The Indian Tejas

[seaprince]

Its a serious effort to make a fighter plane indigenously. and except engine, india got success to make a high quality plane indigenously.
India always use good quality of battle equipments from past.
Kaveri engine is not yet developed fully. so india want good quality of engine from foreign source. and i hope india will definatly going to succede in all aspect of aerospace technology in future.
Your question is may be based on news of pakistan air force JF17 Fighter aircraft.

Please cut the crap of LCA being indigenous.Most of the Avionics of LCA are foreign built.Read the quotes belows.

ELTA Systems has stepped in to design and develop a weight-budgeted and risk-free solution of Multi Mode Radar that now calls for reconfiguring the LRDE/HAL-developed programmable signal-cum-data processor, power amplifier and the exciter/transmitter/receiver module and integrating them with ELTA’s AESA array, which will make the MMR an almost identical clone of ELTA’s EL/M-2052 radar. Fifteen such MMRs are now being jointly built by HAL and ELTA at a unit cost of Rs 70 million under a contract inked in February 2005. First deliveries are expected to take place next March, following which they will be flight-tested in Israel on board an ELTA-owned B.707-320 test bed over a four-month period. By December next year, the reconfigured MMRs will be installed on board the first three of the eight limited series production (LSP) LCAs that are now undergoing fabrication at HAL’s Bangalore facility (LSP-1 made its maiden flight last April).

Other major changes to the LCA’s avionics suite that have been finalised include the installation of the Thales-supplied Totem-200 ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system (RLG-INS) coupled to a GPS receiver (this is already on board the upgraded MiG-21 Bisons and Su-30 MKI Mk3s) that will replace the existing Honeywell-built RLG-INS; installation of a wideband data link coupled to a joint tactical information distribution system (capable of exchanging targeting data in real-time among friendly airborne platforms and ground-based forward air controllers, and receiving targeting data from the PHALCON AEW & C aircraft as well as UAVs and other airborne battle space surveillance assets) for which Thales and Tadiran Specralink have been shortlisted as potential suppliers;

The Mayawi’s active component will (by 2012) also include active towed-jammers for which the Sky Buzzer from EADS and X-Guard from Rafael are on offer. The IAF is also likely to select by the year end the supplier for the IRST sensor, for which the IR-Otis from Sweden’s SaabTech, OSF from Thales and Pirate from Italy’s Galileo Avionica have been offered. The selected IRST sensor will be integrated with the LCA pilot’s Dash-2 helmet-mounted display, which is being supplied by Israel’s Elbit Systems.

For finalising the operational LCA’s flight control logic, ADA has sought technological assistance from abroad. To this end, requests for proposals have been sent to BAE Systems, Boeing IDS, EADS, Lockheed Martin, Saab Aircraft, and United Aerospace Corp. The winner will be required to assist ADA in reprogramming the LCA’s digital, quadruplex fly-by-wire flight control system that includes the core avionics computer, digital flight control computer (DFCC) and air data computer.

This quotes are taken from the article "On the Fast Track The ‘Tejas’ Light Combat Aircraft project gathers steam" By Prasun K. Sengupta
and this article is posted on forceindia.net

Now tell me what does word indigenous means if it is use in the context of building fighter aircraft???It means a fighter aircraft built completly by one self.In this present scenario,LCA has become most of a Joint-Venture Aircraft where several foriegn companies are helping the DRDO to make LCA a reality.So don't ever call LCA indigenous.

 

[kams]

If I were you, I would choose anyother source but, Mr.Sengupta. Please read about ongoing suit b/w Forceindia/Sen Gupta and ACIG/Key aviation.

Having said that I wish above report was true. I have no problem LCA with AESA, even if it is imported. . Almost 50% of IAF's frontline fighters will end up with AESA.

