LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 27 Jun 2016 07:49

The length of Brahmos would neccesate a change in landing gear , there would have to a strengthning of the structure etc. better to wait, with us now part of the missile control regime , many modifications coming to this family of missiles will make it compatable with multiple aircraft.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 27 Jun 2016 08:06

Eric Leiderman wrote:The length of Brahmos would neccesate a change in landing gear , there would have to a strengthning of the structure etc. better to wait, with us now part of the missile control regime , many modifications coming to this family of missiles will make it compatable with multiple aircraft.

More info on Brahmos-A here: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/air-launched-brahmos-in-fina.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 08:31

It should be possible to carry Brahmos on LCA provided we make some slight modificatiosn so that a Tejas that looks like this: http://defenceforumindia.com/jh4cz/asse ... jas-15.jpg ends up looking like this: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-c ... -30MKI.jpg

just sayin..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Jun 2016 09:36

or maybe design a new stan-off missile for tejas.

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 27 Jun 2016 10:54

With advent of stealth planes the OEMs are already focussing on miniaturising all systems, especially missiles to fit in to weapon bays where the real estate is already at a premium...
So Yes, LCA will cary the BhraMos-NG or later versions in future just not now...
We need to play the waiting game now...
Besides the operational doctrine of LCA doesn't envisage it carrying BhraMos...
I remember reading somewhere that they were miniaturising the ASTRA as well... Can anyone link a referrence here !!!

Man we need to get those 2 babies (LCA,NLCA) operational ASAP ...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Jun 2016 11:45

Revealed: The LCA Tejas That The IAF Has Chosen

hshukla · Post by **hshukla** » 27 Jun 2016 13:56

Is there a possibility to use LCA as UAV? Will it be worth the effort?

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 27 Jun 2016 17:00

Any update on the cannon integration? When will we see Tejas shooting bullets???

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Jun 2016 18:31

IAF all set for first Tejas Squadron formation

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 27 Jun 2016 19:02

Apparently, Group Captain Madhav Rangachari will be the CO. Well done, Sir! Hmm, flying ACM earlier should have given us a hint!

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2016 19:20

Some good info and answers:

IAF plans to put LCA Tejas in combat role by 2017

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force plans to put much-delayed Tejas in combat role by next year after raising in July the first squadron of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft.

State-run HAL will hand over the first two Tejas aircraft to IAF on July 1 which will make up the 'Flying Daggers' 45, the name of the first squadron of the LCA which will be based in Bangalore for the first two years before being moved to Sulur in Tamil Nadu.

The idea is to have a total of six aircraft this financial year and about eight in the next. Tejas will feature in combat plan of the IAF next year and will be deployed in forward bases also, IAF sources said.

They asserted that Tejas, which still has at least 19, mostly related to maintenance and easier operations, of the 43 deficiencies that the force had highlighted earlier, is "one of the exceptional single-engine fighter aircraft in the world".

Asked how the aircraft fared in comparison to JF 17, jointly developed and built by Pakistan and China, the IAF said it was "better".

"It is a better one since it is mostly made of composite which makes it light and very agile. It also comes with smart ammunitions and bombs which help it to hit targets in a precise manner," a source said.

Sources also said that Tejas will replace the MiG 21s and will be used for air-to-air fight and ground attack and could also be a compliment to bigger fighter planes such as Su 30 MKI.

All squadrons of Tejas will be made up of 20 planes in total, including four in reserve. As per the plan, while 20 would be inducted under the "Initial Operational Clearance", another 20 will be inducted later with Beyond Visual Range Missile (BVR) and some other features.

The IAF plans to induct over 80 aircraft with better specifications known as Tejas 1A.

The upgraded version of Tejas, with Active Electrically Scanned Array Radar, Unified Electronic Warfare Suite, mid-air refuelling capacity and advanced beyond the vision range missiles, will cost between Rs 275 crore and Rs 300 crore.

The IAF sources said that Tejas is also equipped with helmet-mounted display and fly-by-wire, a semi-automatic and computer-regulated system for controlling the flight of an aircraft or spacecraft which makes it a 4.5 generation plane.

Meanwhile, sources said the LCA will not be flown by India's first women fighter pilots as only experienced pilots will be flying them initially.

IAF sources stressed that beyond visual range missiles were a must for the Final Operational Clearance version of Tejas.

They admitted that another requirement - mid air refuelling capability - is likely to happen only in the Tejas I A version which they hoped will come out in 2019.

Tejas is designed to carry a veritable plethora of air-to-air, air-to-surface, precision guided and standoff weaponry.

In the air-to-air arena, Tejas carries long-range beyond visual range weapons, with highly agile high off-boresight missiles to tackle any close combat threat.

A wide variety of air-to-ground munitions and an extremely accurate navigation and attack system allow it to prosecute surface targets over land or at sea with unparalleled accuracy, giving Tejas a true multi/swing role capability.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 27 Jun 2016 19:27

So HAL was unable to deliver 4 LCA and squadron is being raised with only 2 aircraft (?).

BharadwajV · Post by **BharadwajV** » 27 Jun 2016 20:26

Ceremonial only.
The other two will join the VayuSena soon enough.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Jun 2016 21:42

Gyan wrote:So HAL was unable to deliver 4 LCA and squadron is being raised with only 2 aircraft (?).

The squadron is being stood up with 3. It was always supposed to be SP1,2,3 and PV5. Now, it is going to be SP1,2 and PV5. SP3 will join the squadron soon afterwards.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 28 Jun 2016 04:31

can't believe its going to happen.
TejasDay is coming folks ....

Run Rafael Run .... (evil laughs)

member_29341 · Post by **member_29341** » 28 Jun 2016 06:19

Great to have Tejas come into service. Now if only they could solve the production problems and produce them rapidly enough.

Rafale is in no danger from this - it is a very different aircraft and will be bought in sufficient number.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Jun 2016 06:58

Errr Golfer sahib - "Rafale is in no danger from this" - you are in the wrong Mohalla! Bhai jaan. But welcome to your lynching. One, two, three....!!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Jun 2016 07:07

Let me start - the French are very reliable - they will sell to anybody who can mortgage his future to them. Buying an aircraft that costs more than the US FGFA and that too in a desperate situation when fleet strength has hit rock bottom is sure to destroy the IAF's ability to put up enough airframes against the Chinese who will throw 100s of Su27s/J-10s/J-11s and other Russki clonskis!

And India is in no position to buy 126 Rafales - unless we want to mortgage Indian development and growth to the French economy. All this foolishness when a very capable aircraft that meets the projected threat scenarios in the neighborhood - MIg21 clones with Pakis / JF-17 bandar and the J-10/J11 with the Chinese. India should be spending money wisely - on LCA in numbers to provide a large force of multi role aircraft capable of outperforming a majority of its opponents.

But, a fool and his money are easily parted. And if India wants to throw money, it should do it and then watch how the IAF struggles with the French White elephants. God forbid the price for a MLU will be several times the cost of new Raffys based on our experience with M2Ks.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Jun 2016 07:25

SeriousGolfer wrote:Great to have Tejas come into service. Now if only they could solve the production problems and produce them rapidly enough.

Rafale is in no danger from this - it is a very different aircraft and will be bought in sufficient number.

Yeh you are right man. Rafael is in no danger. Rather it is us who is in danger from rafael. Danger of becoming robbery victims, stripped to our underwear.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jun 2016 07:56

Vivek K wrote:the price for a MLU will be several times the cost of new Raffys based on our experience with M2Ks.

You need to adjust for inflation from 1985, when the aircraft was originally purchases to upgrade in 2011, a difference of 26 years.

I used to pay 25 paisa for a samosa in 1985 that today costs Rs. 12.

A blue jar of Postman refined oil too cost much lesser than Sundrop oil today.

Today, the samosa seller wont even sell me a pea from the samosa for 25 paisa.

I speculate samosa eaters are influenced by Natashas employed by samosa sellers to pay the exorbitant amount of Rs 12 for something that should cost only 25 paisa.

25 paise is out of circulation because the metal costs more than the denomination and traders melt down the coin for its metal.

You can also compare the salary you got in 2011 with the salary you got in 1985 (or your dad if you were not earning then).

When the time comes for Tejas upgrade after 26 years, it too will be more than initial cost of acquisition.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 Jun 2016 08:17

tsarkar ji, its off topic but M2K upgrade details were never revealed in public. At the cost of ~2000 million, it was more then just a mere upgrade. Something which was not disclosed but we can only speculate (at least I hope so).

But it was much more then what one would pay for upgrading a fighter, hence let's not compare it with the cost of peas in your samosa.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Jun 2016 08:44

tsarkar wrote: You need to adjust for inflation from 1985, when the aircraft was originally purchases to upgrade in 2011, a difference of 26 years.

I used to pay 25 paisa for a samosa in 1985 that today costs Rs. 12.

A blue jar of Postman refined oil too cost much lesser than Sundrop oil today.

Today, the samosa seller wont even sell me a pea from the samosa for 25 paisa.

I speculate samosa eaters are influenced by Natashas employed by samosa sellers to pay the exorbitant amount of Rs 12 for something that should cost only 25 paisa.

25 paise is out of circulation because the metal costs more than the denomination and traders melt down the coin for its metal.

You can also compare the salary you got in 2011 with the salary you got in 1985 (or your dad if you were not earning then).

When the time comes for Tejas upgrade after 26 years, it too will be more than initial cost of acquisition.

TSarkar, You failed to mention that this MLU is even more expensive than a new Mig 29 or a new LCA. Even the latest block new F-16s would be similarly priced.

Now what would be the reason for such an extravagant deal?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jun 2016 09:02

India was among the first Mirage 2000 customers, so the airframes and avionics were the oldest. The entire avionics, EW and weaponry was changed. Only the frames were retained. And given its India's most reliable fighter with better reliability than Su-30, the upgrade was deemed worth it.

Same with LUSH. They were the only long range defence of the fleet before Barak 8, so the upgrade was carried out despite CAG objecting to aircraft retiring within the next decade.

Fun fact - Elta 2048 is the most expensive item on the Kolkata and costs more than the ship hull + superstructure. The electronics, including indigenous sonar, costs as much as ship + engine.

Retrofitting Barak 1 + BrahMos on INS Ranvir and Ranvijay cost more than what we paid for those ships.

Generally, the cost from high to low are -
1. Electronics
2. Weapons (over the lifetime of that weapon, for example a Mirage 2000 will need 40 MICA + X LGB + Y Popeyes over 10 years)
3. Engines
4. Structure

One needs to account for inflation, hence the reference to samosas. When I gave the example, I had in mind a question a student asked Raghuram Rajan on the cost of dosas. Just like the cost of samosa or postman refined oil has increased, so has cost of radars from RDM-4 to RDY-2, EW from X to Y, Super 530D to MICA, etc.

Members will laugh if I typed the salary I got in 1985. It won't buy me a starting range smartphone today. I purchased my factory fresh Maruti 800 under a lakh.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 Jun 2016 09:16

Engines were not part of upgrade. For weapons there was a separate 1 billion contract.

2 billion was just for avionics/radar/structure overhaul.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Jun 2016 09:33

Sid wrote:Engines were not part of upgrade. For weapons there was a separate 1 billion contract.

2 billion was just for avionics/radar/structure overhaul.

Man, Dassault is nothing but French East India Company.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Jun 2016 09:40

tsarkar wrote:India was among the first Mirage 2000 customers, so the airframes and avionics were the oldest. The entire avionics, EW and weaponry was changed. Only the frames were retained. And given its India's most reliable fighter with better reliability than Su-30, the upgrade was deemed worth it.
.....

Tsarkar, it is amazing how far you are willing to go just to justify this mlu decision. But a day will come when Dassault officials are indicted and that too by a French court for all their wrongdoings. (Just like what happened in AW case). Then hopefully you will understand what happened in this case.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jun 2016 10:05

Dear Darshan,

Assuming you are a software developer developing algorithms for RDY-2, would you be willing to work for 1985 salaries? I'm in the civil world today, and analytics programmers in the civil world doing less critical activities like predicting consumer behaviour are the most expensive resources. Even a half percentage improvement in FMCG sales results in billions of dollars of incremental profits for the large FMCG companies. Rejecting clutter and ECM are even tougher things to develop. Trishul failed because we could not develop its three beam guidance system. LCA MMR failed because we could barely develop the software for two modes out of 8 odd basic modes required for minimum performance.

And you've expectations of new radar technologies at 1985 prices. Can we benchmark smartphones today to 2001 Nokia 3310 prices?

I've given examples of LUSH upgrade and D54 and D55 upgrades being more expensive than original purchase.

Inflation adjustment is a globally accepted economic concept yet you disregard it.

Suggest we revisit this topic in 2040 when Tejas Mk1A MLU happens

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jun 2016 10:58

LCA MMR failed because we could barely develop the software for two modes out of 8 odd basic modes required for minimum performance.

wow.....we were so much behind the curve in this domain? Has this been overcome with the Uttam or are we just trying to reach the min specs?

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 28 Jun 2016 11:23

tsarkar wrote:LCA MMR failed because we could barely develop the software for two modes out of 8 odd basic modes required for minimum performance.

You meant signal processing algorithms?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Jun 2016 11:36

Folks, please remember to double check claims. From this CAG report, as stated on pages 5 and 6 of the PDF, or numbers 33 and 34, the problem with the MMR had to do with a shortfall in range and the radome was specifically mentioned in the report to be the component in need of replacement to compensate for loss of range. Cobham being approached for an alternative is also clearly mentioned. What we lost in getting the Cobham radome was time. What changed in that time were the customer's expectations and demand, hence the Israeli AESA.

CAG: Performance Audit on 'Design, Development, Manufacture and Induction of Light Combat Aircraft’

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2016 12:49

PratikDas wrote:Folks, please remember to double check claims. From this CAG report, as stated on pages 5 and 6 of the PDF, or numbers 33 and 34, the problem with the MMR had to do with a shortfall in range and the radome was specifically mentioned in the report to be the component in need of replacement to compensate for loss of range <SNIP>

You might want to check a post by Dileep in Nukkad on the extent of the issue.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jun 2016 13:02

PratikDas wrote:Folks, please remember to double check claims. From this CAG report, as stated on pages 5 and 6 of the PDF, or numbers 33 and 34, the problem with the MMR had to do with a shortfall in range and the radome was specifically mentioned in the report to be the component in need of replacement to compensate for loss of range. Cobham being approached for an alternative is also clearly mentioned. What we lost in getting the Cobham radome was time. What changed in that time were the customer's expectations and demand, hence the Israeli AESA.

CAG: Performance Audit on 'Design, Development, Manufacture and Induction of Light Combat Aircraft’

IIRC, the CAG talks about the HAL driven MMR completely failing( had not even reached radome testing stage in 2006 when it was scrapped) and it was the Elta MMR failing due to Radome. Maybe Tsarkar-sir was talking about the original HAL MMR not even meeting basic specs?

The MMR developed by HAL/LRDE was found (2006) short of expectations.

Subsequently ADA concluded (October 2006) a contract with M/s Elta Israel
for co- development/ consultancy, supply & integration of MMR on LCA at a
cost of 26.5 Million USD (`119.25 crore) by June 2009. Though the MMR
was ready by 2009 for integration on LCA, the LCA (LSP3) required
structural changes in front fuselage for installation of MMR LRUs. After the
LSP3 was ready in 2010, the MMR was put to functionality and performance
testing. While the functionality testing of MMR was completed in December
2013, it could not be cleared in performance testing.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jun 2016 13:29

Yes, indeed Sum

Pratik didn't properly read his own quote, where page 33 mentions

The joint indigenous development of MMR for LCA was entrusted (June 1991) to M/s HAL,6 Hyderabad Division and LRDE7, Bangalore at a cost of `62.27 crore (FE `35.374 crore), to be completed by December 1997.

The MMR developed by HAL/LRDE was found (2006) short of expectations.

I was referring to the 15 years development from 1991 - 2006 where the hitch was inability to develop the algorithms for different radar modes.

The CAG report of 1999 referred in Page 33 details on what modes were developed.

The radome issue came out in 2013. Here is the full report
http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 7_2015.pdf

prashanth wrote:You meant signal processing algorithms?

Yes

sum wrote:wow.....we were so much behind the curve in this domain? Has this been overcome with the Uttam or are we just trying to reach the min specs?

Yes, our knowledge base has significantly improved since then. We just started developing radars in 1991.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2016 16:20

Someone please set my qibla right if necessary. Wasn't the 90s "MMR" for LCA a completely different beast from AESA which is now state of the art for MMR functions?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2016 17:18

I think in the 90’s they were working on a pulse Doppler mechanically scanned array radar with Ericsson as an early consultant on the project

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Jun 2016 18:21

tsarkar, I understand - my apologies.

Sum, I find it hard to believe that the radome which was found to be wanting with the ELTA radar was not a contributor to the poor performance of the original MMR, but if you say that it never got to the radome stage then I'll have to take your word for it because I haven't been able to find any details on what fell short of the customer's requirements on the original MMR.

And they have the DRDO AEWCS flying on the Embraer - a full blown AESA. Signal processing algorithms are not the major bottleneck now.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Jun 2016 18:27

shiv wrote:Someone please set my qibla right if necessary. Wasn't the 90s "MMR" for LCA a completely different beast from AESA which is now state of the art for MMR functions?

AESA can do everything MMR can do and more.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Jun 2016 18:54

rohitvats wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Folks, please remember to double check claims. From this CAG report, as stated on pages 5 and 6 of the PDF, or numbers 33 and 34, the problem with the MMR had to do with a shortfall in range and the radome was specifically mentioned in the report to be the component in need of replacement to compensate for loss of range <SNIP>
You might want to check a post by Dileep in Nukkad on the extent of the issue.

No posts by Dileep on MMR or multi-mode appear within Nukkad on BRF search. Also, no post by Dileep on MMR in any other thread goes into depth, going by the BRF search results.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2016 19:06

PratikDas wrote:
shiv wrote:Someone please set my qibla right if necessary. Wasn't the 90s "MMR" for LCA a completely different beast from AESA which is now state of the art for MMR functions?
AESA can do everything MMR can do and more.

I know that. But thanks for confirming that the LCA's "MMR" program or Multimode Radar program was a different beast from AESA (which of course is also a Multimode Radar)

But the entire discussion above about developments from 1991 to 200whatever is about failure to develop MMR. Uttam is AESA AFAIK .

I have not understood how a failed and terminated "MMR" program is relevant to the Tejas. What have I missed?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jun 2016 19:29

On the M-2000 upgrade, my gut feeling is that it is difficult to tell for sure who ripped us more: The French or Congress I