LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2016 19:50

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -b-420997/

And although an F-35 armed with modern, precision-guided weapons is far superior to the fighters of the 1980s, USAF officials contend that the number of airframes still remains important.

This month marks the 25th anniversary of Operation Desert Storm – arguably the greatest display of combat airpower in history. Now, the air branch is reminiscing about how mighty it once was.

“At the time of Desert Storm, we had 134 combat squadrons in the US air force. Today we have 55,” says service secretary Deborah Lee James at a CSIS conference in Washington DC last week. “That’s 134 to 55 in 25 years. We had 8,600 aircraft. Today, it’s 5,400 aircraft.

Hope India wont make that mistake with some Rafales and low down on the LCAs

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2016 21:17

2016 budget should have LCA orders allocated as all those long lead items need purchase. So watch the space.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Jan 2016 21:45

If IAF and IA do not block LCA and Arjun, these could become export stars for India. These plus ships like Delhi Class, Shivalik class should be sold to friendly customers. 500 LCAs is not about intellectual masturbation but about learning how to mass produce aircraft so that we could think about producing Gen next. If people think that producing 40 LCAs will help us with building skills and infra to manufacture Gen next then I have a bridge for them in Jhumri Talaiyya!

It is vital to exploit the LCA design completely. Mk1A, 2 and even 3 need to be planned and developed. Integration of private sector to produce quicker turn arounds need to be explored. An entire industry will come up if we are serious with local companies investing time and money to produce components.

And IAF needs to invest in a design house to develop realistic future capabilities. Send employment letters to graduating PhDs abroad. With a little amount of money, a lot can be achieved - like building wind tunnels etc.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Jan 2016 22:55

IAF, by its own admission needs 55 Squadron. 42 Sq was a requirement when PLAAF was nothing. It hardly had any modern planes to fly off from high platue of Tibet with any reasonable load and fight of IAF. With bases increasing (long runways to enable planes to carry decent fuel and armament), modern plane, cold war requirement for 42 SQ is in adequate. 55 (was in 57) was the IAF study few years ago (white paper published, google it up). We are down to 36 Sq, with 2-3 sq retiring every year in the next few years. 36 Rafael (2 sq worth) with any math does not fulfill that number, neither will some additional Sq (even if we go for another 36 or 40, we don't have deep pockets for 126), it will bankrupt IAF for sure. IAF will be a 30 Sq force with some 80-90 Rafael, where PAF itself will field more planes/sq (quality not good as ours, unless PLAAF sells some of advance planes and they are any good), PLAAF will be many times bigger and better equipped.
Save that money and invest in LCA- have huge numbers (500-900). Later versions can support TVC (better fighter), stealth (better bomber/fighter) etc etc. We can choose subsystems from Israel, US, Russia, French to overcome deficiencies in design. While SU30MKI lacks a true fire and forget long range missile, LCA can field Israeli missiles (or French if they sell, that's the reason for negotiating the codes of the missile). A huge number of then, being constantly upgraded (as it is our design, not wait for 25 years for some MLU), as F-16 were with block development, it will be a potent force.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 30 Jan 2016 23:54

nirav wrote:Defence minister Parrikar did talk of a second production line.. 16+16per annum is incredible capacity..

Are these production numbers for 1 shift? If they run 3 shifts, can they produce 16x3+16x3=96 per annum? There probably are other constraints given not every component is made in India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2016 00:02

Parriker said Bangalore would be an international aerospace hub in 10 years.

Doing what I wonder.

member_29245 · Post by **member_29245** » 31 Jan 2016 00:12

P

Let's think about it for a min. The MLG (Main LG) doors were considered because they are so much nearer to the CG. Not much moment created by the drag force. But the NLG (nose LG) door being so far from the CG will give significant pitching moment that too nose down. It would pitch down the nose, reducing AoA dangerously. It would be similar to what would happen if you slam front disk breaks of a really fast going motorcycle.

Using NLG doors for breaking probably is not the best idea. Using MLG was a good idea, but didn't work out properly. May be in later versions it will be used.[/quote]

Interesting.. There was cemilac paper that talked about using the MLG doors but the SP aircraft still seem to have the air brakes so either it did not work in practice or it may be used in the Mk1A.[/quote]

Well it may work or it may not work

What is heartwarming is we - our institutions - are working on such innovative novel concepts even in these adverse atmosphere

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2016 00:20

outsourcing for graduating democracies. I am sure, Indian field is ripe with expertise and workforce to cater to developing outsourced products and assembly lines from Eu to American and Russian planes. We can do it! #MakeInIndia.

We can also become masters of platform integration

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2016 00:41

PAF already has 66 bandars operating. We need to look at a quantum leap in LCA production to catch up and then get ahead. It is dangerous to ostrichize! Remember that the IAF used its bisons to fare well against F-15s. So it is foolish to believe that 2 squadrons of a plane that will break the defence budget can be relied upon for quick fleet strength buildup. All energy devoted to Rafale is self defeating and will yield only a headache in additional type requiring an additional, expensive, distinct logistic supply chain.

All the Rafale money should go to LCA. If fleet strength enhancement was important for the IAF, it would have gone in for Qatari Mirages and Mig-29s sold by other airforces (brought to current IAF upg standards).

LCA is IAF's future and if IAF gets involved with the program fleet buildup could be helped. At one time there were about 850 Mig21s in the IAF. We need to look at a similar number of LCAs of all types in the IAF. If there is some tech that is sought after, it should be purchased instead of a complete aircraft.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Jan 2016 01:13

I would venture to say LCA-Tejas MK1 and Mk1A would have availability rates of over 80%. There should be at least 400 Mk1 and 800 Mk1A go in to production. Some of the Mk1's can be used as trainers and the Hawk should be phased out. I would go so far as to say, the Hawk, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Mig 27, and Mig 29 should be phased out over 5 years. Really, there should only be two types of combat aircraft. The LCA and Su-30MKI for the IAF.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 31 Jan 2016 08:10

Hawk ? You mean the Hawk which were bought like yesterday.... ?
The a/c filling the role of AJTs..... seriously ...

Please read up more of the history of the IAF and the Hawks before making such statements.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 31 Jan 2016 08:39

We all should refrain from making ~1000000..sss LCA production demand untill HAL has delivered 1st LCA MK1A squadron.

Once they will start rolling only sky is the limit. Till then ....sshhhhh

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 31 Jan 2016 09:29

Indeed, I don't see why people are moaning and crying here and in the rafale thread. Act a bit mature people, remain silent for now, there isn't much to discuss. No matter how good or bad the LCA does, the paid presstitutes won't stop crying about it. We'll have to how well HAL and the pvt. partners do with the manufacturing work.

I think a lot of people in this forum and on other places make a lot of noise about what could've been, what should've been etc. while ignoring what and where we are. Now, we have to wait and watch how the induction goes.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2016 09:43

^^^^^???? Eh?? Have you been paying attention to the program? More than 2,000 hrs have been logged by SP and LSP aircraft! So we know how to manufacture the aircraft. People here are moaning and whining about a corrupt procurement process biased towards imports leading to capex funds being wasted and degradation of india's capability to wage war!

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 31 Jan 2016 09:59

Vivek K wrote:^^^^^???? Eh?? Have you been paying attention to the program? More than 2,000 hrs have been logged by SP and LSP aircraft! So we know how to manufacture the aircraft. People here are moaning and whining about a corrupt procurement process biased towards imports leading to capex funds being wasted and degradation of india's capability to wage war!

Exactly and that moaning and whining isn't going to change anything on the ground. The ddm doesn't give a crap, the sickulars are busy lighting candles and the IA/IAF live in a lala land of their own so what's the point in repeating the same old

posts again and again?

Can these institutions be pressured to do what is right? by sending letters or litigations? Some action on the ground is better than constant bickering here.

I am also the one who is against rafael acquistion btw, it was supposed to provide an immidiate replacement, but 3 years later we are still stuck here. Better to scrap the deal, cut our losses and start on LCA. These morons screwed up the HF-24 Marut, now they are going to screw up LCA to keep the import lobby alive.

But this discussion isn't going anywhere. Maybe if we petition or something for the stupidity we are seeing. Is there a provision for that? Atleast that will be some concrete action.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Jan 2016 10:15

Khalsa wrote:Hawk ? You mean the Hawk which were bought like yesterday.... ?
The a/c filling the role of AJTs..... seriously ...

Please read up more of the history of the IAF and the Hawks before making such statements.

Yes, the BAE Hawk. They were inducted in 2007 and they should be phased out instead of making another round of purchases. There is no sense in throwing good money after bad just like the Jaguar and Mirage 2000 upgrades. What about logistics support for the Hawk and availability rates? Having indigenous developed the LCA Tejas, the logistics support will be much better.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2016 10:31

It's completely the right thing to throw awayM2k instead of having spent billions on their upgrade! That money should also have gone to the LCA. Every Air Force is retiring Mig 29s while we spend billions in keeping them flying. Sukhois plus LCA is IAF's salvation. IAF needs to develop tactics and targets and prepare for the future with the LCA.

IT is not only the machine but also training and tactics that win wars - that is the lesson of history. Instead of behaving like little children and insisting on a budget breaking buy, IAF needs to help the nation in developing overwhelming capabilities to defeat its enemies.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2016 10:39

the british used the disastrous 'penny packet' doctrine for tanks and paid the price numerous times.

germans and russians went the other way and showed how it is done - overwhelming mass and concentration.

americans learnt from these masters of the trade and churned out tens of 1000s of increasingly improved shermans and later 4000 F-solahs and 1500 F-panrah....probably a lakh of fighters in WW2 also.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 31 Jan 2016 11:42

Having gone through above comments from several members about outright rejection of Potent Rafale of two squadran worth in favour of still in project stage Tejas fighter jets is foolhardy indeed.

Am not implying Tejas is less capable, however there is certainly major difference between the two in terms of overall Payload, endurance and opertional readiness that greatly tilt the balance in favour of Rafale.

Current IAF projection of pricey Rafale even in low numbers only imply that IAF looking itself fighting low intensity conflict in near future, Kargil War is case in point in that respect. During Kargil war, we had huge number of interceptes like Mig-21, Mig-29 and Mirage-2000, however only Mirage-2000 meet the requirement of precision strikes with some urgent help from Isreal and French.

Point here is IAF doen't see itself in offensive role in highest degree since India doesn't willing to annex foreign territory despite repeated provocation by Pak and China.

Chinese force structure in opposite clearly imply that they are willing to carry land expansion into neigbourhood by force as can be seen in South China sea. Hence PLAAF has seen rapid expansion of their fighter and Bomber fleet. As my memory serves me correctly PLAAF inducted 10 improved J-10B in first four months of calender year 2015, so one can quantify their higher rate of Production cannot be match by India with their Tejas fleet.

In short, country build its Airforce as per their state policy, wherby India is only content with defending its current frontier with current fleet and IAF only willing to abide by it without having to cocerned about having To mass produce Tejas, however they see more suitable less in numbers but higher in quality Rafale to fight less intensity border conflict in narrow landscape like Kargil where Rafale shall be more then a match for equal numbers of F-16, J-10 and flankers.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 31 Jan 2016 11:51

The above statement about the IAF doctrine is completely wrong. And Whatever Mirage-2000 can do, Tejas can do it better than that. Also Rafale role in IAF is said to be totally different, especially nuclear strike and what others suggest for plan B is more Su-30 for number of Rafale to be purchased and the remaining going for more Tejas for numbers. The second option of Su-30 MKI, Tejas combination seems good for the IAF at the moment.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Jan 2016 13:38

We are not suggesting the replacement of Rafale with LCA but with Su-30MKI and using the savings for LCA so that we have Combination of 2 Su-30MKI and 2 LCA for each Rafale.

One Less Rafale = 2 Additional Sukhoi + 2 Additional LCA. How is Rafale better than this Combination?

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 31 Jan 2016 15:47

Gyan and uddu, point here is not about which fighter jet is capable individually or on a combination basis. Issue here is timeline and delivery of units, which is in favour of Rafale. Since Tejas is unlikely to be operationally ready until completion of Development Cycle and MKI has been at delivery stage only until original inventory of 272 numbers get achieved. So this left us with no choice but to import Rafale in flyaway condition to maintain squadron strength.

As per my previous post, we do not envisaged to field mass produced MKI and Tejas, because of our limited production line capacity as can be seen from painfully slow induction rate of MKI and India's unwillingness to look beyond defence of our frontier militarily speaking.

Perhaps this is reason why IAF went ahead with imported Hawk AJT, Swiss Trainer and recent Purchase of Kamov Choppers despite domestic options from HAL.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2016 18:58

What a stupid post!! We do not "envisaged" to mass produce LCA because of our limited capacity? Really? Did you even read what was posted? Instead of wasting more money than a new aircraft on Mirages and Mig 29 upgrades, we could have invested that into LCA production lines and perhaps ramped up to 25 aircraft per year.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2016 21:04

there is no impending (risk-based/potential threat scenario that our existing jets can't handle) requirements for Rafale either. So, relax. we have gone thru this Rafale/MMRCA for nearing 12 years now. Another 2 years, LCA Mk2 will bang all targets WVR and BVR.

there are no raptors, pakfas nor jsfs/hornets against us in the neighborhood threating us as well. let us not be penny-wise and pound foolish [secondary argument]. do you want to live in a bungalow with restricted freedom and tight security or living in a middle-class home, freedom to explore smart-city options and integrate well with the society analogy that works here correctly.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 31 Jan 2016 21:27

Having been strong advocate of LCA, few points to remember
1)M2K/Mig29 are proven system. No system work 100% per brochure, but M2K and 29s field experience is equivalent to design/brochure value of LCA. Typically LCA (the current one, not future makes/upgrades) maybe inferior to M2K/M29 that IAF has, but we are adding LCA, not replacing this. LCA is certainly more potent than number plated squadron or squadrons that do not exist
2)M2k was the weapon of choice for IAF intervention in Sri Lanka (LLTE), Maldives and Kargil. IAF had M29, and on paper it is superior to M2K (turn rates, BVR etc.) but IAF chose M2k. Tells you where we could be wrong if we are using internet etc. to form conclusions.
3)Maybe SU30MKI is not that great at the end of the day (in spite of all the brochure). What BVR missile it has? R-77? Reliable? How good is your air superiority plane without a reliable long range AA missile?
4)I have a much simpler objection, to force the case of Rafael, IAF is not going ahead fast enough with LCA and more SU30MKI. Yes, they are competing for the same budget, but the needs they fulfill are different. If IAF had unlimited money, it would have pursued all three, but given the limited budget, for Rafael, the other two are getting sabotaged (no plan

. That is wrong. 126 Rafael would be ideal, but where is the money. That deal anyway is cancelled, and 36 will not make much difference, it would be fine, if it gets inked sub of 2 billion, but all that extra is killing LCA/SU30MKI.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 31 Jan 2016 21:33

IAF has a Low-Mid-High doctrine, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

For the near future:

Low - LCA
Mid - Rafale
High - Su-30MKI

IF LCA is continuously developed, IAF supports AMCA, and FGFA contract is signed.

By +2030, most modern fighters:

Low - LCA Mk.3
Mid - AMCA
High - FGFA

Talk of LCA Mk2 replacing Rafale does not mirror IAF doctrine or public statements.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 31 Jan 2016 21:33

Vivek K wrote:What a stupid post!! We do not "envisaged" to mass produce LCA because of our limited capacity? Really? Did you even read what was posted? Instead of wasting more money than a new aircraft on Mirages and Mig 29 upgrades, we could have invested that into LCA production lines and perhaps ramped up to 25 aircraft per year.

Some Posters were against Rafale purchase in favour of imaginery mass produced LCA's which is yet to achieve FOC, but you seems to have gone ten steps backward by implying pointless task of Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 upgrades which had proven track record in Kargil War. 25 units per year for LCA's, perhaps we may need to transfer its Production line to Lockheed Martin to achieve that scale, am sure HAL doesn't even produce that many ALH Per year

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 31 Jan 2016 22:04

SaiK wrote:there is no impending (risk-based/potential threat scenario that our existing jets can't handle) requirements for Rafale either. So, relax. we have gone thru this Rafale/MMRCA for nearing 12 years now. Another 2 years, LCA Mk2 will bang all targets WVR and BVR.

there are no raptors, pakfas nor jsfs/hornets against us in the neighborhood threating us as well. let us not be penny-wise and pound foolish [secondary argument]. do you want to live in a bungalow with restricted freedom and tight security or living in a middle-class home, freedom to explore smart-city options and integrate well with the society analogy that works here correctly.

No offence, but exactly this kinds of mindset is actual cause of our falling numbers in strength, be it MBT's, Modern artillery, ATGMs and this Fighter jet inventory.

Issue isn't about not facing NATO Style airforce and feeling relaxed, but matter of grave concern is to be provoked on our Northen frontier repeteadly and feeling helpless against naked aggression.

China-Pak axis is designed to break India apart, and to achieve that goal both these nations are engaged in mindless level of Infrastructure set up to openly show armed aggression against India, hence Pak is engaged in record breaking production of Nukes aimed solely against India and resorting terror as blackmail tactics. China on other hand has put fastest Production line weapon producing inventory for Army-Airforce-Navy, based upon which they are assisting Pak in POK, Indian Ocean and intruding itself in our border area's. Unless we do not build our Forces by keeping this point in mind till then we shall just engage in retirement and replacement of weapon producing buisness.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 Jan 2016 22:33

A very beautiful aircraft. Haven't seen anything that looks quite like it in terms of graceful lines and quasi-arrowhead shape.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 31 Jan 2016 22:41

Local defense manafacture will not materlise in the near term

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/budget/arti ... rt-1269866

Lots of white noise in LCA and AMCA thread

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2016 23:50

Trying to understand:

ome Posters were against Rafale purchase in favour of imaginery mass produced LCA's which is yet to achieve FOC, but you seems to have gone ten steps backward by implying pointless task of Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 upgrades which had proven track record in Kargil War. 25 units per year for LCA's, perhaps we may need to transfer its Production line to Lockheed Martin to achieve that scale, am sure HAL doesn't even produce that many ALH Per year

Are you implying India is incapable or that there is no will or something else?

Clearly the only worthy way out is to improve India MIC, else the data points about the Rafale will resurface in the future. It is not just Paki-China axis that is a threat, it is bad planning which seems to have led to various "reasons", including that the Rafale is timely, even if expensive.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Feb 2016 00:23

Again, let me state that you are just trolling when you say that the LCA is an "imaginary mass produced aircraft "! Kargil war was fought how many years ago? Do you want to fight wars in 2020 with 2 decade old airframes? The LCA can do everything that the M2k can and whatever the Mig 29 can even dream of!
There are 8 LSPs flying plus SP1 and SP2 is about to be handed over.

So keep your trolling out. The LCA is IAF's future and instead of wasting limited resources on supply chains for obsolete aircraft/designs and airframes, it is time to adopt the LCA and to develop tactics for its use. Mk2 must be hurried up, Rafale canceled and Mk3 planning should start. A parallel design house should be created to look at a twin engined LCA. GTRE should be given funding and put under a Kalam type to work with an Indian owned test bed and fly the Kaveri.

If we will refuse to do that then we should start teaching Mandarin in all schools as a third language!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2016 00:33

Since Tejas is unlikely to be operationally ready until completion of Development Cycle and MKI has been at delivery stage only until original inventory of 272 numbers get achieved. So this left us with no choice but to import Rafale in flyaway condition to maintain squadron strength.

Is it THAT simple? "no choice"?

The Mod was proposing to abandon the Rafale, PMO in its infinite wisdom provided an "out-of-the-box" solution of purchasing 36 Rafales in fly-away condition. Neither here nor there. The IAF had wanted a cool 126 of these planes to "maintain squadron strength". So, which squadron are these going to fill and then what happens to the remaining squadrons that the remaining Rafales were supposed to fill?

Meanwhile, the IAF in its own infinite wisdom has accepted the LCA, grated a mythical MK1-A. But at least they have accepted. The same force that accepted a half baked MiG-29 and a leaking some other plane and a sinking Su-27. Cannot accept a LCA that is to "complete of Development Cycle"?

I think, have stated this before, the Rafale purchase is exactly what India did for Sukhoi - keep Dassault from sinking. For that India probably got an IoU for something else. France cannot allow Dassualt to sink and has made a deal with India to keep it afloat.

The only request some posters" have made is to provide some oxygen to the LCA.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Feb 2016 00:36

Bihanga wrote: No offence, but exactly this kinds of mindset is actual cause of our falling numbers in strength, be it MBT's, Modern artillery, ATGMs and this Fighter jet inventory.

Issue isn't about not facing NATO Style airforce and feeling relaxed, but matter of grave concern is to be provoked on our Northen frontier repeteadly and feeling helpless against naked aggression.

China on other hand has put fastest Production line weapon producing inventory for Army-Airforce-Navy, based upon which they are assisting Pak in POK, Indian Ocean and intruding itself in our border area's. Unless we do not build our Forces by keeping this point in mind till then we shall just engage in retirement and replacement of weapon producing buisness.

What a pointless incoherent babble!! MBT numbers are falling because we have left Arjun production lines empty so that corrupt procurement officers can line their pockets and order 1000s of T-90s. Why is the navy able to produce a ship bigger than the Gorshkov in India? Because they have worked for years with local yards. We had the Godavaris as an improvement on the Leanders and then came the Delhi class, Shivalika and now the Kolkata class. If the IN had taken the Godavaris as like you put it "imaginery mass produced " then the Vikrant would not have been possible.

What good are 2 squadrons of Rafales at an unaffordable $6-10 billion? Even if 75% are available, that would mean a mere 27 aircraft. If China were to field 270 cheap Su27 and 200 J0s, what good would 27 Rafales do? 500 LCAs that we can afford and that would give us an industry, would sure come in handy and spare the MKIs to take the fight to China while the LCA defends the homeland.

Can we afford to build up fleet strength withRafales at $150-200million apiece? History will castigate IAF leadership for a poor and irresponsible decision to go in for the Rafales.

wig · Post by **wig** » 01 Feb 2016 09:06

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 90424.html
106 upgraded Tejas jets to replace MiGs

The Ministry of Defence has decided to locally produce 106 upgraded Light Combat Aircraft “Tejas” jets to replace the ageing fleet of MiG fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force.
The “Tejas Mark 1-A” will have 43 improvements over the existing Tejas currently being test-flown by the IAF for various parameters and slated for final operation clearance in March. The existing project is running years behind schedule.
Sources told The Tribune that a decision has been taken to produce 106 “Tejas Mark 1-A” jets and the same has been conveyed to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), besides the manufacturer — Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a public sector undertaking owned by MoD.
The MoD has set a 2018 deadline for the first aircraft to be ready with a target to complete its production by 2022-2023. In September, new specifications were agreed upon and the IAF accepted 43 modifications that could be carried out without changing the existing design.
On the list of modifications are five major improvements, including an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, which the HAL will co-develop with Israel firm Elta; air-to-air refuelling facility; externally fitted self-protection jammer to prevent incoming enemy missiles from homing in using radar signature; and a new layout, involving 27 modifications, of internal systems to iron out maintenance issues.
The plane will be 1,000 kg lighter than the existing version, which currently weighs 6,500 kg, but will use the same engine — General Electric’s 404. “The power of the engine is more than enough,” said a senior functionary. Fitting the newer and more powerful GE-414 engine would entail fresh design and airframe studies.
The HAL has been asked to produce 16 jets annually and a Rs 1,252-crore modernisation plan has been okayed to ramp up capacities from the present six-seven planes annually.
The decision will go a long way in keeping the IAF battle-ready. The upgraded jets will fill the void created by MiG-21s and MiG-27s that will be phased out by 2022.
There are 260 Soviet-era single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 jets in the IAF fleet. The air force needs 400 jets over the next 10 years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2016 09:25

AtoA probe and pump will add some 100kg
AESA are generally heavier than pulse doppler antennas but might be offset somewhat by removing current ballast
internal movement for better access is fine.

but this is nonsensical and hope nobody is buying this line: The plane will be 1,000 kg lighter than the existing version, which currently weighs 6,500 kg,

^^
to prevent any hanky panky and HAL/ADA shooting its mouth off like this, let the PMO convene a 1-day chintan bhaithak charied by Namo himself with "that upset headmaster look" , let a 1-page slide with only the realistic stuff be put up, approved by all parties and signed in triplicate and then get to work.

"endless work creation" is not the end goal here, the end goal is to deliver a smart and working product for the armed forces in a realistic config and timeline.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2016 09:29

1000 Kg lighter they will have to rebalance the CG , More likely it would be few 100 Kg's heavier but it would be more internal fuel

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Feb 2016 10:15

1000kg weight reduction is strange. Reporter should have asked again.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 01 Feb 2016 10:24

Singha wrote:AtoA probe and pump will add some 100kg
AESA are generally heavier than pulse doppler antennas but might be offset somewhat by removing current ballast
internal movement for better access is fine.

but this is nonsensical and hope nobody is buying this line: The plane will be 1,000 kg lighter than the existing version, which currently weighs 6,500 kg,

^^
to prevent any hanky panky and HAL/ADA shooting its mouth off like this, let the PMO convene a 1-day chintan bhaithak charied by Namo himself with "that upset headmaster look" , let a 1-page slide with only the realistic stuff be put up, approved by all parties and signed in triplicate and then get to work.

"endless work creation" is not the end goal here, the end goal is to deliver a smart and working product for the armed forces in a realistic config and timeline.

That's 1T weight reduction etc is utter bull ... only a DDM with no understanding of the subject-matter (as is the usual anyway) could have stated it - so no surprises there.

IMHO there are 5 takeaway's from this:

1) Some weight reduction, at the engineering level (without playing around with the design etc) may still be possible - for e.g.
i) Co-cured co-bonded wings - just like the fins, almost similar engineering aspects (requires getting larger and slightly more sophisticated Autoclave etc)
There's bound to be weight reduction (and some drag-reduction as well, depending upon the surface finish level they are able to accomplish) as such a fabrication woud obviate the need of most of rivet-based-joining, mechanical fastners etc
ii) A slightly slimmer LG - mind you this subsystem was entirely designed/manufactured by HAL themselves for the TDs/PVs/LSPs. And since a similar LG weight-reduction program is already on for the Naval version, which I think (not sure) is in quite an advanced stage, some learning can be leveraged
iii) A few (of what is remaining) metallic panels/structures etc can be replaced with CFC based alternatives.
etc etc etc

However I doubt all of these can reduce the empty weight by anything more than 300-350Kg max (or thereabouts).

2) An external SPJ is given - the only question is would it be at the expense of a hard-point or not. Two options (per LCA FB page) being explored - a wing-tip fixed-pylon mount or a OB dual-mount pylon (sharing with the R-73 class CCM).

The EL/8222 class DRFM based external pylon-mounted SPJ (seen with the Bisons) weight ~100-110 kg or thereabouts.

3) Absolute radio-silence on MAWS (IRST not being considered, is more-or-less confirmed)

4) I doubt IFR would entail so much of addn weight gain - mind you the internal plumbing (so it may mean the internal Pump as well, but not sure) are already existing.

I'd wager the addn ~40Kg from AESA and this IFR probe (and the required interfacing with the plumbing) would more-or-less balance out the ballast (some may still have to be retained, though).

Integration is on, and will be flight-tested soon.

5) The new quartz radome is in it's final integration tests/check stage - so radar range issue is done and dusted as well.

So the only big unknown is what are the 1As going to get in terms of integrated EW suite - PV1 was supposed to be used for integration and flight testing it.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Feb 2016 10:36

The Su-30 MKI production should come to an end in a few years time, I hope we are planning to have some use for the Space, equipment and personal to produce something else. I know the equipment and skil lsets differ, but surely we must be able to deploy some of those staff, suppliers, space and equipment for further LCA squadrons from there.