LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2015 03:42

nileshjr wrote: Good info. BTW which AESA LCA will have? Is Uttam ready for use or it will be ELTA-2052??

I think it is the 2052. I think fielding of Uttam is at least 5 years away.

nileshjr wrote: Also Indranil, I don't think we will see LEVCON on AF version. They have been working with it since long time, at least since ~ 1995, (oldest reference to LEVCON I have seen in one of the ADA publications). They have had enough time to consider it thoroughly for AF version it seems. If LEVCON was really so effective for improvement of the performance parameters, particularly the one which LCA is always said to be falling short on - STR, it should have been put on the AF version by now.

I have the exact same thoughts. Another confirmation is that none of the Mk2 models have ever shown it either. But, being the LCA-jingo I am, I will need a solid NO from somewhere "official" before I scrape that off the plate.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 23 Oct 2015 11:06

What accounts for the lag in integrating Uttam with LCA ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Oct 2015 12:33

Usual DRDO process in airborne radar development
-demo prototype with sparse populated TRM and full unit- roof tests once software is available (A2A) with demo unit and full unit - flight trials for A2A validation & A2G tests
Also depends on aircraft availability

We know Uttam is in 2nd phase, whether its mature enough for last phase remains to be seen
PS: Uttam is to have a comprehensive set of modes, and the flight speed of the LCA will pose another challenge (AEW&C is on a/c<M1, which is a specific issue for A2G modes). About the only thing moderate about the radar is its range ~100km, same as on the MMR. Ideally, it should have been in the Zhuk ME class (130-150km), matching or exceeding the RDY-2. Would give it useful capability in areas without AEW&C coverage, but against the PAF it may well be overkill.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Oct 2015 13:27

^^^ They now have a Dornier as a flying test-bed, isn't it ? So, I'm hoping that the flight tests would be accelerated ...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Oct 2015 13:36

Yes true, but its a relatively slow platform as was the Hack. Interestingly, DRDO which errs on the side of being overhonest, did not mention Uttam or FCR development for the Dornier but every other airborne program.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi ... e/nabh.pdf

DRDO was also searching for a supersonic test bed. The payoffs for having such testbeds are huge.
http://www.oneindia.com/india/sukhoi-fo ... 85485.html

"Our labs including LRDE, CABS, RCI and other national institutes such as IISC and NAL too will require a supersonic FTB," the official added.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Oct 2015 14:30

indranilroy wrote:...
nileshjr wrote: Also Indranil, I don't think we will see LEVCON on AF version. They have been working with it since long time, at least since ~ 1995, (oldest reference to LEVCON I have seen in one of the ADA publications). They have had enough time to consider it thoroughly for AF version it seems. If LEVCON was really so effective for improvement of the performance parameters, particularly the one which LCA is always said to be falling short on - STR, it should have been put on the AF version by now.
I have the exact same thoughts. Another confirmation is that none of the Mk2 models have ever shown it either. But, being the LCA-jingo I am, I will need a solid NO from somewhere "official" before I scrape that off the plate.

Check this Shukla's article out from 2008. It clarifies a bunch of things that were already in the work even back then like weight reduction and levcon. So HAL did not just come up with the idea of shedding weight for Mk.1A out of the blue. They have been working with ADA on it for quite sometime.

The Tejas LCA: improving performance with the current F-404 engine

Thursday, 17 July 2008

The selection of the Tejas LCA’s new engine in October --- the choice (as the previous post deals with) is between the Eurojet EJ200 and the GE F-414 --- will provide an extra 10 KiloNewtons of thrust to the Tejas. The new engines, however, will start being fitted onto the third Tejas squadron; the first two squadrons, comprising 40 aircraft, would already be in service with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines.

And so the Indian Air Force (IAF) has asked the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to urgently improve the performance of Tejas LCAs fitted with the GE F-404 IN-20 engines. These will power the first two LCA squadrons consisting of 40 fighters.

I visited HAL’s Bangalore Complex to see how that is being done. HAL has adopted a three-fold strategy:

1. Improving the air intake.

Top HAL decision-makers pooh-pooh the IAF’s contention that the LCA’s air intakes are incorrectly designed, resulting in oxygen starvation and incomplete burning and, therefore, sub-optimal engine power from the F-404s. At the same time, however, steps are being taken to improve air intake, without getting into major redesign that could set back the programme by years. Instead, auxiliary air intakes are being provided on the sides of the Tejas engine housing --- similar to those on the Jaguar (see photos).

These auxiliary air intakes comprise of spring-loaded panels that open when engine suction is very high and provide an additional route for airflow into the engine intakes. As you can see in the photos, the spring-loaded panels can be pushed in by manual pressure.

At critical stages in the flight envelope, such as during take-off, rapid climb, sustained turn… and in any case, when afterburners are on… the heavy suction from the engines would open the auxiliary air intakes. When the demand for air goes down, such as in level flight, the auxiliary air intakes would close.

HAL designers aver that this would improve the engine performance only in some portions of the flight envelope. They say that during the most critical moments --- which are during sustained turns, in aerial combat --- the auxiliary air intakes would provide only marginally improved performance, if any at all.

A top HAL designer told me, “There is some merit in [the IAF’s idea]… the designers are considering it. There has been a debate for quite some time… will it really improve to that extent. Where it really matters it may not give added thrust.. in other places it will give.”

Nevertheless, the fitment of auxiliary air intakes is going ahead, partly because this does not require major re-engineering, nor will it delay the Tejas induction in any way. According to HAL, this will take six months to engineer; later LSPs will incorporate the auxiliary air intakes.

2. Reduction of Tejas' weight.

The LCA’s designers say that the removal of telemetry instrumentation, which is essential during flight testing, will bring the Tejas’ weight down by as much as 300-400 kilos. Re-engineering some of the displays and sub-systems within the cockpit will lop off another 300 kilos; the weight reduction of 600-700 kilos is expected to allow the carriage of more weapons.

There is a lack of understanding about what the Tejas’ weight is, since all kinds of figures are bandied about. Let me clarify: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons. This could be armament or external fuel tanks; if external fuel tanks are fitted, the weight of fuel will correspondingly bring down the weapons load carried.

But there’s a catch! The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So you’ll have to shed one ton… or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments. That’s what happens when a fighter’s weight goes beyond what was originally planned.

So the reduction of 600-700 kilos may not actually go into making the Tejas more manoeuvrable. This shaved off weight may be made up by allowing the Tejas to carry (close to) its full capacity of external fuel-cum-armament.

3. Increasing control surfaces.

The designers say they are considering adding an auxiliary wing (similar to the Eurofighter) to the front portion of the fuselage to increase the control surfaces, and therefore manoeuvrability. This involves major re-engineering, which cannot be done for the first two squadrons. However, it will be grouped along with the re-design that will be necessary for fitting in the new engine for Tejas No 41 onwards.

The Tejas designers are not unanimous about the utility of an auxiliary wing. Some are of the opinion that the added power that will come from the new engine might make the additional control surfaces superfluous. But the option remains on the table.

My interpretation on the last bit is that since Mk.1A is retaining its F-404 engine, some auxiliary wing might be necessary to increase maneuverability since it won't have the added power of Mk.2 with a more powerful F-414 engine. But if enough weight can be shed from Mk.1A then auxiliary wing might not be necessary at all as the F-404 engine thrust would be sufficient for desired maneuverability.

member_28386 · Post by **member_28386** » 23 Oct 2015 15:03

Does it matter too much, if the usual payload carried is 3 tons and not 4 tons? It shall certainly not affect the Fighter Air Defense Role (FAD) as an interceptor where it will have support from Ground and Airborne Radar. Combat Air Patrol of course would be for SU-30MKI. So far as Strike is concerned, it will only be used for close air support to ground troops and for providing air cover to other strike fighters or for Recce. Deep Penetration and Bomb Truck Roles would be for the Rafale, Su-30 and maybe the AMCA & FGFA in future.

The Single Engine Fighter Role should be taken over by the LCA Tejas Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2 as it progressively replaces Mig21, Mig23 (number-plated), Mig27 and even the Jaguar squadrons. @15 Squadrons of various LCA Versions (300 A/c) with the IAF some hopefully with Kaveri engines is viable.

Another 5 odd trainer (LIFT) squadrons (100 A/c) would be icing on the cake.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Oct 2015 16:26

That means canards is on cards for Mk1A. [404in]

on the sub-optimal burn where there any flight that recorded any type of black smoke emission? that would validate the report what HAL 'pooh pooh' is correct.

I think we should not look at PAF alone for Uttam use. and the calibration of phase shifters serving t/r arrays and timing/delays itself would be very tough task.. lot of airborne testing is needed to the desired results. Is it going to have overlapped subarrays for the receive? GaN is more powerful and 414 may additionally drive the extra range needed so that we get away from PAF specifics. I hope the array spacing between modules may be changing for GaN. Essentially, depending on the array assembly, the complexity of calibration increases, and so is the radar steering processor. May be some reports showing the actual photographs of Uttam radar will reveal what might be the complexity for some radar experts of the forum to educate us (dileep-eta?)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2015 21:44

Srai sahab,

1. That weight reduction (circa. 2008) always happens when going from a prototype test vehicle to a fielded plane. The displays have already been rearranged (can't remember if it was LSP-5 or LSP-7). I don't believe it is an easy exercise to shave of 800 kgs now. It should be pursued, but not at the cost of Mk1 or Mk2, because then it becomes a self-defeating purpose. If Mk1 is delayed any further, it will supplanted by imports. And once this window of opportunity is closed, you can safely say bye-bye to the LCA program. And that is why I am so happy with the 120 Mk1 buys. Get all these advancements/learnings in the next iteration, i.e. Mk2. Call it whatever you want.

2. I have a lingering doubt that the pressure recovery in the inlet of Mk1 is not ideal. This means that the engine does not achieve its max thrust. But Ajai Shukla's comprehension of the auxiliary door is not completely correct. Different parts of the envelop require different inlet shapes, but a plane can have only one. Therefore, the inlet is always designed for best performance during a 'design point' (typically cruise). What the experts are asserting is that the inlet design for this "design point" is not optimal and should be corrected. This has been asserted by the late Air Cmde Khokhar as well.
The need of the auxiliary doors arise from the wide envelop of a fighter aircraft and its fixed inlet shape. At parts of the envelop away from the "design point", the inlet will definitely be suboptimal. Enter the auxilary doors, for handling some of the suboptimality around low speed handling. The ideal inlet shape for collecting air from a standstill is in the shape of a bell (you would see this on static engine test beds). Basically, a large volume of static air is scooped at the mouth and accelerated along the length of the inlet to meet the engine face at near design-point conditions. The doors just allow a way of providing a wider mouth. This allows the fighters to have smaller take-off/landing runs and speeds. This is nothing new. You can see this most ostensible in the Harriers. What I have a question is why are the auxilary inlets not on the bottom-side of the inlet like in the Mirage/Rafale/F-18s. It adds a ramming effect when the aircraft is flying at a positive AoA, typical of slow speed flights. Susceptibility to FoD?

3. They are speaking of a control canard like on the Eurofighter. This is a typical discussion during the life of every single delta fighter. And it is not unfounded. For example on the LCA, the latest papers unearthed by Nilesh point, that at high AoA, the vortex burst moves ahead of the trailing edge of the wing, rendering the control surfaces less effective. If there is not enough authority, then of course a control canard near the nose which does not get strongly couple with the wing will be useful. However, there are other known solutions too. Another paper talks of how the Levcons keep the airflow near the wing-root smooth and attached. Therefore, it will also provide the flaperons smooth air to bite into. However, there are no signs of any such surfaces (canards or Levcons or even strakes) on the Mk2 models shown this far. Therefore, they must have come to the opinion that such surfaces are not required, or detrimental in other aspects of the flight.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 24 Oct 2015 00:18

A 'Crash Landing': The Slow and Painful Death of India's Air Force

One of the many new-fangled "analysts" peppering the web trash-talks the Tejas; gets hammered in the comments.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Oct 2015 17:35

^sheer nonsense and evil. better not to post here.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Oct 2015 18:20

indranilroy wrote:Srai sahab,

What I have a question is why are the auxilary inlets not on the bottom-side of the inlet like in the Mirage/Rafale/F-18s. It adds a ramming effect when the aircraft is flying at a positive AoA, typical of slow speed flights. Susceptibility to FoD?

3. They are speaking of a control canard like on the Eurofighter. This is a typical discussion during the life of every single delta fighter. And it is not unfounded. For example on the LCA, the latest papers unearthed by Nilesh point, that at high AoA, the vortex burst moves ahead of the trailing edge of the wing, rendering the control surfaces less effective. If there is not enough authority, then of course a control canard near the nose which does not get strongly couple with the wing will be useful. However, there are other known solutions too. Another paper talks of how the Levcons keep the airflow near the wing-root smooth and attached. Therefore, it will also provide the flaperons smooth air to bite into. However, there are no signs of any such surfaces (canards or Levcons or even strakes) on the Mk2 models shown this far. Therefore, they must have come to the opinion that such surfaces are not required, or detrimental in other aspects of the flight.

Mig-29 (at least the original version) have it on top. They would take off with air intake totally shut-off, and air coming only from auxiliary intake from top of the wing glove. FoD was "the" reason there. They might be one of the reasons that Mig-29 had no limit on engine operation whatsoever (in terms of stalling) during manoeuvring.

We ain't seeing no canards on LCA. Observe the LCA in side view. LCA is a high wing design, and there is no place to put canards over the plane of the wing. And canards below or in-line with the wing plane are disastrous. Long-coupled canard for 'control only' purpose is out of the question. And putting close-coupled canards is as good as making new wing. Bulk of the lift at high AoA comes from the central portion of the wing. You put a canard, and you might screw up all that portion.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Oct 2015 11:19

Nilesh,

The reason for LCA's auxilary doors and that on the Mig-29 are completely different. The auxilary and the front inlet were never simultaneously open on the Mig-29. IIRC, the front door is linked to nose gear. At high AoA, the auxilary doors are not open. The wonderful no-stall characteristics of both the Mig-29 and Su-27 come from the completely straight underbody intake, and some engine magic.

As an aside, I have to check if total area of the grill on the top was larger than the mouth of the front intake.

I don't expect canards on the LCA either. As I said earlier, if we were to ever see them it will be the moustache arrangement, but even then (as you rightly point out), I don't know how to place them without having a large anhedral.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Oct 2015 11:34

LCAs auxiliary doors are only required in high-alpha manoeuvering beyond the existing 24-28 deg or in slow speed conditions and high-Alpha (eg CTOL from carrier). That is the claim made by folks like Khokhar, Mao et al. Khokhar said the design had potential to be used at more than the existing plans (per Shukla) but the intake wasnt designed for those. Mao mentioned, low speed high alpha eg carrier specific take-off.
Basically within the regular envelope, the intakes should be ok.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Oct 2015 12:40

The LCA intake was studied at NAL
http://www.nal.res.in/pages/wtstory.htm
More recently (around 1990), NAL carried out a series of remarkable wind tunnel tests for air intake studies on the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA); this involved the design and fabrication of a composite air intake model, sophisticated instrumentation and realtime testing to study pressure recovery and buzz characteristics

2003
http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/9314/1/PDRP0311.pdf

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Oct 2015 16:53

indranilroy wrote:Nilesh,

The reason for LCA's auxilary doors and that on the Mig-29 are completely different. The auxilary and the front inlet were never simultaneously open on the Mig-29. IIRC, the front door is linked to nose gear. At high AoA, the auxilary doors are not open. The wonderful no-stall characteristics of both the Mig-29 and Su-27 come from the completely straight underbody intake, and some engine magic.

As an aside, I have to check if total area of the grill on the top was larger than the mouth of the front intake.

I don't expect canards on the LCA either. As I said earlier, if we were to ever see them it will be the moustache arrangement, but even then (as you rightly point out), I don't know how to place them without having a large anhedral.

The main reason of having aux. intakes for Mig-29 was FOD as I also said, that's why they were linked to nose gear (below 200kmph and when nose LG is compressed the intake doors will be closed). But they also were used during high engine power setting at moderate speeds such as during manoeuvring. They would provide additional air mass that only main intake openings would not be able to at lower speeds. In fact 800 kmph speed could be maintained with only aux. intakes open and main inlets closed fully (Ref: 'Mig Aircrafts since 1937'). Yes, the stall-free envelope was a design feature for RD-33, since they could operate at any inlet turbulence levels ("engine magic"), but they need to be supplied required amount of air mass flow. The under-wing placement of straight inlets is again the main force behind this at higher AoA but the aux. intakes surely would help in supplying enough air so that the pilot can have the engines at full power setting even at low/moderate speeds at extremely high AoA (like more than 60deg or something like that). Remember the sizing of those aux. intakes was for entire air mass flux at Max TO condition where max airflow is demanded, so they were more than good at any other conditions while main intakes were also open, and being spring loaded they would open any time when engine is stymied of air.

You can easily see the aux. intakes open during flight in many pictures/some videos:
http://www.walldesk.net/pdp/1024/13/01/ ... MiG-29.jpg

Having said that, they are not necessary features if the intakes are well designed. The newer versions of Mig-29 don't have these aux. intakes do they??

BTW the comment on canard was not directed at you, but in general regarding the canard related discussion going on here.

Edit: I checked. Mig-29M has redesigned inlet with higher inlet area with movable lip (a la EF-2000) and aux. air intakes removes. Mig-29SMT also has aux. intakes removed as upgrade for older mig-29s. They utilised the space emptied by aux. intakes to increase internal fuel capacity. Also Mig-29M has a analog FCS not a digital one. (quad redundant in pitch and tri redundant in roll/yaw). I didn't know that.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 25 Oct 2015 17:46

Btw, news blackout on Tejas or what ? Haven't heard any news on the program since forever. No news about the NP-1/NP-2 or the SP-2 or even any testing schedules. The monsoons have been over for over a month now.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 26 Oct 2015 06:20

http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/I ... 096831.ece

Tejas offered to Sri Lanka as replacement for MiG-27 and Kfir.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 26 Oct 2015 08:23

Tejas to get Israeli AESA Radar as per broadsword blog

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 26 Oct 2015 08:24

Vaiko ji will start his drama now

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 08:37

prasannasimha wrote:Tejas to get Israeli AESA Radar as per broadsword blog

Fully gushy gushy from HAL - no mention of how developing their own capabilities would help.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/10/c ... s-air.html

This was a win-win for both Elta and HAL. “Look at the market HAL provides Elta. The 61 Jaguars being upgraded to DARIN-3 would all be fitted with the ELM-2052. At least 100 Tejas would get the improved version, possibly with more to follow. Meanwhile, 50 IAF Mirage-2000 fighters are being upgraded, but with a manual radar that could become obsolescent quickly. So the improved AESA could eventually equip the Mirage fleet too, adding up to 200-plus radars”, says Raju.

That's around a Billion$ for Elta as versus HAL and he is overjoyed, as versus investing in Indian programs. No wonder HAL continues to blunder around.

Oh well. Uttam will likely continue for the Su-30 MKI or the AMCA.

Defence ministry sources say the agreement specifies that 60 per cent of the new radar, by value, would be manufactured in India.

Hopefully the TRM designs at HBL Nife/TATA ASL or Astra Microwave.

And Illustrating Israeli capabilities, the Tejas Mark I was already armed with an all-Israeli combination of the Elta EL/M-2032 radar, the Derby and Python air-to-air missiles, and a data link that digitally interconnected these. Indian test pilots say this was a “world-class” air-to-air combat configuration.

The datalink is a new one. Probably refers to the IAF's ODL.

Interested in this:
Tomorrow: Part II: Improved Tejas to add range and electronic warfare ability

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 09:01

LOL at how Tejas team basically leveraged IAF desire for AESA and got the aircraft in. Makes sense. The core platform & all important software is Indian, we can always add our own avionics over time - though the AESA should be super reliable and we shouldn't have to.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 26 Oct 2015 09:01

Thakur_B wrote:http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/I ... 096831.ece

Tejas offered to Sri Lanka as replacement for MiG-27 and Kfir.

With GE engine? I doubt it. We may need permission of US which may not be forth coming. I am sure out TN politicos will also create serious objections etc.

We need to have a local engine before any 3rd world exports are discussed. US will not allow exports to many nations which are friendly towards us and which may be interested in LCA type light multi role fighter.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 09:29

AN/APG-79 is 18KVA. Aperture dia/size of around 700mm. Range estimates of 300km + against fighter sized targets.
EL/M-2052 is 4-10 KVA (depending on antenna size). Dia of around 650mm on the Tejas.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 26 Oct 2015 09:54

^What would you estimate the range as?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 10:03

150Km'ish hopefully, at any rate significantly more than the current 100km...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Oct 2015 10:14

their supersonic test bed should be a 2-seater Tejas itself as HAL can easily maintain it locally vs a sukhoi or mig29 where no such BRD exists in blr or hyd.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 10:21

STB needs 2 engines hence Su-30. will be used for kaveri.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2015 10:28

" “Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI is Elta’s parent company) and HAL have signed an agreement that says we would partner IAI in developing the improved AESA radar for the Tejas”, confirms Raju."

Whatever it takes to get Tejas in IAF colors. This is a small sacrifice in the bigger picture. It puts us far ahead of the screwdriver giri we normally do when buying a new platform. The joint development if real is also a good deal along with the 60% of production within the country. Perhaps they will tweak it to get longer ranges if there is enough juice available.

The Jag bird will become multirole as well. That must be a huge game changer as well for the 61 birds that will get that update.

Where does that leave the rafale then? Do we still need it?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 26 Oct 2015 10:31

from the BS link -

The key battle-winning capability in the SoP-18 Tejas is “active electronically scanned array” (AESA) radar that Israel will develop jointly with India. This was the clincher that made the IAF agree to buy 100 SoP-18 fighters from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), in addition to the 20 Tejas Mark 1 already on order.

multiple factors played in IAF's decision IMO.

1. MOD(I) read the riot act.
2. cost/bankruptcy involved in Rafale acquisition which IAF had pinned it's hopes on.
3. IAF decision makers who had never flown LCA finally did as a consquence of #1&2 and i am sure the deputy chief must have got the same impression as the TPs who equate it to an upgraded M2K. so the top heirarchy got the right feedback.
4. ofc the AESA is an added bonus.
5. knowing Rafale is not coming in numbers, LCA 1 was the only game in town which could come quick compared to negotiating, inducting a new aircraft - a good 10 years.

Karan M, i agree with you. HAL should have taken up the UTTAM even if it comes 3 years later. the fact is HAL has to supply the 20 IOC 2 standard LCAs first which itself might take 2 years. by the time FOC standard LCAs come on line possibly around 2018, possibly Uttam would be ready which is already in trials IIRC from your posts/sources. besides EL-2052 is not fieled by Isarel which puts a '?' on it.

again from the BS link regards Jags-

The decision stems from the IAF’s on-going plan to refurbish its 123-aircraft Jaguar fleet, upgrading those six squadrons of deep penetration strike aircraft to continue in service for another 15-20 years. This involves spending $2 billion (Rs 13,000 crore) on new, more powerful engines (the Honeywell F-125N has been chosen); upgrading 61 Jaguars with HAL’s vaunted DARIN-3 navigation-attack system, and arming the fleet with lethal, smart munitions like the Textron CBU-105 “sensor-fuzed bombs” that India bought from the United States in 2010.

IAF has again shot itself in the foot by delaying the engine upg of the Jags by putting all their bets on the Rafale. considering these machines are way better than the Mig 27s in terms of safety, reliability, a decision (may be 6/7 years back) would have been wise even if Rafale was coming in good numbers and possibly 1/2sq would have been available by now. while it is not bad even now considering the IAF strength, probably a handful of 2/3sq - the newest ones - may go this route IMHO.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2015 10:53

Their counting is a little off. It is already 100 LCA Mk1A + 61 Jags + 56 Navy LCA Mk2 + 20 Trainers for IAF = 237 2052 sets.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2015 12:20

Was this posted earlier? If so,apologies,but the last quote by former ACM Krishnaswamy is what many on BRF have also advocated .

The LCA Tejas Needs To See Squadron Service NOW
The LCA Tejas needs to see squadron service now. Goalposts, mission objectives, time-lines, costs and specifications have, over 32 years, melded into an amorphous, self-defeating paradox. One that has served no national interest, certainly not that of the Indian Air Force.

Let's be clear. This cannot be about forcing the Indian Air Force to accept a fighter plane. A Reuters report that's been reproduced across media today describes the LCA as obsolete and a potential burden on a reluctant IAF. Several others quote anonymous sources or retired officers as banging their fists on their tables and saying the Tejas is one big chunky albatross the air force needs least. One that will forever stall its planning and acquisition impetus.

Arguments, including several here on Livefist, over the years have now also melded together into one big exasperation. Nose cones. Radar efficiency. The ability to deploy smart weapons. Sustained turn rate. Hot and high operations after a cold soak. Manoeuverability at low altitude. Sea-level operations. Demonstration of air combat weapons. The lack of a mature primary sensor. The maintenance nightmare. The fact that crew will need a chisel and many hours to open any panel of the platform to find out what's wrong. Low power. You've heard it all.

The truth is, there have been too many lines in the sand. And not one of those has been respected. Not by the makers of the aircraft. And not by the Indian Air Force. A chronic lack of mutual trust between the IAF and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) on the one hand, and a laughably hostile status quo between the IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics on the other has bedeviled even basic convergence on delivery timelines, specifications and targets. Hostilities and egos, fuelled by the pulls and pressures of an overbearing acquisition impulse pegged on the arithmetics of sanctioned strength and squadron numbers. Hostilities that have allowed a most unfortunate regime of charges and counter-charges that have achieved only two things: (a) compelled an already troubled program to flounder further, and (b) kept the makers and customer from acknowledging genuine steps of progress towards a ready and usable project. This trust deficit and sneering incredulity needs to be a case study in indigenous project management going forward, for it has never been more manifest than in Project Tejas.

As I said, the exasperations around the LCA have tossed and turned for so long in a cauldron of innumerable pressures, that they appear practically ambiguous now. Few arguments both for and against the LCA Tejas arrive with any of the muscle they did earlier. Circumstances have changed. The IAF is a much more dynamic service in crucial ways. India's military industrial complex is itself in a period of flux that will hopefully see monopolistic development and production swept away to make way for competitive technology advances that involve the private sector. The possibilities are enormous.

Since no prescription on defence really involves a prescription, I'll end with a real one: set one final date for the induction of the LCA Tejas. Induct the Tejas on that date, no matter what has or hasn't been achieved by that date as stipulated in the last discussions on record. Roll out squadron service. Continue testing alongside squadron service (not uncommon for new platforms), as had been the original plan before goalposts were shifted once again. Get the Tejas to stretch its legs regularly at exercises. Send it out to the island bases on detachment to see if it's the workhorse it was built to be. Retrofit all new developments and additions, including IFR capabilities.

What about the air force? Is a sub-optimal platform being foisted on it? Truthfully, only squadron service will ever really tell. Is a reluctant air force being forced to accept an obsolete platform? Not really. The IAF has accounted for the LCA Tejas in its orbat, and has now expanded that requirement based on a matrix of pressures that includes, significantly, the lack of an alternative, seeing sense in moving forward on a platform the IAF is undeniably invested in and, finally, the realisation that the Tejas could conceivably be a platform far superior than its trodden-on image.

That's the key. Get it out into air force stations. That isn't the kind of fatalistic/idealistic prescription it sounds like. Several aircraft that have been mired in development hell have blossomed upon breathing squadron air.

Former IAF chief Srinvasapuram Krishnaswamy once said to me in an interview days before he retired, "I feel we should simply induct the Tejas. Once it is in service, a sense of ownership will come. And we can progressively improve it jointly along with the developers. The aircraft needs to get out of test and into squadrons. That is the only solution."

That was 11 years ago.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 26 Oct 2015 12:52

^Israeli Kfir has American engine. Our main problem is TN politicos................

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 26 Oct 2015 14:37

hmmm very cool, love the idea of Jags with AESA. Now high time to re-engine them, the Honeywell, AESA would make this puppy a great 4.5 gen aircraft. EL2052 is one of the best AESAs out there.

ELTA 2052

http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/7/41417.pdf

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2015 14:41

>>Now high time to re-engine them, the Honeywell, AESA would make this puppy a great 4.5 gen aircraft.

Oh come on! It will be an ok aircraft for strike, but that's about it. The only good thing about the Jags is we have them for a long time and make most of the spares locally.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 26 Oct 2015 14:53

What would jag do with aesa?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 26 Oct 2015 16:38

^Regardless of whether we want them to do so or not, would AESA equipped Jags carry BVR missiles?

Would the be able to self-escort in that case?

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Oct 2015 17:03

What would jag do with aesa?

This entire Jaguar re-engining business sounds flaky. The advertised range and payload of the Jags can be met by the LCAs. And with the AESA and SPJ and other doo-dads, it will put on weight and be back to square one.

That said, getting in the 2052 is the most logical step to get the fully upgraded Tejas into service at the earliest with the least risk. Since this is just a 2032 kind of radar with an AESA front end (as it seems to be), there will be no need to do fraught integration , testing and refining task needed with this if going for an indegenous radar for eg.

Good decision. Parikkar seems to have really cut the Gordian knot with this decision.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Oct 2015 17:07

What Jags need from the radar would be terrain-following autopilot mode that works in all-weather. That would be a tremendous capability boost.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 26 Oct 2015 17:11

Tfr can be done with normal radar