ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Like i said, meteor is uber costly
The IAF won't care. They have already expressed interest in procuring this missile.

Costs is not a deciding factor when it comes to weapons procurement. Looking at the past and present procurement gives enough indications.

I think by 2020,IAF will have inducted even Astr2 with a range of 150kms which i believe is more than enough.
A dual-pulse solid motor A2A missile is inferior to a RAMJET missile. This was proven when RAF chose the Meteor over a dual-pulsed AMRAAM for its future requirements.

Anyway, the Russians are developing one or two new RAMJET based missiles. We may see these on the FGFA first.

Meteor will create a second supply chain for a hi-tech missile with the first of them to be equipped on Rafale and possibly the MKI. IAF has expressed interest in procuring the Meteor for the MKI.

So, we are looking at potentially two RAMJET air to air missiles in service. Not to mention the possibility of an LRAAM also.

Astra Mk1 and Mk2 will form the low end missiles for our air force, along with other western equivalents like MICA, Derby and RVV-AE/SD/M.
 

Punya Pratap

New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Now completely related news :


Air Chief Raha Visits HAL Facility
By Express News Service Published: 06th September 2014 06:08 AM Last Updated: 06th September 2014 06:08 AM
Email1
The Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, (top left) seen along with HAL Chairman R K Tyagi (right) at HAL's Iron Bird Facility on Friday
The Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, (top left) seen along with HAL Chairman R K Tyagi (right) at HAL's Iron Bird Facility on Friday
BANGALORE: Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha on Friday visited the Iron Bird facility at Aircraft Research and Design Centre in the city.

The Chief of Air Staff inspected the facility where more than 14,370 hours of software testing of LCA Tejas has been completed till date. "It is a unique facility and an asset to the LCA Tejas programme. Using this facility, tests can be carried out under normal and failure modes for complex aircraft systems," said R K Tyagi, Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), who accompanied the Air Chief.

The facility allows for an integrity test for the flight control system for statically unstable aircraft such as the LCA and very few countries in the world have access to such testing platform, he said. Iron Bird is the final platform where all the issues of LCA Tejas flight control systems are resolved to ensure safety of the flight. It is a testing that facilitates ground testing of Flight Control System (FCS), components and software for LCA in open loop and closed loop modes. Other associated aircraft systems like the LCA standard cockpit with necessary controls and displays, hydraulic system, landing gear retraction/ extension systems, FCS-related Utility Services Management System (USMS) and nose-wheel steering systems are also evaluated at the Iron Bird.
 

Defcon 1

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,842
Country flag
Defcon 1,
Like i said, meteor is uber costly.its a joint development by multiple european countries and Development is expected to be completed by 2018 only. Then mass manufacturing,inital suply to the developed countries and other delays will definatly push meteor to india by 2022. And more over Meteor can be brought off shelf and integrated to any fighter,we dont require a raffale for it. Sources from DRDO are all upbeat about Astra and say Astra 1 is definate to get Inducted by end of 2015 or Start of 2016. I think by 2020,IAF will have inducted even Astr2 with a range of 150kms which i believe is more than enough.
To add to what @p2prada and @Casper have already said.

Firstly, the articles mention that "French deliveries" will start by 2018. So it takes cares of your doubts about manufacturing setup

Secondly, you are assuming that it will take a long time between the induction of Meteor in European forces and India. This assumption is wrong. Mig 29 induction into IAF is a case in point. US is initiating F16V program because of delay in F35 and simultaneously delivering F35 to Australia. Barak 8 is another example.

Yes Meteor can be bought off the shelf. But if you read my previous posts, I never said we should buy Rafale only for Meteor. Rafale is a much advanced strike aircraft compared to what we have today and its weapon package is also very advanced, which includes MICA, Hammer, and SCALP as well, along with a host of other features not part of its weapon package. Meteor is simply a part of that package. In fact, the same Arjun brigade which is today opposing meteor induction in IAF on basis of costs was lobbying for its integration to LCA on this very forum an year back. Google for the posts. As if the missile wasn't costly then. Then it was all about how good is Meteor. Now when there is no news of Meteor's integration to LCA, suddenly it is a bad missile.

As for Astra 2 being enough. It will be a good missile, but we know that Meteor is technologically advanced. It is not for us to judge whether we need Meteor or not. IAF has got that job, and they have already expressed their intentions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
There are no reports conforming that Meteor won`t be integrated into Tejas, If there is something said, do share ..

What is known that future as well as existing Inventory of BVRs can be Integrated on Tejas MK2 ..

===================

Astra is of same league in which meteor is, Data fusion so does Guiding the BVR from other Aircraft`s radar, Ramjet does not provide any major advantage for BVRs expect minor increase of range ..
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
To add to what @p2prada and @Casper have already said.

Firstly, the articles mention that "French deliveries" will start by 2018. So it takes cares of your doubts about manufacturing setup

Secondly, you are assuming that it will take a long time between the induction of Meteor in European forces and India. This assumption is wrong. Mig 29 induction into IAF is a case in point. US is initiating F16V program because of delay in F35 and simultaneously delivering F35 to Australia. Barak 8 is another example.

Yes Meteor can be bought off the shelf. But if you read my previous posts, I never said we should buy Rafale only for Meteor. Rafale is a much advanced strike aircraft compared to what we have today and its weapon package is also very advanced, which includes MICA, Hammer, and SCALP as well, along with a host of other features not part of its weapon package. Meteor is simply a part of that package. In fact, the same Arjun brigade which is today opposing meteor induction in IAF on basis of costs was lobbying for its integration to LCA on this very forum an year back. Google for the posts. As if the missile wasn't costly then. Then it was all about how good is Meteor. Now when there is no news of Meteor's integration to LCA, suddenly it is a bad missile.

As for Astra 2 being enough. It will be a good missile, but we know that Meteor is technologically advanced. It is not for us to judge whether we need Meteor or not. IAF has got that job, and they have already expressed their intentions.
which arjun brigade was lobbying against buying meteor?

I posted ADA chief himself saying that Tejas mk2 will have interface to carry meteor in an interview to AJAI SHUKLA of broad sword.

No tejas-arjun brigade is opposing meteor here. It is only the LCA(these guys never use the word tejas) that is acting up as if they have never come across such report.


And tejas mk2's ASEA will be bigger and more powerful than rafale. So using meteor on such a higher capacity ASEA radar fighter is even more sensible.

Also your claim that Tejas will not be able to carry 1.2 tons in its center linepylon is based only on the post no 1188 in the following link.And from my experience You have no need to trust that info. For example that post says Astra mk1 is just 44 Km in range using the brain fart by our DDM folks, What ADA said was Astra mk1 will have 80 Km range from 15 Km plus altitude. 44 Km from from middle altitudes and 20 Km in low altitude for head on chase. but the DDM folks just used their Eight standard maths averaging ability to deduce a 44 Km range for Astra Mk1 from the statement !!!!

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-80.html

Some incorrect terms and typos.
GsH should be GSh and AShm should be AShM.

Python is "WVR," but is is mostly intended for Mk2. For Mk1 it is R-73. It cannot carry anything else. Only 2 R-73s will be carried.

R-77 won't be part of LCA.

Astra will be 44Km, as we know from the new releases. So it is at Derby's class. 4 can be carried, same for Derby. Astra Mk2, we will know when it is ready.

KH-31 versions we have are ARM versions, not AShM. We don't yet know if it will be part of LCA program. Same with KH-35.

1500 Kg bombs will not be part of the LCA. Neither will 1000 Kg bombs. Only 500 Kg and lesser.

Three fuel tanks will be carried. 1200 L, 2x 800 L.

So as of today, 3 fuel tanks, 4 BVR, 2 WVR, 5 500 Kg LGBs and supporting pods, in different combinations. Anything else, we may have to wait for LCA Mk2. While LCA Mk1 is carrying bombs it can only carry 2 WVR missiles.
Wrong. Meteor has been tested lot of times. Here is the video, gratify yourself

Same goes for Astra II


Yes, even after factoring in a 4 year delay, you are still calling it optimistic. There is no cure if your mind is biased.


Where did you find out the detection range of Rafale? Do you know the estimated RCS of Chinese J11s. They will be detected from long ways ago.


Wrong. BVR Pk has already crossed 40% in recent wars and it is continuously increasing

Thats old news. Newer sources have estimated costs at 1 million Euro
MBDA Meteor Missiles for French Rafales: Armed Forces Int. News


The outermost pylons of LCA carry 150 kg. Astra mk1 weighs 154 kg. Simple common sense. Also Using Astra as a WVR missile will remove the option of using a IR guided missile. Add to that the fact we don't know its FOV, so we can't predict whether it will have HOBS if used in WVR.


Everyone and their father needs Ramjet at BVR, be it 100 km or 300. The reason is superior kill probability of Ramjet as it can sustain burn even during the endgame. it is superior to dual pulse as well due to reduced G values needed during the endgame.


Who told you that?


Wrong. The capacity of center pylon is 725 litres. The capacity of innerwing pylons is actually 1200 ltrs, not 1.2 ton. The people who made pics of LCA with 1.2 ton inner pylons mistakenly converted ltrs to kgs. Multiply it by specific gravity of fuel and you will get approximate capacity in weight, which is lesser than 1.2 tonnes. Note that Tejas hasn't been tested with 1000 kg bombs. Anyways, Brahmos guys have said which aircraft they plan to integrate Brahmos-M on. Tejas doesn't figure among them.

I might add one thing. That 300 km range is its maximum range, operational range will be much lesser, however it will still be greater than contemporary BVR missiles. Meteor sits between modern BVR missiles and AWACS killers such as Novator.


If you multiply 1200 liters with 0.804(specific gravity of fuel) you will get 960 Kg. if you add the centerline pylon's external fuel tank's weight the figure easily creeps near to 1200 Kg for center line pylon.

What is astounding is without even having enough comprehension skills to deduce such a simple fact you were calling me an idiot!!!!
Leave it, you are talking to an idiot.
So it is no wonder that you post such BS as give below
I don't neglect anything. I know about all the failures and achievements of this program, which you don't. Which is clear from the fact that you didn't even know that LCA Mk1 failed to meet requirements of ASR


I have seen this brochure. You are moron if you think that LCA is still supposed to be a Mig21 replacement. It has supposed to do much more now.
And Mig 21 will still beat LCA in interception missions because of its high speed. Read about interception missions before coming back here before blabbering like an idiot.

Yes I do. There is nothing state of art about its avionics. The avionics of LCA were installed on Western and Russian fighters 20-30 years ago. Since you know nothing about that, don't try to lecture me on this.

Its Relaxed Static Stability (RSS). If you are going to copy paste things you don't understand, at least do the copying job correctly. Rest of the things, again, have been available for decades. F16 sported Digital FBW back in 1970s. If you think that is state of the art, you are a moron.


That is confidential. However as clearly written in the document published by CEMILAC. LCA Mk1 did not meet requirements. Since you deny this, probably you are saying that the agency which certified LCA is wrong and you are correct. Good going.

Where did I say that? Comprehension issues? You were simply asked to prove your allegations which you couldn't, and now you are crying here.


Another allegation without proof. Clear sign of a moron.

