind tunnel test results. For some tests it was a perfect match. IIRC, the vortex breakdown reaches the TE at 33 degrees and the apex at 52 or 55 degrees. Not just that they got good results even with matching sharp edges and round edges with various radii. Similar results were published people at Jadavpur university. We know that some development did go on there

this is Indranil's quote, has all that been factored into flight stream analysis of Vivek Ahujha

Bottom line: Range/Endurance and STR/ITR analysis are not decoupled. The aerodynamics binds both of them together for each aircraft. So an aircraft having very poor range on account of its aerodynamics is also going to have other effects visible in its maneuvering performance.
[/B]

These words of Vivek AHUJHA falls flat when we compare mig-29 Vs Mirage-2000!!!. SO certainly it cant be true

Because it is open knowledge that in terms of STR and ITR mig-29 beats mirage-2000 by miles even though difference in ranges or not that big..

 

[sgarg]

To COnvince IAF the best way is.. "Make and Design in INDIA ,,,, but call it Foran maal".... I bet if you test two Tejas identical and label one with foran brand ,,, ithe one with the brand name will win hands down (huge margins and difference will be found)....

Why? Don't you believe in IAF's professionalism.
The point is moot now as there is no choice available.

 

[ersakthivel]

Why? Don't you believe in IAF's professionalism.
The point is moot now as there is no choice available.

Marut was capable of clocking 420 knts in low level even with one engine.

Escorting mig-21s can not catch up with them at low level, when marut was cruising on both engines, but instead had to fly at medium level and then had to dive to catch up with it.

Marut was a perfect plat form for low level bombing when it was phased out like an unwanted child

if that is the case then why no effort was made to evolve HF-24?

 

[pmaitra]

if that is the case then why no effort was made to evolve HF-24?

We did not have access to an appropriate jet engine that could exploit the fine design that HF-24 Marut was.

 

[sgarg]

if that is the case then why no effort was made to evolve HF-24?

I agree with you that shutting down HF-24 was a mistake. But it happened during cold war when both USSR and USA were developing military planes very quickly and Indian technology would have trailed badly without big commitment from GOI.

Today situation has changed. Indian military budget is much bigger and economy has the size to support an aviation industry.

 

[ersakthivel]

We did not have access to an appropriate jet engine that could exploit the fine design that HF-24 Marut was.

There was an offer by Bristol Siddley to develop a higher powered engine for HF-24 if GOI advanced 5 cr . But it was turned down.

An aircraft that was called as under powered , the HF-24 shot down 2 F-104 US star fighters in air combat !! , while no HF-24 was ever lost in combat.

ANd it can out run mig-21, even being called low powered!!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

There was an offer by Bristol Siddley to develop a higher powered engine for HF-24 if GOI advanced 5 cr . But it was turned down.

An aircraft that was called as under powered , the HF-24 shot down 2 F-104 US star fighters in air combat !! , while no HF-24 was ever lost in combat.

ANd it can out run mig-21, even being called low powered!!!

To add to the above the Govt of the day thought 5 Cr was an astronomical amount!!

IAF in all its wisdom shot down the Marut and the bogey of it going in a stall when shooting its main gun was raised often but that was something that was ironed out but as the saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way" For our imported Army and imported Air Force the Videshi arms are the only worthwhile arms!

 

[tejas warrior]

IAF needs to come out of this mindset and should own the development of projects since beginning much like IN.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@ersakthivel, Great find, About HF-24, It was purposefully killed in favor of Mig-21 back then, Engine issue was just an excuse like many before ..

 

[Khagesh]

@ersakthivel, Great find, About HF-24, It was purposefully killed in favor of Mig-21 back then, Engine issue was just an excuse like many before ..

Hunters actually. At least that is what open source says.

Engine issue was the real deal. HF24 was area ruled and almost the same weight and engine powered (projected with its Orpheus 703) as the Mig 21 but HF24 despite the similar power still failed to go beyond 1.1 mach and I think that too was in a dive. It was sometime back claimed to be our first super-cruising aircraft - which is correct.

Indian govt tried hard to get engines for HF24 from all sources. American, Brit, Soviet but failed. In any case HF-24 was seen as not much beyond Hunters. Which was a wrong assessment because it was merely a technical assessment. We should have continued with Russian engines and I am sure we would have gotten better at the whole deal with time.

