AbhimanyuThe following news report is about the first flight of Tejas LSP-2 (Limited Series Production)
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.
The above news confirms that the GE-F404 IN 20 engines were installed in the LSP-2 for the first time, whereas the previous 6 prototypes flew with the older F2J3 engines. As the difference in wet thrust of these two engines is 7-8 kN, the In 20 may meet most ASRs, if not each one of them.
I’m not sure if anyone’s seen the latest issue of AFM, but there is an article about the LCA and the problems it suffers from being overwieght
So much for all the drum beating about using high amounts of composites to reduce weight then eh? :confused:
The above is inaccurate. As per ADA’s estimates, the use of composites, extensive wing-body blending has resulted in the Tejas weighing 21% lesser than an all-metallic plane of the same size.
As mentioned earlier, different exhibitions like DefExpo ’08 and ILA Berlin ’08 display Tejas’ empty-weight as 5,680 kgs, whereas other shows like S’pore ’08 display it as 6,500 kgs. The latter weight is the current weight with the addition of electronic test-equipment, and numerous other avionics boxes that are yet to be ‘streamlined’ or modularized into fewer redundant ones. The Tejas has also gained weight after the addition of the radar and on-board oxygen generators.
As deduced earlier, the current performance of the Tejas is matched by other aircraft of the 6,400 kg class like T-50 and JF-17 thunder, both of which have top speeds of M 1.4-1.6 and 8 G limits. The T-50 is “excusable” as it is a trainer, however, past examples have shewn that as a plane’s weight reaches 6,500 kgs, engines of 48 kN class must be replaced with engines of 54-55 kN class to achieve desired performance.
Hence, the Gripen was installed with the more powerful RM-12 at the very outset. The Tejas too had the 85 kN Kaveri (flat-rated) being developed for it, as envisaged, but due to a 5% lag in intended wet thrust, foreign engines have to be used as an interim. To compensate the lack of flat-rated attribute in foreign engines, the IAF has asked for 90 kN to 100 kN engines.
Similarly, the current JF-17 that is without IFR, and without a finalized European avionics package, too is likely to increase it’s empty weight to >7,000 kgs and will also have to acquire a new engine to maintain performance.
This is uncalled for. Don’t you get it “40% by weight and 90% by surface composite thingy”, next only to F-22.
The above is likely to be accurate, as it is confirmed by data available from the official websites of ADA and the Eurofighter consortium, that Tejas has a higher percentage of composites by weight as well as surface area than the Typhoon.
Thus, the only combat jet to rival or exceed this composition is likely to be the F-22 only.
Remember LCA first flight in 1991 with induction in air force in 1994:D
As repeated earlier, the above was due to the delay by the IAF only, and not ADA. IAF gave the final clearance only by late 1993 instead of 1990 as planned, which led to a 3 year delay in start of full-scale production.
Reference :-
1) http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080616/975899.html
AbhimanyuFrom the above photos of India’s MCA as well as China’s J-XX, it may be interesting to note that both these fifth generation fighter planes are extensions of their existing projects.
The MCA has extended the LCA Tejas’ delta-wing configuration into twin-engines, whereas the J-XX has extended the J-10’s canard-delta configuration into twin-engines.
Thus, the J-XX may be the first fifth generation fighter to feature canards, whereas the MCA may be the first to be a pure-Delta configuration.
Abhimanyucoldfire2005, DRDO released the following conceptual designs of the MCA in 2006 :-
The above designs may now be in the process of being ‘concretized’ or productionized.
AbhimanyuThe following is a news report from today, as per which India’s 5th G fighter jet may make it’s first flight next year.
5th generation fighter aircraft will fly in march next: Adviser
Bangalore, June 14: The country’s ‘ambitious’ fifth generation fighter aircraft will fly during March next, the information to this effect was given by M Natarajan, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister on Saturday.
Efforts were on to identify a Russian company to provide weapons and electronic warfare systems, Natarajan, who is also the secretary, Defence Research and Development Organisation, said while participating in the inauguration of the Defence avionics research establishment’s new campus here.
Conceptualisation studies have begun on Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) he said.
“We are in the process of evolving a design for MCA”, Natarajan said.
LCA has great potential notwithstanding problems, he said and added they were being attended to.
DRDO director R P Ramalingam, in his welcome address, said it would be Field-testing the fourth generation electronic warfare systems in about 18 months for Mig 27 and LCA.
There was also a possibility of extending the tests to fifth generation fighter aircraft, he said.
Bureau Report
Although the above report is unclear, it may be that the 5th G plane that Dr. Natarajan referred to, may be the Russian PAK-FA that India is purchasing, and not the indigenous MCA, because he stated that the conceptualisation studies have begun on the MCA.
However, given that India has not yet formally purchased the PAK-FA, Dr. Natarajan may as well have been referring to the MCA. Going by the track-record of “sudden surprises” like the ABM, SLBM, and tests of Avatar, the MCA too may be a “surprise”.
AbhimanyuThe WS-9 is used in the twin-engined JH-7A fighter-bomber. The Qinling is a licenced copy of the Spey engines which were imported in 2001, and entered licenced production in 2003.
It must be remembered that it is standard practice in China to re-designate foreign designs to local alpha-numeric names.
The JH-7A has been a ‘failure’ in the PLAAF and PLANAF, as having being under development since 1970s, only an estimated 40 units have been delivered till date.
Reference :-
Abhimanyua model of a Tejas with 2 extra fuselage pylons does’nt confirm anything.
as Victor pointed out, its in a location where the MLG won’t be deployable without some imaginative engineering related to pylon location, MLG relocation (like the Gripen NG) or a size constraint on the type of weapon employed, such that it does’nt interfere with the MLGs functioning.
besides, we’ve never heard of ADA doing any work on increasing the number of pylons. if anything, they could have looked at semi-recessed pylons to attach a couple of A2A missiles, freeing up 2 wing pylons for additional fueltanks in an air-to-air mission. also, aft fuselage mounted pylons are rarely “wet”.
21Ankush, I disagree with the above, as either ADA may have chosen not to announce it, or the media may not have reported it. However, ADA is unlikely to ‘showcase’ extra hardpoints in models at International air-shows, if none were actually added.
I think that the extra pylons may be used for bombs, as strengthening it to carry heavy fuel-tanks may require substantial re-engineering of the fuselage “belly”.
also, despite the fact that the sum total of the max of all pylons is >5000 kg, it will never happen that the Tejas is that heavily loaded. if the innermost wing pylons and centerline fuel tank are loaded at their max weight, then there will be restrictions on what the other pylons can carry, to keep the aircraft weight within design limits.
I agree with the above as Tejas’ max. hauling capacity at one time does not exceed 4,000 kgs.
Abhimanyu, with all due respect how many different figures do we have now that we have discussed in this thread? 5,600 (?) from one show, 6,500 from another and now 5,680 in this placard. And which global practice are you referring to?…if Im not mistaken empty weight figures normally include all internal avionics minus anything that is on the pylons or u could remove it depending on the mission profile.
vikasrehman, the above has already been substantially discussed very recently in another thread (now locked), vis-a-vis the figures displayed in the placard at Singapore Air Show in 2008, and DefExpo 2008. The interesting aspect about both was that both the shows were held within a week of each other.
It was reasonably concluded that 5,680 kgs is the “naked” empty weight i.e. weight without most “add-ons” like testing equipment and most importantly, after modularizing (or streamlining) the functionality of LRUs into fewer electronic boxes. This weight also probably does not include radar weight and weight of onboard oxygen generators. However, it was rightly pointed out that IFR is included in this weight as it is inherent to a fighter plane.
Regarding external capacity, I have discussed it in this post
Abhimanyucoldfire2005, thanks for posting the photos as they are informative. As per the load-out diagram, the sum of the max. capacities of each pylon >5,000 kgs.
As rightly mentioned by you, the first photo confirms Tejas has 9 pylons, which is only 2 less than the 11 of an F-16 or J-10. It may be for an extra fuel-pod, thus increasing Tejas range or releasing one pylon more for weapons.
As per ADA’s placard shown at the latest show at ILA Berlin, Tejas’ empty weight is shown to be 5,680 kgs again. It is likely that this figure is inclusive of the minimum electronic equipment, and without the testing equipment as ADA also follows global practice of declaration of figures. Thus, it proves that it is the lightest combat jet globally and lighter than even T-50 at 6,300 kgs.
AbhimanyuAs you quoted, “limited weapon capability” has nothing to with payload capacity at first. It is about, how many weapons from the Indian inventory are integrated in the weapons-computer-system of the Tejas.
Sens, I agree with your view that given the engine thrust of the F2J3, the Flight-control software may not permit extreme manouevers with high number of weapons.
However, as mentioned earlier, as per a news report posted earlier, an IN 20 engine was installed for the first time last month itself. Hence, only 1 or 2 flight-tests with it may have taken place. Thus, IAF’s reservations may still be on the F2J3 only and NOT on the IN 20.
I again ask , would an LCA with Basic A2A capability (BVR missile + WVR missile) and some infant A2G capability (Dumb bombs , no PGM’s , no cruise missiles and what not) and limited load (Full A2A) with IOC in 2002 be better then what is now being offered in 2012 timeframe ?
bring_it_on, firstly as per news reports posted earlier, the Tejas will be tested in Jaisalmer next month on it’s ability to deliver precision guided munitions.
