LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,218
Likes
26,029
Country flag
Almost a done thing. That's why mk1a cost is steeply high compared to Mk1. Ge404 cost 5million dollars and ge414 cost 10million dollars plus AESA radar ew suite that has raised the cost of Tejas Mk1A significantly...

Ge414 is 50-70 kg heavier than 404, air intakes were made for kaveri engine which has higher air inflow than 404 so suitable for 414 too similarly kaveri engine was deemed heavier than 404 so weight too is of no concern. Dimensions too are almost same. And we haven't placed any order for new 404 engines, production for which has been stopped. So quite possible Mk1A to have ge414 engine which is being discussed now. GE had promised to help in integration of 414 in LCA. So it could be the case..
So Mark1A will have less range but be more maneuverable?
Because fuel is the same, right.. no major change in design.
 

Saichand K

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
270
Likes
333
Country flag
So Mark1A will have less range but be more maneuverable?
Because fuel is the same, right.. no major change in design.
There are several meausrrs to rewduce weight. Redesign of sub systems is under process. This could increase the combat radius.
 

patriots

Defense lover
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
5,695
Likes
21,794
Country flag
So Mark1A will have less range but be more maneuverable?
Because fuel is the same, right.. no major change in design.
If mk1a will be 1000kg lighter....as said by hal...then I think its...range will be same as mk1
 

Prashant12

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
3,027
Likes
15,002
Country flag
HAL Ramps Up LCA Production and Looks to the Mk2


HAL displayed the air force version of the MWF/LCA Mk2 in model form at the recent Aero India show. (Photo: Neelam Mathews)
naval version of the LCA Mk2 will require an increased-thrust engine, reduced weight, an increased wing area, and a tailhook. “We have to move on towards a twin-engined deck-based CATOBAR [aatapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery] fighter,” chief of naval staff Sunil Lanba told AIN.

Beyond the LCA program, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is India’s fifth-generation fighter planned for production once the LCA Mk2 design is frozen. It is said to be designed for swing role, with BVR and close-combat capability, and precision strike. Madhavan said that a manufacturing partner would be sought for the AMCA.


A model of the LCA Mk1A was also on show at Aero India. This version introduces a refueling probe. (Photo: Neelam Mathews)

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-03-11/hal-ramps-lca-production-and-looks-mk2
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,631
Likes
21,108
Country flag
Exactly! That's why I keep saying that merely comparing 'wing loading' of wings designed by different companies/people makes no sense!! An amateur will always come up with a big wing (as such low wing loading, but high drag) - because he doesn't know how to eke out every bit of aerodynamic lift by employing a smart design! The experts can affix a small wing (high wing loading, but low drag) but extract ALL the lift that's physically possible.
Look at the LCA Mk2. It has same wing of LCA Mk1 with almost 30% higher MTOW. So it is very clear that either LCA Mk2 or LCA mk1 design is not optimum. We have seen the penalty in terms of LCA low highest speed, and little sub optimal performance in maneuvering. I am not sure that whether it can now be ractified in Mk1 or not?
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,631
Likes
21,108
Country flag
Hopefully the table below (from DelhiDefenceReview) will help disabuse several folks of the pseudo-science that was peddled on this forum by a certain whackjob .

It was argued relentlessly by that whackjob that 'low wing loading' (meaning a large wing for a given weight of aircraft) of Mk1 was a huge virtue. I had argued that a 'low wing loading' essentially means an overall inefficient aerodynamic design!!

As you can see, both Mk1 & Mk2 have the same 'wing area'; but Mk2 can carry an overall 30% extra weight. So, the 'wing loading' of Mk2 is higher than Mk1. Will the whackjob now say that Mk2 design is inferior to Mk1's???

Folks should beware of nutjobs peddling nonsense. The nutjobs have no real understanding of science or logic, but will belt big words, quote irrelevant sources to substantiate their nonsense! He was absent from the forum for a while, but I see that he's back again peddling more nonsense on other aspects of Tejas!

