INDIA's Indigenous fighter aircarft programme: what we learnt from Past
The criticisms are not new, the development is slow and they say time is constant here like a black hole circling over India. Many shortfalls and many waivers but still to see the bird on IAF’s hand, yes am talking about HAL Tejas (LCA), will take you back to 1960’s with up and downs in Indian aerospace industry and finally a glimpse of hope with a big order and future development plan.
What you need to have became credible force in Aerospace
Major world powers have capability to design, develop and manufacture fighter aircraft indigenously. Technically, this would include all major components - aero-engines, radar, aircraft design, metallurgy, weapons and sensors. Currently only USA, Russia, France and UK have these capabilities and are followed closely by Germany, Italy, China and Sweden.
Background
Good start but poor follow-up has continued to challenge India’s desire to master aerospace technology. India’s desire to build its own fighter jet began well with the HF-24 Marut program. The project was approved in 1957 and the first prototype flew in 1961 - a mere four years later. The first squadron went operational in 1967. However, the program encountered a premature end in 1982 due to the short-sightedness of the IAF, Government and HAL. The political leadership and the bureaucracy displayed inexperience and strategic carelessness during HF-24 Marut development and operational life. The end result was withering away of precious knowledge gained over the development. During the same period, HAL shifted its focus to production of MiG-21s under license.
The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) decision was taken in 1983 in order to replace aging MiG-21s manufactured during 1970's and 80's, as most of them were expected to be phased out in the 1990s. The indigenous design and development of LCA was sanctioned in 1983 and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was constituted in June 1984. IAF issued requirement in October 1985 with a projected requirement of 220 aircrafts (200 fighters and 20 trainers), to be inducted by 1994.
Why LCA, as opposed to MCAs (Rafale, Eurofighter) or HCAs (Sukhoi 30 Mki)?
This concept of LCA has been a source of much study and research to achieve performance requirements at affordable cost. This became more feasible in the jet age as emphasis shifted to getting the same performance with relatively lower thrust engine. The Gnat aircraft, which the IAF flew effectively in 1965 and 1971 wars, was a light weight fighter whose performance in its category was excellent, at minimal cost. This left a lasting impression on IAF and hence the decision for LCA.
What went wrong? Or did anything go wrong, at all?
Prima facie, the perceived delay in the LCA project can be blamed on the lack of co-ordination between user (IAF), designer (ADA), manufacturer (HAL) and the Government, which made it impossible to deliver the LCA project in time. And one wrong was done more over the other – clubbing of Kaveri engine project with LCA. Kaveri engine got delayed because of India’s lack of experience in building turbofan engines. India did tie-ups with unreliable American companies at a time of not-so-good relations, and nuclear tests resulted in sanctions, which pushed back the project by few more years. From LCA decision being taken 1983, till the final operational clearance in Q1 2016 is 33 years – which seems very long. But after removing 4 years for funding gap (from 1989, when project definition was finished, till 1993, no funds were made available to LCA project) and 4 more for sanction issues, LCA project took 25 years. Ideally, world over a fighter jet project takes more than 20 years.
To build a fourth generation fighter aircraft from scratch with a countrywide aerospace ecosystem and research, testing and certification facilities in less than three decades is, by any standards, remarkable technology leapfrog. Anywhere in the world it would draw generous praise but in India, thanks to media attention with questionable intent. Even while mentioning reasons for delays in the program, DM Manohar Parikar agreed in Parliament that lack of trained engineers, infrastructure, including test facilities had played a major role.
How good is HAL Tejas (LCA) and where it headed from here?
Tejas test pilots continue to believe that the aircraft is more versatile than MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat), MiG-27 and Jaguar (primarily ground strike aircraft), and all variants of the MiG-21. They even say it can take on the Pakistan Air Force’s early F-16 variants and outclass the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. Deliveries of combat standard units of Tejas Mk-I began on 17 January 2015, with final operational clearance (FOC) expected Q1 2016. In a major breakthrough IAF recently ordered 120 HAL Tejas. IAF wants the final version should have advanced (AESA) radar, air to air refueling, BVR missiles and electronic jammers to block enemy radars.
