LCA News and Discussions

[Indranil]

- The Tejas Mk2 is being lengthened by 0.5m only and not 1m

The plug being behind the cockpit?

- Just as I suspected, I asked him if the current drop tank is transonic- he confirmed that it is. A supersonic tank is being developed to carry about 200 gal. (~750 ltrs)

I would have expected them to develop the 320 gallon tank first. It would have kept more hardpoints empty.

- On the N-LCA Mk2 they will change the position of the landing gear and bring it more towards the wing/fuselage joint. The landing gear will then retract into a fairing for that. That will also free up space in the fuselage for additional fuel

This is the single most happy point for me. I have been asking about this for a very long time. I even naively wrote to ADA asking about the same.

- NP2 is currently already going through integration tests. Will likely fly in June or July if no issues are found.

I really want to see this one after hearing that the rear part of the canopy is going to be painted over (can't recollect any precedence to this one). Most probably, they will be developing and testing the new canopy in parallel while the prototype undergoes testing. They will have the new canopy ready before serial production starts.

They need our support and encouragement. Those who are constantly piling it on them, with negative reports are basically doing this nation a great dis-service. Criticize the organization perhaps for its failings, but those who are working on these programs are to be commended and encouraged.

I think I have been guilty of this recently.

[SaiK]

can't remember who was bisqooting some chaiwala news about ge-414 engines ahead of mk2, and would be prioritized higher for mk.1. any confirmation of this?

[pentaiah]

Kartik excellent job, every time I want to get high I read again and again your post.
Wish you conduct some tutorials for cosy Joseph like DDMs on to how to report on defense related issues

[Gurneesh]

Mig 29K also has the same canopy for single and dual seat configs.

[member_24574]

^^^
^^^^^
but then Sir, I hear that IAF wants its people to manage HAL, but it is never allowed. If this is true then why.
I see a lot of shipbuilding firm being headed by present or retd. Navy official but that is not the case with HAL.
At least then IAF will not be able to make any complains and probably will have a better understanding of the
compulsions which HAL may be facing.
JLR became profitable with Tata, may be some rejig can change the fortune of HAL too

Can you tell me which IAF person has the professional qualifications to run HAL? Have they run large companies? Or developed items? The IAF seems to have thought that just by sending its man to run HAL things would become better.

Take your own example of Navy people running shipyards. How successful are these shipyards in terms of timely delivery etc? Their problems are beyond appointment of 1-2 people.

Granted, many MOD appointees who are sent to professional organizations like HAL dont have the right qualifications either. But again, they are neutral. You send an IAF guy to head HAL, what you are telling HAL senior and even mid management is, you guys aren't good enough to head the company you served for in 20+ years

It will be seen as a power grab, pure and simple, and people will leave for better prospects.

Now, the right solution is the harder one, something IAF clearly is LOATH to do. That solution involves building a dedicated group of people who participate in these programs from day one & lead them to success and are peers with their industry teams. One day, if such a guy/lady becomes the head of HAL, that would be the right thing.

But by then, many of the problems afflicting our programs would also be resolved anyhow.

problem is that HAL is being run by ***** not ideal people who can think and act like a leader ... most of those in higher ups have come up only be recomendations and stepping over other eligible peopl

[SagarAg]

^Talk sense buddy put some sense in your argument. Phuleeze!!

[pankajs]

Confirms my view about AMCA beeing totally developed without taking the requirements of the forces to account and mainly AGAIN, with the interests of ADA/DRDO.

Saar, I am not sure I agree with you on this. We hear the constant lament that the Indian defense aviation industry is far far far behind its peers and unable to cope up with projects like LCA. One of the reasons often cited is that the design experience gained during the development of Marut was squander by not going in with a followup design. When the requirement for LCA came up we started from square one.

The FGFA, is going to provide our designers just a little bit more experience in designing a 5th Gen fighter than the SU-30 MKI project did. If we do not follow up LCA dev with AMCA and beyond and a requirement for an indigenous 6th\7th\nth gen Figther comes along, we will see the repeat of the LCA saga.

We need to invest in follow up programs even when there are no requirements in sight. We need to keep our designers busy and working up to the next level. It is certainly in the interest of ADA/DRDO but it is also in the interest of the nation.

Sad, but no wonder that IN is happy to get anything, even if it is only N-LCA.

I would presume that they are opting for the NLCA because it dovetails with their requirement at some level and they see significant advantages in having it part of their fleet. The Import option is always open.

[member_23455]

Maybe some of the folks with actual and not wishful information on the program can comment on:

1. What is the latest projection for LCA's FOC?

2. What radar/weapons/powerplant configuration is the first operational block of aircraft going to have?

3. What is HAL's projections for production rate on LCA?

4. Apart from Sulur is there any information on the other bases for the LCA?

5. Who else are we selling the LCA to apart from the IAF?

[SagarAg]

Maybe some of the folks with actual and not wishful information on the program can comment on:

1. What is the latest projection for LCA's FOC?2015 first quarter

2. What radar/weapons/powerplant configuration is the first operational block of aircraft going to have?
http://tejas.gov.in/
http://tejas.gov.in/specifications.html
http://tejas.gov.in/technology.html

3. What is HAL's projections for production rate on LCA?


4. Apart from Sulur is there any information on the other bases for the LCA?
As of now Sulur it is.

5. Who else are we selling the LCA to apart from the IAF?
N-LCA for IN

PS: suryag time to update Tejas test flights timeline.

[maitya]

...
problem is that HAL is being run by goons not ideal people who can think and act like a leader ... most of those in higher ups have come up only be recomendations and stepping over other eligible peopl

I's about to report this post to the admins, but then noticed your post count and joining date and refrained myself.

It seems you have every deep insight into the type and suitability of the folks "running" HAL - can you pls educate us on who, the position that s/he holds and why do you think are unfit for running HAL and, more importantly, what kind of mgmt experience on aviation manufacturing/design/consultancy/manufacturing/support (or even operational experience) do you have to say so about these folks.

In short, pls be specific!!

Otherwise, it will be fair for most of us to assume that you are just another person with access to an internet-enabled computer who thinks it's his/her birth-right to comment on anything under the sun irrespective of their capability to do so - something that quite a few of us here are used to seeing over the years.

C'mon, prove us wrong!!

Where's the good doc (with his HTML scalpel) to deliver a good pisko sermon on this - it's been a while since we have heard from sermons from him!!

[Kartik]

Hi Kartik, very interesting infos thanks!

You’re welcome

Confirms my view about AMCA beeing totally developed without taking the requirements of the forces to account and mainly AGAIN, with the interests of ADA/DRDO.
Sad, but no wonder that IN is happy to get anything, even if it is only N-LCA.

I think that the IN itself has no plans as yet for an AMCA based naval fighter, but that doesn’t imply AT ALL that the AMCA is being developed without taking IAF requirements into account. They are the ones driving the AMCA’s design with their requirements for full stealth and what not.

The discussion that I was having with Cmde Mao was that they are again going ahead and designing an Air Force fighter FIRST and then maybe in the future a naval variant will be developed. Cmde Mao was clear that the issue with the N-LCA doesn’t apply to the AMCA since it’s a twin engine fighter with a central keel to pass loads to. So he said that if required, it can be done, no issues.

That would be highly disappointing, since the additional fuel was an IN requirement as well and needed since the ski-jump take off alone requires much fuel.
If you are right about that, even with additional fuel, the additional weight of the naval version will further reduce the range with internal fuel. That again would mean N-LCA MUST take off with 2 wing fuel tanks even in CAP roles, to offer sufficient endurance, which limits the weaponload to just 2 x BVR missiles and 2 x WVR missiles.

Sadly you couldn't ask him about the payload limitations of N-LCA, beeing operated from a STOBAR carrier. Would be interesting to finally get a confirmation, that this is very limited as expected as well.

Cmde Mao was remarking that the range of the Mk1 is adequate, and he pointedly mentioned that “Look, it’s a MiG-21 size fighter. It already can carry 4000 kgs of weapons, more than twice the MiG-21, so it’s already a lot..but you can only do so much with such a small fighter..there are limitations of volume and space onboard”. So, one shouldn’t really forget that this fighter can already more than adequately replace both the MiG-21 and SHar in ALL the roles they currently perform and do a lot more as well. Endurance and range did not appear to be the biggest concerns for the IAF- plus IFR and OBOGS ensures that if required, an N-LCA can perform CAP over the fleet for a few hours at least before being replaced by another.

- Again a confirmation, that all the bragging about 5th cockpit displays in the media, was purely based on DRDOs behalf.

Who was bragging about 5th gen cockpit displays for Mk2? I saw the LCA Mk1 cockpit mockup and unfortunately wasn’t able to take pics since I forgot to take the battery for my camera, but it looked good to me as well, with good clarity, and large enough symbology. If they’re going to get bigger MFDs, it’s a welcome addition, but it’s not a deal breaker if they’re not there. Why the hostility towards DRDO? This really isn’t the most important feature of the Mk2 at all! Even the request to CSIO to develop a frameless HUD is a nice to have feature, not a must have feature.

I must also repeat what I wrote about flexibility and the fact that the entire HUD/MFD symbology is decided as per the Test Pilot’s recommendations. They are giving them whatever they want. Cmdr Sukesh was joking and saying that if they want the MFD to be put “ulta” we’ll do it for them. Meaning, its tailored for the IAF and IN. He was talking about how on Russian and French aircraft, instruments were not placed logically, text would be in Cyrillic or French and pilots would stick notes with tapes onto the dash to help them remember what to do. And requests to change these would not be met either. That will not happen with the Tejas or N-LCA.

-
That again would be highly disappointing, since LCA was developed with a good nose diameter in mind. But didn't the navy required AESA radar for N-LCA MK2 whatsoever and if he talks about EL2032, does it mean non of the LCAs will come with the indigenous puls doppler radar?
Did you got any status on that?

Indeed, the LCA’s radome dia of 650mm comfortably exceeds that of the SHar FRS.51s that we have. I myself was extremely surprised to hear that the detection range won’t be a lot greater on the N-LCA. But like I said in my original post, this particular part of our discussion wasn’t very clear..he seemed to imply that the SAME radar on the LUSH SHar was to be used on N-LCA. No mention of AESA. I’ll try to get this clarified. From what I understood, the IAF Mk1 is going ahead with Elta 2032/MMR but didn’t get to discuss about the Mk2 for the IAF and what radar it’ll get.

[Yogi_G]

The discussion that I was having with Cmde Mao was that they are again going ahead and designing an Air Force fighter FIRST and then maybe in the future a naval variant will be developed. Cmde Mao was clear that the issue with the N-LCA doesn’t apply to the AMCA since it’s a twin engine fighter with a central keel to pass loads to. So he said that if required, it can be done, no issues.

Thanks Karthik, that answers my question. So the central keel allows us to go with an airforce version first.

[Kartik]

Thanks to all of you who’ve given positive feedback on my posts. I was just the messenger, the real work is being done by others and they deserve the praise and consistent support from us BRFites. There are some among us who are incapable of appreciating good work done by these people and I now choose to ignore those people, since their mind is set on something that they’re unwilling to change.

I was lucky enough to get to talk to those 2 gentlemen and they were genuinely fine with sharing info that in all my previous experiences, people in such positions don’t share. I just wish I’d gotten hold of Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna as well..

Which is what makes it even more clear to me that India lacks good defence journalists. The information is there to be shared with the public- what is required is asking the right questions and a modicum of knowledge of the subject being written about. Shiv Aroor with his access to the N-LCA’s Project Director, Cmde Balaji could have easily asked all these questions and written a detailed article on it, but he chooses to post pics, ask for and get free rides and be condescending towards nearly all indigenous projects. Neelam Matthews and AWST contributors sometimes give info but invariably it’s not detailed enough, most likely because they themselves lack adequate technical knowledge- and it too carries the usual baggage of patronizing and condescending talk. Ajai Shukla is the only other defence writer who writes anything worthwhile, but he leaves more questions unanswered than answered. 

I wanted to go on Sunday as well but was too tired from the day before to make the trip, primarily thanks to the nightmare that was the traffic scene. Otherwise would’ve gone and talked to Cmde Sukesh more, as well as HAL personnel on the FGFA and ADA guys on the AMCA.

[Kartik]

Mig 29K also has the same canopy for single and dual seat configs.

yes, its the Unified model. But they didn't fair over or paint the rear canopy. Strangely enough, they'll do it on the NP2. It looks odd, not right..the N-LCA Mk2 on the other hand, it looks just perfect !

[Kartik]

The plug being behind the cockpit?

Yes. The distance between the canopy edge to the intake has gone up by 0.5m, so the plug seems to be entirely behind the cockpit. No visible lengthening of the radome or the nose section.

I would have expected them to develop the 320 gallon tank first. It would have kept more hardpoints empty.

Yes, 200 gals seems a little, less. Till you see that its still nearly twice that of the MiG-21 and the F-414 is also not quite a guzzler. Plus, with IFR, it can still loiter for hours.

This is the single most happy point for me. I have been asking about this for a very long time. I even naively wrote to ADA asking about the same.

Yes, I was happy to hear that too. They aren’t happy with the current solution where the main landing gear folds INTO the fuselage itself, which is a bad solution. Only thing that I forgot to ask at that time was, how will they then manage the cross section at that section (where the fairing will be) while taking area ruling into account. Something further “waisting” on the fuselage spine perhaps?

I think I have been guilty of this recently.

Hardly think so. You’re one of the most balanced and also knowledgable posters on BRF.

[pankajs]

From last year. Apologies if it has been posted before. I did not find it via the forum search.

Transformation of the Indian Air Force over the Next Decade - IDSA ISSUE BRIEF

Equipment Induction and Replacement

The Union War Book tasks the IAF with the Air Defence of all Indian territories.2 It is towards this responsibility that the IAF is in the process of inducting modern Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs), such as the indigenously designed and built Akash to replace older Soviet era SAM-III systems. Further, the collaboration with Israel towards developing a variant of the existing Barak SAM to meet the IAF’s Long Range SAM (LRSAM) project continues. This system should see induction within the next five years in parallel with increasing numbers of the 25 km range indigenous Akash SAM. Induction of at least four more Aerostat radar systems imported from Israel should also be completed within the next five years in view of the acceptable performance of the first two such systems purchased by the IAF. In addition to imports of aerostat radars from Israel, a simultaneous induction of indigenous Aerostat systems designed and built by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)3 should also commence in five years and lead to about eight to ten such indigenous systems being in service ten years hence. These aerostats could, it is expected, be supplemented by larger numbers of indigenous Rohini and Reporter ground-based radars.

The current fleet of three Phalcon AWACS could be expected to increase to a total of five such aircraft within the next five years. Starting at about three to four years from now, the DRDO developed indigenous EMB-145 based AEW&C platform should start to enter service, increasing to six such platforms in the next ten years. The radar network (ground and air based) and SAMs would be backed by an Air Defence aircraft force comprising of primarily the Tejas LCA aircraft supplemented by a few MiG-21 Bison (its phasing out will begin seven to ten years from now) and MiG-29 upgrade aircraft.4 A limited number of Su-30MKI and Rafale could also be expected to be assigned for Air Defence duties depending upon the situation.

In ten years time, the indigenous ballistic missile defence (BMD) system based on the Swordfish radar (a modified and enhanced partially indigenous Active Electronically Scanned Radar [AESA] radar derived from the imported Israeli Green Pine radar) and the Prithvi and Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missiles should be approaching initial operational capability (IOC) in parallel with possible inductions of Israeli Arrow3 and/or American Standard Missile (SM)-III systems in smaller numbers.5 The BMD capability should be able to protect vital areas of the hinterland as well as forward based forces against known Pakistani and Chinese ballistic missiles on minimum energy, lofted and depressed trajectories.6

Evolving Shape of the IAF Aircraft Fleet

The aircraft fleet of the IAF is likely to undergo major changes as well. The Su-30MKI, numbering about 272 aircraft, would continue to form the high and heavy end of the fleet. The low end would be comprised of the Tejas LCA which, by then, would be in final operational clearance (FOC) configuration. Tejas numbers could be expected to be in the region of 350 to 450 aircraft. The current three squadrons of MiG-29 would be well into their upgrade and would be available in upgraded form about five years hence. Likewise, the three squadrons of Mirage-2000H would also be available in upgraded form in a similar timeframe.

The rotary wing fleet should retain the same inventory more or less with the most significant changes being the entry of larger numbers of Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) as well as upgraded Mi-8/17/17-1V/ 17-5V. In addition, the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) will be inducted starting about five years hence in parallel with the Apache Longbow-III attack helicopters.

In the fighter category, the most significant change should be the completion of the development of the Indian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) from the Sukhoi T-50/ PAK FA baseline by the end of this decade and the commencement of induction of FGFAs into service starting about ten years hence against a total order of 250 or more. Older aircraft types would be retired in a phased manner so that the available numbers of aircraft to the IAF does not fall excessively until the force level required has been built up with new inductions.7 This could see the MiG-21 Bison, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades continue in service well into the 2020s, with carefully staggered retiring of these fleets commencing from 2025.

The IAF’s airlift capability would also be considerable as, in the next five to ten years, all 16 C-17 aircraft and a total of nine to twelve C-130J would be in service and be supplemented slowly with the Indo-Russian collaboratively developed Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA). The Il-76 should be commencing retirement from service about the same time.8

Weapon induction should also see a change with the indigenous Astra missile becoming the standard fit Beyond Visual Range (BVR) standardised across all IAF aircraft fleets in the next ten years. The short range close combat missile of choice is likely to be the Russian R-73 and its newer variants. Once the Astra is in service, there could be indigenous development of short range close combat missiles either derived from it or developed independently. For precision attack, the Helina (an air launched variant of the Nag anti-tank missile) with an imaging infra red (IIR) seeker backed by an upgraded variant of the currently available algorithm able to discriminate targets including moving targets even in heavy clutter, should be the standard fit across all types of IAF aircraft.9 Indigenous Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) with satellite navigation-laser designation/terrain matching/optical hybrid guidance systems developed indigenously should become available in the five to ten year period given that work on such weapons is being pursued, albeit at a slow pace, because these fall under unfunded private research at a few DRDO laboratories in the absence of firm IAF orders and sanction to develop such weapons.

Network Centric Warfare Capabilities

Within five years, the IAF would have its proprietary AFNET network fully in place with enhanced encryption features implemented. The Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS)10 should also be ready with all its modules including encrypted jam resistant wireless component, thus giving the IAF full networked war fighting capabilities. The data link system embedded in the IACCS architecture would enable high situational awareness for all war fighters and the battle commanders even at “remote from the battlefield” locations. The IAF would, in ten years, be moving towards dynamic targeting of ordnance. It would be in the process of developing capability to data link with, say a missile in flight, to reassign its target or modify its attack profile on the fly.11

The IAF would be developing Two Stage to Orbit (TSTO) craft in consultation with and through the DRDO and ISRO, to ensure assured space access when required. Interest in micro-satellites for defence support tasks is also likely to increase in view of the fact that such small satellites can be launched by lower lift capability launchers or even from aircraft with suitably modified boosters at much shorter notice than heavy satellites. Such raid satellite launch capability is likely to be crucial for a networked organisation to operate effectively. Ten years from now this project could be expected to be at technology demonstration stage. The IAF should also at this time be commissioning dedicated research into Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) at institutes of higher learning and research centres in the country.

What Needs to be Kept in Mind

There are a few salient features of the planned transformation of the IAF over the next five to ten years that merit attention.

[*]The IAF is moving towards advanced capabilities in platforms and systems.
[*]The focus is slowly shifting towards indigenisation, i.e., production of all major and crucial systems within the country.
[*]Between license production (which leads to obtaining “know how”), technology transfer, and “know why” (which leads to actual technology transfer and gains in design and development skills), the latter are being preferred. For instance, this aspect may have played a part in the choice of the PAK FA over the F-35 JSF offer from the US. The MTA, LRSAM and other projects also demonstrate a bias towards collaborative development rather than “buy and make” as seen in the MMRCA deal; this MMRCA license manufacture agreement may have been found acceptable in view of the great time pressure to induct aircraft at the earliest given the currently falling numbers of fighters due to unplanned retirement of a few squadrons from IAF service.
[*]Several high-end systems for the IAF have been developed totally indigenously in the public and the private sectors of the Indian Aerospace Industry. These include the secure and encrypted pan Air Force wide area network (WAN), AFNET, IACCS, and the Advanced Command Air Tasking System (ACATS), to name a few. Other noteworthy indigenous systems in or about to enter service are the Reporter and Rohini radars, Tejas LCA, Dhruv ALH, LCH and EMB-145 based AEW&C system.
[*]Purchases of defence and civil equipment from foreign sources are now accompanied with offset clauses varying from 30 to 50 per cent.
[*]There are great opportunities for foreign companies to enter into genuine collaboration with Indian players in the public and private sectors of the aerospace industry in India to design and develop new systems and platforms leading to a win-win situation for both sides, given India’s proven “frugal engineering” and Information Technology (IT) skills. Just these two proven skills available in India justify the setting up of joint ventures (JVs) in the aerospace field by foreign technology giants with Indian companies, quite independent of bidding for any civil or military contract and its offset requirements.
[*]Foreign governments and companies will require to shed their erstwhile “sell and maybe give a license to make” policy in favour of genuine from-the-ground-up collaborative design and development. A step in this direction has been made by the Indo-Russian Brahmos project.12 More than the original Brahmos project,13 this is more applicable to the new hypersonic variant of the Brahmos missile being developed jointly.14 The Indo-Russian collaboration for the PAK FA fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) wherein India is partly funding a substantial part of the project in exchange for design involvement and development of a variant to meet India’s specific needs is another tentative step in this direction.

Tejas numbers around 350 to 450 aircraft will be a real boost to the local Aerospace industry and also make it cost effective with respect to the sunken development cost.

[Kartik]

Wouldn't widening the fuselage in the Mk2 have the same impact as adding CFT's wrt turn rates and transonic regimes?

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

And the impact will be nowhere even close to the effect of bolting on CFTs onto the fuselage. Those carry significant fuel which loads the fuselage structures and tends to require localised strengthening, in addition to (generally at least) impacting maneuverability limits negatively.

[RKumar]

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2006 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-349,LSP1-74,LSP2-242,PV5-36,LSP3-96,LSP4-61,LSP5-124,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2025 Test Flights Successfully. (10-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-350,LSP1-74,LSP2-250,PV5-36,LSP3-99,LSP4-65,LSP5-127,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

[suryag]

PV-3 was on static display, it is the same as the pic that Varunji spruced up(he put mountains in Yelhanka ) up so one flight from hal airport to yelahanka and the displacy was done by LSP2 and 4 so 13 flights were for AI. LSP5 and 3 are somehwere else honing their tactics for the ironfist ?

[pankajs]

Amidst the crowd, ADA master silently watches the Tejas display!

He said ADA captured the imagination of the visitors by exhibiting the technologies that were developed in the last two decades for the Tejas programme. “We have arrived and the people have experienced our strengths. It’s not an overnight exercise,” Subramanyam said. The simulated environment of terrain inside the ADA hall floored the visitors, including Defence Minister A K Antony, who is said to have asked his men to have the same script for an exhibition in Kerala.
He said the youngsters and students were impressed by the Tejas simulators at the show. “Our main aim this time was to give maximum exposure to the student community. Special teams were formed to explain the salient features of combat fighter technologies. We hope some of these talented brains will join our future programmes,” Subramanyam said.
As Tejas touched down, the ADA captain was ready to get going for the day’s last appointment. “During the 2015 show, I am confident that a production variant of Tejas will fly here. Tejas will be in IAF Squadron colours, then,” he said, adjusting his beard and disappearing into the crowd.

[member_23455]

Maybe some of the folks with actual and not wishful information on the program can comment on:

1. What is the latest projection for LCA's FOC?2015 first quarter

2. What radar/weapons/powerplant configuration is the first operational block of aircraft going to have?
http://tejas.gov.in/
http://tejas.gov.in/specifications.html
http://tejas.gov.in/technology.html

3. What is HAL's projections for production rate on LCA?


4. Apart from Sulur is there any information on the other bases for the LCA?
As of now Sulur it is.

5. Who else are we selling the LCA to apart from the IAF?
N-LCA for IN

PS: suryag time to update Tejas test flights timeline.

Maybe it is not hard to see in light of this response (and I am assuming no one else has any additional info as well) why the top brass of IAF are mighty worried:

1. Before 2016 realistically they cannot even hope to start addressing the issue of getting on the path to sanctioned squadron strength - assuming LCA and Rafale will be one squadron each declared fully operational, and all the Su 30 MKIs are in by then (?)

2. The fact that ADA chooses not to disclose specifically what is the final config (save for powerplant) config for Block I to use an Americanism is in contrast with established practices across the world e.g. Su 30MKI evolution which was quite complex from an SI standpoint, had its share of hassles, but people knew what Su 30MKI Mk. I would be, what Mk.II would be etc. For the website to blandly state MRAAM, SRAAM without getting into specific weapon systems shows the gap between a developer mindset and an end-user mindset. It also allows the IAF to play the same game that the Army has played with the Arjun to essentially sideline what in the end turned out to be a decent-end product.

3. The IAF after it is done extending moral support to ADA, must then extend the same to HAL, who cannot even commit to a production rate on the LCA for initial series production. The IAF first and foremost is a warfighting organization, not an industry body like CII or FICCI.

4. Naturally therefore, the IAF is going to test the waters at one base, which incidentally is not a base for the Mig-21 Bison, the aircraft the LCA is nominally supposed to replace. Anyone else see the Arjun story being repeated here...

5. If ADA/HAL are so convinced that they have made a world class product for its class and the IAF will give them a raw deal, why aren't they doing roadshows of the LCA in other countries, given that it is so near FOC. Maybe the IAF chief would pipe down if he saw Vietnam or Nigeria buy a few.

[Kartik]

There was a superb video that was on display at the LCA pavilion..it showed the cockpit view of a pilot rolling to take-off and then rotating and then executing a sharp left turn in a Tejas Mk1..I instantly recognised the pilot in the video as Cmde Maolankar from his naval patches. Was a superb video, the first ever from inside a LCA cockpit..since I was engrossed in conversing with Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, I forgot to ask my friend to film it. Did anyone get a hold of that video? Else our only hope for it is the tejas.gov.in website, but one cannot be sure of that either..so far, not even a single HD video of the LCA flying!

[k prasad]

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2006 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-349,LSP1-74,LSP2-242,PV5-36,LSP3-96,LSP4-61,LSP5-124,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2025 Test Flights Successfully. (10-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-350,LSP1-74,LSP2-250,PV5-36,LSP3-99,LSP4-65,LSP5-127,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

19 flights in 5 days - of which 10 would be at AI13 i'm guessing? Or do Air Show flights not count as test flights??

Maybe it is not hard to see in light of this response (and I am assuming no one else has any additional info as well) why the top brass of IAF are mighty worried:

1. Before 2016 realistically they cannot even hope to start addressing the issue of getting on the path to sanctioned squadron strength - assuming LCA and Rafale will be one squadron each declared fully operational, and all the Su 30 MKIs are in by then (?)

2. The fact that ADA chooses not to disclose specifically what is the final config (save for powerplant) config for Block I to use an Americanism is in contrast with established practices across the world e.g. Su 30MKI evolution which was quite complex from an SI standpoint, had its share of hassles, but people knew what Su 30MKI Mk. I would be, what Mk.II would be etc. For the website to blandly state MRAAM, SRAAM without getting into specific weapon systems shows the gap between a developer mindset and an end-user mindset. It also allows the IAF to play the same game that the Army has played with the Arjun to essentially sideline what in the end turned out to be a decent-end product.

1) Well, the LCA testing program has been delayed. IIRC, at the time of TD1's 1st flight, targetted IOC was somewhere around 2010, with FOC in mid-2012. That has got pushed by 3 years. It is a concern. A large part of this has to do with the changes that IAF asked for during the PV stage. Also, this is the first time that we are in a testing and combat certification program for such an advanced fighter, especially given Digital FBW and highly integrated modern avionics. Tamilmani (CEMILAC Dir) mentioned during AI09 about how complex the testing process was, and how they needed help. Plus, the extra-caution being taken in testing due to the low amount of risk they want to take, given the number of brickbats LCA has already got from uninformed detractors. Lets look at this as a knowledge base we are gaining in the process, and look to make sure that we do it right with Mk2, which i'm sure we will.

2) The delay in increasing combat sqns doesnt lie with DRDO alone. The LCA delay did put a lot of uncertainty in IAF's acquisitions, so that could be blamed. If you remember, when the MRCA contract was mooted in 2001, it was initially mooted as an alternative to the LCA, but put on the backburner for a bit given the sudden re-emergence of the LCA program.

Then once the IAF got more involved in the LCA program after PV1 started flying (around the 2004 period IIRC), and led to further changes in the platform. These changes took a few years to concretize, and post 2006, the MRCA tender started looking more towards a medium platform as a replacement for the Mig-27s and Jags, with a view towards the future. The IAF took their time in coming out with the RFPs, and then further bureaucratic delays in issuing these to vendors. Plus, in all of this, it does appear that IAF started thinking AFTER things got concrete. One certainly wishes for more foresight and vision from the IAF about their requirements and plan accordingly, but again, we could probably excuse them for it, given that it was a first such project for India, and everyone was learning. IAF got more familiar with the tech (remember, the mil-tech world in new millenium just changed completely, and new tech started streaming in as projects abroad matured), and took time to understand and slot these into their op doctrines.

3) Lets not assume that IAF only knows as much as what us jingos know, or what they release at aero-seminars. ADA doesnt answer to us public jingos anyway. On this project especially, DRDO appreciates the importance of keeping the end-users involved. Plus, a large part of the improvements in Mk2 are wrt avionics and avionics architecture, which were detailed in AI09 itself. If the IAF still decides to play games, they can do that even if all the specs for Mk2 were out in public domain. Lets just wait and watch, I guess.

3. The IAF after it is done extending moral support to ADA, must then extend the same to HAL, who cannot even commit to a production rate on the LCA for initial series production. The IAF first and foremost is a warfighting organization, not an industry body like CII or FICCI.

4. Naturally therefore, the IAF is going to test the waters at one base, which incidentally is not a base for the Mig-21 Bison, the aircraft the LCA is nominally supposed to replace. Anyone else see the Arjun story being repeated here...

5. If ADA/HAL are so convinced that they have made a world class product for its class and the IAF will give them a raw deal, why aren't they doing roadshows of the LCA in other countries, given that it is so near FOC. Maybe the IAF chief would pipe down if he saw Vietnam or Nigeria buy a few.

4) When it comes to critical national programs like LCA, Arjun etc, the forces SHOULD become atleast a little like CII or FICCI, or rather, should involve themselves in the project a lot more... a lot of this discussion has been repeated already based on Air Cmde Pande's talk. The customer mindset needs to change when it comes to such programs. Doesn't mean that IAF should compromise their warfighting ability to support indigenization, but theres enough and more ways to keep both of these happy.

5) They chose Sulur. Close to Bangalore and LCA infrastructure, nice open spaces, lots of connectivity, and enough freedom to evolve new op doctrines for LCA. Also points towards a closer tie between IAF and HAL for setting up. It could still go the Arjun way, but I hope not. And indications also seem to indicate otherwise... unlike the Arjun, there really isnt a ready alternative for the LCA. by turning the MRCA into MMRCA, the IAF has, to use Cortez as an example, "burnt the ships" to a certain extent.

6) ADA/HAL should take the LCA to other countries and air shows. But right now, justifiably, they are focussing on the testing program, and cant spare any aircraft for these. Plus, why would Vietnam or Nigeria buy a platform that IAF hasnt committed to in large numbers already? Especially a top end combat fighter? Almost nowhere have we seen a national air force buy a local fighter after it has been validated elsewhere. It has always been the local AF that supports, encourages and vouches for the fighter in foreign sales. The change in mindset cant come from Viet or anyone using our baby. It has to come from within.

[Singha]

There was a superb video that was on display at the LCA pavilion..it showed the cockpit view of a pilot rolling to take-off and then rotating and then executing a sharp left turn in a Tejas Mk1..I instantly recognised the pilot in the video as Cmde Maolankar from his naval patches. Was a superb video, the first ever from inside a LCA cockpit..since I was engrossed in conversing with Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, I forgot to ask my friend to film it. Did anyone get a hold of that video? Else our only hope for it is the tejas.gov.in website, but one cannot be sure of that either..so far, not even a single HD video of the LCA flying!

this may be part of it ? set 720p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGx8xRC4gvo

[rajanb]

There was a superb video that was on display at the LCA pavilion..it showed the cockpit view of a pilot rolling to take-off and then rotating and then executing a sharp left turn in a Tejas Mk1..I instantly recognised the pilot in the video as Cmde Maolankar from his naval patches. Was a superb video, the first ever from inside a LCA cockpit..since I was engrossed in conversing with Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, I forgot to ask my friend to film it. Did anyone get a hold of that video? Else our only hope for it is the tejas.gov.in website, but one cannot be sure of that either..so far, not even a single HD video of the LCA flying!

Thanks a lot dor your fabulous posts. Just read them.

This jingo is going to sleep well tonight knowing that our baby Tejas is going to be hell of a kick @rse m/c. The feeling I had in the pit of my stomach when I saw it do a fabulous banking u turn on the outskirts of Bangalore, away from the madding crowd! Two years back.

I have always followed the discussions here with trepidation. Particularly of the naysayers, even though deep in my gut, I felt it was going to be a machine, the first one, which we have embarked upon and which will be commendable, particularly for all the impediments it has faced. External and internal.

Most of you may not have been around when the Gnat was inducted. It was laughed at. But it proved itself. So did the Hunter, whose live, under fire manouevres made me go Manouveres which I thought were impossible for it to do and the cheers when the F86's wing was blasted off.

Guys, a silent thanks and cheers to those who have made it happen. Overcoming their poorly paid jobs, the silly babudom, the negative comments; overcome with dedication and patriotism. I had seen this spirit in ISRO and NAL too, besides HAL and ADA.

Today, I salute the few that I personally knew and the many whom I will never know.

[member_23455]

6) ADA/HAL should take the LCA to other countries and air shows. But right now, justifiably, they are focussing on the testing program, and cant spare any aircraft for these. Plus, why would Vietnam or Nigeria buy a platform that IAF hasnt committed to in large numbers already? Especially a top end combat fighter? Almost nowhere have we seen a national air force buy a local fighter after it has been validated elsewhere. It has always been the local AF that supports, encourages and vouches for the fighter in foreign sales. The change in mindset cant come from Viet or anyone using our baby. It has to come from within.

Hit.Nail.Head. So if the IAF is the primary customer then it will raise hell, because it is coming from their budgets, efforts of their test pilots, and their butts in the cockpit when the shooting starts. The Russians took the armed forces for granted...those who were there at Aero India 2013 should be able to provide some anecdotes on how they are feeling right now.

[member_23360]

after reading kartik's post my respect for IN increases at much higher level than IAF.

[member_23360]

let the IAF get the Rafale and then ask for these small changes and then they’ll figure out just how hard it is to get anything they want. On the N-LCA, we can integrate whatever we want, and for the entire lifetime of the fighter. Easier upgrades will be available since everything is known about the aircraft to the designers


This is called a strategic vision, while unfortunately IAF is looking at tactical objectives.

[Kartik]

There was a superb video that was on display at the LCA pavilion..it showed the cockpit view of a pilot rolling to take-off and then rotating and then executing a sharp left turn in a Tejas Mk1..I instantly recognised the pilot in the video as Cmde Maolankar from his naval patches. Was a superb video, the first ever from inside a LCA cockpit..since I was engrossed in conversing with Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, I forgot to ask my friend to film it. Did anyone get a hold of that video? Else our only hope for it is the tejas.gov.in website, but one cannot be sure of that either..so far, not even a single HD video of the LCA flying!

this may be part of it ? set 720p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGx8xRC4gvo

No that vid had the camera mounted in the front. And it was a single seater not a twin seater.

[vasu raya]

Wouldn't widening the fuselage in the Mk2 have the same impact as adding CFT's wrt turn rates and transonic regimes?

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

And the impact will be nowhere even close to the effect of bolting on CFTs onto the fuselage. Those carry significant fuel which loads the fuselage structures and tends to require localised strengthening, in addition to (generally at least) impacting maneuverability limits negatively.

Thanks Kartik for the detailed answer to this Anguta chaap on these matters, would the additional fuel loads and drag from CFTs be compensated by the brute force approach of higher thrust engine (akin to F-16) and decent SFC? keeping the Tibet theater in mind, I feel IAF should still go for range and endurance in spite of IFR

The drop tanks could very well be replaced by say Nirbhay or some other A2G munition

Another Q, the diamond wing design meant for AMCA is any good dragwise if tried on the Tejas (mk3?), those inner rear ailerons on the diamond wing doubling as horizontal stabilizers of the tail. The belief is many features that we are trying on the AMCA can be attempted on Tejas in tranches especially avionics before we hit the first flight of AMCA.

[Indranil]

Mig 29K also has the same canopy for single and dual seat configs.

You are right. Had missed that completely!


Initial prototypes used to have a single seat canopy. but I suppose it is because it was a modified Mig-29M.

[vishvak]

2 cents about fuel requirements of Naval LCA as take off is fuel intensive. May be detachable drop tanks (one/more) be designed to accommodate that much fuel, and attached in a manner that moves Center of Gravity (well not too much just as much as little fuel and detachable fuel tanks can) to aid in takeoff on carrier. It is an issue, not a problem. It can aid other naval aircrafts as well ( & more may be) in case something like this, or better, works out. After take off its purpose is served so dropping the same should make the aircraft fly normally. The fuel for take off could be used for take off too & the fuel from detachable tanks can added to main fuel tank after take off as convenient. If cost is a factor it could be all plastic/wood (floats on water) and reusable.

[Cybaru]

Any talk of CFTs?

[rohitvats]

let the IAF get the Rafale and then ask for these small changes and then they’ll figure out just how hard it is to get anything they want. On the N-LCA, we can integrate whatever we want, and for the entire lifetime of the fighter. Easier upgrades will be available since everything is known about the aircraft to the designers


This is called a strategic vision, while unfortunately IAF is looking at tactical objectives.

The same goes for the Mig-29K of the Navy and the new fighter for IAC-2 for which the IN seems to be out in the market. And which may well turn out to be N-Rafale. Will this 'tactical objective' apply to those cases as well?

Your twisting the meaning of the words here.

[SagarAg]

^^ Rohitvats ji now you want to start IAF vs IN debate.

[Indranil]

The plug being behind the cockpit?

Yes. The distance between the canopy edge to the intake has gone up by 0.5m, so the plug seems to be entirely behind the cockpit. No visible lengthening of the radome or the nose section.

Yeah, I could never see the logic of the nose plug. I mashed up a few pics quickly to analyse the area curve of Tejas. They will probably elongate the channel behind the splitter plate which drops the boundary layer below the fuselage.

They aren’t happy with the current solution where the main landing gear folds INTO the fuselage itself, which is a bad solution. Only thing that I forgot to ask at that time was, how will they then manage the cross section at that section (where the fairing will be) while taking area ruling into account. Something further “waisting” on the fuselage spine perhaps?

Yeah, shaping the spine and also the bulbous actuator housings for the ailerons and flaps can go. They will also benefit from lesser interference drag.

[ManuJ]

No photos of the reconfigured LCA cockpit?
Did someone notice what was different about it?

[pentaiah]

rajanb Saar ji

About Gnat I agree
But hunter was already proven IAF got it.

I was a big fan of Marut
Great machine if only it had better engine we would not have MiGs

[merlin]

No photos of the reconfigured LCA cockpit?
Did someone notice what was different about it?

Did not notice the changed configuration. Saw the standard 3 MFDs, HUD and its controls and the two get you home standby panels.

[member_24574]

...
problem is that HAL is being run by goons not ideal people who can think and act like a leader ... most of those in higher ups have come up only be recomendations and stepping over other eligible peopl

I's about to report this post to the admins, but then noticed your post count and joining date and refrained myself.

It seems you have every deep insight into the type and suitability of the folks "running" HAL - can you pls educate us on who, the position that s/he holds and why do you think are unfit for running HAL and, more importantly, what kind of mgmt experience on aviation manufacturing/design/consultancy/manufacturing/support (or even operational experience) do you have to say so about these folks.

In short, pls be specific!!

Otherwise, it will be fair for most of us to assume that you are just another person with access to an internet-enabled computer who thinks it's his/her birth-right to comment on anything under the sun irrespective of their capability to do so - something that quite a few of us here are used to seeing over the years.

C'mon, prove us wrong!!

Where's the good doc (with his HTML scalpel) to deliver a good pisko sermon on this - it's been a while since we have heard from sermons from him!!

Frnds i am sorry with lang,, but could help my self after seeing few comments , yes i have few close people who have worked in hal then quit due to the people who handled them one is my brother who was into an important project and lost all hope and left and joined Rockwell