LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2016 04:25

durvasa wrote:There's a genuine need to set up another aerospace hub, a a distance from the current one. Pune (Kalyani, L&T, Tata) and Bhilai or some other place in central India are good options. It's just stupidity to put all our aerospace eggs in Bangalore.

This only means that you and many others have not been following the news. Hyderabad has been competing to take over the mantle of Aerospace hub for a decade or more now. The years when Aero India is not held - Hyderabad hosts a civil air show there will be one in 2016 but no BRFite goes because there is nothing military about it. If there is anything that needs to grow and is likely to grow in the aviation sector it is civil aviation and Hyderabad is way wayyy ahead of late Lateef suggestions like Pune or Chennai or Bhilai. Tata's already have a plant manufacturing Sikorsky helicopter cabins in Hyd.

How have our ahead of curve people missed this?

That aside Reliance is already ready with aerospace manufacturing plans in Gujarat or Goa.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Apr 2016 05:14

How good is the tejas vs the eff solah block 60?
Vs the Rafale?
Is the tejas mk 1A expected to be a mature platform? Can someone do a comparision?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 25 Apr 2016 05:20

Gagan the comparison can only be about brochures ! Actual combat takes tactics and strategy. Of course it would be interesting to see the brochure numbers but training, quality of pilot and tactics would be the absent information.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Apr 2016 06:46

How about Sringeri and Dharmasthala? World class and culturally peaceful place for thinking advanced aeronautics? no hartal, raasta roko or evil employee strikes back etc.

Did I trigger the D muni?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Apr 2016 06:49

*RCS] It is just my thought that LCA on LPI/radar off/passive scan mode would be hard to find from 100kms for a Raptor AESA. Only a few tweaks, it can be brought down to 50kms

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Apr 2016 07:18

Gagan wrote:How good is the tejas vs the eff solah block 60?
Vs the Rafale?
Is the tejas mk 1A expected to be a mature platform? Can someone do a comparision?

First you have to define what is "how good"? Then you need to define what is "a mature platform"? What are the set of criteria you are trying to compare?

In any comparison, you would need to factor in different class of fighter designs and the types of roles it is designed for. Does it fulfill the mission usage envisaged for it? Is it better than the planes it is replacing in fulfilling the duties? What are the costs for fulfilling each mission?

For LCA, I would think a better comparison would be against MiG-21 Bis/M/FL/Bison and MiG-21 ML/MLU. These are the planes the LCA Mk1/A is going to replace. How much more effective a LCA would be in fulfilling similar tasks as well as additional capabilities it brings? That would better show how much qualitative jump the IAF is making with the induction of LCA Mk.1/A.

At this point, comparing with MMRCA candidates is an exercise in futility. Too many subjective interpretation, such as value points for indigenous design/develop capability, future MLU, benefits to a whole host of other sectors or the industry as a whole. There is so much more than just the brochure specs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2016 08:36

Gagan wrote:How good is the tejas vs the eff solah block 60?
Vs the Rafale?
Is the tejas mk 1A expected to be a mature platform? Can someone do a comparision?

At least for timepass - Tejas vs F-16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPeFh8ajxD0

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 25 Apr 2016 10:47

Gagan,

Vivek Ahuja has done a detailed analysis of F16 various blocks vs LCA with respect to range, maneuverability and turn rates on his blog. You should read that. LCA more than holds it ground in most situations but there are some situations where the F16 has an upper hand. Obviously tactics will be devised by us to ensure we meet F16 on terms which are favorable. There is another analysis of the LCAs range independently and vis a vis F16. Naturally LCA has a lesser range. But I did an analysis of LCA range with respect to targets in Pak on this thread and found that range is adequate for all the A2G jobs it will be expected to do.

Analysis of the two aircraft with respect to weapons and sensors has not been done. I would expect F16 block 50s with AESA would have an edge but I don't know. Karan, Indranil Roy or T Sarkar sir might be able to comment on avionics and weapons.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Apr 2016 12:39

How does the Bison compare with the F-16? During the first Indo-US exercises,the Bisons reportedly even saw off the F-15s!

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 25 Apr 2016 13:58

Philip wrote:How does the Bison compare with the F-16? During the first Indo-US exercises,the Bisons reportedly even saw off the F-15s!

That exercise has been discussed to death many times over here. Gist was that the americans were overconfident and the IAF used its advantage to great effect and scored a lot of kills.
If you really want to know how the Mig21 performs and what the USAF thought of it, you should read the various books on the MIG evaluations in the Nevada Desert. But basically in summary, they were extremely impressed by the 21's performance and had to develop special tactics to fight successfully against it. The 23 and 27 were not well regarded.
The only real issue with the 21 was the primitive avionics and radar, which was solved by the IAF with the bison, the other issue was the fuel capacity, which of course still remains.
The LCA should not really be compared to the 21 Bison, it should be more compared to the M2000, and it really compares pretty well to it.

BTW, Tata advanced systems has already begun production for sikorsky (i recently went to a seminar where the CEO spoke about the work and it was very impressive what they have achieved in such a short time). They are also going to do work on the LCA so i am sure that the production can be ramped up fairly quickly on the composites side.

hope i answered some of the questions.

Cheers

member_29190 · Post by **member_29190** » 25 Apr 2016 14:13

My view is LCA should not be compared on it's own, because IAF is not going to send LCA on Rambo mission.

It's small size, RCS, good ECM, Derby used in conjuntion with datalinks with Su-30 & AWACS would be brillant in sneek attacks.

PAF F-16's busy trying to fend off SU-30, won't be know what hit them when LCA radar switched off, vectored by SU-30 sneeks in and fires off a Debry.

Good Luck PAF.

LCA will be the tip of our spear.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Apr 2016 16:28

LCA would be best as buddies (passive launches) in a well coordinated net-centric ops (buddy cuing from mki). Definitely need the mid-air refuelers

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 29 Apr 2016 15:42

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Gagan,

Vivek Ahuja has done a detailed analysis of F16 various blocks vs LCA with respect to range, maneuverability and turn rates on his blog. You should read that. LCA more than holds it ground in most situations but there are some situations where the F16 has an upper hand. Obviously tactics will be devised by us to ensure we meet F16 on terms which are favorable. There is another analysis of the LCAs range independently and vis a vis F16. Naturally LCA has a lesser range. But I did an analysis of LCA range with respect to targets in Pak on this thread and found that range is adequate for all the A2G jobs it will be expected to do.

Analysis of the two aircraft with respect to weapons and sensors has not been done. I would expect F16 block 50s with AESA would have an edge but I don't know. Karan, Indranil Roy or T Sarkar sir might be able to comment on avionics and weapons.

The high light of this analysis was that if LCA'S weight is reduced from this stage i.e 6500 Kg right now, it will have a big impact on the performance of the aircraft. Say if 500 Kg is reduced, than aircraft shall have a jump in performance and it will behave in a totally different way. Vivek Ahuja specifically mentioned the wright reduction n his simulated study analysis.

I quote the conclusion of vivek Ahuja of LCA tejas simulation study.

Conclusions

The LCA is, by definition, a light fighter. Its flight performance metrics confirm this design feature. It is not meant to be a long-range bruiser like the Su-30MKI. Instead, it will replace existing short-range Mig-21 type aircraft in the IAF. In that role it is very aptly suited. This analysis was conducted using the F404-GE-IN20 engine. It is possible that more fuel efficient engines may be used in the future. In that case, the performance of the aircraft can be further enhanced, but only within limits. Further, weight reduction will play a key factor in the final iteration of the LCA for the IAF. The analysis above was conducted assuming an empty weight of 6,500 kg. However, there are varying numbers for the empty weight of the aircraft in the public domain. It is no secret that the increasing use of composites in the LCA is designed to bring the overall weight of the aircraft down. Even if the empty weight of the LCA is brought down by 5-10%, the improvements in the flight performance will be noticeable. Whether that is achieved, remains to be seen.

Dr. Vivek Ahuja

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 29 Apr 2016 15:51

srai wrote:
Gagan wrote:How good is the tejas vs the eff solah block 60?
Vs the Rafale?
Is the tejas mk 1A expected to be a mature platform? Can someone do a comparision?
First you have to define what is "how good"? Then you need to define what is "a mature platform"? What are the set of criteria you are trying to compare?

In any comparison, you would need to factor in different class of fighter designs and the types of roles it is designed for. Does it fulfill the mission usage envisaged for it? Is it better than the planes it is replacing in fulfilling the duties? What are the costs for fulfilling each mission?

For LCA, I would think a better comparison would be against MiG-21 Bis/M/FL/Bison and MiG-21 ML/MLU. These are the planes the LCA Mk1/A is going to replace. How much more effective a LCA would be in fulfilling similar tasks as well as additional capabilities it brings? That would better show how much qualitative jump the IAF is making with the induction of LCA Mk.1/A.

At this point, comparing with MMRCA candidates is an exercise in futility. Too many subjective interpretation, such as value points for indigenous design/develop capability, future MLU, benefits to a whole host of other sectors or the industry as a whole. There is so much more than just the brochure specs.

No LCA's capability should be analysed in view of its possible opponents. In Indo Pak war scenario, it will certainly face F 16. LCA MK1+ with reduced weight and aerodynamic improvements should be capable to mess with F 16. Like we got a very positive news of LCA mk1+, I still expect some More good news in a year of time. LCA Mk1+ with low weight and 8% Aerodynamic improvement and 20% higher acceleration, AESA and EW will be a beast much better than the current awatar. It will be certainly a worthy opponent to F 16.
I expect some good news in wing redesign and air intake redesign in the time to come.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 29 Apr 2016 16:13

>> LCA Mk1+ with low weight and 8% Aerodynamic improvement and 20% higher acceleration, AESA and EW
>>I expect some good news in wing redesign and air intake redesign in the time to come.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Apr 2016 17:38

VD, Will this thing ever get inducted or be stuck in development mode hell?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Apr 2016 17:57

DexterM wrote:>> LCA Mk1+ with low weight and 8% Aerodynamic improvement and 20% higher acceleration, AESA and EW
>>I expect some good news in wing redesign and air intake redesign in the time to come.

the percentages. such exactitude.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 29 Apr 2016 18:54

Karan M wrote:
DexterM wrote:>> LCA Mk1+ with low weight and 8% Aerodynamic improvement and 20% higher acceleration, AESA and EW
>>I expect some good news in wing redesign and air intake redesign in the time to come.

the percentages. such exactitude.

lol, mera beta engineer banega

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 29 Apr 2016 20:46

I believe the 8% aerodynamic improvement and the 1 tonne weight reduction claims came from HAL and ADA themselves. Can't find the link now.. :-(

If they can deliver even half of the claims (could be DDM) tejas would be a superlative light fighter.

srin · Post by **srin** » 29 Apr 2016 22:35

Something fishy seems to be going on with Mk 1A. Almost every news article refers to HAL doing the work related to Mk 1A (or HAL taking help of Saab) and don't seem to mention ADA at all. Either they are all DDM or that there is some kind of cold war between ADA and HAL. I sincerely hope it isn't the latter and it is just my over-sensitive conspiracy-theorist nose giving false positives.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2016 02:57

you may definitely be right. HAL after all asked for Tejas to be transferred to them. dudes couldn't even do the IJT, went slow on the Tejas and now its on the cusp of induction want to take it all over. empire building at its worst. but lets hope for the best and they haven;t lost all sense and ADA is in the loop viz SAAB.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Apr 2016 03:12

The best thing that can happen is, there is a private player down the line. Then ADA can be design house of that company and HAL can stand up its own design house. These can then compete or cooperate on various projects.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2016 03:31

agreed but ADA should be kept independent and allowed to cooperate with whomsoever necessary. ADA imo is a valuable resource that has succeeded despite HAL being a vested established player which had got addicted to license manufacturing. we need to fix HAL first.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Apr 2016 03:46

or break HAL to generate competitive entities

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2016 04:36

the problem is you lose the benefits of common sourcing and centralized R&D. might still happen though.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Apr 2016 05:28

Karan M wrote:you may definitely be right. HAL after all asked for Tejas to be transferred to them. dudes couldn't even do the IJT, went slow on the Tejas and now its on the cusp of induction want to take it all over. empire building at its worst. but lets hope for the best and they haven;t lost all sense and ADA is in the loop viz SAAB.

This would totally eff it up...if the mk1a didn't come good, the media and iaf will gun for the gripen, and hal will be only too pleased to do screwdriver giri. Make no mistake, the the quest hangs in balance. I sure hope these overtures towards saab are not some underhanded way to ensure that there is a ready replacement for the mk1a, iows, let's hope they are not setting it up for failure.

No wonder mp wants to setup a second mmrca line with a private player....perhaps he doesn't want india to be taken hostage by hal, iaf and the import lobby forever.

And maybe I'm being unduly negative.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Apr 2016 05:45

LCA Mk.1 FOC should have been the one ordered not Mk.1A. Additional features could have been added over time as they became available. It just seems HAL/IAF/MoD/ADA are introducing too much risk on Mk.1A to fail (i.e. not meet tight deadlines). There was no need to. LCA Mk.1 should have been adequate for now. But let's hope HAL/IAF/MoD/ADA prove us wrong.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 30 Apr 2016 12:04

sudeepj wrote:I believe the 8% aerodynamic improvement and the 1 tonne weight reduction claims came from HAL and ADA themselves. Can't find the link now.. :-(

If they can deliver even half of the claims (could be DDM) tejas would be a superlative light fighter.

500 KG seems realistic. Dead weight is sure to go and landing gears are going to loose some weight. More composite and reducing the weight of some overweight LRUS as well as merging some LRUS to reduce the numbers. I see that happening with development of LCA. It has happened in LCH. We can expect some performance improvement in engine as well but unfortunately engine is not ours. US may not do that for us. I think that the same engine produced on license for Gripen has some higher dry thrust.

Whatever people may say, I am sure that LCA will improve its performance a lot in days to come. Look at last 3 4 years. Many issues are sorted out and we have seen a great improvement i many performance parameter and timing of STR and vertical loop.
I am very very optimistic that success of LCH shall be replicated in LCA. I see the perception of IAF and members of BR about LCA has changed a lot in last some time. I read an article stating that IAF prefers Tejas over Gripen because of unlimited configuration options it offers. This is not a small achievement.

One question to all honorable members.

Whether new quartz nose cone received from cobham has a plug of 0.5 m. It was proposed to prolong it to improve aerodynamic improvement.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 30 Apr 2016 12:08

srai wrote:VD, Will this thing ever get inducted or be stuck in development mode hell?

Sir,

I am very optimistic and i see this happening in next 2 to 3 years.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 30 Apr 2016 12:12

Karan M wrote:
DexterM wrote:>> LCA Mk1+ with low weight and 8% Aerodynamic improvement and 20% higher acceleration, AESA and EW
>>I expect some good news in wing redesign and air intake redesign in the time to come.

the percentages. such exactitude.

Sir,

These figures are from research paper and not my own. They said that proposed aerodynamic improvement will reduce 8% drag and that will transform into 20% higher transsonic acceleration , 2% higher maximum speed at sea level and 60 kg additional fuel. Let us believe them.

One simple question to all of you. How many of you believed prior to Bahrain air show that tejas has that agility and timing which it displayed at Bahrain?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Apr 2016 12:42

Vipul,

Question on the Cobham nosecone plug size, is that sort of info - I mean about the one received - usually available in open source? I know nothing about these things, so just wondering.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 30 Apr 2016 12:56

JE Menon wrote:Vipul,

Question on the Cobham nosecone plug size, is that sort of info - I mean about the one received - usually available in open source? I know nothing about these things, so just wondering.

I too searched a lot but failed to get any answer. I am very much interested in it because that is going to have a direct impact on aerodynamics. I am not much interested in EW and avionics because they come and go. I am interested in basic parameters such as acceleration, speed, turn rate, Fuel efficiency and agility etc because that makes the platform capable and these can not improve without aerodynamics and weight reduction. Whatever innovations makes this happen will always excite me and excite me a lot.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 30 Apr 2016 13:13

The platform is plenty capable at this moment. Right now. You were one of the disbelievers who wanted wing redesign without even realizing what it entails! You are talking of a new plane, and then espousing support. It is a joke. Not funny though. All the same, it is heartening that folks such as you are taking the Tejas seriously and wish for its best. Although, the path you wish to dictate will not be taken in that manner. The Mk1A proposed by HAL will not have any nose plugs (sic -- LOL again) or wing redesign. LCA Mk3 might, and it will be to our mutual benefit if we are all excited in different rooms (with the means to clean up the keyboard afterward). /fitm

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 03 May 2016 15:20

couldnt resist myself sharing my dream last night.

"LCA went to Red Flag 2020 and stumps the USAF with its fabulous kill ratio"

and IAF spokesperson said "would have been surprised if that hadn't happened, .......IAF is a strong supporter of indigenous technologies"

Hope it comes true someday.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 15:23

Vipul Dave wrote:Sir,

These figures are from research paper and not my own. They said that proposed aerodynamic improvement will reduce 8% drag and that will transform into 20% higher transsonic acceleration , 2% higher maximum speed at sea level and 60 kg additional fuel. Let us believe them.

And is it stated that these percentages were actually demonstrated in trials and are on track for implementation in Mk1A?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 15:25

DexterM wrote:The platform is plenty capable at this moment. Right now. You were one of the disbelievers who wanted wing redesign without even realizing what it entails! You are talking of a new plane, and then espousing support. It is a joke. Not funny though.

All the same, it is heartening that folks such as you are taking the Tejas seriously and wish for its best. Although, the path you wish to dictate will not be taken in that manner. The Mk1A proposed by HAL will not have any nose plugs (sic -- LOL again) or wing redesign. LCA Mk3 might, and it will be to our mutual benefit if we are all excited in different rooms (with the means to clean up the keyboard afterward). /fitm

Exactly.

At this rate, he is setting himself up for yo-yo emotions and in a few months time he will be cursing HAL and ADA again asking why the nose plug and new wing whatever is taking time.

Irrespective of whether they were even agreed to.

Right now, all we know about SOP-18 has a jammer, an AESA radar and some maintainability improvements.

Where is this percentage stuff coming from?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 May 2016 05:07

I asked @sauravjha about the Cobham radome length. Let's see.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 06:23

I think that radome length info is totally fake, but I was unable to find its source. There was one humorous tongue-in-cheek post by Shreeman but that was in response to a post that asked about a 50 cm radome plug. I would discard the info as complete rubbish and a waste of time to follow up. In this day and age of multiple sources - the information will show up easily if some official has said it.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 May 2016 15:32

There was never mention about plug in Radome IIRC. The only 'half-a-meter plug' thing I remember is the one which was proposed for MK2 which would come just behind the cockpit. It doesn't make sense to lengthen the Radome. Wouldn't it mess with the visibility over the nose for the Pilot??

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 May 2016 18:32

ramana wrote:I asked @sauravjha about the Cobham radome length. Let's see.

AFAIK, Cobham Quartz radome should exactly be the same dimensions as the indigenous composite one it is replacing. There was an RFI with the drawings. The materials used on the Cobham offers greater radar transparency and hence offers 30 km improvement in detection ranges. It is supposed to be relatively simple plug-in replacement akin to replacing an LRU. It only should require some limited numbers of verification trials.

As far as the additional 0.5m plug behind the cockpit goes, that was proposed for Mk.2. Two different things.