The Indian Tejas

[vetrival]

Being offerred assistance is not considered 'fixed".



Being Helped and being offered is no where even close to considered as "fixed".



Ready to compte on Equal footing ? Are you serious? Lol. LCA is a prime example how ready to compete on equal footing Indian Aerospace Sector is !!



Yes and they told you personally that eh ?



You seriously need to tell that to DODO. The number of will you use says it all.

Which brings us back to the same point. LCA is NOT fixed and as of today it is no better then a trainer. So not a good idead to compare it with other aircrafts untill LCA is "fixed".

You seem to have a problem with me using to many "will" in my sentences but since I have mentioned earlier that a definitive version of the LCA will enter service by 2010-2012, the conventions of the English language demand that I use the word "will" while refering to the LCA.


SNECMA is confident that with it's technological input the Kaveri engine will be ready by 2009, they have even offered to equip the Dassault Rafale with the said engine if it wins the MMRCA deal (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition)


The only reason that the LCA is not equiped with a definitive radar is because the Multi Mode Pulse Doppler radar was optimtsed for A2A combat but later on the IAF decided to broaden thr LCA's role hence India is now co-developing an AESA radar with Israel which will be based upon the Elta 2052 radar (another option offered by Elta is that it will provide off-the shelf 2052 radars with full ToT).


The Indian Aerospace industry is more than ready to compete with it's Chinese counterpart. The reasons for the LCA's delay are the 1998 sanctions and the changing specifications and requirements laid down by the the IAF. The LCA will operate an AESA radar and will be able to supercruise (with it's A2A weapons package) which will give it an edge over all other aircrafts in the sub-continent. Besides the Chinese Aerospace industry is notorious for copying of the Russians (the JF-17 which is the latest offering by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation is based upon the MIG-21 airframe).


As far as China's inability to procure advanced radar systems from other countries is concerned refer to http://www.fas.org/news/china/2000/000712-prc1.htm and www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_09/israelsept00.asp. Another point worth mentioning is that the sale of the same radar system to India was cleared by the US.


The LCA isn't just an advanced trainer, while the F404-GE-IN20 engine does limit the LCA;s combat load it is still more than capable of knocking JF-17s (the PAF couterpart for the LCA) out of the sky. The aforementioned engine will only hinder the LCA from reaching it's full potential nothing more nothing less. Also the LCA has already been integrated with the R-73 and R-77 missiles which definately proves that it is more then a trainer.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

You seem to have a problem with me using to many "will" in my sentences but since I have mentioned earlier that a definitive version of the LCA will enter service by 2010-2012, the conventions of the English language demand that I use the word "will" while refering to the LCA.


SNECMA is confident that with it's technological input the Kaveri engine will be ready by 2009, they have even offered to equip the Dassault Rafale with the said engine if it wins the MMRCA deal (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition)


The only reason that the LCA is not equiped with a definitive radar is because the Multi Mode Pulse Doppler radar was optimtsed for A2A combat but later on the IAF decided to broaden thr LCA's role hence India is now co-developing an AESA radar with Israel which will be based upon the Elta 2052 radar (another option offered by Elta is that it will provide off-the shelf 2052 radars with full ToT).


The Indian Aerospace industry is more than ready to compete with it's Chinese counterpart. The reasons for the LCA's delay are the 1998 sanctions and the changing specifications and requirements laid down by the the IAF. The LCA will operate an AESA radar and will be able to supercruise (with it's A2A weapons package) which will give it an edge over all other aircrafts in the sub-continent. Besides the Chinese Aerospace industry is notorious for copying of the Russians (the JF-17 which is the latest offering by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation is based upon the MIG-21 airframe).

The LCA isn't just an advanced trainer, while the F404-GE-IN20 engine does limit the LCA;s combat load it is still more than capable of knocking JF-17s (the PAF couterpart for the LCA) out of the sky. The aforementioned engine will only hinder the LCA from reaching it's full potential nothing more nothing less. Also the LCA has already been integrated with the R-73 and R-77 missiles which definately proves that it is more then a trainer.

I have been reading this LCA "WILL" stuff since my teenage days.