Any how were were dirt poor at the time. When the PM of the country, was using his own reputation for honesty to convince people to wear shorter kurtas (cloth was sold as PDS item) and fasting was actually taken up by devout Hindus based on the PMs exhortation. So the investment was not unjustifiably seen as too much.

Mig21 OTOH was a high flyer with a new kind of wing. IAF understood just like its counterparts in the rest of the world that it was a change in era for wing design and they agreed to Mig 21. Unfortunately almost all the Mig21 imports during 62 period were destroyed on ground by PAF in 65. PAF despite being smaller did great at taking out our aircrafts on ground. IAF's forte was the CAS missions of 65 where it excelled.

By 71 IAF had developed significantly superior tactics with Mig21. Perhaps superior even to the contemporary Soviet Air Force and in more ways than one. Remember the recent link of that USAF test pilot interrogating our pilot Wing Commander Jafa - well that is just one example of how outrageously 'different' the IAF of that period thought. Wing Commander Jafa flew a Su-7. I don't think IAF ever lacked tactics and radical thought and raw courage. What they always lacked was Vision. IAF is a Pilot's Mess Party - earlier it must have been brash and loud and today it is silky smooth as white skin. How can anybody expect such people go grow Vision.

Both Mig21 and Su7 were taken only as an alternatives, during the time India, always-always-always-always-always-always-always-always-always, went to the Americans+Britishers first for just about anything and were denied and even humiliated. To understand the humiliation you will have to refresh your memory of other weapons/strategic requests. Most people who are doing naukri pesha in MNCs today (not you who I think is in IA) will not be able to understand one bit of the humiliation of that period. When these people should be willing to grow a spine they are willing to suck up to the West. But you have basically given them new thoughts about how to escape their own incompetence.

Anyhow the reality is that while HF-24 was good it was not great. I could have been great, but for, our poverty+IAFs vision impairedness+Cold War imperatives+Raj tendencies+bad luck.

IAF had about 150 Hunters from 55 period and despite that I think 140 odd HF24 of all types of engines were made.

Just don't repeat the mistake with LCA Mk-1 and Mk-2.


HF-24 was as much of a replacement for Mig-21 as a Baba ji ka #@R#$% would be. Completely different ideas.

 

[Khagesh]

Here's how IAF was using Marut in 71:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Marut2.html

Although essentially a ground attack aircraft, the Marut also demonstrated that it could also hold its own against enemy fighters. At 0930 hours on December 7th, Sqn. Ldr. K.K. Bakshi and Flg. Off. K.P. Sreekanth engaged on a ground attack mission south-east of Chor encountered four PAF Sabres, presumably on a similar mission across the bombline. Upon their pilots sighting the Maruts, the quartet of Sabres split into pairs, one pair immediately turning in to attack the Indian fighters which took up the challenge.

In the brief melee ensured Sqn. Ldr. Bakshi found himself closing head on with one of the Sabres. Both pilots began firing but it was a burst of 30mm fire from the Marut that found its mark. The Sabre broke away streaming flame and smoke. The same evening a pair of No.10 Squadron Maruts, returning from a strike mission, were bounced by a pair of F-86 Sabres, but out flew the attacking fighters, by exploiting their superior performance at low level.

Encounters with enemy aircraft became more frequent as the Indian Army's offensive reached Naya Chor, a town some 43 miles (70 km) from the district headquarters at Mirpur Khas and 93 miles (150 km) from Hyderabad-Sind. Beyond Naya Chor lay Sind's irrigated belt, and an Indian breakthrough into this territory would have had serious consequences for Pakistan. Consequently, the bulk of the PAF fighter-bomber force was committed to this area and both air forces were constantly engaged in support of their armies. On the 9th, No.10 lost its first aircraft when Sqn. Ldr. A.V. Kamat was shot down near Naya Chor.

On the 10th, two Maruts flown by Sqn. Ldr. M. Jatar and Flt. Lt. S.C. Batra were attacking targets of opportunity near Naya Chor, and Jatar had just scored hits with 68mm rockets on a dug-in Pakistani tank, when Batra saw in his rear view mirror, three Sabres behind and slightly above at about 1500 ft. (457 metres). Almost simultaneously a fourth Sabre was spotted at five o'clock. Both Maruts turned to give battle but neither they nor the Sabres had scored any hits when air control warned the Indian pilots of the approach of a combat air patrol of PAF MiG-19s. Believing discretion to be the better part of valour, both pilots disengaged and flew back to base.