Actually the scenario presented by you was improbable, as in 2002 it was only 1 year since it’s first flight on Jan 4, 2001. Hence, it was “nascent” at that time and totally incapable of being inducted.
Abhimanyu, with all due to respect, while I do agree that ‘limited weapon capability’ (if applied to 4,000 kg…and i suspect it is) probably wont have any practical limitations, one cannot hide this limitation behind ‘practical limitations’. I’ll give you a very simple example. In UK we have a top speed limit of 70 mph, yet we can buy cars which can do 200 mph. Now if a designer’s goal was to design a car that could do 100mph and for whatever reason the car could not go above 70 mph, would you agree with the argument, ‘oh well its ok since the top speed limit is 70 mph’?
vikasrehman, firstly as pointed earlier, “limited weapon ability” has been quoted from official MoD reports across all newspapers (what is unquoted is Buraidiah’s claim of “unsuitable for aerial combat”).
Regarding your analogy, it may also be applied to F-16 and F-18 also which have max. external capacities of 7,000 kgs and 8,000 kgs respectively. However, as mentioned earlier, both these planes never carry over 2,500 kgs of weapon load in the ‘normal’ or ‘fighter’ config. for any mission profile. The extra weight capacity is utilized to carry nuclear payloads and/or cruise missiles only.
In case of JF-17 also, it can nearly match conventional payload types carried by J-10 or F-16. However, it too is not likely to utilize it’s full capacity of 3,600 kgs of external load, because after being loaded with 2 SD-10 missiles, 2 A2G missiles, 2 bombs and 1 fuel tank, it would have utilized only upto roughly 2,000 kgs of its max. external capacity.
AbhimanyuAre those from Marketing brochures ? Doesnt the ADA or HAL list actual specs (up to date) on their respective websites ?? Brochure figures can be wrong specially if they have been written by marketing and PR folks , i think many learned members here have seen brochures (both westerm and eastern) that have errors in them.
Those were from official placards that were on display like this one of S’pore Air Show ’08.
Earlier I thought there must have been some typing error between DefExpo and S’pore shows, however it now appears that the latter are likely to be after the addition of electronic equipment.
ADA’s website has not been updated since past many years and it shows the goal figures, not current figures. Anyway, the site is ill-maintained, and is offline many a time. However, it has begun to upload many interesting photos as of late.
it will be exciting to see what new goodies LSP-2 will be carrying to be flown soon ,for god sake which fighter aircraft in the world was able to carry all it weapons in its first batch it self ??
coldfire2005, I fully agree with your view. The Typhoon and J-10 have taken 6 and 10 years respectively to be fully “worthy” of combat despite having been inducted into their respective air-forces.
As another example, the JF-17 is already being inducted in small numbers into the PAF despite having no IFR and an incomplete EW suite.
Besides, the sum of individual pylon capacities of Tejas is actually >5,000 kgs (as per a document posted on BR forum over a year back). Let alone this, as mentioned earlier, the max. payload for ANY mission profile never exceeds 2,500 kgs, which is far lesser than the limit of 4,000 kgs. Thus, if the MoD assessment of “limited weapon capability” is applied to 4,000 kgs, there may be no practical limitation.
AbhimanyuSome rough estimates about the Mirage III.
To add full A2G to full A2A did add up to 700 kg to empty equipped. Later on a full EW-suit did add up to 500 kg to empty equipped. All that without the gains for navy usage. A multi-role Tejas with a state of art EW-suit to survive in modern air-warfare is close to 7000 kg empty equipped.
When not convinced, the future will prove it.
Sens, as mentioned earlier, 5,680 kgs is the “empty” empty-weight of Tejas (as per DefExpo -08) and 6,500 kgs (as per S’pore 08). Thus, 800 kgs has already been added to take it to the ’empty equipped’ mark. Besides, removal of testing equipment remains and further modularization of avionics.
“LCA is not suitable for combat” is the verdict of defense ministry.
The above is inaccurate. Firstly the media report said, “….making LCA unsuitable for aerial combat.” Secondly, the same Indian Express news report inaccurately quoted Tejas’ max. AoA reached as 17 deg, whereas it has already reached 20-22 deg as per the official technical document posted earlier. Thus, it’s accuracy is in doubt.
Thirdly, the phrase, “…unsuitable for aerial combat” appears only in the Indian Express news report, whereas the MoD quotation that was mentioned unanimously by all newspapers was “limited weapons capability”. Some of them are here, here, and here.
Hence the phrase, “unsuitable for aerial combat” is an opinion of the paper only and not that of the MoD. MoD has only mentioned “limited weapons”, which include aerial weapons.
AbhimanyuSens, it may be deduced from the Singapore Air-Show placard, the 9.5 T ‘clean’ weight of Tejas is inclusive of internal fuel as well as 500 kgs of A2A missiles (as it is known that internal fuel is <2500 kgs).