On the other note since this is the only thing you mentioned LCA " is " done with : (firing of missile and taking off and landing)

Even the K8 trainers comes armed with air to air missiles and air to ground munition as of today and have been successfully exported 500+, Fly longer, furtherer and handle more Gs then LCA can. Even Mushak is pulling more Gs then LCA as of today.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/jl8.asp
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/DefenceProduction/PAC/K8_Manufacturing.htm
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/DefenceProduction/PAC/Mushak_SuperMushak_Manufacturing.htm

K8

There are four under-wing pylons to carry up to 1,000kg payload, each rated at 250kg. The stations can carry drop tanks, 23mm cannon pods, unguided rockets, 250kg bombs, short-range air-to-air missiles (e.g. Magic R550). (SinoDefence)

 

[vetrival]

I have been reading this LCA "WILL" stuff since my teenage days.

On the other note since this is the only thing you mentioned LCA " is " done with : (firing of missile and taking off and landing)

Even the K8 trainers comes armed with air to air missiles and air to ground munition as of today and have been successfully exported 500+, Fly longer, furtherer and handle more Gs then LCA can. Even Mushak is pulling more Gs then LCA as of today.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/jl8.asp
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/DefenceProduction/PAC/K8_Manufacturing.htm
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/DefenceProduction/PAC/Mushak_SuperMushak_Manufacturing.htm

K8

There are four under-wing pylons to carry up to 1,000kg payload, each rated at 250kg. The stations can carry drop tanks, 23mm cannon pods, unguided rockets, 250kg bombs, short-range air-to-air missiles (e.g. Magic R550). (SinoDefence)

Every one seems to be pointing out the long time period associated with the development of the LCA but people seem to forget that other similar(JF-17,J-10) or more ambitious projects(F/A-22, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon) have also taken around two decades to reach completion or to even produce a basic version of the planned aircraft.


The JF-17s and the J-10s being operated by the PAF and the PLAAF are using downgraded avionics and radars which are mostly of Soviet origin since there indegenius counterparts have not become operational yet and the engines used on these aircrafts are the Russian RD-93 and the Lyulka-Saturn AL-31FN respectively, even though both the projects started in 1986(refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10)


The LCA is definately not a trainer, even when it has not reached it's full potential it is more than capable of fulfilling it's original role(point-defence although the IAF later demanded a fighter which could fulfill the role of a light multi-role combat aircraft, this led to the problems with the radar which are being rectified) against aircrafts such as the JF-17 and the J-10. The F404-GE-IN20 engine does limit the payload of the LCA due to which till the Kaveri engine comes out it cannot participate in A2G combat but it is still more than capable of excelling in A2A combat. Since both the J-10 and the JF-17 have also not reached there full operational capabilities, should I then refer to them as advanced trainers and nothing more?


Besides the first 40 LCAs which are being fitted with the F404-GE-IN20 engine can later be refitted with the Kaveri engine. When the final version of the LCA rolls out in 2012, it will eclipse the J-10 and the JF-17(the reason I have extensively compared the LCA with the J-10s and the JF-17s is that Aliph beleives that the ADA and HAL cannot compete with there Chinese counterparts).

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

The LCA is definately not a trainer, even when it has not reached it's full potential it is more than capable of fulfilling it's original role(point-defence although the IAF later demanded a fighter which could fulfill the role of a light multi-role combat aircraft, this led to the problems with the radar which are being rectified) against aircrafts such as the JF-17 and the J-10. The F404-GE-IN20 engine does limit the payload of the LCA due to which till the Kaveri engine comes out it cannot participate in A2G combat but it is still more than capable of excelling in A2A combat.


Besides the first 40 LCA which are being fitted with the F404-GE-IN20 engine can later be refitted with the Kaveri engine. When :the final version of the LCA rolls out in 2012, it will eclipse the J-10 and the JF-17(the reason I have extensively compared the LCA with the J-10s and the JF-17s is that Aliph beleives that the ADA and HAL cannot compete with there Chinese counterparts).

How can you say without backing up your claims with any figures or technical numbers that LCA is more then capable of excelling in A2A combat when:

LCA has not even reached the minimum AoA of 21 degrees required by Indian Air Force (It is doing only 17 as of now),
Is pulling only 6 gs,
has no radar,
Has to do two manouvres using only one surface control called Elevon,
STR is only 15 degrees
underpowered engine
and ITR is only 20 degrees ???

