What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2]

Rafale and the Rationale for another Light Weight Fighter
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net

india-france-rafale-jets-deal.jpg


India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.

The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.

“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”

Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.

In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.

Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!

Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”

He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.

Rafale is a strategic purchase.

Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.

The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.

The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.

Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.

Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.

Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.

MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.

It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.

The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!

In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.

ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.

Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.

“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.

In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?

The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?
True Mr.Parrikar is the right person. And he is specifically doing it in very professional manner.

I Hope he succeeds in his endeavor. My best wishes to him.

Rafale and the Rationale for another Light Weight Fighter
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net

india-france-rafale-jets-deal.jpg


India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.

The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.

“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”

Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.

In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.

Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!

Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”

He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.

Rafale is a strategic purchase.

Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.

The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.

The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.

Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.

Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.

Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.

MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.

It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.

The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!

In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.

ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.

Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.

“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.

In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?

The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?

The purchase of Rafale fighters points to India’s failed defence indigenisation plans
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: ECONOMIC TIMES

poke-me-the-purchase-of-the-rafale-fighters-points-to-the-indias-failed-defence-indigenisation-plans.jpg


In all the confusion that hangs over the Modi government’s decision to procure 36 Rafale fighters ‘off the shelf’, we need to focus on the real issues. First, the imperative of plugging the shortages in the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s combat strength. Second, to once again kickstart the decades-old effort to develop a fighter of our own.

We started to design and build our own combat aircraft in the late 1950s. The HF-24 Marut programme was a spectacular, though limited success. The country failed to build on it and allowed the capabilities built up through the programme to rust. Over the years, India has licence-manufactured or assembled the MiG -21, the Jaguar and the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI. Yet it has picked up little by way of an aviation design and manufacturing capability. Whatever we have is, unsurprisingly, the progeny of the HF-24 programme.

Many institutions, primarily the IAF itself, must share the blame for the current state of affairs. As Admiral Arun Prakash has noted, had the IAF assumed ‘ownership’ of indigenous projects like the HT-2, HJT-36 trainers and the LCA (light combat aircraft) Tejas early enough, it would not be seeking advanced fighters or even trainers from abroad today.

But is there a way forward? The first challenge is to deal with the crisis in 2017 when four MiG-21 and five MiG-27 squadrons retire. This amounts to some 200 aircraft. Already, there are some eight ‘number plated’ squadrons — formations without aircraft. This amounts to another 150 aircraft. The remaining six squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons are soldiering along, but are in the last stages of their lives.

The IAF brass seems to be insisting that these far less capable machines be replaced one-on-one by advanced fighters, which is simply not economically feasible. Even so, 36 Rafales will not do the trick. So presumably the government will go for another tranche, when it has the money. As of now, the statements of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikarhave resulted in more confusion than clarity.

Plugging gaps is one challenge. Developing indigenous design and development capability is another. Here, all is not lost. Today we have the LCA Mk 1 flying and the engineers and designers who have worked on it remain with the Aeronautical Development Agency. Despite its limitations, brought on by a flawed design, it is a good flying machine and perfectly capable of delivering close air support and functioning as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).

Some years ago, a well-known German company had offered to assist HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) to industrialise the LCA’s production and market it abroad, as it felt there was definite market for 250-odd LCAs in this role. The German company did not even merit the courtesy of a reply.

There has been a lot of talk about a Mark II version of the LCA aircraft with a slightly better (GE414) engine. However, the structural changes it requires will add weight to the existing design and negate the advantage of the new engine.

We need to cut the chase and go straight for the design of a twin-engined fifth generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which is on the drawing board. The government needs to give it a determined push.

The US has the F-22 fifth generation fighter in combat service since 2005 and is now developing the F-35. China has two fifth generation fighters — the J-20 and J-31 under development with Pakistan as a potential customer. Russia has its T-50 FGFA. The French, Germans and British seem to have dropped out and want to develop unmanned aircraft like the Neuron.

The action is in Asia, with Japan (Mitsubishi ATD-X), Turkey (TAI-TFX) and South Korea (KF-X) having fifth generation fighter programmes. All of them have understandably sought deep design and development expertise from established companies like Lockheed Martin, Saab, BAE Systems and Boeing.

