What's new

Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts

WAQAS119

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
5,426
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts

NEW DELHI — India's homegrown fighter jet, the Tejas, has finally been cleared for operations but analysts say any celebration of India's entry into an elite club of military hardware producers is premature.

Initial operational approval for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has taken 26 years -- the result of endless developmental delays, technological hiccups and massive cost overruns.

First conceived as a direct replacement for the Indian Air Force's (IAF) ageing fleet of Russian-made MiG-21s -- tagged "flying coffins" for their abysmal safety record -- the LCA was hyped as a milestone in India's bid to reduce its dependency on military imports.

Although conceived, designed and assembled in India, its "indigenous" label is somewhat misleading as 40 percent of its components are foreign-made, including the radar and US-built engine.

Formal induction of the Tejas is still two or three years away, and questions remain over its eventual suitability.

"Only after the aircraft is put in use by the pilots will its strength and limitations become clear," said Ajey Lele, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

"India's peculiar security requirements demand a very capable air force with state-of-the-art platform and weapon systems. Naturally, the Tejas will have to fulfil major expectations," he added.

"Its too early to pop the bubbly," warned military aviation specialist Kapil Kak, saying procuring engines for a second generation of Tejas could become a headache for India.

Accepting the LCA's operational clearance certificate last week, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik seemed less than enthused, noting that the aircraft was really a "Mig-21, plus, plus" and not the fourth generation fighter it was conceived as.


From an initial budget of 5.6 billion rupees ($123 million), the cost of developing the fighter has snowballed over the years to around 180 billion rupees.

While acknowledging the LCA's troubled history, Arun Sharma, a former chief of naval staff and chairman of the National Maritime Foundation think-tank, said the project should still be applauded for overcoming major challenges.

Read full article at Google News
 
Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts


While acknowledging the LCA's troubled history, Arun Sharma, a former chief of naval staff and chairman of the National Maritime Foundation think-tank, said the project should still be applauded for overcoming major challenges.

Read full article at Google News

This is the most intriguing part of the piece; among the 21 CNS of the IN from W.E. Parry to N.K. Verma; there has not been any Arun Sharma at the helm of the IN. :blink:
Google News is sure getting "googly".
 
This is the most intriguing part of the piece; among the 21 CNS of the IN from W.E. Parry to N.K. Verma; there has not been any Arun Sharma at the helm of the IN. :blink:
Google News is sure getting "googly".

Anywhere you read, you will find critiques give India its due credit for having tried but not for the final outcome it produced. So lets keep distinction between "putting an effort" and "producing results".

India did great that LCA exists in reality and India is moving towards better projects with all the experience and infrastructure it developed working on LCA. LCA is might be a lost cause but not a lost effort.
 
Anywhere you read, you will find critiques give India its due credit for having tried but not for the final outcome it produced. So lets keep distinction between "putting an effort" and "producing results".

India did great that LCA exists in reality and India is moving towards better projects with all the experience and infrastructure it developed working on LCA. LCA is might be a lost cause but not a lost effort.

finally some1 mature :tup:

yeah we took along time, we effed up , but do consider those sanction hit years.


Its like doing that first math problem... real slow..But once you get the understand the concepts, even more complex problems are solved within acceptable time frames :)
 
Anywhere you read, you will find critiques give India its due credit for having tried but not for the final outcome it produced. So lets keep distinction between "putting an effort" and "producing results".

India did great that LCA exists in reality and India is moving towards better projects with all the experience and infrastructure it developed working on LCA. LCA is might be a lost cause but not a lost effort.

I have seen your comments about the LCA before as well and you keep claiming the LCA is a "lost cause". I take that as merely your biased opinion unless of course you reason out why you think its a lost cause.
 
Hello everyone... I have seen people from either side of border from India and Pakistan both do the LCA tejas bashing without going in to the details.. So thought od putting some facts from some of my research.. this might help a bit...
There you go

Lets compare Tejas with most popular modern strike fighter today: F-16 block 50.

Their electronic eqipment is very similar EL/M-2032 or APG-68 radars with slotted planar array antenna and SAR capabilities. Both carry Litening E/O targeting system, have Dash HMD.

---------------------- Tejas ------ F-16 blk50
empty weight ----- 6540 kg ----- 8,700 kg
wing area --------- 38.4 m2 ----- 27.87m2
power ------------- 8,600 kg ----- 13,180 kg
intermal fuel ------- 2400 kg ------ 3,250 kg

Now lets calculate two missions.

1) Fighter mission with 4 MR AA missiles + 2 SR AA missiles.

That's 4*160 + 2*90 = 820 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 2400 = 9760 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 820 + 3,250 = 12770 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/9760 = 0.246
F-16 - 3250/12770 = 0.254

Very close, that means range will be pretty similar. F-16 however can add CFT, then F-16 gets advantage in range.

Half fuel weight in fighter mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 1200 = 8560 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 820 + 1625 = 11145 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/8560 = 1
F-16 - 13,180/11145 = 1.18

Serious advantage of F-16, better acceleration and vertical maneuvring.

wing loading:
Tejas - 8560/38.4 = 223 kg/m2
F-16 - 11145/27.87 = 400 kg/m2

Serious advantage of Tejas, can provide better horisontal maneuvring and take off/landing capabilities

2) Strike mission with 2 2000-lb bombs + 2 short range AA missles + 2 MR AA + Litening pod.

That gives 2*900 + 2*90 + 2 * 160 + 200 = 2500 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 2400 = 11440 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 2500 + 3,250 = 14450 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/11440 = 0.21
F-16 - 3,250/14450 = 0.22

Again pretty close.

Half fuel weight in strike mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 1200 = 10240 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 2500 + 1625 = 12825 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/10240 = 0.84
F-16 - 13,180/12825 = 1.03

wing loading:
Tejas - 10240/38.4 = 267 kg/m2
F-16 - 12825/27.87 = 460 kg/m2

Quite a similar picture as it was in fighter mode (in fighter mode F-16 has 18% advantage in t/w ratio, while in strike mode - 23%).


Lets check this loading.

F-16 fuel:
3250 kg (internal) + 2200 kg (2 wing 370-gal) + 900 kg (300 gal central) = 6350 kg.

F-16 weight:
8700 kg (empty) + 6350 kg (fuel) + 300 kg (drop tanks) + 1800 kg (2 LGBs) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 17,850 kg

Tejas fuel:
2400 kg (internal) + 1900 kg (2 wing 1200l) = 4300 kg

Tejas weight:

6540 kg (empty) + 4300 kg (fuel) + 200 kg (drop tanks) + 900 kg (1 LGB) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 12,640 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 0.34
F-16 - 0.36

Thats very close, especially considering that more fuel additional tank and bomb make more drag. So range would be about same, but F-16 carries 2 times more bombs.

If Tejas takes 2 LGBs and 1 drop tank then we get:

3350 kg fuel and 12,490 kg weight. Thats 0.27 fuel weight ratio compare to 0.36 of F-16. Thats 33% less. But actual range difference will be lower that 33% because of drag (20-25% I guess). In short either one bomb at similar range or same number of bombs at lower range.

Light fighters can be very good for CAS missions too, they fall in deep strike missions.

Tejas needs F414 engine. It gives 15% more thrust but weights almost same as F404 + additional fuel. That was done on Grippen NG.


Conclusion:
Tejas can compete with F-16 block 50 both in strike and fighting missions.

Pros:
Cheaper to prosecute and operate. Much smaller wing loading, thats good for take of and landing, training.

Cons:
Underpowered (that can be corrected with F414), no CFT option.

People shud understand the role of Tejas in IAF. Second thing, there are very few contries who manufacture all components of a Fighter aircraft indegenously. Even china is not able to develop (Full functional ) engine WS 15 or so.. By the way India's Kavari Engine which earlier failed high altitude trials, Passed this time after some modifications.. I will post some pictures after some searching... So my sincere request to all members that give some respect to this bird which it surely deserves and let it become operational.. after that you can surely analyze it.. And same goes for JF 17 of Pakistan.. offcource the experience gained in these projects will help the developers for sure. Mean while unlike JF 17 LCA tejas uses composite materials and RAM hence that factor should also be considered which is a very high achievement in my opinion..

With regards
Drunken Monke
(Shrikant Parwate)
 
Anywhere you read, you will find critiques give India its due credit for having tried but not for the final outcome it produced. So lets keep distinction between "putting an effort" and "producing results".

India did great that LCA exists in reality and India is moving towards better projects with all the experience and infrastructure it developed working on LCA. LCA is might be a lost cause but not a lost effort.

I dont think so.. View my previous post.
Review and opinions with facts welcomed

With regards
Drunken Monke
Shrikant Parwate..
 
Hello everyone... I have seen people from either side of border from India and Pakistan both do the LCA tejas bashing without going in to the details.. So thought od putting some facts from some of my research.. this might help a bit...
There you go

Lets compare Tejas with most popular modern strike fighter today: F-16 block 50.

Their electronic eqipment is very similar EL/M-2032 or APG-68 radars with slotted planar array antenna and SAR capabilities. Both carry Litening E/O targeting system, have Dash HMD.

---------------------- Tejas ------ F-16 blk50
empty weight ----- 6540 kg ----- 8,700 kg
wing area --------- 38.4 m2 ----- 27.87m2
power ------------- 8,600 kg ----- 13,180 kg
intermal fuel ------- 2400 kg ------ 3,250 kg

Now lets calculate two missions.

1) Fighter mission with 4 MR AA missiles + 2 SR AA missiles.

That's 4*160 + 2*90 = 820 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 2400 = 9760 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 820 + 3,250 = 12770 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/9760 = 0.246
F-16 - 3250/12770 = 0.254

Very close, that means range will be pretty similar. F-16 however can add CFT, then F-16 gets advantage in range.

Half fuel weight in fighter mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 1200 = 8560 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 820 + 1625 = 11145 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/8560 = 1
F-16 - 13,180/11145 = 1.18

Serious advantage of F-16, better acceleration and vertical maneuvring.

wing loading:
Tejas - 8560/38.4 = 223 kg/m2
F-16 - 11145/27.87 = 400 kg/m2

Serious advantage of Tejas, can provide better horisontal maneuvring and take off/landing capabilities

2) Strike mission with 2 2000-lb bombs + 2 short range AA missles + 2 MR AA + Litening pod.

That gives 2*900 + 2*90 + 2 * 160 + 200 = 2500 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 2400 = 11440 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 2500 + 3,250 = 14450 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/11440 = 0.21
F-16 - 3,250/14450 = 0.22

Again pretty close.

Half fuel weight in strike mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 1200 = 10240 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 2500 + 1625 = 12825 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/10240 = 0.84
F-16 - 13,180/12825 = 1.03

wing loading:
Tejas - 10240/38.4 = 267 kg/m2
F-16 - 12825/27.87 = 460 kg/m2

Quite a similar picture as it was in fighter mode (in fighter mode F-16 has 18% advantage in t/w ratio, while in strike mode - 23%).


Lets check this loading.

F-16 fuel:
3250 kg (internal) + 2200 kg (2 wing 370-gal) + 900 kg (300 gal central) = 6350 kg.

F-16 weight:
8700 kg (empty) + 6350 kg (fuel) + 300 kg (drop tanks) + 1800 kg (2 LGBs) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 17,850 kg

Tejas fuel:
2400 kg (internal) + 1900 kg (2 wing 1200l) = 4300 kg

Tejas weight:

6540 kg (empty) + 4300 kg (fuel) + 200 kg (drop tanks) + 900 kg (1 LGB) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 12,640 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 0.34
F-16 - 0.36

Thats very close, especially considering that more fuel additional tank and bomb make more drag. So range would be about same, but F-16 carries 2 times more bombs.

If Tejas takes 2 LGBs and 1 drop tank then we get:

3350 kg fuel and 12,490 kg weight. Thats 0.27 fuel weight ratio compare to 0.36 of F-16. Thats 33% less. But actual range difference will be lower that 33% because of drag (20-25% I guess). In short either one bomb at similar range or same number of bombs at lower range.

Light fighters can be very good for CAS missions too, they fall in deep strike missions.

Tejas needs F414 engine. It gives 15% more thrust but weights almost same as F404 + additional fuel. That was done on Grippen NG.


Conclusion:
Tejas can compete with F-16 block 50 both in strike and fighting missions.

Pros:
Cheaper to prosecute and operate. Much smaller wing loading, thats good for take of and landing, training.

Cons:
Underpowered (that can be corrected with F414), no CFT option.

People shud understand the role of Tejas in IAF. Second thing, there are very few contries who manufacture all components of a Fighter aircraft indegenously. Even china is not able to develop (Full functional ) engine WS 15 or so.. By the way India's Kavari Engine which earlier failed high altitude trials, Passed this time after some modifications.. I will post some pictures after some searching... So my sincere request to all members that give some respect to this bird which it surely deserves and let it become operational.. after that you can surely analyze it.. And same goes for JF 17 of Pakistan.. offcource the experience gained in these projects will help the developers for sure. Mean while unlike JF 17 LCA tejas uses composite materials and RAM hence that factor should also be considered which is a very high achievement in my opinion..

With regards
Drunken Monke
(Shrikant Parwate)

there was a discussion about this exact ratings on another indian defense forum and in this forum as well
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom