ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[cobra commando]

Crucial to IAF plans all eyes on LCA Tejas Mk.2 - SP�s Exculsive

 

[shankyz]

Crucial to IAF plans all eyes on LCA Tejas Mk.2 - SP�s Exculsive

"With the Indian Air Force all but officially writing off the LCA Tejas Mk.1 as a fast jet trainer with limited offensive capabilities, all eyes are now on the LCA Mk.2 that will sport a more powerful engine and an upgraded flight envelope."

We will now see ersakhtivel coming into to defend LCA Mk.1 and bashing IAF , SP Aviation etc. etc.

 

[Pulkit]

"With the Indian Air Force all but officially writing off the LCA Tejas Mk.1 as a fast jet trainer with limited offensive capabilities, all eyes are now on the LCA Mk.2 that will sport a more powerful engine and an upgraded flight envelope."

We will now see ersakhtivel coming into to defend LCA Mk.1 and bashing IAF , SP Aviation etc. etc.

IAf has no stakes in Tejas MK2 its the Navy who initiated the process ....
IAF being opportunistic just jumped into it...

Tejas MK1 always fitted the requirement IAF gave Initially and after all the changes they asked....

They have no interest in any Indian Projects they just want foreign toys.....

 

[Defcon 1]

IAf has no stakes in Tejas MK2 its the Navy who initiated the process ....
IAF being opportunistic just jumped into it...

Tejas MK1 always fitted the requirement IAF gave Initially and after all the changes they asked....

They have no interest in any Indian Projects they just want foreign toys.....

Don't talk if you don't know anything. LCA Mk1 never met all the requirement of IAF. This is clearly written even the IOC-2 certificate released by CEMILAC. Google for it, read it, and then come back. Bashing IAF seems to be the fashion here. If you had put equal effort in actually learning about the LCA programme, you wouldn't be saying such things.

For everyone's benefit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66350407/Airworthiness-Certification-of-India-s-Light-Combat-Aircraft-LCA-Tejas-The-Process

Project Management team (PMT) of IAF have also helped the designers for correct interpretation of standards viv-a-vis the performance specified in ASR. The short falls have been scrutinized in depth. Insome cases the shortfall has been considered as design limitation, which may not be feasible to comply,but can be addressed in the next variant

 

[Hari Sud]

Retire a few IAF Marshals who have been hunting for foreign toys. Transfer others to Andaman island and they will all fall in line and love the Indian toys. Rather they will be at the forefront of developing and using Indian toys.

Have they not realized that leadership at the Centre has changed. There is a new guy incharge. He is no nonsense guy. Moment he notices that the only reason you are pushing foreign hardware to line up your pockets, you get your retirement or transfer order quickly.

 

[Pulkit]

Thats funny .... Tejas fitted the requirement .... met most of it ...
There is practically impossible to attain 100% from drawing board to actual.... Still what has been achieved is great....

If IN would not have initiated Tejas MK2 then IAF would have not sidelined MK1.... but if we can get better is good.....

MK2 will surpass the expectations of Navy i believe IAF will still find some points from no where....

Tejas MK1 fits the requirement I say again....


When did that Project Management team (PMT) of IAF came into effect?

Don't talk if you don't know anything. LCA Mk1 never met all the requirement of IAF. This is clearly written even the IOC-2 certificate released by CEMILAC. Google for it, read it, and then come back. Bashing IAF seems to be the fashion here. If you had put equal effort in actually learning about the LCA programme, you wouldn't be saying such things.

For everyone's benefit
Airworthiness Certification of India's Light Combat Aircraft [LCA] Tejas - The Process

 

[Defcon 1]

Thats funny .... Tejas fitted the requirement .... met most of it ...

Prove it or shut up

There is practically impossible to attain 100% from drawing board to actual.... Still what has been achieved is great....

Wrong. Foreign aircraft have repeatedly performed above requirements. Check development history of some aircraft before blabbering

If IN would not have initiated Tejas MK2 then IAF would have not sidelined MK1.... but if we can get better is good.....

MK2 will surpass the expectations of Navy i believe IAF will still find some points from no where....

Have you got something to back up your allegations or is this your personal opinion?

