LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Jul 2015 19:08

Nilesh - the discord arises because personalities change and expectations in all terms change. These are long durations projects. An aircraft is not developed in 2 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 20:24

RV wrote: Now that you've raised the point about specification, it would be interesting to find out whether performance characteristics of a RADAR unit is given w/o considering the type of Radome it will be mated with or assuming that it will be mated with certain type (Shape and material) of Radome?

If it is former, than a fighter radar with claimed range of 'X' will have X-Delta performance when it is mated to a radome. And Delta will vary with the type of material on Radome and its shape. But there is bound to be 'Delta' degradation.

In this case, your assertion about 'not meeting specs' would mean that 'Delta' prescribed to be met by Cobham radome to ensure minimum drop in performance is something which cannot be met by the material and design.

Requirments are set with expected performance in other words option I. Option II would be design solution and not a requirement for it specifies how to meet it.

The drawback is ADA already tried out the Kevlar radome and found range is not sufficient. Hence they chose quartz radome which has better transmissibility. And even chose Cobham to make it as they have expertise in it. Looks like first article did not meet the spec again.
The problem is the radar will need more power to overcome this opaqueness. However is constrained on number of TRTs that can be fitted due to geometry constraint of LCA nose shape.
If you go back from day 1 radome was Kevlar. So when HAL did the MMR and later EL/M 2032 they seem to have ignored effect of Kevlar radome. On EL/M 2032 appears they just put as many TRTs as will fit and hoped for best.
From wiki mamu, MMR was good enough for air-to-air mode. Its was the Air -to- ground that needed help from ELTA. Eventually only the antenna and software to integrate with LCA computers is LRDE/HAL. Don't know how many TRTs on this version.

Now there is the UTTAM AESA which is EL/M 2052 backend. This one is 40Kg more than MMR-2 (for lack of better description). However LCA is ballasted nose and can handle this.

Can some one dig up HAL MMR-1 and EL/M 2032 comparison of TRTs and power for LCA usage?

ekalavya, Am sure EL/M 2032 has large range. But the LCA version due to limited TRTs might not.
Glad to be corrected.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Jul 2015 20:31

If the problem is not just the material (Quartz vs Kevlar) but also the shape and design of the radome, we might have a bigger problem no? Changing radome design might require aerodynamic tests to be reperformed to check its effect on aircraft performance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 20:41

If you read the SJha interview with Dr. Tamilmani, posted circa Jan 2015, ADA/DRDO wants 25-30 test flights to check out all these aspects.

I think they wont alter radome shape for aerodynamics could be impacted. Most likely will have to go with what it is or lose the FOC date.
And press for UTTAM AESA to have more power now that the quartz radome is characterized and most likely the production article.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jul 2015 21:46

2032 is being used now (or was tested in that other country). What did they use for radome? Can we not get that?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 22:09

Will end up with more flight testing.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jul 2015 22:37

let the shape be what we need, just the material.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Jul 2015 01:46

With its history and experience, Cobham shouldn't have faced any significant hurdles in a simple radome's design and manufacture. I suspect they've been contracted to deliver a frequency selective radome to the Tejas program, a somewhat more challenging task.

Narrow Band & Frequency Selective Antenna/Radome Subsystem - Cobham Data Sheet

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 15 Jul 2015 02:05

oh my god ... what a read that article above..
real life article reflecting the view from the trenches up ahead

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 02:11

VivS the MMR-2 is X-band. If you read the saga in CAg and articles in Radome thread....
- ADA/HAL awarded contract to Cobham in Sep 2013 for six quartz radomes.
- Looks like first delivery was to be November 2014 and one every month.
- First one did not meet their tests.
- Second one is undergoing structural tests in Jan 2015.
I have a question on the IFR. Is it retractable Fueling probe or bolt on IFR which stays put?
Second one implies its bolted on only when necessary. Retractable would imply every LCA will have it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Jul 2015 02:17

ramana wrote:VivS the MMR-2 is X-band. If you read the saga in CAg and articles in Radome thread....
- ADA/HAL awarded contract to Cobham in Sep 2013 for six quartz radomes.
- Looks like first delivery was to be November 2014 and one every month.
- First one did not meet their tests.
- Second one is undergoing structural tests in Jan 2015.
I have a question on the IFR. Is it retractable Fueling probe or bolt on IFR which stays put?
Second one implies its bolted on only when necessary. Retractable would imply every LCA will have it.

The Mk1 IFR probe is a (Mirage-type) bolt-on unit. The Mk2 is being designed to feature a retractable probe.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 02:25

Thanks for the clarification.
BRF is a treasure house of SMEs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 02:26

One more thing. Reading Kartik's old post about interacting with Cdre Mao, the 0.5 m length extension is for Center of Gravity reasons and not anything else.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 15 Jul 2015 06:28

ramana wrote:One more thing. Reading Kartik's old post about interacting with Cdre Mao, the 0.5 m length extension is for Center of Gravity reasons and not anything else.

So no change in the reported dragginess?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jul 2015 10:01

It will help in reducing drag since the fineness ratio will improve, as will some Area ruling related changes.

But even at AI-'15, most ADA guys seemed to indicate that the primary reason for the increase in length was to accommodate more fuel and avionics. But frankly, not everyone in ADA will be aware of everything related to the LCA or Tejas Mk2. They'll know about their own area of work..for instance, one guy working in structural analysis told me that the fatigue life for the LCA is 4000 hours..contradicts the statement of PS Subra.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2015 10:49

Will the Tejas get foreign help? All indications suggest the Aeronautical Development Agency is firmly in control

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 15 Jul 2015 12:42

Boy, this thread sure does move at a furious pace - difficult to keep pace with it. Anyway here goes ...

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:It's this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place.
http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf
There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2.
The only scope-creep was weapons, that added to timelines and not weight, as Vina has clarified, a few coats of Kevlar in the right places. Can you kindly specify what scope-creep added to weight-creep? Some forum members keep talking vaguely about scope-creep contributing to weight-creep but seem to be completely lost when asked to specify the scope creep.

This is the same point who’d raised a couple of posts back and I didn’t want to respond back (it was directed to another poster anyway) – but since you raise it again, I will respond back now!!

Not sure why do you constantly claim that there was no weight-creep because of the scope-creep of R60 to R73 (~1.6 to 1.7 times more weight)? And in defense of that argument you constantly point to the CAG report – pls point where in CAG report does it say there’s no weight-creep because of this CR?
All it says that all these CRs added to delays to the program – where does it say there was no weight-creep because of this CR … also from your post, a couple of pages back.

tsarkar wrote:Was there "huge spec increase"? Did continuous ASR revisions and scope creep add to empty weight?
No.
As written in Page 14
There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2. While no weight was added, delays were introduced.

So let me ask again, where does this say, in pg 14 or para 2.3.2* or elsewhere, that weight-increase of the platform is not due to these CRs?
(*note – I’ve copy pasted para 2.3.2 at the bottom of this post)

Common junta like us will not have access to what got specified by the ASR*– so we go by what gets insinuated by retired officers, both from the forces and from the R&D side, indirectly quoted by someone or even DDMs. Those inferences are likely to be wrong as well, and the only way to prove that they are wrong is to publicly post the requirements in the first place (which is definitely not desirable).
But if you can’t then there’s only other option left … try to inference from what the basic details are available and then use ones basic science knowledge to deduce inferences from it. And to oppose it, use the same method – which never gets done.
(*Note: And there’s a jolly good reason for it, and most of us prefers that it remains that way – these are strategic national capability building programs, not some debating-point-scoring in assorted internet-forums and such)

So until and unless you do either of the above (and I’d prefer the second one) I reject your assertion that “…Some forum members keep talking vaguely about scope-creep contributing to weight-creep but seem to be completely lost when asked to specify the scope creep …” ityadi ityadi.

Anyway, so to clarify, we all agree there’s no change in the ASR except for asking a the outboard weapon station be made compliant to a whole-different-class WVR missile (~125Kg vs 50Kg) – and we are asking that why is the ASR not changed to revise the empty weight specification upwards, when this CR was asked for?

And more importantly, since none of us have access to the ASR, either original or revised (if at all), the ask is, to repeat myself again, “why is this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place”?

Pls provide a direct response to this point, if you can.

==================================

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:how about specifying realistic performance parameters in the ASR?
If the performance specifications were realistically unobtainable, then were these bought to the notice of the Empowered Committee and waivers been applied for?
maitya wrote:moreover, disagreeing to IAF ASR would have meant no program to work on, in the first place.
No. This is a national project not run on IAF money. So IAF cannot shut it off. Empowered Committee providing oversight comprises COAS, SA to RM, DG ADA and Secretary Defence Production. All other members other than COAS are independent of IAF. Had this been brought to their notice, then surely they could’ve ensured a waiver?

What is amazing is, this kind of reasoning is coming from a poster like you, who a couple of pages back went lecturing (quite rightly though) about product development lifecycle, prototyping, iterative development etc etc.

Oh Puleeessss, do you think that we are all born yesterday …

Now, can IAF shut off a program like this – sure they can’t, theoretically atleast. What they can do however, is ensure it never get flight tested ever (no NFTC setting up by the good AM Rajkaumar, no nothing, just a “science project” which SDREs keep prodding along) and no feedback gets into the development lifecycle etc etc etc .

This exactly the user attitude what has bedeviled this program … going by your rational, it would completely divorced the user community of a program and that would have somehow “helped” it, is it?

Oh boy … Marie Antoniette would have been proud with such desperate reasoning.

==================================

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:Only criticism can be, if IAF was fore-sighted enough with specifying the other future-proof requirements of the ASR
Lets take each of the weapons scope creep –
R-73 was introduced as part of Sukhoi Su-30MKI package that was signed in 30th November 1996. R-73E for Tejas was specified in March 1997. Informing within four months surely is a quick enough timeframe.
M62 Russian Bomb. This is the Russian FAB M62 bomb
<snip>
…
<snip>
So in all these cases, none of the requirements could’ve forecasted or foresighted earlier than they were done.
Delay has been because of a protracted development process. And success has been iterative rather than on the first time itself.

That quote of mine is not the mainline thrust of the argument wrt unobtaniumness of the original ASR and the intellectual dishonesty in the constant disparaging and unfounded criticism by IAF of the program (while cleverly hiding the root-cause of those delays).

So will not dwell further wrt this post … will come back and post, if required at a later point of time, but let me say this - this whole details are a very good laying out of the facts/timelines that tries to explain the entry-points of these changes.
And ironically, when the next aphsaar, retired or serving, or a DDM comes and harrruummphs about “delay”, “three-decade-long”, “ghadi-gramayodgiri trying to achieve the oh-so-superior-furrin-technology levels” etc etc … this part-post of yours (along with the CAG report) is a good foil – so thanks!!

But, I’d still point out a small fallacy in your argument (I’ve kept that one and snipped the others, but similar argument can be applied there as well) viz.
IMO, the R-73 “introduction” to IAF should not be exactly matched to the induction-date of a platform (in this case you chose Su-30), and thus by implication, became “known” to the line pilots. R-73 as a weapon system was made “available” to IAF long back as a part of the 21-93 upgrade program proposals in circa 1991 (by MiG MAPO, after which a IAF-MiG-MAPO joint study was conducted and the proposal accepted) – though the contract signing happened (after the usual baboon-calisthenics-giri in MoD) on Mar’1994.

So sure a line pilot would have “come to know” about R-73 and it’s capabilities starting from 1996 etc (though I think it was available via the MiG-29 procurement program even earlier, thoug I’m not sure if that was the check – need to check the archives), but the IAF teams who would be writing-and-controlling the ASRs etc would have surely known almost possible details about in much earlier (via the 21-93 upgrade program atleast) around 1991-92, and thus it’s expected they should have asked for it much earlier, isn’t it?

But still this is a good chronology of the changes that were introduced into the program, that caused the overall delay, and more importantly the reasons /rational of why they were asked for etc. - so thanks!!

=======================================
Quote from CAG report No.17 of 2015 as available here here

<snip>
2.3.2 Meeting of weapon requirement on LCA as per ASR
As per the ASR, LCA is required to be provided with seven underwing/fuselage hard points for the carriage of bombs, rockets, missiles, Recce/laser designator pods and fuel tanks. The outboard stations were exclusively for the carriage of close combat missiles (CCMs). The aircraft should be able to carry a weapon load of at least 3000 kg.

Audit observed (May 2014) that IAF had revised17 the weapons requirement from time to time such as replacing R-60 missile with R-73E missile18, adding M-62 Russian Bombs, Counter Measures Dispensing System19, etc for integration on LCA. When impact of these changes on the LCA programme were enquired in audit, ADA stated (June 2014) that these changes had delayed the programme schedules as follows:
a) Change of Close Combat Missile from R-60 to R-73E had resulted in redesign of integral wing and associated manufacturing and testing efforts involving delay of 14 months.
b) Addition of Russian 500 Kg (M-62) bombs necessitated design and fabrication of adopter and software development which delayed the programme by 16 months.
c) Addition of CMDS led to design modifications and software development with an additional time of 18 months.

When the above delays caused due to changes in the weapons by IAF as reported by ADA was pointed out (September 2014) in audit, Air HQ stated (December 2014) that the extended schedule of design and development of LCA had resulted in several weapons and systems becoming obsolete/out of stock/operationally irrelevant and to retain operational edge, newer weapons had to be included. It was also stated that ADA being the programme manager could have inducted additional resources to realize the integration of the changed weapons in time.
Thus, due to design and development of LCA programme getting extended from time to time, IAF had to opt for newer weapons to retain operational edge of LCA. This consequently had a further impact on the timelines of the LCA programme.

2.3.3 Status of integration of weapons on LCA
Audit observed that delayed identification/procurement of weapons/integration also contributed to delays in LCA programme as discussed below:
i. Integration of R-73E Missiles
R-73E is an infrared-guided (heat-seeking) missile capable of being targeted by a helmet-mounted sight allowing pilots to designate targets by looking at them. The R-73E is a highly maneuverable missile capable of making a significant difference in combat.
As per the ASR, R-60 a close combat missile was to be fitted on LCA. IAF revised (March 1997) the requirement to fitment of R-73E missile in place of R-60 missile. ADA concluded (August 2004) a contract with M/s Elbit, Israel, for integration of R-73E missile on LCA including consultancy thereon at a total cost of 3.69 Million USD (`17 crore) to be completed within 24 months (August 2006). There were delays in integration of R-73E missile on LCA due to redesign of integral wing and associated manufacturing and testing efforts (necessitated due to change from R-60 to R-73 missile). In the meanwhile, Air HQ while revising (December 2009) the weapon requirements, further specified that R-73E should be integrated with Multi-Mode Radar20 (MMR) and Helmet Mounted Display & Sight21 (HMDS) as an IOC requirement. The delivery schedule was amended several times (eight times involving a total of delay of 88 month) due to integration of R-73E missile with HMDS/MMR and related flight tests. The integration of R-73E missile with LCA was completed (December 2013) by ADA, after integration and release of R-73E using HMDS and MMR, and LCA achieved IOC (December 2013).
In response to audit observation (October 2014) regarding impact of delay in integration of R-73E missile on LCA on IOC schedule, ADA admitted (October 2014) that delay in integration of R-73E missile with HMDS and MMR had impacted the IOC schedule. ADA further stated (January 2015) that
the avionics integration of R-73E missile with MMR and HMDS sensor was delayed due to delay in development and flight testing of MMR/HMDS.
Thus, IAF specifying additional requirement of firing the R-73E missile using HMDS/MMR sensors in December 2009, which was not specified earlier in the ASR (1985), contributed to slippage of IOC schedule beyond the planned date of December 2010, which was achieved only in December 2013.

ii. Integration of Derby & Python-5 Missile
<snip>

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 15 Jul 2015 20:36

Austin wrote:Will the Tejas get foreign help? All indications suggest the Aeronautical Development Agency is firmly in control

Austin-ji, I am taking the liberty of posting the full article as it is worth posting in full, considering the usual noise spread by DDM. This article is positive and explains the Tejas' strengths in layman's language. Whatever one may say about Col Shukla's political opinions, his backing on indigenous products has been solid (Arjun, LCA, etc.)

As the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) nears final operational certification (FOC), which clears a fighter for combat operations, there are contradictory signals about the future of India’s indigenous fighter.

Within the defence ministry, understanding is growing that the affordable Tejas (currently Rs 156 crore) must eventually replace most of the 13 squadrons of MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters (about 230 aircraft) nearing the end of their service lives. Defence Minister Parrikar has courageously acknowledged that India cannot afford six squadrons (126 aircraft) of the pricey French Rafale that Dassault has offered for some $15-20 billion. Instead, says Parrikar, we will buy only two Rafale squadrons (36 aircraft), spending the money saved on a larger Tejas fleet.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21”, Parrikar told Doordarshan News on April 13, three days after Prime Minister Modi revealed in Paris that he had asked French President Francoise Hollande for 36 fully-built Rafales in quick time.

Parrikar’s deputy, Rao Inderjit Singh echoed this at the Paris Air Show last month, stating there was “no proposal to increase this number [of 36 Rafales]”.

Yet, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is not acquiring the Tejas in large numbers until the improved Mark II comes on stream. The IAF has contracted with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for just 20 Mark I fighters for its first Tejas squadron that will come up at Sulur, near Coimbatore. One the Tejas obtains FOC, which is likely by the end of this financial year, another 20 fighter will be built in the FOC configuration.

This was made clear on December 20, 2013, when the Tejas obtained its initial operational certification (IOC). Then IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, stated: “The final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Mark I, but the LCA Mark II. While our air warriors are fully geared up to induct and operationalise the two Mark I squadrons, IAF keenly looks forward to induction of four squadrons of LCA Mark II as the final version in its projected force structure.”

Although the Mark II is at least three years from flying, Parrikar, like his predecessor AK Antony, has accepted the IAF’s roadmap for ordering another four Tejas squadrons (84 fighters) only after the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) delivers a tested and certified Mark II. Added to these numbers would be the Indian Navy’s requirement of 65 Tejas fighters --- most of which would be Tejas Mark II.

If ADA manages to certify the Tejas Mark II in the six-year timeframe it has set for itself, it would have taken 28 years from the time that funds were allotted in 1993 to build the Tejas prototype. If it remains within the current budget, this would have taken Rs 14,047 crore.

“To have started from scratch and built a fourth-generation fighter; along with a countrywide aerospace industry, and research, testing and certification facilities for $2.2 billion in less than three decades is, by any standards, a remarkable technology leapfrog. In most countries, it would have drawn generous applause; in India, there is mainly criticism”, points out strategic expert, Bharat Karnad.

Tejas Mark I: a versatile fighter

For the test pilots of the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) who have flown nearly 3,000 sorties in flight-testing, the Tejas is already a fine fighter. It has been tested to Mach 1.6 (2,000 kilometres per hour); a ceiling of 15,000 metres (50,000 feet); and carries 3,500 kilogrammes of mission payload. Its avionics, sensors and weapons make it a swing-role fighter. The pilot detects enemy aircraft with its Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar beyond visual range, and fires Israeli Derby and Python air-to-air missiles through a “helmet-mounted sighting system” that locks onto a target merely by looking at it. In mid-flight, the pilot can switch to a ground strike mode, using his navigation-attack system to strike ground targets accurately with free-fall bombs, or conduct precision strikes with laser-guided munitions. The Tejas also has the trusty 23-millimetre Gasha cannon.

Although a lightweight fighter with a maximum take-off weight of 13,500 kilos, the Tejas carries more than 3,500 kilos of mission payload, as much as bigger fighters like the MiG-27 and the Mirage-2000. Nine hard points on its wings and fuselage carry air-to-air missiles, bombs, fuel drop tanks, a gun and a targeting pod.

With drop tanks, its radius of action is a modest 300-350 km, but can be doubled with in-flight refuelling. In a balanced IAF, with a mix of light, medium and heavy fighters, the Tejas --- operating from forward air bases like Srinagar, Pathankote, Adampur, Sirsa or Jaisalmer --- could focus on the tactical battle. Meanwhile heavier fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI, with longer ranges and greater strike power, could be directed at strategic targets deep inside enemy territory.

Tejas test pilots maintain the fighter is more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON, which the Indian fighter comprehensively outclasses. They say it can take on the Pakistan Air Force’s early F-16 variants and outclass the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder.

The Tejas’ performance rests on advanced technologies that were extremely ambitious when they were undertaken. Its manoeuvrability comes from an “unstable design”, and is prevented from falling out of the sky by a sophisticated quadruplex digital “integrated flight control system” (IFCS). The fighter’s on-board systems and weapons delivery are managed by an “integrated mission computer” and the pilot sits in a high-tech “glass cockpit” with digital displays that make flying a videogame experience.

On the day the Tejas obtained IOC, Group Captain Suneet Krishna, who has test flown the fighter for years, told Business Standard: “This is a pilot’s aircraft. It flies beautifully, and the avionics are well integrated. The information from various sensors is presented to the pilot in manner that gives him complete situational awareness in a far better way than in other fighters.”

Developing the Mark II

Notwithstanding their affection for the aircraft, NFTC test pilots admit it needs specific improvements for evolving into a world-beating Tejas Mark II. For close-in dog fighting against enemy fighters, which involves sudden acceleration, sharp climbing and sustained turning, the fighter needs more engine power than the 83 KiloNewtons (kN) of peak thrust its General Electric (GE) F-414IN20 engine provides. For that reason ADA has decided to power the Mark II with a GE F-414INS6 engine (hereafter F-414) that will deliver 98 kN of peak power.

Upgrading to the F-414 is even more essential for the Naval Tejas, providing the burst of power needed for getting airborne in just 200 metres of runway on an aircraft carrier deck.

ADA has announced that GE will supply 99 F-414 engines for the Tejas Mark II, with the first of them arriving by September. The new engine will then be accommodated in the existing fuselage space and ADA will reconfigure the air intake to provide the extra air the F-414 burns. Some analysts claim this redesign is beyond ADA; while senior ADA engineers say they have the problem licked. The GE website indicates the two engines are of identical size, but the F-414 is probably heavier.

Besides a new engine, the Tejas Mark II would have its internals rearranged, to make them more accessible and maintenance friendly. While building the Mark I prototype, these “line replacement units” (LRUs) were positioned randomly as the need arose. Rearrangement would improve space utilisation, accessibility, and make maintenance easier and quicker, reducing turn-around time between operational missions. Furthermore the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast --- dead weight inserted incrementally while designing the fighter, to correct its centre of gravity. The internal LRUs could be re-arranged, the ballast removed, and the Mark II could instead carry 300 more kilos of useful payload.

Finally, the Tejas Mark II would feature upgraded avionics that are faster, lighter and smarter than the previous generation in the Mark I. This would improve combat performance and operational security. A key upgrade would involve fitting indigenous Airborne Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar to replace the current ELTA EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar.

Foreign collaboration?

Recent media reports suggest the defence ministry could bring in a foreign vendor --- Airbus Defence and Saab have been mentioned --- to develop and mass manufacture the Mark II.

Foreign collaboration has already featured in the Tejas programme. US major Lockheed Martin, and Dassault of France contributed to the Tejas’ initial design. European consortium, EADS (Now rebranded as Airbus Group) has provided consultancy on flight-testing. And, as Business Standard reported (June 17, 2014, “Rafale contract elusive, Eurofighter and Saab remain hopeful”), the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO), under which ADA functions, had asked Swedish company, Saab, in 2013 to submit a proposal for partnering ADA on designing the Mark II and establishing a manufacturing line for the new fighter. Saab, which had similarly upgraded its Gripen-D fighter to the Gripen-E by replacing the GE F-404 engine with a F-414, duly submitted a quote. But the DRDO’s leadership changed in June 2013, with Avinash Chander succeeding VK Saraswat (currently Member, NITI Aayog). Chander stalled Saab’s proposal, reluctant to award such a contract without competitive tendering. Senior Saab officials, bitten by this experience, say the company would now participate only with clear sovereign guarantees.

Unless ADA comes a cropper in designing the Tejas Mark II, it is highly unlikely that a foreign company could be parachuted in to oversee the development. ADA remains firmly in control, not just of the Tejas LCA project, but also in developing the next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Foreign vendors could, at the most, provide design consultancy on specific aspects. A role for foreign aerospace companies is rather more likely in galvanizing production lines, an area that has seen only faltering progress in the Tejas programme.

Photo accompanying the article:

Caption: India's wrath: the Tejas fighter takes off with its complete, 14-tonne load

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jul 2015 21:16

see what the eurofighter folks have done
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /30181011/

The addition of fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions and other more minor changes to an Airbus test aircraft resulted in improved lift, angle of attack and roll rate capabilities compared with the standard aircraft

the modifications increased the maximum lift created by the wing by 25 percent, resulting in an increased turn rate, tighter turning radius and improved nose-pointing ability at low speed.

"We saw angle of attack values around 45 percent greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100 percent higher, all leading to increased agility. The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more maneuverability, agility and precision,"

increased variety and flexibility of stores that can be carried.

including development of an e-scan radar, the integration of several news weapons and the development of a new multiweapon launcher.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 21:22

Austin wrote:Will the Tejas get foreign help? All indications suggest the Aeronautical Development Agency is firmly in control

Very positive progress report from Col Ajai Shukla.

India's wrath: the Tejas fighter takes off with its complete, 14-tonne load

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 15th July 15

As the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) nears final operational certification (FOC), which clears a fighter for combat operations, there are contradictory signals about the future of India’s indigenous fighter.

{This leader line does not match the rest of the article. Must be editorial (in)discretion!]

Within the defence ministry, understanding is growing that the affordable Tejas (currently Rs 156 crore) must eventually replace most of the 13 squadrons of MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters (about 230 aircraft) nearing the end of their service lives. Defence Minister Parrikar has courageously acknowledged that India cannot afford six squadrons (126 aircraft) of the pricey French Rafale that Dassault has offered for some $15-20 billion. Instead, says Parrikar, we will buy only two Rafale squadrons (36 aircraft), spending the money saved on a larger Tejas fleet.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21”, Parrikar told Doordarshan News on April 13, three days after Prime Minister Modi revealed in Paris that he had asked French President Francoise Hollande for 36 fully-built Rafales in quick time.

Parrikar’s deputy, Rao Inderjit Singh echoed this at the Paris Air Show last month, stating there was “no proposal to increase this number [of 36 Rafales]”.

Yet, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is not acquiring the Tejas in large numbers until the improved Mark II comes on stream. The IAF has contracted with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for just 20 Mark I fighters for its first Tejas squadron that will come up at Sulur, near Coimbatore. One the Tejas obtains FOC, which is likely by the end of this financial year, another 20 fighter will be built in the FOC configuration.

{I agree with the IAF decision to limit the first tranche to 40 MkI LCA. The MkII is more capable and desirable. Until BVR mission is proofed (Derby firing with MMR-2 integration, even MKI has limited air defence role. Its great as a strike fighter. But even here the MMR-2 is handicapped due to radome uncertainty. So MkI is a stepping stone for MK2. However what is preventing HAL from delivering the LCAs that it is contracted for? Its the silent one.}

This was made clear on December 20, 2013, when the Tejas obtained its initial operational certification (IOC). Then IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, stated: “The final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Mark I, but the LCA Mark II. While our air warriors are fully geared up to induct and operationalise the two Mark I squadrons, IAF keenly looks forward to induction of four squadrons of LCA Mark II as the final version in its projected force structure.”

Although the Mark II is at least three years from flying, Parrikar, like his predecessor AK Antony, has accepted the IAF’s roadmap for ordering another four Tejas squadrons (84 fighters) only after the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) delivers a tested and certified Mark II. Added to these numbers would be the Indian Navy’s requirement of 65 Tejas fighters --- most of which would be Tejas Mark II.

{Here the IAF is erring and should commit to the 84 MKII LCAs to get the production line and supply chain going. HAL is not a foreign supplier. And they should second senior officers who can and will get the job done at HAL. They already interact with ADA on the Empowered Committee and the LCA Co-Director level.}

If ADA manages to certify the Tejas Mark II in the six-year timeframe it has set for itself, it would have taken 28 years from the time that funds were allotted in 1993 to build the Tejas prototype. If it remains within the current budget, this would have taken Rs 14,047 crore.

{True. However CAG reports show very clearly 88 months or 7 years are due to scope changes. Also the idea of FSED-I with TDS and then IOC version were clearly wrong moves for they delayed the advent of the LCA in final production standard. Also ADA should have clearly challenged the scope changes and accompanying delays. And asked for re-baseline with every change. Can't have the passive acceptance of scope changes without re-planning to prevent delivery misperceptions. And the LCA MkII is definitely more superior in all aspects to the early ASR version.}

“To have started from scratch and built a fourth-generation fighter; along with a countrywide aerospace industry, and research, testing and certification facilities for $2.2 billion in less than three decades is, by any standards, a remarkable technology leapfrog. In most countries, it would have drawn generous applause; in India, there is mainly criticism”, points out strategic expert, Bharat Karnad.

{Very important summary by Bharat Karnad. The criticism is due to mis-perception and lack of balanced coverage. ADA did not communicate to the public and acted as a silo even when the mis-perception was getting out of hand. Media mostly gave voice to naysayers with pithy fibs like "three-legged cheetah!". Would like to know what that person has to say now?}

Tejas Mark I: a versatile fighter

For the test pilots of the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) who have flown nearly 3,000 sorties in flight-testing, the Tejas is already a fine fighter. It has been tested to Mach 1.6 (2,000 kilometres per hour); a ceiling of 15,000 metres (50,000 feet); and carries 3,500 kilogrammes of mission payload. Its avionics, sensors and weapons make it a swing-role fighter. The pilot detects enemy aircraft with its Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar beyond visual range, and fires Israeli Derby and Python air-to-air missiles through a “helmet-mounted sighting system” that locks onto a target merely by looking at it.{I]{Not yet. But soon we hope. Then there is the issue of the radome which is giving the radar cataract!}[/I] In mid-flight, the pilot can switch to a ground strike mode, using his navigation-attack system to strike ground targets accurately with free-fall bombs, or conduct precision strikes with laser-guided munitions.{I]{Has the ground mapping mode already proofed?}[/I] The Tejas also has the trusty 23-millimetre Gasha cannon. {I]{Again no info on aerial firing trials of the gun. We saw a picture of shell patterns from Tarmak. Further there is no confirmation that LRUs are re-qualified to the gun shock and vibration loads. Although one would expect the LRUs are in right place and instrumented when the shell pattern picture was developed.}[/I]

Although a lightweight fighter with a maximum take-off weight of 13,500 kilos, the Tejas carries more than 3,500 kilos of mission payload, as much as bigger fighters like the MiG-27 and the Mirage-2000. Nine hard points on its wings and fuselage carry air-to-air missiles, bombs, fuel drop tanks, a gun and a targeting pod.

With drop tanks, its radius of action is a modest 300-350 km, but can be doubled with in-flight refuelling. {Here the design constraints of Mig 21 replacement have also limited the LCA to a cheetah type range!}In a balanced IAF, with a mix of light, medium and heavy fighters, the Tejas --- operating from forward air bases like Srinagar, Pathankote, Adampur, Sirsa or Jaisalmer --- could focus on the tactical battle. Meanwhile heavier fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI, with longer ranges and greater strike power, could be directed at strategic targets deep inside enemy territory.

{srai, your load out scenarios for LCAs might come into picture here!}

Tejas test pilots maintain the fighter is more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON, which the Indian fighter comprehensively outclasses. They say it can take on the Pakistan Air Force’s early F-16 variants and outclass the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder.

The Tejas’ performance rests on advanced technologies that were extremely ambitious when they were undertaken. Its manoeuvrability comes from an “unstable design”, and is prevented from falling out of the sky by a sophisticated quadruplex digital “integrated flight control system” (IFCS). The fighter’s on-board systems and weapons delivery are managed by an “integrated mission computer” and the pilot sits in a high-tech “glass cockpit” with digital displays that make flying a videogame experience.

{In other words the pilot can concentrate on fighting and not on just flying the plane}

On the day the Tejas obtained IOC, Group Captain Suneet Krishna, who has test flown the fighter for years, told Business Standard: “This is a pilot’s aircraft. It flies beautifully, and the avionics are well integrated. The information from various sensors is presented to the pilot in manner that gives him complete situational awareness in a far better way than in other fighters.”

Developing the Mark II

Notwithstanding their affection for the aircraft, NFTC test pilots admit it needs specific improvements for evolving into a world-beating Tejas Mark II. For close-in dog fighting against enemy fighters, which involves sudden acceleration, sharp climbing and sustained turning, the fighter needs more engine power than the 83 Kilo Newtons (kN) of peak thrust its General Electric (GE) F-414IN20 engine provides. For that reason ADA has decided to power the Mark II with a GE F-414INS6 engine (hereafter F-414) that will deliver 98 kN of peak power.

{This is where the "draggy during supersonic transition" and need for extra power which is the bane of discussion over last few pages comes in. Here from the test pilots we are hearing of the need for extra power. If they could drop the empty weight also it could help.}

Upgrading to the F-414 is even more essential for the Naval Tejas, providing the burst of power needed for getting airborne in just 200 metres of runway on an aircraft carrier deck.

{Hence for both reasons the F-414 INS6 is needed.}

ADA has announced that GE will supply 99 F-414 engines for the Tejas Mark II, with the first of them arriving by September. The new engine will then be accommodated in the existing fuselage space and ADA will reconfigure the air intake to provide the extra air the F-414 burns. Some analysts claim this redesign is beyond ADA; while senior ADA engineers say they have the problem licked. The GE website indicates the two engines are of identical size, but the F-414 is probably heavier.

{So F-414 needs more air for combustion and is heavier. If anyone recalls the LCA was designed for Kaveri which gulps more air than the F-414IN20. So air inlets should not be problem. As for being heavier, the LCA already has ballast which can be re-sized. So these should not be show stoppers.}

Besides a new engine, the Tejas Mark II would have its internals rearranged, to make them more accessible and maintenance friendly. While building the Mark I prototype, these “line replacement units” (LRUs) were positioned randomly as the need arose. Rearrangement would improve space utilisation, accessibility, and make maintenance easier and quicker, reducing turn-around time between operational missions. Furthermore the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast --- dead weight inserted incrementally while designing the fighter, to correct its centre of gravity. The internal LRUs could be re-arranged, the ballast removed, and the Mark II could instead carry 300 more kilos of useful payload.

{Alternately some of it (say 250 kg) could be just removed to lower the empty weight leading to a more agile fighter.}

Finally, the Tejas Mark II would feature upgraded avionics that are faster, lighter and smarter than the previous generation in the Mark I. This would improve combat performance and operational security. A key upgrade would involve fitting indigenous Airborne Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar to replace the current ELTA EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar.

Foreign collaboration?

Recent media reports suggest the defence ministry could bring in a foreign vendor --- Airbus Defence and Saab have been mentioned --- to develop and mass manufacture the Mark II.

Foreign collaboration has already featured in the Tejas programme. US major Lockheed Martin, and Dassault of France contributed to the Tejas’ initial design. European consortium, EADS (Now rebranded as Airbus Group) has provided consultancy on flight-testing. And, as Business Standard reported (June 17, 2014, “Rafale contract elusive, Eurofighter and Saab remain hopeful”), the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO), under which ADA functions, had asked Swedish company, Saab, in 2013 to submit a proposal for partnering ADA on designing the Mark II and establishing a manufacturing line for the new fighter. Saab, which had similarly upgraded its Gripen-D fighter to the Gripen-E by replacing the GE F-404 engine with a F-414, duly submitted a quote. But the DRDO’s leadership changed in June 2013, with Avinash Chander succeeding VK Saraswat (currently Member, NITI Aayog). Chander stalled Saab’s proposal, reluctant to award such a contract without competitive tendering. Senior Saab officials, bitten by this experience, say the company would now participate only with clear sovereign guarantees.

{Bakwas. What is bitten? Submitting proposals is the way to do business. Cant have sole monopoly for such things. In hind sight Avinash Chander should have the Saab proposal fact found by IAF/HAL/ADA team instead of stalling. "Delay is worst form of denial" said Parkinson.}

Unless ADA comes a cropper in designing the Tejas Mark II, it is highly unlikely that a foreign company could be parachuted in to oversee the development. ADA remains firmly in control, not just of the Tejas LCA project, but also in developing the next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Foreign vendors could, at the most, provide design consultancy on specific aspects. A role for foreign aerospace companies is rather more likely in galvanizing production lines, an area that has seen only faltering progress in the Tejas programme.

Kudos to Ajai Shukla for a very clear summary and bringing us upto date. A lot of lurkers read the site for informed opinion on LCA status.
To summarize more has to be done by:
- ADA to clear the FOC (Quartz Radome, BVR firing, aerial gun firing, bolt on IFR, brake colling issues) and MkII milestones (three years from now).
- HAL to clear the production and supply chain in all aspects (airframe, engine procurement, radar, radome etc)
- MoD to procure weapons for LCA squadron service.
- IAF to show more participation by firming the order for LCA MkII.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2015 21:22

Compare:

The Tejas Arrives……

and

Will the Tejas get foreign help? All indications suggest the Aeronautical Development Agency is firmly in control

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Jul 2015 21:54

NRao sir, i find them to be both accurate and right in their respective ways

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Jul 2015 22:42

Looking at the pic - what's the thing there that is second from the right ?

member_28657 · Post by **member_28657** » 15 Jul 2015 22:51

srin wrote:Looking at the pic - what's the thing there that is second from the right ?

I believe it is the Griffin Laser Guided Bomb.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 16 Jul 2015 02:51

No drop tank under the fuselage? I know I've seen it carry three drop tanks!

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2015 03:04

ramana wrote:Will the Tejas get foreign help? All indications suggest the Aeronautical Development Agency is firmly in control

Very positive progress report from Col Ajai Shukla.

India's wrath: the Tejas fighter takes off with its complete, 14-tonne load

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 15th July 15

...

With drop tanks, its radius of action is a modest 300-350 km, but can be doubled with in-flight refuelling. {Here the design constraints of Mig 21 replacement have also limited the LCA to a cheetah type range!}In a balanced IAF, with a mix of light, medium and heavy fighters, the Tejas --- operating from forward air bases like Srinagar, Pathankote, Adampur, Sirsa or Jaisalmer --- could focus on the tactical battle. Meanwhile heavier fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI, with longer ranges and greater strike power, could be directed at strategic targets deep inside enemy territory.

{srai, your load out scenarios for LCAs might come into picture here!}

...
Kudos to Ajai Shukla for a very clear summary and bringing us upto date. A lot of lurkers read the site for informed opinion on LCA status.
To summarize more has to be done by:
- ADA to clear the FOC (Quartz Radome, BVR firing, aerial gun firing, bolt on IFR, brake colling issues) and MkII milestones (three years from now).
- HAL to clear the production and supply chain in all aspects (airframe, engine procurement, radar, radome etc)
- MoD to procure weapons for LCA squadron service.
- IAF to show more participation by firming the order for LCA MkII.

Overall, a good report. I wish Shukla would have mentioned ferry range of Tejas is 1700km since I have seen quite a few people compare incorrectly with MiG-21/27 saying they can fly 1000km (or something) but LCA can only do 300-350km. They don't know the difference between combat radius and "range" that marketing brochures throw around.

Digging up old posts...

Here are some external load out variations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

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)
4 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)

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)

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)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2015 04:08

srai, How many minutes of combat time at station can LCA do? Useful for escort role.

I think using the fuel load and the sfc one can estimate this.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Jul 2015 04:21

Ramana, that should depend on the load the aircraft is carrying. I suspect combat radius would fluctuate depending on mission parameters, weapon load out and number of fuel tanks carried. Someone correct if I am wrong.

srai: you beat me to it. But well detailed. Thanks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2015 04:26

Rakesh, Agree. Want some one to do the calc for the CAP profiles.

* Want to develop quantitative expertise.

I can do the math.
----
srai, So what configuration matches the 14 tonne load-out shown in the picture?

I see two Griffins, two AAMs a drop tank and Litening pod. Maybe heaver Griffins?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Jul 2015 04:44

I doubt Lca has stations for 5 1000 lb bombs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2015 04:45

I think that caption of 14 tonne load-out is wrong. It is this standard loadout:

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)

Source: tejas.gov.in

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2015 04:47

fanne wrote:I doubt Lca has stations for 5 1000 lb bombs.

From tejas.gov.in:

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Jul 2015 04:50

Can the centreline tank be used at the same time as the Litening pod? There seems to be a space constraint.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jul 2015 04:57

Don't we need the AWACS integration for a full blown CAP profile? however I think we can use Aerostats and/or GCI to provide early warnings initially. It would be interesting profile for nLCA when the strikeCAP ops gets more definitions on the combat range without a mid-air refueler for high-asset cap.

as of now, the current threat may need to include more PGMs - mostly mobile trucks, bunkers and occasionally an airborne nuisance from the NW.. but from NE, it can be anything unknown.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jul 2015 05:27

nachiket wrote:Can the centreline tank be used at the same time as the Litening pod? There seems to be a space constraint.

Yes.

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]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2015 06:02

Please have a dekko at the radome thread and critique.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jul 2015 07:49

Is it possible to use LCA in CAS role for Ground forces? In that case , Army can have its own Aviation Wing providing CAS through LCA independently of Airforce which could be freed to undertake Deep Strike Missions, CAP and controlling the Sky or Airspace dominance role.
1962 indicated the need for such a force.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 08:11

chaanakya wrote:Is it possible to use LCA in CAS role for Ground forces? In that case , Army can have its own Aviation Wing providing CAS through LCA independently of Airforce which could be freed to undertake Deep Strike Missions, CAP and controlling the Sky or Airspace dominance role.
1962 indicated the need for such a force.

The "Combat Hawk" will fulfil that role. Maybe in some areas inshalla the HTT 40.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Jul 2015 09:21

Add weight of Pilot, pylons, gun, ammo, chaff/flares. Laser kits on bombs will weigh extra. Also tanks are 800L or 1200L?

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 16 Jul 2015 09:47

Is it possible to use LCA in CAS role for Ground forces? In that case , Army can have its own Aviation Wing providing CAS through LCA independently of Airforce which could be freed to undertake Deep Strike Missions, CAP and controlling the Sky or Airspace dominance role.

The LCA Tejas is fighting an uphill battle to get accepted by it's primary user, the IAF... on what basis can we think that the indian army will find it suitable for it's requirements