 

[powerslavenegi]

indigenous

LCA is very much Indian, if the make of constituent components is what decides the make of the aircraft then what about the Gripen which has subsystems from manufacturers all across the globe ? as a matter of fact what about the Chinese aircraft dont they use RU engines ?

heck even the usually self sufficient French had to fall back on General Electric F404-GE-400 to power the 'Rafale' until M-88 was ready.

LCA is an ambitious project for the Indian defense industry and to be fair given the beurocratic hassles and the miniscule budget HAL,ADA and DRDO have done a good job, Kaveri GT has met the desired dry thrust levels and efforts are underway to figure out the issues with the AB thrust which seems to be the nagging issue until then G.E. F404-F2J3 would power the LCA.


As for the trolls on the forum who are taking pot shots at the LCA they as usual overlooked the fact their own country doesnt even have anything of the sorts on paper.

 

[sidewinder2006]

Please cut the crap of LCA being indigenous.

Now tell me what does word indigenous means if it is use in the context of building fighter aircraft???It means a fighter aircraft built completly by one self.In this present scenario,LCA has become most of a Joint-Venture Aircraft where several foriegn companies are helping the DRDO to make LCA a reality.So don't ever call LCA indigenous.

Well most of the avionics suite are now imported not because they cant be made indgnsly but because of the fact that IAF dont have the time to wait for the prototype system to become fully functional ..they are in serious need of proven avionics NOW and they gotta field the LCAs as soon as possible ...

Later block LCAs will feature more and more indigins component as they become ready !!!

 

[aaaditya]

Are you sure Indian airforce is investing money........ as far as world knows Airforce is very allergic to the LCA...aka Lost chance aircraft in airforce parlance

they have invested a further 2000 crore indian ruppees(1 dollar=43.5 rupees) on the production variant of the lca and a further billion dolars on the kaveri family of engines ,including a maritime engine derived from the kaveri.

 

[aaaditya]

take a look at my previous posts on this topic, and i think you will get the answer if you are open minded.
Gnat were way smaller then todays prototype LCA and still they were detected with in the same range as any other fighter jet of that time!

and gnats despite their small size,apparent lack of stealth were known as the sabre killers.

 

[10ringr]

the question you asked "The Indian Tejas - a big dissapointment or a serious effort ?" well no offense to anybody but i desire to speak facts and my information is based on facts with reference...
http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html

considering the project started in mid 1980s it has been almost 25 years but still the production line has not been started..

a great attempt to indigenously produce a decent 4th generation fighter.
Their original commitment was to...
1985: LCA launched with a time frame of 10 years.
indigenously produce radar and engine which they did not quite successfully achieve.
indian avionics but now due to technical faults, to some extent it is indian and have to integrate european and isreali tech.

here is some quotes by "indian defence" analysts. you decide of how far the LCA has reached and how capable it is..

Indians have boldly claimed that the "LCA has more advanced technology than JAS- 39 Gripen and as much advanced technology as the Typhoon." And if it does, then it needs to be proved on the ground and in flight.

"Stealth is an important feature for all new combat aircraft coming up. LCA does not have any stealth charactristics like in F-117 or F-22, but considering its small size, tail-less design and simple delta wing config, a GE-404 engine(atleast for now) - which is also used in the F-117 - it should be stealthier that atleast a MiG-21 or MiG-23/27. It is also expected that LCA will get DRDO developed Radar-absorbent paint. Composites are inherently stealthier than metal."

considering the fact that in 65 indo-pak war Gnats with a Length: 28 ft 8 in Wingspan: 22 ft 1 in, could still not be stealthy and considering primitive radars of that time they were able to pick them up easily. so how in the world is it even possible for LCA with larger Length: 43 ft 4 in Wingspan: 26 ft 11 in, be some what stealthier then Gnat or even stealthier??nfloorl:

I really like this guys post and supporting information. Has anyone noticed the strange similarity of the rafale is aesthetic qualities?
Just a interesting point, but except for the tail fin the side view looks much like it. Check it out. I'm not looking for big issue, I just thought you may enjoy it and how closely it resembles the rafale even it's unique bubble canopy which isn't typical. Hutch

http://porte-avion.teria.org/images/rafale_marine.jpg

 

[sidewinder2006]

excellent fin 10ringr !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow....... I havnt ever thought that way !
just deduct the canards and you have a baby LCA ! []

 

[10ringr]

excellent fin 10ringr !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow....... I havnt ever thought that way !
just deduct the canards and you have a baby LCA ! []

Ya, I just thought it was uncanny, the similarities and I believe just as the Russians patterned the Mig 25 Foxbat after the Canadian Avro Arrow and the other examples of duplicating and reverse engineering like the Russians were/are known for they also have borrowed heavily from the F-14 and others. Wouldn't bother me so much except they often improved our equipment missiles especially! Not in all cases however. There are a few other cutting edge fighters out there that have often made me wonder if people are swapping spit somewhere. Like when France and many other European nations wanted to develop a new fighter France pulled out and developed their own but if you look at the Typhoon and Rafale though (I know they're different aircraft) and move those canards around a bit you'll see what I mean. They still have some striking similarities. Not to mention the JAS 39 Gripen. Changed sizes of aircraft and obviously there's many differences but look at them side by side and it's really something. I have links to show you but it's against the rules and out of respect for everyone I'll refrain. Hutch

 

[yess]

and gnats despite their small size,apparent lack of stealth were known as the sabre killers.

You can say things in a nice way. If you want to counter argue than do so with some maturity & try to back it up with facts, rather than using a kind of language determined to invite trouble.

 

[yess]

Mod edit:

Reposting something a mod has already edited out will get you banned.

Do it or breach the rules again and you will be banned.

AD

 

[crobato]

Ya, I just thought it was uncanny, the similarities and I believe just as the Russians patterned the Mig 25 Foxbat after the Canadian Avro Arrow and the other examples of duplicating and reverse engineering like the Russians were/are known for they also have borrowed heavily from the F-14 and others. Wouldn't bother me so much except they often improved our equipment missiles especially! Not in all cases however. There are a few other cutting edge fighters out there that have often made me wonder if people are swapping spit somewhere. Like when France and many other European nations wanted to develop a new fighter France pulled out and developed their own but if you look at the Typhoon and Rafale though (I know they're different aircraft) and move those canards around a bit you'll see what I mean. They still have some striking similarities. Not to mention the JAS 39 Gripen. Changed sizes of aircraft and obviously there's many differences but look at them side by side and it's really something. I have links to show you but it's against the rules and out of respect for everyone I'll refrain. Hutch

That's only because aerodynamics tend to force common solutions once you have defined what you are trying to do.

For example you are referring to the Tejas and the Rafale. You have both side inward canted intakes that is being fed by diverted airflow from a LERX, and in the Tejas' case, by the inner wing crank that functionally serves as the LERX. In the Rafale's case, the LERX serves as the root that leads to the canard.

This design is actually rather common, since you also see this in the F-17/F-18s, as well as the F-CK-1 and T-50s. The emphasis you have is for maneuverbility, keeping the engines fed during tighter turns or higher angles of attack.

 

[10ringr]

That's only because aerodynamics tend to force common solutions once you have defined what you are trying to do.

For example you are referring to the Tejas and the Rafale. You have both side inward canted intakes that is being fed by diverted airflow from a LERX, and in the Tejas' case, by the inner wing crank that functionally serves as the LERX. In the Rafale's case, the LERX serves as the root that leads to the canard.

This design is actually rather common, since you also see this in the F-17/F-18s, as well as the F-CK-1 and T-50s. The emphasis you have is for maneuverbility, keeping the engines fed during tighter turns or higher angles of attack.

Yes, there's some good information here thank you cro. This was the point I was trying to make about the US and Soviets copying German tech. after WWII. With all these next gen. fighters, it duz seem less coincidental that all of them look so similar and employ many of the same structural improvements. I believe this is probably more about countries capitalizing on the research of others, rather then doing the highly expensive R & D themselves, who's to blame them when you have fighters that cost so much. What is the figure now for the F/A 22? I read 100 million per plane a few years ago to as much as 300 million per plane now. As expensive as they are there is no replacement for numbers. When we start talking about building less then 200 fighters when we need twice that amount then I wonder where our priorities are and it reminds me of the B-2 fiasco. We have 21 bombers because the things cost 2+ billion each! I know that we're supposed to get the F-35 but that's a long ways off yet and any itiot realizes that you don't wait till your forces are holllowed out (like our navy) before realizing "oh, we aren't producing enough ships to sustain a minimal navy", by then it's to late and you'll have a couple of years of unneeded vulnerability. (Thanks Donald) Also, I understand that we're retiring the F117. Well if it's still more or less undetectable then why? Yes, I know they want more F/A 22's but duzn't it seem wise to at least keep what we have when we can't afford to buy them in the numbers needed. When we built bomber and fighters up until the end of the cold war we bought them in the thousands. Now, we pretend that technology is going to make up for material. It duz to a degree but not to the degree that will keep us safe if an all out war breaks out with a real power and there are plenty of real powers on the horizon to be concerned about. Besides, the counter to Stealth is likely to be things like better AAM, SAM missiles and better IR. I mean even a toaster has a heat signature and eventually someone will be able to nail them so if you want to fly a paltry amount of air assets to protect this huge nation then you better be prepared to nuke them because it'll be a very short fight. Hutch

Mod: What ever happened to paragraphs?

 

[powerslavenegi]

Ya, I just thought it was uncanny, the similarities and I believe just as the Russians patterned the Mig 25 Foxbat after the Canadian Avro Arrow and the other examples of duplicating and reverse engineering like the Russians were/are known for they also have borrowed heavily from the F-14 and others.

Wow what logic.. and shall we use the same to conclude that the much tom tomed about 2d tvc of F-22 is copied from the RU aircraft which btw have moved to all aspect TVC.Similalry should I claim that the americans who underestimated the RU IRST are now themselves building the IRST pod for the F-18 SH and even the F-35.Oh and who pioneered the HMS helmet mounted sight go figure...

Btw did you say reverse engineered could you please elaborate as to how would one reverse engineer an aircraft without possesing one ? iircs it is the US which has RU Mig-25 and even purchased 21 Mig-29's from the molodovian airforce ,infact thier most of the simulations against the supersonic targets use RU Krypton missile apart from the coyote.So shall we
say that US is reverse engineering and incorporating the technology from above mentioned stuff.

Do not try to spread false propaganda specially when you do not have facts to back your claim.

 

[10ringr]

Wow what logic.. and shall we use the same to conclude that the much tom tomed about 2d tvc of F-22 is copied from the RU aircraft which btw have moved to all aspect TVC.Similalry should I claim that the americans who underestimated the RU IRST are now themselves building the IRST pod for the F-18 SH and even the F-35.Oh and who pioneered the HMS helmet mounted sight go figure...

Btw did you say reverse engineered could you please elaborate as to how would one reverse engineer an aircraft without possesing one ? iircs it is the US which has RU Mig-25 and even purchased 21 Mig-29's from the molodovian airforce ,infact thier most of the simulations against the supersonic targets use RU Krypton missile apart from the coyote.So shall we
say that US is reverse engineering and incorporating the technology from above mentioned stuff.

Do not try to spread false propaganda specially when you do not have facts to back your claim.

It is common knowledge that the MIG 25 is an aircraft developed and produced by the Canadian Avro Arrow project. That the US pressured Canada to stop it because of Soviet spies. As far as possessing aircraft in order to reverse engineer it, 3 B-29's were taken by the Soviets during WWII (1943) one of many campaigns against Japan and after an unsuccessful attempt to use what they were able to learn from these aircraft they instead had to duplicate these aircraft and made the TU-4 Bull. These are facts that if you would look for you would easily find . Anyway, there is many excellent websites that will assist in not having embarrassing instances where you say things to people that are clearly not accurate or particularly respectful. Hutch

 

[Titanium]

The Indian Tejas - a big dissapointment or a serious effort ?

Are we discussing who copied whom?

Coming back to the big question above, Tejas indeed was a serious effort and turned out to be a big disaapointment for the HAL engineer. This for the simple reason that inspite of the Mirage III design provided by Dassault of france, (other being Israel and sauthafrica), india has not come up with a functional aircraft. Israel and Sauthafrica went on to built Kfir and cheetah with slight modification like canrads and few other things. India on the other hand choose the modification of now famous line pouted "45% composite and 90% surface area composite thingy along with FBW".

When Israel and sauth africa built and retiring the same design , India still struggling to comeup a aircraft, with all the help being provided from Israel, france, swededn, and ofcourse Amreca.

Hope sooner they fix the problem the better, as world is eagerly waiting for an new aerospace power. One thing they did not compromise, even though most of the indian aircraft are russians, they choose the seat from Martin baker.:nutkick

 

[Jade]

Are we discussing who copied whom?

Coming back to the big question above, Tejas indeed was a serious effort and turned out to be a big disaapointment for the HAL engineer. This for the simple reason that inspite of the Mirage III design provided by Dassault of france, (other being Israel and sauthafrica), india has not come up with a functional aircraft. Israel and Sauthafrica went on to built Kfir and cheetah with slight modification like canrads and few other things. India on the other hand choose the modification of now famous line pouted "45% composite and 90% surface area composite thingy along with FBW".

When Israel and sauth africa built and retiring the same design , India still struggling to comeup a aircraft, with all the help being provided from Israel, france, swededn, and ofcourse Amreca.

Hope sooner they fix the problem the better, as world is eagerly waiting for an new aerospace power. One thing they did not compromise, even though most of the indian aircraft are russians, they choose the seat from Martin baker.:nutkick

Yeah, sound analysis.

But, I hope they pesevere as they say they will to make it a worthy aircraft.

But, how will it fare against it's opponent the Chinese-Pakistani J-10 ?

That's the big question.

 

[Titanium]

.

But, how will it fare against it's opponent the Chinese-Pakistani J-10 ?

That's the big question.

If i were you, i would not even think about the above comparision, still some fanboys compare it with Typhoon and JSF no less.: .

Without getting into comparision, first we need to see it operational and achive its basic parameters. Then only we would be even able to talk about the aircraft. till now the aircraft can only fly in straight line that to without attempting to reach the stated 1.8 mach speed level after what 700 hrs?

 

[crobato]

Wow what logic.. and shall we use the same to conclude that the much tom tomed about 2d tvc of F-22 is copied from the RU aircraft which btw have moved to all aspect TVC.Similalry should I claim that the americans who underestimated the RU IRST are now themselves building the IRST pod for the F-18 SH and even the F-35.Oh and who pioneered the HMS helmet mounted sight go figure...

There was a prototype of an F-4 that was testing HMS. And don't forget, F-4Es and F-14s already had IRSTs on their own.

 

[yess]

If i were you, i would not even think about the above comparision, still some fanboys compare it with Typhoon and JSF no less.: .

Without getting into comparision, first we need to see it operational and achive its basic parameters. Then only we would be even able to talk about the aircraft. till now the aircraft can only fly in straight line that to without attempting to reach the stated 1.8 mach speed level after what 700 hrs?

isn't the J-10 in operational, active duty, front line fighter???52 are in service in PLAAF.. i dont know how you came to conclusion that the J-10 can only go M 1.8 and has done only 700 hrs of flying..
Even the USN analysts say that the J-10 is a huge treat to its front line fighter Super hornets in terms of maneuverability and pretty soon could be technologically comparable!