There are formidable technological challenges in such an enterprise and we need the help of established players to hold our hands. We had a deal with the Russians for the development of a fifth generation fighter, but it has been a rip-off. We have got little by way of R&D spin-offs and we will simply end up amortising the development costs of yet another fighter like the Mirage 2000 and Su-30MKI and, perhaps now, the Rafale.

At the heart of the problem is the dysfunctional defence management and planning process. The IAF — and the Indian Army’s — inflated assessment of their requirements are related to the defence minister’s operational directive to the armed forces that they prepare for a two-front war. This has led the IAF to claim that it needs 42 fighter squadrons and the army to raise a new Mountain Strike Corps.

The difference between planning for all-out war and a limited one is hundreds of thousands of crores of the taxpayer’s precious money. What the country needs are much sharper assessments of the threats it confronts through a document which is based on expert assessments and approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security.
 
Can our mk2 beat a f16?

At this moment nope. We have to wait till Mkii is fully developped. With AESA radar & better ew suit & arnament it certainly can. But probability is more of a f16 block 52+ due to top notch AESA & AMRAAM.
 
Who told u tht drdo hybrid mmr is just 45 km in range.its a hybrid mmr based on elta 2032 .when quartz nose will b placed its range will b more thn 100 km..anyways I am not comparing lca mk1 with paf f16 block 40 or 52..lca mk 1 will b used purely to counter jf17 or chengdu fighter..i am talking about lca mk2 and f16 block 60 used by uae and which was on mmrca offer to india
 
Who told u tht drdo hybrid mmr is just 45 km in range.its a hybrid mmr based on elta 2032 .when quartz nose will b placed its range will b more thn 100 km..anyways I am not comparing lca mk1 with paf f16 block 40 or 52..lca mk 1 will b used purely to counter jf17 or chengdu fighter..i am talking about lca mk2 and f16 block 60 used by uae and which was on mmrca offer to india

Not as per DG AERONAUTICS TAMILMANI

Tejas mk2 does not exist
F-16 blk 60 in service
 
Drdo hybrid mmr 45km range vs An apg 68 120km range

Tejas is sitting duck

Is that the reason IsAF preferred the same ELTA/2032 over APG 68 in their F-16s but denied by Americans?
 
Drdo hybrid mmr 45km range vs An apg 68 120km range

Tejas is sitting duck
your wrong bhaijaan :)

range of LCAs EL/M-2032 is 80Km for 2sq mtrs airal target and RCS of any PAFs current fighter platforms in in acess of 2 sq mtrs and that too in a clean configration while RCS of tejas is way less than 2 sq mtrs so its not a "sitting duck" + the fact that its going to be used as a point defnce and playing a third fiddle toair defnce of india i guess for now its good enof & two types of desi AESA radars are already in testing phase for LCA which will almost double its current range if not more :cheers:

Is that the reason IsAF preferred the same ELTA/2032 over APG 68 in their F-16s but denied by Americans?
that was long back now USA is ready to give india even the AESA version of APG 68
 
Did Chinese media agree that Tejas is technological superior aircraft then JF-17 ? | idrw.org


An article in Sina’s Chinese-language military news web portal compared the abilities of India’s HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and the FC-1 Xiaolong/JF-17 Thunder developed jointly by China and Pakistan.

Overview of the Aircraft

The HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was named by former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The development plan was approved by the Indian government in 1983. The government’s requirements for the Tejas were to develop an all-weather supersonic LCA which could replace the MiG-21. Its main mission is to fight for control of airspace and to offer short-range support. The development of the Tejas wasn’t a simple process, as it included a completely new engine, avionics and weapons systems, in line with global standards. The first test plane was unveiled on Nov. 17, 1995 and made its maiden flight on Jan. 4, 2001.

The design for the PAC JF-17 Thunder, also known as the FC-1 Xiaolong, began with the “Super 7″ plan launched jointly by China and US aircraft maker Grumman to develop an upgraded version of the F-7, but Grumman left the project after sanctions were placed on China by the US in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. China and Pakistan subsequently signed a memorandum of understanding to design a new fighter together in 1995. The requirements for the fighter were that it make use of advanced technology, that it be a completely new design and that it approach the combat capabilities of third-generation fighters. It also needed to be light, cheap to produce and capable of carrying a large payload. The first plane took its maiden flight in 2003 and the third aircraft made a successful test flight in April of 2004. In the same year, the state-owned China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC) and the Pakistan Air Force signed a contract for the production of the FC-1 Xiaolong/JF-17 Thunder, the new designations of what had been the Super 7. On April 28, 2006, weapons systems and avionics were installed in the fourth aircraft and it made a successful test flight. The avionics systems were developed by China. On Sept. 10, 2006, the sixth JF-17 made its maiden flight.

Aerodynamic Configuration

There are clear differences in the shape of the two planes. The Xiaolong has horizontal tail-planes and a conventional aerodynamic structure, while the Tejas has no horizontal tail-planes on its triangular structure.

The lack of a (horizontal) tail is a unique feature of the Tejas, making it similar to the Dassault Mirage series of fighters. The plane also has a delta-wing configuration, which is the reverse of normal delta-wing fighters in that the angle of the sweep of the outer wing section is larger than the angle of the sweep of the inner wing section. The reverse configuration is normally used to balance supersonic and subsonic or transonic capabilities. The Tejas has an angle of incidence from the main axis of the wing, which gives the whole plane a larger dihedral force, improving its supersonic capabilities.

The Xiaolong has a trapezoid-shaped wing configuration, with a larger wing-aspect ratio and a smaller induced drag, therefore at high-altitude subsonic speed, the entire plane has a higher lift-drag ratio. The large wings that extend to the inlets on both sides of the plane’s body not only improve the aircraft’s lift during high-angle-of-attack flight but also help improve the maneuverability of the plane. The eddies created during high-angle-of-attack flight are also relatively stable, which reduces the chance of sudden drops in lift and improves the balance of the plane. It also improves the directivity of the nose of the plane in close-range combat.

In summary, in conventional air warfare, at an altitude of around 8,000 meters and a speed of Mach 0.8-1.2, the Xiaolong performs better in terms of acceleration, climb, stability and other combat capabilities. The Tejas’ advantage lies in its low wing aspect ratio and its relatively low wave drag, which makes it superior to the Xiaolong in supersonic conditions.

Inlet Design

Both planes have intake cowls on both sides, but the Xiaolong’s design is better as it is more functional, improves the plane’s stealth capabilities and reduces its weight.

The Tejas uses the V-shaped air inlets typical of light fighters, the air inlets gather together towards the rear, sheltering the blades of the engine’s axial compressor, preventing the scattering of radar, and adding to the craft’s stealth capabilities. The oval air intakes are similar to the F/A-18C/D Hornet, with a diverter structure around them. All in all the design is in line with convention and has not shown much innovation.

The Xiaolong’s air intake design is a little more imaginative and more advanced. It uses a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI), scrapping the diverter structure used around the air intakes, as well as the air bleed and air bypass structures of most conventional supersonic aircraft. Through use of a three-dimensional compression surface to divert the boundary layer airflow at high subsonic and supersonic speeds, there is no longer a need for supplementary air inlets or bleed doors. This has the effect of lightening the structure, reducing drag and radar return. The air inlets are forward sweeping in a ramp formation, which reduces wave drag or surface interference.

Materials

As the Xiaolong was developed exclusively for export, to control costs, its body is mainly constructed with aluminum alloy as opposed to more popular composite material. The Tejas, however, has put an emphasis on reducing weight, and so it has used a lot of composite material. Forty-five percent of the plane’s total weight is comprised of composite materials, including the fuselage, its vertical tailfin, the skin, the spars and the ribs of the wings, the elevons, the rudder, the air brakes and the landing gear doors. This cuts the plane’s empty weight by 5.5 tons, making it almost 1 ton lighter than the Xiaolong, which means it can carry more fuel and a heavier load. The plane has a cargo-internal fuel ratio of around 30%, which improves its combat abilities.

Propulsion Systems

Although the Tejas’ F414 engine is superior in terms of functionality, durability and life span to the Xiaolong’s RD93 engine, it is also more expensive.

The choice of an engine has been problematic in the development of both aircraft. Those developing the Xiaolong had the choice of the commonly used F404, Pratt & Whitney’s PW1216, the Turbo-Union RB199, the Snecma M88 and the Russian RD33. After considering different parameters, such as the combat radius, external storage and flexibility, they chose the RD-93 afterburning turbofan due to its low fuel uptake and its reasonable price.

The RD-93 is a variant of the RD-33 developed specifically for the Xiaolong, the main changes being the repositioning of the gearbox along the bottom of the engine casing and its mechanical turbine control. It employs a four-stage fan and nine high pressure stage compressor, with military thrust of 50 kiloNewtons (kN) and 81.3 kN thrust with afterburner, an augmented thrust ratio of 1.628, an overall pressure ratio of 21:1, a bypass ratio of 0.48:1, a normal gross takeoff weight of 9.1 tons and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1, which gives it a longer range and better flying and propulsion capabilities.

The original plan for the LCA Tejas was that it would be fitted with the GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri turbofan engine, but the development of the engine ran into a hitch, so they had to adopt the F414 instead. The engine was developed on the basis of the General Electric F404 and has an axial compressor with three fan and seven compressor stages and a turbine with one low-pressure and one high-pressure stage. Compared with the F404, the F414 has augmented thrust by 35%, pushing it to 60 kN military thrust and 98 kN with afterburner. Its thrust-weight ratio has been pushed to 9:1. India purchased the custom-made F414-GE-INS5 model, which has similar capabilities to the F414-GE-400, with a fully digital control system, more advanced than the RD-93’s mechanical turbine control, making it quicker to react and more accurate.

The F414 engine has an advantage over the RD-93 engine, as its technology is more advanced; it has greater thrust and is more reliable. The RD-93 was designed in the 1970s and is a little past its best in terms of design, but it does offer more stability, a better price and a high quality-price ratio. However, the Xiaolong will likely adopt the Chinese WS-13 engine in the future. The WS-13 is an improved version of the RD-93 engine, with a better design and more attention to materials and details in its production. It also uses the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, which creates the possibility that it may be smaller than the F-414.

Avionics and Flight Control Systems

The LCA Tejas’ avionics system has a top-down design and has made use of line-replaceable unit technology, ensuring smooth coordination and the minimum degree of interdependence. The Tejas’ avionics system was designed by France, with three 1553B serial buses and two centralized 32-bit, high-throughput mission computers, including a communications subsystem, a mission subsystem, a self-defense system and a guidance and flight system. It uses ELTA’s EL/M2032 radar system, which works in the X-band range, designed for both air-to-air and ground strike missions. It is effective within a range of 37-75 km.

The Xiaolong’s avionics also have a top-down design, with an onboard computer and a 1553B serial bus at the center, integrating several systems, including the cockpit display and control system, task management systems and fire control systems. It is equipped with autonomous navigation technology and can attack land, air and sea targets, tracking while scanning. If the users can afford it, it can also be equipped with globally competitive avionics systems. It can be equipped with the KLJ-7 X-band fire and control radar, for example, which has 14 air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and can follow 10 targets while in track and scan mode. It can also unleash an attack at two targets simultaneously. Its mid-range guided missiles can also hit targets beyond visual range. For targets of 5 meters squared, its range in look-down search mode is 105 km and 85 km in look-down mode.

Chinese avionics have come a long way in recent years and even in comparison with the Western avionics system used in the LCA Tejas, it doesn’t lose out in terms of capability and its search range is greater and functionality greater than that of the Tejas.

Flight Control Systems

The flight system of the Tejas has a more complicated origin. Originally the aircraft was set to be equipped with a FADEC system developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and India, however, an Indian nuclear test led to sanctions being implemented against the country, ending the US-Indian cooperative endeavor. India then looked to Russian aircraft manufacturer Mikoyan and Moscow Air Production Organization for help, until the sanctions were revoked in 2001. India then ordered actuators from London-based BAE Systems, which were handed over in 2003. Then Lockheed Martin joined the development project once again. This lengthy process slowed down the entire development of the aircraft. Overall, the core parts of the system were completed by Lockheed Martin, although this information has yet to be released to the public. The Indian media have reported that the flight control system is a match for the F-16C/D Fighting Falcon’s relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system.