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/319117.html

 

[Thery]

The Mirage 2000 can do Mach 2.2 can pull +14/-9 G’s,
at 9 G it has a max AOA of 28 degrees, and instantaneous turn rate (ITR) is 24°/s.

The LCA can do Mach 1.4, pull 4.5 G’s, I think it can only go in a straight line so…STR and ITR are out of the question at the moment !!

You are more then welcome to forward my comments and analysis to DRDO and even they can not refute what I am saying !!

Mirage 2000-9 ----- 9/-4.5 normal 13.5/-9 ultimate

The G limit you quote is Mirage’s ultimate G load. It is not fair compare one aircraft’s break G load to another’s normal G load. Until now I did not see information suggest that +9/-3.5 G load of LCA is its break limit.

I have decided to keep it strictly technical from now onwards. I will also post my correspondence with ADA designers/developers under a different name(omitting the names offcourse ) soon.

LCA

While flying at Mch 0.53 (EAS) at a 3 km altitude (K = 0.861).
weighing 12,000 kg (122.58 KN).
makes a sustained banked turn through 90o in 15 s.
The wing loading is (221.4 Kg) 2.171 N/m2.

Ve = 651km/hr = 180.88 m/s, Vt = 180.88 /(k) =210m/s
*=2x(pi)/60=0.105 Rads/s
sqrt(n^2-1)=*V/g=2.249 n=2.46
L = 2.25 W = 2.171 x 122.58 = 266.12 kN
(266.12118/2.25) = (118.27608/122.58) = 0.964888888
Cos-1 (.964888888) = 15.22
Cos-1 (L/W) = 15.22
Sustained bank angle = 15.22 degrees

hence STR= 15 degrees at Mach 0.5 altitude 3 Km.

notations:
g = gravitational accel=9.80065
V = velocity = 210m/s
L = lift = 2.25
W = wing loading = 2.171 KN
kn = kilo Newton SI unit

The wing loding of the LCA is quite low for most aircrafts of any kind, which has a direct result on the turn angle, angle of attack !!

STR = 15 degrees only and ITR = 20 degrees only.

When cmparing the STR of LCA with any aircraft, you will notice that it is lnot only lower then most fighters but close to trainer aircrafts !!

Following are the two interesting links :

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/2523/
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=japaperimportPre97&gID=44605

I just like to ask why you use 12,000kg as the weight.

Are you calculate LCA’s ITR and STR by using its full fuel and full loaded weight?

Combat Manoeuvrability
Instantaneous turn rate @ 15,000 ft. (4,572m) - Two IR Missiles - 50% Int. Fuel

_____________Mach 0.7__Mach 0.9__Mach 1.2__Mach 1.5
______________°/sec_____°/sec_____°/sec_____°/sec
Mirage 2000____22________17.5______13_______10.5
F16 C_________18________17.5______13_______10.5
F18 C_________18.5______14.5_______11_______8.5


http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

Mirage 2000-9 ----- 9/-4.5 normal 13.5/-9 ultimate

The G limit you quote is Mirage’s ultimate G load. It is not fair compare one aircraft’s break G load to another’s normal G load. Until now I did not see information suggest that +9/-3.5 G load of LCA is its break limit.


I just like to ask why you use 12,000kg as the weight.

Are you calculate LCA’s ITR and STR by using its full fuel and full loaded weight?

Combat Manoeuvrability
Instantaneous turn rate @ 15,000 ft. (4,572m) - Two IR Missiles - 50% Int. Fuel

_____________Mach 0.7__Mach 0.9__Mach 1.2__Mach 1.5
______________°/sec_____°/sec_____°/sec_____°/sec
Mirage 2000____22________17.5______13_______10.5
F16 C_________18________17.5______13_______10.5
F18 C_________18.5______14.5_______11_______8.5


http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

The STR calculated used the full maximum load of LCA and the data from ADA report....

and it is only logical to assume that Indian Airforce will not send LCA on a mission with half the weight as a " bait " .

Some compartive figures :

Rafale, Dassault-Breguet
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: Unknown

JAS 39 Gripen, Saab
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second

 

[Thery]

The STR calculated used the full maximum load of LCA and the data from ADA report....

and it is only logical to assume that Indian Airforce will not send LCA on a mission with half the weight as a " bait " .

Some compartive figures :

Rafale, Dassault-Breguet
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: Unknown

JAS 39 Gripen, Saab
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second

As to my understanding ITR and STR are usually calculate under 50% fuel (assume that the jet use some fuel to reach the combat area) and with AoA Loads only.

I don’t think any pilot is fool enough to carry 3 tone bombs under its wing against a fighter only carry AAM.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

As to my understanding ITR and STR are usually calculate under 50% fuel (assume that the jet use some fuel to reach the combat area) and with AoA Loads only.

I don’t think any pilot is fool enough to carry 3 tone bombs under its wing against a fighter only carry AAM.

Did you just say that typical combat weight of LCA will be at 50% fuel ? :no

Instantaneous Turn / Sustained Turn
by TC aka Tequila Chaser

You can classify turns into (2) categories which are Instantaneous or Sustained.

Instantaneous Turn / Instantaneous Turn Rate - where a plane pulls max G's (near 6 right before blackout) to turn quickly for a short period of time, turn rate varies with speed , usually bested at the corner speed/ corner velocity of a given aircraft. A turn that quickly expels speed and possibly alt, while an instantaneous turn is by definition unsustainable, most times to be no more than a 180 degree turn or change in direction. While usually bested at the corner speed of the given aircraft, this turn can be performed at higher or lower speeds with less benefit.

Sustained Turn / Sustained Turn Rate - where a plane maximizes it’s smallest turn radius, g - load, and speed to acquire the best possible turn rate and continuously sustains the turn for long periods of time, without giving up alt, speed, or degrees of turn.

As the above definitions have defined, the difference between the two is the period of time you're able to maintain the rate of turn. While you can achieve a high instantaneous G-load by pulling back hard on the stick, you will not be able to maintain that high rate of turn for very long because that high G-load will increase drag and slow the aircraft, in return this will reduce the maximum G obtainable. Conversely, a lower G-load produces less drag. Eventually you'll reach a point where thrust will be sufficient to overcome the drag being produced. This will allow you to maintain the current G-load and speed. This is called sustained turn rate.

You will find that most Aces high pilots rely solely on an aircrafts sustained turn rate performance speed and basically ignore the instantaneous turning ability when choosing their ride. This is usually because an aircraft with a high sustained turning rate will be easier to fly in combat. To ignore instantaneous turn rates would be a really bad judgment call on your part. A superior instantaneous turn rate can be useful for defensive maneuvering, but when used effectively, it can be deadly in an offensive capacity. This advantage can allow you to come to a guns solution faster, but the downside is that if your sustained turn rate is inferior, unless you make the kill immediately, you're in for trouble. It is at exactly this point that you'll understand why a superior sustained-turning-rate aircraft is easier to fly.


http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Another interesting link:

http://www.netaces.org/compare_planes/compare_planes.html

Actually, LCA's STR is even less then 15 degrees if you consider the washouts. Keeping in mind the feature as DRDO likes to put it, the wings of LCA are twisted, usually to stop TIPSTALLING, which is known as WASHOUT, results of such features are reduced AoA. (Why do you think AoA has decreased to 17 degrees from 20 last year after the installation of fuel tanks and one missile ???? . Wait till it is fully loaded, it will be even worst !!). There is a reason why MoD has conceded that LCA will have limited load out and incapable of combat !!

If the LCA had a very good AoA, STR, ITR then it would have been published all over the internet by now. After all, there are 100s if not thousands of articles (since 1983) praising LCA and how good it " will " be !!

and barealy a few showing how good it is !!

Another interesting link :

http://www.fighter-planes.com/

You may call me biased and whatever and move on but what do you have to say about your own Indian MoD reports that are in agreement with my claims ???

 

[Thery]

Did you just say that typical combat weight of LCA will be at 50% fuel ? :no

Instantaneous Turn / Sustained Turn
by TC aka Tequila Chaser

You can classify turns into (2) categories which are Instantaneous or Sustained.

Instantaneous Turn / Instantaneous Turn Rate - where a plane pulls max G's (near 6 right before blackout) to turn quickly for a short period of time, turn rate varies with speed , usually bested at the corner speed/ corner velocity of a given aircraft. A turn that quickly expels speed and possibly alt, while an instantaneous turn is by definition unsustainable, most times to be no more than a 180 degree turn or change in direction. While usually bested at the corner speed of the given aircraft, this turn can be performed at higher or lower speeds with less benefit.

Sustained Turn / Sustained Turn Rate - where a plane maximizes it’s smallest turn radius, g - load, and speed to acquire the best possible turn rate and continuously sustains the turn for long periods of time, without giving up alt, speed, or degrees of turn.

As the above definitions have defined, the difference between the two is the period of time you're able to maintain the rate of turn. While you can achieve a high instantaneous G-load by pulling back hard on the stick, you will not be able to maintain that high rate of turn for very long because that high G-load will increase drag and slow the aircraft, in return this will reduce the maximum G obtainable. Conversely, a lower G-load produces less drag. Eventually you'll reach a point where thrust will be sufficient to overcome the drag being produced. This will allow you to maintain the current G-load and speed. This is called sustained turn rate.

You will find that most Aces high pilots rely solely on an aircrafts sustained turn rate performance speed and basically ignore the instantaneous turning ability when choosing their ride. This is usually because an aircraft with a high sustained turning rate will be easier to fly in combat. To ignore instantaneous turn rates would be a really bad judgment call on your part. A superior instantaneous turn rate can be useful for defensive maneuvering, but when used effectively, it can be deadly in an offensive capacity. This advantage can allow you to come to a guns solution faster, but the downside is that if your sustained turn rate is inferior, unless you make the kill immediately, you're in for trouble. It is at exactly this point that you'll understand why a superior sustained-turning-rate aircraft is easier to fly.


http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Another interesting link:

http://www.netaces.org/compare_planes/compare_planes.html

Actually, LCA's STR is even less then 15 degrees if you consider the washouts. Keeping in mind the feature as DRDO likes to put it, the wings of LCA are twisted, usually to stop TIPSTALLING, which is known as WASHOUT, results of such features are reduced AoA. (Why do you think AoA has decreased to 17 degrees from 20 last year after the installation of fuel tanks and one missile ???? . Wait till it is fully loaded, it will be even worst !!). There is a reason why MoD has conceded that LCA will have limited load out and incapable of combat !!

If the LCA had a very good AoA, STR, ITR then it would have been published all over the internet by now. After all, there are 100s if not thousands of articles (since 1983) praising LCA and how good it " will " be !!

and barealy a few showing how good it is !!

Another interesting link :

http://www.fighter-planes.com/

You may call me biased and whatever and move on but what do you have to say about your own Indian MoD reports that are in agreement with my claims ???

I did not say LCA typical combat weight is 50% fuel. I only say usually when calculating ITR and STR 50% fuel and AoA load are used. Even the number you quote for Rafale are base on 50% fuel and AoA load instead of full fuel and max takeoff weight.

I just want to point out that when you doing comparison between two jet’s ITR and STR make sure same condition is applied to both. If not there is no meaning for compare.

Did you miss what I post earlier?
I already said I am not an India.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

I did not say LCA typical combat weight is 50% fuel. I only say usually when calculating ITR and STR 50% fuel and AoA load are used. Even the number you quote for Rafale are base on 50% fuel and AoA load instead of full fuel and max takeoff weight.

I just want to point out that when you doing comparison between two jet’s ITR and STR make sure same condition is applied to both. If not there is no meaning for compare.

[

Okay, I am confused now....

Because your post number 288 is in direct contradiction to your post number 290 !! You seem to be using word of attiration to prolong this issue without giving any numbers or input to counter claim !!

We are talking about real life scenarios and not favorable scnerios for LCA.

You have issues accepting my claim (which are in agreement with MoD reports) yet, you are not countering them with your own input ? It doesnt make sense !!

 

[Thery]

Okay, I am confused now....

Because your post number 288 is in direct contradiction to your post number 290 !! You seem to be using word of attiration to prolong this issue without giving any numbers or input to counter claim !!

We are talking about real life scenarios and not favorable scnerios for LCA.

You have issues accepting my claim (which are in agreement with MoD reports) yet, you are not countering them with your own input ? It doesnt make sense !!

Which part do you don’t understand?

Actual (real-life) combat loading is one thing and what weight you use to compute ITR and STR for comparison is another thing.

Most turn rate number exist are base on 50% fuel and AoA load only.

PS:
Which part of my statement has conflict with MoD report?
I just said you should not use max takeoff weight to calculate ITR and STR, it has nothing to do with MoD report.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

Which part do you don’t understand?

Actual (real-life) combat loading is one thing and what weight you use to compute ITR and STR for comparison is another thing.

Most turn rate number exist are base on 50% fuel and AoA load only.

PS:
Which part of my statement has conflict with MoD report?
I just said you should not use max takeoff weight to calculate ITR and STR, it has nothing to do with MoD report.

Since the LCA is two (2) ton heavier now. Even with the slight increase in thrust with IN20, It will still come around the same STR of 15 degrees only and ITR of less then 20 degrees only at 50% fuel. Maybe one extra degree to bring smile for few.

Nevertheless, still in the class of basic trainers.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1163833

 

[Thery]

Since the LCA is two (2) ton heavier now. Even with the slight increase in thrust with IN20, It will still come around the same STR of 15 degrees only and ITR of less then 20 degrees only at 50% fuel. Maybe one extra degree to bring smile for few.

Nevertheless, still in the class of basic trainers.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1163833

It is not only the internal fuel, A2A payload are also lot lighter than the max wing load.

Form the news they mention that LCA increase its weight from 8,000kg to 10,000kg. I am assuming that they are talking about the clean takeoff weight which should include full fuel (the original clean takeoff weight is 8,500kg). And I don’t thing 2 EM A2A missiles and 2 IR A2A missiles will weight more than 1,000kg. So the weight you use to calculate ITR and STR should be no more than 10,000kg.

If the new clean takeoff weight of LCA is 10,500kg which means its 4 tone load maybe been halved (just a guess). Although 2 tone payload is enough for most mission but there will have not many room left for fuel tank and that will reduce LCA’s combat range greatly. However, when calculating ITR and/or STR, combat range are not one of the factor.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

It is not only the internal fuel, A2A payload are also lot lighter than the max wing load.

Form the news they mention that LCA increase its weight from 8,000kg to 10,000kg. I am assuming that they are talking about the clean takeoff weight which should include full fuel (the original clean takeoff weight is 8,500kg). And I don’t thing 2 EM A2A missiles and 2 IR A2A missiles will weight more than 1,000kg. So the weight you use to calculate ITR and STR should be no more than 10,000kg.

If the new clean takeoff weight of LCA is 10,500kg which means its 4 tone load maybe been halved (just a guess). Although 2 tone payload is enough for most mission but there will have not many room left for fuel tank and that will reduce LCA’s combat range greatly. However, when calculating ITR and/or STR, combat range are not one of the factor.

You know, I was thinking the very same thing too. With the higher thrust engine, it will consume more fuel thus reducing the combat range even further. There is only so much fuel one can put in such a small sized plane., however, IFR can take care of that.

Now if they install F414 engine (very close to F404 in size) and reduce the size of wings, add canards and a few minor modifications that comes with the engine, I think, LCA will do just fine. Untill that happens, MoD report says it all.

 

[ROCK45]

Questions

Without reading 20 pages of threads can somebody post the aircraft requirements when this project started? I'm interested in this aircraft now after following this thread a short time but don't know much about it. I was hoping somebody could jump start me and get me up to speed a little. Thanks

 

[SABRE]

Without reading 20 pages of threads can somebody post the aircraft requirements when this project started? I'm interested in this aircraft now after following this thread a short time but don't know much about it. I was hoping somebody could jump start me and get me up to speed a little. Thanks

Well as the saying goes "There always is a google." Try googling and look through some reliable sites.

 

[vetrival]

How can you say without backing up your claims with any figures or technical numbers that LCA is more then capable of excelling in A2A combat when:

LCA has not even reached the minimum AoA of 21 degrees required by Indian Air Force (It is doing only 17 as of now),
Is pulling only 6 gs,
has no radar,
Has to do two manouvres using only one surface control called Elevon,
STR is only 15 degrees
underpowered engine
and ITR is only 20 degrees ???

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/319117.html

First of all I've noticed that u are not trying to argue about the fact that both the JF-17 and J-10 are operating with Russian avionics, sensors and engines even though both the aircrafts were touted as indigenius projects.



As far as the manouvrability of the LCA is in question, the LCA executes manouvres using leading edge vortex controllers (LEVCON) which increase lift during approach.The LEVCONs are control surfaces that extend from the wing-root leading edge and thus afford better low-speed handling for the LCA, which would otherwise be slightly hampered due to the increased drag that results from its delta-wing design. As an added benefit, the LEVCONs also increase controllability at high angles of attack (AoA) (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas).



The LCA is also inherently more manouvrable than it's counterpart the JF-17 due to it's relaxed static stability design as compared to the more orthodox and simple design of the JF-17(which is based upon the MIG-21) also the LCA employs C-FC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design(JF-17, J-10), and the LCA's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.[30] Apart from making the plane much lighter and manouvrable, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to the damage done by structural fatigue (refer to http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder).



Just because the LCA has pulled only 6Gs in tests so far, it does not mean it cannot pull any more. The problems with the minimum AoA and the STR not being upto the IAF's standards were faced during the tests with the first three prototypes of the LCA, this was because they were fitted with the F404-GE-F2J3 engines. The various problems caused by the said engine led to a revival of the Kaveri project and the involvment of SNECMA in the project, however due to the fact that the Kaveri engine would not be ready before 2009, General Electric was given the task of producing an engine optimised for the LCA based upon the F404-GE-F2J3 engine the result was the F404-GE-IN20 engine which addressed the previous problems to a great extent but still prevents the LCA from reaching it's full potential(comparable to Dassault Rafale's initial problem with the M88 engine due to which the aircraft had to use the F404-GE-400 engine for a short period of time).



The LCA has only entered limited series production(these aircrafts will be fitted with the F404-GE-IN20 engine) but by the time it gets FOC(2010-2012) the Kaveri engine will be operational on the LCA and the planned AESA radar will be fully operational to. It will take the PAF and the PLAAF about the same time span(or more) to bring there aircrafts to there respective full combat capailities.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

The LCA has only entered limited series production(these aircrafts will be fitted with the F404-GE-IN20 engine) but by the time it gets FOC(2010-2012) the Kaveri engine will be operational on the LCA and the planned AESA radar will be fully operational to. It will take the PAF and the PLAAF about the same time span(or more) to bring there aircrafts to there respective full combat capailities.

Oh man. This is starting to get tedious.

LCA as of today is incapable of combat. First 40 are to be prodcued in 6 years and all with GE F404 IN20 engines. See the MoD report.

So you are NOT going to see a combat capable LCA for the next 6 years !! . You will be seeing Block 2 JF-17s entering into service by then !!

As of today :

LCA is doing only 17 degrees of AoA. Not even the minimum AoA of 21 degrees required by Indian Air Force
Is pulling only 6 gs,
Is without radar,
Has to do two manouvres using only one surface control called Elevon,
STR is only 16.21 degrees at 10,500 kg.
and ITR is only less then 20 degrees
Is with an underpowered engine
With no IFR, even its combat range is no more then 500 km !!

Tell me what LCA is capable of as of today ?? I know it all what LCA will be capable of.

Do you even know that the search for another engine means an end for Kaveri ?

 

[apache66]

Production version of LCA 'Tejas' takes to skies

Production version of LCA 'Tejas' takes to skies
Bangalore | Monday, Jun 16 2008 IST


The much-awaited maiden flight of LSP-2 (Limited Series Production) of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft 'Tejas' was successfully carried out at the HAL airport here.

The state-of-the-art aircraft, which was flown by National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) test pilot Wg Cdr N Tiwari, took off majestically and flew for 30 minutes at 1.1 Mach crossing 1,200 kmph. As had been the practice, the maiden flight of this aircraft was chased by another Tejas aircraft PV3, piloted by Wg Cdr RR Tyagi.

Speaking to UNI here, Mr L S Subramanium, Chief of LCA Division of HAL, the public sector aircraft manufacturer, said it was a key phase of the jet fighter. So far, the prototypes had completed 900 flights.

A HAL release here said that eventhough the aircraft was ready for its maiden flight last week itself, the flight could not take off because of the pre-monsoon weather prevailing in Bangalore.

The flight was conducted by NFTC of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) from its telemetry station, with Wg Cdr M Prabhu, flight test engineer, as the test director. Today's maiden flight of LSP-2 was significant on several accounts. This is the second limited series production aircraft that rolled out of the LSP hangar of HAL. It is the first aircraft powered by the new GE404-IN20 engine and also had a new ejection seat version, the Martin Baker Mk 16LG, the release said.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080616/975899.html


Much to the disapointment of its detractors the 'Tejas' continues its progress.

Note this is the first limited series production aircraft with the GE404-IN20 to take to the air.

 

[vetrival]

Oh man. This is starting to get tedious.

LCA as of today is incapable of combat. First 40 are to be prodcued in 6 years and all with GE F404 IN20 engines. See the MoD report.

So you are NOT going to see a combat capable LCA for the next 6 years !! . You will be seeing Block 2 JF-17s entering into service by then !!

As of today :

LCA is doing only 17 degrees of AoA. Not even the minimum AoA of 21 degrees required by Indian Air Force
Is pulling only 6 gs,
Is without radar,
Has to do two manouvres using only one surface control called Elevon,
STR is only 16.21 degrees at 10,500 kg.
and ITR is only less then 20 degrees
Is with an underpowered engine
With no IFR, even its combat range is no more then 500 km !!

Tell me what LCA is capable of as of today ?? I know it all what LCA will be capable of.

Do you even know that the search for another engine means an end for Kaveri ?

You have not argued about the LCA's greater degree of manouvrability as compared to it's contemporaries(J-10,JF-17).



You don't seem to get the point that the problems with the AoA and STR, ITR were faced in the prototypes(due to the F404-GE-F2J3 engine) but the F404-GE-IN20 engine(this is the engine being used in the limited series production aircraft) has already addressed most of these problems(except for payload and range).The LCA uses LEVCONs in addition to the ELEVONs to execute manouvres.



The first 40 limited series production aircraft are to be built in a time span of 2 to 3 years(it's not 6 years, the limited series production has already started last year with HAL determining to roll out 20 to 15 aircrafts per annum from 2008 onwards) by 2010-2012 the definitive version of the LCA will be rollling out(with the Kaveri engine and the AESA radar) besides on 25 April 2007, the first Limited Series Production LCA (LSP-1) made its first flight and has already entered active service with the IAF(refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas), by the time the last of the LSP aircrafts roll out the Kaveri engine and the AESA radar will be operational on the LCA.


The Kaveri project is not being cancelled(refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas), the F404-GE-IN20 engine is only an interim engine not the final solution.



The LCA is not without a radar, the LSP aircrafts have been fitted with Elta's EL/M-2032 radar, which again is an interim choice nothing more nothing less.



You are definately not in correspondence with ADA developers or else you would know the correct schedule for the production of the LSP aircrafts besides divulging information regarding a national defence project without going through the proper chanells is called treason(are you making an allegation of treason against the ADA developers?). Sensitive information about any military project is never divulged by means such as simple correspondence(though some relevent info can be released through newspapers and electronic media).



The LCA as of today can take part in A2A combat and excell against aircrafts like the JF-17(I have already given adequate proof justifying this in my previous post).The only aircraft in the PAF inventory which is as manouvarable as the LCA is the F-16(the PAF operates 30 F-16 Block 15s and has plans for 20 F-16 Block 52+s)and the IAF's SU30MKI's are more then capable of knocking the PAF's F-16s out of the sky.The 500km range poses no problem(although the Kaveri engine is the problem's solution) as the LCA is meant to replace the MIG-21s(defence fighter) and hence it will operate out of forward airbases. The LCA has already proven itself capable of flying sustained sorties(refer to http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1621).



If you intend to claim that the LCA is comparable to a trainer then surely the JF-17s and the J-10s(with there downgraded Russian engines, radars, avionics) are nothing more then trainers either.



Besides you seem to be using the word "will" too while refering to the Blk2 JF-17s, by the time they enter service the definitive version of the LCA will already be flying and it is definately more capable than the "planned" Blk2 JF-17s.