HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[Beerbal]

@sancho : what will be the better option for IN ??? FGFA or AMCA ??? Assuming everything promised as of now comes true.

It always better to have N-FGFA for IN (Indian Navy), But I can't see it feasible coz of these issues
1. I can't see FGFA having Catapult launch capability.
2. It's Massive size will restrict number of plane on Carriers.
3. I can't see russia will be interested in making CATOBAR configuration for FGFA/PAK-FA.
4. The cost factor, 5 Biliion (rough guess) Carrier will have 6 billion aircraft, funny, isn't it?
5. IN knows , true blue water navy capability can't be achieved without in-house production. They are entertaining N-LCA project so that N-AMCA project will take lesser time. (As most of Naval fighter feature will be tested on N-LCA (except CATOBAR Launch))

So I believe that N-AMCA will be a reality, while N-FGFA "may" not. Other members are free to express there view..

 

[AHAM BRIHMASMI]

You should have read his posts before commenting something like this ^^^

Don't generalise the point. He is against the N-LCA and pushing N-AMCA. So is IN. do you want to call them agents of weapon dealers too ???

Mig-29K will be better than N-LCA any day. Mig-29K production line can't remain open without Indian order. So there is a chance that we can buy the entire line and bring it to India and mod the plane with our weapons ,radar and engine. That's will be effective application of our development.

100% wrong on LCA. He is biggest support of LCA as a platform. He is just the biggest criticiser of the Managing agencies DRDO/ADA/HAL. Show one post where he is against the development of LCA


One of our services chief clearly said our PSUs should make what services want and NOT what they can make. Even then we see the model of a trainer which IAF clearly don't want

Oh ! so you guys are hunting in packs ???

Yes he never said directly that lca should not be done and he can not dare to say like that if he want to sound himself credible enough but all his polished language and clever logic leads to closure of indigenous efforts, and so does yours.but people today are more sane than you think and they can make out where are you trying to lead them.

 

[Sergi]

Oh ! so you guys are hunting in packs ???

Yes he never said directly that lca should not be done and he can not dare to say like that if he want to sound himself credible enough but all his polished language and clever logic leads to closure of indigenous efforts, and so does yours.but people today are more sane than you think and they can make out where are you trying to lead them.

My bad I tried to reply you

DON'T QUOTE ME FOR YOUR COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS.
You are free to assume what you want. Just don't quote me and over look the post in which I quote you.

Rather spare me entirely and ignore me.

 

[sancho]

What is the payload Tejas N-LCA can carry and what is the weight Harrier carries, can you give comparative view?? If N-LCA carry much lesser than BAE Harrier, then I will agree with you...

You don't have to agree with me, just think it through logically!
The Harrier doesn't matter, because it isn't operated from STOBAR carriers like the Mig and N-LCA, which alone makes a big difference. All that matters is, what N-LCA would provide IN on operational terms, that the Mig can't or that makes it useful against potential enemy fighters or ground targets.
So the right comparision would be N-LCA vs Mig 29K, or N-LCA vs J15, or N-LCA vs Pakistani costal defences...
And when you compare these things, you hardly will find operational reasons for the N-LCA, because the others can carry more weapons, to longer ranges, have longer range radars and a better variety of weapons for different roles.
All the N-LCA would be useful is, escort and anti ship roles, while the main air defence, deep or heavy strikes, SEAD, or even Anti ship with more than a missile would have to be done by Mig 29K.

So are we looking at K10 JV as a NG engine ???

Yes, infact DRDO itself would have prefered a normal Kaveri - Snecma engine with tech infusion of the M88Eco TD, but IAF rejected and insisted on own further developments, or on a real joint development to achieve the goals and not only taking foreign techs. Now it seems like they completely aim on AMCA with the engine, which is why the thrust requirements are constantly increasing, with any new AMCA concept of ADA/DRDO.

 

[sudhir007]

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2115 Test Flights Successfully. (3-Apr-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-360,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-153,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2117 Test Flights Successfully. (4-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-361,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-154,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

 

[sancho]

@ Beerbal

In addition to what I said earlier, here some basic differences that shows the operational differences between both fighters.

To start with, N-LCA has a fixed wing design with a wingspan of 8.2m, while the Mig 29K can fold it's wings from a span of 12m down to 7.8m. That means each Mig needs a half meter less space on the deck, than an N-LCA.


Also consider an Indo-Pak war, IN must strike 2 targets, since N-LCA will have the same 7 x hardpoints as the IAF LCA, it can't carry any BVR missiles during strike roles and will require dedicated escort fighters for protection:

Similar go's for CAP roles, where both fighters will have to carry enough fuel to have sufficient endurance, especially since mid air refuelling is limited and where a single Mig carries as many BVR missiles like 2 x N-LCAs:

As you can see, you need 2 x N-LCAs to do the same missions that a single Mig 29K could do. Same would go for anti ship, SEAD roles, if N-LCA would get the same Kh35 and 31 missiles as the Mig, since N-LCA simply don't have enough hardpoints to carry fuel tanks, A2G weapons and BVR missiles at the same time.
Also important, the Mig can carry 4 x fuel tanks at the wings and a centerline buddy refuelling pod in tanker roles, N-LCA with such a pod would only carry 2, which means it's not useful for the tanker role either.

Bottomline is:

IN can carry more Mig 29Ks on deck and needs less Mig 29Ks to fullfil missions than if they use N-LCAs. It is useful in a variety of missions, that the N-LCA can't do and 2 x N-LCAs will be costlier to procure than 1 x Mig 29K too.

 

[Rehan khan 1]

i think biggest problem with LCA is that they started it with not much experience of building a good a/c in 80s. so it was an ambitious project and they didnt do JV at that time. now india has much more experience of building a/c but they are stuck with work already done and cost of project. revision of project will double the cost and as a metter of prestige they cant abonden it. its a dilema, that they have to make LCA by any mean.

 

[Srinivas]

In addition to what I said earlier, here some basic differences that shows the operational differences between both fighters.

To start with, N-LCA has a fixed wing design with a wingspan of 8.2m, while the Mig 29K can fold it's wings from a span of 12m down to 7.8m. That means each Mig needs a half meter less space on the deck, than an N-LCA.

I think, N-LCA in Naval configuration can be designed with folded wings.

Also consider an Indo-Pak war, IN must strike 2 targets, since N-LCA will have the same 7 x hardpoints as the IAF LCA, it can't carry any BVR missiles during strike roles and will require dedicated escort fighters for protection:

LCA with improvements can also fire BVR missiles.

Similar go's for CAP roles, where both fighters will have to carry enough fuel to have sufficient endurance, especially since mid air refuelling is limited and where a single Mig carries as many BVR missiles like 2 x N-LCAs:

Yes very true But N-LCA can be used as a point defense fighter for the Carrier.

 

[sancho]

I think, N-LCA in Naval configuration can be designed with folded wings.

Not sure if it is possible, but according to the official plans and models it won't:

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130407/6qvs9nwp.jpg

LCA with improvements can also fire BVR missiles.

LCA will of course be able to use BVR missiles, but in most roles it simply won't have enough hardpoints to carry them. That's why it will be left with IR missiles only (= basic self defence capability) similar to our Jaguars and why they need dedicated escorts. Mig 29Ks instead will be able to carry 2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles in any role and config.

Yes very true But N-LCA can be used as a point defense fighter for the Carrier.

As I showed, it still would carry only 2 x BVR missiles, will have less radar range or speed, unlike the Mig, which makes it even in this role less useful as a carrier fighter. That is the issue, for IAF and operated in higher numbers from shore bases, with tanker and AWACS support, LCA will be very capable and one can create good air combat tactics for them. But in the limited space of a carrier, with very limited support, you need to use the best possible fighter, techs and weapons, to make carrier operations as effective as possible.
That's why I want LCA for IAF and AMCA for IN, to provide our forces not "just an" indigenous fighters, but indigenous fighters that suits best according to their needs!

 

[Beerbal]

@ Beerbal

In addition to what I said earlier, here some basic differences that shows the operational differences between both fighters.

To start with, N-LCA has a fixed wing design with a wingspan of 8.2m, while the Mig 29K can fold it's wings from a span of 12m down to 7.8m. That means each Mig needs a half meter less space on the deck, than an N-LCA.


Also consider an Indo-Pak war, IN must strike 2 targets, since N-LCA will have the same 7 x hardpoints as the IAF LCA, it can't carry any BVR missiles during strike roles and will require dedicated escort fighters for protection:

Similar go's for CAP roles, where both fighters will have to carry enough fuel to have sufficient endurance, especially since mid air refuelling is limited and where a single Mig carries as many BVR missiles like 2 x N-LCAs:

As you can see, you need 2 x N-LCAs to do the same missions that a single Mig 29K could do. Same would go for anti ship, SEAD roles, if N-LCA would get the same Kh35 and 31 missiles as the Mig, since N-LCA simply don't have enough hardpoints to carry fuel tanks, A2G weapons and BVR missiles at the same time.
Also important, the Mig can carry 4 x fuel tanks at the wings and a centerline buddy refuelling pod in tanker roles, N-LCA with such a pod would only carry 2, which means it's not useful for the tanker role either.

Bottomline is:

IN can carry more Mig 29Ks on deck and needs less Mig 29Ks to fullfil missions than if they use N-LCAs. It is useful in a variety of missions, that the N-LCA can't do and 2 x N-LCAs will be costlier to procure than 1 x Mig 29K too.

This space is reserved for reply to Sancho. For right now I can only say your logic can be used against you

"When 1 F15 can work better why 2 F16".

Wait for my reply...

 

[S-DUCT]

http://www.hal-india.com/tender/ardc/NIT_1430_18-06-13.zip

Tender for development of hydraulic pump for LCA Tejas MK2.From the given documents they are looking for 10g stress capability.

Acceleration
• Operational g-level: 10 ’g’ in all 6 directions as per Sl. No. 16 a) of Annexure 1 of
Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
• Structural g-level: 1.5 times the ‘g’ value as indicated above as per Sl. No. 16 b) of
Annexure 1 of Environmental map of LCA, ADA/QA&SEG/082400/2004/036, Issue NIL, Dtd. 19/07/2004.
Qualification methodology : Actual Test

excellent find by Indranilroy@BR.

2. HAL-ARDC is taking up for development and Qualification of certain LRUs required
for catering to LCA-Mark 2 version. The first Prototype aircraft is slated for built during
2013-14, while series production(s) are planned for Inducting to fleet which is stated to be
taken up in two phases commencing from 2016 onwards.

 

[sudhir007]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/325270/indigenous-content-tejas-craft-go.html

While work on obtaining the final operational clearance for India’s light combat aircraft (LCA) –Tejas – is going on in full swing, agencies working on the project, parallelly, are vying to increase the indigenisation aspect of the aircraft.

Sources in the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is the nodal agency for the project, said: “We have invited local vendors to take up the development of the line replacement units (LRU), commonly called ‘components’ so as to completely avoid or, at least, reduce the dependency on imports.”

Tejas, which was supposed to have been flying on an indigenously developed engine, has had to go in for imported GE engines after the project Kaveri—India’s engine development programme—failed to meet specifications.

Barring the engine, which is the heart of the aircraft, there are about 358 components that go into the aircraft, including crucial components in important systems, like avionics, environmental control, electrical and flight control.

Out of the 358 components, 53 per cent, that is 190 components are indigenously manufactured, while the remaining 168 are being imported. Speaking to Deccan Herald, C Ranganayakulu, Scientist “G,” ADA, said: “Currently, we are using imported LRUs to operate the flights for test flights and other sorties. When Tejas is ready for induction, we want to have as many indigenous LRUs as possible on the aircraft.”