Tejas MK1 fits the requirement I say again....

And I say again, prove it or shut your -----ing mouth

 

[Twinblade]

Retire a few IAF Marshals who have been hunting for foreign toys. Transfer others to Andaman island and they will all fall in line and love the Indian toys. Rather they will be at the forefront of developing and using Indian toys.

Have they not realized that leadership at the Centre has changed. There is a new guy incharge. He is no nonsense guy. Moment he notices that the only reason you are pushing foreign hardware to line up your pockets, you get your retirement or transfer order quickly.

And your qualifications for criticising the marshals ? Flying an office desk at mach 2 vis'-a-vis' men who actually serve and are better placed to understanding the requirements and evaluating the programs ? I'd chose the judgement of the latter. What will you do if your "new man in charge" continues to buy "foreign toys"? Send him to Andaman too ?

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

And your qualifications for criticising the marshals ? Flying an office desk at mach 2 vis'-a-vis' men who actually serve and are better placed to understanding the requirements and evaluating the programs ? I'd chose the judgement of the latter. What will you do if your "new man in charge" continues to buy "foreign toys"? Send him to Andaman too ?

Off- Topic
I wonder why people so much optimistic about Modi. I live in Gujarat and actually, there is nothing extraordinary here. Not that I hate Modi, but i dont like him either. His work will be seen after 1 yr in office.

 

[Pulkit]

I believe u are just blind when you totally neglect the achievements of TEJAS MK1..

I believe you must have seen this but do go through it once...
http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf
you will realise that it is much capable than the MIG 21 it was supposed to replace....
I dont know how some claim it is less capable than MIG just basedon lesser speed...

Its avionics is state of art its tech is modern latest can u deny this?
static-stability, fly-by-wire Flight control, advanced glass cockpit, integrated digital avionics systems and advanced composite
materials for the airframe al is top class can u deny it...?

what were the requirements as per you which are not met..????

do enlighten me before BAR***G.....

Blabbering you proove that is it possible to replicate 100% from drawing board to manufacturing .... If you believe that then you have not worked on Assembly lines.....
So you stop Shouting,,,,,,

So are you saying MK2 is IAF initiative ....?????thats a joke everyone knows IAf has been opportunistic in this matter...

Till 2006 they didnt even pay any attention towards it after that they were involved but they had no interest....

SO when you ask others to shut up.... you also don't just Keep Bar**NG .... just sensibly....
MK2 will be better than MK1 for sure ... and when mk2 can be achieved why take mk1 that logic is valid but saying MK1 did not achieve anything is foolish...

Even those who hate Tejas say that it has achieved alot....

So serious issue in flying till date... being compared to mirage.... Top test pilot saying its great.... so hate being a hate monger .....

Prove it or shut up


Wrong. Foreign aircraft have repeatedly performed above requirements. Check development history of some aircraft before blabbering

Have you got something to back up your allegations or is this your per sonal opinion?


And I say again, prove it or shut your -----ing mouth

 

[Pulkit]

@Defcon 1 I need not to show you proof of how capable tejas is ... if you would have just gone thru the thread with open mind not being a hatemonger you wud have realised it urself.....
The only thing you can say is the inability of organisation to meet deadlines apart from it there is very little to complaint......
sharing @ersakthivel post for your reference......

They never sat in tejas cockpit, but the guys who actually flew tejas and worked on it for years has this to say,

"here is what P Rajkumar (IAF) who was involved with the LCA says -
quote -

Philip Rajkumar on May 1, 2012 at 6:01 am said:

philip rajkumar

I worked in the LCA project for nine years from 17 Sep 1994 to 31 Aug 2003 (actually 17 days short of nine years!). I was deputed to ADA by the IAF to oversee the flight test programme of the Technology Demonstration phase of the project. Having been on both sides of the fence i have a few points to make.
1. Development of a capable aeronautical industry is a small step by small step evolutionary process.Infrastructure and skill sets of the work force have to be built up over decades with considerable effort. All this requires investment of money and managerial resources. Mainly due to financial constraints and lack of vision in the IAF, HAL and the GOI we allowed capabilities built up during the Marut and Kiran programmes to atrophy. While the world leapt ahead with several technological innovations like fly by wire,digital avionics and use of composites for structures HAL did not run a single research programme because it was not the practice to do research unless it was linked to a specicific project.
2.The LCA project is where it is today thanks to one man-Dr VS Arunachalam who as the SA to RM in 1985 had the gumption and clout to go to the GOI and convince them that India could build a fourth generation fighter. It was a leap of faith no doubt.
3. HAL feels wronged about being asked to play second fiddle to ADA. This pique continues to hurt the project even today.
4. Without help from Dassault of France,BAE Systems UK, Lockheed Martin of the USA and Alenia of Italy we would not have succeeded in developing the fly by wire flight control system,glass cockpit,and composite structures for the two TD aircraft.
5. So far the flight safety record of the programme has been good. I pray every day that it remains that way. The loss of an aircraft early in the programme would have surely lead to its closure.
6.All pilots who have flown the aircraft say its handling qualities are very good. It means it is easy to fly and perform the mission.

7.It needs to be put into IAF sevice as soon as possible to gain more experience to iron out bugs which are sure to show up during operational use.

8.Programme management could have been better. IAF is to blame for washing its hands off the project for 20 years from 1986-2006. A management team was put in place at ADA in 2007.

9.Dr Kota Harinarayana and all those who have worked and continue to work have done so with great sincerity and dedication.
10.Indian aeronautics has benefitted immensely from the programme. It is a topic for separate research.

11. It was a rare privilege for me to have been given an opportunity to contribute to the programme by setting up the National Flight Test Centre and putting place a methodology of work which has ensured safety so far.

12. According to me the project can be called a complete success only when the aircraft sees squadron service for a couple of decades. We will have to wait but it is progressing on the right lines and we as a nation have nothing to be ashamed of."

There was not a single person with any credentials of research in that strat post conference!!!!!

Mostly journalists and service personnels.

All the guys who dumped on tejas were retired and retiring airforce personnel who could not even change the unsuitable at low altitude ejection seat in Mig-21 to martin baker mk9 that is present in jaguar right now.This single step would have saved the life of scores of young pilots.Even PAF did it with their Mig-19s.These guys calling tejas below Mig-21 bisons is down right disgusting.

See my comments on the comments section of this article in the following link,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs | Security Wise
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective combat range with effective weapon load will depend upon the criteria called fuel fraction, i.e weight of internal fuel/empty operational weight of the fighter.

In this area even tejas mk1 better than gripen C.

Then a question arises why range of tejas was often quoted less, it may be due to the reason that new super sonic center line fuel tank was not validated till IOC-2, Even without that The press information beruau release clearly stated that the combat range of tejas is 500 Km. It means a combat range in excess of 1000 Km in a low penetration fuel consuming flight into enemy territory, with extra fuel allocation for take off, a few minutes of high fuel consuming close combat and high fuel consuming After burner thrust .

But other fighter makers give misleading combat range figures with minimum weapon config and high altitude(less fuel consuming flight path) with no allocation for close combat and AB thrust and low penetration mode.

Roughly the fuel fraction above will give us effective combat utilization of the fighter.

Su-30MK: 34.9%（Empty weight: 17,700 kg，Internal fuel: 9,500 kg）

Rafale: 31.4% ~ 33.6%（Empty weight: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg，Internal fuel: 4,680 ~ 4,800 kg）

JAS-39NG: 30.6%（Empty weight: 7,100 kg，Internal fuel: 3,130 kg）

MIG-35: 28.6%（Empty weight: 12,000 kg，Internal fuel: 4,800 kg）

Tejas: 27.0%（Empty weight: 6,500 kg，Internal fuel: 2,400 kg）

JF-17: 26.3%（Empty weight: 6,450 kg，Internal fuel: 2,300 kg）

JAS-39C: 25.0%（Empty weight: 6,800 kg，Internal fuel: 2,268 kg）

This is a fair comparison of fuel fractions with just internal fuel , and the same percentage will more or less reflect with external fuels also,

So Tejas mk-1(which still has 400 KG of flight test equipment on board, removal of them will lead to even better fuel fraction) itself has much better fuel fractions than grippen C/D with more TW ratio and lower wing loading,

Tejas mk-2 will easily compare to RAFALE which has just 4 percent more in fuel fractions than Tejas mk-1.

So in indian conditions there won't be no issues with range of tejas mk-1 or mk-2 in useful combat configuration if we take into account that four tejas can be operated for one RAFALE if we include total lifecycle costs and upgrade costs,

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range. A full read of the link above will show how fighter makers abroad indulge in word play when it comes to range and load figures!!! , to fool the people.

Also indian hot atmospheric conditions sap close to 10 percent of engine thrust and 12 percent of wing lift.

So most of the fancy , combat specs ,pay load and range figure mentioned in the glossy brochure wont be achieved in indian climatic conditions.

All tejas specs are for indian hot climate, but other fighter maker's specs are for IDSA temp which is far less than indian atmospheric temp.

Close coupled canards are discarded in all fighters from latest fighters from Russia(SU-35) and F-35, F-22 from US, because of RCS concerns arising from latest gen ASEA radars,

the cranked delta of tejas also does the same job done by canards i.e vortex creation o delay flow separation.

And LEVCONS(like in PAKFA) can do the job of canards without giving extra radar reflection like canards.

anards also have may tricky control issues like force coupling and pilot induced oscillation which restrict the efficiency of wing.

And there are many types of canard arrangements like close coupled on rafale and long momentum arm like typhoon , each of them having their own tricky control issues.

canards were considered on F-35 and later dropped.

Even for the evolution of F-16 ino F-16 XL its designers chose cranked delta like tejas , with concerns over RCS emissions from canards. Also in canard arrangements canards are designed to stall before the main wing, so the main wing never achieves its full efficiency.

There are already some videos on the net with two gripen pilots facing the pilot induced oscilation problem peculiar to canards and let the plane crash unable to recover from it.

Eventhough later it was claimed that this problem was resolved, we don't know how it was done or whether any flight envelope restrictions were added because of this.

That is the reason why US and Russian fighter designs always rejected canards in their latest 5th gen fighters and are employing compound delta with levcons(same arrangement proposed for tejas mk2).

The Chinese J-20 was a copy of the rejected mig 1.44 delta canard stealth version(in favour of LEVCON , compound delta in pakfa exactly present in tejas mk2).

So redesigning tejas with canards will be an extremely job throwing its induction into jeopardy.
Also the reason cited by ADA for not including canards was,
1.it will add 3 feet to fuselage length,
2,It will add more weight .
3.During wind tunnel testing for the small airframe design of tejas , it did not give any considerable performance enhancement for the above two penalties it imposed.
It is pertinent to note that gripen C which had canards is 300 Kg more in empty weight in tejas and 3 feet longer in length.

In indian hot atmospheric condition which already saps 12 percent engine thrut and lift this added weight and drag will make tejas further underpowered.

Also in a quest to make gripen E more of an MMRCA new fairings were added to it further increasing drag and now it weighs more than 7 tons in empty weight.

But the path chosen for tejas mk2 is very simple. Add 0.5 meter in fuselage to smoothen the cross section increase between 4 and 5 meter lengths in fuselage and retain the same design and go for further weight reduction by increasing the percentage of composites to more than 50 percent.
It will make teja mk2 far more effective and developmental path would be very short and less complex with no time over run.

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

The following is Mr. Bharath karnad's response to my above comments,

I am not technically proficient in these matters, but I have, I think, good intuition on most matters technological and strategic, and can grasp the basics fast. Should have mentioned the Levcons built into the navalized variant of Tejas as the most suitable Mk-2- AMCA option. Regret not doing so. But thank you for response(s) on this and other issues re: Tejas/MMRCA on earlier occasions. Between the contributions to this blog by you and @RV, have learned an awful lot about combat aircraft architecture and technologies — as no doubt have the other readers of this blog. Thanks again!

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

I believe u are just blind when you totally neglect the achievements of TEJAS MK1..

I believe you must have seen this but do go through it once...
http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf
you will realise that it is much capable than the MIG 21 it was supposed to replace....
I dont know how some claim it is less capable than MIG just basedon lesser speed...