Future Developments
ADA is also working on an improved version, HAL Tejas Mk-II, with greater capability based on Indian Navy’s prolonged requirements. Looking into higher drag on water surface HAL Tejas Mk-II will be powered with GE F-414 engines that produce 98kN of peak thrust. Apart from engine, Tejas Mk-II will feature upgraded avionics, more advanced radar and longer combat radius.
Meanwhile a nation surrounded with two aggressive neighbors can’t afford to have just fourth generation fighter. The Chinese today are flying two fifth generation fighter prototypes, one of the fighter J-20 going to be in series production from next year onwards and intended to export to friendly nations. While India realized the situation back in 2008 and started a JV with Russia to develop fifth generation fighter (FGFA) but lack of co-ordination between the nations stalled the project sometime back and IAF now wants to buy Russian version of FGFA T-50 on Government to Government agreement.
Meanwhile IAF with his local partner ADA wants to develop an indigenous fifth generation fighter (AMCA). At the moment the project is out of definition phase and entering to funding phase. AMCA is a much bigger program compared to LCA, in LCA the country leapfrogged from nowhere to fourth generation fighter aircraft. In case of AMCA while the LCA platform will help us, however, our scientist needs to crack number crucial technology like advance radar, Stealth technology and high power engine, currently USA and Russia possesses the technology and China somehow successful. To make the project successful we need larger Research and development base with serious funding upfront.
Now, the good news
In the process of building an indigenous fighter aircraft, India has almost solved the puzzle of fighter aircraft building. With favorable conditions, and proper planning, the successor of Kaveri engines will hopefully be ready by the time India is ready to produce the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The LCA project has built India’s capabilities in fighter aircraft production from ground up. India can repeat the same success story with AMCA, only this time faster. As they say, it is only hard the first time!
http://orissadiary.com/ShowOriyaColumn.asp?id=62729
mistake-1. LCA SUFFERED NO DELAYS ON ACCOUNT OF KAVERI.ALL LSPSs were run with GE 404 and SPs too will follow the same way.
mistake-2-LCA was modeled on Gnat or Mig-21, which is the line parroted by tech illiterate article writers who dont want to go deep into the aims of program. The specs for LCA was not that of a mix of Gnat and mig-21. The specs of LCA was that of a mix of mirage-2000 and mig-29, two of the most potent fighters even today.
1.The low clean config RCS,
2.Relaxed Static Stability(RSS) fly by wire tech,
3.all composite outer skin with higher percentage of composites in body weight,
4.full glass cockpit,
5.now delivered OBORG , with mid air refueling qualifying it for longer range strikes and longer time patrol
6.HMDS enabled visually cued high off bore WVR missiles firing capability(python and R-73E)
7.litening pod to fire LGBs,
8 the now proposed ASEA radar for tejas mk-1A with a large 750 m dia radome, (bigger than that of gripen and rafale) ,
9. DRFM based Ew suit,
10, With a LEVCOn enabled naval variant built into it from the inception,
11, Ability to take off and land with decent weapon load from high altitude Himalayan air fields like Leh(4 of the 6 famed MMRCA contenders failed this test in Leh!!!)
means this fighter was not a replacement for old age second world war fighters but a true multi role modern 4.5th gen fighter.
" From LCA decision being taken 1983, till the final operational clearance in Q1 2016 is 33 years – which seems very long. But after removing 4 years for funding gap (from 1989, when project definition was finished, till 1993, no funds were made available to LCA project) and 4 more for sanction issues, LCA project took 25 years. Ideally, world over a fighter jet project takes more than 20 years."
Typically wrong set of statements, which is usually written about tejas program,
the 500 cr that was sanctioned in 1983 went into establishing test facilities, paying foreign consultants, building non existent labs and infra and for project definition.
Only in 1993 2500 crore was sanctioned for building two TDs, and PVs.
So from 1993 to IOC in 2013 twenty years is no monumental delay, if you deduct the confiscation of fly by wire equipment and sofware in US due to N test sanction, and the new requirements raised by IAF in the form of higher weight, higher launching stress R-73 E instead of older low weight R-60(according to CAG report, this led to FSED phase two because of the need to redesign the entire wing structure to take the heavier loads and contribute more than 80 months of delay)
When all the facts are out in the open , a better background check in web would have corrected these mistakes.
Infact the rafale and eurofigter program took much longer, (eurofighter still not fully qualified for ground strikes!!)
Another mistake is "This concept of LCA has been a source of much study and research to achieve performance requirements at affordable cost. This became more feasible in the jet age as emphasis shifted to getting the same performance with relatively lower thrust engine."
In fighters the key figure indicating effective STR, ITR , top speeds and agility is not the numerical total wet thrust numbers but the ratio -Thrust to Weight Ratio-(TWR)- total wet thrust / (empty weight of the fighter+ half the weight of total internal fuel load).
It is this factor that is the key in deciding fighter effectiveness. along with wing loading(total wing area/ emoty weight of the fighter). Wing loading must be low to enable faster Instantaneous Turn Rates and higher Sustained turn Rates as well. tejas has the lowest wing loading among all modern fighters.
Tejas mk1 is way better than mirage-2000 in both wing loading and thrust to weight ratio.
And as far as TWR is concerned Tejas mk1 compares favorably with gripen C and if weight reduction of 800 Kg is achieved, it will inch closed to gripen E , rafale, and typhoon class almost closer to mig-29.
So as far as mig-29s, rafales and typhoons are relevant tejas mk1A and mk2 will compare with them and will be relevant too.
So it is not as if tejas mk1 A is a mere consolation prize , whose only contribution is to create infra for AMCA as it was written in the article, tejas mk1 A itself is a state of the art 4.5 th gen omni role or multi role or swing role fighter with capability to operate from high himalayan air fields like Leh,
If coupled with S-400 , now being purchased for target acquisition , the effectiveness of tejas air patrol increases manifold. In fact there is no other cost effective high performance fighter that is tailor made to operate from our western forward air fields and high himalayan air fields. You can not put high value figters like FGFA, Su-30 MKi and rafale out there in those forward airfields, which is the practice followed world over, these high value assets are usually housed in deeper hinterland air fields.
Tejas mk1 itself will better mirage-2000 in combat performance ,due to lower wing loading and higher TWR than mirage-2000.
And mk1 A with ASEA , EW suit and lesser weight is as good as gripen E to say the least.
Also the supposed high drag due to sudden increase in cross section from 4 meters to 5 meters length along the fuselage which is pointed out in CEMILAC report is relevant "ONLY IN FAILURE TO ACHIEVE TO ACHIEVE A SUPERSONIC TOP SPEED OF MACH 1.2". In no other way it hampers the ITR, STR and other close combat performance.
Why?
Because the sudden increase in cross section contributes to extra WAVE DRAG component only in SUPER SONIC flight as per area ruling method. Most of the STR , ITR specs which determine the combat effectiveness of fighters is always stated in sub sonic flight regime where there wont be any extra wave drag component from the sudden cross section increase.
So please correct these mistakes and write another factually accurate spot on article in the same news paper and send it to all other national news paper. i am mightily interested in seeing the reaction for such an article , looking forward to your next article on the eve of FOC or even now encapsulating all the facts I listed in this post.
Because till today most articles on tejas are written on the lines of your article, Gnat replacement, huge delay of thirty years. kaveri engine fiasco, obsolete tech, high drag low thrust etc, etc,
I am very interested to see if you you put a contrarian view point stating every one of the above is false and tejas mk1 A is as good as grippen E.
