LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

vishnugupt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
286
Likes
480
Country flag
You asked for cost escalation. The ISE is the reason why.
I didn't ask any cost escalation. I just pointed out how different these two deals were treated. Rafale was treated with utmost priority while Tejas is still in doldrums.
As for the LCA MK1A, the original contract had very high overhead costs baked into it. It was actually more expensive than a Rafale! That's why there were multiple rounds of renegotiation to sort out this issue.
High overhead cost is a common thing even MMRCA Lower bidder ( Rafale ) turned out costly. Tejas mk1a price came down to 39000 crores, not because of HAL gave 18000 crores discount ( HAL decreased profit to 6% from 12%: 3000 crores) but IAF also gave away unnecessary extra support systems ( Depots, Simulators, spare parts availability) so don't blame HAL alone for the high price because HAL gave quotation as per accordance of RFP sent by IAF.
All I want to say that even a blind person can observe Armed forces partial attitude when it comes to an indigenous project.
 

Snowcat

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Messages
118
Likes
180
Country flag
As of the latest info lca mk1 as confirmed by indranil on brf is as follows.

Empty Weight: 6,560 kg
• Take-Off Clean Weight: 9,800 kg
• Maximum Internal Fuel: 2,458 kg
• Maximum Take Off Weight: 14,100 kg
• Maximum Payload Capacity: 4,300 kg
• Engine: General Electric F404-IN20 turbofan
• Airframe Life: 9,000 hours
• Hard Points: 7 + 1

Performance Specifications
• Service Ceiling: 50,000 feet
• G Limits: +8g / -3.5g
• Thrust: 53.9 kN dry thrust and 89.8 kN wet thrust
• Maximum Speed: Mach 1.6
• Ferry Range: 2,800 km ( more to be proved).
I had asked hvtiaf about the airframe life. He said it's 3000 hours but it can be increased according to requirements.
 

vampyrbladez

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
5,027
Likes
10,790
Country flag
I didn't ask any cost escalation. I just pointed out how different these two deals were treated. Rafale was treated with utmost priority while Tejas is still in doldrums.

High overhead cost is a common thing even MMRCA Lower bidder ( Rafale ) turned out costly. Tejas mk1a price came down to 39000 crores, not because of HAL gave 18000 crores discount ( HAL decreased profit to 6% from 12%: 3000 crores) but IAF also gave away unnecessary extra support systems ( Depots, Simulators, spare parts availability) so don't blame HAL alone for the high price because HAL gave quotation as per accordance of RFP sent by IAF.
All I want to say that even a blind person can observe Armed forces partial attitude when it comes to an indigenous project.
Any idiot would know Rafale is a better platform than Tejas MK1A. The only advantage of the Tejas is that it is cheaper and more numerous.

HAL like all PSUs jack up the price and then give slow delivery and cost overruns. A smart approach would have been to rapidly indigenize equipment being imported by HAL and to use the cost savings to develop private sector.

However your union culture @ HAL needs to justify it's membership fees and thus you have astonishing overhead costs. When an imported fighter is cheaper than a less capable made in India one, blame rests with PSU and not foreign OEM.

Simulators, bases, spare parts, depots can all be repurposed from the LCA MK1 project. So buying two sets of the same equipment is useless redundancy. This is the same project afterall.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
1,965
Likes
1,280
Country flag
Could you please enlighten us how Mirage 2000 have 6 tons of payload capacity ??
please give us break away values Empty weight + internal fuel+ pilot+ pylons
Actually every source on the internet gives payload of over 6 tonnes. Since you lack knowledge, here are the official specs from Dassault
Another one from global security, put armament weight at 6200 kg for Mirage 2000D and 5900 for Mirage 2000C.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
1,965
Likes
1,280
Country flag
As of the latest info lca mk1 as confirmed by indranil on brf is as follows.

