HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[IndianTiger]

Ajai Shukla /
Bangalore April 04, 2011,
0:22 IST With the Tejas Light Combat
Aircraft (LCA) entering
service with Indian Air Force
squadrons, the designers of
this indigenous fighter have
explained why they believe this will be the world ’s premier light fighter. The Tejas Mark-II, to be
developed by 2014 and roll off
production lines by 2018, will
perform 40 per cent better
than the current fighter. After
which would come the Advanced Medium Combat
Aircraft, the AMCA, which the
Defence Research and
Development Organisation
(DRDO) says will be a “fifth- generation plus” fighter, more formidable than anything
flying today. In an exclusive interview
with Business Standard, P
Subramanyam, director of the
Aeronautical Development
Agency (ADA), which is
developing the LCA and the AMCA, responded to IAF
criticism that the Tejas was
not yet a world-class fighter.
He said the Tejas Mark-I, still
being flight-tested, had been
flown to just 85 per cent of its full capability. The Tejas Mark-
II -- in which a more powerful
GE-414 engine will replace the
current GE-404 engine -- would
perform another 15 per cent
better. “The Tejas Mark-I will expand its performance envelope to
its full capability by end-2012.
And, a major performance
boost will come from the
Tejas Mark-II ’s new GE-414 engine, for which we have
signed a $700-million (Rs 3,135
crore) contract to build here in
India. The Mark-II will
outperform the Mark-I by
about 15 per cent in the key aspects of take-off run, rate
of climb, acceleration, and turn
rate. Most of this would come
from the higher thrust of the
GE-414 engine. Another two-
three per cent benefit would come from better
aerodynamics … since we will re-engineer the fighter to
accommodate the new engine.
That overall 35-40 per cent
improvement would make
the LCA the world ’s premier light fighter, ” says Subramanyam. The Tejas Mark-I is scheduled
to obtain Final Operational
Clearance by end-2012. A
fighter is granted FOC when
ready for combat missions,
with all its weapons and sensors fitted, integrated and
tested. The IAF worries that
the Tejas, already long
delayed, might not obtain its
FOC on schedule. Meanwhile, ADA designers are
working on the Tejas Mark-II,
which Subramanyam says
will fly by 2014, enter
production by 2016, and
obtain FOC by 2018. “Besides re-designing the airframe to
accommodate the GE-414
engine, ADA will also grab the
opportunity to upgrade key
electronics, especially the
flight control computer and some avionics, so that the
Mark-II is a cutting-edge
fighter when it enters
service, ” says the ADA chief. ‘No fancy plan ’ Brushing aside apprehension
of further delay of the kind
that has dogged the Tejas
programme, Subramanyam
insists, “Our design timeline is realistic. The main sub-systems
of the Tejas Mark-II will
remain unchanged, except for
electronics components. So,
the Mark-II will not need
extensive flight-testing, as most of its sub-systems will
have already been test-flown
on the Mark-I. ” ADA designers also say
“maintainability ” of the Tejas has already been established.
This key attribute relates to
how quickly and easily
technicians can service and
repair the fighter and,
therefore, how quickly it can get out of a hangar and into
combat. Of 200 “requests for action” — suggestions from IAF pilots and technicians for
design changes that would
ease maintenance — most have already been
implemented. Just 12-15
remain for implementing in
the Mark-II. The Tejas programme will
provide the springboard for
the ADA ’s next project, a more heavily armed and
capable fighter. Even as
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and
Sukhoi, the Russian aerospace
giant, jointly develop the
Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), ADA will go
it alone in developing an
Advanced Medium Combat
Aircraft. The DRDO ’s R&D chief, Prahlada, has told Business
Standard the AMCA will have
features more advanced than
current fifth-generation
fighters. That means AMCA
will be technologically ahead of the FGFA when it enters
service at the end of this
decade. Asked whether that might be
over-ambitious, Prahlada
retorts, “When we had begun the LCA programme, people
asked the same question. They
thought we would not be
able to build a fighter with
composite materials, and with
an unstable aerodynamic configuration. The Tejas has
proved them wrong. Today,
we say we will build a fighter
that is better than Gen-5. And,
the sceptics will be proven
wrong again.” As Business Standard reported
earlier, Rs 10,397 crore have
been sanctioned for
developing the Tejas Mark-II
for the IAF; and another Rs
3,650 crore for the naval Tejas, which would operate off
aircraft carriers.
Subramanyam says this total
expenditure of Rs 14,047 crore
would be amortised over 200
Tejas fighters, at about Rs 70 crore per aircraft. This
projected order includes two
squadrons (40 fighters) of LCA
Mark-I that the IAF has
already ordered; an expected
five squadrons (100 fighters) of LCA Mark-II and another
two-three squadrons (40-60
fighters) for the Navy. In
addition, the manufacturing
cost of the IAF Tejas is
projected at Rs 180-200 crore and of the naval version at Rs
190-210 crore.