The Xiaolong’s flight control systems make use of a longitudinal FADEC system, with two fly-by-wire back-up systems. The FADEC system improves stability across the yaw and roll axis. It has overcome a few flaws in its aerodynamics to allow for more maneuverability. It is also relatively low in price.

Combat Ability

There is no real competition between the two aircraft in terms of combat ability. The Xiaolong has already completely developed its combat capabilities, with the ability to fire radar-guided air-to-air SD-10 missiles, air-launched C-802AK anti-ship missiles and precision bombs. The LCA Tejas, on the other hand, has just entered service, so it hasn’t developed its combat abilities as yet, so the only way to compare the two is to look at the weapons they will likely use and their weapon pylons.

Those behind both the Tejas and the Xiaolong demanded comprehensive combat capabilities for the two fighters, to allow them to use a diverse range of weaponry. The fixed weapon on both fighters is a double-barreled 23 mm aircraft gun. The difference between them is that the Tejas’ gun is sourced from Russia, whereas the Xiaolong uses China’s variant of the gun. The LCA has eight weapon pylons on the entire plane, with three under each wing, one under the central body of the plane, and one under the air inlets on the left side of the plane. This allows the plane to make use of a wide range of the weapon systems of the Indian Army. This includes mid and close-range air-to-air missiles, precision-guided weapons, air-to-surface (including anti-ship) missiles, conventional and retarded bombs, cluster bombs and unguided rockets. The pylons can carry a maximum weight of 4 tons. The Xiaolong has 7 external pylons, two at the tips of the wings, four under the wings and one on the belly of the fuselage. This allows it to carry the beyond-visual-range radar guided SD-10 missile and the PL-9 short-range, infrared-homing air-to-air missile, as well as air-to-surface missiles, such as anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, laser-guided bombs, anti-runway penetration bombs and cluster bombs. It can also carry three high-capacity subsidiary oil tanks. It can carry a total of 3.6 tons externally.



The two fighters are aimed primarily at air-to-air combat, while still maintaining ground strike and anti-ship attack capabilities. The Xiaolong will likely carry two PL-5EII air-to-air homing missiles, two SD-10 mid-range air-to-air missiles and two or three subsidiary oil tanks in its standard configuration. When engaging in beyond-visual range combat, it will likely carry four SD-10 missiles. The LCA Tejas will likely be equipped with the Israeli Python-4 air-to-air missile and the Derby medium-range active radar homing missile. The Python-4 approaches the PL-5EII in terms of its capabilities, but the range of the Derby missile is a lot shorter than that of the SD-10, so the Xiaolong has the advantage in terms of beyond visual range combat.

Overall, the LCA Tejas and the Xiaolong are matched in terms of their weapons pylons and as India’s own weapon production abilities are quite limited, the LCA Tejas makes use of mainly Western and Russian advanced weapon systems, which makes for a scattered weapon set, which is more challenging for the pilot to manage. The Xiaolong’s weapon systems and nacelle are all designed by China, which makes for more coordination between its weapons systems and a good price-to-quality ratio, which is a big advantage for the Xiaolong.

Conclusion

The Tejas is a light multirole fighter fit for the 21st century. It uses a lot of new technology and innovation, such as its use of large amounts of composite materials, its advanced avionics system and its unique aerodynamic configuration. In terms of functionality, the LCA Tejas has good potential to be expanded into variants. For example, at a time when the air force version is yet to be commissioned widely, a ship-based version of the aircraft has already been released. The Xiaolong is a third-generation model designed for the international market. The use of off-the-shelf materials not only cuts costs but also reduces risks in the design process and improves the reliability of the aircraft. This will not make it the best aircraft, but rather a standard, cheap and reliable model for air-to-air combat. In summation, the Xiaolong is the aircraft of today and the Tejas is the aircraft of tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
making it almost 1 ton lighter than the Xiaolong

JF-17 is 14,520 lb empty. Tejas is 14,300 lb empty. 1 ton = 2,000 lb. Tejas is 220 lb lighter than JF-17, not 1 ton. Article wrong. :laugh:
 
Back
Top Bottom