Empty Weight: 6,560 kg
• Take-Off Clean Weight: 9,800 kg
• Maximum Internal Fuel: 2,458 kg
• Maximum Take Off Weight: 14,100 kg
• Maximum Payload Capacity: 4,300 kg
• Engine: General Electric F404-IN20 turbofan
• Airframe Life: 9,000 hours
• Hard Points: 7 + 1

Performance Specifications
• Service Ceiling: 50,000 feet
• G Limits: +8g / -3.5g
• Thrust: 53.9 kN dry thrust and 89.8 kN wet thrust
• Maximum Speed: Mach 1.6
• Ferry Range: 2,800 km ( more to be proved).
Is this backed up by any source?
 

ObiWanKenobi

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
16
Likes
57
Country flag
Is this backed up by any source?
I've looked around a lot for info on Tejas, nothing much available. But this is true for all current jets, but we can fill in a lot of the blanks for most modern fighters. Books like Raymer's Advanced Aircraft Design can give you some handy thumb rules to go by.

His info is exactly in line with figures provided at various points. But the problem with public info on Tejas has always been that the weights don't add up.

A. Empty weight - 6560kg

Often confirmed this includes 2 CCMs and all pylons - nothing on the pylons though. It may or may not include 300kg of flight instrumentation and weight of the pilot. Manufacturers usually quote the lowest possible figure in marketing. For comparison, Gripen C is higher at 6800kg

B. internal fuel - 2458kg (this is oft repeated confirmed figure, at least 250kg more than Gripen)

C. Take off clean - 9800kg. (this is the problem)

HOW? A+B is 9000kg! I will have to add weight of pilot, pylons and CCMs on top of this to get 9450kg - and add another 300kg of flight instrumentation to reach 9800kg. But then, the actual A figure does not include any of those things.

D. MTOW - 14.1 ton.

This is out of line with the 13.5 ton figure. Ajai Shukla reported athat Tejas did a 14 ton load once but the pic he showed didn't corroborate that. I'll give it a pass. This is somewhat problematic given that Gripen C is 14.1 ton - its canards would add at least 5% to max lift coefficient (CL max) at take-off over Tejas. But then its smaller wing area (S) and lower thrust (T/W) might cancel it out. I would really like to confirm this.

E. Max Payload Capacity - 4.3 ton

E is the thing we try to maximise after all, I really want to believe the 4.3 ton figure. This is higher than Gripen C/D and a decent figure. The really old figure of 3.3 ton I feel is not believable now - they have made a lot of changes since then. The confirmation of this will be a Tejas carrying all three EFTs, a pod and maybe 2 X 500lb PGMs - never seen it yet - the centreline fuel tank is usually missing.

Rest of the stuff is published and confirmed. If the weights are correct, especially E, then I feel Tejas in its current avatar fits the bill. It should have the range and payload capability to do all possible roles. If the E is lower, say 3.5 ton - we could assume the removal of 300kg instrumentation, structural modifications in future variants and adding OBOGS can easily take this past 4 tons. So that can be worked with too.

The question is, will the existing Tejas get a chance to mature or will they kill it after Mk1A and wait 10 years for MWF.
 

Super lca

New Member
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
9
Likes
0
Country flag
I've looked around a lot for info on Tejas, nothing much available. But this is true for all current jets, but we can fill in a lot of the blanks for most modern fighters. Books like Raymer's Advanced Aircraft Design can give you some handy thumb rules to go by.

His info is exactly in line with figures provided at various points. But the problem with public info on Tejas has always been that the weights don't add up.

A. Empty weight - 6560kg

Often confirmed this includes 2 CCMs and all pylons - nothing on the pylons though. It may or may not include 300kg of flight instrumentation and weight of the pilot. Manufacturers usually quote the lowest possible figure in marketing. For comparison, Gripen C is higher at 6800kg

B. internal fuel - 2458kg (this is oft repeated confirmed figure, at least 250kg more than Gripen)

C. Take off clean - 9800kg. (this is the problem)

HOW? A+B is 9000kg! I will have to add weight of pilot, pylons and CCMs on top of this to get 9450kg - and add another 300kg of flight instrumentation to reach 9800kg. But then, the actual A figure does not include any of those things.