The PAF made repeated attempts to neutralize the forward base at Uttarlai. The airfield was attacked by B-57s at night and F-104s during day. These hi-lo missions were launched from the distant Pakistani base at Masroor and the intermediate airfield at Talahyar. As the Pakistani directional beacon nav-aid at Naya Chor was being used for these attacks it had to be destroyed. On the 11th, two Maruts taxiing out for a sortie were shot up on the ground by PAF F-104s.

Although one aircraft was completely written off, both pilots escaped with minor injuries. This did not hold up the strike and within minutes another pair of Maruts were in the air. And so on the 11th and 12th, Naya Chor's nav-aid facilities remained under constant attacks by Maruts. The Indian fighters ran the gauntlet of moderate to intense anti-aircraft fire, but it was only during the final attack that two of the Maruts, piloted by Sqn. Ldr. Brian De Magry and Flg. Off. Sreekanth, ran into aerial opposition. This took the form of four Sabres returning from a strafing mission against Indian supply trains at Parbat Ali. The Maruts jettisoned their drop tanks and flew to engage the Sabres, but results in the ensuing low-level dogfight were inconclusive.

The very nature of the lo-lo-lo missions performed by the Maruts, made encounters with enemy fighters unlikely, and on occasion a pair of MiG-21s from No.29 Squadron, also based at Uttarlai, flew top cover. The MiG-21s usually flew about 6560 ft. (2000 metres) above the Maruts. On the 16th, a trio of MiG-19s intent on bouncing a Marut strike that had just strafed Pakistani vehicles and troops west of Umarkot, had to brake away to take on the MiG-21 top cover which their pilots had evidently spotted at the last moment.

The Maruts flew until the last day of the war. On the 17th, two Marut strikes were launched against Umarkot. On the first of these a pair of intercepting F-104s were shot down by the Marut's MiG-21 escort. The Marut was a tough aircraft. On at least three occasions, Maruts regained their base after one engine had been lost to ground fire. On one of these, a Marut returned to base without escort on one engine from about 150 miles (240 km) inside hostile territory. On another occasion Wg Cdr Ranjit Dhawan, flying his Marut through debris that erupted into the air as he strafed a convoy, felt a heavy blow in the rear fuselage of the aircraft, the engine damage warning lights immediately glowing and one engine cutting. Fortunately, the Marut was capable of attaining a safe and reasonable recovery speed on one engine, and Dhawan had no difficulty in flying his crippled fighter back to its base.

PAF did Hi Lo missions exploting the aircrafts it had best suite for such purpose. IAF did lo-lo-lo missions to exploit the the kind of aircrafts IAF had.

The low level dog fight with something that was killed by a sorry Gnat was inconclusive. Because HF-24 was obviously not geared for that.

HF-24 could have been developed for virtually all the purposes except high level interception of the kind Soviets needed. Which was not our need in the neighbourhood. But 'could have' and 'actually did' are two different things.

 

[Khagesh]

Shows how HF-24 was best usable considering the circumstances.

HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given the limited number of Marut units, most Marut squadrons were considerably over-strength for the duration of their lives. According to Brian de Magray, at peak strength No.10 Squadron had on charge 32 Maruts, although the squadron probably did not hold a unit-establishment of more than 16. The Marut squadrons participated in the 1971 war and none was lost in air-to-air combat, although four were lost to ground fire and two were destroyed on the ground. Three Marut pilots were awarded the Vir Chakra commendation.[5]

Maruts constantly found themselves under heavy and concentrated fire from the ground during their low-level attack missions. On at least three occasions, Maruts regained their base after one engine had been lost to ground fire. On one of these, a Marut returned to base without escort on one engine, from about 150 miles (240 km) inside hostile territory. On another occasion, a pilot flying his Marut through debris that erupted into the air as he strafed a convoy felt a heavy blow in the rear fuselage of the aircraft, the engine damage warning lights immediately glowing and one engine cutting. Fortunately, the Marut attained a safe and reasonable recovery speed on one engine. Consequently, the pilot had no difficulty in flying his crippled fighter back to base. Another safety factor was the automatic reversion to manual control in the event of a failure in the hydraulic flying control system, and there were several instances of Maruts being flown back from a sortie manually. The Marut had good survibility record in enemy's fortified airspace.[6]

