LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[ersakthivel]

While rest will be taken up though they are not that time consuming. Major design changes for weight won't happen because of complexities. Landing gears will see only minor changes in materials basically. Design will same more or less.

ADA has already clarified that tejas mk1A is just an upgrade program,

So they dont need new PVs, & LSPs & new fly by wire soft ware, that needs extensive testing,

They say they can use the existing PVs for this purpose,

Once IAF signs the contract, it will start, SInce FOC for tejas mk1 is already done, no gruelling flight test regimen either.

Just deployment of required extra equipment,

 

[ersakthivel]

A nice break-up of who builds what of the LCA Tejas airframe — heartening they there’s plenty of private sector stuff here

Should be even greater in the MWF & AMCA. #AeroIndia2019

Almost the entire fusealge is outsourced by HAL.

HAL truly becoming a fighter Integerator, seeding a set of vendors , making india one of the true mil aviation global player.

Some one should send this picture to pappu & gang,

who were waling all the while , "HAL should pick up begging bowl & stand in front of Dassault office for the 700 cr Falcon fuselage nose job, that is being carried out by DRAL,,,

HAL has 300 plus Tejas variants to make in this decade,,,

Should it concentrate on completing this 1 lakh crore order to beef up the IAF's might,,,, & emerge as truly global player,, with ALH , LCH orders,

OR,

to beg for 700 cr rafale offset like TOT beggar it always was,,,

pappu & co are not even fit to shine the shoes Parrikar, Modi, Nirmala sitharaman combo.

Its a sea change in the fortune of indian mil aviation industry & IAF, thanks to the vision of this govt, which promptly did SOP2018 to bring out 83 tejas mk1A orders, there by infusing life into the moribund program,,

Seeing tejas mk1, which was maligned as three legged cheetah & late combat aircraft , with game changing , swing role configuration of, 2x CCMs + 2x BVRAAM + 2x ASM + 1x Supersonic Drop Tank
& an FOC document in front

is a slap in the face of international tejas baiters league.

Thats the happiest day for any indian patriot.

 

[ersakthivel]

will any one try it? All it take is just another engine,

 

[Rahul Singh]

They say they can use the existing PVs for this purpose,

They are converting LSP-7 & LSP-8 into Tejas MK-1A TD as we speak. AESA and SPJ already selected. IFR tested. Gun cetificatioce will take 2 years approx.

This program is well on track. If HAL and IAF gets the deal signed cutting short on red tapism. The there is no reason why MK-1A will get into production once MK-1's production has eneded.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Bdw...I don't see the reason of mk1a first flight in 2023.....
The radar testing is going on...ifr completed ,derby completed.......
...............

HAL clearly said they will need 3 years from signing of the contract to deliver first MK-1A which necessarily does not mean 2023.

 

[Rahul Singh]

will any one try it? All it take is just another engine,

I think ADA would like to go all the way. A rafale class bird is only a step away. However the cost of program plus timeline may not go well with the planners. Hence a low risk approch was selected.

 

[Enquirer]

With the new supersonic drop tank, what do you think the combat radius of Tejas will be ?

I don't think the new config of the drop tank makes much difference to the combat radius.

 

[cannonfodder]

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

Great read....

It is no overstatement to say that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program has made significant progress of late with the Mk1 variant being officially granted Final Operational Clearance (FOC) on February 20, 2019 and its production picking up pace at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Seven of the thirteen Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) standard Tejas Mk1 already in service with No. 45 squadron or the Flying Daggers of the Indian Air Force (IAF) were handed over in the last 11 months alone. The remaining three IOC-standard single-seater aircraft meant for the Flying Daggers are slated to join the squadron by the end of April 2019. The Tejas MK1 is now also a regular at IAF air exercises, raking up high range scores and generally winning the confidence of its users. As such, the focus has now shifted to the development and production of the Tejas Mk1A variant since India’s Defence Acquisition Council has accorded approval for the acquisition of 83 units of the type by the IAF. Before we turn to analyzing developments related to the Mk1A and further evolution of the Tejas platform, it is important to profile the current capabilities of the baseline Mk1 itself.