I know LCA Mk1 achieved a lot of things. However it did not meet requirements of ASR, and as an Indian, I am proud of LCA's achievements and I feel no shame in accepting the fact that it did not meet requirements, as I showed in post #544. It is you who are having a hard time accepting the truth written in the CEMILAC document. So either grow yourself emotionally and accept the fact that LCA Mk1 did not meet requirements, or you are welcome to go f8ck yourself.

and ask other guys to f8ck themselves.

I have never come across such a stupid poster in any other meaningful(it means non-pakistani forums) forum who continue to supply lies and misleading info consistently and even worse abusing other guys who present the plain truth!!!!

You just dont know anything useful or truthful about tejas. other than the info that tejas was called LCA before 2002 , your entire posts are fit only for garbage can.

So please stop this headless chicken run in tejas threads.You are taking the discussion backwards not forwards. try to read up some stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Punya Pratap

New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Ersakthivel I have asked this couple of times and I m asking again... please ask these experts to verify the ASQR details before they quote on CEMILAC report and what the specifics there off.

Please let everyone know that if someone says that there was no change in IAF ASQR between the original ASQR of 1985 and 2004 then that person is lying through his teeth! For example there were nt any provisions for BVR missiles which crept up in 2004 ASQR and is one of the numerous reasons why IAF is saying it wants the Tejas Mk2 not the under powered Tejas Mk1!! Please ask IAF why the Tejas Mk 1 is under powered and over weight same as asking the IA why and how Arjun became over weight.

I have constantly been saying that there are different yardsticks employed by IA & IAF regarding home grown products and the below article illustrates my point to the hilt:

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Air Force diluted at least twelve benchmarks for trainer aircraft, allowing Pilatus into the contract

Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, first as Deputy Chief and now as IAF Chief, has been surprisingly nice to Pilatus

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 30th July 13

Former Indian Air Force (IAF) head, Air Chief Marshal SC Tyagi, faces a CBI charge sheet for allegedly diluting a single specification of the VVIP helicopter that India was buying. In the so-called Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR), the helicopter's service ceiling was lowered from 6,000 to 4,500 metres. This made the AW-101 helicopter eligible and its Anglo-Italian manufacturer, AgustaWestland, bagged the Euro 556 million (Rs 4,377 crore) IAF contract for 12 helicopters.

That violation, now under investigation, is dwarfed in the IAF's purchase of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainer aircraft (BTA), where at least 12 benchmarks were changed between March and October 2009, including some relating to pilot safety. But they allowed the PC-7 Mark II, fielded by Swiss company Pilatus, to qualify and win an IAF order worth US $640 million (Rs 3,780 crore) for 75 BTA.

Business Standard is in possession of the documents relating to this case. Contacted for comments, the IAF has chosen not to respond.

The documents reveal that, up to Sep 29, 2009, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was indigenously developing 181 BTA for the IAF, dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainer–40 (HTT–40). On Mar 5, 2009, the IAF laid down stringent performance benchmarks --- dubbed "Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements", or PSQR.

But these began getting diluted in Sept 2009, when the MoD permitted the IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued relaxed criteria, termed "Air Staff Qualitative Requirements", or ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR that were formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seems almost to be tailored for Pilatus.

Amongst the twelve dilutions that Business Standard has identified, the most worrisome is doing away with the requirement for a "zero-zero ejection seat." This allows pilots to eject even from a stationary aircraft on the ground (zero altitude, zero speed). The Oct 2009 ASQR does not require a zero-zero ejection seat. Since the PC-7 Mk II has "zero-sixty" ejection seats, i.e. the aircraft must be moving at sixty knots (110 kmph), dropping the requirement for zero-zero ejection seats made it eligible for the IAF contract.

The PSQR of Mar 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurized cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with this requirement. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurized cockpit.

Also diluted was the requirement for good external vision from the instructor's rear cockpit, a crucial attribute in a BTA. The PSQR of Mar 2009 mandated a field of view of "minus 8 degree vision" for the rear cockpit. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with that, specifying only that, "the rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction." The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the 8-degree specification, became eligible.

"Glide ratio" is another important attribute for a light, single-engine aircraft. The glide ratio of 12:1, specified in the Mar 2008 PSQR, meant that the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 kilometres for every one kilometre of altitude that it lost. That would enable a BTA that was flying at an altitude of 5 kilometres to glide for 60 kilometres, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the Oct 2009 ASQR relaxed the glide-ratio requirement to 10:1. That is precisely the glide-ratio of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.

The ASQR of Oct 2009 also relaxed the requirement for "in-flight simulation". This permits the instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate instrument failures, training the rookie pilot to handle an emergency. The PSQR of Mar 2009 required "in-flight simulation" facilities; and the HTT-40 currently being developed by HAL also has these. But the PC-7 Mark II does not, and the relaxation of this condition made it eligible for the IAF tender.

Other relaxations that made the Pilatus trainer eligible include: increasing the take-off distance from 700 to 1000 metres; and reducing maximum speed from 475 kmph to 400 kmph.

On Monday, this newspaper had reported ("Indian Air Force at war with Hindustan Aeronautics; wants to import, not build, a trainer) about a personal letter earlier this month from Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, the IAF chief, to Defence Minister AK Antony, asking for HAL's trainer project to be scrapped and another 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers be imported from Pilatus, a purchase that will benefit the Swiss company by an estimated $800 million (Rs 4,750 crore).

Browne's involvement with the basic trainer dates back several years. From Mar 2007 to May 2009, he was Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) at IAF headquarters, handling all IAF acquisitions. Four months after he handed over to Air Marshal NV Tyagi (not to be confused with the former IAF chief, SC Tyagi), the IAF issued the ASQR, with the relaxations that benefited Pilatus.

