ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[no smoking]

Let me elaborate it: As far as accuracy is concerned it has very high accuracy to max 1 meter variation.

Wait a minute! Russians claim that their sub-sonic cruise missile has 5m CEP at the best while Indian's Brahmos can be as accurate as 1m? Wonder why India needs Russia on her cruise missile program. No, India should be ahead of everyone on this planet in this area.

 

[Kay]

Wait a minute! Russians claim that their sub-sonic cruise missile has 5m CEP at the best while Indian's Brahmos can be as accurate as 1m? Wonder why India needs Russia on her cruise missile program. No, India should be ahead of everyone on this planet in this area.

Brahmos has CEP of 1.5 m, same same Yakhont. Seekers are currently Russian.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/brahmos.htm
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/p800_oniks.htm

 

[Saichand K]

Brahmos has CEP of 1.5 m, same same Yakhont. Seekers are currently Russian.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/brahmos.htm
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/p800_oniks.htm

Brahmos seekers are completely indigenised.

 

[Kay]

Brahmos seekers are completely indigenised.

I was under impression they are still in development. This is great news.

 

[Kshithij]

Brahmos seekers are completely indigenised.

I have heard about Akash SAM ramjet engine, but I am not sure about Seekers for Brahmos. Are you sure about that?

 

[BON PLAN]

The Brahmos is by its design an AShM. And it was later developed into a land attack variant. The Brahmos A test was against a ship target.

There is a reason each Indian built frigate and destroyer of the last decade has BrahMos as its primary weapon (Shivalik class, Teg class, Kolkata class)

OK. My mistake.

 

[TPFscopes]

Brahmos has CEP of 1.5 m, same same Yakhont. Seekers are currently Russian.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/brahmos.htm
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/p800_oniks.htm

Please cross check your source it stated that

At a maximum range it can hit a target as small as 1.5x1.5 m. It is a fire-and-forget type missile.

It means it has circular error probable of 0.75m as radius where as I mentioned it as accuracy of ±1m. Doest it mean something else?
@no smoking hope you get the idea of BrahMos' accuracy.

Brahmos seekers are completely indigenised.

=>

The radar, seeker and propulsion technologies of BrahMos-A come from Russia. It uses a mono-pulse X-band Imaging Synthetic Aperture Radar which is better than the Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) radar used in cruise missiles the world over.

http://forceindia.net/air-launch-brahmos-ready-tested-end-2017/

Indigenous stuff is under development and will be incorporated soon..

India is developing its own seeker technology for its missiles, with efforts from the state research and development agencies and the private sector. Once ready, this indigenous seeker technology could be integrated on the BRAHMOS supersonic cruise missile and other Indian missiles from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) stable.

In the future, India will be able to use the indigenous seekers, on BRAHMOS too, though currently it uses the Russian seekers, BrahMos Aerospace Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director Sudhir Kumar Mishra told Arming India in an exclusive interview. A few private sector companies from India too are part of the efforts.

Mishra said it is possible for India to have the capability in the future to produce the entire BRAHMOS system indigenously. He added that India learnt canisterisation of missiles know-how from Russia under the BrahMos cooperation.

http://www.brahmand.com/news/India-...-other-missiles-Sudhir-Mishra/14739/1/10.html

 

[TPFscopes]

The Engine Exhaust Nozzle of India's Light Combat Aircraft Tejas.
A propelling nozzle converts a gas turbine or gas generator into a jet engine. Energy available in the gas turbine exhaust is converted into a high speed propelling jet by the nozzle. Turbofan engines may have an additional and separate propelling nozzle which produces a high speed propelling jet from the energy in the air that has passed through the fan. In addition, the nozzle helps to determine how the gas generator and fan operate as it acts as a downstream restrictor.

 

[ersakthivel]

Its astounding that such spurious stuff is peddled in newspapers as defence articles.

And these guys have no sense of shame either,

I have banged half a dozen of these dimwit journos in #Tejas_LCA tag.

But these guys can give tough competition to Tamil film comedian ,"Vadivelu" any day.

If this is the standard of defence journalism,which is a specialized field,

Imagine the standards for common journalism.

 

[ersakthivel]

None of the dimwits who praise gripen E in place of tejas mk2 can even comprehend the fact that with an empty weight of 8 plus ton for 98 Kn GE 414 engine,

its TWR wont be very much better than Tejas mk1A's 6.5 ton empty weigh for 84 Kn,

tejas mk2 wont be going over 8 tons , it will be a prudent investment to make for IAF

 

[ersakthivel]

@Steven Rogers

LCA MK2 planned to have 6.2ton empty weight, 5.7ton Payloads and about 3.4ton of fuel.
Desired weight for naval operations can be managed by compensating Payloads/fuel like they are doing with fulcrums.

