LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

member_29229 · Post by **member_29229** » 30 Oct 2015 06:06

I have a noob question and hope someone could answer it. LCA mk1 is said to have a combat radius of 300km while the Gripen C's CR is said to be around 800km, with only internal fuel and no drop tanks. Both being almost equal in weight and internal fuel, why is LCA inefficient ? Sorry if this was answered before..

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 30 Oct 2015 06:09

Hector wrote:I have a noob question and hope someone could answer it. LCA mk1 is said to have a combat radius of 300km while the Gripen C's CR is said to be around 800km, with only internal fuel and no drop tanks. Both being almost equal in weight and internal fuel, why is LCA inefficient ? Sorry if this was answered before..

Gripen carries lesser fuel. That 800 Km combat radius is from a leaked swedish air force document and is for air to air load only.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2015 06:23

Thakur_B wrote:
Hector wrote:I have a noob question and hope someone could answer it. LCA mk1 is said to have a combat radius of 300km while the Gripen C's CR is said to be around 800km, with only internal fuel and no drop tanks. Both being almost equal in weight and internal fuel, why is LCA inefficient ? Sorry if this was answered before..
Gripen carries lesser fuel. That 800 Km combat radius is from a leaked swedish air force document and is for air to air load only.

Most people confuse range (one-way) with combat radius (round-trip with some reserves for on-station/fight). Also, need to look at what payload, altitude, etc. were involved and if those are estimated vs actual.

member_29229 · Post by **member_29229** » 30 Oct 2015 06:56

srai wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Gripen carries lesser fuel. That 800 Km combat radius is from a leaked swedish air force document and is for air to air load only.
Most people confuse range (one-way) with combat radius (round-trip with some reserves for on-station/fight). Also, need to look at what payload, altitude, etc. were involved and if those are estimated vs actual.

So is 800Km the range or combat radius of Gripen ? If its the combat radius, even accounting for a heavier payload on the LCA, wouldn't it still be almost double that of the Tejas.. ?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 30 Oct 2015 07:02

Slightly off topic but within the realm of LCA Mfg

Bangladesh - SELL --> NO MFG --> NO (they are good untrustworthy friend and unsure of what they want to be in the region)
Afghanistan - SELL --> NO MFG --> NO (even though I heavily favour supporting the country with small arms and money and other non-lethal equipment like trucks, once the Talibs run over everything will be wasted).
Sri Lanka - SELL --> YES MFG --> NO (too small)

ASEAN Manufacturing Quadrilateral
Vietnam - SELL --> YES MFG --> YES (Asean Mfg Base)
Malayasia - SELL YES --> YES MFG --> YES (Asean Mfg Base)
Thailand - SELL --> YES MFG --> YES (Asean Mfg Base)
Burma - SELL --> YES MFG --> YES (Asean Mfg Base)

Iran .... SELL YES ... MFG they won't want since they are trying to nurture their own Aerospace Industry and am not too keen on giving it to them either.
We have mastered more than they have.

I would not sell anything to anyone else in the middleeast region. Let the region shake out for the next 4 years.
That place is gonna turn into a hell hole thanks to the frekin Al Sauds morons.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Oct 2015 07:08

License production could also be screwdrivergiri. So chill out. Some work can go there based on their capability to manufacture those parts. But most of them will be assembling of the aircraft from parts. So chill out.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2015 07:12

Singha wrote:its never about making $$ initially. its about building footprint and relations. once you get your footprint in, you make it sticky. people cannot change planes like they change phones.

That is exactly the game plan of big-timers, one-timers and pass-timers to infiltrate and make IAF become dependent (to only to a level that it needs that keeps them engaged) in a relationship of buyer-seller for a long-lasting periods. It would only take products like LCA to overcome such challenges. I guess these challenges were even active at the time of drafting requirements and all the way up to even now and future. This will go on and on....

Jump start and leap in a manner that will surprise even the best of the best super duper nations., and it can't just stop there. once begun, no stopping.. we have to continuously evolve the platform from the base to advanced versions. Everything else would be credit card.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2015 07:27

http://www.janes.com/article/55610/aesa ... -lca-mk1as

Another of those Rahul Bedi salvos.. (where was he hiding all these while?)

The recent decision to equip India's locally designed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) with an Israeli active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar was "instrumental" in the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) recent decision to acquire 100 of the fighters from 2018 onwards, official sources have indicated.

State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which is series building the LCA in Bangalore, has opted to provide the fighter with an upgraded variant of the EL/M-2052 AESA radar produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) subsidiary ELTA. HAL and IAI have signed an agreement to jointly develop and flight test (on IAF fighters) an improved EL/M-2052 radar for the LCA, of which around 60% by value will be sourced locally.

janes account walas can share more info

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2015 08:42

uddu wrote:License production could also be screwdrivergiri. So chill out. Some work can go there based on their capability to manufacture those parts. But most of them will be assembling of the aircraft from parts. So chill out.

+1
Pakistans industrial products are footballs, mascara, textiles and JF-17 aircraft. It is rank screwdrivergiri. If China can do that to shitistan we can do it in Africa - maybe components, maybe or maybe a HTT 40 class aircraft or a derivative of the Cheetah or Nishant UAV. Hansa anyone?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2015 08:46

800 km radius for Gripen needs to be clarified with altitude and amount of auxiliary fuel. Cruising at 30,000 feet is different from an intercept mission that gets the plane down to 1000 feet. Range for any jet aircraft means getting as high as possible, as soon as possible and staying there as long as possible.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2015 08:54

Gripen C carries only 2400 kgs of fuel. 58 kgs less than LCA. Its combat radius should same or similar.

Perhaps Vivek can do a comparison if he has the bandwidth and put this to rest.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Oct 2015 09:15

the gripen is a less draggy airframe though. and it has no issue with less airflow in supersonic.
that was part of the reason why tejas mk2 was initially proposed with a 1m long plug in the middle.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Oct 2015 09:27

the gripen is a less draggy airframe though. and it has no issue with less airflow in supersonic.

Believe me, the max range will at a speed that is firmly subsonic. All this less and more draggy business and supersonic stuff is just a red herring for this. In these kind of max range regimes, it is a non issue. Don't fall for the Natasha nonsense.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2015 09:37

I agree with Karan M. I hope the navy pushes to be a medium sized bird. 2 to 2.25 hour cap is what they should be looking for. 4000 kgs of internal fuel and 2000 kgs of external fuel will make it quite formidable. If you can minimize the number of landings on the Aircarft Carrier, better it is.

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 30 Oct 2015 09:50

Cybaru wrote:Gripen C carries only 2400 kgs of fuel. 58 kgs less than LCA. Its combat radius should same or similar.

Perhaps Vivek can do a comparison if he has the bandwidth and put this to rest.

Right this needs to be put at rest. This is not the first time we have discussed this.

At less fuel than LCA, having double the range is not very believable. Swedish tech may be good, gripen may have a longer range with lesser fuel - maybe 20% more, 30% more. But double sounds very incredible. Too good to be true.

Or is it? Is airframe drag, load configurations good enough to explain a 100% difference?

nits · Post by **nits** » 30 Oct 2015 11:26

speaking in General - how quickly view, perception and hope changes. till few weeks back LCA was costly, waste products having no FOC etc; GOI pressed some right buttons and tightened screws and now LCA gets accepted in 100's with ASEA Radars with tallks of 3rd party, Exports and what not...

Great are the games of this Great Democracy

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Oct 2015 11:27

Vina is right. Maximum range is always on subsonic cruise. There is no way gripen can have double the range of Tejas carrying the same load. It will at most be 5-10% extra. So either Tejas ranges are conservative, or gripen ranges are inflated, or both.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2015 11:34

Ramana,excellent analogy,the Panchatantra tale.Incidentally,the same tale is there in European lit. Lit. experts now believe that the famous Aesop's Fables were actually derived originally from India and altered to fit European conditions.

Yes,the point NR raised about the engines is v.moot.Will the US allow certain nations to use an American engine? Here I have a true story to relate.An individual/co I know,had a joint project with the DRDO for a v.critical component of the Kaveri engine,whose tech was never offered by firang OEMs.They succeeded.This component is shown off with pride to firangs whenever the K engine is shown at shows.However,no orders whatsoever have materialised after many,many years since this was developed! They curse the day they tied up with the DRDO/GTRE and because of some funding recd. from the DPSU,cannot even export their product.The same entity have a source/design for another excellent system which has immense performance for all services.When the DRDO was approached some time ago,they sniffed at it and have yet to develop a desi prod. even after a decade of dev. work. Another acclaimed entity providing some components for the same desi prod. are fed up with the DRDO "who only talk".They want to stop producing anything for Ind. defence.They quietly sell a superb prod. developed themselves on the intl. market.

Let the ADA/HAL first build at least 100+ for the IAF,just as Dhruv's have been built for the services,proven themselves in the air and then automatically the enquiries will come!
Look at the SU-30.It is a worldbeater having been sold in the hundreds to many countries due to its performance and cost.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 30 Oct 2015 12:13

Hector wrote:I have a noob question and hope someone could answer it. LCA mk1 is said to have a combat radius of 300km while the Gripen C's CR is said to be around 800km, with only internal fuel and no drop tanks. Both being almost equal in weight and internal fuel, why is LCA inefficient ? Sorry if this was answered before..

take a look at the Gripen C specs from the SAAB bochure.

LCA empty weight - 6560kg Internal Fuel - 2486kg
Gripen C empty - 6800KG Internal fuel - 2400kg.

they both use same GE engine albeit LCA engine has better wet thrust.

so how can a aircraft with higher empty weight with less internal fuel can have a better range? even if i account 86kg fuel for drag on LCA, the range should be roughly same.

IMO, it is with all external tanks.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 30 Oct 2015 12:56

Philip wrote: Let the ADA/HAL first build at least 100+ for the IAF,just as Dhruv's have been built for the services,proven themselves in the air and then automatically the enquiries will come![/b]

Let Russia induct 100 odd Pak-Fa before trying to sell it to anyone

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2015 13:13

^ +1 clap clap!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2015 16:01

Yup! needs more clap clap. Did they buy Mig 29 Kubs for naam-ke-vaste? some research tie up or operational use? Mig 35 is only planned. So, the migs were largely India specific, and some nations in the ME. They are market area driven.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong for LCA to mark its market scope.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Oct 2015 16:07

is the current Tejas mk1 6500kg in reality or higher ?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 Oct 2015 16:29

Thakur_B wrote:
Philip wrote: Let the ADA/HAL first build at least 100+ for the IAF,just as Dhruv's have been built for the services,proven themselves in the air and then automatically the enquiries will come![/b]
Let Russia induct 100 odd Pak-Fa before trying to sell it to anyone

Ohh, you hit him where it hurt. You do know that hitting below the belt in tender spots are not allowed right ?

member_29229 · Post by **member_29229** » 30 Oct 2015 17:30

pragnya wrote:
Hector wrote:I have a noob question and hope someone could answer it. LCA mk1 is said to have a combat radius of 300km while the Gripen C's CR is said to be around 800km, with only internal fuel and no drop tanks. Both being almost equal in weight and internal fuel, why is LCA inefficient ? Sorry if this was answered before..
take a look at the Gripen C specs from the SAAB bochure.

LCA empty weight - 6560kg Internal Fuel - 2486kg
Gripen C empty - 6800KG Internal fuel - 2400kg.

they both use same GE engine albeit LCA engine has better wet thrust.

so how can a aircraft with higher empty weight with less internal fuel can have a better range? even if i account 86kg fuel for drag on LCA, the range should be roughly same.

IMO, it is with all external tanks.

That is exactly what I thought too. I could accept a 10-30% increased range like YashG and Indranil pointed out. But double the range is kind of stretching it too much.. Maybe Gripen fans could chip in..

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Oct 2015 17:58

Dont think Russia can afford a lot of PAF FA or PAK DA for that matter ..not in next 5 years .. unless oil prices zoom north again !

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Oct 2015 18:37

Arun don't get personal please... Philip is a long-term friend of BRF, has served as an admin, and is a valued member...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2015 21:04

Folks don't go that rabbit hole of Grippen/Vippen. Focus on LCA here.

Early in Jan 2015 there were four goals svated by DRDO chief for LCA:
- Quartz radome
- IFR
- Gun firing trials with LRU requalifications for loads
- BVR firing.

How many achieved by now i.e. Nov 2015?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Oct 2015 21:11

Quartz and BVR - Shouldn't the direction change since 2052 is in play now. Use whatever rodome material 2052 test aircraft used. Use the same BVR missile.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2015 21:19

fanne we are tired of how milestones will be achieved.
Were they achieved is whats important for IAF and observers.

Internal jammer also went by wayside.

My point is ADA/HAL should not bring out new gaps after all are on board.
Its like disclosing after house purchase is signed it has no kitchen appliances.

Can't do this all the time.

And if milestones were achieved why not tell atleast their favored journalists.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Oct 2015 01:27

ramana wrote:Folks don't go that rabbit hole of Grippen/Vippen. Focus on LCA here.

Early in Jan 2015 there were four goals svated by DRDO chief for LCA:
- Quartz radome
- IFR
- Gun firing trials with LRU requalifications for loads
- BVR firing.

How many achieved by now i.e. Nov 2015?

+2000. This is THE question isn't it,? What happened to these goals, last I recall bvr tests were on the cards this autumn, winter...what newj? Why no noise in this regard...all mk1a, b, c, is fine, but earlier they were saying we just moved the time line for ioc 2std because we will now deliver most aircraft at foc std. Now when time comes close, they are saying we do another timeline and we will give you aesa with mkA std in two years..this has been the problem with the ada, hal folks forever..tareekh pe tareekh. When time comes, what guarantee that they won't say..New timeline, now we give you lca mk2 with semi stealth, aesa, jammer, tvc, irst.
Phuck. Give the iaf something to fly with..

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 31 Oct 2015 03:11

Btw LCA with 2052 and Derby, IAF gets what SU30MKI also does not give and what it is hoping to get via Rafale. And it is so less costly.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Oct 2015 03:33

CM, do you remember the tareekh pe tareekh with with the Sukhois? The radome and IFR were delayed by Chobham - I wonder why? For God's sake, don't be so apparently anti-domestic industry. At least give the appearance of being for it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Oct 2015 03:54

ramana wrote:Folks don't go that rabbit hole of Grippen/Vippen. Focus on LCA here.

Early in Jan 2015 there were four goals svated by DRDO chief for LCA:
- Quartz radome
- IFR
- Gun firing trials with LRU requalifications for loads
- BVR firing.

How many achieved by now i.e. Nov 2015?

Quartz radome and IFR supplied by Chobam late i.e. around August 2015. It's only been 3-months since then. ADA still has another 6 months or so to deliver on this.

Gun firing - we have seen that short clip of LCA firing on the ground. There was talk of needinG to harden some LRUs against vibration of gun firing. Beyond that we haven't heard of other updates.

BVR - it has been integrated with Derby AAM (and maybe Python-5 as well). There was delay in getting test missiles from Israel and the backup plan mentioned was to use the IN's Derby stock. Besides, they needed the new radome to complete integration/testing of BVR at its full ranges. Again, ADA has around 6-months or so (based on their revised schedule for FOC) to deliver. Let's see.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Oct 2015 06:17

Vivek K wrote:CM, do you remember the tareekh pe tareekh with with the Sukhois? The radome and IFR were delayed by Chobham - I wonder why? For God's sake, don't be so apparently anti-domestic industry. At least give the appearance of being for it.

Vivek, my apologies if I come across as anti domestic. Believe you me, I'd like nothing better than 400 LCA being ordered and I actually feel that this is the only way for the af to get to the 50 sqd region.

But, there are some serious issues wrt timelines from the agencies...iirc, 2013 was supposed to be year of the astra, whatever that means, but there is no delivery there either. WRT LCA, Cobham issue was well known in AI 15, but the foc std was promised nevertheless with all due requirements met, now we have an altogether different std., bring promised with no noise whatsoever about foc std. Lca requirements.

Btw, comparison with mki is no go, the ioc analogue su30k was delivered without much ruckus...and the iaf was playing with it within about a year of deal signing. Compare that with when initial order for lca ioc was signed and deliveries are yet to start...

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Oct 2015 07:49

CM MkIs were significantly delayed. This was after the fact that India had paid advance 100% for the aircraft. History cannot be changed. We need a local industry. Please cut them some slack.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2015 03:37

Hope this has not been posted.

IAF wants aerial refuelling, jammers, quick turnaround in new Tejas

Business Standard, 28th Oct 15

In New Delhi on September 23, decades of friction came to an end when key stakeholders in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) finally agreed on the specifications of a fighter that would join the Indian Air Force (IAF) in large numbers, starting in 2018-19.

Termed “Standard of Preparation - 2018” (SoP-18), these specifications were agreed between four agencies. Besides the IAF, they include the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas programme; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which builds the fighter, and the ministry of defence (MoD).

SoP-18 involves four major, and several minor, improvements. As Business Standard reported yesterday (“Cutting edge Israeli radar wins air force approval for Tejas fighter”), a crucial enhancement in the SoP-18 Tejas will be “active electronically scanned array” (AESA) radar, which Israeli company, Elta, will develop with HAL.

Besides AESA radar, the SoP-18 Tejas will be equipped with the capability for air-to-air refuelling; a “self-protection jammer” (SPJ) mounted in an external pod to confuse enemy radar, and an improved layout of internal systems to ease maintenance.

HAL is currently building 20 Tejas fighters to the initial operational certification (IOC) standard. HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju says, over the next three years, production will ramp up from four aircraft this year; to seven in 2016-17; and eight in 2017-18, thus completing the order for 20 IOC fighters. From 2018-19 onwards, 16 SoP-18 Tejas fighters will roll off the line each year.

“Ramping up production to 16 Tejas per year will cost us about Rs 1,252 crore. We have mutually agreed that HAL will provide half the cost, and the IAF and navy will together pay the other half,” says Raju.

Meanwhile, ADA will continue developing the Tejas Mark II, replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a new GE F-414 engine. The IAF remains sceptical about the Tejas Mark II, but the navy is certain the Tejas must have the more powerful F-414 engine to enable it to get airborne from short aircraft carrier decks.

That means that, along with the SoP-18 Tejas that would remain in production till 2024-25, the Naval Tejas Mark II would have to be somehow produced alongside.

Air-to-Air refuelling

The integration of air-to-air refuelling has been regarded as essential to give the Tejas enough reach. Currently, its internal tanks carry just 2,300 litres of fuel, with another 2,400 litres carried in external pods. However, external pods cannot be carried into battle, and they take up two weapon stations, reducing the fighter’s punch. Without external fuel tanks, the Tejas has a combat radius of barely 300 kilometres.

Air-to-air refuelling will step up combat radius to 500 kilometres. Towards that, a late prototype of the Tejas, numbered LSP-8, was fitted with an external fuel probe. This is being integrated and will soon undergo flight-testing.

Says a veteran fighter pilot: “As important than the ability to fight is the ability to turn up at the fight. That requires long legs and, for a light fighter, that requires air-to-air refuelling”.

External jammer pod

Tejas designers admit the absence of a jammer to throw enemy radar off the scent is a key vulnerability of the Tejas. While designing the fighter, they simply ran out of space for an internal jammer. With the IAF dropping its insistence on an internal jammer, ADA and HAL have now offered an “external jammer pod”.

While this threatened to reduce the Tejas’ weapons carriage by occupying one of its seven hard points, HAL is overcoming that problem by fitting a “twin-arm” at that hard point. “One of the arms will carry the jammer, while the other will mount an air-to-air missile”, says the designer.

Maintainability

For the IAF, which must mount multiple missions everyday with each Tejas fighter, easy “maintainability” and “low turn-around-time” are key attributes. The HAL chief says the IAF wants the fighter to take maximum 14 minutes between landing after a mission; and taking off for the next mission, fully checked, rearmed and refuelled. Currently, the Tejas takes about 20 minutes.

“The IAF has carried out a ‘maintainability evaluation’ on the Tejas, and provided requests for action (RFAs) to HAL. Each RFA deals with a particular way to improve maintenance. We will be making 27 modifications in the fighter”, says Raju.

The Tejas already has built-in-test-equipment (BITE), which is a software programme that automatically checks the functionality of every crucial system. In case an aircraft system is not working optimally, the BITE flashes a warning light.

On the other hand, if no warning lights are evident, maintenance engineers know that all systems are working satisfactorily. The need to check each one manually is no longer there.

This also involves fitting “pressure refuelling” of the kind that exists in Formula One racing cars, which requires fuel to be pumped under pressure into the fuel tanks. Refuelling the Tejas takes just four minutes, and two more to fill drop tanks as well.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2015 09:00

Right on cue updates from Shuklaji.
Good compromises.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Nov 2015 19:50

Instead of harping on this AAR requirement for Tejas, IAF should be more concerned with actually having more tankers, esp. with Midas tankers being earmarked for downtime due to planned upgrades to all IL-76/78. I seriously doubt that even if the current 6 are fully available, they'll be able to adequately quench the current fleet of hundreds MKI, M2Ks, Jags, etc. AAR capability in Tejas is definitely not the most pressing requirement.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2015 20:25

IAF can use buddy refuelling from MKIs till more AArs come in. That is the plan since Bison squadrons were being colocated with Su-30s and LCAs will replace the Bisons.