LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Aug 2015 19:57

srikven wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 22m22 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

#LCA update 1: The first new nose cone and bolt on IFR probe have been delivered by Cobham. Nose cone integration underway.
#LCA update 2: The other two nose cones are expected to be delivered by the end of next month. Three aircraft will be used to test it.
#LCA update 3: HAL says SP-2 will fly next month. Says will deliver four aircraft by March 2016.
#LCA update 4: HAL says that it will build 8 SPs in 2016-17.Their credibility is on the line.
#LCA Update 4: IAF and ADA are both of the view that HAL will receive 1A, orders if it can at least deliver the first 40 aircraft by 2018.
#LCA update 5: 2016 is going to be a crucial year. if HAL can ramp up production, its case for further order of Mk-1 variants will prevail.
#LCA update 6: Nose cone qualification for FOC will be completed by year end. IFR will take longer. Race to March 2016 deadline is on.

Thank you Saurav for getting the information. Thank you srikven for reporting it here.

vina wrote:Well, design and weight gain is a spiral. So for e.g., if they manage to shave off 200kg (say) from the under carriage which is behind the CG in the tricycle landing gear of the kind the LCA has, to maintain the position of the CG, you need to reduce some weight from the front of the airport depending on the lever (i.e. if you take 200kg off X m to the rear of the CG, you will remove 100K of ballast if it is located 2X m forward of CG), so the total weight reduced is 300KG. Now the weight of the aircraft the undercarriage supports is 300Kg less than earlier ! As a result, you do one more iteration and you take off a further say 20 kg off the undercarriage (say) and then 10 kg from the ballast, so you have shaved off 330 kg, and that is lesser weight the undercarriage supports, and so you do one more iteration and the weight saved drops to negligible levels like say 1 or 2 kgs and you stop.

The point is, even small weight losses in individual components cumulatively works in your favour as significant weight losses, this is the good flip side of weight gain where even small individual gains will see a Tun Tun Mausi esque final result.

Nice post Vina!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2015 00:04

Did Cobham test the radomes before shipment to the acceptance test requirments (ATR)? Or is it going to be another trial by ADA?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Aug 2015 02:17

ramana wrote:Did Cobham test the radomes before shipment to the acceptance test requirments (ATR)? Or is it going to be another trial by ADA?

I would assume they would have. If I remember correctly, their first one failed tests and needed to be redesigned leading to the current delays.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Aug 2015 02:32

how is the agreement written?
1. - integrate the product and do acceptance test
-- fails: reject pass: use it
2. - test the specification at source /mock integration
-- fails: reject it: pass, do 1.

I would think they have to do 1 always even if they sell a de-rated specs wala

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Aug 2015 03:03

SaiK wrote:how is the agreement written?

Click. Turn to page 28.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Aug 2015 03:55

srai wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:I was doing some back of the envelop analysis on what roles we could use Tejas Mk 1 for. According to Vivek Gupta's excellent analysis Tejas has a combat radius of about 250 km in a low - low -low mode with 2 tonnes payload and 1 center-line fuel tank. I checked google maps and drew arcs of 250 km radius from our main AF bases. Staging from Pathankot that allows coverage of a an arc including Sialkot, Gujrawala and Lahore. Staging from Amritsar we can even reach Faisalabad. We can also stage from Jammu, Srinagar, Udhampur, Bikaner, Adampur, Uttarlai.

We can cover pretty much all of Pakistan to a depth of at least 100 kms (from Pathankot we can go much deeper). That is good enough for tactical support to Army.

For CAP roles at 15000-20000 feet, Tejas has a 350 km combat radius with a centre line fuel tank and 2 tonnes of A2A load. With a 1 tonne load of 6 AAMs we should be able to address most of current agility issues in air combat.
That is with a centerline fuel tank. Now calculate combat radius with two or three fuel tanks: 2 x 1200ltr/800ltr inner wings plus 1 x 725ltr centerline. LCA's reach would be even more.

At what cost in payload?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Aug 2015 04:25

^^^

Since you asked ... reposting my old post on various load configurations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Air Support (CAS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS (w/ two 800L tanks & 1,000lb bombs) (mostly seen in this config)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 6,425.7lb (2,914.7kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks & two lighter bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 250kg bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (500lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Weight (external): 5,425.7lb (2,461.05kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks and one bomb)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
1 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) centerline (1,000lb x 1) (could carry a heavier weapon like ASM)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 5,425.7lb (2,461.05kg)

CAS (w/ two 1200L tanks and one bomb for max range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
1 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) centerline (1,000lb x 1)
2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (3,264kg)

CAS (w/ two 1200L tanks and two light bombs for range)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 250kg bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (500lb x 2)
2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (3,264kg)

CAS (w/ one 725L centerline and four 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
4 x 1,000lb bomb (Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)
1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 6,065.2lb (2,751.1kg)

CAS (w/ one 725L centerline + Liten Pod)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
4 x 1,000lb bomb (Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)
1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 6,505.2lb (2,950.7kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and two 1,000lb bombs for short range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 2,902lb (1,316.32kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and four 1,000lb bombs for short range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
4 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 4,902lb (2,223.51kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and max bomb load of five 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
5 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 5)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 5,902lb (2,677.10kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks, 725L centerline & 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 8,028.9lb (3,641.85kg) [if fuel tanks filled to maximum]

Others to consider:
* Other load configurations would be 250kg bombs carried in multi-racks for carpet bombing.
* Heavier PGMs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Air Patrol (CAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP (w/ no external tanks and 4 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 2)

Total Payload Weight (external): 1,344lb (609.62kg)

CAP (w/ no external tanks and 6 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
4 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 4)

Total Payload Weight (external): 2,226lb (1,009.69kg)

CAP (w/725L centerline and 6 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
4 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 4)
1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 3,829.2lb (1,736.9kg)

CAP (w/ two 800L tanks and 4 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

Total Payload Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (2,207.95kg)

CAP (w/ two 1200L for long-range)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x BVR (Derby/Astra/R-77) (441lb x 2)
2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

Total Payload Weight (external): 6,637.9lb (3,010.9kg)

In one of the MoD reports, max combat radius was stated as around 500km. But that would mean shorter time-on-station at those max ranges. Probably 350km is more of an ideal range with sufficient time-on-station.

Oh yeah ... add the AAR capability too

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Aug 2015 05:46

Does anyone have data on various missions (range and duration) and payload config (bombs and external tanks) typically used by the IAF's MiG-21 and MiG-27? We should then be able to perform similar payload comparison with LCA Mk.1 and see where it stands in terms of what the IAF needs.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 20 Aug 2015 05:51

Is there any plan to put Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) on LCA.

I saw pic of this system displayed at some Aeroindia(maybe somewhere else).

If the 4 & 3 hard-points is fitted with this system then on CAP missions 2x2 missiles(4 BVR) & 2 CCM could be carried with 2 x 1200L drop tanks(on 1 & 2).The range could increase significantly for such a mission.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2015 07:08

the multi rack thing will be put forward as a FOC-blocker at the appropriate time, when FOC is imminent.

wait and watch.

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 20 Aug 2015 07:18

srai wrote:Does anyone have data on various missions (range and duration) and payload config (bombs and external tanks) typically used by the IAF's MiG-21 and MiG-27? We should then be able to perform similar payload comparison with LCA Mk.1 and see where it stands in terms of what the IAF needs.

http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/ ... ew-of.html

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 20 Aug 2015 08:36

Image of Tejas with IFR

http://idrw.org/uk-based-company-cobham ... lca-tejas/

great

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 20 Aug 2015 09:24

I believe that pic is old.. not the current IFR probe bolted one..

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Aug 2015 09:55

Abhay_S wrote:
srai wrote:Does anyone have data on various missions (range and duration) and payload config (bombs and external tanks) typically used by the IAF's MiG-21 and MiG-27? We should then be able to perform similar payload comparison with LCA Mk.1 and see where it stands in terms of what the IAF needs.
http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/ ... ew-of.html

Thanks for that. But my question was more about the IAF's usage pattern for its MiG-21s and MiG-27s over the last decade or two to see how LCA Mk.1 fulfills those roles adequately (or not). Building a case for more LCA Mk.1 orders as direct replacements for those two

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 20 Aug 2015 11:31

Minister of Defence Manohar Parrikar's statement in Parliament on the LCA Mk.2:

"The project for design and development of Light combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas Mk-II was sanctioned in November 2009...........As a result, maiden flight of first Prototype and Operational Clearance are likely to be completed by December 2019 and December 2022, respectively. There after induction.

ADA is the nodal agency. ADA has not entered into any collaboration with European Aircraft Manufacturers who had participated in the (MMRCA) tenders for development of Tejas Mk-II. However, ADA may like to avail consultancy from some of them. """

I was going through the RM statement. I think the MoD is quitely putting pressure on stake holders . If you read between the lines, can we assume RM telling the Following?
1] MK2 not before 2022. As you all know it might be delayed also. therefore.....
2] HAL -> you better pull your socks and other closthes you ware and produce MK1 as desired on timelines.
3] Pirangi Aircraft Manufacturers -> dont loose heart if MMRCA is dropped . we may collaborate again with you / among you only for MK2
4] IAF => you better accept and stop cribbing. Improvements will come later.

There cannot be a happier person than the ACM. { see the smile}

http://www.oneindia.com/india/we-have-n ... 59076.html

JMT

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 20 Aug 2015 13:25

Can Saurav confirm which other Missiles will be integrated on the LCA, I mean Air to surface/ Anti ship/ Anti radar missiles specifically. Will they be integrating KH-31A/P, KH-35, KH-59 on the Tejas?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2015 13:38

jayasimha wrote:Minister of Defence Manohar Parrikar's statement in Parliament on the LCA Mk.2:

"The project for design and development of Light combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas Mk-II was sanctioned in November 2009...........As a result, maiden flight of first Prototype and Operational Clearance are likely to be completed by December 2019 and December 2022, respectively. There after induction.

Would be surprsied if from Maiden flight in 20019 and in 3 years they get FoC for Tejas Mk2.

How long did it take to jump from Gripen to Gripen-NG ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Aug 2015 17:53

Dear Team LCA!

The Gods have smiled upon you. Looks like you are almost there. Just one last lap to victory!

Make in India: US offers to jointly manufacture fighter jets with India

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 20 Aug 2015 18:13

Thought of putting in full if not posted already..
.
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
04-August-2015 17:12 IST
Schedule for Induction of Tejas Mark Ii Aircraft Into Service

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=124301

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 20 Aug 2015 18:32

RamaY wrote:Dear Team LCA!

The Gods have smiled upon you. Looks like you are almost there. Just one last lap to victory!

Make in India: US offers to jointly manufacture fighter jets with India

The F-16 Fighting Falcon's combat radius is 550 km (340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 450 kg (1,000 lb) bombs.

^The above is according to wikipedia. How is this significantly better than LCA? How is buying the F-16 an improvement over buying LCA Mk-1?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Aug 2015 21:17

Austin wrote:
jayasimha wrote:Minister of Defence Manohar Parrikar's statement in Parliament on the LCA Mk.2:

"The project for design and development of Light combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas Mk-II was sanctioned in November 2009...........As a result, maiden flight of first Prototype and Operational Clearance are likely to be completed by December 2019 and December 2022, respectively. There after induction.

Would be surprsied if from Maiden flight in 20019 and in 3 years they get FoC for Tejas Mk2.

How long did it take to jump from Gripen to Gripen-NG ?

ADA is trying a new methodology called DFMA where instead of progressively building TDs, PVs, LSPs before SPs they will bypass TDs and LSPs and jump straight into SP from PVs. However, it remains to be seen whether 3 years of flight testing is enough time given the amount of changes being installed on Mk.2.

Tejas Mk-II Preliminary Design to be Out Next Month

...and the ADA-HAL combine is planning to take a new route for Mk-II production. "We are going for the DFMA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly) technique for the production of Mk-II. The DFMA concept will be used for the first time for an Indian aviation programme, which will decrease the production time and cost, also increase the quality quotient," the official said.
...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2015 21:53

srai, I opened a new thread called Design Thinking in Tech Forum which is to bypass linear development. Its graduate course in Stanford now.

Arun Menon, Whenever India is on verge of success US and others begin offering their obsolete blunt technology. RamaY is pointing that out.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Aug 2015 04:04

srai wrote:^^^

Since you asked ... reposting my old post on various load configurations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Air Support (CAS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS (w/ two 800L tanks & 1,000lb bombs) (mostly seen in this config)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)

2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 6,425.7lb (2,914.7kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks & two lighter bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x 250kg bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (500lb x 2)

2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Weight (external): 5,425.7lb (2,461.05kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks and one bomb)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

1 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) centerline (1,000lb x 1) (could carry a heavier weapon like ASM)

2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 5,425.7lb (2,461.05kg)

CAS (w/ two 1200L tanks and one bomb for max range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

1 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) centerline (1,000lb x 1)

2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (3,264kg)

CAS (w/ two 1200L tanks and two light bombs for range)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x 250kg bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (500lb x 2)

2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (3,264kg)

CAS (w/ one 725L centerline and four 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

4 x 1,000lb bomb (Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)

1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 6,065.2lb (2,751.1kg)

CAS (w/ one 725L centerline + Liten Pod)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

4 x 1,000lb bomb (Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)

1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 6,505.2lb (2,950.7kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and two 1,000lb bombs for short range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 2,902lb (1,316.32kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and four 1,000lb bombs for short range strike)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

4 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 4)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 4,902lb (2,223.51kg)

CAS (w/ no external tanks and max bomb load of five 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

5 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 5)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 5,902lb (2,677.10kg)

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks, 725L centerline & 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)

2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)

1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 8,028.9lb (3,641.85kg) [if fuel tanks filled to maximum]

Others to consider:
* Other load configurations would be 250kg bombs carried in multi-racks for carpet bombing.
* Heavier PGMs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Air Patrol (CAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP (w/ no external tanks and 4 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 2)
Total Payload Weight (external): 1,344lb (609.62kg)

CAP (w/ no external tanks and 6 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

4 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 4)
Total Payload Weight (external): 2,226lb (1,009.69kg)

CAP (w/725L centerline and 6 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

4 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 4)

1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)
Total Payload Weight (external): 3,829.2lb (1,736.9kg)

CAP (w/ two 800L tanks and 4 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 2)

2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
Total Payload Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (2,207.95kg)

CAP (w/ two 1200L for long-range)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)

2 x BVR (Derby/Astra/R-77) (441lb x 2)

2 x 1,200L external fuel tank (317gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
Total Payload Weight (external): 6,637.9lb (3,010.9kg)

In one of the MoD reports, max combat radius was stated as around 500km. But that would mean shorter time-on-station at those max ranges. Probably 350km is more of an ideal range with sufficient time-on-station.

Oh yeah ... add the AAR capability too

Thanks. Very impressive. My question was actually much simpler: 3 fuel tanks--what is the range with the maximum armament payload? 250 miles/500miles etc?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Aug 2015 07:03

ramana wrote:RamaY is pointing that out.

I knew what he was pointing out (sorry if it seemed like I was misunderstanding him). I was just pointing out that the capabilities are similar, so why should we opt for the foreign bird as opposed to one of our own.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Aug 2015 15:51

Cosmo_R wrote:... My question was actually much simpler: 3 fuel tanks--what is the range with the maximum armament payload? 250 miles/500miles etc?

Vivek's performance graph plots paylod-to-range with various internal/external fuel combo:

So if we were to take one of the typical config that we have seen, this is what it looks to be:

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks & 1,000lb bombs) (typical "max" config)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 6,425.7lb (2,914.7kg)

At sea-level, one-way range would be roughly 900km (in Vivek's graph it would be between yellow and green lines and around 1000kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 360km.

At 20,000ft above-sea-level (ASL), one-way range would be roughly 1100km (it would be between yellow and green lines and around 1000kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 440km.

Let's look at one of the air-to-air configs:

CAP (w/ two 800L tanks and 4 AAMs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x BVR (Derby/Astra) (441lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)

Total Payload Weight (external): 7,195.9lb (2,207.95kg)

At sea-level, one-way range would be roughly 1000km (in Vivek's graph it would be between yellow and green lines and around 600kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 400km.

At 20,000ft above-sea-level (ASL), one-way range would be roughly 1200km (it would be between yellow and green lines and around 600kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 480km.

Now to your question with 3 fuel tanks:

CAS (w/ two 800L tanks, 725L centerline & 1,000lb bombs)

2 x CCM (231lb x 2)
2 x 1,000lb bomb (LGB/PGM/Dumb) (1,000lb x 2)
2 x 800L external fuel tank (211gallon x 8.35lb x 2)
1 x 725L external fuel tank (192gallon x 8.35lb x 1)
1 x Liten Pod (440lb x 1)

Total Payload Weight (external): 8,028.9lb (3,641.85kg) [if fuel tanks filled to maximum; exceeds 3500kg payload capacity so let's assume some external tanks not filled to maximum capacity. Or let's assume instead of 1,000lb bombs it is 500lb bombs.]

At sea-level, one-way range would be roughly 1100km (it would be between yellow and green lines and around 1000kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 440km.

At 20,000ft above-sea-level (ASL), one-way range would be roughly 1300km (it would be between yellow and green lines and around 500kg-1000kg weapon payload). So combat-radius (~40% of the range) would be close to 520km.

So let's look at what does that 300km-to-500km range of LCA mean in terms of reach, which would be similar to that of Prithvi-2 SSM:

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Aug 2015 16:13

IMR LCA news.Don't shoot the postman!

Latest issue. FOC delayed yet again.Expected sometime in 2016. Only one MK-1 handed over to the IAF for weapons testing trials.More weapons need to be tested other than the R-73,already done.4 series-1 were supposed to have been delivered at this stage.Rtd. AM Kapil Kak,"par for the course (delays)".Another rtd. AM,Daljhit Singh."If the Mk-1 meets its specs,it will be a better aircraft than the MIG-21".

A senior scientist of the ADA said that the MK-2 would make its first flight sometime in 2018,but AM Kak is skeptical."Unless one is a Don Quixote,or delusional,or part of the new crop of acadaemics-journalists masquerading as air-power and force structure experts (of the IAF),the envisaged 10 sqds of LCAs are unlikely to be fully operational by 2030 or so".
"This makes the need for the MMRCA more critical".

A former Dy COAS ,AM Nirdosh Tyagi also said that the MK-2s first flight is "nowhere close to realisation".

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Aug 2015 16:46

^Yawn, quotes from has beens with commissions waiting, ripped from a paidmedia rag. Move along.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2015 17:59

Arun Menon wrote:
The F-16 Fighting Falcon's combat radius is 550 km (340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 450 kg (1,000 lb) bombs.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1889336#p1889336

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Aug 2015 21:30

Let me post a couple of points about LCA's capability that are not talked about when we speak of payload/range etc. The first is something that deejay mentioned - the turnaround time from sortie to sortie needs to be short - I think less than 45 minutes. The other thing is a data point that was mentioned in PC Lal's autobiography - i.e the time to scramble for CAP. It needs to be something less than 2 minutes. I think the MiGs were initially not there - but later got to 1 min 45 sec. Will check and post.

All these things and a lot more that we do not know about need to be sorted out

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Aug 2015 04:49

What you are referring to are surge ICT (Integrated Combat turnarounds).. where you do concurrent servicing. Its a surge procedure where you go through some very condenced TO procedures in the interest of a surge requirement.

Its good to know this is being given a priority by the IAF on the LCA. Concurrent servicing is an art and something that the USAF for example has long lost post the cold-war. They only train for hot pit refueling these days and ICT's are no longer funded in training for crew chiefs and ground crews for a lot of the units (not all though)..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2015 12:22

AM,"the proof of the aircraft is meeting its deadlines and its performance".3 AMs quoted are of repute,not carpet baggers or armchair AMs.Tall talk from the ADA has gone on for decades.Yawn.....

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Aug 2015 13:07

Of course these 3 AMs, can only either buy ready to use or improve imported planes (e.g. Su-30). Even for Su-30, they opposed it when political leadership bought it to save Russian a**.

They are OK to have no plane then having locally designed and produce planes. It clearly shows why LCA took 2 decades to develop because user was never interested in it from day one.

Shame on such poor leadership, who don't have any long term vision.

Ask them how they can fight and win a war, if tomorrow we perform another no-clear test if we are pushed to wall. Will they be able to get spare parts and support without country paying through the nose?? How long they want to keep importing the planes and at what price??

How GoI, is going to pay for 250 million dollars per Rafale + armaments costs + upgrade costs .... and these 3 AM wanted to have only 200 nos.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2015 13:41

RK,the LCA's history is well-documented.Read it.It's been debated for 15+ years now in BRF.It was not the IAF's fault that the LCA has taken so long to arrive,still hasn't fully arrived. It never had the leadership role that the IN has over warship buildingl and treated the project indifferently.It is primarily the ADA and HAL's responsibility and the GOI's lack of interest in pushing the programme and making the leadership accountable which is why we are where we are today.Even Kalam was fooled by the various DRDO entities when he announced in 2013 that "200 LCAs would be in service by 2010"! For over a decade it has lacked a DG-ADA with hire-and-fire powers. So the tamasha goes on.

It is only now with empty coffers that we are struggling to get it going,realising that hundreds of MIGs to be retired cannot be replaced with expensive foreign aircraft.But even here in its profligacy,the IAF want nothing but the most expensive when cost-effective alternatives are available.M.Modi was forced into making a statement/deal in France. The Rafale deal will beggar the defence budget. The Re. slide is not helping matters either.The Euro is now 74 to the Rupee and the $ over 65.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 22 Aug 2015 14:35

Phillip,

No plane has fully arrived. Ever.

best.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Aug 2015 14:44

Why it is only "ADA and HAL's responsibility" and why not IAF. If customer don't care for 2 decades, why should they cry foul only now. BRF could debate it for 15+ years but IAF AMs got no interest in it. In stead of helping fix the issues, they just keep complaining that n this is not working. Only lip service... AMs got no plan B

... Deleted ...

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 22 Aug 2015 16:46

Philip wrote:AM,"the proof of the aircraft is meeting its deadlines and its performance".3 AMs quoted are of repute,not carpet baggers or armchair AMs.Tall talk from the ADA has gone on for decades.Yawn.....

Yawn again

Generals and high military officials the world over are famous for their opinions and anxieties when they smell commissions, so spare us the reputed AMs fig leaf. Kindly move on with your magazine.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2015 20:02

RKumar wrote:Why it is only "ADA and HAL's responsibility" and why not IAF. If customer don't care for 2 decades, why should they cry foul only now. BRF could debate it for 15+ years but IAF AMs got no interest in it. In stead of helping fix the issues, they just keep complaining that n this is not working. Only lip service... AMs got no plan B

... Deleted ...

Oh but they do have plan B, it's called the Gripen.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Aug 2015 20:29

It is the babus in MOD who are responsible and the ministers. No one else.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 22 Aug 2015 21:00

Philip wrote:IMR LCA news.Don't shoot the postman!

Phillip, mixing Mk-1 production & design issues and Mk-2 issues confuses.

FOC delayed yet again.Expected sometime in 2016.

Design issues. more specifically Radome & refueller pod issues. Well documented delays by foreign vendors.

Only one MK-1 handed over to the IAF for weapons testing trials.

HAL production line setup issues.

AM Kak is skeptical. the envisaged 10 sqds of LCAs are unlikely to be fully operational by 2030 or so".
A former Dy COAS ,AM Nirdosh Tyagi also said that the MK-2s first flight is "nowhere close to realisation".

If you take out the excess negative words by AM Kak - 10sq of Mk-2 from 2022 to 2030 is difficult.
IAF will need to take in a combination of Mark-1, Mark-1A, & Mark-2 squadrons.
AM NVTyagi - correctly states that Mk-2 first flight is nowhere close to realisation.
The Mk-2 is still in preliminary design phase.
I am sure IAF is not holding their breath waiting for Mk-2.
Also I dont think AM NYTyagi statement indicates support for Rafale.
Bringing his unrelated statement together gives an impression that a lot of retd AMs are supporting Rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2015 14:38

Yawn and yawn again.HAL/ADA have simply failed to deliver,time and time again.The aircraft is 15 years late. So unless the bird arrives in combat condition,all we have is a tech demonstrator in hand ,which is,sorry...will be produced at the supersonic speed of 8/yr! Hopefully. There's no need for retd. AM's allegedly on the take as flippantly accused of by poster Menon to make the case for a foreign fighter.The ADA and HAL are doing splendidly for that cause by their failures.