LCA News and Discussions

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 08 Feb 2011 04:04

Light Fighter, Heavy Burden

Some more tripe. Article starts off with the LCA, goes on to cost comparison of Embraer commercial jet and LCA, proceeds to Nobel peace prizes and finally crashes to a halt by mouthing the same inanities about Indian poverty etc. I wish Yahoo.in had a comment feature on this article.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2011 04:05

The order has not been placed. Last October when the 414s were chosen over the EJ2000s, they still had about 6 months of work left before the final order would be placed.

But I am a little worried about the verbatim part too. I must say that it doesn't make sense to me. How will be start serial producing MkIIs in 2.5-3 years from now? If we can't the assembly line for the LCA is going to lie idle.

Or maybe work on Mk II has proceeded way beyond what I had estimated. Guys at AI, please ask when we could expect the first prototype to fly. If a majority of the study has been done, then we can build a prototype in a year. But I had read somewhere that the 414s will only arrive on or after 2012.

So I don't quite understand where things are heading.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Feb 2011 05:03

Cain Marko wrote:
Backwards thinking if true imho. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The force structure seems to be increasingly topheavy. World over (and not too long ago, in the IAF as well) the light fighters make up numbers, while the twin engined heavies are the spearhead. The current procurement plan seems entirely opposite of this logic.

They need a cheap bird to be the backbone of the fleet, the LCA seems ideal. However, perhaps the engines being American means that the IAF would rather not take chances. Conversely, if the AF is comfortable with the US components, expect twice the number of Gripens vis a vis the Tejas. No matter which way we look at it, as of now the LCA seems buggered! I hope the AMCA manages better - homemade engines are a must.

JMT of course.

CM>

CM, perhaps the MRCA decision is veering more than a bit towards the Gripen. IAF may already be thinking about 126 + options. I still think the IAF can accommodate both the LCA and Gripen in large numbers considering the number of aircraft lining up for retirement.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2011 06:21

That would be sad if Gripen is chosen. We have now two countries controlling us, rather one - no-rse and un-kill.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Feb 2011 06:28

indranilroy wrote:The order has not been placed. Last October when the 414s were chosen over the EJ2000s, they still had about 6 months of work left before the final order would be placed.

But I am a little worried about the verbatim part too. I must say that it doesn't make sense to me. How will be start serial producing MkIIs in 2.5-3 years from now? If we can't the assembly line for the LCA is going to lie idle.

Or maybe work on Mk II has proceeded way beyond what I had estimated. Guys at AI, please ask when we could expect the first prototype to fly. If a majority of the study has been done, then we can build a prototype in a year. But I had read somewhere that the 414s will only arrive on or after 2012.So I don't quite understand where things are heading.

it doesn't matter what they do with mk-2 but as of now main thing is they are giving IAF to fly blind aircraft which has no radar,what the thrust of engine will do when its got no radar.
at least lca on IOC must have been bvr capable but they tested it for dropping dumb bombs accurately.

its just like delivering a car without headlights and seats.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Feb 2011 06:29

X - posting...

NRao wrote:Tejas to soar high at AeroIndia 2011

Data point:

"We plan to use the F404 engines to power the first 20 aircraft the IAF has ordered and the enhanced GE-414 engines for the second order of 20 aircraft, which will be the Mark-2 version, while Kaveri will be used for the trainer and naval variants and the air force variant when they are upgraded a decade later," Subramanyam pointed out

GE F414 Engines Selected to Power India Light Combat Aircraft Program

--LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS -- India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has selected 99 F414 GE fighter jet engines to power the Mk II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force.

John Flannery, President & CEO, GE India said, "The LCA selection is a big step forward for GE and demonstrates our strong commitment to India. GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement."

The F414-GE-INS6 is the highest-thrust F414 model and includes state-of-the-art technology to meet India's demanding Air Force and Naval requirements. Technical advances include a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) and added single-engine safety features.

"We are extremely pleased with the ADA's decision and are confident India's technical expertise will help enhance the F414-powered LCA's mission superiority well into the 21st century," said Tony Mathis, general manager of Lynn Military Systems programs at GE Aviation.

This selection follows earlier orders of 24 F404 GE engines in 2007, plus an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes.

With more than one million flight hours, the F414 engine continues to exceed United States Navy goals for reliability and time on wing. To date, more than 1,000 F414 engines have been delivered, supporting more than 415 aircraft in the fleet.

GE Aviation, an operating unit of GE (NYSE: GE), is a world-leading provider of jet and turboprop engines, components and integrated systems for commercial, military, business and general aviation aircraft. GE Aviation has a global service network to support these offerings.

F404-GE-IN20 Engines Ordered for India Light Combat Aircraft

--BANGALORE, INDIA -- Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has ordered an additional 24 F404-GE-IN20 afterburning engines to power the first operational squadron of Tejas fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Value of the order is in excess of $100 million and follows an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes.

Earlier this year, the F404-GE-IN20 was trial-installed in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) as part of final evaluations toward flight-testing, scheduled for mid-2007. The F404-IN-20 engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and has completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, which is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation.

The F404-GE-IN20 succeeds F404-F2J3 development engines used for nearly 600 flights, cumulatively covering eight engines.

Based on the F404-GE-402, the F404-GE-IN20 is the highest rated F404 model and includes a higher-flow fan, increased thrust, a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system, single-crystal turbine blades and a variety of single-engine features.

The F404 fighter engine family is one of the most successful in military aviation history. More than 4,000 F404 engines power a number of combat aircraft flown by the United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, plus countries throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

GE Aviation, an operating unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), is one of the world's leading manufacturers of jet engines for civil and military aircraft. GE also is a world-leading provider of maintenance and support services for jet engines.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Feb 2011 06:41

The F404 Engine Family

...
A derivative of the F404 also powers the India Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) flight test program which continues with the recent first flight of the second aircraft, TD-2. High-level Indian defense officials have also expressed their intent to procure 50 F404 engines to power the initial production aircraft. GE is currently in discussions with India about the potential incorporation of a FADEC in the engine for the production LCA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Feb 2011 06:45

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 0717b.html

India LCA: F404-IN20 validation testing is nearing completion with initial deliveries of production engines for the India Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) program scheduled for mid 2006. Testing has included installed performance/operability, plus validation of control schedules and mechanical systems. The engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) thrust during the program. Indian defense officials have ordered 17 engines to power initial Tejas production aircraft and have expressed interest in procuring an additional 20 aircraft, with options for 20 more.

Total expectation is 17 + 20 + 20 = 57. Of these we exercised 17+24 = 41.

Sidhu · Post by **Sidhu** » 08 Feb 2011 06:49

"They need a cheap bird to be the backbone of the fleet, the LCA seems ideal."

LCA was the requirement of the hour when IAF was cash strapped. Now the funds available to it are much more and I think they dont "care" (relatively) that they have to manage 250-300 heavy ones. Now that they have the funds they seem to want only the Benzs and not the Marutis..

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Feb 2011 07:02

Baldev wrote: it doesn't matter what they do with mk-2 but as of now main thing is they are giving IAF to fly blind aircraft which has no radar,what the thrust of engine will do when its got no radar.
at least lca on IOC must have been bvr capable but they tested it for dropping dumb bombs accurately.

its just like delivering a car without headlights and seats.

That is so wrong. Firstly LCA has a radar (LSP 4 flew with it). What ADA will do in the next year or so is to make software integrations for radar tracking, targeting and guidance. Before IOC ADA has already demonstrated that hardware wise everything works (missiles were fired and bombs and stores released). LCA MMR is capable of both AA and AG missions. So, all that needs to be done is to work on the software part (most of which already would have been done) and to demonstrate guided weapons release.

If the LCA was BVR capable, we probably would have witnessed FOC in January.

Plus, long before Mk2 appears (and the above mentioned higher thrust engines are used) Mk1 will have all the "headlights and seats" (as you wanted to call it) and then some more..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Feb 2011 07:13

nachiket wrote:
Vipul wrote:Tejas to soar high at AeroIndia 2011.

"We plan to use the F404 engines to power the first 20 aircraft the IAF has ordered and the enhanced GE-414 engines for the second order of 20 aircraft, which will be the Mark-2 version, while Kaveri will be used for the trainer and naval variants and the air force variant when they are upgraded a decade later," Subramanyam pointed out.
So there's no Naval Mk2 on the cards?

You are misunderstanding. There is no Naval Mk1. All the order for Naval variants will be on the standards of LCA Mk2.

It can be understood as, Kaveri will power trainer. AirForce and Naval variants get its Kaveri share after a decade later during upgrade.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2011 07:18

^^^ Similar to the stuff that Neelam Matthews reported in the AW

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2011 07:38

Baldev wrote:it doesn't matter what they do with mk-2 but as of now main thing is they are giving IAF to fly blind aircraft which has no radar,what the thrust of engine will do when its got no radar.
at least lca on IOC must have been bvr capable but they tested it for dropping dumb bombs accurately.

its just like delivering a car without headlights and seats.

why not get yourself a little more aware of facts before going on about the Tejas Mk2..the Tejas Mk1 ALREADY has a radar.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Feb 2011 07:48

Gurneesh wrote:@ sivab Snecma Kaveri will produce around 90 kN. 414 produces around 98 kN and the one offered for LCA is said to be the most powerful 414 version (might as well be an EPE).

Often i hear this GE F414-INS6 ordered for LCA Mk2 is same as GE F414-EPE.

Considering the development of GE F404-IN20 as the highest thrust model for LCA Mk1 , it can expected that thrust of GE F414-INS6 could be either equal or higher than GE F414-EPE engine.

F414-EDE is 15% increase in thrust from G414-400 and F414-EPE has 20% increase.

Thrust of GE F404 variants in pounds

F404-1N20 > 19,000 (LCA MK1)
F404-F2J3 = 18,300 (LCA-TD)
F404/RM12 = 18,100 (Gripen)
F404-402 = 17,700
F404-400 = 16,000

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2011 08:04

why not give up 5% thrust but use the EDE advantages of lower opex to get more tejas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2011 08:07

Ah!

Rhetorical arguments with twisted words! My favorite!

What will Tejas do with an engine if it has no radar?
What will Tejas do with radar if it can't drop bombs?

I am reminded of a limerick by my guru which presents rhetorical questions such as these

I sat by the duchess for tea
She asked, "Do you f*rt when you pee?"
I said, with some wit
"Do you belch when you sh1t"
and felt it was one up for me

Sorry to go OT.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 08 Feb 2011 08:13

LCA : Delayed but Still a Milestone Capability
..:: India Strategic ::..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Feb 2011 08:23

^

Mr Nayak said that the LCA was “jampacked with avionics, pipelines and wiring” but the Mark II would be a bigger aircraft by a metre, with room to “reallocate” systems. “It will have a fresh internal design with more wiring, bus and whatever although it would be a replica of its predecessor in looks.”

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Feb 2011 09:01

shiv wrote:Ah! Rhetorical arguments with twisted words! My favorite!

What will Tejas do with an engine if it has no radar?
What will Tejas do with radar if it can't drop bombs?

I am reminded of a limerick by my guru which presents rhetorical questions such as these

I sat by the duchess for tea
She asked, "Do you f*rt when you pee?"
I said, with some wit
"Do you belch when you sh1t"
and felt it was one up for me

Sorry to go OT.

BVR missile can't be fired without radar but bombs can be dropped without radar.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Feb 2011 09:07

Kartik wrote:
Baldev wrote:it doesn't matter what they do with mk-2 but as of now main thing is they are giving IAF to fly blind aircraft which has no radar,what the thrust of engine will do when its got no radar.
at least lca on IOC must have been bvr capable but they tested it for dropping dumb bombs accurately.

its just like delivering a car without headlights and seats.
why not get yourself a little more aware of facts before going on about the Tejas Mk2..the Tejas Mk1 ALREADY has a radar.

which one.and if it does then why BVR missile is not there and if this is questionable then how long it takes to have bvr missile integration and if this too takes long then 2032 and derby integration didn't take this long on harrier as its taking on lca.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2011 09:12

Baldev wrote:BVR missile can't be fired without radar but bombs can be dropped without radar.

This is not about you - but a general comment aimed at a whole lot of people on aviation fora. Everyone is hooked on "dogfighting" or "BVR shootdowns. There is a thrill about the one on one knight ishtyle fighting. Mud moving is dull, unglamorous - so everyone is clamoring for "maneuverability", "BVR", "extra AAMs". Except when mud moving is made glamorous by a combo of Gatling and A-10 - even if the effect of such a combo is less than that of a single 250 kg bum. It's all about romance.

But mud moving is just as important part of air warfare as air combat. But you would never figure that out by reading the JSQ (Jingo Staff Requirements) of Internet fora. Tejas has been integrated with Litening and can drop bombs and that will work fine, radar or no radar.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Feb 2011 09:14

shiv wrote:
Baldev wrote:BVR missile can't be fired without radar but bombs can be dropped without radar.
This is not about you - but a general comment aimed at a whole lot of people on aviation fora. Everyone is hooked on "dogfighting" or "BVR shootdowns. There is a thrill about the one on one knight ishtyle fighting. Mud moving is dull, unglamorous - so everyone is clamoring for "maneuverability", "BVR", "extra AAMs".

But mud moving is just as important part of air warfare as air combat. But you would never figure that out by reading the JSQ (Jingo Staff Requirements) of Internet fora. Tejas has been integrated with Litening and can drop bombs and that will work fine, radar or no radar.

and even without litening dumb bombs can be dropped.at least lca be able to do bvr capability equal to that of blk52 by now.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2011 09:50

Baldev wrote: which one.and if it does then why BVR missile is not there and if this is questionable then how long it takes to have bvr missile integration and if this too takes long then 2032 and derby integration didn't take this long on harrier as its taking on lca.

I can safely assume that you've not been following the Tejas for a LONG time to not know which radar it has.

Anyway, its the Elta 2032/LRDE MMR hybrid, mechanically scanned array.

BVR missiles are yet to be integrated to the aircraft and the radar and are meant to be ready by the time it reaches FOC, in 2012.

On the Sea Harrier, the entire program from first integration of the Elta 2032 to test firing was not a short period either.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Feb 2011 10:05

Baldev wrote:which one.and if it does then why BVR missile is not there and if this is questionable then how long it takes to have bvr missile integration and if this too takes long then 2032 and derby integration didn't take this long on harrier as its taking on lca.

Please do some research before coming to conclusions.

LCA has a MMR radar (which takes some components from Elta 2032). IIRC this radar was extensively tested on the ground as well as on the Hack. It flew with the LSP-4 and then with LSP-5.

You mention Derby as if it has been decided to field the Derby on LCA. IIRC there are only a bunch of rumors and no concrete info on which BVR missile will be used on LCA.

2032 is Isreali radar and so is derby so obviously isreali's would have done extensive testing even before the upgrade path was offered to IN. You failed to take into account that testing time and now you crib about the time it takes for the same on LCA.

Again LCA has achieved IOC (Initial Operational Clearance), which means that the plane is certified to be safe for flying and all the critical systems offer a certain performance and reliability. This obviously is much more important than BVR. After IOC, the LCA now will undergo Wake tests, some lighting tests and all the weapon integration (AA WVR and BVR as well as AG).

LCA should have the electronics capability similar to that of blk52 when it achieves FOC (which is around an year and a half away).

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2011 10:49

Guys wasnt the LSP-3 the first aircraft to sport the radar ?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Feb 2011 10:55

^^^^ You are correct.....My Bad

LSP 3 Flight
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/04/ ... first.html

LSP 4 Flight

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/06/ ... -test.html

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Feb 2011 11:18

We plan to use the F404 engines to power the first 20 aircraft the IAF has ordered and the enhanced GE-414 engines for the second order of 20 aircraft, which will be the Mark-2 version, while Kaveri will be used for the trainer and naval variants and the air force variant when they are upgraded a decade later," Subramanyam pointed out.

Can it mean:-

Present Kaveri for LCA Trainer=AJT ?

Kaveri JV for upgrade of IAF & IN aircrafts?

F404IN20 for first 20 SP LCA Mark-1?

F414-INS6 for Second 20 SP LCA mark-1 or it will be F404IN20 only?

F414-INS6 for LCA Mark-2?

Kaveri JV for AMCA?

Now the issue is how powerful is F414-INS6? Swedish 414s are around 95kn, so it has to be around 100kn but is it EPE or EDE equivalent to 114kn? LCA programme director said that they needed a 10% more powerful engine, would not 114kn be too much? Does LCA require something around 95kn only? If 114kn engine is being used then would Kaveri jv with 95kn engine be underpowered?

Too many questions! Guys get some answers at the Aero Show!

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Feb 2011 11:24

By Gulshan Luthra Published: Feburary 2011

..........Dr Prahlada, one of India’s top military technology scientists and Chief Controller in DRDO, told India Strategic that preliminary work on the MCA had already started and that this aircraft should be operational in the next decade. But before that, LCA Mark II, with better engines, avionics and weapons load, should be out with a maiden flight by December 2014

IAF has projected a requirement of 83 LCA Mark II for the time being.

Meanwhile though, for Mark II, GE’s F414-GE-IN56 engine will be used. GE just won a competition for 99 afterburning engines and kits against Eurojet, and HAL is likely to acquire more than 99 engines that it tendered for. An initial batch will be supplied and the rest “manufactured under ToT arrangement.”

HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ashok Nayak told India Strategic that the IOC reflected “customer confidence” and that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had placed an order for 20 more aircraft in addition to the 20 already ordered.

These first 40 aircraft are to be powered by GE 404 engine, an earlier variant that has been used on F 18 Hornets and Gripen.

Mr Nayak said that the LCA was “jampacked with avionics, pipelines and wiring” but the Mark II would be a bigger aircraft by a metre, with room to “reallocate” systems. “It will have a fresh internal design with more wiring, bus and whatever although it would be a replica of its predecessor in looks.”

IAF is planning to induct 200 LCAs for training and attack role and some more are expected to be inducted by the Indian Navy for shipboard assignments.

Mr Nayak congratulated the DRDO and HAL engineers, saying that although the development of the LCA had taken time, it was “effort and money well spent” as it helped build indigenous capability in terms of infrastructure and trained personnel for more ambitious programmes.

© India Strategic

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Feb 2011 12:05

Kanson wrote:http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 0717b.html

India LCA: F404-IN20 validation testing is nearing completion with initial deliveries of production engines for the India Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) program scheduled for mid 2006. Testing has included installed performance/operability, plus validation of control schedules and mechanical systems. The engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) thrust during the program. Indian defense officials have ordered 17 engines to power initial Tejas production aircraft and have expressed interest in procuring an additional 20 aircraft, with options for 20 more.
Total expectation is 17 + 20 + 20 = 57. Of these we exercised 17+24 = 41.

and

plus an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes

.

Excellent work Kansonji, that clarifies things considerably. AWST is correct, and so is my estimate - at this point confimed orders seem to be 20 LCA mk1/GE IN20 (2005) + 8 LSP (GE IN20) + Naval prototypes + ?Trainers = 40. IOWs, the total number of MK1 a/c = 20 onlee.

The 99 GE 414 engines will bring up the second order of 20 PLUS another 80 odd Mk2. All in all one can expect 120 odd Tejas. This confirms the AWST analysis, pg. 46-47.
http://gb.zinio.com/reader.jsp?o=int&pu ... =274582255

It also matches with PS's own words, and the fact that additional 20 have still not been ordered even 5 years after the first batch!

As far as the idle line goes, I think we may have to recalculate:

8 LSPs + 4 series prod to be delivered by early (march?) 2012
4 series prodn a/c by 2013
8 #s by 2014
PLus LCA Naval/Trainer protos by 2015-16.

How is the line idle? By then the mk2 should be available for 99 numbers.

That is it - 120 birds and the run is over. This sidelining of the Tejas is probly because of 2 reasons (speculation alert!):

1) Hopeful scenario: The IAF does not fully trust US components and does not want to base a large number of fighters on GE engines. The LCA team otoh, has always seemed to be in favor of US components despite repeated snubs, and this probly causes a rift, and the Tejas remains an experiment with limited success in that it to a large extent fulfills the techie goal of creating an aerospace industry but falls short of providing a usable fighter. The IAF as end user can now perhaps trust in the AMCA project a bit more willingly (unlike LCA)

2) Sorry scenario: The IAF trusts the US but has simply no faith in Tejas and technocrat ability. As a result it skippers the Tejas and focuses on MRCA instead. This should be borne out by either the Gripen or Shornet making landfall gains.

Anyways, in either case the Tejas gets token order (123).

CM.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2011 12:20

^^^^ the dreaded 123 number the last i saw this number was for another order for a product at 124

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2011 12:27

120 is still a huge number. in the 80s people used to take 40 M2k or 40 F-solah as a powerful fleet of hunting hounds.

I also fail to see why the Mk1(FOC) and Mk2 will not provide a useable fighter ? the IAF currently has 120 Bisons and around 70 Mig21FL, and probably around 75 non-upg Mig27 that will be retired this decade. the Tejas can fulfill all these roles with better range/payload/sensors/weapons...thats around 275-300 "low end" airframes that are set to be scrapped. [iirc only around 40 Mig27 were upgraded] . the oldest Jags obtained in mid 1980s are now 25 yrs old and getting a little long in the tooth too.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Feb 2011 12:29

I would say point 2.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Feb 2011 12:35

Singha wrote:120 is still a huge number. in the 80s people used to take 40 M2k or 40 F-solah as a powerful fleet of hunting hounds.

No doubt it is a large number. But a far cry from a MiG-21/27 replacement, which is what was hoped. At least 200-400 LCA should've been inducted to balance out a force that is projected to have 600 heavy 30 ton fighters! Hell, if the MRCA goes with a twin engined bird, and along with an AMCA of 125+ nos, we are looking at more than 75% of a fleet with twin engined monsters

That is a LOT of moolah in terms of maintenance, operating costs.

I also fail to see why the Mk1(FOC) and Mk2 will not provide a useable fighter ?

Usable? yes, most definitely. But dependable? With US engines? Perhaps the IAF does not think so. Or mayhaps the IAF is simply not impressed with the Tejas, wot? The ACM did call it a 3rd Gen MiG-21++ afterall.

the IAF currently has 120 Bisons and around 70 Mig21FL, and probably around 75 non-upg Mig27 that will be retired this decade. the Tejas can fulfill all these roles with better range/payload/sensors/weapons...thats around 275-300 "low end" airframes that are set to be scrapped. [iirc only around 40 Mig27 were upgraded] . the oldest Jags obtained in mid 1980s are now 25 yrs old and getting a little long in the tooth too.

All true, but the above reason negate such events imho. I may be wrong (and I hope I am) but ever since the IOC only negative news re. this bird has made airwaves - not just DDM tripe, but even in terms of modest orders being spoken out in the public by involved parties. Does not inspire confidence.

CM

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 08 Feb 2011 12:48

The 99 GE 414 engines will bring up the second order of 20 PLUS another 80 odd Mk2

Will all the 99 Engines will be used on Airframes ?
Wont the 99 engines include some Spare Engines ?

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 08 Feb 2011 12:58

As far as the idle line goes, I think we may have to recalculate:
8 LSPs + 4 series prod to be delivered by early (march?) 2012
4 series prodn a/c by 2013
8 #s by 2014
PLus LCA Naval/Trainer protos by 2015-16.
How is the line idle? By then the mk2 should be available for 99 numbers.
That is it - 120 birds and the run is over. This sidelining of the Tejas is probly because of 2 reasons (speculation alert!):
1) Hopeful scenario: The IAF does not fully trust US components and does not want to base a large number of fighters on GE engines. The LCA team otoh, has always seemed to be in favor of US components despite repeated snubs, and this probly causes a rift, and the Tejas remains an experiment with limited success in that it to a large extent fulfills the techie goal of creating an aerospace industry but falls short of providing a usable fighter. The IAF as end user can now perhaps trust in the AMCA project a bit more willingly (unlike LCA)
2) Sorry scenario: The IAF trusts the US but has simply no faith in Tejas and technocrat ability. As a result it skippers the Tejas and focuses on MRCA instead. This should be borne out by either the Gripen or Shornet making landfall gains.
Anyways, in either case the Tejas gets token order (123).
CM.

I have seen at least one report of an initial order of 99 engines plus an option for a 100 more! I cannot find it at the moment.
The 99 and the existing calculations for the Mk1 and prototypes seem to tally as CM has shown above.

The option for 100 more - you don't normally pull that number out of thin air and bandy it about. It looks like a plan and sounds like a very sensible approach. Hanging a carrot to GE and an option to see how the Kaveri pans out maybe?
As more pilots use the Tejas, any feedback is bound to reach high levels at IAF. This might lead to more.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2011 13:15

hopefully a ex-Tejas pilot will become COAS

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2011 13:44

Singha wrote:120 is still a huge number. in the 80s people used to take 40 M2k or 40 F-solah as a powerful fleet of hunting hounds.

A Vic post right above:

IAF is planning to induct 200 LCAs for training and attack role and some more are expected to be inducted by the Indian Navy for shipboard assignments.

Seems IAF cannot think of a number below 200!!!

200+ of FGFA, 200+ of AMCA, 200+ of MKI. Left out till now is a piddly 126 for MMRCA. Bet they will bounce that number too. And perhaps split the deal????

Has the IAF thought of alternative fuels by any chance?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2011 14:44

narmad wrote:
The 99 GE 414 engines will bring up the second order of 20 PLUS another 80 odd Mk2
Will all the 99 Engines will be used on Airframes ?
Wont the 99 engines include some Spare Engines ?

They will include not only spares, but also a few used for prototype development and flight testing. 1 or 2 might have been provided for installation checks and bench testing. Also, 49 engines were taken as options. So, there is an option to buy these 49 F414-INS6 engines at the same price as the 99 if the IAF wants to buy more Tejas Mk2.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Feb 2011 14:48

Many members have asked the following questions over the years, but never received satisfactory answers. The questions are as follows –
1. If Project 17A is essentially a Shivalik design with gun, missiles and radars updated, then why on earth are design contracts being awarded to DCNS or SDB?
2. If Project 71 is an Indian carrier designed by NDB, then why was Fincantieri awarded two design contracts?
3. If the same GE-404 engine gives the heavier Gripen A/C desired AoA or sustained turn rate performance, then why is it failing to do so for Tejas?

The answer lies here http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories889.htm

Mr Nayak said that the LCA was “jampacked with avionics, pipelines and wiring” but the Mark II would be a bigger aircraft by a metre, with room to “reallocate” systems. “It will have a fresh internal design with more wiring, bus and whatever although it would be a replica of its predecessor in looks.”

An important part of aircraft or ship design is estate management. From small radio to IFR probe to engines, the internal layout, volume arrangement and weight arrangement has to be carefully managed. This is as important as external hydrodynamic or aerodynamic design.

So, even a simple move of replacing Fregat with Elta 2248 has significant weight, volume and layout implications. For example, Fregat radar has greater below-deck weight, due to weight of processor cabinets and display cabinets, while Elta 2248 has greater above-deck weight due to weight of 4 array panels, while processor cabinet size has decreased because of Moore’s law. If a simple replacement is done, it may result in a top heavy ship affecting seakeeping in rough seas! That is why IN hands out design contracts to Fincantieri, DCN or SDB even for existing designs. For the internal design, redesign and testing.