Self-reliance aim

The move is in line with the Centre’s ambitions of increasing indigenisation, especially in crucial technologies. “There is no substitute for self-reliance,” reiterated Defence Minister A K Antony at a function organised by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Ranganayakulu, who is the convener for development of LRUs at ADA, explained that the agency was mulling to perform what they term “Drop-in Replacement. We will continue to use imported components but are hoping that indigenous products will eventually replace the imported items. We will stop the imports as soon as we have indigenous products meeting the exact specifications.” Now, LRUs are imported from Europe, Israel, the UK, Germany, France and other countries as different nations have different specialisations. The engine is imported from the US. The Limited Series Production-8 (LSP-8) of Tejas, the last in the LSP series, successfully completed its maiden flight on Sunday.

Sources said the Tejas, which is going through the initial operational clearance-2 (IOC-2), will be ready to get the final clearance (FOC) by 2014. The Indian Air Force (IAF), which has been waiting to induct the aircraft, is planning to raise the first squadron in Sulur, Tamil Nadu, and has already placed orders for 40 aircraft.

 

[IND151]

Indigenous content of Tejas craft to go up

While work on obtaining the final operational clearance for India’s light combat aircraft (LCA) –Tejas – is going on in full swing, agencies working on the project, parallelly, are vying to increase the indigenisation aspect of the aircraft.

Sources in the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is the nodal agency for the project, said: “We have invited local vendors to take up the development of the line replacement units (LRU), commonly called ‘components’ so as to completely avoid or, at least, reduce the dependency on imports.”

Tejas, which was supposed to have been flying on an indigenously developed engine, has had to go in for imported GE engines after the project Kaveri—India’s engine development programme—failed to meet specifications.

Barring the engine, which is the heart of the aircraft, there are about 358 components that go into the aircraft, including crucial components in important systems, like avionics, environmental control, electrical and flight control.

Out of the 358 components, 53 per cent, that is 190 components are indigenously manufactured, while the remaining 168 are being imported. Speaking to Deccan Herald, C Ranganayakulu, Scientist “G,” ADA, said: “Currently, we are using imported LRUs to operate the flights for test flights and other sorties. When Tejas is ready for induction, we want to have as many indigenous LRUs as possible on the aircraft.”

Self-reliance aim

The move is in line with the Centre’s ambitions of increasing indigenisation, especially in crucial technologies. “There is no substitute for self-reliance,” reiterated Defence Minister A K Antony at a function organised by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Ranganayakulu, who is the convener for development of LRUs at ADA, explained that the agency was mulling to perform what they term “Drop-in Replacement. We will continue to use imported components but are hoping that indigenous products will eventually replace the imported items. We will stop the imports as soon as we have indigenous products meeting the exact specifications.” Now, LRUs are imported from Europe, Israel, the UK, Germany, France and other countries as different nations have different specialisations. The engine is imported from the US. The Limited Series Production-8 (LSP-8) of Tejas, the last in the LSP series, successfully completed its maiden flight on Sunday.

Sources said the Tejas, which is going through the initial operational clearance-2 (IOC-2), will be ready to get the final clearance (FOC) by 2014. The Indian Air Force (IAF), which has been waiting to induct the aircraft, is planning to raise the first squadron in Sulur, Tamil Nadu, and has already placed orders for 40 aircraft.

Thanks for info

 

[suren]

Someone please tell me difference between MK1 and MK2, I'm confused
Since MK1 will also be using GE F414 engine why everywhere its mentioned air frame of MK2 is increased to occupy F414 engine?
MK1 is also using F414 engine so why its air frame length not increased? and what are other notable differ

 

[selvan33]

Someone please tell me difference between MK1 and MK2, I'm confused
Since MK1 will also be using GE F414 engine why everywhere its mentioned air frame of MK2 is increased to occupy F414 engine?
MK1 is also using F414 engine so why its air frame length not increased? and what are other notable differ

Actually mk1 is not using f414. its using f404. that's the main difference between those two. and there is no increase in airframe in mk1 but mk2 wingspan slightly increased and its airintake and frontal nose also increased. and other difference are.,
mk1 payload 4tonne and mk2 will be 5+tonnes. mk1 uses MMR and mk2 will use AESA. internal fuel capacity will be increased. hardpoints may be 9 from current8. and others include high tech digital cockpits,mission computers,IRST,EW suitesetc., you can see all these changes in mk2.