What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
P.S. SUBRAMANYAM, Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bangalore, stands next to a big model of India's own Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, fondly runs his fingers over the edges of its wide wings, and says with a glimmer in his eyes: “This is the lightest combat aircraft in the world. Its pilots have told me that when they land, it is like landing on butter! The landing is so smooth. It is because the wings occupy the largest area of the aircraft's surface area. It has no tail! This is something special about this aircraft.”

... The Initial Operations Clearance (IOC) it received on January 10 meant that its production could begin at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bangalore. “So far we have spent Rs.6,000 crore on the project, which has resulted in 14 aircraft, out of which 11 are flying. The rest are ready to fly,” said Subramanyam, who is also Programme Director (Combat Aircraft).

...The single-engine, single-seater, fourth generation aircraft is the smallest and lightest multi-role supersonic fighter in its class. The Delta wing aircraft (wingspan 8.2 metres, length 13.2 m, and height 4.4 m) will carry a variety of missiles and laser-guided bombs. Tejas is already integrated with the R-73 missile and is soon to be integrated with two Israeli missiles, Python-5, a close combat missile, and Derby, which can home in on targets more than 50 km away. The indigenous content of Tejas, which stands at 60 per cent now, will reach 70 per cent in its Mark II variant.

In the face of technology denial regimes and embargoes, the development of the aircraft epitomises the collaborative efforts of several institutions, among them the ADA, its principal partner HAL, and the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE).

P.S. Krishnan, Director, ADE, said, “We have developed the most crucial technologies for Tejas. We have built a simulator for it, which is a world-class facility. We built the simulator for Arjun, the main battle tank. Simulators are a big area for us. We developed the digital fly-by-wire flight control systems for the LCA, which is a crucial technology.”

“It is a state-of-the-art simulator. It can help the pilot fly his aircraft in any mode he wants,” explained V.S. Chandra Shekar, Group Director, ADE. B.P. Sashidhara, Scientist, Flight Simulation Division, added, “Whatever manoeuvres we can do in real aircraft, we can do in the simulator. We can pitch, roll and yaw.” V. Kala, Project Director for Tejas' flight control systems (FCS), S. Gurudev, Group Director, and Krishnan, who worked jointly on the FCS, were proud that the ADE was chosen to make it.

The fighter aircraft's performance has been flawless – in more than 1,550 flights, as on February 17, there have been no incidents at all, not to talk of accidents. Tejas has been flown successfully in extreme conditions – in Nagpur during peak summer at a searing 48° Celsius and in the rarefied heights of Leh at −28° C. The LCA is marching towards Final Operations Clearance in 2012.

Air Commodore Rohit Verma, Project Director, National Flight Test Centre, Bangalore, who has flown Tejas 55 times, said, “The aircraft handles very well. Young pilots have flown it. They find it safe. It has good sensors, radars, a helmet-mounted sight and an inertial navigation unit.”

On the basis of a project definition document that was formulated in 1990, the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence, said it would take seven years and Rs.4,000 crore to develop the LCA. It was conceived as an ambitious attempt to bridge huge technological gaps in multiple disciplines, including fighter aircraft design. The programme began in 1993 when the Government of India decided to support the technology development for the aircraft, which was completed in March 2004. The first Technology Demonstrator for flight took place earlier, in January 2001.

“The biggest challenge when we took up the programme in 1993 was to catch up with the rest of the world in fourth generation fighter aircraft technologies. The greatest achievement of this phase is that India mastered them,” said Subramanyam. The fourth generation technologies are fly-by-wire flight control systems; unstable aerodynamics; glass cockpit incorporating the latest all-digital avionics systems; advanced composite materials for the airframe; and computer-based control of all electromechanical systems.


When India began the Tejas programme, the rest of the world argued that India would not be able to do it because it faced a gap of 30 years in developing these fourth generation technologies.

Subramanyam said, “I should put on record here that it was the decision of persons such as [former President] A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Kota Harinarayana that we should attempt these technologies. They said we should be confident that our youngsters would be able to achieve these technologies. ”

Kota Harinarayana, former ADA Director, is the chief architect of the Tejas project. In honour of his contribution to the project, the letters “KH” were inscribed on the aircraft that made the first flight in January 2001.