My understanding is that current Tejas internal estate management was not optimum, and this affected performance. The bolded words are the most heartening ones, and I am sure this will lead to reducing/removing performance deficiencies.

The reason why the F-16 is so successful lies under the skin. The estate management was phenomenal, and allowed adding/replacing various systems without affecting performance.

So, to answer an old question from a fresh perspective,

Shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:with all due respect to IAF, the 100KN ASR for such a small fighter like Tejas...has any a/c in that size category in HISTORY ever had such a T:W ratio? seems me the F16-block50+/m2k-5/Gripen-NG do not have such a value? each of these are 1+ ton heavier empty and feature 100KN class engines...
Well the world has more three legged cheetahs that you would have imagined hain?

No, the 1+ ton heavier, lower T/W cheetahs have better hip bones, muscles and sinew to take advantage of the HP churned out by the (same) heart.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Feb 2011 15:41

^^ I have to disagree. Your conclusions are too sweeping and dont necessarily flow from the premises, which too dont cover the entire issue.

Estate management alone cannot explain any disparity in performance, as that would primarily impact maintainability & ease of access to LRUs. But even that has not been an issue for the LCA so far, with significant time spent during LSP phase to make sure this aspect was taken care of. What Nayak is referring to, is hence, growth potential. Basically more space available for future items & optimal placement of existing items keeping that in account. As an interesting sidenote, even the current IAF's premier strike/airdominance fighter, Sukhoi-30 poses strict constraints on systems that can be added (without replacing existing ones), as its already full of electronics and existing systems & it too has had systems added to it much as the LCAs.

Overall weight gain is a more relevant metric & this is known to be the primary cause of LCA not meeting expected requirements in two criteria, by a marginal amount, namely STR, and acceleration. Marginal, because incorporation of HMDS + new missiles makes up for the disparity between required (by ASR) and currently achieved with GE404IN20. A significant shortfall would not be made up even with advanced avionics. The STR issue was linked primarily to weight gain.

Acceleration was also linked to drag issues which is now being overcome with minor redesign of the forward portion of the aircraft (adding a plug).

So the weight gain issue is the primary remaining one, which cannot be met by redesign alone & needs to be solved by a stronger engine.

The stronger question, then is why the weight gain occurred. From what we know, there are several reasons. These include:

1.Provision for newer munitions (heavier load carrying structures)
2.More (Additional) avionics systems (internal EW suite) & mechanical systems (OBOGS)
3.Additional margin (risk averse design) in terms of structures (more weight savings possible by increasing composite usage) and some key systems (e.g. landing gear)

It is there the comparison to Gripen A etc breaks down, because the Gripen was inducted in blocks, with some of the blocks having performance in terms of systems below what is expected of the LCA MK1 in points 1 &2, plus we really cant compare what the IAF expects of the LCA to be equal or comparable to what the Swedes wanted of the Gripen. Two differing countries, services, with differing capabilities in terms of partnering domestic industry, different threat perceptions, differing expectations.

Second, your other premise is that the Gripen has better sinews etc only bears up to some extent with point 3, namely the additional margin given for failure free design (risk aversion, and first time design) in structures & landing gear etc which was originally meant to be imported but after sanctions, HAL was tasked to develop it. Over time, even these can be optimized & are indeed being done (EADS consulting for reducing weight).

All in all, in terms of subsystems, the LCA MK1 may indeed have an edge on several earlier blocks of the Gripen (before NG) but the combination of high expectations/scope creep, risk averse/first time design & continued growth in requirements (eg AESA radar on future variants etc) mean that weight gain was a result, aerodynamic performance would suffer & hence a more powerful engine has to be incorporated. Even so, a LCA MK1 would be a very useful addition to an AF, even with payload/range restrictions as compared to say, a longer ranged Su-30 MKI or MMRCA.