If you guys want to compare landing gears, checkout below pics.
LCA (IAF)

LCA (navy)

My expectations for landing gear placement is very similar to Gripen improvement.

Gripen-C

Gripen-E

Hope you guys get the point that this shifting will not only provide more belly space as well as it will provide more internal space either to increase fuel capacity or to fix more Avionics inside like SPJ kit.

We dont have to do what SAAB is doing for Gripen E.

With 80 million price tag SAAB wants to add as much fuel as possible & fight it out with the likes of rafale & F18, F16 ,typhoon as a cost effective MMRCA type fighter.

So these changes are going to tip it over 8 ton & more or less give the same TWr as tejas mk1A.

Goal for IAF tejas mk2 is getting the same 98 Kn GE 414 with as less weight increase as possible.

Imagine an empty weight of around 7 ton for 98 Kn engine with lowest wing loading of all fighter planes that too with a kick ass RSS fly by wire tech..

Its a real kick ass combo of TWR, RSS fly by wire , low wing loading fighter.

It doesnt have to do heavy lifting over long ranges. Enough if its combat range is increased marginally with 5 ton payload.

IAf has other fighters like Su 30 MKI, rafale, to do heavy lifting over long ranges.

 

[ersakthivel]

What is a "licensed aeronautical engineer?"

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

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

The author is speaking like a layman.

Author is another ignorant fellow who never checks before writing stuff.

All ADA staff were hived off from HAl, So they all have production know how.

Kota Harinarayana was involved in extensive redesign of Mig-21s, no rookie academic.

And selection of ADA is vindicated by 3000 odd safe flights for tejas which has more than 162 tech development centers spred over many labs & universities of the nation.

compared to the troubles HTT 40, which is HAL's design is going through, this is a huge achievement for ADA, , where cutting edge fly by fire RSS tech of tejas is a complex new tech.

Even SAAB outsourced this tech in Gripen to US firm after couple of earlier prototypes crashed .

But these things are all far above the head of this gent,

Indian defence journos are a rare & endangered breed, despite years of writing, they never cross check, verify what they write,

So their knowledge remains pristine, untouched by years of experience, & banal most of the time.

 

[Kay]

We dont have to do what SAAB is doing for Gripen E.

With 80 million price tag SAAB wants to add as much fuel as possible & fight it out with the likes of rafale & F18, F16 ,typhoon as a cost effective MMRCA type fighter.

So these changes are going to tip it over 8 ton & more or less give the same TWr as tejas mk1A.

Goal for IAF tejas mk2 is getting the same 98 Kn GE 414 with as less weight increase as possible.

Imagine an empty weight of around 7 ton for 98 Kn engine with lowest wing loading of all fighter planes that too with a kick ass RSS fly by wire tech..

Its a real kick ass combo of TWR, RSS fly by wire , low wing loading fighter.

It doesnt have to do heavy lifting over long ranges. Enough if its combat range is increased marginally with 5 ton payload.

IAf has other fighters like Su 30 MKI, rafale, to do heavy lifting over long ranges.

Maybe MK2 can have conformal fuel tanks like Rafale - depending on mission.

 

[Kay]

The problem seems to be with the names "multi-role" and "omni-role". - No two airforce seems to agree on their definition and the names are open to interpretation.
Tejas is a point defence interceptor with limited ground attack capability. For deep strike, you have Rafale.
Gripen / F-16 seems more fit as a replacement for our Jaguars (light attack) but we are not retiring our Jaguars. So what's the point?
If necessary, we can have two future versions of Tejas - one optimized for ground attack with additional internal fuel.

 

[TPFscopes]

With 80 million price tag SAAB wants to add as much fuel as possible & fight it out with the likes of rafale & F18, F16 ,typhoon as a cost effective MMRCA type fighter.

Do you know, LCA program in 2000s was reviewed that of Mirage-2000 should be available to give a general idea where Tejas stands and make it comparable to M2K. comparison with Rafale,F-16 and F-18 is not a fair game.

So these changes are going to tip it over 8 ton & more or less give the same TWr as tejas mk1A.

AFAIK, it should be between 6.5-7.0 tons..

Goal for IAF tejas mk2 is getting the same 98 Kn GE 414 with as less weight increase as possible.

yup its is.. MK2 will be what ADA promised in 2004.. nothing extra. IAF want fighter not a display jet. IAF want agility as well as significant payload with suitable endurance with internal fuel (ADA promised all these during initial phase of development).