View attachment 32456

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...ows-a-pair-becomes-the-medium-weight-fighter/
There are many inhearant contradictions in the DATA.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,588
Likes
7,536
Country flag
Almost a done thing. That's why mk1a cost is steeply high compared to Mk1. Ge404 cost 5million dollars and ge414 cost 10million dollars plus AESA radar ew suite that has raised the cost of Tejas Mk1A significantly...

Ge414 is 50-70 kg heavier than 404, air intakes were made for kaveri engine which has higher air inflow than 404 so suitable for 414 too similarly kaveri engine was deemed heavier than 404 so weight too is of no concern. Dimensions too are almost same. And we haven't placed any order for new 404 engines, production for which has been stopped. So quite possible Mk1A to have ge414 engine which is being discussed now. GE had promised to help in integration of 414 in LCA. So it could be the case..
Interesting observation indeed, we should already have 2-6 or more F414 engines in country since deliveries already started at a slow pace. Wouldn't be a shocker indeed if MK-1A already uses the F414. This way they can speed up the transition to LCA mk-2 since by then engine is fully tested and certified on the MK-1A.
 

SanjeevM

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,631
Likes
4,503
Country flag
Let them take flight: on Tejas and Kaveri projects


It is not late to declare the Tejas and Kaveri projects as ‘national missions’



At the Aero-India 2019 airshow and aviation exhibition, held in Bengaluru last month, there were two developments of significance, for India’s national security as well its moribund aeronautical industry. On February 20, the Indian Air Force and the aviation community heaved a collective sigh of relief after the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mark 1, received its long-awaited Final Operational Clearance; this means it is combat-ready and can be exploited to the limits of its approved ‘envelope’. However, a day later, came a rather unwelcome report: a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) announcement at the show of its decision to shelve the Kaveri turbo-jet engine project. While one waits for this report to be confirmed or denied, given the criticality of this engine for India’s aeronautical industry, the issue deserves a close look.

Political myopia
Historically, all major aerospace powers have possessed the capability to design airframes as well as power-plants. Until India can design and produce its own aero-engines, the performance and capabilities of any indigenously designed/built aircraft will be seriously limited by the technology that we are permitted to import. India has already had two bitter experiences in this regard. The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s sleek and elegant HF-24 Marut fighter, of the 1960s and 1970s, failed to achieve its huge potential as a supersonic fighter for want of a suitable engine. Rather than exert itself to seek alternatives, the government of the day, with stunning myopia, closed the programme.

Similarly, many of the problems the Tejas faced emanate from lack of engine thrust. Even as the Kaveri has failed to make an appearance, U.S.-made alternatives such as the General Electric F-404 engine, or even the more powerful F-414, do not deliver adequate thrust for the Tejas Mk 1, to meet all its missions. For the Tejas Mk IA, Mk II, the LCA Navy, and other aircraft programmes such as the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, India will need turbo-jet engines of even greater thrust. Thus, it is vital for India to develop a family of homegrown jet engines to power indigenous combat aircraft as well as re-engine imported ones.

A pivotal role
In this context, it is necessary to recognise that both the Tejas and Kaveri projects — which have seen more than their share of headwinds and uncertainty — form key components of India’s technological aspirations. Unless carefully guided, protected and nurtured, their failure could spell the end of India’s aeronautical industry, or condemn it forever to licensed production. A long production run of, say, 250-300 aircraft for the Tejas and its advanced derivatives is essential if the industry is to hone its design and production skills.

The same holds good for the Kaveri, except that the design and production of a functional turbojet engine are even more challenging. The HAL claims to have “manufactured” nearly 5,000 aero-engines of British, French and Russian design, and overhauled 18,000 of them. Since this putative “manufacturing” process involves merely the assembly of imported components, several engine divisions of the HAL have failed to imbibe aspects of design, metallurgy, thermodynamic and aerodynamic engineering as well as the complex tooling and machining process required for the design and manufacture of aero-engines, over the past 60 years — a sad commentary. In 1986, the DRDO’s decades-old Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) was tasked with developing an indigenous power plant for the LCA, which was to replace the U.S. engines being used for the development phase of the aircraft.

