LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2015 14:17

Isnt JHMCS similar to Tow Owl HMD we use on 29K or even proposed for Tejas ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 May 2015 03:34

^ IIRC the Tejas uses the Dash V HMDS? The MiG-29K uses the topsite (topowl was for choppers i think).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 06:11

vina wrote:
The problem always is that heavily laden attack aircraft at long distances from their home bases will meet lightly loaded defenders over their own home territory.
Well, the new thing is that a true multi role aircraft can do both attack and A2A at the same time, if it is has a true scanned array radar at it's nose. Provide guidance to radar guided a2a weapons, do volume search, also ground targeting. That sort of equalises things.

Yes but an aircraft laden with drop tanks and bombs may need to manoeuvre with some enthusiasm to avoid incoming missiles and that might mean jettisoning the load prematurely just to escape. That would be a good result for the defender.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 May 2015 06:18

Shiv, not necessarily. In the 91 gulf war, 2 f 18 on a mission you are discribing were challenged by Iraqi migs. The migs were shot down By the F's. All in under 30 seconds from detections. And the mission was successfully completed. It is a falacy to assume that an attacking MR jet will be a sitting duck in enemy airspace.

It may be true of dedicated bombers and strike jets, such as the mig 27 and su 24. But not for multi role jets.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 06:41

Pratyush wrote:Shiv, not necessarily. In the 91 gulf war, 2 f 18 on a mission you are discribing were challenged by Iraqi migs. The migs were shot down By the F's. All in under 30 seconds from detections. And the mission was successfully completed. It is a falacy to assume that an attacking MR jet will be a sitting duck in enemy airspace.

It may be true of dedicated bombers and strike jets, such as the mig 27 and su 24. But not for multi role jets.

You are talking about a war between USA, assisted by all the powers of Europe, with AWACS cover and all the electronics on earth fighting against Iraq that had been under sanctions and surrounded by hostile powers?

Sorry. This is precisely the unrealistic scenario that I am railing against. The weight of American media power hangs heavily upon our thinking. India is not "NATO allies" and neither Pakistan nor China are Iraq. Please stop using Gulf war examples.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 May 2015 06:50

Ok replace the F 18 with the Indian su 30. On a similar mission profile. will we see a different result?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 06:54

Pratyush wrote:Ok replace the F 18 with the Indian su 30. On a similar mission profile. will we see a different result?

How about Pakistan F-16 attacking an Indian target? What will we be doing?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 May 2015 07:12

What kind of early warning support will the PA jet enjoy.

BTW, this is now OT for the discussion.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2015 07:28

The problem always is that heavily laden attack aircraft at long distances from their home bases will meet lightly loaded defenders over their own home territory.
Well, the new thing is that a true multi role aircraft can do both attack and A2A at the same time, if it is has a true scanned array radar at it's nose. Provide guidance to radar guided a2a weapons, do volume search, also ground targeting. That sort of equalises things.

Besides, India is no longer naked as she was in previous wars. The Phalcons do have a reach of 400 KMs or so, so even if that is reduced by 50% (which I very much doubt), there is still cover for a decent portion of the space into Pakistan.

There has got to be some escorting planes to run interference too. God knows ............ some Israeli pods slung below some planes? It is not going to be IAF planes with a boat load and Paki planes with near no load, nimble and agile.

I find two things odd in such discussions: 1) Comparing planes one to one (F-16 to LCA, etc) and such scenarios where there is a boat load of assumptions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2015 07:29

Pratyush wrote:What kind of early warning support will the PA jet enjoy.

BTW, this is now OT for the discussion.

Let me get back to where the discussion started

..a true multi role aircraft can do both attack and A2A at the same time, if it is has a true scanned array radar at it's nose. Provide guidance to radar guided a2a weapons, do volume search, also ground targeting. That sort of equalises things.

Pakis and Chinese will come at us with all that (and more). Are we going to let them off? What we do about them will be an indicator of what they will do about our attacking aircraft.

vina · Post by **vina** » 05 May 2015 09:05

What we do about them will be an indicator of what they will do about our attacking aircraft

The first war that must be won will be the electronic war. Whoever wins that, gets to control the air battle and gain air superiority. With that the rest of it follows. That is why stealth is a game changer.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 May 2015 09:13

Philip wrote:Where is the IAF retiring the MIG-29 in 2030? The service life has now been extended by 30-40 years depending upon the usage.

40 years is total technical life now..which means that if they're 25 years old already, they have another 15 years in them..not another 30-40 years. Originally the MiG-29's service life in flight hours was just 2500 hours and may now have been pushed to a total of 4000 hours or so, that adds approximately 1500 hours to the airframe.

[url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 122788.cms]

The IAF has sought life-enhancement of its frontline fighter MiG-29 by an additional 500 hours from 2,500 to 3,000 flying hours.