Contacted for comments, NV Tyagi told Business Standard that the PSQR of Mar 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet, but those were lowered in the Oct 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going in for global procurement. Lower standards would bring in more vendors and generate competition.

Says Tyagi, "The earlier PSQRs matched the performance of the Embraer Super Tucano, which many IAF officers considered a good trainer. But the IAF didn't believe that HAL could build such a trainer quickly. After a series of HPT-32 crashes [then the IAF's basic trainer] it was decided in September 2009 to buy 75 basic trainers from the global market. Fresh QRs were framed in order to bring as many vendors as possible into the tender."

It remains unclear why exacting standards set for a HAL-built trainer were lowered when it came to an international purchase


which arjun brigade was lobbying against buying meteor?

I posted ADA chief himself saying that Tejas mk2 will have interface to carry meteor in an interview to AJAI SHUKLA of broad sword.

No tejas-arjun brigade is opposing meteor here. It is only the LCA(these guys never use the word tejas) that is acting up as if they have never come across such report.


And tejas mk2's ASEA will be bigger and more powerful than rafale. So using meteor on such a higher capacity ASEA radar fighter is even more sensible.

Also your claim that Tejas will not be able to carry 1.2 tons in its center linepylon is based only on the post no 1188 in the following link.And from my experience You have no need to trust that info. For example that post says Astra mk1 is just 44 Km in range using the brain fart by our DDM folks, What ADA said was Astra mk1 will have 80 Km range from 15 Km plus altitude. 44 Km from from middle altitudes and 20 Km in low altitude for head on chase. but the DDM folks just used their Eight standard maths averaging ability to deduce a 44 Km range for Astra Mk1 from the statement !!!!

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-80.html






If you multiply 1200 liters with 0.804(specific gravity of fuel) you will get 960 Kg. if you add the centerline pylon's external fuel tank's weight the figure easily creeps near to 1200 Kg for center line pylon.

What is astounding is without even having enough comprehension skills to deduce such a simple fact you were calling me an idiot!!!!


So it is no wonder that you post such BS as give below



and ask other guys to f8ck themselves.

I have never come across such a stupid poster in any other meaningful(it means non-pakistani forums) forum who continue to supply lies and misleading info consistently and even worse abusing other guys who present the plain truth!!!!

You just dont know anything useful or truthful about tejas. other than the info that tejas was called LCA before 2002 , your entire posts are fit only for garbage can.

So please stop this headless chicken run in tejas threads.You are taking the discussion backwards not forwards. try to read up some stuff.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Ersakthivel I have asked this couple of times and I m asking again... please ask these experts to verify the ASQR details before they quote on CEMILAC report and what the specifics there off.

Please let everyone know that if someone says that there was no change in IAF ASQR between the original ASQR of 1985 and 2004 then that person is lying through his teeth! For example there were nt any provisions for BVR missiles which crept up in 2004 ASQR and is one of the numerous reasons why IAF is saying it wants the Tejas Mk2 not the under powered Tejas Mk1!! Please ask IAF why the Tejas Mk 1 is under powered and over weight same as asking the IA why and how Arjun became over weight.

I have constantly been saying that there are different yardsticks employed by IA & IAF regarding home grown products and the below article illustrates my point to the hilt:

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Air Force diluted at least twelve benchmarks for trainer aircraft, allowing Pilatus into the contract

Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, first as Deputy Chief and now as IAF Chief, has been surprisingly nice to Pilatus

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 30th July 13

Former Indian Air Force (IAF) head, Air Chief Marshal SC Tyagi, faces a CBI charge sheet for allegedly diluting a single specification of the VVIP helicopter that India was buying. In the so-called Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR), the helicopter's service ceiling was lowered from 6,000 to 4,500 metres. This made the AW-101 helicopter eligible and its Anglo-Italian manufacturer, AgustaWestland, bagged the Euro 556 million (Rs 4,377 crore) IAF contract for 12 helicopters.

That violation, now under investigation, is dwarfed in the IAF's purchase of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainer aircraft (BTA), where at least 12 benchmarks were changed between March and October 2009, including some relating to pilot safety. But they allowed the PC-7 Mark II, fielded by Swiss company Pilatus, to qualify and win an IAF order worth US $640 million (Rs 3,780 crore) for 75 BTA.

Business Standard is in possession of the documents relating to this case. Contacted for comments, the IAF has chosen not to respond.

The documents reveal that, up to Sep 29, 2009, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was indigenously developing 181 BTA for the IAF, dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainer–40 (HTT–40). On Mar 5, 2009, the IAF laid down stringent performance benchmarks --- dubbed "Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements", or PSQR.

But these began getting diluted in Sept 2009, when the MoD permitted the IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued relaxed criteria, termed "Air Staff Qualitative Requirements", or ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR that were formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seems almost to be tailored for Pilatus.

Amongst the twelve dilutions that Business Standard has identified, the most worrisome is doing away with the requirement for a "zero-zero ejection seat." This allows pilots to eject even from a stationary aircraft on the ground (zero altitude, zero speed). The Oct 2009 ASQR does not require a zero-zero ejection seat. Since the PC-7 Mk II has "zero-sixty" ejection seats, i.e. the aircraft must be moving at sixty knots (110 kmph), dropping the requirement for zero-zero ejection seats made it eligible for the IAF contract.

The PSQR of Mar 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurized cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with this requirement. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurized cockpit.

Also diluted was the requirement for good external vision from the instructor's rear cockpit, a crucial attribute in a BTA. The PSQR of Mar 2009 mandated a field of view of "minus 8 degree vision" for the rear cockpit. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with that, specifying only that, "the rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction." The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the 8-degree specification, became eligible.