In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, some Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft were used to give close support to an Indian border post in the decisive Battle of Longewala, on the morning of 5 December 1971.[7]

One aerial kill recorded by Marut flown by Sqn Ldr KK Bakshi of 220 Squadron shot down a PAF F-86 Sabre on 7 Dec 71 (Flg Offr Hamid Khwaja of 15 Squadron PAF) showing its mettle in dog fight as the aircraft was primarily conceived as ground attack fighter[8]

To get an idea of how much of a risk takers the IAF CAS pilots were you have to read this about the Hunters of Longewala. Marut guys would obviously be no less of a dare-devils.

Saga of Longewala

In one, Suresh met the tank head on. Both the tank's and the aircraft's guns fired simultaneously. The aircraft, however won when its rockets hit and blew up the tank. The big flash that followed blinded Suresh for a moment. The pullout from the dive was momentarily delayed with the result that the aircraft scraped the ground with its tail but it continued to fly and was brought back safely to base. The mission claimed 3 tanks destroyed and 7 disabled.

 

[Khagesh]

Shows how HF-24 was best usable considering the circumstances.

HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given the limited number of Marut units, most Marut squadrons were considerably over-strength for the duration of their lives. According to Brian de Magray, at peak strength No.10 Squadron had on charge 32 Maruts, although the squadron probably did not hold a unit-establishment of more than 16. The Marut squadrons participated in the 1971 war and none was lost in air-to-air combat, although four were lost to ground fire and two were destroyed on the ground. Three Marut pilots were awarded the Vir Chakra commendation.[5]

Maruts constantly found themselves under heavy and concentrated fire from the ground during their low-level attack missions. On at least three occasions, Maruts regained their base after one engine had been lost to ground fire. On one of these, a Marut returned to base without escort on one engine, from about 150 miles (240 km) inside hostile territory. On another occasion, a pilot flying his Marut through debris that erupted into the air as he strafed a convoy felt a heavy blow in the rear fuselage of the aircraft, the engine damage warning lights immediately glowing and one engine cutting. Fortunately, the Marut attained a safe and reasonable recovery speed on one engine. Consequently, the pilot had no difficulty in flying his crippled fighter back to base. Another safety factor was the automatic reversion to manual control in the event of a failure in the hydraulic flying control system, and there were several instances of Maruts being flown back from a sortie manually. The Marut had good survibility record in enemy's fortified airspace.[6]

In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, some Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft were used to give close support to an Indian border post in the decisive Battle of Longewala, on the morning of 5 December 1971.[7]

One aerial kill recorded by Marut flown by Sqn Ldr KK Bakshi of 220 Squadron shot down a PAF F-86 Sabre on 7 Dec 71 (Flg Offr Hamid Khwaja of 15 Squadron PAF) showing its mettle in dog fight as the aircraft was primarily conceived as ground attack fighter[8]

To get an idea of how much of a risk takers the IAF CAS pilots were you have to read this about the Hunters of Longewala. Marut guys would obviously be no less of a dare-devils.

Saga of Longewala

In one, Suresh met the tank head on. Both the tank's and the aircraft's guns fired simultaneously. The aircraft, however won when its rockets hit and blew up the tank. The big flash that followed blinded Suresh for a moment. The pullout from the dive was momentarily delayed with the result that the aircraft scraped the ground with its tail but it continued to fly and was brought back safely to base. The mission claimed 3 tanks destroyed and 7 disabled.

Battle of Longewala by Wing Commander Kukke Suresh

Although the shell did not hit me, the flash and dust blinded me and my aircraft just fell out of control. I hit a sand dune at 420 Knots and I am living to tell the tale.

 

[Pulkit]

Why? Don't you believe in IAF's professionalism.
The point is moot now as there is no choice available.

IAF Elite is not at all professional . They only want to satisfy there ego even at the cost of country's safety and growth.
So the answer is NO I do not believe in IAF professionalism.

if that is the case then why no effort was made to evolve HF-24?

erskthivel:Things would have been different and much better if govt wud have sanctioned 5 crores .At that time IAF had not pushed for it aswell(reasons unknown).

We did not have access to an appropriate jet engine that could exploit the fine design that HF-24 Marut was.

i doubt that pmaitra we had all the resources to sort out the issues except the will of the govt and commitment of IAF.

I agree with you that shutting down HF-24 was a mistake. But it happened during cold war when both USSR and USA were developing military planes very quickly and Indian technology would have trailed badly without big commitment from GOI.

Today situation has changed. Indian military budget is much bigger and economy has the size to support an aviation industry.

he bigger budget and the economy will not for the IAF IA Elite to misuse or use for there own benefit.
Aviation industry can only be suported if some % of domestic needs are met by them and I am not talking just about made in India but Design develop and made in INDIA.

There was an offer by Bristol Siddley to develop a higher powered engine for HF-24 if GOI advanced 5 cr . But it was turned down.

An aircraft that was called as under powered , the HF-24 shot down 2 F-104 US star fighters in air combat !! , while no HF-24 was ever lost in combat.

ANd it can out run mig-21, even being called low powered!!!

Now the same people are after Tejas..... So called experts and elite class.

 

[anupamsurey]

the history of corruption goes back to that time. even then few people made money by sanctioning foreign weapons, and even now people are making money by sanctioning for foreign material. Its not a surprise why Indian defense Industry could not take off, and it is still handicapped. arms lobby is a great force which can sway the feet of even Prime ministers.

 

[ersakthivel]

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - LCA news and discussion

A post by rahul M on tejas range, test pilots said that tejas range is just short of Mirage-2000.

now, we have two datapoints by which to gauge range performance,
one a comment by a test-pilot that range was a little less than the mirage-2000
and reports of flights from b'lore to rajasthan (>1500 km away) for weapons trials. the loadout was 2 800l tanks + bomb racks + litening pods as we saw from the pics.

Even this 1500 Km long flight was without the larger center line fuel tank. So practically tejas range will be closer to mirage-2000 and much higher than mig-21.

ANd a post from a member named Shalav calculating tejas range using a pre programmed spread sheet .

Cain Marko

It is easy to calculate the range for the Tejas and the Gripen.

Range is also a function of fuel consumption, altitude, T/O weight etc (incl armaments)

Using my excel sheet we can calculate the range of the current state of the Tejas based on the following

empty weight: 6300 kg (based on recent news)
fuel: 2400 kg - incl 10% reserve
SFC: 0.76 kg/kg/hr dry & 1.82 kg/kg/hr with AB (GE F404 engine)
Armament: 2000 kg
altitude: 10000 m
range: 1951 km (leaving a 10% fuel reserve)

I don't have SFC's for the Gripen NG's engine so I cannot tell you its calculated range. However if you do have it we can plug it in, and arrive at a calculated figure for range.

The worksheet I use calculates these numbers by using publicly available figures. You can plug in the numbers (dry weight, physical dimensions, fuel, sfc, armament weight, altitude, engine thrust) and it will provide calculated numbers for the following parameters

TWR : dry / afterburner
Wing Loading : Start (kg/m2) / End (kg/m2)
Turn Rate (V*) : I.T.R. (deg/sec) / bank angle (deg) / turn radius (m)
Velocity : Stall (kph) / Corner (kph) / Corner (mach)
Endurance : dry (hr:mm) / afterburner (hr:mm)
Range : dry (km) / afterburner (km)

You are welcome to it; if you want it write to me at (my nick) at vsnl com. Its not perfect but it is more scientific and is closer to real numbers than pure guesswork.

 

[Khagesh]

I agree with you that shutting down HF-24 was a mistake. But it happened during cold war when both USSR and USA were developing military planes very quickly and Indian technology would have trailed badly without big commitment from GOI.

Today situation has changed. Indian military budget is much bigger and economy has the size to support an aviation industry.

It is not just about HF-24. Had India been successful in the path to HF-24 or even if persisted with an under-powered Marut we would have had a full fledged aviation industry by now.

And for an aircraft that was already designed (as per open source) for 2 Machs and there is no reason we would not ultimately have found such an engine. An engine those days, even if foreign, would have hardly taken more than 5-10 years. Those days the research infrastructure was not as prohibitive. Today you have much bigger entry barriers in terms of knowledge base.

