@ Ersakthievel To add to your point about the top echelons of both IAF & IA brass's nonsensical opposition to Tejas/Arjun and the mid ranking or common soldier facing the music heres' an article :
LCA Tejas, MIG-21s and IAF – Opportunity missed – hope it is not lost!
July 23, 2013 by P. Chacko Joseph 1 Comment
Indian Air Force (IAF) Mig-21"²s have been crashing regularly. The recent plea by Wing Commander Sanjeet Singh Kaila, a serving officer with IAF that flying the MiG-21 amounted to "violation of his fundamental right to life, especially the right to work in a safe environment" is a telling blow to continuation of Mig 21s in IAF. The longest serving fighter aircraft of the world is of course having its problems and issues due to factors related to fatigue and technology obsolescence. However, IAF should look deeper in its recent history to understand and may be rectify what it is doing or has done to its force strength and capabilities.
The LCA – Tejas is considered as replacement for Mig 21s in the IAF in current popular media. We would like to look at this assertion with a view from history of LCA development.
LCA Tejas is not a replacement for MiG-21
Back in 1971 war, IAF downed many United States supplied Pakistan Air Force F-86 Sabre's with British made light fighter Folland Gnat, which was also called Ajeet in Indian service. After the war, the IAF decided to build a local fighter which would replace GNAT'S/ Ajeet's in service and the Light Combat Aircraft project was born. IAF's Soviet Union Supplied Mig-21 aircraft was a different class.
Folland Gnat / Ajeet Light Figher
Folland Gnat / Ajeet Light Figher. Image IAF
LCA was supposed to enter service in 1990"²s, when Ajeets were scheduled to be retired. Procedural delay's, infrastructure set up and other factors delayed the project till late 1990"²s. Once Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Phase-I of LCA was sanctioned in June 1993 , the Defence Research Development Organisation's and Aeronautical Development Agency ( DRDO and ADA), flew the first prototype in 2001.
In 2004, IAF formulated the final Air Staff Requirement (ASR), which mirror the requirements of a Mig -21 ++ replacement. The matter is complicated as the power requirement surged and a higher thrust engine is now required. 2004 ASR was in effect counter to the very philosophy of LCA project. It basically makes it a bigger and heavier fighter.
LCA-Mk-1 today not just meets the original requirement for a small light agile sophisticated fighter which was supposed to replace Ajeet's, but also surpasses Mig-21 specs. LCA Mk-II is more suited for a ground attack role than an air combat fighter.
Although future wars can not just an extension of past wars in terms of how they will pan out, yet historical battle analysis is ususally considered a guideline for next war. Given the Gnats performance in 1971 – will LCA which is an agile high performing aircraft with new structure and modern avionics be adequate to the needs. IAF and the country should answer this.
It will be prudent, given the Mig-21s situation, FGFA cost escalation and question of future of manned fighter aircraft in the wake of UAVs, Drones and UCAVs to give serious consideration for LCA Mark I to become a workhorse of IAF – and not as a replacement for Mig-21"²s but a value addition to IAF
Afterall It is nt the Naik's who were dying in the Flying Coffin aircrashes but young pilots like Kalia!! HAL & IAF were having a field day trying to shred Kalia's reputation and questioning his patriotism!!
As for the ASQR's please ask the learned fellas whether they know about the year 1985 and 2004... to start with I would like them to come and clarify about the weapons load out initially envisioned for the Tejas mission
For example lets take the A2A profile which has completely changed between the original ASQR and what IAF wants now!! The confused IAF is stuck on the Multi role concept to such an extent that they have changed the entire profile of the LCA program to make it a near Mid category multi role fighter that Tejas Mk2 will become!!
I for one would like to thank DRDO and ADA for forseeing the future developments such as FBW & RSS even though they took time!!
Err on a footnote I think some of the mess could have been cleared if only HAL had not been completely side lined and IAF "MADE" to participate in the project!
tejas has a slightly bigger radome dia than the RAFALE if fuselage is enlarged for GE-414.
tejas mk1 has a slightly lower top speeds than RAFALE as well with almost the same clean config RCS of RAFALE.
other than the longer range and higher pay load on all other parameters the tejas mk-1 will be better than 80 percent of the present IAF fleet.
And tejas mk-2 will have 120 km range BVR in Astra mk-2, What is the max range of BVRs on MIG-29?
Even with fully loaded air to air config LCA mk-2 will have far lesser RCS than the MIG-29 . Meaning it can get closer to fire it's BVRs giving them a much better kill ratios.
A fully loaded Sukhoi for air to air mission will be spotted by enemy airborne radars at nearly thrice the distance of that of tejas mk-1.
It will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE.
According to all available open source info the more than 90 percent composite skin on the tejas surface will have a much better resistance to tough weather in India and weighs less with more stealthy characteristics ,
Already methods were developed to spot the fatigue cracks through state of the art tech and take any corrective action needed.
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 of course.
Regarding weapon load IAF has changed the BVR missile spec to more weight and more launch stress inducing missiles which resulted in redesign of wing and reduction in weapon load.
Also once testing telemetry equipment is taken off the LSPs another 0.4 ton will be added.
And redesign of it's avionics display is also expected to shave off around 100 to 200 Kg of weight as per some reports from Ajaishukla,
Taking its weapon load to around 4 tons. Which is what carried on any fighter for a normal mission.
Within this 80 percent opening it has achieved close to 22 deg AOA and 18 deg STR which is nothing to complain about.
Once the spin recovery parameters test is completed it will achieve the remaining 20 percent of
it's flight envelope parameters.
And by no stretch of imagination a fighter like LCA which has
1. a 4 ton pay load ,
2.capable of firing 120 KM range BVR
3.with one of the lowest RCS helping it to approach the enemy fighter closer before being detected
4.capable of launching laser guided long range ground attack munitions
5.with comparable leading STR and ITR specs
is going to be history, What is going to be history is the fighters like Jaguar, and MIG-21, 23 and 27(400 of which serve in IAF as on date!!!!!!) which have none of the above capabilities .
A combination of TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds which determine the close combat specs of a fighter,
It exceeds IAF's blue eyed beauty Mirage-2000 in all these parameters in a significant manner.
IAF is spending 40 million dollar a piece for upgrading to each Mirage-2000. Even after these upgrades the60 Mirage-2000s will have lesser TWR, wing loading and Instantaneous turn rate at close combat speeds and lesser climb rate than the Tejas Mk-1.
Only Su-30 MKI and Mig-29s can exceed the tejas that too by about around ten percent only in close combat specs.
Both are twin engined fighters with many times higher clean config RCS than the Tejas . And their reliability and availability rate is not as good compared the GE-414 equipped Tejas.
Some times in a squadron of Mig-29s the availability rate is single digit only.
So Tejas is as modern and as reliable and as effective as any other fighter in IAF.
Because it is ours we can introduce any new weapons in future without begging permission from the OE makers and it will be upgraded on regular basis,
The tejas mk-1 it self will carry both the akash mk-1 and MK-2 which will have 80 Km and 120 Km range in future.
Tejas has a slightly bigger radome dia than the RAFALE if fuselage is enlarged for GE-414.
tejas mk1 has a slightly lower top speeds than RAFALE as well with almost the same clean config RCS of RAFALE.
other than the longer range and higher pay load on all other parameters the tejas mk-1 will be better than 80 percent of the present IAF fleet.
And tejas mk-2 will have 120 km range BVR in Astra mk-2, What is the max range of BVRs on MIG-29?
Even with fully loaded air to air config LCA mk-2 will have far lesser RCS than the MIG-29 . Meaning it can get closer to fire it's BVRs giving them a much better kill ratios.
A fully loaded Sukhoi for air to air mission will be spotted by enemy airborne radars at nearly thrice the distance of that of tejas mk-1.
It will carry the combined weapon load of Jag and Mig-21 with lesser RCS than the MIG-29 and the Su-30 and more thrust to weight ratio than the mirage-2000 with equal detection and tracking range of RAFALE radar with almost the same RCS of RAFALE.
According to all available open source info the more than 90 percent composite skin on the tejas surface will have a much better resistance to tough weather in India and weighs less with more stealthy characteristics ,
Already methods were developed to spot the fatigue cracks through state of the art tech and take any corrective action needed.
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 of course