Imagine an empty weight of around 7 ton for 98 Kn engine with lowest wing loading of all fighter planes that too with a kick ass RSS fly by wire tech..

Agreed, It can be easily achieved. Even MK1A will be further improved with better internal arrangement which will provide enough space to house EW and SPJ device internal with some extra fuel..

Its a real kick ass combo of TWR, RSS fly by wire , low wing loading fighter.

agreed, but capability can be further increased without affecting its performance.

It doesnt have to do heavy lifting over long ranges. Enough if its combat range is increased marginally with 5 ton payload.

Nobody asked to perform Heavy category roles but it should have to perform those roles for which it is designed. I think you know that mk1 is no where close to its capability and mk1a is nothing more than a compromise as SoP-18 package over mk1.

IAf has other fighters like Su 30 MKI, rafale, to do heavy lifting over long ranges.

agreed

We dont have to do what SAAB is doing for Gripen E

I expect those design changes just to increase the belly space which will lead to house two heavy under belly pylons easily and wheel folding will not waste the most precious internal space which can be used for either uses like for increase fuel capacity, to integrate internal avionics and most important for future LRUs..


Basic outline of LCA mk2

I'm very much positive that the design of LCA mk-2 will be very similar to N-LCA as it has more aerodynamic internal space than LCA-AF and have lesser drag effect than LCA-AF.

 

[ersakthivel]

Maybe MK2 can have conformal fuel tanks like Rafale - depending on mission.

they can all be done later, no need to make it fly as long as teing engined fighters.

In war there will be many targets within tejas range,
Unlike US or russia, IAF doesnt hv to fly forever to find targets,
for that purpose there is 300 odd rafales & Su 30 MKis are there

 

[ersakthivel]

The problem seems to be with the names "multi-role" and "omni-role". - No two airforce seems to agree on their definition and the names are open to interpretation.
Tejas is a point defence interceptor with limited ground attack capability. For deep strike, you have Rafale.
Gripen / F-16 seems more fit as a replacement for our Jaguars (light attack) but we are not retiring our Jaguars. So what's the point?
If necessary, we can have two future versions of Tejas - one optimized for ground attack with additional internal fuel.

this point defence non sense is the invention of import dalals,

both gripen C, D & Tejas mk1 hv the same engine power, fuel load, empty weight.

yet tejas is always point defence & gripen is multi role, how come.

 

[ersakthivel]

Do you know, LCA program in 2000s was reviewed that of Mirage-2000 should be available to give a general idea where Tejas stands and make it comparable to M2K. comparison with Rafale,F-16 and F-18 is not a fair game.

AFAIK, it should be between 6.5-7.0 tons..

yup its is.. MK2 will be what ADA promised in 2004.. nothing extra. IAF want fighter not a display jet. IAF want agility as well as significant payload with suitable endurance with internal fuel (ADA promised all these during initial phase of development).

Agreed, It can be easily achieved. Even MK1A will be further improved with better internal arrangement which will provide enough space to house EW and SPJ device internal with some extra fuel..

agreed, but capability can be further increased without affecting its performance.

Nobody asked to perform Heavy category roles but it should have to perform those roles for which it is designed. I think you know that mk1 is no where close to its capability and mk1a is nothing more than a compromise as SoP-18 package over mk1.

agreed


I expect those design changes just to increase the belly space which will lead to house two heavy under belly pylons easily and wheel folding will not waste the most precious internal space which can be used for either uses like for increase fuel capacity, to integrate internal avionics and most important for future LRUs..

I hv read in many places that with deep structural changes of designing new fairing s for wheels, & the extra fuel tanks bulking up the volume, gripen E prototypes are leaning over 8 tons, e will know only when FOC is complete. It will hv to contend with extra drag as well,

Aim of tejas mk2 is to refine the sudden cross section bulge after cockpit to reduce drag & make it more aerodynamic, leading to leser drag exact opposite of gripen E.

If you take total lifecycle cost, Tejas mk2 is going to be substantially cheaper than gripnen with more TWr & lower wing loading, bigger ASEA radar & possible brahmos light combo.

SO no need to add more internal volume & extra heavy pylon to ruin its aerodynamics,

We can have more number of planes to do the same jobs at the same cost of fleet.

Tejas mk1a is no slouch either.

Not many of the close to 700 odd IAF fighters have RBE ASEA & possible meteor combo to go with HMDS enabled visually cued high off bore WVR missiles like python like Tejas has.