"Glide ratio" is another important attribute for a light, single-engine aircraft. The glide ratio of 12:1, specified in the Mar 2008 PSQR, meant that the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 kilometres for every one kilometre of altitude that it lost. That would enable a BTA that was flying at an altitude of 5 kilometres to glide for 60 kilometres, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the Oct 2009 ASQR relaxed the glide-ratio requirement to 10:1. That is precisely the glide-ratio of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.

The ASQR of Oct 2009 also relaxed the requirement for "in-flight simulation". This permits the instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate instrument failures, training the rookie pilot to handle an emergency. The PSQR of Mar 2009 required "in-flight simulation" facilities; and the HTT-40 currently being developed by HAL also has these. But the PC-7 Mark II does not, and the relaxation of this condition made it eligible for the IAF tender.

Other relaxations that made the Pilatus trainer eligible include: increasing the take-off distance from 700 to 1000 metres; and reducing maximum speed from 475 kmph to 400 kmph.

On Monday, this newspaper had reported ("Indian Air Force at war with Hindustan Aeronautics; wants to import, not build, a trainer) about a personal letter earlier this month from Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, the IAF chief, to Defence Minister AK Antony, asking for HAL's trainer project to be scrapped and another 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers be imported from Pilatus, a purchase that will benefit the Swiss company by an estimated $800 million (Rs 4,750 crore).

Browne's involvement with the basic trainer dates back several years. From Mar 2007 to May 2009, he was Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) at IAF headquarters, handling all IAF acquisitions. Four months after he handed over to Air Marshal NV Tyagi (not to be confused with the former IAF chief, SC Tyagi), the IAF issued the ASQR, with the relaxations that benefited Pilatus.

Contacted for comments, NV Tyagi told Business Standard that the PSQR of Mar 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet, but those were lowered in the Oct 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going in for global procurement. Lower standards would bring in more vendors and generate competition.

Says Tyagi, "The earlier PSQRs matched the performance of the Embraer Super Tucano, which many IAF officers considered a good trainer. But the IAF didn't believe that HAL could build such a trainer quickly. After a series of HPT-32 crashes [then the IAF's basic trainer] it was decided in September 2009 to buy 75 basic trainers from the global market. Fresh QRs were framed in order to bring as many vendors as possible into the tender."

It remains unclear why exacting standards set for a HAL-built trainer were lowered when it came to an international purchase
I have quoted tons of material, but the LCA (saying the word tejas is the original sin here!!) brigade wont agree!!!!

they will shut their eyes like a drowning kitten.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page01.html

Space constraints prevent any meaningful description of materials, technology, facilities, processes developed for execution of the project. Military aviation enthusiasts may read a monograph on Aeronautical Technology that has attained maturity through DRDO efforts; much of this technology finds application in the LCA project.

The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced.


Now max take off weight of tejas is 13.2 tons,
take off clean 9.5 tons,
super sonic at altitudes,
speed at service ceiling mach 1.6(within the 80 percent opened flight envelope)


First the close combat missile was the older lesser weight R-60 which had lesser launching stress, then it was upgraded to R-73 E which is heavier and has a higher launch stress on the air frame , which led to redesign of air frame and wings.That was FSED phase-2 was all about which started in 2004.Now it has refuelling probe

I dont know whether the requirements for BVR missiles were also upgraded in FSED phase-2.

Please tell me whether the ASR was upgraded or down graded!!!
The aircraft will be powered by a Kaveri engine (more information follows) and is to operate from the Indian Navy's Air Defence Ship, under construction. Launch speed over a 12 deg ramp is 100 kts; recovery speed during a no flare deck landing, using arrester gear, is 120 kts. Take off mass 13 tonne, recovery mass 10 tonne. Most stringent requirements are that the airframe will be modified: nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach; wing leading edge vortexes (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach and strengthened undercarriage. Nose wheel steering will be powered for deck maneuverability.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page03.html

A few words on the final operational clearance (FOC). The entire avionics and weapon systems are con-figured around three 1553 B data bus. Mission oriented computation/flight management is through a 32 hit computer.

Information: from sensors (e.g. multi-mode radar, IRST, radar/laser/missile launch-warning receivers); from the inertial navigation System with embedded GPS; from targeting pod (FLIR, laser designator) are presented to the pilot on a head-up-display and head-down-displays.


A helmet mounted target designator steers radar and missile seekers for early target acquisition (during a 'close-in' air-to-air engagement with a Vympel R-73 missile, currently the best dog-fight' missile in the world). Laser guided bombs and TV guided missiles, require a pilot to initially 'zero-in' the laser designator or missile-mounted TV camera, on the ground target. Considerable engineering effort and expertise is necessary to achieve avionics-weapon integration and to prove the integration by live trials.

Success here means FOC.Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.
All the specs in maroon colour are updated.

Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) clearly mentions updated ASR in 2001 itself.

This is about the Author, an authority on Tejas and LCH,

Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) was the chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from September 1984 to March 1988. He entered the Indian Air Force in 1947 and was awarded the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM) for his exemplary role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War. It was during his tenure at HAL that the design and development of the Advanced Light Helicopter and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was undertaken. He is considered an authority on LCA, and MIGs in particular. Air Marshal Wollen has authored several papers on aviation and here he talks about Tejas and the reason why it is so important.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/01/month-before-ioc-mods-tejas-update-in.html

This following report by MOD in parliament clearly details the "updated" ASR which led to FSED phase-2 in 2004.
===================================================================================
The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs 560.00 Cr. This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase (PDP).

After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into Technical Development Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase. The Full Scale Engineering Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983).

The scope of FSED Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build operational proto-vehicles at a later stage. LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles.

The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov"Ÿ2001. The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely, Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of
preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-à-vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31 Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop & productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds. The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to:

(a) Complexity of the system desgn and very high safety standards lead to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.

(b) Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM) was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft contemporary|

(c) Due to non-availability of indigenous "žKaveri Engine"Ÿ design changes were carried out to accommodate GE404 engine of USA.

(d) Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.

(e) Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence free open architecture avionics system).

(f) US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production cycle took time.


The need for revision of FSED Phase-II fund sanction was mainly due to:

(a) To neutralize the effect of inflation/delivery point cost against the sanctioned level at 2001 and the increase in manpower cost of HAL.

(b) To meet the programme management expenditure due to extended time line till Dec 2012

(c) Maintain and operate 10-15 aircraft for four years upto 2012

(d) To maintain & upgrade the design, development and test facilities upto 2012, in keeping with modern technology

(e) To complete the activities which were not costed in the original estimates.

Cost Revision Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc., recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr). Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.

LCA (Tejas) Programme is progressing satisfactorily as per schedule mutually agreed with IAF to meet their requirements.

Our LCA Ninja brigade here says that IAF is waiting for tejas for three decades, when report says that schedule was "mutually agreed to " by IAF
Flight Test phase on nine Tejas aircrafts to obtain IOC for Tejas, which is mandatory for induction of Tejas into IAF is in advanced stage. Establishment of Tejas production facilities for the production rate of eight aircrafts per annum is progressing concurrently with development activities. On 31 Mar 2006, IAF has executed the contract with HAL for production of 20 Tejas aircraft (series production) powered by GE-F404-IN20 engines in IOC configuration and production activities are in progress. Follow on order of another 20 aircraft is in an advanced stage of negotiation between IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The issue of Kaveri engine has been delinked temporarily from Tejas Production Programme and use of Kaveri engine on Tejas will be considered after successful completion of mandatory development tests on engine.

Our LCA Ninja brigade here interprets it as kaveri will never go on any tejas platform even if it is upgraded to better thrust and completed after a decade!!!
Initial batch of Tejas production aircraft (Tejas Mk-1) will be integrated with GE-F404-IN20 engines and will be inducted into IAF progressively from Jan 2011 onwards. Development of Tejas Mk-2 with alternate imported foreign engine (LCA FSED Phase-III) to improve aircraft performance has been launched concurrently with LCA FSED Phase-II programme.

In addition to the weekly reviews conducted at ADA and the Governing Body & Annual General Body Meetings, the Honourable Raksha Mantri has set up Special Review Committees with the Chief of Air Staff reviewing the programme once every quarter and Deputy Chief of Air Staff reviewing every month to ensure that the objectives of Tejas Programme are achieved without any further cost and time overrun.
===================================================================================
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
RTI for citizens Right to Information: RE: [IAC#RG] KANGAL KIYA DESH KO, NIRBAL BANAYS FAUJ KO; BADNAM KIYA DESH KO

Firstly, as testified by the IAF test pilots who have flown the Tejas through more than a thousand hours of flight-testing, the current version of the fighter, i.e. the Tejas Mark I, is already a world-class fighter that has achieved most performance landmarks that the IAF had demanded. It flies at Mach 1.6 (about 2,000 kmph), a speed that the IAF is satisfied with. Its state-of-the-art quadruplex digital flight control system makes it a maneuverable and easy-to-fly fighter, unlike the unforgiving MiG-21 that it is slated to replace. The Tejas has not had a single accident so far, testifying to the stability of its design.



Another key measure of a fighter's capability is the Angle of Attack (AoA) it can achieve. The higher the AoA, the more lift that is generated, allowing a fighter to get airborne at slower speeds from short airstrips, e.g. aircraft carriers. The IAF had demanded an AoA of 26 degrees for the Tejas. The Tejas has already been tested to 24 degrees, and is on course to achieve that target.



Says Air Commodore (Retd) Parvez Khokhar, who was for years the chief test pilot of the Tejas programme: "The Tejas Mark I is far superior to the MiG-21 fleet that the IAF would have to operate to the end of this decade. In key respects, it is a better fighter than even the Mirage 2000. The Tejas Mark I should enter the IAF's combat fleet in larger numbers and the Tejas Mark II scaled down. This would allow the air force to retire the MiG-21 fleet sooner."



For this, the MoD must review its current plan to build just forty Tejas Mark I fighters, and embark upon another risky adventure to develop a more powerful, capable fighter. Since this would take at least four years of development work, the IAF would not start receiving the Tejas Mark II until 2018.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Sure once I will be there in my home I will do it and Post it here




So far Yes the above Picture is True pylon capability of LCA I believe

But Tejas can't lift full load on his entire Pylons .Correct or not


All right guys,I twitted Saurav Jha from Geek at large to take an interview of CVRDE chief regarding Arjun Mk2 development.He said he will take soon but if we can send him a compilation list of question and suggestion on his email id that would be better for him. So please drop your questions in precise and to point manner . Thanks :namaste: @Kunal Biswas , @Damian, @arnabmit @ersakthivel @militarysta @Twinblade
can you ask Saurav Jha about this , by giving him the link to the poster in front of the fighter in this photograph?

because many Ninjas here were claiming for eons that tejas can not have an endurance of more than 45 minutes!!!!



The poster seems to give endurance as 2 hours 30 minutes for tejas,

But if we magnify it the letters get blurred a bit,

I can not make out the range numbers after zooming it..

Am I correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
The Tejas with Kavery will happen eventually. It may seem far-fetched now but the ominous war clouds developing now in Europe may mean that India may not get deliveries of foreign equipment as war demands will channel all output to the NATO nations.

Even the Rafale deal is unlikely now if the NATO-Russia situation continues to worsen. France will not part with tech if it fears it can end up in Russia. India has its foot in both camps which is not a good strategy in times of strife.
 

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Tejas has a very good and fuel efficient engine. As the engine is basically same as on Gripen, the range figures of Gripen should be a very good indicator of the range figure of Tejas.

The fighter plane's range depends on loadout vs fuel, so its is a complex calculation. I believe that 300km is the radius of action for Tejas - that means the aircraft can carry out an air defence mission within 300 kms of base which would mean adequate reserves for dog-fights etc. and low level flying. The ferry range should be close to 3000km.

The problem here is that posters do not understand that this is in-development fighter, so manufacturer has not yet created glossy brochures giving accurate information about its range etc.
If IAF is buying the fighter, is is clear that it is satisfied about the utility of the fighter.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Which tech rafale has like

1. 4 channel relaxed static stability fly by wire airframe,

2. tail less delta with low wing loading, and high thrust weight ratio to excel in high altitude himalayan theater where taking off with meaningful load within the specified runway length depends on these factors

3. All glass cockpit, and avionics that minimizes pilot loads and designed with active inputs from test pilots through out the flight test regime,

4. RCS reduction mechanism,

5.latest engine tech(present engine on rafale is more than two decades old in thrust levels)

6.Ability to fire 120 Km range BVR missiles with a decent sized radar,

7. A fly by wire airframe with wake penetration and all weather clearance,

8. Ability to fire the deadly HMDS enabled visually cued R-73 E WVR missile? (described as one of the best in the world by Air marshal and former HAL chairman MSD Woolen. Even tejas mk1 has it now but it is proposed to be added to rafale later at extra cost to ourself).

9. Higher percentage of weight reducing , radar refection minimizing composites that enable high thrust to weight ratio for a given airframe mass?

10.The combination of high TWR and low wingloading RSS delta airframe which enables agile turns to evade BVR missiles and get a first shoot ability with Visually cued R-73 E like WVR missiles in close combat, which is a must have option in modern 4.5th gen airframes

11.Ability to carry a mini brahmos like cruise missile weighing close to 1.5 tons on its center line pylon.

12.OBORG for extended refuelled flying in high altitude with the aid of refuelling,

13.A 1.8 mach top speed in its service ceiling with 9 G limits.

14. A must have less than 1 sq meter clean config which enables to drop away from long range radars once heavy external weapons and fuel tanks are released.

15. A good fuel sipping engine that is reliable and modern for some time to come.

16.Ability to fire ramjets 120 Km range missiles like meteor with an ASEA radar that can track long enough,

17. Modular in design and Ability to be upgraded in batches as and when new techs like better sensor fusion, better ASEA radar and better IRST devices arrive.

18, An option to upgrade to a higher thrust engine,

19. A flow separation postponing arrangement like ,

canard or levcon or cranked delta which generates vortex over the top of wing leading edge in high angle of attacks to enables air suction over the top of the smoothly blended upper wing body fuselage,

there by delaying the onset of stall and enabling the wing to reach designed max lift coefficient of the wing which is not present in older delta platforms like mirage-2000.

Also these lift enhancing mechanism along with flawless Relaxed static stability 4 channel fly by wire tech that allows the hassle and easy flying at sea level which is not the case with earlier tailless deltas which did not have the above mentioned techs .

20. Retaining unstable configuration throughout the flight envelope even in supersonic flight which enables better and tighter turns and agility.


That wont be present in tejas mk2?

Answer -NONE.

 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
How AK Antony damaged the soul of the Army

While Manmohan Singh's personality in the psychological context of the Indians was a perfect veneer for pliability, criminal collusion and subversion of the spirit of Indian Constitution, Antony's assiduously acquired 'clean image' came in handy for 'powers that be' to subvert and wreck the Indian Armed Forces from within.

It may be reiterated here that Manmohan Singh in no sense was an elected Prime Minister and therefore his writ did not extend to picking up his own defence minister. The Prime Minister and the defence minister were picked up by the same authority and for same considerations, the least of all 'integrity'.

In fact, integrity and incorruptibility, financial and moral, were two biggest disqualifications in the previous regime.If Manmohan Singh delivered to his political benefactor and mentor by way of CWG, Coal and 2G; Antony did not lag behind. Never before in the history of India, the three services were targeted the manner in which it was done during Antony's stewardship of the MoD. Never in independent India, had the arms lobby become so brazen and criminal that it dared to manipulate 'chain of succession' of service chiefs.

The Indian Army was deliberately dragged into controversy by fabricating age related issue in respect of an Army Chief. Mr Antony vouched for the integrity of this Army Chief when he reported the Tatra scam to him. When the age issue came up in the Supreme Court, the government of which Mr Antony was a part, submitted an affidavit to the honourable bench, testifying the integrity of the concerned Army Chief.

If the Army Chief was a man of integrity, then Mr Antony must answer as to why did he re-elicit the opinion of the Law Ministry, when it had categorically ruled in favour of the Army Chief. The common buzz is that it was done at the behest of someone, to whom Mr Antony owed his office.The next in the line was Indian Air Force. Once the VVIP Chopper scam was reported from a foreign soil, as is invariably the case, a former Air Chief was made the scapegoat for allegedly being recipient of kick-backs.

The primary fault of this Air Chief was that as demanded, he had given his 'opinion' on the requisite operational parameters for procurement of VVIP Chopper. Even say, this Air Chief was guilty in the reckoning of Mr Antony for having allegedly received a small fraction of the kick-backs, the Defence Minister should have been worried as to who were the major recipients of public money. On this account both the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister were silent, because their puppeteer was in the grave shadow of doubt!

Now was the turn of Indian Navy. More than dozen accidents in a matter of months! It included two submarines. Many serving and retired Naval Officers asserted that the accidents were result of age related problems of the naval inventory. After every accident, the Naval Chief was put under-pressure. Finally, the powers that be succeeded. The Navy Chief resigned.

The desired person was put in Office. Such was the force and osmosis of this new Naval Chief that all age related problems of the inventory have mended without intervention and there have been no accidents thereafter. Very poor script Mr Antony! You and your patron indeed think very poorly of the intelligence of Indians and integrity of people in uniform.

Sadly there were some high ranking personnel in uniform to oblige the designs of your benefactors and the arms lobby. Subversion and sabotage by the arms lobby could not have acquired this new high, but for the indulgence of the dispensation. It was during the decade of the UPA rule that the notorious 'Chandigarh Gang' surfaced as the mainstay of the international arms lobby.

This gang is not necessarily in Chandigarh alone, but nevertheless is centered around it. It comprises some retired Officers, politicians, journalists and prominent newspapers. One of these newspapers, particularly one journalist was on an overdrive during the 'age-row' of the then Army Chief. It had gone to the extent of getting hysterical. Its obsession with General VK Singh continues. Another newspaper of the same ilk, carried the 'coup story' and a full page advertisement on 'Tatra' in the same issue.

The same very 'Chandigarh Gang' has been in the forefront of hyping the Chinese threat and disparaging the DRDO, all at the behest of the arms lobby. The media houses that are the part of this lobby, inconformity with the imperatives of the international arms manufacturers, from time to time bombards the audiences with 'Chinese here, Chinese there and Chinese everywhere' stories. Patriotic citizens should rather rely on the version of the Indian Army on these stories, then being misled by some of the unscrupulous media houses. Heading this 'Chandigarh Gang' was none other than the illustrious colleague of Mr Antony, who it is believed that was desperate to see through a 'succession plan' in the Indian Army.

It is also believed that it was he who prevailed on Mr Antony to re-obtain the opinion of the Law Ministry on the age issue of the said Army Chief.Threat analysis should be a major concern and responsibility of a defence minister. Mr Antony allowed the MoD to be hijacked on this issue. He equally shares the blame for India's sell out at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

As a result of Indo-US nuclear deal, he is equally responsible for degrading India's indigenous nuclear quest by slowing down the process of 'fast breeder reactor' and the 'thorium route'. If there are three ends to the spectrum of warfare, i.e. sub-conventional, conventional, and nuclear, then the entire gamut should be the concern of a defence minister.

If a prime minister is hysterical about only one end of this spectrum, then the motivations are not nationalistic. At the conventional level, Mr Antony did not allow one major arms acquisition even in the face of pernicious security imperatives on one pretext or the other. Indian security became a victim of the murderous internecine rivalry of the various arms lobbies.

At the sub-conventional or proxy war end of the spectrum, the defence minister allowed India's bargaining position to be neutralized vis-à-vis Pakistan by allowing the 'Chandigarh Gang' to implicate Col Purohit for Malegaon and Samjhauta blasts at the behest of international lobbies. The specter of 'Hindu terror' was drummed up by the media of the same 'Chandigarh Gang'. When the Army Court of Inquiry absolved this Officer, the least the defence minister should have done is to honourably reinstate him. This is bound to recoil as one of the biggest scams involving highest levels of the country. An unpardonable act on the part of the defence minister was to acquiesce to the machinations by the arms lobby for inquiry on the Technical Support Group (TSG) to kill the political prospects of Gen VK Singh.

The TSG raised for acquiring operational and tactical intelligence in the wake of 26/11. Those who are in the know of the splendid achievements of TSG, very much doubt the patriotism of the characters who questioned the functioning of the organization in order to pander anti-nationals in the Kashmir Valley and their Pakistani benefactors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we know why some sections of "eggsperts in defence media" are engaging constant mudslinging on indigenous projects like tejas and Arjun
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 105.7kN P&W F100-PW-220
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.09 m
Wing Area: 27.90 m2
Empty Weight: 7387 kg
Max.Weight: 17010 kg
Max. Speed: Mach 2.05
Ceiling: 16750 m
Max. Range: 3900 km
Armament: 1*g 20 mm 9276 kg payload
Unit cost: 20 million USD
Type: F-16C/D Fighting Falcon
Country: USA
Export: Bahrain/Greece/Israel/Egypt/NZ/UAE/Singapore/South Korea/Oman/Chile
Function: Multirole Fighter
In Service date: 1979
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 x 131,6 kN (29590 lbs) General Electric F110
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Wing area: 27.88 m2
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.09
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.03 m

Empty Weight: 8581 kg
Internal Fuel Weight: 3105 kg
Max.Weight: 19187 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Ferry Range: 4215 km

Combat Radius: 900 km
Internal Armament: 1*g 20 mm
G-limits: 9/-3.5
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.26:1
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.1:1

---------------------------------------------------------------

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse.

It will substantially improve in mk2 with a much higher thrust engine.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
License Production Of GE-414

John Flannery, President & CEO, GE India said, "The LCA selection is a big step forward for GE and demonstrates our strong commitment to India. GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement."
Source : GE F414 Engines Selected to Power India Light Combat Aircraft Program | Press Release | GE Aviation

=================

License production means there is no shortage of engines spares and engines, With ToT this is beneficial for Kaveri project too so does cost factor ..
@ersakthivel
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Articles

Top