Depending on the aircraft's performance in the fatigue test and after, IAF may seek further enhancement of MiG-29 life to 4,000 flying hours an additional flying time of 1,500 hours.

Like in the case of the MiG-21, IAF has put in a request to the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) to conduct the Total Technical Life Enhancement (TTLE) of the MiG-29. The project works out to around Rs 7 crore.
..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2015 09:30

it is a very cheap and silent play for both usa and china to pass on all they know about indian radars, radios and weapon sensors to TSP to 'equalize' the playing field and improve their chances of evading or causing more damage than they could on their own.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 05 May 2015 10:13

^Will they really? Perhaps we have spies among the pakis who will make such sharing of info useless for the Chinese/Americans, as the pakis will not be able to use it against us, neither will they. Just saying.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 May 2015 21:27

From the tender for Main wheel tyre & Nose wheel tyres for Tejas Mk2

Code: Select all

                                    Normal    Maximum   High Alt
   PARAMETERS            Units    Sea level  Sea level   3 km
Aircraft T/O Mass         kg        13300      15000     12030
Take off speed           kmph         334        357       372
Landing mass              kg        10500      13000     10500 
Landing speed            kmph         320        368       380
Take-off roll distance     m         1023       1342      1530   
Landing roll distance      m         1581       2434      2115

a) All speeds are given in TAS.
b) Landing roll distance are computed for without chute condition.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 21:57

Singha wrote:it is a very cheap and silent play for both usa and china to pass on all they know about indian radars, radios and weapon sensors to TSP to 'equalize' the playing field and improve their chances of evading or causing more damage than they could on their own.

eggjactly why we use training mode on our sukhois abroad & will sanitize most of the critical stuff when working/exercising with khan/nato munnas.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 05 May 2015 22:08

Singha wrote:it is a very cheap and silent play for both usa and china to pass on all they know about indian radars, radios and weapon sensors to TSP to 'equalize' the playing field and improve their chances of evading or causing more damage than they could on their own.

True, which is why both USA & China must be repeatedly shamed by calling them "State sponsors of terror". Secondly, tit-for-tat must be applied wherever possible - sharing info about China's naval vulnerabilities with Vietnam

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 May 2015 22:16

indranilroy wrote:From the tender for Main wheel tyre & Nose wheel tyres for Tejas Mk2

Code: Select all

                                    Normal    Maximum   High Alt
   PARAMETERS            Units    Sea level  Sea level   3 km
Aircraft T/O Mass         kg        13300      15000     12030
Take off speed           kmph         334        357       372
Landing mass              kg        10500      13000     10500 
Landing speed            kmph         320        368       380
Take-off roll distance     m         1023       1342      1530   
Landing roll distance      m         1581       2434      2115

a) All speeds are given in TAS.
b) Landing roll distance are computed for without chute condition.

Nice Info.
Anyone knows these parameters for MK-1 also??

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 May 2015 05:45

^^^

HAL's website has some LCA parameters. Not clear which category these fall on but seems to correlate more towards maximum takeoff weight conditions (or maybe it's a mix-mash of data points!).

Code: Select all

Length	            13.2 m
Span	              8.2 m
Height	            4.4 m
Max Take of Weight	13.5 t
Payload	           5.3 t
Speed	             1.6 M
Radius of Action	  300 km
Takeoff distance	  1700 m
Landing distance	  1300 m
Service Ceiling	   16 km

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 06 May 2015 06:34

300km radius of action should be sufficient for point air defence and close air support, no?

The key would be the numbers deployed. If you can station 200 LCAs at the forward air bases along the border, you can swarm the intruders coming in from Pak

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 08:55

^^ in similar config (with 4 AAM vs 6 on Tejas) I believe the Bison is 150km

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 May 2015 09:02

But who is going to order 200 units? I am suspect IAF will not be in favor of any significant purchase of LCA Mark2 AC also. GOI has to force it now under MII.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 May 2015 09:08

Ananth Krishnan reports on twitter:

✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ @writetake · 35m 35 minutes ago
#PlaneMorning Good news. #TejasFOC on track. Unlikely to miss Dec deadline: ADA-HAL. All hardware to be in by June.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 10:05

the journey of Tejas is like Yudhisthira's trek to the heavens...a lot of problems along the way...a journey of faith and commitment to the flame of dharma.

brf is the dharmic mongrel who stayed with him till he made it past the gates

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2015 14:33

vina wrote:
What we do about them will be an indicator of what they will do about our attacking aircraft
The first war that must be won will be the electronic war. Whoever wins that, gets to control the air battle and gain air superiority. With that the rest of it follows. That is why stealth is a game changer.

Typically when the sides are evenly matched what makes the difference is non tech factors like luck and courage. With luck, aircraft that should have been picked up or shot down are not, or the escape with damage that allows them to continue with a mission. Or young pilots, like soldiers in any war take wild chances and risks and get away with it. Who was the man who said "Don't give me a good general. Give me a lucky general"

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 May 2015 14:45

Shiv,

Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation = Luck on the battlefield.

You remove any one the the items above and you will run out of luck, faster then you can say unlucky.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 06 May 2015 14:49

Singha wrote:the journey of Tejas is like Yudhisthira's trek to the heavens...a lot of problems along the way...a journey of faith and commitment to the flame of dharma.

brf is the dharmic mongrel who stayed with him till he made it past the gates

++1 Singha. But the Svargarohana-parva is taking too long. When do we see Tejas ascend the heavens in IAF roundels

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2015 17:28

Pratyush wrote:Shiv,

Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation = Luck on the battlefield.

You remove any one the the items above and you will run out of luck, faster then you can say unlucky.

That is the theory. Please note that when two forces with approximately similar "Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation" fight with each other it is the quantum of luck, courage and persistence that will eventually make a difference.

After weeks of intense war when 25% or higher attrition has taken place and the best trained people are tired dead or wounded a large number of factors that you name simply fade away. It is best to choose one's adversaries well. We have no choice. Of course nuclear weapons are a tempting choice in such cases.

In fact this is precisely the reason why Pakistan chose the asymmetric war (terror) route after 4 failed hot wars. They claimed (from 47 to 99) that they had better "Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation". Then they realized that it was not good enough. Al Qaeda succeeded against the US because they initially bypassed the superiority bestowed by "Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation" Iraq was subjugated by all those factors - and now the story all over is asymmetric warfare.

In Vietnam the US had "Technical Competence + Reliable Modern Equipment + Excellent Training + Good Intel + Detailed Planning + Strong logistical backbone + High Motivation" - the motivation went eventually. Ultimately the story of wars is a combination of all the factors you name plus luck, pluck and persistence. Forgetting that explains how perfectly strong forces have lost wars.

cdbatra · Post by **cdbatra** » 06 May 2015 17:59

Check this very interesting post by ChinaTimes on comparison between FC-1 and Tejas. They have tried to make this sound balanced shall I say.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0506000135

Conclusion

The Tejas is a light multirole fighter fit for the 21st century. It uses a lot of new technology and innovation, such as its use of large amounts of composite materials, its advanced avionics system and its unique aerodynamic configuration. In terms of functionality, the LCA Tejas has good potential to be expanded into variants. For example, at a time when the air force version is yet to be commissioned widely, a ship-based version of the aircraft has already been released. The Xiaolong is a third-generation model designed for the international market. The use of off-the-shelf materials not only cuts costs but also reduces risks in the design process and improves the reliability of the aircraft. This will not make it the best aircraft, but rather a standard, cheap and reliable model for air-to-air combat. In summation, the Xiaolong is the aircraft of today and the Tejas is the aircraft of tomorrow.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 06 May 2015 18:25

Instead of ordering more planes what GOI should be doing is (next 1-2 years)

1. Negotiating with GE to manufacture the engines for Tejas in India.
2. Set up a factory (100 engines in first year and then 50 engines a year) to manufacture engines somewhere in the middle of India (Nagpur - Viskakhapatnam). These engines can be exported to other countries too.
3. Set up factories for other parts all over India and streamline the shipment of the parts to assembling unit.
4. Set up an assembling unit again somewhere in hinterland to assemble/overhaul/etc at least 50 Tejas per year for next n number of years and then gradually move over to maintenance.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 May 2015 18:33

SBajwa wrote:Instead of ordering more planes what GOI should be doing is (next 1-2 years)

1. Negotiating with GE to manufacture the engines for Tejas in India.
2. Set up a factory (100 engines in first year and then 50 engines a year) to manufacture engines somewhere in the middle of India (Nagpur - Viskakhapatnam). These engines can be exported to other countries too.
3. Set up factories for other parts all over India and streamline the shipment of the parts to assembling unit.
4. Set up an assembling unit again somewhere in hinterland to assemble/overhaul/etc at least 50 Tejas per year for next n number of years and then gradually move over to maintenance.

Why would the US hand over engine manufacturing tech to us? We're competitors.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2015 18:41

The exact techniques used to make engine components are trade secrets and will not be shared. You can "make engines" by assembling components imported from elsewhere.

When I observe in 2015 that a lot of people still do not realize this - I just wonder if the same "innocence" of the ways of the world afflicted our leaders and babus and technologists in the 70s, 80s and 90s when they spoke about "tech transfer" naively thinking that they were going to get the secrets which keep the west ahead.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 06 May 2015 18:48

SBajwa wrote:Instead of ordering more planes what GOI should be doing is (next 1-2 years)

1. Negotiating with GE to manufacture the engines for Tejas in India.
2. Set up a factory (100 engines in first year and then 50 engines a year) to manufacture engines somewhere in the middle of India (Nagpur - Viskakhapatnam). These engines can be exported to other countries too.
3. Set up factories for other parts all over India and streamline the shipment of the parts to assembling unit.
4. Set up an assembling unit again somewhere in hinterland to assemble/overhaul/etc at least 50 Tejas per year for next n number of years and then gradually move over to maintenance.

as shiv noted above, 'TOT' is supposed to happen and assembly done in india.

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."

GE link

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 May 2015 19:37

cdbatra wrote:Check this very interesting post by ChinaTimes on comparison between FC-1 and Tejas. They have tried to make this sound balanced shall I say.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0506000135

...

...
Flight Control Systems

The flight system of the Tejas has a more complicated origin. Originally the aircraft was set to be equipped with a FADEC system developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and India, however, an Indian nuclear test led to sanctions being implemented against the country, ending the US-Indian cooperative endeavor. India then looked to Russian aircraft manufacturer Mikoyan and Moscow Air Production Organization for help, until the sanctions were revoked in 2001. India then ordered actuators from London-based BAE Systems, which were handed over in 2003. Then Lockheed Martin joined the development project once again. This lengthy process slowed down the entire development of the aircraft. Overall, the core parts of the system were completed by Lockheed Martin, although this information has yet to be released to the public. The Indian media have reported that the flight control system is a match for the F-16C/D Fighting Falcon's relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system.

The Xiaolong's flight control systems make use of a longitudinal FADEC system, with two fly-by-wire back-up systems. The FADEC system improves stability across the yaw and roll axis. It has overcome a few flaws in its aerodynamics to allow for more maneuverability. It is also relatively low in price.
...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 May 2015 19:46

^^ This website will publish anything it finds on discussion boards and forums. In fact this seems to be a way they look for information. Verification be damned..Not a good source.

Case in point -

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 3&cid=1101

When a 30 Second google search (reverse image) shows

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/B ... album=hide

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 May 2015 16:30

From the above report.

Conclusion

The Tejas is a light multirole fighter fit for the 21st century. It uses a lot of new technology and innovation, such as its use of large amounts of composite materials, its advanced avionics system and its unique aerodynamic configuration. In terms of functionality, the LCA Tejas has good potential to be expanded into variants. For example, at a time when the air force version is yet to be commissioned widely, a ship-based version of the aircraft has already been released. The Xiaolong is a third-generation model designed for the international market. The use of off-the-shelf materials not only cuts costs but also reduces risks in the design process and improves the reliability of the aircraft. This will not make it the best aircraft, but rather a standard, cheap and reliable model for air-to-air combat. In summation, the Xiaolong is the aircraft of today and the Tejas is the aircraft of tomorrow.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 08 May 2015 22:29

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

Aha. And here's the CAG report on the LCA- Tejas program. Read the whole rockamolly yourself. http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf …

Its a 73-page PDF document.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 08 May 2015 22:31

CAG with a brutal report - looks like the gripen will arrive after all

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 204118.cms

"LCA Mark-I, which achieved Initial Operational Clearance (December, 2013) has significant shortfalls (53 permanent waivers/concessions" in meeting ASR (Air Staff Requirements) as a result of which it will have reduced operational capabilities and reduced survivability, thereby limiting its operational employability when inducted into IAF squadrons," the report said.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 08 May 2015 23:31

On the CAG report, I understand that the Tejas has failed to meet the promised deadlines and the ASR as laid down by the Air Force. But has the CAG studied the veracity of the ASR itself? I mean all this report tells us is that:
1) Failed to deliver per promised timelines
2) Failed to deliver per ASR
3) Under-estimated development work required
4) Grossly under estimated research capabilities of domestic institutes
5) Bad contract management on ADA's part when engaging with external design agencies
6) 53 compromises made from the Original ASRs.

Is there an older CAG report or any other report which analyses the ASR themselves? I mean how was the Air Force allowed to set ASRs which we have not been able to meet in 30 years? If the Baseline Requirements are unattainable another CAG report on it is not going to bring to light anything new. That essentially means that the IAF aimed too high without assessing the state of the domestic research and industrial capability.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 May 2015 23:51

maxratul wrote:CAG with a brutal report - looks like the gripen will arrive after all

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 204118.cms

"LCA Mark-I, which achieved Initial Operational Clearance (December, 2013) has significant shortfalls (53 permanent waivers/concessions" in meeting ASR (Air Staff Requirements) as a result of which it will have reduced operational capabilities and reduced survivability, thereby limiting its operational employability when inducted into IAF squadrons," the report said.

Considering these hiccups (and we don't know how far this report is accurate) AND the astronomical prices being quoted for the Rafales, perhaps a Gripen might seem tempting.

Interestingly, both these reports - the one damning the LCA (on performance) and the other damning the Rafale (on price), are from the Economic Times - makes you wonder...