 

[farhan_9909]

Why is LCA called light combat aircraft when it weight more then JF-17?

bt JF-17 means Joint fighter instead of light?

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

i am talking about empty weight

 

[Han Patriot]

are you a child.
a aircraft which is smaller, will most likily have a smaller rcs, except some radar phenomenas here and there which is out of reach of my knowledge.

That’s the point isn’t it? Smaller aircraft has got smaller RCS. So, why are blurting so much about it as a LCA advantage. L-15 is a small trainer and has got smaller RCS. What difference does it make?
You mean the radar can’t detect LCA? What advantage does it imbue? If it is out of your knowledge, then don’t blurt it out. Don’t talk just for the sake of talking.

If both a Mig-29 and LCA were flying, most radars would pick up both aircrafts. Comprehendo? So do you still want to point out RCS reduction as a super duper LCA design characteristic?

than ada should have avoided fbw, glass cockpits and compisotes.
if ada and hal dicided on a canard design, they could have consultated dessault. instead they avoided the canards most likily to meet the qsr.

Let me correct my statement, you didn’t even have the ability to design the controls for a delta aircraft. FBW is from Lockheed, composites from the Swedes, glass, no idea. I think most aircraft used glass as cockpit material right? Or you can show me an example of plastic cockpit. You ‘conceived’ LCA back before Rafale was having the first flight. You think the French would offer you state of the art technology? Don’t be so naïve.

gripen a and tejas have very similiar features and roles. nearly the same demenisions, i never said the tejas was as good. but pointed out the fact that both provide "nearly" the same features. but the tejas empty wieght is less.
you can make a l-15 a fighter all you want. but by the time your done strengthening the wings and adding thrust, its going to be heavy.
and i dont tell tales,

You had been claiming this and that all through your statement, and whenever I correct you, you give another statement to try to overwhelm the previous statement. No point telling me LCA has got the same features when both are two different planes and one is in operation. Indians are the only ones claiming it has got the same Multi-role function as Gripen. But again, compare the weapons load and performance, can it ‘ACHIEVE’ that claim? Features, hey J-10 supposedly has got the same features as SU-30MKI too, are they the same? And best of all most stuff is made in China.


And again this is what you said

you might want to know that despite the nearly same capability the gripen a provides, its empty wieght is greater. the gripen has yet to recieve an onboard oxygen generator. the tejas already has these small bells and whistles.

You didn’t claim it has got same capability? LOL. If you just told me the performance is different then how does empty weight matter. Mig-29 could be heavier but could easily shred your toy plane into pieces. How sure are you L-15 needs strengthening and how much weight it would add? You have no idea right? So if you don’t know, then don’t say. My original point was to dismiss your claim that LCA is having advantage by being lighter. Smaller, more agile, less RCS. If this was the case, L-15 is smaller, more agile and also less RCS. And your previous statement of making comparison with J-10, Mig-29 and Gripen wing loading. When you yourself admit the performance of Gripen compared to LCA cannot be verified. How does your supposedly advantages be relevant. You are comparing poodle to a bulldog.

because it lacks critical components that would make it combat operational. although it can do tasks, its roles right now are limited.
missing factors may include
technology<--which would still be in development
training<--only 1 trainer
flight envolope<--no tejas has fired a bvr missile or taken part in air force exercises, so it is technically no in service.
the mig-21 bision on the other hand provides that.
you may bash tejas because you disdian indians.
but you have a very bad argument

.

Haha, so now you claim it lacks critical components to be operational. So how can you verify it can do it’s task when you don’t even have the critical components. Am I wrong in claiming it to be a half baked foreign designed and made plane? What is indigenous? So in essence, because LCA is not achieving it’s supposedly design role, it is now no more advanced than a Mig-21 Bison? I didn’t say it, you just did. LOL. OMG!! This is funny.

Let me summarize my claims:

1) You have not proven to me LCA is indigenous.
2) You just admit it is half baked.

i was not arguing how indian the aircraft was.
modern warfare is short. there is a new doctrine since the end of the cold war. read up on it. unless of course you intend on a cold war with proxies.
but all this because i wanted to refute your point.
tejas, is not outdated by your standards. the airframe is releativily advanced, in the same sense the gripen a airframe is advanced.
tejas is a wonderfull achievement, no matter how much indian it is not.
because india, had the choice for collaboration and consultation is very important then beginning a new project. a network is very important to remian current in any field. allows one to bring together difference ways of doing things.
you can refute and repost.
but i've seen a lot of your kind.
no valid point.

Don’t worry, except for the name, the aircraft mostly foreign. Don’t change the topic to cold wars, I was only stating two facts,

1) The aircraft is foreign
2) The design is outdated.

Don’t ever dare compare Gripen to LCA. Just because it is made from composites doesn’t make it advance. My bike is carbon fiber too. Now, good you admit it is not much Indian. Bravo !

Collaboration or ‘purchase’. Until now, I had not seen much ability in technology absorption or assimilation from your side. Still being rip off by the Russians as always. Su-30MKI was supposedly to be made in India, now they are paying 70 Mil a pop for new planes from Russia. Mirage upgrade is 2 bil? I mean for a 40 year old plane? Come on…

 

[gubbi]

Let me correct my statement, you didn&#8217;t even have the ability to design the controls for a delta aircraft. FBW is from Lockheed, composites from the Swedes, glass, no idea. I think most aircraft used glass as cockpit material right? Or you can show me an example of plastic cockpit. You &#8216;conceived&#8217; LCA back before Rafale was having the first flight. You think the French would offer you state of the art technology? Don&#8217;t be so naïve.

That! That one right there is a GEM!!

Epic post is epic!

Copy that people and save it for posterity's sake!!

 

[rockstarIN]

Why is LCA called light combat aircraft when it weight more then JF-17?

bt JF-17 means Joint fighter instead of light?

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

i am talking about empty weight

Holland Gnat is lighter than LCA, there were hell lot of lighter planes.

 

[Han Patriot]

You first has to understand the aim behind it, before you can understand why LCA has no canards and therefor you have to listen what others say and not simply refuse it, just because it don't fit to your own opinion!

You are forcing me to see it in your own lens but I am merely dissecting your claims so that you can prove your claims and see it in another view. I do not have to understand why LCA has no canards, I need to understand why most major 4 gen planes have canards like J-10. Simple as that.

Canard design was developed to make the fighters more maneuverable than with conventional designs, but the downside is that it will increase the RCS to some extend. That's why the US tested canards for several of their fighters as well, but refuesed it in favour for better BVR combat capabilities.
Same was done by the Russians, that developed the Su 35 with with canards first, but deleted them later in the Su 35 BM version. The MKI is a derivate of the Su 30 MK twin seat fighter and was customised with canards and TVC to counter the high weight in the A2A role and make it more maneuverable for dogfights.

Friend,

Americans/Russians not using canards does not mean deltas are better. I don&#8217;t seem to see any modern American/Russian planes with deltas either. On the other hand the Europeans had delta planes and moved on to Canards. Do you understand my argument. I am arguing canard against obsolete pure delta.

The point is how much RCS is increased compared to a super huge delta wing? I am not comparing it with American or Russian aircrafts, I am comparing it with LCA. I also understand the deficiencies of a canard, but that does&#8217;t mean almost pure delta is better. That&#8217;s the point, if canard was so bad, Su-30MKI would&#8217;t have deployed it. Would&#8217;t it increase RCS? Hell, does it matter? The radar could see both SU-30 with or without canards.

LCA instead was developed with the aim of a very low RCS in mind, that's why it was purposly designed as a very small fighter, with high ammount of composite and RAM materials from the start (which btw is similar to all modern fighter designs like the Eurocanards, or latest 5th gen fighters), or ducted air intakes. Canards were considered and tested in windtunnel models (just search for the pics in this thread), but was rejected, in favour for a lower RCS and we even had the same design on offer like Saab for the Gripen (which basically is from BAE), but again. That's most like also the reason why N-LCA will get LEVCONS instead of rather normal and easier to develop canards, to have a better low speed handling during carrier operations.
Just another proof how modern the design of LCA is, which is hardly deniable when you take all the facts together and look at it open minded.

Again, the point is small planes without canard like L-15 all have less RCS. The point is how much less? The radars could still see both the LCA and L-15. RAM coating was developed in China too, if I apply a lil&#8217; on my L-15 trainer, could it be 4th gen? You cannot verify the reason of rejection, first you pal said it was too complex with a lot of moving parts. Then I advised him to use a propeller plane if that was the case. Then now you tell me it was rejected due to RCS. LCA is not exactly stealthy my friend. Applying RAM coating reduces it, but the science behind stealth is not so simple. Can you prove to me why the supposedly canards were supposedly rejected by ADA? Could it be it was to complex to be developed? LOL. I am talking about moving canards here. SU-30MKI is a static canard.

Aren&#8217;t you contradicting yourself, you tell me LCA was developed for low RCS and now you are going to apply LEVCON canards to it? So which is which? So LEVCON does not increase RCS? Right!

Can you tell me how advance is LEVCON as compared to dynamic canard of the j-10 and Euro fighter? A nation that cannot even efficiently distribute food can all the sudden develop planes more advance that the everybody. Can you see your boastfulness? You cannot even develop &#8216;simple&#8217; dynamic canards yet you talk about LEVCON, which is btw an Indian acronym. What is next? ANAL? Advanced Next Gen Aircraft for Leading air role?

Just another proof how modern the design of LCA is, which is hardly deniable when you take all the facts together and look at it open minded.

Can you see your own delusions? The whole world is looking at a third world plane claiming to be most advanced. A plane that is remotely Indian where even the nuts are imported.

 

[timba]

To all indians here..
"Don't fight with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it"...

 

[timba]

Han dont you have any other constructive work other than ruining a thread ..
If you have problems with LCA just go and open a new thread and V@mit nonsense..

 

[Han Patriot]

That! That one right there is a GEM!!

Epic post is epic!

Copy that people and save it for posterity's sake!!

Thank you for correcting me, I had no idea what a glass cockpit was. In my terminology, we use digitize control display, where gauges were replaced by MFDs. Since I gave a wrong term, does it make LCA super duper gen 4.5 now? =)

 

[timba]

Are you doing this to just seek attention..??
Then yes you have caught our attention ..
Stop typing out your frustration ..

 

[gubbi]

I love this guy - Han Warrior!

Its amazing how he comes up with such interesting claims, which to be fair, not even the worst trolls intent on derailing could come up with!! It would be an abomination to call him a troll lest one desecrates the word 'troll'!!

Some of his "statements"
A true beauty -

You are forcing me to see it in your own lens but I am merely dissecting your claims so that you can prove your claims and see it in another view.

- remember Baghdad Bob or even Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns"?

how much RCS is increased compared to a super huge delta wing

SU-30MKI is a static canard.

You cannot even develop &#8216;simple&#8217; dynamic canards yet you talk about LEVCON, which is btw an Indian acronym.

 

[gubbi]

Thank you for correcting me, I had no idea what a glass cockpit was. In my terminology, we use digitize control display, where gauges were replaced by MFDs. Since I gave a wrong term, does it make LCA super duper gen 4.5 now? =)

No no. LCA has a all plastic cockpit. Indian technology is not advanced enough to put all 'glass cockpit' in LCA. We dont have the technology to mold glass as we can mold plastics. Also, with plastic we dont have to worry about cooling the cockpit to keep glass cool. But engine heat is a problem for plastic cockpit!

 

[rudrakx]

hello People, it's OT but I would like to clear something here,
Having consultant to develop particular technology doesn't mean that they provide technology or path breaking suggestions, they keep it for themselves ! Mostly What they would do is to tell you whether the research (the process) is going in right direction or not and suggest the testing required.

AeroIndia 2009: LCA Programme over the hump - 2nd gen to 4+, says ADA director, PS subramanyam. (Domain-b)

 

[timba]

This kid han is suffering from attention deficite hyperactivity disorder..perhaps No one in bhuthan likes him ..

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Thank you for correcting me, I had no idea what a glass cockpit was. In my terminology, we use digitize control display, where gauges were replaced by MFDs. Since I gave a wrong term, does it make LCA super duper gen 4.5 now? =)

You just get it now? You have no idea what you have been talking about all this time. If you want to argue about the disadvantages of delta-canards with modern powerful engines why don't you first read about the 1991 Gripen test flight crash. This is important as it was the time when the LA design was still in the drawing board and was entering wind tunnel stage.