Its avionics is state of art its tech is modern latest can u deny this?
static-stability, fly-by-wire Flight control, advanced glass cockpit, integrated digital avionics systems and advanced composite
materials for the airframe al is top class can u deny it...?

what were the requirements as per you which are not met..????

do enlighten me before BAR***G.....

Blabbering you proove that is it possible to replicate 100% from drawing board to manufacturing .... If you believe that then you have not worked on Assembly lines.....
So you stop Shouting,,,,,,

So are you saying MK2 is IAF initiative ....?????thats a joke everyone knows IAf has been opportunistic in this matter...

Till 2006 they didnt even pay any attention towards it after that they were involved but they had no interest....

SO when you ask others to shut up.... you also don't just Keep Bar**NG .... just sensibly....
MK2 will be better than MK1 for sure ... and when mk2 can be achieved why take mk1 that logic is valid but saying MK1 did not achieve anything is foolish...

Even those who hate Tejas say that it has achieved alot....

So serious issue in flying till date... being compared to mirage.... Top test pilot saying its great.... so hate being a hate monger .....

Let me just remind you, Being better than MiG21 or comparable to Mirage 2000 wasnt the only requirements the IAF had . Its a great fighter, Its true that it is being vastly underestimated, but it never met all specs wanted by the IAF. Tejas Mk1 was designed between 1980s and 90s. The requirements and technology have all changed drastically since then. IAF was just confused and didnt see any hope in Tejas's more advanced development, thats where Navy came in and the Mk2 Saga begin .I firmly believe that IAF should treat Tejas with respect and should not bad mouth our first Indigenously designed fighter

 

[Pulkit]

I said no different......

 

[Hari Sud]

Twinblade

Value outside opinions. These would be good for you as well as IAF. There are few training, procurement and structural problems with IAF. They just dropped to ground a brand new $400 million transport plane. Accident rates are very high in IAF and Marshals know about it but can do nothing. They at the moment are hell bent on acquiring a very expensive Rafale, even if it bankrupts the nation, not even with the initial purchase price of $20 billion but with spares, training and excessive repairs after every one hour flight, year after year. There is not much TOT, which the French would give you that easily with this deal.

Rely on MK1 fighter. It is the best in business. We already have 200 of these another hundred can be ordered. MK1 can shoot any plane which Pakistan and China can put out against IAF in an air battle. Wait until PAKFA is ready in five to seven years. Plug the Medium fighter hole in the IAF inventory with upgraded LCA 2. India can seek outside help at tenth of the Rafale cost. Swedes have already offered that. The latter would be cheaper and educate the IAF and HAL, DRDO better.

Marshals have Rafale stuck in their head. As long as tax payers are footing the bill, they wish to have merry go round. They have stopped thinking of anything else. Sometime to break this logjam, a few Marshals, the experts have to be relieved of their duties so an alternative could be more objectively looked at.

Now do you get my point.

Stay away from making disparaging remarks about other members. You made some about me in your post 548. Who knows others may be better qualified than you are. At 72 years of age I have earned a huge distinction of offering better advice than the most.

 

[Defcon 1]

I believe u are just blind when you totally neglect the achievements of TEJAS MK1..

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 believe you must have seen this but do go through it once...
http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf
you will realise that it is much capable than the MIG 21 it was supposed to replace....
I dont know how some claim it is less capable than MIG just basedon lesser speed...

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.

Its avionics is state of art its tech is modern latest can u deny this?

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.

static-stability, fly-by-wire Flight control, advanced glass cockpit, integrated digital avionics systems and advanced composite
materials for the airframe al is top class can u deny it...?

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.

what were the requirements as per you which are not met..????

do enlighten me before BAR***G.....

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.

So are you saying MK2 is IAF initiative ....?????thats a joke everyone knows IAf has been opportunistic in this matter...

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.

Till 2006 they didnt even pay any attention towards it after that they were involved but they had no interest....

Another allegation without proof. Clear sign of a moron.

MK2 will be better than MK1 for sure ... and when mk2 can be achieved why take mk1 that logic is valid but saying MK1 did not achieve anything is foolish...

Even those who hate Tejas say that it has achieved alot....

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.

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

Twinblade

Value outside opinions. These would be good for you as well as IAF. There are few training, procurement and structural problems with IAF. They just dropped to ground a brand new $400 million transport plane. Accident rates are very high in IAF and Marshals know about it but can do nothing. They at the moment are hell bent on acquiring a very expensive Rafale, even if it bankrupts the nation, not even with the initial purchase price of $20 billion but with spares, training and excessive repairs after every one hour flight, year after year. There is not much TOT, which the French would give you that easily with this deal.

Rely on MK1 fighter. It is the best in business. We already have 200 of these another hundred can be ordered. MK1 can shoot any plane which Pakistan and China can put out against IAF in an air battle. Wait until PAKFA is ready in five to seven years. Plug the Medium fighter hole in the IAF inventory with upgraded LCA 2. India can seek outside help at tenth of the Rafale cost. Swedes have already offered that. The latter would be cheaper and educate the IAF and HAL, DRDO better.

Marshals have Rafale stuck in their head. As long as tax payers are footing the bill, they wish to have merry go round. They have stopped thinking of anything else. Sometime to break this logjam, a few Marshals, the experts have to be relieved of their duties so an alternative could be more objectively looked at.

Now do you get my point.

Stay away from making disparaging remarks about other members. You made some about me in your post 548. Who knows others may be better qualified than you are. At 72 years of age I have earned a huge distinction of offering better advice than the most.

Sir, a question- Why are accident rates so high in IAF? Is it because of bad spares, maintenance, or just bad training? Also, as far as cancelling Rafale is concerned, wouldnt it delay our Air Force Modernisation by a huge margin?

 

[ersakthivel]

"With the Indian Air Force all but officially writing off the LCA Tejas Mk.1 as a fast jet trainer with limited offensive capabilities, all eyes are now on the LCA Mk.2 that will sport a more powerful engine and an upgraded flight envelope."

We will now see ersakhtivel coming into to defend LCA Mk.1 and bashing IAF , SP Aviation etc. etc.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/?id=30&h=Crucial-to-IAF-plans-all-eyes-on-LCA-Tejas-Mk.2

The action taken report on the Mk.2 so far doesn't inspire great confidence. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has so far completed a preliminary design review of the GE414-INS6 turbofan engine, but moved no further. Systems designs of fuel system, hydraulic system, electrical system, environment control systems were completed in the 2012-13 period and Limited System Design reviews had been carried out at the time, but not moved forward in a substantive manner. Fabrication of 1:15 scales force & moments models and 1:7.645 scale air intake models were completed, while wind tunnel tests at Calspan, U.S. ADA has also managed to complete the preliminary design review of the Integrated Flight Control System and critical design review of the GTSU-127 Jet Fuel Starter. A redesign of the vertical stabiliser (fin) of the LCA Mk.2 has been carried out to based on changes required to accommodate conformal antennas that will form part of the platform's improved electronic warfare suite. Studies of an alternate gun for LCA MK.2 were also carried out, with detailed studies still on to zero in on a final weapon, likely to be the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23. After eight options for in-flight retractable refuelling probes proposed by Cobham, U.K., weren't found feasible, a ninth option has been chosen, with detailed studies in progress to finalise the configuration.

1.So design review of Ge-414 is done,

2.Systems designs of fuel system, hydraulic system, electrical system, environment control systems were completed in the 2012-13,

3.Fabrication of 1:15 scales force & moments models and 1:7.645 scale air intake models were completed, while wind tunnel tests at Calspan, U.S. ADA has also managed to complete the preliminary design review of the Integrated Flight Control System and critical design review of the GTSU-127 Jet Fuel Starter.

4.A redesign of the vertical stabiliser (fin) of the LCA Mk.2 has been carried out to based on changes required to accommodate conformal antennas that will form part of the platform's improved electronic warfare suite.

5. Studies of an alternate gun for LCA MK.2 were also carried out, with detailed studies still on to zero in on a final weapon, likely to be the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23.

6..After eight options for in-flight retractable refuelling probes proposed by Cobham, U.K., weren't found feasible, a ninth option has been chosen, with detailed studies in progress to finalise the configuration


Are these substantial or not? And does the journo know nothing further was done besides this?

"The G limits on the Mk.2 will be up from +8/-3.5 to +9/-3.5. The platform will also sport an on-board oxygen generation system and will be 45% composites by weight."

The above statement is the only one that attempts to give a specification , in the whole article and even in this , half the statement is wrong.

Mk1 itself has 45 percent weight in composites. In mk2 it is going to go up further. Without even knowing this century old fact, journos call tejas mk1 a fast jet trainer with limited offensive capability!!!!

Which fast jet trainer has 120 Km range radar tracking range and capability to fire 120 Km range BVR missiles once Quartz radome is installed.

Then right now Rafale is much worse than a trainer because it neither has the HMDS enabled visually cued , high off bore sight R-73 deadly close combat missile which was validated in Tejas years before. this HMDS - R-73 combo is the deadliest weapon in WVR close combat in which tejas is second to none even in mk1.

Also tejas mk1 has a bigger radar than rafale, which was probably ignored by the "eggspert", may be he does not know what is the significance of that!!!

jackass who cant write a few lines on Maruthi 800 radiator assembly to even save his life is posing as a mil-aviation expert!!!!

It is the same old attempt of repeating the centuries old old hag rants of import lobby, with next to nothing qualification to write any serious piece.

So I wont waste much time on it.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sir, a question- Why are accident rates so high in IAF? Is it because of bad spares, maintenance, or just bad training? Also, as far as cancelling Rafale is concerned, wouldnt it delay our Air Force Modernisation by a huge margin?

Occurence of accidents is one thing. Not having good pilot ejection system to save pilots is another thing.

As per some open source info the pilot ejection systems of mig series is below par and this is the reason for pilot fatality.

Prof. Prodyut Das

The CK ejection seat, one of the best for high speed high altitude ejection simply was not good enough for low level by modern standards. One of the clever features of the CK seat was that as the seat left the cockpit the canopy- which was hinged to the front of the windshield in the FL - attached itself to the top of the ejection seat and rotated itself until it covered the entire front of the ejection seat- thus giving unparalled blast protection when ejecting at supersonic speed. I remember a Martin Baker engineer getting very interested in how the thing worked. I had seen the seat but he had not! Unfortunately I was not able to help him. The semi -encapsulation feature delayed ejection in that it took too long to get rid of the canopy after clearing the aircraft and this delayed clear release and deployment of the Parachute. The 300 kmph, 100 meters minimum parameters meant that many low level ejections were unsuccessful."

das goes on to say even pakistani airforce has installed martin baker seats in Mig-21, but doesn't say much about what IAF has done about this.

recently a jaguar crashed , but the pilot ejected to safety using martin baker mk9 ejection seat.

DO we have martin baker seats or other quality seats in Indian Migs?

 

[ersakthivel]

Don't talk if you don't know anything. LCA Mk1 never met all the requirement of IAF. This is clearly written even the IOC-2 certificate released by CEMILAC. Google for it, read it, and then come back. Bashing IAF seems to be the fashion here. If you had put equal effort in actually learning about the LCA programme, you wouldn't be saying such things.


Airworthiness Certification of India's Light Combat Aircraft [LCA] Tejas - The Process

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - Aero India 2013

For everyone's benefit

Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won't describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA).

I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn't hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.

- Tejas LSP6 is the platform on which the spin chute will be integrated but it's not here as yet. Will get done before FOC.

- Tejas Mk1 has achieved the IOC AoA limit of 22 deg (in IOC-2 it was officially stated that it has cleared 24 deg AOA and will reach 26 to 28 deg according to test pilot Suneeth krishna )and they will go a couple of degrees further in tests, when the spin chutes are integrated on LSP6.

This is to ensure that they know that the airplane is safe even at higher alpha although the FBW will restrict it to the AoA limit for FOC for service pilots (which is higher than 22 deg, but he didn't say how much)

- Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri's airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.

- Tejas MK2 will get an approx 10mm increase in diameter for the increased air flow requirement of the F-414 (Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj confirmed this as well). Too small a difference to be visible to the naked eye for us jingos. The spring mounted doors may also be bigger if needed

- When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said "it's enough, let me put it that way". When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29's STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious.

He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.

He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don't meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.

- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It's a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn't push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.

- When I asked him whether the Navy fully backs the NLCA program, he laughed and said "I'm here, aren't I?". So all in all, it appears that the IN is backing the program fully

- NP1 hasn't flown more than 4 flights because they're re-designing some of the structures on board. This is the additional strengthening required for handling the thumping that is a carrier landing. The landing gear is being re-designed since its overweight and NP2 is going to fly soon.

- I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should've started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1.

The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn't have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won't face since it's a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren't the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.
- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

At this point he had to leave and I was disappointed since I hadn't gotten to discussing anything about the Elta 2032/MMR, Litening LDP and the weapons on the Mk1 such as the Derby/Python V/R-77/Astra and Sudarshan..

When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said "it's enough, let me put it that way". When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29's STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious.

He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.

He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don't meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.

So looking at ten different brochures and adding them all up in one ASR, without even bothering to know whether it is possible technically is the view of Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar on the so called shortfalls.

And that too expecting them to be met in hot indian conditions where wing lift drops 12 percent and engine thrust falls 10 percent is even more unrealistic.because most of the fancy ITRs and STRs mentioned for other fancy fighters are for IDSA conditions where temp and atmospheric conditions are vastly different from the punishing indian conditions.

In a recent flight from france to reunion islands rafale with two external fuel tanks and no weapons needed refuelling every 1500 Km, that too even for an optimal high altitude ferry range flight conditions in hot inidan ocean climate!!!

Incidentally IOC-2 tejas mk1 press release(when center line fuel tank was not validated!!!) says that tejas has a range of 1700 Kms

If we add extra fuel tanks and weapons on rafale for combat mission in punishing high temperature low altitude intrusion flight profile in the sub continent, how much will be optimal combat range?



It will be nice if IAF releases what the six famed MMRCA contenders achieved as top specs in these hot indian conditions. Why those details are kept in sealed covers?

Tejas mk1 has a half fuel TWR of 1.07 with a wing loading much lower than Gripen C, rafale, typhoon, F-16 , F-18, Mig-35 or for that matter any other fighter plane in the world.

A good enough combination for good ITRs (which enable HMDS enabled visually cued high off boresight deadly R-73 WVR missile shot , which even rafale does not have) for which it was designed. SO expecting higher STR from this platform is unrealistic.

And the so called old hag rants of AIR INTAKE BAD was completely rejected by Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar.

And IOC-2 clearly says that AOA 24 deg reached. SO there can be no problem with air intakes , if they can sustain such high alpha . And it is slated to go to 26-28 range within fly by wire restrictions , which is pretty much the norm for any fly by wire fighter.

And even for 98 Kn engine tejas mk2 they are proposing just 10 mm size increase in air intake. SO why are people criticizing the 84 Kn engined tejas mk1's air intake as small and inadequate?



If IAF asks Dssault to give a radar as big as SU-30 MKI, along with thrust vectoring engine and tail boom radar in rafale , will dassault be able to do it?

 

[ersakthivel]

Prove it or shut up


Wrong. Foreign aircraft have repeatedly performed above requirements. Check development history of some aircraft before blabbering

Have you got something to back up your allegations or is this your personal opinion?


And I say again, prove it or shut your -----ing mouth

Try to show some respect to other members , Why such arrogance?

And that too expecting brochure specs to be met in hot indian conditions where wing lift drops 12 percent and engine thrust falls 10 percent is even more unrealistic.

Because most of the fancy ITRs and STRs mentioned for other fancy fighters are for IDSA conditions where temp and atmospheric conditions are vastly different from the punishing indian conditions.

It will be nice if IAF releases what the six famed MMRCA contenders achieved as top specs in these hot indian conditions. Why those details are kept in sealed covers?

Even if the IAf does not disclose it because it was bound by secrecy laws in MMRCA contracts, the makers of these 6 MMRCA contenders can publicly declare what are the extreme specs achieved by their mean machines in indian conditions.

But none of them has done so. Why?