Having developed two experimental engines, the GTRE took up a turbofan design, designated the GTX-35VS “Kaveri”, for the LCA. Full-scale development was authorised in 1989 for 17 prototypes at a cost of $55 million. The first complete prototype Kaveri began tests in 1996, and by 2004 it had flown on a Russian flying test-bed; albeit unsuccessfully. Since then, the Kaveri has made sporadic progress and the GTRE has been struggling with serious design and performance issues which it has been unable to resolve. As the Kaveri missed successive deadlines, the U.S. import option was mindlessly and gleefully resorted to.

A series of troughs
Given the DRDO’s penchant for secrecy and misplaced optimism, the true story of the Kaveri’s halting progress has never been revealed to Parliament or the taxpayer. However, two details, available on the Internet, are revelatory of the organisation’s ‘modus operandi’. It has, at least, on two occasions, approached French and British aero-engine manufacturers for advice and consultancy in operationalising the Kaveri. Despite reportedly attractive offers of performance-enhancement and technology-transfer, the negotiations stalled reportedly on cost considerations. It is also interesting to note that in 2014, this project — of national importance — was arbitrarily shut down by the DRDO only to be revived subsequently for reasons unknown.

It is obvious that the onus for repeated setbacks in these projects must lie squarely on India’s political leadership; for its neglect as well as absence of a vision for the aeronautical industry. There are three more factors: over-estimation by the DRDO of its capabilities compounded by a reluctance to seek advice; inadequate project management and decision-making skills of its scientists; and exclusion of users — the military — from all aspects of the projects.

It is still not too late for the government to declare both these projects as ‘national missions’ and initiate urgent remedial actions. The success of both the Kaveri and Tejas programmes will transform the aerospace scene, and put India in the front ranks of aeronautical nations, perhaps even ahead of China, if the desired degree of resolve and professional rigour can be brought to the fore. If we miss this opportunity, we will remain abjectly import-dependent forever in this vital area.

Admiral Arun Prakash retired as India’s 20th Naval Chief and Chairman Chiefs of Staff in 2006
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/let-them-take-flight/article26502547.ece/amp/
 

Shashwat

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
305
Likes
1,098
Country flag
The 16th series produced Tejas (LA-5016) completed couple of her production sorties by last evening. Flying Daggers will be in full strength before end of this financial year. With FOC in kitty, the final set of aircrafts with FOC standard will start coming into production line. As per HAL Chairman, HAL will put all effort to deliver all the 16 aircrafts by March 2020. Appears to be a tall order. But keeping in view of the maturity level achieved in both the production lines, Let us hope this target is achieved without any big hurdle.
Jai Hind.
https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca

SP16 flew, only thing left is Sp15- should happen before April. :)
 

Jackd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
741
Likes
804
IOC aircrafts will be delivered before the end of this FY and by the September or October we will see the first FOC variant Tejas.
 

patriots

Defense lover
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
5,695
Likes
21,794
Country flag
Hal will try their best to produce all foc version a before march 2020....

Says hal chairman....

I belive if hal able to delever 10...foc version s then it will be an achievement
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,218
Likes
26,029
Country flag
^^ They are already making FOC version.
IOC aircrafts will be delivered before the end of this FY and by the September or October we will see the first FOC variant Tejas.
So which one of you is correct? HAL Chairman and Managing Director R Madhavan said, "The first set of 16 was in the IOC configuration."
bl22-aero-tejas.jpg

But the model displayed at Aero India 2019 was an FOC standard one, right? It was SP-??
aero-india-1-768x512.jpg

And is that just a mock-up? ..or FOC variant will indeed carry Uttam AESA, Brahmos-NG & new supersonic droptanks in future?
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top