LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2014 04:06

If the Raffy interests want to succeed ,they will have to get a partial deal signed before April (thin edge of the wedge-one or two sqds. ordered on a fast track basis perhaps from existing French stocks),so that the deal can be enlarged later on after a new dispensation is in power.One cannot see any decision being taken by a new dispensation within 3 months of taking command given the usual squabbles over ministerial "berths",power sharing,etc.,expected in any future coalition,NDA or "Turd Front".FOC for Mk-1 is expected before/by Dec.2014 and with details about LSP-1's delivery around the corner,Leh testing,etc.,the successful accomplishment of FOC of MK-1 will focus more attention upon LCA production-in any case urgently required for MIG-21 replacement (around 200),especially attractive given its low cost and the state of the Indian economy,coffers emptied by the UPA's populist subsidies.

The upgrades of the M-2000 and MIG-29s will also be in an advanced stage,plus Jaguar upgrades hopefully in the pipeline.This will give around 200+ aircraft to perform the medium /strike role,though strictly speaking the Jags are smaller than the Mirages and MIG-29s.The GOI will have cost-effective options of a few more MIG-29 sqds. or Super-Flankers to make up the falling numbers and maintain operational capability .It can either limit numbers of Rafales being ordered or cancel the deal altogether,with LCA/AMCA development being the principal beneficiary,along with the FGFA acquisition/JV whatever to maintain the qualitative edge.120 Rafales even at $ 80-100M/aircraft will cost a minimum of around $10B,closer to $15B.There are other cost-effective options available .Even at $40M an aircraft (MIG-29/35),when IN 29Ks have cost only $32M/aircraft,120 MIG-29s could be bought for just $4-5B.Another $5B could be spread out over the LCA,AMCA and FGFA programmes and Jaguar upgrades.Another 40+ LCA MK-1s,bringing the total number of MK-1s to 80+ would cost just $1B! So for just $5B one could acquire 120 MIG-29s and 40LCAs,with another $5B in hand for other programmes/acquisitions like Super-Sukhois,FGFA,LCA MK-2 and AMCA development.As for the AESA radar requirement,the USP of the Rafale,a Russian design was fielded at a previous Aero-India for the MIG-35,or an Israeli one could be acquired instead,both for the LCA/MIG-29.Looking at the soaring Raffy costs,the deal is heading in the other direction!

Even though China is further expanding its defence budget,the silver lining is that the PAF is in worse shape than the IAF,with little money to pay for much needed acquisitions.It too will be manufacturing more JF-17s to maintain numbers and capability.The LCA is a superior aircraft and should be able to take care of that aspect of the threat from the PAF.Pak's cost-effective options are to buy more second-hand F-16s ,a large number which are being pensioned off by NATO air forces and US allies,but how much life will be left in them is an unanswered Q.To deal with China we need to increase the sqd. strength of the IAF to the 40+ number as planned for,which will require at least 100-150 aircraft more than what we operate today.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3547
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby fanne » 06 Feb 2014 04:12

IAF old calculation was, it needed 55sq to hold China and prevail on PAF. With PLAAF improving fast that number can only go up.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vasu raya » 09 Feb 2014 20:48

Based on military flight safety statistics the Mig-21s accidents were mostly subsystems related or engine failures, the ones in service currently are late builds and probably checked for microscopic fractures in the airframes and certified for a certain life period.

Any used F-16 airframes would be vetted through the same process or could be new airframes, since UAE is getting some block 61 aircraft, think these are brand new

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SanjayC » 10 Feb 2014 20:53

IAF to buy 14 Tejas squadrons
Indian fighter well placed for global market for 3,500 light fighters

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared that 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating that the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add up to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 fighters include 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, 2 twin-seat trainers and 3 reserve aircraft to make up losses in war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha today, Antony’s deputy Jitendra Singh stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”

So far, the IAF has committed to inducting just 6 Tejas squadrons --- 2 squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and 4 squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy some 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.

Since the Tejas programme began in 1985, about Rs 7,000 crore have been spent on the Tejas Mark I, which obtained Initial Operational Clearance in December, allowing regular IAF pilots to fly it. By the end of this year, when it obtains Final Operational Clearance, it would have consumed a budget of Rs 7,965 crore.

An additional Rs 2,432 crore has been allocated for the Tejas Mark II, which takes the total development cost of the IAF variant to Rs 10,397 crore.

Separately, Rs 3,650 crore were sanctioned for developing the naval Tejas, which is ongoing. That means the Aeronautical Development Agency will spend Rs 14,047 crore on the entire Tejas programme, including the IAF, naval and trainer variants.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which manufactures the Tejas, has quoted Rs 162 crore per fighter as its latest price. Amortising the entire development cost on the envisioned 344 fighters (IAF: 294; Navy: 50), the Tejas would cost Rs 209 crore ($33.5 million) per fighter.

In comparison, the IAF’s Mirage 2000 fighters, which were bought in the 1980s, are currently being upgraded for $45 million per aircraft. IAF pilots that test-fly the Tejas Mark I find it qualitatively superior to the Mirage 2000.

The heavier Sukhoi-30MKI costs more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. And the Rafale, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, is pegged at Rs 750-850 crore ($120-140 million) per fighter.

Aerospace expert and historian, Pushpindar Singh, points out that ordering more Tejas would bring down the price further, making it enormously attractive for air forces across the world that are replacing some 3,500 MiG-21, Mirage-III, early model F-16 and F-5 fighters that are completing their service lives.

“With these air forces facing severe budget pressures, the Tejas has only one rival in this market --- the JF-17 Thunder, being built by China in partnership with Pakistan. They are marketing the JF-17 aggressively in every global air show, but India is completely ignoring the Tejas’ potential,” notes Singh.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SanjayC » 10 Feb 2014 21:04

HAL to roll out Tejas soon

Hindustan Aeronautics will soon roll out India’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, LCA architect and D.S. Kothari Chair at Aeronautical Development Agency, Bangalore, Kota Harinarayana has said.

This year HAL will make two aircraft and will progressively increase the number, he said. Tejas will be used for training and simulation based on the inputs of pilots for further improvements.

Dr. Harinarayana was here to deliver the Dr.V. Bhujanga Rao Endowment Lecture at GITAM University on Thursday.

In an interaction with The Hindu later, he said the next step would be developing a more powerful engine G 414 that will power the second variant Tejas Mark II. It may take another four, five years for its development and launch.

Dr. Harinarayana puts India on a par with Europe in aviation research and technology development. “We are definitely ahead of China which still does not have fourth generation aircraft. It is also putting in lot of money into technology development. But we are behind the USA that mastered Stealth technology and we are still working on it,” he observed.

Lot of effort is also going on to develop next generation manned and unmanned aerial aircraft and increasing their operational availability and potential to sell. Rustom-II, the unmanned reconnaissance aircraft with huge wing span, is likely to be launched this year, he says. The principal designer Aircraft Development Establishment is working on the project.

“Our interest is developing technology for onboard management of aircraft. This is called prognosis in which before a major failure occurs onboard sensors and algorithms continuously monitoring the system indicate when a component is likely to fail. It will give us the remaining useful life (RUL) of the craft. It will give that much of time to rectify it,” Dr. Harinarayana said.

Boeing has online diagnosis and is ready to join hands with us on prognosis, says Dr. Harinarayana.

It has recently sanctioned a grant to Cranfield University in the UK for integrated vehicle health management research. He sees big advantages in aircraft maintenance once vehicle health management systems advance.
India happening country

Dr. Harinarayana sees the country as a happening place with action, market and challenges for youth. By developing technology youth can gain for themselves, contribute to society. But they should be ready to innovate and take risks.

The younger generation of engineers should go for post-graduation and research using the degree in disciplines like mechanical, civil, electrical and electronics and go for technology development and business.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_24684 » 10 Feb 2014 21:55

Hello All

Since I was asked a Same Question in Several other forums and Tarmak007 on FB ..Still No one Clears my Doubt

How much time the Tejas will be in the Air with the Internal fuel ..?? with Two BVR and Two IR missiles..

1..In Supersonic Mode

2..In Sub Sonic Mode

Altitude is not the Problem Here in My question

Thanks

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cybaru » 11 Feb 2014 00:11

Order extra 40 LCA mk-1 & Mk-2 and add 60 of the upgraded next gen Super 30 MKI thats on plan and call it a day...
Focus on upgrades, AMCA and PAKFA...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2014 02:33

SajeevJino wrote:Hello All

Since I was asked a Same Question in Several other forums and Tarmak007 on FB ..Still No one Clears my Doubt

How much time the Tejas will be in the Air with the Internal fuel ..?? with Two BVR and Two IR missiles..

1..In Supersonic Mode

2..In Sub Sonic Mode

Altitude is not the Problem Here in My question

Thanks


This is not so difficult to answer. There are many ways to answer this question. You know that the ferry range is 1700 kms with 1200 ltr drop tanks. So it must at least have a 2 hour endurance under cruise condition.

Another way is to calculate it is from the SFC. But you would need to know the thrust required for the flight at the aforementioned range. I don't know that. But let us continue. For example, let us find the endurance at maximum speed without afterburner. We know that:
1. SFC for military thrust = approx. 84 (kg/kN-hr) .
2. Maximum military thrust = approx. 54 kN.
3. Therefore, the rate of fuel consumption at this speed = approx. 54 kN * 84 kg/(KN-hr) = approx. 4536 kg/hr.
4. Total fuel: 2 X 1200 ltr tanks and about 2600 kg of internal fuel = approx. 4600 kg
5. Therefore, endurance in this regime is nearly 1 hour, and you would have flown around 800-900 kms.

You can do the same thing with afterburners. It will be about half an hour (but you will most probably cook the engine before that).

I want to know why you find endurance important? You can fly slower, hang in there longer and travel lesser. What would be the point?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 11 Feb 2014 02:39

indranilroy wrote:You can fly slower, hang in there longer and travel lesser. What would be the point?


BARCAP

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 11 Feb 2014 02:43

indranilroy wrote:Another way is to calculate it is from the SFC. But you would need to know the thrust required for the flight at the aforementioned range. I don't know that. But let us continue. For example, let us find the endurance at maximum speed without afterburner. We know that:
1. SFC for military thrust = approx. 84 (kg/kN-hr) .
2. Maximum military thrust = approx. 54 kN.
3. Therefore, the rate of fuel consumption at this speed = approx. 54 kN * 84 kg/(KN-hr) = approx. 4536 kg/hr.
4. Total fuel: 2 X 1200 ltr tanks and about 2600 kg of internal fuel = approx. 4600 kg
5. Therefore, endurance in this regime is nearly 1 hour, and you would have flown around 800-900 kms.


You should mention that the aircraft may not be at full military thrust for the engines when cruising or maintaining station on a BARCAP type mission. Under these conditions, the endurance may be higher still. Similarly, the overall range is based only on a clean configuration (including the drop-tanks, of course). Add heavy payload of bombs and/or high-drag combination of weapons and the numbers can be significantly different. However, the above numbers hold okay for a sanity check.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2014 03:25

I thought those things were obvious :-)

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 11 Feb 2014 03:29

indranilroy wrote:I thought those things were obvious :-)


Aha! Never assume stuff saar! Not on the internet! :mrgreen:

Always state your assumptions. What works for a journal review works for BRF dhaga too, no? :)

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_24684 » 11 Feb 2014 04:27

indranilroy wrote:
This is not so difficult to answer. There are many ways to answer this question. You know that the ferry range is 1700 kms with 1200 ltr drop tanks. So it must at least have a 2 hour endurance under cruise condition.


Thanks for the Answer Sir ..It's enough for as for Close Combat Air Patrol or some Rescue CAP

Another way is to calculate it is from the SFC. But you would need to know the thrust required for the flight at the aforementioned range. I don't know that. But let us continue. For example, let us find the endurance at maximum speed without afterburner. We know that:
1. SFC for military thrust = approx. 84 (kg/kN-hr) .
2. Maximum military thrust = approx. 54 kN.
3. Therefore, the rate of fuel consumption at this speed = approx. 54 kN * 84 kg/(KN-hr) = approx. 4536 kg/hr.
4. Total fuel: 2 X 1200 ltr tanks and about 2600 kg of internal fuel = approx. 4600 kg
5. Therefore, endurance in this regime is nearly 1 hour, and you would have flown around 800-900 kms.

You can do the same thing with afterburners. It will be about half an hour (but you will most probably cook the engine before that).

I want to know why you find endurance important? You can fly slower, hang in there longer and travel lesser. What would be the point?



Finally get some Clear results ...As of My Views Tejas may goes into Close Support missions to stay in the Air for Longer Times to Assist the Ground Forces .

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kailash » 11 Feb 2014 14:07

Regarding the news about additional (14) squadron, If there are going to be additional numbers, how many of these are going to be Mk1/Mk2? We don't see any new indent for additional 404/414 engines?!

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Brando » 11 Feb 2014 15:19

^^ Until the MoD or the government at least makes clear budget allocations for the new squadrons, no new engine orders will be placed. It's possible future squadrons may even get the F414 EPE engines should the government make firm commitments and rationally, anything above the existing 6 squadrons will most likely the latest variants of Tejas.

Just like the Chinese have come out with their J-10C "4.5gen" a few weeks ago, logically we should also expect to see a similar spiral developmental cycle for the Tejas.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2014 05:20

With the news of extra Litening pods being acquired in large qty. by the IAF,and more info about the LCA's ordnance capability,it appears that the IAF have either taken seriously,or arrived at by different routes the same philosophy of the US's CNO,Adm.Greenert ,who said last year that what was really required by the USN was "payload centric not platform centric" aircraft to do the business.He added that expensive "luxury" vehicles weren't really needed ,with a veiled reference to the JSF,a warning as to its costs,as advanced versions of the SH were being developed far cheaper.

By no stretch of the imagination is the LCA a "luxury" fighter.At a cost of around $25M+ it is perhaps the most cost-effective light fighter around . As one former air chief said some time ago,when the LCA was in its formative years,that it was meant to be the "workhorse" of the IAF supplanting the hundreds of MIG-21s in service.Given the current financial crisis,it is going to be inevitable that greater emphasis is going to be given to the LCA development,with more capable variants to be developed after Mk-1,which will fulfill the IAF's modernisation plans to a significant extent.With the figure now given of as many as 300 LCAs being planned for,replacements for all the MIG-21s and MIG-27s too is possible.What needs to be secured though is the foreign component portion,the main being the engines,currently being acquired from the US.With the memory of sanctions imposed by the US some time ago after the P-2 N-tests,it would be prudent to also develop a MK-2 version that uses a European engine,while continuing our own indigenous engine development as much as possible for future fighters/projects.

The equally important task is also to ramp up LCA production considerably,to at least 20+ a year,so that by 2025,we would have between 150-180 aircraft in service.If we have any truly serious plans for exports,given the critical numerical strength of the IAF,we need to produce the LCA like the Germans churn out sausages.Perhaps a second manufacturing plant is required,or an existing plant manufacturing transports,whatever also tasked for the job.If Sulur is going to be the base for the first LCA sqd.,it already being BRD establishment and given its proximity to Bangalore,perhaps a second LCA manufacturing plant could come up there,also given the large ,sophisticated industrial capability of the region.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 12 Feb 2014 06:52

Dreams do come true?

IAF will buy 14 Tejas squadrons, lowering costs

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, Antony’s deputy, Jitendra Singh, stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”

So far, the IAF has committed to inducting only six Tejas squadrons — two squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and four squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.

Since the programme began in 1985, about Rs 7,000 crore have been spent on the Tejas Mark I, which obtained Initial Operational Clearance in December, allowing regular IAF pilots to fly it. By the end of this year, when it obtains Final Operational Clearance, it would have consumed a Budget of Rs 7,965 crore.

An additional Rs 2,432 crore has been allocated for the Tejas Mark II, which takes the total development cost of the IAF variant to Rs 10,397 crore.

Separately, Rs 3,650 crore were sanctioned for developing the naval Tejas, which is ongoing. That means the Aeronautical Development Agency will spend Rs 14,047 crore on the entire Tejas programme, including the IAF, naval and trainer variants.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which manufactures the Tejas, has quoted Rs 162 crore a fighter as its latest price. Amortising the entire development cost on the envisioned 344 fighters (IAF: 294; Navy: 50), the Tejas would cost Rs 209 crore ($33.5 million) per fighter.

In comparison, the IAF’s Mirage 2000 fighters, bought in the 1980s, are currently being upgraded for $45 million per aircraft. IAF pilots that test-fly the Tejas Mark I find it qualitatively superior to the Mirage 2000.

The heavier Sukhoi-30MKI costs more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. And the Rafale, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, is pegged at Rs 750-850 crore ($120-140 million) per fighter.

Aerospace expert and historian, Pushpindar Singh, points out that ordering more Tejas would bring down the price further, making it enormously attractive for air forces across the world that are replacing some 3,500 MiG-21, Mirage-III, early model F-16 and F-5 fighters that are completing their service lives.

“With these air forces facing severe budget pressures, the Tejas has only one rival in this market — the JF-17 Thunder, being built by China in partnership with Pakistan. They are marketing the JF-17 aggressively in every global air show, but India is completely ignoring the Tejas’ potential,” said Singh.



{Bye, bye Rafale?}

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby gnair » 12 Feb 2014 06:54

LCA as an aircraft is cost effective without a doubt and will get progressively efficient as it gets padded-on with newer contemporary technologies. And its definitely bang for the buck from an operational cost-per-block-hour point of view for training, tactics, combat air patrols, reckon. missions, munitions/ordnance management and possibly more roles during peacetime. But would it be combat effective?

Being the devils advocate here, and trying to simulate its role in a combat environment where 'war has been officially declared' either on the Western or Eastern theatre, where adversary ballistic missiles and extended MLRS 'will' come through despite missile defences, and forward bases 'will' be hit repeatedly, what role and how will this aircraft measure up, with such limited endurance (effective operational combat radius)? How would it fly to alternate airfields on the assumption that the primaries have been taken out. Leave aside the extended logistics like refuellers for now. It's a questionable scenario that repeats my thought process without clarity. The 45-60 minute mission plan will not cut it with optimal ordnance. Any thoughts?

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Eric Leiderman » 12 Feb 2014 07:50

GNair
With the cost savings involved in inducting the LCA as the largest series of aircraft in the force.
Maye we could convert 10-30 medium life commercial airframes to tankers and overcome the short leg syndrome.
Israel has shown the capability in this sector and even if the OEM warrenty is void due to the modifications so what at < 1/10 the price of a dedicated refueller it is worth the risk, Will it happen, doubt it on many counts a) out guys in blue will want the best. 2) no body will have the guts to take a risky bet like the above.
I could go on but it will sound like a whine.
Kingfisher has a few commercial airliners owned by Indian banks , It could be an all Indian deal.
Last edited by Eric Leiderman on 12 Feb 2014 08:18, edited 2 times in total.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vic » 12 Feb 2014 08:05

Nowhere does the GoI say that it will buy 14 squadrons of LCA, it is a convoluted conclusion drawn from a general statement by DM.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Vivek K » 12 Feb 2014 08:09

convoluted or not, LCA is the only way out.

member_27854
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_27854 » 12 Feb 2014 08:10

NRao wrote:Dreams do come true?

IAF will buy 14 Tejas squadrons, lowering costs

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, Antony’s deputy, Jitendra Singh, stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”

So far, the IAF has committed to inducting only six Tejas squadrons — two squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and four squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.

Since the programme began in 1985, about Rs 7,000 crore have been spent on the Tejas Mark I, which obtained Initial Operational Clearance in December, allowing regular IAF pilots to fly it. By the end of this year, when it obtains Final Operational Clearance, it would have consumed a Budget of Rs 7,965 crore.

An additional Rs 2,432 crore has been allocated for the Tejas Mark II, which takes the total development cost of the IAF variant to Rs 10,397 crore.

Separately, Rs 3,650 crore were sanctioned for developing the naval Tejas, which is ongoing. That means the Aeronautical Development Agency will spend Rs 14,047 crore on the entire Tejas programme, including the IAF, naval and trainer variants.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which manufactures the Tejas, has quoted Rs 162 crore a fighter as its latest price. Amortising the entire development cost on the envisioned 344 fighters (IAF: 294; Navy: 50), the Tejas would cost Rs 209 crore ($33.5 million) per fighter.

In comparison, the IAF’s Mirage 2000 fighters, bought in the 1980s, are currently being upgraded for $45 million per aircraft. IAF pilots that test-fly the Tejas Mark I find it qualitatively superior to the Mirage 2000.

The heavier Sukhoi-30MKI costs more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. And the Rafale, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, is pegged at Rs 750-850 crore ($120-140 million) per fighter.

Aerospace expert and historian, Pushpindar Singh, points out that ordering more Tejas would bring down the price further, making it enormously attractive for air forces across the world that are replacing some 3,500 MiG-21, Mirage-III, early model F-16 and F-5 fighters that are completing their service lives.

“With these air forces facing severe budget pressures, the Tejas has only one rival in this market — the JF-17 Thunder, being built by China in partnership with Pakistan. They are marketing the JF-17 aggressively in every global air show, but India is completely ignoring the Tejas’ potential,” said Singh.



{Bye, bye Rafale?}


The Tejas in its current form simply cannot match the capabilities of the Rafale. Honestly in my opinion anything that could match and better the Rafale would be the AMCA. Tejas Mk-1 should fulfill it's design goal as being a replacement for the MiG-21 series of aircraft.

It would be great to see other designs that come out and leverage all the expertise gained from this brilliant aircraft.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Vivek K » 12 Feb 2014 08:19

^^^^^Would you like to enlighten us? Please present a comparison between LCA Mk2 and Rafale.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 12 Feb 2014 08:34

gnair wrote:Being the devils advocate here, and trying to simulate its role in a combat environment where 'war has been officially declared' either on the Western or Eastern theatre, where adversary ballistic missiles and extended MLRS 'will' come through despite missile defences, and forward bases 'will' be hit repeatedly, what role and how will this aircraft measure up, with such limited endurance (effective operational combat radius)? How would it fly to alternate airfields on the assumption that the primaries have been taken out. Leave aside the extended logistics like refuellers for now. It's a questionable scenario that repeats my thought process without clarity. The 45-60 minute mission plan will not cut it with optimal ordnance. Any thoughts?


Hitting forward air bases today is not quite as simple as it was in yesterday's wars. That said, the answer lies in the Su-30MKI which can serve both as a mini-AWACS and an aerial refueler with a buddy refueling pod.

mrameshk wrote:The Tejas in its current form simply cannot match the capabilities of the Rafale. Honestly in my opinion anything that could match and better the Rafale would be the AMCA. Tejas Mk-1 should fulfill it's design goal as being a replacement for the MiG-21 series of aircraft.


The Tejas in its 'future form' wouldn't be able to match the capabilities of the (larger) Rafale either. Doesn't change the fact that its a more cost-effective solution to the IAF's problems. Even the pricier Mk2 will cost only about a quarter as much as the Rafale. Which means more sorties, greater net payload, wider sensor dispersal, lower attrition and so on.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_20317 » 12 Feb 2014 10:37

MKI is the ideal backbone in a Tejas infested contested air space.

Tejas can use its smaller radar to light up the red force from the flanks while attacking. The MKI etc. can light it up from the more difficult directions while maintaining a respectable distance.

If the position gets reversed even then Tejas can be vectored in fast enough while the bigger radar platforms can retreat.

This heavy light combo seems formidable.

Off course there would always be some positions in the batting/bowling order that will demand an all rounder type personality. But I guess Mirages and Mig 29s would still be available at 100+ for airwar while the upgraded Jags can be added for such a requirement so far as it presents itself in the ground war.

LCA is looking more beautiful then it actually is. :D

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 12 Feb 2014 10:47

gnair wrote:LCA as an aircraft is cost effective without a doubt and will get progressively efficient as it gets padded-on with newer contemporary technologies. And its definitely bang for the buck from an operational cost-per-block-hour point of view for training, tactics, combat air patrols, reckon. missions, munitions/ordnance management and possibly more roles during peacetime. But would it be combat effective?

Being the devils advocate here, and trying to simulate its role in a combat environment where 'war has been officially declared' either on the Western or Eastern theatre, where adversary ballistic missiles and extended MLRS 'will' come through despite missile defences, and forward bases 'will' be hit repeatedly, what role and how will this aircraft measure up, with such limited endurance (effective operational combat radius)? How would it fly to alternate airfields on the assumption that the primaries have been taken out. Leave aside the extended logistics like refuellers for now. It's a questionable scenario that repeats my thought process without clarity. The 45-60 minute mission plan will not cut it with optimal ordnance. Any thoughts?


To understand LCA's role in the IAF, you have to look at how the MiG-21s are employed currently. LCA would provide much more flexibility compared to the MiG-21s in terms of range, payload and missions.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Pratyush » 12 Feb 2014 11:52

To play the spoiler in this thread once again. What is the time line for the 14 squadrons to enter servicewith the IAF.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Rahul M » 12 Feb 2014 12:43

gnair, if you look at the geography of our border areas, 500km combat radius is enough for Tejas to hit the majority of juicy pak targets, which thankfully for us, are concentrated in the indus valley.
the range/endurance would obviously be enough for CAPs on our territory (in the context of both Pak and China), CAS roles near our border in support of army (again in case of both pak and china) and limited strike role in pak context.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby P Chitkara » 12 Feb 2014 13:05

Any ideas on the endurance and combat radius of MKII configured for strike role :?:

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2014 13:20

Its almost half of MiG-27.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12423
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Aditya_V » 12 Feb 2014 13:25

Chacko are you serious, you mean half or double as MIG-27?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 12 Feb 2014 13:59

srai wrote:
gnair wrote:LCA as an aircraft is cost effective without a doubt and will get progressively efficient as it gets padded-on with newer contemporary technologies. And its definitely bang for the buck from an operational cost-per-block-hour point of view for training, tactics, combat air patrols, reckon. missions, munitions/ordnance management and possibly more roles during peacetime. But would it be combat effective?

Being the devils advocate here, and trying to simulate its role in a combat environment where 'war has been officially declared' either on the Western or Eastern theatre, where adversary ballistic missiles and extended MLRS 'will' come through despite missile defences, and forward bases 'will' be hit repeatedly, what role and how will this aircraft measure up, with such limited endurance (effective operational combat radius)? How would it fly to alternate airfields on the assumption that the primaries have been taken out. Leave aside the extended logistics like refuellers for now. It's a questionable scenario that repeats my thought process without clarity. The 45-60 minute mission plan will not cut it with optimal ordnance. Any thoughts?


To understand LCA's role in the IAF, you have to look at how the MiG-21s are employed currently. LCA would provide much more flexibility compared to the MiG-21s in terms of range, payload and missions.


Rahul M wrote:gnair, if you look at the geography of our border areas, 500km combat radius is enough for Tejas to hit the majority of juicy pak targets, which thankfully for us, are concentrated in the indus valley.
the range/endurance would obviously be enough for CAPs on our territory (in the context of both Pak and China), CAS roles near our border in support of army (again in case of both pak and china) and limited strike role in pak context.


Image

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vic » 12 Feb 2014 17:10

IAF to buy 14 Tejas squadrons
Indian fighter well placed for global market for 3,500 light fighters

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared that 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating that the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add up to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 fighters include 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, 2 twin-seat trainers and 3 reserve aircraft to make up losses in war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha today, Antony’s deputy Jitendra Singh stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”



I don' think that statment of GoI in the Lok Sabha can be stretched to mean that 14 squadrons of LCA are being ordered. It only meant that 14 squadrons are being phased out. The number of LCA being ordered to replace them is not specified and it can be half of 14 squadrons also. So it is just wishful thinking that GoI will see sense and order 300 LCA.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2014 17:13

Aditya_V wrote:Chacko are you serious, you mean half or double as MIG-27?


MiG-27's 780km something vs LCA's 300-350 km.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby P Chitkara » 12 Feb 2014 17:30

Even the MKII? Does it mean there is no tangible gain in either endurance or combat radius?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Singha » 12 Feb 2014 17:37

chackojoseph wrote:Its almost half of MiG-27.


wiki lists these for the Mig27
Combat radius: 780 km (480 mi) ()
540 km (290 nmi; 340 mi) (with two Kh-29 ASMs and three drop tanks lo-lo-lo) [2]
225 km (120 nmi; 140 mi) (with two Kh-29 ASMs and no external fuel) [2]

the 780 km is perhaps with no payload barring the huge gun? or with no external stores + 3 drop tanks + hi-lo-hi? raptor with its huge wings has a 900km radius.

realistically with two drop tanks and 4 bombs or 4 rocket pods imo its likely to be around 300km onlee.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2014 18:06

I think combat radius is always with weapons. MiG-27 figures range from 540 to 750 kms, meaning a huge margin over LCA. I was just giving a general picture instead of scenarios.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2014 20:09


Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Rahul M » 12 Feb 2014 20:35

chackojoseph wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Chacko are you serious, you mean half or double as MIG-27?


MiG-27's 780km something vs LCA's 300-350 km.

seems highly unlikely.
let's compare fuel fractions.

tejas :
dry wt - ~ 6.5 t
fuel capacity - 2.5 t
ratio : 0.3846

mig-27
dry wt - ~ 12 t
internal fuel - 4.6 t (fas.org)
ratio : 0.3834

add the fact that the mig-27 flies on an outdated fuel guzzling turbojet, I really don't see how tejas would have a combat ratio any less than that of the flogger, let alone half of it.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2014 20:39

Austin wrote:Developmental Cost of LCA Project ( PIB/MOD )

why do they give some figures in phases and some others in product versions (mkx)?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests