LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2015 19:04

Exactly what I said around 3-4 years ago and was hounded by TSarkar's "Lord of the Flies" assassins ,aka DPSU/DRDO "black cats".

By the way,AM Ramu was the first Indian to fly the MIG-25,whe he and AM P.Rajkumar went to evaluate the MIG-25 and MIG-27 (?) .

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Jul 2015 19:17

Philip wrote:Exactly what I said around 3-4 years ago and was hounded by TSarkar's "Lord of the Flies" assassins ,aka DPSU/DRDO "black cats".

By the way,AM Ramu was the first Indian to fly the MIG-25,whe he and AM P.Rajkumar went to evaluate the MIG-25 and MIG-27 (?) .

And now, boys and girls, we have to ask ourselves, exactly why, an IAF guy wasn't wanted to head the program.

especially in the light of some people asking as to why more service officers were not posted
in defence projects in ADA/DRDO.

The very same situation prevails in all HALs but thankfully, no so much in BEL

An MTech from IIT has the same value. folks don't become "scientists" because they took a particular entrance exam

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Jul 2015 19:22

tsarkar wrote:
https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/04/ ... s-arrives/

By 28 Feb 1993 Ramu had reached his age of retirement. He was then a full Air Marshal holding the post of Vice Chief of the Air Staff. Dr Abdul Kalam was then the SA to RM. He wanted Ramu to take over the LCA project in the existing vacancy of Director General ADA as he had done good work earlier on the very successful “Jaguar Darin” project. Ramu was willing to take on the challenge provided his name was proposed jointly by DRDO & Air Force so that he was not identified as an “Air Force” man or a “DRDO” man and he could function freely in the interests of the project. Accordingly, the SA to RM routed the file through the CAS who concurred with the proposal and forwarded it to the RM Sri Sharad Pawar in Feb 93. It is learnt that the same got approval from three out of the four members of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) within a couple of months but was held up by the PMO for more than two years on various pretexts. It was examined by a few more search Committees all of whom had concurred with the original selection of Ramu. Dr Kalam intervened again and Ramu’s appointment was finally cleared by the PM in Jun 95. The file was then passed to the Establishment Directorate for issue of an official letter of appointment. Even after another one full year, this letter had not been issued. It looked as if no one other than Dr Kalam was interested in strengthening the LCA project Management, and even he was powerless to enforce his will in the face of departmental apathy/antipathy.

I just read this today and was planning to re post it here. I believe Abhibhushan Sir had posted it himself earlier. Even he had offered to join the programme, though after retirement. The whole blog post is an excellent read.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Jul 2015 19:24

Indranil ji,
My contention about point 3 is simple. You can test AoA limits without getting into a spin (i.e. you will stall but may not get into spin). I believe ADA has tested that limit, i.e. at different speeds and AoA where I do stall (or do not). They would have avoided one wing stalling before the the other (that would take them in spin, needing a spin stabilizing chute, that only PV-6 was supposed to have). So ADA did computational and wind tunnel studies and increased AoA to whatever they thought was practically needed before it stalled and tested the plane at that and put that as a CLAW limit.
If LCA stalled or spun and was then braught back into level flight, we would have heard that news. I don't think that happened. Is it needed for FOC, perhaps not (ADA/IAF are ok with it). But if we ever want to graduate into designing something like SU30MKI that has almost limitless AoA, we have to tame that problem.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jul 2015 19:28

did you all read up on the IBM's new 7nm chip tech?.. next it would be near DNA sequencing levels.. 2.5nm. now, we can focus on real stealth.

.. tell me which mechanical part needs embedded intelligence?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jul 2015 19:32

ramana wrote:Why don't we map the IAF personnel assigned to LCA from TD phase onwards? I bet even Squadron Leader ranks from Engineering section (let alone Flying section) were not assigned.

Ramana, that is another incorrectness floating around in this forum, that IAF personnel are not working on the Tejas.

As per my understanding, IAF has a proper Tejas Program Office / Team under Deputy Chief of Air Staff.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/tej ... [quote]The successful missile firing was witnessed by Chief Controller (R&D) Dr. D. Banerjee, Programme Director ADA Mr. P. S. Subramaniam and Director LCA (IAF) AVM B. C. Nanjapa.[/quote] An AVM is a higher ranked officer than Commodore, and heads the team, if that is an indicator of organizational commitment.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 10 Jul 2015 19:42

Singha wrote:probably for military planes the requirements are not as stringent ....

Extra hardware adds weight. It could be minimal but might be the difference between life and death for fighters. But again incorrect decision by FCS also the same. Obviously the money involved in Shuttle launch (shuttle itself plus cargo being very valuable - satellites and such) is much higher and the number of fatalities in case of a crash are 7x.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jul 2015 19:44

That way even CAS Latif was involved with the LCA (in the earliest days).

That is not what was needed.

IAF absolutely needs involvement in things like R&D, both public and private. Needs to support kids in universities. Support Doctrol students in areas like met-sci. Needs to be in the fabric.

Such a large air force cannot be a mere cheerleader. Needs to be rolling in the muck. Culturally.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 10 Jul 2015 20:19

the joke would be on India if you take a ratio of grads vs. follow on doctrols

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Jul 2015 20:48

NRao wrote:That way even CAS Latif was involved with the LCA (in the earliest days).

That is not what was needed.

IAF absolutely needs involvement in things like R&D, both public and private. Needs to support kids in universities. Support Doctrol students in areas like met-sci. Needs to be in the fabric.

Such a large air force cannot be a mere cheerleader. Needs to be rolling in the muck. Culturally.

In the LCA scheme of thing, I do not see the above as a cause in the delay. There were attempts by IAF / IAF personnel to integrate with the programme but yes I agree with you NRao ji on how a large Air Force like ours should help grow national R & D.

This is important. IMO, the IAF has to get involved with the education and research institutes and develop a whole organisational culture with it. This single point focus on just Flying Ops and Aircraft will have to be overcome.

I think Merlin was often making this point.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jul 2015 21:26

fanne wrote:Indranil ji,
If LCA stalled or spun and was then braught back into level flight, we would have heard that news. I don't think that happened. Is it needed for FOC, perhaps not (ADA/IAF are ok with it). But if we ever want to graduate into designing something like SU30MKI that has almost limitless AoA, we have to tame that problem.

No ji for me.

The goal of CLAW is to achieve required AoA without entering into a spin, and it succeeded. Why would ADA test spin on LCA? They were planning to fit LSP-6 with a spin chute, just if CLAW failed. They did not need it in the end.

No plane, not even the MKI is flying beyond 35 degree AoA. The airflow just separates at that AoA. They continue moving due to momentum and retain sufficient control to maintain orientation. In the case of a light Su-30 in a airshow, the plane can hold a 70 degree AoA for some seconds. If you notice the plane, it is a rocket then, with the FCS using the TVC to direct the exhaust to balance the planes weight. A loaded Su-30 for combat cannot and will not do that. It will not return to base if it did so.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2015 21:46

tsarkar, Wow AVM Nanjappa. Is he still following LCA?

A question is he from Coonor? NDA 1968 batch?

Shiv

I don't know. I am writing this in the context of some stupid article I read claiming that all 4 sets of LCA code are from the same team as if that is like cousin marriage leading to rat brain ammi-abba LCA. Flippin heck the LCA test history has been the most accident free combat aircraft development in history and who are these mofos who speak like oiseaules?

The calumnies LCA has to put up with!!!

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Jul 2015 22:02

IR, there are enough video of Su30 DOING 180 DEG AOA (i.e. nose pointing exactly apposite of flight) and the plane recovering level flight after that.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Jul 2015 22:11

tsarkar wrote:
ramana wrote:Why don't we map the IAF personnel assigned to LCA from TD phase onwards? I bet even Squadron Leader ranks from Engineering section (let alone Flying section) were not assigned.
Ramana, that is another incorrectness floating around in this forum, that IAF personnel are not working on the Tejas.

As per my understanding, IAF has a proper Tejas Program Office / Team under Deputy Chief of Air Staff.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/tej ... [quote]The successful missile firing was witnessed by Chief Controller (R&D) Dr. D. Banerjee, Programme Director ADA Mr. P. S. Subramaniam and Director LCA (IAF) AVM B. C. Nanjapa.

An AVM is a higher ranked officer than Commodore, and heads the team, if that is an indicator of organizational commitment.[/quote]

My Goodnesss! Missile firing witnessed by Nanjapa was in 2007.

Complaint against IAF is not "IAF personnel are not working on the Tejas", as you tried to portray.

Q is wrt LCA, did IAF played the role as IN playing in the development of NLCA ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2015 22:22

From blog report

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2015/06/w ... -fire.html

Should soon expect lot of reports over next few months.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jul 2015 22:33

fanne wrote:IR, there are enough video of Su30 DOING 180 DEG AOA (i.e. nose pointing exactly apposite of flight) and the plane recovering level flight after that.

This particular phenomenon is due to what is called in modern terms as "unsteady Aerodynamics" which is a highly dynamic situation and is unsustainable. There is some time lag between sudden increase in pitch angle beyond stall limit and separation of flow, during these precious few seconds flow is still attached and so the jet retains certain amount of control, and TVC also comes quite handy in these situations (though Su-27 and Mig-29 could do it even without TVC). But you cannot achieve if you gradually increase your AoA to and beyond stall limit obviously. And as IR said, high AoA for slow pass is achieved in Su-30 due to TVC not due to aerodynamics.

I doubt any fighter aircraft ever achieved these extravagant AoA (>35-40 say) in sustained flight. Even for HARV or X-29 they had TVC and other special modifications.

LCA wouldn't stall until 35deg as per WT data. Its AoA is limited due to rudder authority loss at around 28-30deg (As such its not a big deal and we can happily leave with 26-28deg AoA limit). Its highly unlikely that LCA would spin before this stall limit or even exhibit wing drop if WT data is any indication. So I agree with IR that it is quite likely that LCA never encountered spin situations at any point in its flight envelop (which is restricted by FCS). So ADA didn't feel need of doing spin tests.

@IR
This one snippet from latest chat with PS Subramaniyam on Tarmak FB page:

Q: Sir....why ADA opted for a delta aircraft why not a conventional design....
and 62.5 and 50 degree combinations...what was special in those specific angles
Thanks smile emoticon
1 · 4 hrs

Ans: It is for better supersonic performance with optimal wing area

shyamoo · Post by **shyamoo** » 11 Jul 2015 01:13

I have a question regarding the AoA. What is the real advantage of higher AoA when the ITR at 24-26 ( for LCA ) is considered to be really good? An increase in AoA will increase drag, which is already an issue ( considering the lower than needed thrust of F-404 ).

How exactly will increasing the length of LCA (Mk-2) by .5 mts reduce drag? Will increasing the length and using the existing engine (F-404) resolve the drag issue or does it require both higher thrust and increased length?

Trying to understand the science behind this..

shyamoo · Post by **shyamoo** » 11 Jul 2015 01:57

nileshjr wrote: I doubt any fighter aircraft ever achieved these extravagant AoA (>35-40 say) in sustained flight. Even for HARV or X-29 they had TVC and other special modifications.

Per wiki, some additional aerodynamic surfaces known as "high-lift devices" including leading edge wing root extensions allow much greater flyable 'true' alpha, up to over 45°. Not sure, how far this is true though

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2015 02:19

One year of Modi govt

Year gone by-Not in vain

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jul 2015 02:22

nileshjr wrote: @IR
This one snippet from latest chat with PS Subramaniyam on Tarmak FB page:
Q: Sir....why ADA opted for a delta aircraft why not a conventional design....
and 62.5 and 50 degree combinations...what was special in those specific angles
Thanks smile emoticon
1 · 4 hrs

Ans: It is for better supersonic performance with optimal wing area

That is the only piece that had caught my eye too. Have you come across any papers on the supersonic performance of the wing?

vnmshyam wrote:
nileshjr wrote: I doubt any fighter aircraft ever achieved these extravagant AoA (>35-40 say) in sustained flight. Even for HARV or X-29 they had TVC and other special modifications.
Per wiki, some additional aerodynamic surfaces known as "high-lift devices" including leading edge wing root extensions allow much greater flyable 'true' alpha, up to over 45°. Not sure, how far this is true though

You can continue to generate lift*, but at enormous costs. This cannot be sustained. In an aerial fight, there is one and only one moment where you can use that high alpha situation. When you have higher kinetic/potential energy to lose than your opponent, and you have enough confidence that you will get your opponent by raising your nose. Because if you don't, you would just pass the energy advantage to him. This is exactly why new over enthusiastic pilots with thrust vector-controlled planes lose out to seasoned guys.

* Lift at very high AoA is also very tricky to handle. You may create enough lift to balance your weight, but the whole wing is not flying. This adversely affects the flying qualities in many ways.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Jul 2015 02:24

vnmshyam wrote: How exactly will increasing the length of LCA (Mk-2) by .5 mts reduce drag? Will increasing the length and using the existing engine (F-404) resolve the drag issue or does it require both higher thrust and increased length?

Read up about the Area Rule to understand how increasing the length can reduce wave drag.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

tldr.... an aircraft's cross sectional area should change as gradually as possible to minimize wave drag. One way to accomplish it is to increase the fuselage length. Other techniques have also been used like the F-102's "wasp waist" where the fuselage is narrowed where the wings are attached and bulges out a little near the wing's trailing edges. I've heard the Tu-95 bear's long landing gear nacelles also help the aircraft conform to the area rule better.

Increasing thrust will not reduce drag, but can help overcome the effects of drag since thrust and drag act in opposite directions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jul 2015 04:29

vayu tuvan wrote:
Singha wrote:probably for military planes the requirements are not as stringent ....
Extra hardware adds weight. It could be minimal but might be the difference between life and death for fighters. But again incorrect decision by FCS also the same. Obviously the money involved in Shuttle launch (shuttle itself plus cargo being very valuable - satellites and such) is much higher and the number of fatalities in case of a crash are 7x.

well the FCS on mil jet should be much more stringent than the FCS on the shuttle.. meaning, for shuttle the major hurdle for FCS is the landing., whereas for the mil jet it is everything from relaxed stability to vibration checks and applying the closed-loop corrections. the safety-critical aspect is the same for both civilian and mil, but there is lot more controls for mil jet than civilian or even shuttle.. as they don't need to roll, dive, and re-shoot to 50k ', or get chased by a heat seeker. the eventuality for the pilot is much more critical in a fighter-jet than a shuttle. a shuttle loss is just the loss of the mission or program. a fighter-jet loss means a whole nation just surrendered to an invasion. big difference, hence safety-critical value is way way higher!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2015 09:00

The Mirage 2000 does a fancy bit of High AoA flying to formate with an HPT-32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctuY5LxN_18

Some more great hi AoA flying from the point linked in the video below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... i_hY#t=263

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Jul 2015 09:21

Kanson wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Director LCA (IAF) AVM B. C. Nanjapa. An AVM is a higher ranked officer than Commodore, and heads the team, if that is an indicator of organizational commitment.
My Goodnesss! Missile firing witnessed by Nanjapa was in 2007.

I am underlining his then designation - Director LCA (IAF). There is a proper IAF team that is working on Tejas, similar to IN. I am also given to understand that N A K Browne worked on that team before becoming COAS.

Kanson wrote:Complaint against IAF is not "IAF personnel are not working on the Tejas", as you tried to portray. Q is wrt LCA, did IAF played the role as IN playing in the development of NLCA ?

What role did IN team play? Shared inputs for CLAW for carrier takeoff & landings. Helped development of landing gear & arrestor gear.

What role did IAF team play?

Supported the process of integrating the Litening LDP, whose integration by IAF on Jaguar & Mirage 2000 started in the mid 90's and completed 2000's. As we all know, Litening was the force multiplier in Kargil and an vast improvement over older ALTIS pods.

Suggested & supported Elta 2032 integration as replacement of MMR project. Elta 2032 was already in the process of being integrated with Sea Harrier & Jaguar IM.

This was after Harpoon was selected, ordered & delivered http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 52477.aspx

IAF does not give soundbytes like IN. It was only peeved because it was not given program ownership like IN. IN always retains program ownership with itself. Only subsystems like sonar, radar, ECM & torpedoes are developed by DRDO.

The only grudge people have is that IAF asked for rectification where performance specifications fall less. But this is what CEMILAC - Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification - a DRDO arm, has to say in 2009 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

Approximately 1000 sorties on various LCA prototypes have been completed to asses the LCA performance in air/ground. It is seen that most of the performance parameters are deviating from the requirements. Hence an active performance improvement program has been taken up by ADA with the intiation from CEMILAC to explore the various design improvements in order to meet the ASR requirements.

Now what can IAF do about aerodynamics improvements? Only developers can do that. IAF has provided Test Pilot support. It also waived off certain specifications for IOC. What more can IAF do?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Jul 2015 09:39

@Ramana, I don't know him personally, only through an acquaintance. I knew his role, hence posted. Also, he stays in Bangalore.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 11 Jul 2015 15:21

tsarkar wrote:
IAF does not give soundbytes like IN. It was only peeved because it was not given program ownership like IN. IN always retains program ownership with itself. Only subsystems like sonar, radar, ECM & torpedoes are developed by DRDO.

Now what can IAF do about aerodynamics improvements? Only developers can do that. IAF has provided Test Pilot support. It also waived off certain specifications for IOC. What more can IAF do?

Tsarkar ji,

Actions speak louder than words.

IAF needs to come clean. Either the LCA is better than the Mig 21s its intended to replace or it is NOT.
If its better the 40 MK1 order isnt justified. IF its NOT, then a even a single order of MK1 is not justified.

The packees have their back against the walls, they got the bandaar up and running and inducted it with whatever capability it offered. None of their air chiefs used terms like 3 legged cheetah, Mig 21++ or whatever nor did their ex service men hold conferences focusing only on the negative aspects of the program.

It is unfortunate, but it is a fact that brochuritis and preferential treatment for Imports exists to a very large degree with the IAF and IA. I dont really recall the IOC and FOC phase of the Sukhoi 30 mki project or the almost forensic dissection of its performance in the public domain unlike the LCA which is subjected to all this scrutiny. Yet IAF signed a 270 aircraft deal.

As current LCA capability stands, it can drop LGBs/dumb bombs and use its HMD/HOBS missile combo to defend/attack in a dogfight.This capability itself is way better than the bandaars the pakis are fielding by the dozens and squadrons now and warrants a higher order, not 40 MK1 now and 100 of MK2 post 2020 ..

The whole world is adopting a concurrent approach and capabilities are being added/validated post induction. Why is IAF hell bent on token orders only till the time FOC is obtained ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Jul 2015 19:19

Maybe IAF should import some JF17 to build up fleet strength!

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 11 Jul 2015 19:54

Our Armed Forces are committing certain mistakes. In brief,

Vanilla Import: Local Alternative

Mig 21: LCA Mk 1
Mig 27: LCA Mk 1

M-46 : Dhanush
D-30 : Dhanush

T-55 : Arjun Mk 1
T-72: Arjun Mk 1
Vijayant : Arjun Mk 1

If local alternative is better than imported item in service, then it may please be favorably considered, even if it costs the same or is slightly more expensive.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2015 20:35

vnshyam

How exactly will increasing the length of LCA (Mk-2) by .5 mts reduce drag? Will increasing the length and using the existing engine (F-404) resolve the drag issue or does it require both higher thrust and increased length?

Its length/ reference diameter thing. By increasing the length they have a favorable slenderness ratio.

nirav

IAF needs to come clean. Either the LCA is better than the Mig 21s its intended to replace or it is NOT.
If its better the 40 MK1 order isnt justified. IF its NOT, then a even a single order of MK1 is not justified.

Mig21 has 2 roles : interceptor and strike.
In interceptor WVR and BVR. LCA is now good enough for WVR since 2007. Gun integration completed.
BVR needs radome fix. should be ready by March 2016. FOC.
Strike role better than Mig 21 based on all those variety of stores.

40 a//c is to set up production line. And right thing.
In one aspect of aerodynamics as LCA is in supersonic regime due to unfavorable design choices it needs more engine power. Will be taken care of in Mk2.

Crucial for dogfights with guns and WVR from rear quadrant.

another way of looking is:
tds was Model A
PV are Model B
IOC is Model C
FOC is Model D
Mk 1.5 is Model E
Mk2 is Model F

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jul 2015 20:42

For the IAF F to induct the underpowered LCA MK-1 (with below specs capability) into combat service,they need a complete picture of the aircraft,from aircraft manuals,training manuals,etc.,etc.,apart from a healthy production line.In another td.,I mentioned from an article,that Jag production was as high as 4/5 a year! How will the IAF be able to fly it,train pilots on it and support it with spares if the logistic train is also not established.? Have these been completed? From earlier reports it has not. Until the aircraft has been put through its paces in IAF colours even the MK-2 prog. will suffer.It is the responsibility for the MOD/GOI to send a team into the ADA/HAL /DRDO to identify the problems of the delays,what/who are responsible for them and take decisive action.Fire the incompetent and replace them with achievers.We've many in the system who hace achieved,the strat. missiles for instance. The entire LCA prog. has been infected with the worst poss. management virus because primarily,the chief stakeholder the GOI/MOD dithered and dallied and allowed the "chalta hai" attitude to prevail in the system.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2015 22:07

Philip most of your post is a rant.
A high powered committee has been in existence since 2006 headed by Sec Def Prod and CAS per CAG reports. All problems are known but will to solve them not there for various reasons. Now seems things are going right.

I already told many times why finding fault with people is unhelpful and at worst regressive.

Until you have some thing new to bring forth please desist from Mil Forum and confine yourself to strat forum.

When the big movement in India is "Make in India" all you propose is import into India that too from marginal suppliers.

I will take answer in Indian Interests thread only....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jul 2015 22:32

Ramana,incompetence cannot serve as a panacea for a programme that is three decades old and has yet to deliver. Yes,systems are being put into place now to prevent the patient from expiring! My post was based upon official statemetns made earlier by the enduser,etc. ,culled from voluminoius from media reports and other info over the years. No one doubts the sincerity of those who plugged on over the years into making the aircraft fly and the tech achievements made on the way,bringing it into where it is now.But what was the original goal and what is the issue at hand here today,FOC"
What was the entire point of the LCA programme I ask you? Replacemetns for the MIG-21. Has this been achieved 3 decades on? If you are satisfied with a tech demonstrator,that cannot be inducted into the IAF's combat sqds. then I pity the IAF.

My final word on the matter.The GOI is the primary stakeholder.If as the CAG says that there is still much work to be done,then the GOI has to take matters into its hands and not dither
any more. I would love to have your predictions for the record as to when FOC will take place and when MK-2 will enters series production.

Here is an objective analysis of the entire programme in another td.If you want to support incompetence and inefficiency good luck to you. Please refrain from advising me as to where I should post or not.It's a free country...or so I thought.

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/07 ... tejas.html
Need To Plug Loopholes In Tejas Speedily And Efficiently
Monday, July 06, 2015

by Indiandefense News

Abstract: India’s first domestically developed fighter aircraft Tejas LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) featuring fourth generation technologies has come in for criticism for both cost escalation and time slippage. The supersonic light weight Tejas fighter was, not long ago, written off as a failure. And now India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has picked holes in the overall performance of this combat aircraft meant to replace the ageing Mig-21 fighters in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF).Despite all these negative features, the development of Tejas from scratch was a commendable achievement.

India’s home grown, fourth generation supersonic fighter aircraft, Tejas LCA, right since its inception has remained the target of criticism from a variety of sources. The most recent censure of Tejas has come from India’s public audit watch dog, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). In a critical analysis of the national security preparedness in terms of air defence, the CAG has come down heavily on the Tejas fighter as it stands now. According to CAG, the limited capability of Tejas makes it difficult for the fighter to penetrate the enemy lines effectively. In the opinion of the CAG, Tejas does not meet the operational requirements of IAF which is already hamstrung by the problem of squadron depletion. A look back at the saga of Tejas reveals that way back in 1985, IAF had issued Air Staff Requirement (ASR) for a light weight multi role fighter aircraft as a replacement to the ageing and obsolete Mig-21 fighter jets forming a part of the front line combat aircraft formation. At that point of time, IAF was both keen and optimistic that such a domestically developed fighter could be inducted into services by mid-1990s.

Production efficeincy needs to be ramped up by HAL for the manufacture of TEJAS

Giving details, the CAG report reveals that “The Mark 1 version of Tejas LCA does not meet the ASR. The deficiencies are now expected to be met in LCA MKII expected to be ready by Dec.2018. The MKII version of the fighter taken up for development in 2009 is expected to address many of the shortcomings noted in the Mark 1 version of the fighter that includes increased weight, reduced internal fuel capacity, pilot protection from the front and reduced speed.” Highlighting major deficiencies in the fighter aircraft Tejas Mark 1, being show cased as a shining symbol of India’s mastery of state of the art aeronautical technology, CAG has pointed out to the “53 significant shortfalls” in meeting ASR. In particular, it observes that the poor performance of the three electronic warfare suites developed by Indian agencies could be a major handicap in so far as the capability of Tejas to penetrate enemy lines is concerned.

CAG has observed that the counter measure dispensing system meant to protect the fighter against radar and heat seeking missiles, could not perform as per expectations. The poor defence mechanism of the Tejas cannot but be a matter of concern for IAF. “LCA Mark-1 remains deficient in full electronic warfare capabilities as specified in ASR,” said the CAG report. The fighter which received initial operational clearance in Dec.2013 is due for final operational clearance by either Dec.2015 or early 2016.

The Naval version of Tejas taking off during a trial run

CAG has also questioned the claims on the quantum of indigenous contents in Tejas by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) whose constituent Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was the focal point for the design and development of this fighter aircraft. According to the CAG, against the claim of 70% indigenous content in the aircraft by ADA, “it actually worked to 35% as of January this year”. Going ahead, the CAG noted that systems such as the Kaveri engine, Multi-Mode Radar (MMR), Radome, multi-functional display system and flight control system actuators taken up for indigenous development could not be realized resulting in LCA’s dependence on the import of these systems.

DRDO's counter measure dispensing unit

The CAG has also picked up holes in the performance of Tejas by pointing out to the deficiencies in two vital air defence systems of the fighter. As observed, the self-protection jammer meant to block the radar system of the adversaries that was to go into LCA Tejas MK I was too bulky to be incorporated into the aircraft. This has been compounded by the poor performance of the radar warning receiver that alerts pilots on hostile enemy signals. Both these systems were developed by the Bangalore based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) that functions under DRDO.

Graphical concept of Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA)
Certainly Tejas MKI will have limited utility on account of its power plant that is capable of generating a thrust of less than 100-kN. As such, the thrust is on the up-gradation of the fighter into Mk II category. The Mk II version of Tejas will have many advanced features including a new flight control computer, upgraded avionics, retractable in-flight refueling on-board oxygen generation, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, new electronic warfare suite and the ability to reach supersonic velocity in level flight. The follow on Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth generation stealth fighter in the 20-tonne class taken up for development by ADA has many advanced features including a very small radar cross section, serpentine shaped air intakes, internal weapons bay and the use of composites. This single seat fighter with thrust vectoring features for attaining super cruise capabilities is expected to be ready by 2025.

The inordinate delay in LCA Tejas development schedule had forced IAF to go in for alternative temporary measures such as upgrading its Mig BIS, Mig-29, Jaguar and Mirage aircraft to overcome squadron depletion. The LCA Tejas project was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs. 560-crore. The cost had eventually gone up to Rs.10397-crore. The CAG has also expressed concern over the poor capability of HAL to produce the Tejas fighter aircraft at a rate required by IAF.

As it is, not long back critics had dismissed Tejas as a “dream gone sour”. But then to describe Tejas as a “flop and failure” would be very uncharitable. Notwithstanding “shortcomings and deficiencies” Tejas stands out as a bold attempt by India to develop a state of the art fighter literally from scratch. Clearly and apparently, challenges involved in developing a frontline combat aircraft is enormous. Realizing a fighter jet calls for imaginative exploitation of human talent, research and testing facilities and industrial infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the Tejas project despite its “cost overrun and slippages” stands out as a symbol of India’s quest for self-reliance in the critical area of fighter aircraft technology. In India’s case, Tejas building was a learning experience and the testing and integration of the components and subsystems into the fighting platform was in itself a sort of achievement.

More importantly, expertise acquired and infrastructure built during the process of developing the Tejas fighter could serve as a robust platform to build advanced futuristic combat aircraft. Reports suggest that the import lobby had worked overtime to scuttle the Tejas project. Further, serious difference of opinion between IAF and ADA as well as a poor industrial support infrastructure did also contribute to the slowing down of the Tejas developmental cycle. Perhaps the most sterling achievement of team LCA was that by braving all negative comments, discouraging remarks and scathing criticism from a variety of sources, it managed to realise an airborne fighting platform. And deficiencies and shortcomings in various on-board systems of the aircraft can be set right in a phased manner after obtaining feedbacks from IAF. It is high time that IAF is made a stake holder and partner in all the futuristic fighter aircraft development programs with a view to avoid the possibility of projecting changes midway through the developmental cycle. Clearly and apparently, IAF must be directed to come out with all the features and requirements at the design stage of the fighter aircraft project. For incorporation of changes in the midway makes for a delay, cost escalation and technological complexities.

Incidentally the first Tejas was handed over to IAF on Jan.17, 2015. The handing over of the first Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft which has been configured to Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) standards marked the initiation of the process for squadron formation. Dr. Kota Harinarayana, who initiated the program for the development of Tejas virtually from scratch as the Director of the Bangalore based ADA which was set up by DRDO to fast track the Tejas project said that “Developing a fighter is far more complicated than developing a commercial aircraft. It takes time. For every fighter jet in any part of the world, the time taken for research, development and production is around 25-30 years. I agree that it took a little longer but considering the fact that when the project was given the go ahead there were several sanctions, restrictions, lack of infrastructure and technology. I feel the effort was worth it”.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jul 2015 23:24

>>If you want to support incompetence and inefficiency good luck to you.

Oh please. As if you were ever concerned about that. Wake us all up when you stop supporting incompetent, inefficient and corrupt Russian vendors. Till then your posts will smack only of duplicitous hypocrisy.
And yes, they are mostly rants which are full of prejudice and rarely if ever have any facts. If copy paste without doing any due diligence was an art form though you'd win the top prize.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2015 00:04

incompetence cannot serve as a panacea for a programme that is three decades old and has yet to deliver. Yes,systems are being put into place now to prevent the patient from expiring

I bet MiG has proposed a single engines fighter for the export market.

Cueing it up post.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 01:56

Philip, Good you posted the article with the litany of woes from CAG.
53 deficiencies were waivered means acceptable.
3 major deficiencies are SPJ, RWR and chaff dispenser.
How do they relate to aerodynamics?
they simply don't!

Longer quartz radome will help the overall fineness ratio issue. Add the new 414 engine.
Radar we already discussed. EL/M 2052.

Also

Perhaps the most sterling achievement of team LCA was that by braving all negative comments, discouraging remarks and scathing criticism from a variety of sources, it managed to realise an airborne fighting platform. And deficiencies and shortcomings in various on-board systems of the aircraft can be set right in a phased manner after obtaining feedbacks from IAF

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 02:11

Also one shortcoming in Indian media is when article is about LCA, why talk about AMCA?
No one has seen ASR but all reports say its not met!
By the complaints we can guess what it is?
If 53 waivers were accepted or delayed how serious were the requirements? More like goals.
Yes lot of delays and stumbles along the way.
No point in looking in the past and scaring ourselves.
Commodore Balaji is now in charge.

Share the optimism while looking for track record.
A number of milestones were publicised. Lets track them.

Milestones:
- Python V firing. Completes WVR capability.
- Quartz radome delivery, integration and Derby firing. Completes BVR capability.
- RWR and SPJ, Chaff dispenser.
All above 3 show air to air mission capability.

- IFR probe delivery from Cobham and demonstrate refuelling from tankers, buddy(?) demonstrates long legs.
- Brake pads cooling and landing speed reduction.

What else?
.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 02:14

ramana wrote:Abhibhushan, As you know the Mig-21 had horizontal stabilizers that helped.
The LCA is tailless delta.
So different animal.

I guess you are IAF fighter stream?

Gururji, Khsama karna!!!
Forgot your interactions in Bay Area in early 2000s.

Arun_S also sends his pranams.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 12 Jul 2015 06:23

Philip wrote:Ramana,incompetence cannot serve as a panacea for a programme that is three decades old and has yet to deliver. Yes,systems are being put into place now to prevent the patient from expiring! My post was based upon official statemetns made earlier by the enduser,etc. ,culled from voluminoius from media reports and other info over the years. No one doubts the sincerity of those who plugged on over the years into making the aircraft fly and the tech achievements made on the way,bringing it into where it is now.But what was the original goal and what is the issue at hand here today,FOC"

Philip, with all respect I cannot believe you to be so naive as to drink the "three decades" kool-aid put out by the DDM. You come across as someone knowledgeable about Indian defence matters, with access to people in the MoD and the Services, and have been on BR for a very long time. How then can you pass off this "three decades" cr@p with a straight face?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Jul 2015 06:45

Hobbes, the poster you mention has been writing such BS for decades. He is well aware of the umpteen times this 3 decades has been proven to be from Rajat Pandit's Musharrraf but he choses this to attack local projects. The Arjun can fly but will never equal the tin cans. The LCA could dive to the bottom of the seas but will never equal the Mig-35/29/......

It is one thing to be fascinated with a line of products, but to turn a blind eye to one's own local products is reprehensible.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Jul 2015 06:54

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Abhibhushan, As you know the Mig-21 had horizontal stabilizers that helped.
The LCA is tailless delta.
So different animal.

I guess you are IAF fighter stream?
Gururji, Khsama karna!!!
Forgot your interactions in Bay Area in early 2000s.

Arun_S also sends his pranams.

What's going on here? What is this ramana vs ramana apologies. Where is Arun_S now, and who is still in DeraBayAreaKhan?