LCA Tejas Mk1
Tejas Mk1 is a ‘fourth-generation lightweight, single-engine, multi-role, tactical fighter aircraft. It employs an unstable tailless compound delta-wing configuration, optimized primarily for maneuverability and agility’. Over 90 percent of its surface, and over 45 percent of its airframe by weight is made of composite structures. This is one of the highest usage of composites in an aircraft of any kind, anywhere in the world. This extensive use of composites has lowered the aircraft’s weight by 21 percent and reduced its part count by 40 percent, as opposed to what would have been the case had it been of all-metal construction.


The aircraft has intentionally been made longitudinally unstable to enhance maneuverability. In fact, its static margin, i.e. a measure of its instability (and hence maneuverability) is also one of the highest for any modern fighter aircraft [18]. To recover stability and provide good handling qualities, it is equipped with a fully redundant quadruplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS). This FCS is one of the biggest accomplishments of the LCA program. Its robustness has ensured an accident-free test record of over 4,300 test flights. The aircraft has also been equipped with advanced autopilot capabilities like auto-level (in case of pilot disorientation), safe altitude recovery (which automatically pulls up the aircraft if it comes too close to the ground) and auto navigation modes.



In-service aircraft are certified to fly from -3.5 to +8.0 Gs, up to an altitude of 50,000 feet, a top speed of Mach 1.6, and an angle of attack (AoA) of up to 24 degrees. The test pilots have stretched the prototypes even further, up to 8.5 Gs, and 26 degrees AoA. At the 2016 Bahrain Air Show, the Mk1 had even demonstrated a low speed pass at 110 knots. The FCS has now been updated to lower the minimum speed to 100 knots, at which point auto recovery is initiated. The 2016 demonstration at Bahrain also showcased another important feature: Following the above-mentioned low speed pass the aircraft immediately proceeded to accomplish a vertical climb. The ability to accelerate while in a climb is a virtue that only fighters with a thrust to weight ratio (TWR) of above 1.0 possess. At Bahrain, the Mk1 also showcased an instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of near 30 degrees per second and a sustained turn rate (STR) of between 15 to 16 degrees per second. A minimum radius turn of 350 metres (m) radius was also exhibited. All of these are extremely respectable numbers for air to air (A2A) combat roles.


The Mk1 is equipped with a powerful MultiMode Radar (MMR) which has A2A, air to sea, and air to ground (A2G) target detection modes. In A2A, the Tejas Mk1 is currently capable of firing R-73 close combat missiles (CCMs) and Derby beyond visual range A2A missiles (BVRAAMs). In the future, the Mk1 is likely to be integrated with India’s Astra BVRAAM as well. Together, with state-of-the-art helmet mounted display and sight (HMDS) and hands on throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, and coupled with navigation aides like Very High-Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional Range (VOR) / Instrument Landing System (ILS) and tactical air navigation system (TACAN), Tejas Mk1 allows the pilot to concentrate on “head-down” mission-critical requirements rather than worry about basic flying.

One of the Tejas’s greatest strengths is its A2G weapon delivery accuracy. In all flight tests and air exercises so far, the Mk1 has consistently garnered some of the highest range scores of all the aircraft in the IAF’s inventory. Not only can it carry 250 kg and 450 kg dumb bombs, but also laser guided bombs (LGBs) which are guided to their targets using a Litening laser designation pod (LDP). A single LGB can be carried on either the center-fuselage, wing-inboard or midboard weapon stations. For dumb bombs, two can be carried in tandem in the wing-inboard pylons, whereas one each can be carried in the center-fuselage and wing-midboard locations.

The Mk1’s all-weather and day/night capability has been proven in various extreme hot and cold weather trials, from Jaisalmer to Leh. For example, in Leh, the aircraft was successfully started after a cold soak of 42 hours where the temperature reached near -20°C . In each of the three attempts, the aircraft started effortlessly even on a partially drained battery. The reader might be reminded that a few Multi-Medium Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contestants had actually failed this test during trials for that tender. Similarly, in hot and high trials, the aircraft took off with 1.9 tons (50 percent) of its max payload, which is an astounding feet given its highly swept delta wings.

The Tejas Mk1 has a total of five ‘wet’ points: one underneath the fuselage and two underneath each wing. The hardpoint underneath the fuselage can carry a 725 litre (L) subsonic drop tank or a 710 L supersonic tank (still under development). The wing inboard pylon can carry a subsonic drop tank of 1200 L while the midboard can carry a drop tank of 800 L. Although the MK-1’s developer, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) publishes a conservative ferry range of 1750 km, ferry flights of ranges of nearly 2100 km have been completed in the past. The FOC version of the Tejas MK-1 has also been fitted with a fixed refueling probe which can be used to refill all of it internal and external fuel tanks, effectively doubling its range and endurance.

Enter the Tejas Mk1A
Now even while ADA was developing the Tejas Mk2 for the IAF, HAL proposed a simpler interim upgrade. Thus emerged the Tejas Mk1A which will be equipped with an ELTA EL/M- 2052 active electronic scanned array (AESA) radar along with a compatible electronic warfare suite, which would include a self protection jammer (SPJ) pod carried on the outboard wing pylon. This position was found to derive maximum performance out of the pod. On the the outboard pylon, two CCMs would be carried on a dual-rack pylon as shown in Figure 1. This configuration was found to have lowest drag penalties among a variety of studied configurations [19].

In addition to the above changes, HAL would upgrade some line replacement units (LRUs) to cater to obsolescence management, weight reduction, ease of manufacture and maintenance. The aircraft would also be fitted with an Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) which would allow pilots to undertake long endurance flights. The turnaround time of the aircraft has also been reduced by means of hot refueling, a feature that SAAB wanted to showcase on its Gripen fighter during the MMRCA competition. At the time, the permission was denied by the IAF since it did not have a standard operational procedure (SOP) set up for the same. This hot refueling capability has now been showcased on a Tejas test aircraft.

Figure 1: One jammer and a twin-assembly of two CCMs at the O/B stations of the aircraft [19].

 

[cannonfodder]

Continued ..

The initial road to the Mk2
However, to meet the IAF’s stringent air staff qualitative requirements (ASQR) for the LCA project, ADA knew that substantial changes to the basic Mk1/Mk1A airframe were required and that is where the genesis of the Tejas Mk2 development program lies. There were two primary concerns: the IAF wanted a fighter that had faster transonic acceleration and a higher STR of about 18 degrees per second. As late as Aero India 2017, ADA displayed scale models that aimed to achieve this by extending the Mk1 with a 0.5 m fuselage plug and fitting a more powerful F414 engine with a maximum rated thrust of 98kN. The plug was to be inserted just behind the canopy where the area curve had the highest discontinuity (see Area curve in Figure 2). In addition to the plug, ADA studied a bulged canopy to improve area ruling even further. The combined effect was 6 percent lower supersonic drag, which in turn led to a 20 percent improvement in transonic acceleration and 2 percent improvement in maximum speed [4]. The fuselage plug and bulged spine would also provide space for more internal fuel and LRUs.

Figure 2: Canopy optimization study shows a bulged canopy improving the area ruling results in 6% reduction in drag, 20% increase in transonic acceleration and 2% increase in max speed[4].

Similarly, it was observed that there was a sudden kink in the aft bottom of the fuselage in Mk1 as shown in Figure 3. By eliminating this kink and identifying an optimized smoothened aft fuselage, an improvement of 4.9 percent was predicted in the supersonic drag on the aft body region.

Figure 3: Assessment of aft body optimization for supersonic drag reduction. Comparison of Surface Cp contours near the aft region for base configuration and that of optimized aft region at M=1.2, AoA= 3 [cite].

Besides clean configurations, studies were also conducted to decrease the drag of loaded configurations. For example, it was realized early that by replacing the current ‘blunt’ pylons on Mk1 with more aerodynamically shaped pylons, significant drag reduction could be affected in supersonic regimes[18]. Figure 4 shows the inboard pylons before and after the reshaping. These new pylons have already been realized and are expected to even become a part of the MK1/1A platforms. One such pylon for the center fuselage has been put on display in Aero India 2019.

Figure 4: wing inboard pylon: before and after reshaping for better supersonic drag [18].

Similarly, computation fluid dynamics (CFD) studies on a variety of drop tanks have yielded fuel tank geometries which could carry more fuel at marginal to no extra cost in drag. For example, Figure 5 shows the modified supersonic drop tank arrived by choosing optimal lengths for the conical nose and tail sections. The final shape allowed the carriage of 58 percent more fuel (710 L against the current 450 L) at only two counts greater supersonic drag. This provided a significant increase of about 11 percent in flight mission time. This tank can also be seen at Aero India 2019.

 

[cannonfodder]

Continued..

Figure 5: Modified supersonic drop tank with 58% more fuel carrying capacity and 2 counts increase in supersonic drag.

Figure 6: Effect of drop tanks, original and modified on airlfow around nearby bombs. The modified drop tanks has negligible destabilizing effect, 11% more fuel carrying capacity and lower drag penalty.



Besides the supersonic tanks, it was found that the presence of the current 1200 L subsonic fuel tank generates a suction on the surface of a bomb placed on its nearby station. This asymmetric force led to the destabilization of the bomb, and deviation from its ideal separation trajectory. Therefore, a variety of alternate geometries were studied which could mitigate this problem. The resultant fuel tank not only had a trivial destabilizing moment as shown in Figure 6 but could carry 11 percent more fuel at a lower drag penalty. These reshaped tanks are estimated to provide a 15-18 percent improvement in mission performance and will also be retrofitted on the Mk1/1A.



Detailed studies were carried out on the aerodynamic characteristics of CCM carriage at wing tip stations rather than the underwing station, as in the Mk1. The CFD studies found that carrying a CCM at the wingtip station increased lift-to-drag (L/D ratio) in subsonic, transonic and supersonic regions. Additionally, the fighter with the wingtip stations exhibited better Cnβ characteristics which would aid in the higher AoA flight regimes.

Figure 7: Assessment of Wintip mounted vs underwing CCM pylon. CFD study shows significant improvement in Zero-Lift drag at all speeds, especially the supersonic regime [5]

Figure 8: Wingtip mounted CCM pylon improved aerodynamic efficiency (L/D ration) of the wing significantly at all speeds and especially at the supersonic speeds [5]



Other means of increasing directional stability at higher AoA included studies of body strakes of different geometries at different fuselage locations as shown in Figure 9. Various geometries were found which could improve the yaw moment coefficient (Cnβ) by energizing the wing vortex, but at the cost of pitching characteristics. Therefore, subsequent studies were carried out using a chine (nose strake) to improve Cnβ with a focus on its influence on undesired pitching characteristics. The best chine gave a marked improvement in Cnβ by anchoring the nose vortex flow with only a marginal effect on pitching coefficient [8].

 

[cannonfodder]

Continued...

Figure 8: Fuselage and nose strakes (chine) studied for improvements in Cnβ [8]



A substantial amount of effort was directed towards optimizing the air intakes. The impact of changes in lip and cowl geometries, contractions ratio (i.e. the ratio of air intake to the minimum area of the intake duct) and performance of a newly proposed 3-door auxiliary intake were studied. The goal of these studies was to improve pressure recovery at low speeds without adversely impacting spillage drag at high speeds. It was found that the lip geometry and variation in contraction ratio of these features have minor improvements in low speed regimes, but their attendant side effect on high speed performance was deemed to be too high. On the other hand, cowl geometry optimization showed good improvement in pressure recovery due to its positive impact on the local flow field near the inlet plane. The 3-door design further enhances the gains in pressure recovery. It’s also expected to facilitate improved flow rates through the auxiliary intakes during the low speed, high AoA regimes. The combination of optimized cowl geometry and 3-door design results in a 3 percent improvement in pressure recovery, which should lead to an equivalent improvement in engine performance [11]. The 3-door design can already be seen on LCA Navy Mk1 prototypes.

Figure 9: Streamlines showing airflow through Auxiliary Air Intake Doors (AAID) at low speeds. Top image represents existing design on LCA MK1. Bottom design is proposed 3-door design for improved airflow at low speed [11].



With the above-mentioned changes, the Tejas Mk2 was predicted to have significantly lower transonic and supersonic drag, even with a slight increase in weight. Coupled with a more powerful engine, this variant would have much improved transonic and supersonic performance. The higher thrust engine also accorded a higher TWR which when combined with the better L/D, meant the fighter would have a better turn rate and a higher climb rate. The fuselage plug ensured additional space for more internal fuel and an internal SPJ. This, in turn, would lead to higher endurance and range. All in all, ADA was suggesting changes which could have been designed, built, flight tested and certified within a relatively short period of time.



However, on account of the IAF’s growing requirements, ADA is now engrossed in the creation of a substantially more capable and larger Mk2 design, which has since been dubbed the Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) and will be the focus of the next part of this series.



Indranil Roy is an aircraft enthusiast and a part time processor chip designer.

Nilesh J. Rane is an aviation geek by passion and aerospace engineer by profession.

Please note for credit: http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

Thanks to the Authors for putting it together..

 

[Saichand K]

I don't think the new config of the drop tank makes much difference to the combat radius.

I mean since the drag is reduced and if the drop tank is part of greater part of sortie then combat radius should slightly improve right.. Also, with the change in drop tank config the fuel capacity is now higher or it is reduced as compared to previous do design of drop tank ??

 

[Enquirer]

I mean since the drag is reduced and if the drop tank is part of greater part of sortie then combat radius should slightly improve right.. Also, with the change in drop tank config the fuel capacity is now higher or it is reduced as compared to previous do design of drop tank ??

The drag is more reduced in the supersonic realm and not so much in the sub-sonic realm. Since engagement in the supersonic realm is normally very short (and mostly even absent), the overall gain (in terms of range increase) due to the tiny cross section of fuel tank is very little (if any)

 

[Saichand K]

The drag is more reduced in the supersonic realm and not so much in the sub-sonic realm. Since engagement in the supersonic realm is normally very short (and mostly even absent), the overall gain (in terms of range increase) due to the tiny cross section of fuel tank is very little (if any)

My basics in this area is quite grey. Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[Saichand K]

The drag is more reduced in the supersonic realm and not so much in the sub-sonic realm. Since engagement in the supersonic realm is normally very short (and mostly even absent), the overall gain (in terms of range increase) due to the tiny cross section of fuel tank is very little (if any)

Another small question. I read in multiple places that Tejas's combat radius is 350Km (clean). This definition of combat radius is in which role (A-A or A2G) ?

 

[Enquirer]

Another small question. I read in multiple places that Tejas's combat radius is 350Km (clean). This definition of combat radius is in which role (A-A or A2G) ?

More recently the combat radius has been pegged at 450kms, I think.
But you're right that combat radius is dependent on the mission that's assigned to the aircraft at any given time.

The datasheet combat radius is normally not for 'clean' configuration; it's not really a 'combat op', if you're just doing a fly-by in enemy territory
It normally assumes that the aircraft is carrying a minimum set of AAMs for self defense and 1 or more large bombs (say 1000/2000 lbs) to drop on selected targets. It's not necessarily loaded up to MTOW (but definitely not 'clean'). Within the calculation, is inherent that there would be a SAM attack wherein the aircraft will need to deploy after-burner for a short time.

But yes, every mission is different. Close combat support (involving multiple flybys of the target - close to the ground) will definitely consume a lot more fuel; but a strike mission involving flying at low altitude into the enemy territory (to avoid radar) - could also guzzle lot of fuel.

 

[patriots]

“We are expanding our capacity to 16 Tejas per year. By the time the Tejas Mark 1A goes into production, our capacity will increase to 24 at least. That is how we intend to deliver the entire order for 83 Mark 1A in three-four years”, explained HAL’s design director, Arup Chatterjee.


Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) is working on giving the Tejas the remaining three capabilities required for final operational certification.

These include expanding the envelope of its “beyond visual range” missile, giving it mid-air refuelling capability by night, and of carrying out “windmill relight” if its engine switches off during flight.

From ajaisukla........................

 

[Rahul Singh]

I remember a time on this forum , when a few guys kept repeating, a light weight fighter like Tejas wont even get multi ejector rack,,,,,,,,,,,,

had to argue for pages that multi ejector racks are not patented tech of medium fighters,,,

Now after seeing 11 weapon stations, I dont know what these guys are gonna say,

3300 KG internal fuel,
7 to 7.5 ton empty weight,
6.5 ton weapon load,
17.5 ton MTOW,
98 Kn engine
means it will better mirage 2000 on all counts, from above specs, to wing loading, thrust to weight ratio, lower frontal clean config RCS, ITR, STR, OBOGs, , etc, etc

not to say a word about AESA, class leading BVRs, WVRs with HMDS combo, IRST, intertnal EW with DRFM based AESA jammers,

fantastic load out option, combat range, etc, etc,

just a shade below rafale,,,,

All ADA needed was

just two canards,

1.5 meter extra length fuselage,,,

&

a 15 KN extra thrust engine,,,

Since wing loading & design load out is similar to tejas mk1 , development of fly by wire software need not be a complicated, start from scratch affair. Just tweaking for canards

That why I always maintained tejas design is future proof,

Once GTRE SAFRAN certifies kaveri engine with what ever thrust level,

if IAF thinks on its toes,

It can easily chart a mirage 2000 to Mirage 4000 plot for this mk2 platform.

So much potential,,,

One gem i would like to share of Pappu @Sancho. His words: Tejas does not have enough station and only strike configuration that is there for Tejas is 2x CCM 2x LGB and 2X DTs. Why he said that. Brace yourself. Because ADA broucher had put only that configuration in 2016-AI brochure.

That example clearly illustrated kind of ignorant this guy was. Hell i wasted so much time then.

 

[ersakthivel]

I mean since the drag is reduced and if the drop tank is part of greater part of sortie then combat radius should slightly improve right.. Also, with the change in drop tank config the fuel capacity is now higher or it is reduced as compared to previous do design of drop tank ??

New drop tanks,

Hv lower drag penalty,

Higher fuel content.

So if you fully read the Indranil Roy, Nilesh Rane article on Delhi Defence Review,

You can know that combat radius increases with these changes.

PIB will release FOC specs soon.

My guess is with all three drop tanks, & improvement cited in the articles,


Tejas combat radius should be above 500 KM.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

New indigenous turbofan project or never?

India will focus on 110kN engine which will power both AMCA & MWF. Tejas MK1 is stop gap only and hence the kaveri engine for it will also be stop gap. As a result, new project for making 110kN engines will begin. If I am right, there were already reports that AMCA will need 110kN engines in 2016-17. So, it is likely that the project would have already begun called K10 engine. It is likely to be revealed once Kaveri engine ik tested and then closed

Bdw...I don't see the reason of mk1a first flight in 2023.....
The radar testing is going on...ifr completed ,derby completed.......
...............

Fiest flight is same as first production. MK1A is upgrade, not new plane and hence there will be no first flight

The drag is more reduced in the supersonic realm and not so much in the sub-sonic realm. Since engagement in the supersonic realm is normally very short (and mostly even absent), the overall gain (in terms of range increase) due to the tiny cross section of fuel tank is very little (if any)

Useful for air superiority roles I guess. It can increase endurance drastically in air superiority or interception role