....
..
A team of test pilots from the IAF and the Navy gave suggestions on how to improve the aircraft's flying qualities. “The pilots were able to tell the designers how the aircraft should behave. So whatever deficiencies they had seen in other aircraft, we were able to overcome in Tejas,” said Subramanyam.

“When the naval prototype completes its [aircraft] carrier compatibility trails by 2014, it will be a great achievement,” he said. For India will be only the second country, after Russia, to have a fighter aircraft that can ski-jump from an aircraft carrier and land on the carrier.” The ski jump involves a short runway on the aircraft carrier for take-off and landing with the help of an arrester. The U.S.' fighter aircraft use the catapult method to take off and land on carriers.

A spin-off from the programme is that it has nurtured many private industries to take the various fourth generation fighter aircraft technologies to new levels of design, development, testing and fabrication.

......
Meanwhile, the Kaveri engine for fighter aircraft being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a DRDO laboratory in Bangalore, crossed a milestone on November 3, 2010, when an IL-76 aircraft flew with it for an hour at an altitude of 6,000 m at a speed of 0.6 Mach (0.6 times the speed of sound). This trial took place at the Gromov Flight Research Institute (GFRI), Moscow, Russia. DRDO officials said the engine control, performance and health were excellent during the flight.

Coooool !!!
 
Because LCA MK1 will not be as capable as Mirage 2000-5, just as LCA MK2 will not be as capable as most of the MMRCAs. Most importantly, LCA won't bring any benefits in regard to ToT, offset, or political advantages. Both fighters simply has different aims, besides the operational differences!
LCA is important for us to build up an own indigenous industry, to get a base of experience and know how for later developments and we are still in this first stages.
MMRCA instead is aimed to further improve our industry with ToT, co-developments, or JV, by the fact that we faced a lot of problems during LCA developments. We need this input through not only for future developments, but also for LCA MK2, or future upgrades of LCA in general.

can you be specific on the technologies that LCA doesnt posses but MMRCA posses?
 
A country can't transfer technology(ToT) to itself. Isn't that logical to you or you have decided to bash LCA in endless and eternal manner?

Read again! I pointed out the difference between LCA and MMRCA as a project, both have different aims and that's why we can't just buy LCAs instead of MMRCAs.
Once again, I never bashed LCA as a fighter, on the contrary I think we are making a mistake by not focusing enough on it and jumping to AMCA instead. But that doesn't meant I close my eyes on the mistakes and failures that was done in the development, especially in regard to the engine and radar developments.
But we discussed that before, so there is no point in talking about it again.


can you be specific on the technologies that LCA doesnt posses but MMRCA posses?

If you refering to my point that LCA MK2 will not be as capable as MMRCAs, then it's not only about techs, although they do offer more here as well (IRST, swashplate AESA radars, SC are uncertain for LCA, TVC won't be available), but about payload, MTOW, numbers of weapon stations.
I still believe if we keep focusing on the potential of MK2, it can be very close to Gripen NG, but that's still a big difference to real medium class fighters:

Payload / MTOW / numbers of weapon stations

LCA MK1 - 3.5t / 13.3t / 7 + 1
M2K-5 - 6.3t / 17t / 9
Gripen NG - 6t / 16.5t / 8 (9) + 1
F16 IN - 8t / 21.8t / 9 + 2

LCA is a light class interceptor mainly, with additional multi role capabilities. But even if the LCA MK2 can match those MMRCAs in range, it will be comparable, only in the A2A role, while the lack of load capabilities will make it less useful in the A2G role.
 