Regards Corruption in earlier days. While Corruption was never at NIL levels we still have to admit that the real money making opportunity in the armed forces contracts could have to come only when there was a bug jump in the weapons expenditures. Our weapons expenditures increased only after the 62 wars. Prior to that we thought gifting away Vetos and slashing military expenditure would gain us some brownie points with the White White West. So the corruption levels were at those times not as much as they are today. There simply was not enough moolah to go around.

But how the hell does a country with famines, would justify continued investments in aviation with a small bare requirements and no outlet for our produce. Our trading capacity kept going down right into the end of 80s.

So to say it was only because of corruption is too simplistic. In fact you need a society comprised of compromised personality (not merely leading it) to do corruption at wider scales. And compromised personalities are found in todays times not during the 60s.

Even for the much more strategic requirements like the Nuke research there were no funds. Chinese kept going on and today despite harbouring more corruption then us, it is actually they who are doing better at both Aviation and Nukes.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Build twin-engine LCA – Rafale is short term solution

In a NitiCentral article on December 27, 2014 I suggested that India forget about technology transfer for now, allow complete manufacture in France and in return insist on an accelerated delivery schedule of all 126 Rafale aircraft at a significantly lower price point. In France Narendra Modi announced government to government G2G purchase of 36 Rafale jets to be provided on better terms than Dassault could offer and there is no technology transfer. Modi did what he had to do to respond to the urgency of the situation. It was obvious that negotiation with Dassault was going nowhere and by making a G2G purchase Modi got the job done. As Parrikar said this gives the IAF breathing room to make a proper choice about the long term. Parrikar has been clear that the MMRCA tender will be cancelled and this purchase of 36 aircraft i.e. two squadrons gives a soft landing to the cancellation of the MMRCA tender. If the government buys more Rafale in a follow on order having a total of 3-4 squadrons of Rafale may be enough.

The IAF needs to reach the 45 squadrons mark as soon as possible. That 45 squadrons should consist of a good mix of heavy, medium and light aircraft. The Sukhoi 30 is the heavy aircraft and is supposed to reach a total number of 272 i.e. 15 squadrons but take into consideration periodic crashes and some waiting for maintenance and the available aircraft is somewhat less. The Rafale and Mig-29 would be the medium for about 8-10 squadrons. Then a single engine fighter including the 60 Mirage-2000 aircraft and new LCA would be the light aircraft and should be some 20 squadrons in total. This last category currently includes the 250 Mig-21 and 80 Mig-27 which will be phased out in the next few years. So the need is urgent to say the least.

Now the LCA Tejas Mark-I in its current form is not fully operational so the IAF may not depend upon it and so the Mark-I in the IAF would be 2 squadrons at the most. So essentially the IAF is pinning its hopes on the upgraded Mark-II form which has an upgraded engine providing about 10-15% more power and which will not be available for production till about 2019 and in that Mark-II form the government wants an additional 15 squadrons at least. Now there is no question that development of the Mark-II has to be completed, but the main point I want to make in this article is that in my opinion, the Mark-II LCA will NOT meet the long term needs of the IAF, and the Indian government should NOT contemplate more than 5 squadrons of the Mark-II.

There have been reports that Saab of Sweden has offered to help India with fighter development of single-engine fighters for the IAF. For the IAF requirement for the light single-engine combat fighter the Saab's Gripen is the perfect fit in every possible way except the cost. It is like finding the perfect car except it costs double what you want to pay. So when Saab offers to sell India the Gripen and offers technology transfer and offers to help India develop its own indigenous single-engine combat fighter, you should take it very very seriously, because the project will succeed in almost every way and India will learn a lot in the shortest possible time and the combat jet will work wonderfully well. However, in my humble opinion you will wind up with a product that you no longer want and which will cost you a hell of a lot more than you wanted to spend. Simply put, in the real world if you want something cheap you have to do it yourself.

So, just as I said on December 27, 2014 that India should forget about technology transfer and that is what ultimately happened, I now say to you that India should not try to solve a problem that you are not equipped to solve, India should NOT try to develop a single engine combat fighter jet for use in the IAF. What India SHOULD do instead is to change the problem to one that you know you can solve without help from anyone else. India does not need help from Sweden if you only change the problem to one that is easier to solve. To see what India should be doing, let's backup a little.

Every expert commentator on Indian television seems to believe that the light combat aircraft has to be a single-engine combat fighter. That is the wrong problem to solve. The real reason the LCA was not successful is that it is horribly underpowered. Yes it is true that the Gripen originally used the GE-F404 engine and is now using the GE-F414 engine and that the LCA Tejas Mark-I uses the GE-F404 engine and the Mark-II will use the GE-F414 engine, so at first glance you would say if the Swedish people can do this, why can't we? The obvious answer is that Saab started before world war II and that if you could have done it, you would have done so by now, so obviously HAL does not have as much experience as Saab in designing fighter jets and the proof is that the LCA Tejas Mark-I weighs more than the comparable Saab Gripen and is less aerodynamic. Now if you pay Saab to learn how to improve the LCA so that it can be inducted into the IAF, then you have spent a lot of money for the help and the unit cost of the LCA goes up way too much so it is just not worth it.

So instead of asking Saab for help, why don't you solve an easier problem? I put it to you categorically, that a twin-engine fighter jet can do everything that the LCA was supposed to do and is a hell of a lot easier to design than a single engine combat fighter. If India were to design a larger LCA using two GE-F404 engines to power it, the unit cost will be less than 50 million and it will work on day one. I repeat that the very first prototype that you build will do everything you need the LCA to do and not only that, you will have so much extra power that you can use larger fuel tanks so that you can fly 2000 km more without refuelling. At high altitudes, using two engines will come in handy. Two engines is also more reliable in case of bird strike.

And ultimately having all that extra power allows you to do that true hallmark capability of every supremely successful combat fighter namely variants. Do you know that the F-16 has so many variants that they have run out of the letters of the alphabet? So if you make a twin-engine and have extra power to spend, you can make a variant with large internal fuel tanks, a variant with internal bomb bay i.e. inside the fuselage, a variant with super cruise i.e. the name of the game is no longer that you have 300 aircraft that are identical, but instead that you have a half-dozen variants each honed for a specific mission. The ability to make variants will also allow you to get good export sales, because every customer wants something different.

So, in a nutshell my message to the Indian government is that you seem to be looking at the wrong problem. You already know how to make an LCA, now just build a twin-engine LCA and you will succeed beyond your wildest dreams. You will also satisfy "make in India", you will get a rock bottom unit cost of less than 50 million apiece, and because it is truly indigenous you can export the combat fighter, and because the cost is low you can get 45 squadrons that you need, your aeronautical industry and Indian economy will benefit enormously. All this will happen merely because you look within yourself and ask what it is that India really wants and needs.

Build twin-engine LCA - Rafale is short term solution

 

[bennedose]

Sir, Since you are SHIV in BR,

I am watching those posts Ahuja's in Br with interest.

Can you ask Ahuja to clarify on this single point ,

Can Mirage 2000 complete a vertical turn in 19 -20 seconds with 20 deg AOA limit and 6 G limit at an altitude 1000 plus meter above sea level at 30 plus degree atmospheric temp , like tejas mk1 did in aeroindia 2013? using the flight stream solver?

I really doubt it can do it, because even rafale completed that vertical loop in only with the same twenty odd seconds in Aeroindia 2013 in bangalore under the same condition.

Also the thrust vectoring and canard enabled Su-30 MKI takes the same twenty seconds to complete a vertical loop.

And in Aeroindia2013 or 2011 , I haven't seen typhoon, F-16 F-18 and Gripen completing the vertical loop in less than twenty seconds.

In case you have any info on that please post.

Also can his software accurately predict all the vortice effects of cranked delta wing on tejas? Because mirage-2000 has simple straight delta , tejas has a bit more complex wing with cranked double delta with a varying slopes for leading edge and conical camber

.

No please. I know the young man personally and he is sincere and is not trying to deliberately run the LCA down. I think I already upset him with my response.

But I honestly feel that we are sometimes too clever by half. When we say things we must not give fuel to detractors. Unfortunately the graph, which was aimed more at a bunch of nerdy aerodynamics discussing group also did exactly that - ie give fuel to LCA's detractors. Did you see what i posted after that and the links I gave about how the much maligned HF 24's could outrun the MiG 21 at low level. Calculations are no substitute for actually flying a plane

Let me repost the links here

---

---

 

[bennedose]

T
IAF in all its wisdom shot down the Marut and the bogey of it going in a stall when shooting its main gun was raised often but that was something that was ironed out but as the saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way" For our imported Army and imported Air Force the Videshi arms are the only worthwhile arms!

Here is more info on the HF 24 and its guns