AbhimanyuI have always thought that it would have been better for LCA and Indian aviation industry (as a whole) had the LCA been inducted into IAF in its basic form, and subsequent developments would have been done in blocks. However, IAF being the user of an ADA/HAL product (I dont think IAF was actually an active party in its development???) had every right to expect a product at a certain time (whatever time (realistic/unrealistic) they were given by the designers/manufacturers) and ask for any additions if they felt that a certain product (if not provided within the original timeframe) was no longer relevant .
It is true that IAF has the right to demand the products in the timeframe that the ADA set. But, then it simultaneously loses the right to complain if there are any delays, the moment it shifts the original goalposts, or furthers the horizon. This, unfortunately the IAF has indulged in wrongly, and in this it has also been aided by the print media.
AbhimanyuVikasrehman, you had earlier opined that the IAF demanded numerous additions on the Tejas because it got delayed so much, only so that it could keep up with the contemporary developments. However, the converse is true i.e. it got delayed precisely because IAF kept demanding more additions to something which was to be no more than a MiG-21. Once again note that the first Tejas TD-1 did roll out by 1995, which was “on schedule”.
However, what you mentioned may be applicable to the Arjun tank, because DRDO had to go on adding newer features only to keep up with global developments as 3 decades went by. It is another matter that the “delays” were more due to an adamant and hostile nature of the Army, rather than any lack of performance.
AbhimanyuDRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project
Ravi Sharma
Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009
Talks with Snecma could start early next year: GTRE officials
Kaveri engine programme is to power LCA Tejas
“Initially, about 100 Snecma-GTRE Kaveri can be produced”
BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been given the go-ahead by the government to take up an offer of French firm Snecma to ‘partner’ with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for jointly developing the Kaveri aero engine.
Senior GTRE officials told The Hindu that talks with Snecma “could start early next year.” The Kaveri’s eventual user, the Indian Air Force now appears to have softened its opposition to the tie-up, they said.
The Rs. 2,839-crore Kaveri engine programme was launched in 1989, specifically to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, now under development at the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). In 2005, the GTRE indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own.
Interestingly, the government’s nod, which is expected to cost the exchequer at least Rs 1,000 crore, comes nine months after a team, headed by Air Vice-Marshal M. Matheswaran and comprising officials from the ADA, the IAF and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, submitted a report that stated that an engine developed jointly by Snecma and the GTRE would not meet the IAF’s performance requirements. The IAF also wanted the Kaveri project delinked from Tejas programme.
According to informed sources, members of the Matheswaran team were critical of the French passing off their existing and fully developed ‘Eco’ engine core. This, the team felt, would not give India the engine core design knowledge or even control over it. It also pointed out that the design technology being handed out would take years to come.
Based on the report, the French offer was put on the backburner with even officials from Snecma stating that the “chapter was closed.” But the IAF for reasons not yet clear, appear to have reversed its stand.
Snecma, which indicated that an engine run of at least 250 is required to make their offer economically viable, agrees that an existing core would be at the heart of the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri engine.
It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.
Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: “Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it.”
GTRE director Mohan Rao said the capabilities of “the existing French core will be enhanced to suit the IAF’s requirements.”
The GTRE hopes to use the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri to replace the GE F404 (IN20) engine that will fly two squadrons of the Tejas.
If all goes well the Snecma-GTRE tie-up could be formalised during the French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s planned visit to India in March –April 2010.
Reference :-
AbhimanyuTejas engine offset offers come in
Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:34 IST
Bangalore: European aerospace company Eurojet and America’s General Electric submitted offset proposals for their bids for light combat aircraft Tejas engines to the ministry of defence on Friday, a day before the deadline expires — December 12.The Indian government invites offset proposals from bidders of defence and civil aircraft deals.
An offset obligation is expected to be discharged through direct purchases or by executing export orders for defence products and components manufactured by or services provided by Indian defence industries. In many instances, it also involves technology transfer and training for military requirements.
As per the defence procurement policy 2006, 30-50% offset obligation is mandatory for the winner of the defence deal. There are two offset proposals — technical and commercial — submitted by each bidder, which are opened after completion of technical and commercial evaluations. For instance, technical offset proposal is opened after the technical evaluation and commercial offset offer after commercial evaluation.
Since the offset programme of the Indian government will require transfer of the key technology, the two aerospace companies need clearances from their respectively governments or regional economic organisations.
Apparently, Eurojet, which will be supplying its EJ200 for the new LCA Tejas, has got clearance from Nato Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (Netma) for the transfer of “key technology” under the offset programme.