D. MTOW - 14.1 ton.

This is out of line with the 13.5 ton figure. Ajai Shukla reported athat Tejas did a 14 ton load once but the pic he showed didn't corroborate that. I'll give it a pass. This is somewhat problematic given that Gripen C is 14.1 ton - its canards would add at least 5% to max lift coefficient (CL max) at take-off over Tejas. But then its smaller wing area (S) and lower thrust (T/W) might cancel it out. I would really like to confirm this.

E. Max Payload Capacity - 4.3 ton

E is the thing we try to maximise after all, I really want to believe the 4.3 ton figure. This is higher than Gripen C/D and a decent figure. The really old figure of 3.3 ton I feel is not believable now - they have made a lot of changes since then. The confirmation of this will be a Tejas carrying all three EFTs, a pod and maybe 2 X 500lb PGMs - never seen it yet - the centreline fuel tank is usually missing.

Rest of the stuff is published and confirmed. If the weights are correct, especially E, then I feel Tejas in its current avatar fits the bill. It should have the range and payload capability to do all possible roles. If the E is lower, say 3.5 ton - we could assume the removal of 300kg instrumentation, structural modifications in future variants and adding OBOGS can easily take this past 4 tons. So that can be worked with too.

Thte question is, will the existing Tejas get a chance to mature or will they kill it after Mk1A and wait 10 years for MWF.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
Can anyone inform me about the str,itr of tejas?
STR is officially 17°/sec. But it can do 360° turns in less than 20 sec, so that is probably a conservative minimum value.

ITR is close to Mirage-2000. I read 30°/sec in a interview (don't remember which).

PS: All those are basic information is from online sources. Details with altitude & loading aren't available.
 
Last edited:

Super lca

New Member
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
9
Likes
0
Country flag
STR is officially 17°/sec. But it can do 360° turns in less than 20 sec, so that is probably a minimum.

ITR is close to Mirage-2000. I read 30°/sec in a interview (don't remember which).

PS: All those are basic information is from online sources. Details with altitude & loading aren't available.
How does it fare when compared to the like of f16 block 50 and j10c?Is there any improvement in the foc model?
 

scatterStorm

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
890
Likes
1,274
Country flag
Can anyone inform me about the str,itr of tejas?
I won't rely on shoddy data, but you can check back some posts on this thread already.
Please use the search button, to your top right corner.


Now, as of the FOC standard,
STR → Can fall bw 17 degrees/sec to 18 degrees per second. (STR is dependent on MTOW)
ITR → Can fall bw 28 degrees/sec to 30 degrees per second. (Also dependent on MTOW)

ITRs are useless in combat, read some SU27 manuals. Or USAF ACC handbook for F16.
STRs are useful in short duration. Any longer and you bleed energy.

Image Comparison to other jets.
1590223046309.png
 

scatterStorm

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
890
Likes
1,274
Country flag
How does it fare when compared to the like of f16 block 50 and j10c?Is there any improvement in the foc model?
Read the USAF ACC manual for F16, you would know where our Tejas Stands.

Long story short... not good.

It was meant for Interception and replacement for Mig21 Bisons, can say Jaguars for Ground attack too, however to Mirage2000, not even close, its on whole other level, let it do what its supposed to do and not it shouldn't supposed to do. You would require MK2 for that, and stuff which hasn't been built yet and on paper should be refrained from comparisons.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
1,965
Likes
1,280
Country flag
I've looked around a lot for info on Tejas, nothing much available. But this is true for all current jets, but we can fill in a lot of the blanks for most modern fighters. Books like Raymer's Advanced Aircraft Design can give you some handy thumb rules to go by.

His info is exactly in line with figures provided at various points. But the problem with public info on Tejas has always been that the weights don't add up.

A. Empty weight - 6560kg

Often confirmed this includes 2 CCMs and all pylons - nothing on the pylons though. It may or may not include 300kg of flight instrumentation and weight of the pilot. Manufacturers usually quote the lowest possible figure in marketing. For comparison, Gripen C is higher at 6800kg

B. internal fuel - 2458kg (this is oft repeated confirmed figure, at least 250kg more than Gripen)

C. Take off clean - 9800kg. (this is the problem)

HOW? A+B is 9000kg! I will have to add weight of pilot, pylons and CCMs on top of this to get 9450kg - and add another 300kg of flight instrumentation to reach 9800kg. But then, the actual A figure does not include any of those things.

D. MTOW - 14.1 ton.

This is out of line with the 13.5 ton figure. Ajai Shukla reported athat Tejas did a 14 ton load once but the pic he showed didn't corroborate that. I'll give it a pass. This is somewhat problematic given that Gripen C is 14.1 ton - its canards would add at least 5% to max lift coefficient (CL max) at take-off over Tejas. But then its smaller wing area (S) and lower thrust (T/W) might cancel it out. I would really like to confirm this.

E. Max Payload Capacity - 4.3 ton

E is the thing we try to maximise after all, I really want to believe the 4.3 ton figure. This is higher than Gripen C/D and a decent figure. The really old figure of 3.3 ton I feel is not believable now - they have made a lot of changes since then. The confirmation of this will be a Tejas carrying all three EFTs, a pod and maybe 2 X 500lb PGMs - never seen it yet - the centreline fuel tank is usually missing.

Rest of the stuff is published and confirmed. If the weights are correct, especially E, then I feel Tejas in its current avatar fits the bill. It should have the range and payload capability to do all possible roles. If the E is lower, say 3.5 ton - we could assume the removal of 300kg instrumentation, structural modifications in future variants and adding OBOGS can easily take this past 4 tons. So that can be worked with too.

The question is, will the existing Tejas get a chance to mature or will they kill it after Mk1A and wait 10 years for MWF.
Thanks for your post. I am aware of the specs mentioned by you in your post and they are sufficiently backed up as well. However if you follow the line of discussion, you would realise that we were talking about engine thrust and my specific question was, is there any source that says LCA's engine thrust is 89kn? Apologies for not being more clear in my post.

Also, in response to your question, it is very unlikely that mk1a will receive further order beyond 83 since this mk1a order itself was a compromise by IAF.

Also, no one is going to wait 10 years for MWF. The current orders+mk1a will be enough to keep production line of lca running till 2027-28. By that time MWF should be ready and hence should enter production immediately after mk1a
 
Last edited:

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,783
Likes
12,031
Country flag
. MTOW - 14.1 ton.

This is out of line with the 13.5 ton figure. Ajai Shukla reported athat Tejas did a 14 ton load once but the pic he showed didn't corroborate that. I'll give it a pass. This is somewhat problematic given that Gripen C is 14.1 ton - its canards would add at least 5% to max lift coefficient (CL max) at take-off over Tejas. But then its smaller wing area (S) and lower thrust (T/W) might cancel it out. I would really like to confirm this.
It's tested and confirmed.
. Max Payload Capacity - 4.3 ton

E is the thing we try to maximise after all, I really want to believe the 4.3 ton figure. This is higher than Gripen C/D and a decent figure. The really old figure of 3.3 ton I feel is not believable now - they have made a lot of changes since then. The confirmation of this will be a Tejas carrying all three EFTs, a pod and maybe 2 X 500lb PGMs - never seen it yet - the centreline fuel tank is usually missing.
There are already pics of lca on BRF carrying more than 4 ton payload.

image-2.png


This is 4.05 ton payload . Since it is an lsp and carried flight instrumentation of 300kg. The foc lca payload can be 4.35 ton.


Read the article.
 
Last edited:

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,783
Likes
12,031
Country flag
. Take off clean - 9800kg. (this is the problem)
Roughly 6500kg empty + 2500 kg internal fuel+ 300kg 2 CCM with launchers and + 500kg misc( 100kg Pilot + 300kg pylons +100kg cannon ammo,chaff flare).= 9800kg Clean TOW.

Flight instrumentation are only for lsp (test) aircrafts. They are removed from ioc foc aircrafts.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top