If you refering to my point that LCA MK2 will not be as capable as MMRCAs, then it's not only about techs, although they do offer more here as well (IRST, swashplate AESA radars, SC are uncertain for LCA, TVC won't be available), but about payload, MTOW, numbers of weapon stations.
I still believe if we keep focusing on the potential of MK2, it can be very close to Gripen NG, but that's still a big difference to real medium class fighters:

Payload / MTOW / numbers of weapon stations

LCA MK1 - 3.5t / 13.3t / 7 + 1
M2K-5 - 6.3t / 17t / 9
Gripen NG - 6t / 16.5t / 8 (9) + 1
F16 IN - 8t / 21.8t / 9 + 2

LCA is a light class interceptor mainly, with additional multi role capabilities. But even if the LCA MK2 can match those MMRCAs in range, it will be comparable, only in the A2A role, while the lack of load capabilities will make it less useful in the A2G role.

Sancho... Check the Engine performance of Mirage.. it is 64Kn dry and 95kn wet
while LCA is 54kn dry and 85kn wet... surely Mirage has good thrust.. accepted it has got more hardpoints ... but LCA surely with new thrust.. it is going to have a good MTOW..atleast it will beat M2K in that.. since we have less empty weight and more fuel compared to M2K may be 5.5t which is a good one.... but MTOW will surely exceed M2K... and i wont comment on Hard points just we need to wait until MK2 arrives ...... surely a good multi role one which has potential to beat NG
 
surely a good multi role one which has potential to beat NG
Yeah it surely has potential but a lot has to be done to reach NG level. I think we should wait for mk3 because mk2 does not have enough changes.
Gripen :
1. Has world's most highly developed multi-frequency data link. (very important feature)
2. Have IRST.
3. Will feature a 2nd generation aesa radar. (I don't know what is 2nd gen aesa radar, if somebody explain it to me it will be good.)
4. Gripen has the best BVR range as compared to any other fighter in MMRCA.
5. Its not platform dependent, i mean you could make any changes to it as per your need unlike US and Russian fighter jets.
6. Very agile and can operate from from small air strips as well as roads just like F18SH.

These are the few things which i can point out without any painful research which makes NG way too ahead of LCA mk2. There could be many more techs were Gripen could be better than LCA mk2 or which LCA mk2 lacks. Also mk2 cost we don't know, while we know that Gripen is a cheap fighter jet.

Gripen NG is a 4++ gen fighter jet while LCA mk2 is a 4th gen.

Once again, I never bashed LCA as a fighter, on the contrary I think we are making a mistake by not focusing enough on it and jumping to AMCA instead.
No i think AMCA was needed and is a very wise decision because we needed our own testbed to test all the 4++ gen and 5th gen techs that we will gain from MMRCA and FGFA program.
But looking at the features of LCA mk2, research to improve its feature should continue side by side.
 
Yeah it surely has potential but a lot has to be done to reach NG level. I think we should wait for mk3 because mk2 does not have enough changes.
Gripen :
1. Has world's most highly developed multi-frequency data link. (very important feature)
2. Have IRST.
3. Will feature a 2nd generation aesa radar. (I don't know what is 2nd gen aesa radar, if somebody explain it to me it will be good.)
4. Gripen has the best BVR range as compared to any other fighter in MMRCA.
5. Its not platform dependent, i mean you could make any changes to it as per your need unlike US and Russian fighter jets.
6. Very agile and can operate from from small air strips as well as roads just like F18SH.

These are the few things which i can point out without any painful research which makes NG way too ahead of LCA mk2. There could be many more techs were Gripen could be better than LCA mk2 or which LCA mk2 lacks. Also mk2 cost we don't know, while we know that Gripen is a cheap fighter jet.

Can you give a source for point number 3. Only US has 2nd generation AESA. And the Gripen AESA is not by SAAB. Its a different company. We can also buy an AESA from Israel and fit it on LCA but we want to develop our own AESA for LCA.

What do you mean by point number 4. Isn't BVR dependent on the radar and the AAM Range. So what's so unique about Gripen. You need to elaborate this point.

Point No. 5. What do you mean by platform independent. Can you chance the American engine. If SAAB has said so can you give a source.

Point no. 6. LCA Naval will have a similar short take off. They can incorporate some of those technologies into LCA. So no big deal. Anyways for a large country like India this is not even a requirement.

The only thing that Grippen has and LCA doesn't have is the IRST. Considering LCA Mk II is planned for 2016 and Gripen NG for 2017 I still can't see what's so great about Gripen.
 
Yeah it surely has potential but a lot has to be done to reach NG level. I think we should wait for mk3 because mk2 does not have enough changes.
Gripen :
1. Has world's most highly developed multi-frequency data link. (very important feature)
sure accepted NG has the best data link... but it doesnt mean LCA doesnt have.. and LCA will be very well integrated with AFNET which is important in a network centric warfare...
2. Have IRST.
May not be a requirement or priority if not it would have been featured atleast we would have imported for sure..
3. Will feature a 2nd generation aesa radar. (I don't know what is 2nd gen aesa radar, if somebody explain it to me it will be good.)
When AESA ready will eventually get into LCA.. right now it is predicted to take 5 yrs and will not be available when MK2 rolls out.. but once completed it will surely find its way into LCA.. as far as i know we are working on future generation AESA like CAPTOR
4. Gripen has the best BVR range as compared to any other fighter in MMRCA.
Whats the use.. you need a weapon to operate on the BVR.. BVR is driven by weapon.. still ASTRA-2 is bound to have the range of Meteor..
5. Its not platform dependent, i mean you could make any changes to it as per your need unlike US and Russian fighter jets.
it is our own stuff... so you can imagine more than that.. if we are not sactioned like sweden.. i bet we will have all tech what NG has posses
6. Very agile and can operate from from small air strips as well as roads just like F18SH.
accepted a design that LCA lacks.. but LCA has been optimized for Indian environment which is highly important

These are the few things which i can point out without any painful research which makes NG way too ahead of LCA mk2. There could be many more techs were Gripen could be better than LCA mk2 or which LCA mk2 lacks. Also mk2 cost we don't know, while we know that Gripen is a cheap fighter jet.

Gripen NG is a 4++ gen fighter jet while LCA mk2 is a 4th gen.
As far as i am also concerned LCA Mk2 will be 4th gen .. Gripen is good no doubt but any platform is as good as it has to posses the PayLoad & armanents ....
with MK2 we will have a good MTOW and good operational range and pay load.. weapons we can add at any time... yes some technologies like IRST and AESA will take time.. but will eventually get into LCA once they are ready .... You have to understand still LCA will be in lighter category not in the medium category of NG.. but still it can make the range and payload of NG.. yes technologies we lack but we will develop hopefully in a decade.. we are short of decade thats why I emphasis MMRCA is important..

No i think AMCA was needed and is a very wise decision because we needed our own testbed to test all the 4++ gen and 5th gen techs that we will gain from MMRCA and FGFA program.
But looking at the features of LCA mk2, research to improve its feature should continue side by side.
 
Sancho... Check the Engine performance of Mirage.. it is 64Kn dry and 95kn wet
while LCA is 54kn dry and 85kn wet... surely Mirage has good thrust.. accepted it has got more hardpoints ... but LCA surely with new thrust.. it is going to have a good MTOW..atleast it will beat M2K in that.. since we have less empty weight and more fuel compared to M2K may be 5.5t which is a good one.... but MTOW will surely exceed M2K... and i wont comment on Hard points just we need to wait until MK2 arrives ...... surely a good multi role one which has potential to beat NG

I guess you mean LCA MK2 with new thrust, if so I completely agree that it will surpass Mirage 2000 (although I'm not sure about payload and MTOW), but MK1 won't and that version is technically at the same level.
Hardpoints are imp even more important than the payload, because they decide mainly about the load configs that are possible. Mirage 2000-5 and the EF has similar layouts in this regard, which is mainly focused on carrying as much AAMs as possible. Both can carry 4 x BVR missiles and a fuel tank just at the fuselage stations, which leaves the wingstations free for more loads. LCA instead can carry only a fuel tank and the tarettig pod under the fuselage / air intake.
In A2G on the other hand, this layout is not so good, because the number of heavy stations is limited to 3, just like on LCA, while a Rafale, or F18SH offer even 5 and even the Gripen NG has 4 such stations. So lets say LCA MK2 will get close to Gripen NG in terms of payload, MTOW and internal fuel (which is likely), it still will remain less capable in weaponloads, unless LCA will get more stations as well, preferably more heavy staitions of course.

At the end it depends also what our forces plans to do with LCA and N-LCA. Imo, apart from the air defense role, LCA will be tasked with CAS roles, which means strikes with 500, or 1000lb LGBs (Sudarshan) at closer distances, while MKI will complement here with heavy strikes capabilities (KAB 1500, or a variety of A2G missiles (Kh 31, 35, 58, Brahmos, Nirbhay). What's missing will be taken over by MMRCAs (low level, deep penetration strikes on high value targets, with PGMs and stand off weapons) and hopefully weaponized UAVs (CAS and SEAD, would love to see Heron and Rustom with LAHAT, or even HELINA missiles).

All in all a great increase of capability in A2A and A2G, if the right fighters and weapons will be chosen!
 
Yeah it surely has potential but a lot has to be done to reach NG level...
...These are the few things which i can point out without any painful research which makes NG way too ahead of LCA mk2. There could be many more techs were Gripen could be better than LCA mk2 or which LCA mk2 lacks.

Agree that Gripen might offer better techs and possibly weapons, but then you have to compare the techs and weapons of LCA MK2, not the LCA as a fighter!
When you compare the real difference of a possible MK2 and Gripen NG fighter, you have to compare the basic spec differences like, emptyweight, MTOW, payload, hardpoints, speed, TWR, wingloading, range...and if you do so, you will see how close LCA MK2 can be at the NG.


No i think AMCA was needed and is a very wise decision because we needed our own testbed to test all the 4++ gen and 5th gen techs that we will gain from MMRCA and FGFA program.

Then just make an AMCA tech demonstrator like Gripen NG, not a serial production fighter for several billions! You get the same, while paying less and keep the focus on LCA and FGFA.
 
Then just make an AMCA tech demonstrator like Gripen NG, not a serial production fighter for several billions! You get the same, while paying less and keep the focus on LCA and FGFA.

That doesn't make any sense.

Why even fund AMCA if you don't want to use it in war? Another Arjun MBT scandal?

Putting LCA into production will create a huge technical base and trained manpower for AMCA's production lines and will cut the timelines in great way.

By pushing our responsibilities to foreign weapon makers(FGFA), we are only increasing technological gap between India and other countries. FGFA will not bring any R&D infrastructure into to India, other than few tokens. FGFA design will be fully done within Russia.

Productionizing LCA-Mk2 and speeding up AMCA design finalization and initiation of ground-work, is the way to go.
 
I guess you mean LCA MK2 with new thrust, if so I completely agree that it will surpass Mirage 2000 (although I'm not sure about payload and MTOW), but MK1 won't and that version is technically at the same level.
Hardpoints are imp even more important than the payload, because they decide mainly about the load configs that are possible. Mirage 2000-5 and the EF has similar layouts in this regard, which is mainly focused on carrying as much AAMs as possible. Both can carry 4 x BVR missiles and a fuel tank just at the fuselage stations, which leaves the wingstations free for more loads. LCA instead can carry only a fuel tank and the tarettig pod under the fuselage / air intake.
In A2G on the other hand, this layout is not so good, because the number of heavy stations is limited to 3, just like on LCA, while a Rafale, or F18SH offer even 5 and even the Gripen NG has 4 such stations. So lets say LCA MK2 will get close to Gripen NG in terms of payload, MTOW and internal fuel (which is likely), it still will remain less capable in weaponloads, unless LCA will get more stations as well, preferably more heavy staitions of course.

At the end it depends also what our forces plans to do with LCA and N-LCA. Imo, apart from the air defense role, LCA will be tasked with CAS roles, which means strikes with 500, or 1000lb LGBs (Sudarshan) at closer distances, while MKI will complement here with heavy strikes capabilities (KAB 1500, or a variety of A2G missiles (Kh 31, 35, 58, Brahmos, Nirbhay). What's missing will be taken over by MMRCAs (low level, deep penetration strikes on high value targets, with PGMs and stand off weapons) and hopefully weaponized UAVs (CAS and SEAD, would love to see Heron and Rustom with LAHAT, or even HELINA missiles).

All in all a great increase of capability in A2A and A2G, if the right fighters and weapons will be chosen!

That is what i said.. if M2K had engine of the performance of LCA then it would have been more poor than LCA... to LCA Empty weight is less that M2K by a ton and M2K hose less fuel compared to LCA... in all in all it is the engine which has helped M2K a lot...

sancho fuel tanks are good only for those countries that dont have Mid air refueller or if it is going to cover a distance such as US... while we are going to have lot of mid air refuellers that is why IAF has emphasized on increasing the internal fuel capacity of LCA Mk2 ... Mostly our fighters will go to end of Tibet or some where to the middle of entire pakistan.. so Internal fuel is more than enough to do the mission and return safely.... the need for Mid air refueller was felt only after kargil... i am not sure whether any MARS existed before kargil.... secondly target beyond that will be kicked using cruise missiles... i dont think it make any sense even for MKI to travel more than 1000KM during war time...
 
sancho fuel tanks are good only for those countries that dont have Mid air refueller or if it is going to cover a distance such as US...
...secondly target beyond that will be kicked using cruise missiles... i dont think it make any sense even for MKI to travel more than 1000KM during war time...

Wrong, because A we will never have enough refuellers to refuel several 100s of fighters at the same time in a war, nor are external fuel tanks meant for range only, but also for more endurance. In CAP even with light A2A weapon loads, all our fighters carries at least a centerline fuel tank, especially the smaller once. Same will be the case with LCA MK1, or Mirage 2000. You cover the same area for a longer time when you have additional fuel, not to mention that things will be different again, if heavier A2G loads are added.
Btw, since when is India a small country? So to cover the size of India alone we need fighters with enough range and endurance, let alone to fly into enemy airspace where mid air refuelling is not available. Just compare with F16s of Singapore, or Israel and check how many fuel they normally carry.

Regarding missiles, that's a very simplistic way to think and the fact that we even want a nuclear capability for the fighters in IAF, although we have balistic missiles and with our 2nd strike policy, should tell you something else. Not to mention that we won't wast expensive and long range missile just to take out some bunkers, or infrastructure, that's why PGMs and stand off weapons are important for MMRCA.
 
tejas.JPG
 
Wrong, because A we will never have enough refuellers to refuel several 100s of fighters at the same time in a war, nor are external fuel tanks meant for range only, but also for more endurance. In CAP even with light A2A weapon loads, all our fighters carries at least a centerline fuel tank, especially the smaller once. Same will be the case with LCA MK1, or Mirage 2000. You cover the same area for a longer time when you have additional fuel, not to mention that things will be different again, if heavier A2G loads are added.
Btw, since when is India a small country? So to cover the size of India alone we need fighters with enough range and endurance, let alone to fly into enemy airspace where mid air refuelling is not available. Just compare with F16s of Singapore, or Israel and check how many fuel they normally carry.

Regarding missiles, that's a very simplistic way to think and the fact that we even want a nuclear capability for the fighters in IAF, although we have balistic missiles and with our 2nd strike policy, should tell you something else. Not to mention that we won't wast expensive and long range missile just to take out some bunkers, or infrastructure, that's why PGMs and stand off weapons are important for MMRCA.

sancho ..... MRTS is not only the option.... we have buddy refulling also... secondly before any Fighter entering into enemy territory with drop tank is a big disaster.. accepted or not most of them jettison before entering into the enemy air space... and covering the enemy space for longer time are those days dear... nowerdays weapons are developed in such a fashion that they strike the precise location with very less collateral damage.. all the loitering are doing by UAV's nowerdays to give the precise location... lot of strageis have been changed so is the requirements..

Missiles are not a simplistic thing dear... to say missile has to be more perfect that the fighter itself.. they are the one use for striking be it a air target , ground or ship... and striking the target with long distance cruise missiles (ALCM) is a reality you accept or not... every country are developing lot of strategies around it..... and capability to carry nuclear missiles by a fighter is a requirement only when SLBM are failures .. the fighters will be last effort but it wont be gurantee that it will be delivered to the target because enemy defence will be more tough for fighters to peneterate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom