AbhimanyuAbhimanyu, I dont think you understood what I meant. Of course to the proponents, Tejas is as good as anything on the planet – bar F-22 perhaps? – but I was clearly talking about the opponents here.
As already mentioned by Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-admiral Puri, in it’s current configuration, Tejas is indeed a 4+ generation fighter. Hence, your contention that it is equivalent to “early” F-16s is inaccurate and mistaken.
It is also unlikely that it’s opponents shall be early F-16s or JF-17. As per this news report, a squadron of Tejas will be deployed in Chabua, which is a frontal Air Force base along the Tibetan border in India’s far north-east. As per the same article, on the other side of the border, China has deployed J-10s and Su-27 fighters. Thus, Tejas will be equipped to counter these modern fighters.
Of course changing CRT with LCD will save some weight (I can’t imagine it to be 300 kg though…maybe a few tens of kg as those CRT/LCD are way smaller than your avergae home TV). What I was asking though was that what alterations coule be done to an already relatively modern cockpit to shed 300 kg? Wouldn’t the addition of radar and furrther avionics (as its currently going through integration process) add more weight?
As per an article dedicated to CRT displays vis-a-vis LCD displays in the cockpits of commercial airliners, CRT displays require 50,000 volts to operate compared to only 5 volts for flat-panel screens. It further mentions that besides the voltage generation equipment, CRTs also generate lot of heat, which in my view would require significant cooling equipment to dissipate the heat generated in the “cramped” environs of the cockpit. LCDs in comparison do not require any cooling equipment.
An entry related to the same topic in wikipedia mentions that LCD displays in glass cockpits require highly integrated avionics modules (in contrast, CRT displays require individual avionics modules). Thus many avionics boxes can be ‘streamlined’ into fewer ones should the switch to LCD displays be made from CRT ones.
I might be missing something here, so please do clarify. Col. A Shukla’s article does indeed say that The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons but then it goes on to say that The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So you’ll have to shed one ton… or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments..With full internal fuel I make that 2.5 tons in its present format. Do you not agree?
In my view, Col. Shukla’s article may be slightly self-contradictory.
He mentions that and I quote, “The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried.“
In the underlined part of the same sentence above, he mentions, “pylons not carrying any weapons” and “two outboard missiles being carried”. This is a contradiction probably on oversight by Col. Shukla.
Thus, the 10.5 tons of Tejas includes 2 outboard missiles (which may weigh upto 300 kgs). Thus only 3.2 tons may remain to be carried upon Tejas weighing 10.5 ton. Considering 13 tons of MTOW, the shortfall in weight of weapons carried is 700 kgs only.
It is here that that Col. Shukla mentions in the end, that with the weight reduction of 600-700 kgs, this shortfall of 700 kgs will met.
Reference :-
AbhimanyuAdministrators may please note that I’m unable to post replies that have multiples quotes. Hence, I have had to post individual replies per quotation.
AbhimanyuRegarding Teja’s ability to carry fuel/weapons equal to Mig-29, Mig-27 etc, please see the very same article quoted by yourself, and Col A. Shukla’s remarks about Tejas MTOW.
Please note that the external payload capacities of both, the MiG-27 and MiG-29 that are currently in service with the IAF are 4000 kgs and 3000 kgs respectively. The Tejas already carries over 3500 kgs, and with reduction in weight it can achieve 4000 kgs, as mentioned in Col Shukla’s article.
In my view it is probably this 600-700 kg weight reduction that may have prompted the DRDO to test-fly the originally configured Kaveri on it the next year. As per this interview by director of GTRE, Mr. Mohana Rao, the Kaveri is short of only 400 kg thrust and is 150 kg overweight. If this reduction of 600-700 kgs in Tejas’ empty weight is achieved, then Kaveri can enable Tejas to meet it’s ASRs.
AbhimanyuI have only seen pictures of its cockpit which looks quite modern. So which particular displays and subsystems ‘within the cockpit’ could be re-engineered to save 300 kg? And how much do these displays and subsystems weigh to start with in any case?
I think any displays which use CRT will be replaced by LCD systems. The difference in weight can be guaged from the difference in the weights of a home TV set that uses CRT and an LCD or plasma TV set.
Abhimanyu2. By every standard Tejas is a relatively a modern fighter considered to be at least on par with early Gripen/F-16s by even those who might not like it.
The above is inaccurate. As mentioned by an article by Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-Admiral (retd) Raman Puri, the Tejas is of the 4 + generation with superior avionics than ANY fighter plane currently in IAF’s inventory (including Su-30 MKI). They will remain comparable after the induction of MRCAs also.
AbhimanyuThe load and range you mentioned will be covered by the MRCA
In my view, due to the above reason the Tejas must atleast be given a chance to compete for the MRCA.
AbhimanyuThe authors further argue that as recently as 2005, the MRCA proposal by the IAF was nothing more than a requirement to procure advanced Mirage-2000’s only (just before “all and sundry” were invited to take part). However, many of the Tejas’ current parameters already match those of the Mirage-2000. After the addition of the more powerful Kaveri engine, some of it’s parameters shall also exceed those of the Mirage-2000.
Thus, the Tejas is fully capable to be the MRCA for the IAF.
Reference :-
Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-Admiral Raman Puri : The case to support the indigenous LCA
Abhimanyubut if we take the penultimate paragraph where you mention the loads and the ranges the LCA can now carry and what the initial design intent (presented to media not the intent that may have been privy to the ADA and HAL insiders) you cannot argue that the LCA was never ment to be a 1-1 replacement for the Mig 21 although a more advanced replacement.
As per an article by Mr. Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-Admiral (retd) Raman Puri, although the Tejas was initially conceived as nothing but a replacement to the MiG-21, the IAF’s draft requirements for it were practically those of the Mirage-2000. However, the authors say that the “public perception” has been “etched” that Tejas is merely a MiG-21 replacement.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu I would not argue with you, you know your stuff
See, as mentioned earlier the article quoted by me is from Col. Ajai Shukla’s 2-part series on Tejas that was written for Bussiness Standard.
As Col. Shukla has quoted ADA officials with “inside information”, rest assured the information provided is accurate.
AbhimanyuOk so with the removal on board telemetry equipment the LCA can shave of 300Kgs or so, but the LCA is 1 Tons overweight what happens to the other 700 or so Kg’s?
How will they save that?
matt, as per this article by noted defence journalist, Col. Ajai Shukla, the total weight reduction on Tejas possible can be of the order of 600-700 kgs. This constitutes removal of the testing intrumentation and ‘re-engineering’ the displays (presumably CRT) to be LCD flat screens.
The LCA should have been kept lighter.. It is supposed to replace a point defense fighter there is no need for the LCA to be an strike/interdict aircraft when the IAF has in its inventory Jaguars! Mirage 2000s Su 30MKI’s and Mig 29s!
The above is inaccurate. As repeatedly pointed out earlier, as the Tejas can carry the external payload and fuel load equal to the serving MiG-29’s and MiG-27s of the IAF, it is not only merely a MiG-21 replacement, but it can currently supplant the entire fleets of MiG-23/27 and MiG-29s of the IAF.
Thus, as it can be used for medium range surgical strikes, it is eligible to be an M.R.C.A. It can also carry out counter strikes over enemy airspaces to establish air superiority.
AbhimanyuRegarding the milestones, if one is for the engine to be tried under fully simulated altitude conditions, which will take place in Moscow between February and March, next year, what is the other one? Do you know?
Once again, in the news report Mr. Rao did not specify details of the above.
– the LCA performance should reach required standard with revised Kaveri
I wonder, what will the export prospects be for the “finished” Tejas? Will there be any direct competitor in its weight/performance category?
In my view, the direct competitor in it’s performance will be Gripen A/B and F-16 Block 52. Please note that I mentioned only performance because the absolute metric of weight is a misleading parameter of “judging” the performance of a fighter plane. Another such metric is max. external payload (which is never practically carried).
AbhimanyuThanks for the reply.
Perhaps I’m being a bit dense but I am still confused about the nature of the breakthrough. To me that means there has been a step forward in some way.
Spitfire9, the news report to the effect has been posted by coldfire2005 and myself on the previous page of this thread. There has been no details specified about the breakthrough.
Note that since the past 2 days, the Indian media is quoting Snecma officials from Paris (not India), about how “confident” they are of winning the tender, and how the Kaveri will be completed in 4 years, how they will give ToT, & &etc.
In my view, this is almost like a pre-planned “infomercial” or ‘campaign’ run on behalf of Snecma by the media.
AbhimanyuSo 6.5g/8g limit is not due to over weight electronics causing higher than calculated stresses on the multi spar wing? ( I suspect the issue be down to high than designed stresses in the wing spars and wing skins rather than the limitation being caused by a lower than required engine thrust)
matt, the GE-404 engine has now lagged short of adequate thrust because Tejas’ weight has “puffed” from the initial 5.5 tons to 6.5 tons, which in turn has been caused due to “ever increasing ” avionics boxes, besides intrumentation equipment used during flight-tests, OBOG system, etc.
As per a news report, the CRT cockpit displays shall be replaced by LCD-type displays, and test-equipment shall be gradually removed. This shall reduce weight by an estimated 300-400 kgs.
What would the nature of the breakthrough be? I don’t see how it can have lost any of its 150Kg excess weight during testing. Has thrust been increased by several hundred Kg since the Director of the GTRE said it could not be used on combat aircraft?
“The core of Kaveri is performing well. Because of the lower thrust, it cannot be used on combat aircraft.”
Spitfire9, as discussed earlier, the above quotation was made by the head of GTRE, Mr. T. Mohana Rao in August, in which he also said that Kaveri shall be concluded with foreign co-operation in 5-6 years.
But, as per another news report of only a few days back, Mr. Rao has “dropped a bombshell”, as per which Kaveri has to cross 2 more milestones to be installable on Tejas next year itself. Thus, it is indicative of a ‘breakthrough’.
AbhimanyuBut what about the 6.5g limitation and the 8g maximum?
matt, the above as stated by Dr. Natarajan, the above is due to the low thrust of the current GE-404 F2J3 engine.
Now, as per ADA’s official website, the projected G limit of Tejas is 9 G. However, as per an interview of Dr. Natarajan a few months earlier, he stated that the IAF’s ASRs was only 8 g.
Thus, it may be possible that IAF may have revised it’s requirement to 8g only recently, because the ADA’s website has displayed the 9 g limit since past many years, which could not have been possible without a mandate from the IAF.
It may be hoped that the Kaveri engine (which, as pointed by coldfire2005, has achieved a breakthrough) will help Tejas achieve the 8g or 9g limit when it is installed on Tejas next year.
AbhimanyuIn my view, it is “heartening” to see the Tejas progress ‘slowly’ but steadily.
As of today, it has successfully completed 941 test-flights including a debut night sortie in it’s latest. It has already cleared other milestones like flying an endurance sortie of 800 kms with multiple drop-tanks, extreme weather flights like hot weather trials, sea-level sorties, etc.
Even then, it is unclear why the Indian media concentrates solely on totally normal and routine occurences like a low-thrust engine or an increase in empty weight (due to a high demand of avionics boxes), and projects them as not only ‘scandalous’, but also as an indictment of DRDO.
It may be observed that the aforementioned successes like weapon-trial, endurance sorties etc. are reported in a “staccato” manner, devoid of any acknowledgment, praise or pride in the ADA’s work. In “stark” contrast to this, western fighters are described with such ‘gushing’ adjectives and with an ‘Oscar-like’ review, that it nearly seems as an endorsement of the same.
Thus, it seems that the Indian media has launched more than a mere ‘tirade’ against DRDO — it appears to be a well directed malign campaign.
Thus, the reportage of the Indian media about indigenous hardware is not only biased, but it is with an ‘ulterior motive’. Henceforth, in my view the reportage of Indian media on the self-termed “failures” or “controversies” must be thoroughly filtered of spurious propaganda and ‘stereotyping’ that it wishes to ‘stir’. Newspapers like the Times of India, Indian Express and news channels, CNN-IBN and Times Now are known for reporting partial-truths and of concealing facts.
Sign In