Still people almost talk about tejas mk1A in an apologetic tone
hell even the Tejas mk1 has HMDS WVR python & derby along with a decent israeli radar & external self protection suit.
No sitting ducks either

 

[TPFscopes]

I hv read in many places that with deep structural changes of designing new fairing s for wheels, & the extra fuel tanks bulking up the volume, gripen E prototypes are leaning over 8 tons, e will know only when FOC is complete. It will hv to contend with extra drag as well,

I only want lighter landing gears and its redesigned placement. this will give more than enough weight reduction as well as internal space. Slight enlargement of air frame is solely another topic of discussion

Aim of tejas mk2 is to refine the sudden cross section bulge after cockpit to reduce drag & make it more aerodynamic, leading to leser drag exact opposite of gripen E.

=>

Basic outline of LCA mk2

I'm very much positive that the design of LCA mk-2 will be very similar to N-LCA as it has more aerodynamic internal space than LCA-AF and have lesser drag effect than LCA-AF.

If you take total lifecycle cost, Tejas mk2 is going to be substantially cheaper than gripnen with more TWr & lower wing loading, bigger ASEA radar & possible brahmos light combo.

There will be AESA with nearly 800TRMs and I can't see any positivism towards Brahmos-NG integration until or unless Navy agreed for NLCA mk2.

SO no need to add more internal volume & extra heavy pylon to ruin its aerodynamics,

No, it is not that much.. it will minimise its g-limits as it always do with any fighter..

We can have more number of planes to do the same jobs at the same cost of fleet.

yup, it will but not at the cost of reducing the jet's peak capability. It is also known as wastage of resources.

Not many of the close to 700 odd IAF fighters have RBE ASEA & possible meteor combo to go with HMDS enabled visually cued high off bore WVR missiles like python like Tejas has.

nice compilation..

Still people almost talk about tejas mk1A in an apologetic tone

Thats really bad

hell even the Tejas mk1 has HMDS WVR along with israeli radars & external self protection suit.
No sitting ducks either

even external SPJ pod is wasting a pylon (when you can fix it internally) which can be used for targeting or recce pod either

 

[ersakthivel]

The problem seems to be with the names "multi-role" and "omni-role". - No two airforce seems to agree on their definition and the names are open to interpretation.
Tejas is a point defence interceptor with limited ground attack capability. For deep strike, you have Rafale.
Gripen / F-16 seems more fit as a replacement for our Jaguars (light attack) but we are not retiring our Jaguars. So what's the point?
If necessary, we can have two future versions of Tejas - one optimized for ground attack with additional internal fuel.

"1) MK2 is an upgrade to fix MK1s problems, NOT to make Tejas to a medium class fighter

2) Gripen E was proposed in MMRCA and now in the SE MMRCA tender, NOT Gripen C/D, which is the light class version

3) LCA MK1A is only aiming on catching up to Gripen C/D in the light class, which already has IFR, integrated EW with external jamming pod, large MFDs and is proposing AESA to it's operators as an upgrade too. "



These are the general misconceptions that are spread puposefully to make indian s feel that Gripen has some how become MMRCA with E version & Tejas even in mk N will be point defence & will never be able to fulfill original IAF specs,

lets bust these lies,

If gripen C has IFR Tejas mkA has a bigger & better tech ASEA
If grripen can give ASEA upgrade, why cant mkA can be fitter with IFR ?
bigger MFDs??? what is the battle advantage, when Tejas mk1A has HMDS which flashed all vital info on pilot helmet?

IAF never ever dreamt of possible RBE ASEA + meteor combo in Tejas as late as 2016, So how come any one can say that mk2 is what IAF gave specs for & mk1, mk1A are all shoddy compromises?? Even french airforce didnt have this combo in RAFALE couple of years back!!

Only after manohar Parrikar brough the warring factions together this mk1A suddenly jumped up.

And gripen E carrying may be 500 Kg extra weapon load to a couple of hundred odd extra combat range is never gonna make it a MMRCA Big Daddy lording over tejas mk2!!

Because if brahmos mini is available , the supersonic speed makes up of lesser Kgs of warhead & the extra couple of hundreds of Kms can easily be covered by brahmos range.

Still Tejas mk2 will surely hv lower wingloading, lesser drag, higher TWR than gripen E , if IAF doesnt load it with "Give Me More" attitude , these are all airframe advantages that will remain through out the life of tejas mk2.

And tejas mk2 will hv a bigger ASEA radar as well.