“In their proposal, they (Eurojet) have accepted to transfer key technology. They have also mentioned in the same note they can discuss transfer of other technologies too,” the source said.
According to him, if the European engine maker offers 100% transfer of technology, the price of its bid would shoot up; “Then its bid would not be competitive.”Eurojet has said it would form a joint venture with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd or some private company to fulfill its offset obligation.
GE, which will supply the F-414 engine, is also said to have acquired the approval of the US government for technology transfer for the LCA programme. The two companies that have bid for the $750 million order for 99 engines for Tejas.
Reference :-
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_tejas-engine-offset-offers-come-in_1322774
AbhimanyuThe Navy’s decision to procure yet another foreign naval jet is extremely unfortunate. Again, the naval Gripen which is not ready at all, is being considered, although a similar fillip has already been given to the naval Tejas.
The navy has by far been the most pro-indigenous of the 3 services. Hence, issuance of this RFI is unclear.
AbhimanyuFirst of all, I don;t think anyone can say with abs authority that it was ONLY the new ASR which increased the weight by 1,000 kg. Can you say with absolute certainty that ADA would have met the target of 5,500 kg if IAF had not changed the original ASR?
Second, IAF gave its first ASR in 80s. Being the end user, they were only interested in the final product being delivered on time. It was the job of the designers and project managers to take into consideration the impact of delays. If they told IAF (at the start) we would give you a product in this year, so be it. Times change & so do the rules of combat. And if IAF had to change the goal posts in 21st century because they did not get the final product on time, then they are hardly to be blamed for it.
Please note that the first Tejas rolled out of the factory floor in 1995, and which was nearly “on time”. But there was the IAF demand for quad redundant digital FBW : something that was unheard of in India then. This took half a decade to be incorporated, after ADA had rejected Dassault’s bid for analog-cum-digital FBW, and after US asked Indian engineers working at Lockheed’s facilities to leave, following the 1998 nuclear tests.
Due to only this, what was supposed to fly in 1996, flew on Jan 4, 2001.
Then “one fine day” in Jan 2004, IAF demanded a wing-redesign to incorporate some new munitions. ADA could have done it in 1990s itself, because it was nothing new; but there was just the issue of IAF’s “slumber”.
Thus, PV-2, which was supposed to fly by 2004, flew in end of 2005, and PV3 flew in 2006.
This is in addition to a demand of Tejas containing all the “goodies” of a Su-30 MKI. These also took time to be installed and tested on Tejas.
So, although in 1988, the IAF wanted the Tejas to resemble a MiG-21, it slowly kept on demanding more and more thinking that minor additions won’t add to much. But these demands accumulated to transform the Tejas into an advanced Mirage-2000. It no longer resembles a MiG-21.
As mentioned earlier, one was challenged to find out a fighter jet that weigs 5,500 kgs and has a loaded weight of 7,500 kgs. The Chinese F-7P has similar specifications. But it doesn’t have quad redundant FBW, neither 8 hardpoints, neither Litening target pod, neither a central mission computer, neither all-glass cockpit, neither significant avionics LRUs, neither ……
The article in post 293 states that MMRCA fighter trials would be completed by the April 2010. Do you think ADA/HAL can send something remotely resembling MK.2 for these trials before IAF submits its final reports?
See, let the trials happen tommorrow. What was suggested is that the IAF must have a proper assessment of the Tejas and how it is progressing. When the Tejas Mk.2 is released in 2013, it must have an internal assessment to truncate (if not cancel) the order of 126 MRCAs and fill the remainder of the order with Tejas Mk.2.
AbhimanyuThanks Rahul. That makes a lot more sense than anything I had come across previously. I always thought that giving the increased ASR and so on, an increase in empty weight should have been expected (though I don’t know how much of an increase IAF were expecting?). But the impression I got from some posters here was that LCA’s current empty weight (of 6,500 kg) includes all the testing equipment and so, and the final figure should be closer to 5,500 kg rather than 6,500 kg.
It is indeed true that all the TDs and PVs fly with test equipment on board. I don’t know about the LSP-1 and LSP-2. The LSPs should weigh a few hundred kgs lesser if they don’t have test equipment. Their LRUs were also meant to be more “streamlined” so as to reduce the number of avionics boxes.
Now, titanium heat exchangers and fins are already being used instead of stainless steel ones. This will also help in reducing weight.
However, for brevity the figure of 6,500 kgs is accepted, as displayed on an official ADA placard at Aero-India 2009.
Does anyone know what the IAF has asked for to increase the weight so much? Anything difinitive available?
OBOGs, strengthened weapons stations, and the most important : ever more avionics demands like an all-glass cockpit, full HMDS system, and all the “bells and whistles” from Su-30 MKI, like core avionics computer, DARE suit, and many other properties that are simply non-existent in a MiG-21.
All of the above undoubtedly increase the empty weight of Tejas from 5,500 to 6,500 kgs.
@whomsoever it concerns, the LCA is an wonderful plane and it should be bought for the MMCRA contract as it is better than any aircraft in contention as it uses the most % of composites.
I fully agree with the above. The IAF must indeed seriously consider the Tejas Mk.2 for it’s MRCA requirement, instead of importing an expensive foreign fighter. This is because, with the Tejas Mk.1 already a match to the Gripen C/D, the Tejas Mk.2 is likely to match the Gripen NG, (which is an MRCA contender).
AbhimanyuThe following epoch making article by B Harry was my first insight into the Tejas. The common Indian was bombarded weekly by 3rd grade articles from Times of India and the Indian Express, which vilified the project ad nauseum.
The following article changed all that. Reading it would be the ultimate remembrance.
— By B Harry.
AbhimanyuThis is extremely saddening news. What is shocking is that people in BR fora and here seem to have discovered his unfortunate death only 2.5 years later.
His article, “Radiance of Tejas” is iconic and a textbook for anyone willing to get a detailed knowledge or even an introduction on Tejas. His dedication to the Tejas project was passionate and unsurpassed .
AbhimanyuMy understanding of current position of LCA was that it is 2 tons overweight and 6500kg is the ‘desired’ weight. Just going by ADA posters may not be enough as these postures continued to carry 5500kg even though it is known in ADA circles since atleast 10 years that LCA is overweight.
The above is inaccurate. Official ADA posters mention 6,500 kgs empty weight and not 5,500 kgs. I had posted photos of the same on this forum earlier. It’s true the official website mentions 5,500 kgs, which was the 20 year old desired figure.
The “2 tons overweight” theory was floated by an irresponsible news report in The Hindu newspaper. It claimed that Tejas is “2 tons overweight”, i.e. it’s loaded weight (with weapons and fuel) which should’ve been 7.5 tons, has now “swelled” to 9.5 tons.
The Hindu should be politely informed that a fighter jet whose empty weight is 5.5 tons, and loaded weight is 7.5 tons does exist — the MiG-21 of the 1970s. The Tejas Mk.1 of the 21st century is NOT a MiG-21.
The 5.5 ton empty weight specs were laid out in the 1980s, when the Tejas was meant to be no more than a local MiG-21. Today, it is a full-grown 4++ gen. fighter of the weight and performance of a Gripen C/D. The IAF too has unfortunately not completely shaken off the “MiG-21 replacement” dogma.
Let there be a challenge :- Find out a modern 4++ generation fighter jet, whose empty weight is 5,500 kgs, can carry 3,500 kg of external ordnance and pods, and has an internal fuel capacity of 2,500 kgs.
Also we hear these off and on again rumors about intake and wing redesign which would mean a very different/delayed LCA-2. Note rumours about Kaveri failure, radar problems, weight issues etc proved to be true
Auxillary intakes have already been added to Tejas, that help in directing more airflow during take-off and tight manouevers (news report with photos here). Wing redesign was already done back in 2004, when the IAF woke up from it’s “slumber” and asked for a new weapons config.
Kaveri has been detached from the Tejas program. It will be installed and tested on the Tejas next year. Meanwhile Eurojet and GE have submitted their bids for the Tejas Mk.2.
Radar integration is ongoing.
AbhimanyuIt is accurate that Tejas still has significant testing instruments on board, whose removal in the final variant will reduce weight by a few hundred kgs. In addition to this, it’s bulky CRT display systems and associated cooling modules shall make way for lighter LCD-type displays. This too shall “shave off” upto 300 kgs in empty weight.
AbhimanyuSee, I think 3 things must be made clear. Despite numerous official press releases, interviews, books and exhibitions by ADA, many still don’t know basics of Tejas. Here is the first in a 3-part series.
The Idiot’s guide to Tejas 101.
Q) What is Tejas’ empty weight ?
A) Tejas’ empty weight, as it flies today, is 6,500 kgs.
Q) By how much is Tejas overweight ?
A) Tejas is overweight by 1,000 kgs. You see, 20 years ago IAF faxed a set of ASRs to the fledgling ADA, which said that it must weigh no more than 5,500 kgs. But 20 years later, with so many avionics additions, ADA e-mailed back to IAF saying that, it weighs 6,500 kgs and you gotta live with it.
Q) Oh me gorsh ! It’s 1 ton overweight, so won’t top-speed, g-limit, load capacity and range be affected ?
A) No. Read further below….
Q) Okaaay. Um…but Gripen C/D has a GE-F404 engine of 80 kN and it does 9G with a top speed of M2. Now Tejas Mk.1 too has a GE-F404-IN engine of 83 kN. But still the IAF wants a more powerful engine. So, does that mean that Tejas’ design is poor ?
A) Not at all. A few days back at rigorous trials held at Dabolim, the Tejas cleared all flight tests meant to grant it an IoC. Which means, it reached the ASR specs of the IAF i.e. 8G, M 1.8, 25 deg AoA, etc.
Q) But despite all this, didn’t the IAF say a new engine is needed ?
A) Yes. But the ADA team proved that it can achieve the IoC with just the old GE-F404-IN 20 engine itself.
Q) So, isn’t this a slap on the IAF’s face ?
A) No. Well, not this one, though it’s had many slaps in the past. The reason why IAF wants a new engine is that the GE-F404-IN 20 is Not a flat-rated engine. The Kaveri was supposed to be one, but unfortunately, it is not ready yet.
Q) Er….but even Eurojet and GE-F100 are not flat-rated.
A) True, they too aren’t. But what they don’t have by virtue of flat-ratedness, they more than make up by having a much larger thrust in the range of 90-100 kN.
Q) Oh I see.
A) You get the picture.
AbhimanyuAs i said specifications are nothing more than endpoints in development.They can give just an indication.On the other hand operational capabilities can differ much from the specs.The Gripen for example flying for such a long time have gathered so much data and experience on various performance parameters so that it is more capable of reproducing that specified performance in case of an actual operational deployment. That only comes with time. And lets not forget that operational use itself throws up various problems often which the developers hadnt considered when they pushed the aircraft through IOC and FOC.
See, these “endpoints” which you said, have been reached in Tejas Mk.1 In other words, it can execute the performance mentioned in the ASR, like top speed, AoA limit, G-limit (and of course not in ideal conditions, but at all altitudes, temperatures, sea-level, and all permutations & combinations of these).
The manufacturer grants the IoC certificate. The operating Air Force then will operate a squadron of Tejas for 2 years before it grants it the FoC. During this time itself, any deviations or minor “chinks in the armour” can be corrected. After FoC is obtained, the fighter jet is said to be combat ready.
The tejas Mk1 as it flies today is NOt comparable to Gripen C/D unless it is operational and capable of emulating that claimed specs on a day to day basis.
I don’t understand what you mean by “day-to-day basis”. Once it formally achieves IoC (it’s already reached IoC level flight envelop), it will be inducted. Then ADA takes the guarantee that it meets the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) laid out by the IAF, i.e. it meets IAF’s operational requirements.
AbhimanyuQuadBike, as per the latest report of defence journal Vayu, Tejas has achieved IoC specifications in the recent tests that were held at Dabolim, Goa. The IoC specifications require a g limit of 8 G, though design limit of Tejas is as much as 9 G.
AbhimanyuHow about agility?
Instantanoues/Sustained turn rate? What AoA limit does Tejas have? Low speed handling?And signature? How does it measure in regards to RCS/IR signature?
AoA limit of Tejas reached is 25 degrees. This is the ASR specified limit for IoC. ASR limit reached is 8G, whereas design limit is 9G.
Low speed handling of delta jets is extremely well. Figures for sustained and instantaneous turn rates have not been released, but they haven’t so for Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and J-10 either.
Can you post a direct comparison of the two?
Total external load capacity of Tejas Mk.1 and Gripen C/D is 3,500 kgs. Tejas has a quadruplex redundant FBW, whereas it is triplex redundant in Gripen C/D. 8 external hardpoints each (6 under the wing and 2 under the fuselage). Both use the Litening target pod. Both are equipped with all-glass cockpit, HMDS, radar jammers, RWR, and advanced HUDs. Engines are the same i.e. local variants of GE-F404. Internal fuel capacity of Gripen and Tejas is also the same. Datalink of Gripen however, is said to be superior than even other western jets.
Tejas has 45% composites by weight and over 90% by surface area (one of the highest globally, and higher than Eurofighter). Corresponding figures for Gripen are unknown.
Both jets are supersonic at sea-level. Max. speed of Tejas at altitude is M 1.8, whereas Gripen can reach M2 in short bursts. Design G limits for both are 9 G, but ASR limit for Tejas is 8 G only.
Radar integration on Tejas Mk.1 is already under progress.
Sign In