Regarding the discrepancy in the Tejas’ empty-weight specifications in the S’pore Air Show (6,500 kgs) and AI-07 (5,690 kgs) the former is after the addition of radar, electronic equipment, testing and measuring equipment, oxygen-generators, etc., whereas the latter is the “naked” empty-weight only i.e. with just the engine installed.**
As observed earlier in BR forum, both these figures were released within a week of each other. Again, the ADA plans to remove the testing equipment from the Tejas and progressively modularize or ‘streamline’ the functionalities of various LRUs. This will also help in weight-reduction.
Oh the claim of 20 degrees AoA and having touched 22 degrees is also busted…
It must be reminded that you have yourself quoted varying figures of Tejas’ known AoA figures from the Indian media. Hence, your assertion of 17 degrees on the basis of this particular media report is not logical, and hence appears motivated in whole by an innate “desire” to prove a lesser AoA. Of course, it also proves that Indian media reports are unreliable.
Now, as media reports themselves have been inconsistent on reporting Tejas’ achieved AoA, the only reliable resource remains the official technical document titled, “An approach to the High AoA testing of Tejas LCA” (also posted earlier on this forum). As per the document, and I quote, “Currently the Tejas is flying to AoA limits of 20 degrees and 22 degrees never exceed.”end quote.
Thus, 20 degrees AoA has been achieved with 22 degrees never having been exceeded.
** Earlier, there was a debate over whether radar is included in the empty-weight. As per the official website of T-50, it is released in 2 versions i.e. with and without radar.
AbhimanyuIf you do not consider Russia Asian then the top fighter is the J-10
followed by the F-2 in second place and the LCA in third place, in fourth place i would say the Ching Kuo
I disagree with the above. Technologically, Tejas is unlikely to be inferior to ANY Asian fighter like J-10, J-11 or F-16 clones like F-2, Ching-Kuo or T-50.
AbhimanyuPlease don’t make statements you clearly know nothing about…
Here’s a test flight prototype being converted into a display outside CAC headquarters. Look at the armaments. That’s a JSAW type glide munition.
BTW dropping GPS guided munition does not make a plane 4.5 gen. The fact that J-10 can be used as bomb truck and wild weasel roles is much more important.
hallo84, I agree I had forgotten about the LS-6. However, regardless of the above, the weight of LS-6 precision munition is 540 kgs, which is well within the weight-limits of Tejas’ pylon numbers 2, 3 and centerline from the wing-tip. Thus, Tejas is fully capable of carrying such a weapon.
Besides, DRDO has announced a plan to develop precision-guided munitions aboard air-launched missiles.
LCA being a light fighter has limited capacity to carry munitions. My question is how multi role it is in practice. Why go multi role on a point defense fighter?
The above is inaccurate. The total pylon capacity of Tejas exceeds 4000 kgs, distributed over 8 pylons. As mentioned earlier in another thread, it can carry the entire known set of combinations of A2G and A2A weapons as carried by other fighters like F-16 and F-18.
Tejas is also not a “point-defence” fighter, as it can deliver it’s payload at combat-radii similar to Gripen or F-16.
It also has to be remembered that the Gripen is a pretty advanced fighter, from a company that has many decades of producing very advanced fighters. In contrast, the Tejas is basically coming from a company that hasn’t got much of a track record for design, and isn’t exactly cutting edge design-wise. The Gripen is very much a 4.5th generation fighter, where the Tejas is more of a 4th generation fighter.
EdLaw, as per a report by 2 distinguished persons one of whom a Science advisor to the govt., and the other a former Vice-Admiral and advisor over weapons-procurement, have clearly stated that technologically, Tejas is a 4++ generation fighter plane. It’s capabilities may not be superceded much even after the acquisition of the MRCA.
What may be a “roadblock” currently is that the engine of the capacity of the 81 kN GE-F404 RM-12 — that powers an older model Gripen upto Mach 2 (claimed) — when “spruced” to 85 kN in the GE-F404 IN 20, is unable to power a much lighter Tejas beyond mach 1.6 (reported till now).**
Till now, it was assumed that IAF’s opposition was to the older F404 F2J3 engines, and that IN 20 would meet ASRs, while further Eurojet etc. may be for increased ASRs (mach 2). However, in May it appears that a new IN 20 engine was installed on the Tejas for the first time and conducted 1 or 2 flight-tests.
The news reports don’t mention specifically whether the IAF is dissatisfied over the F2J3 or the IN20, however it mentions that for the first 40 Tejas units (to be powered by 40 In 20 engines), reduced weaponry may be installed.
**Even if full intended speed of m 1.8 is reached, it will be with reduced weapon load anyway, as mentioned by news reports.
AbhimanyuAs per a news report, it may now seem that Tejas has actually been test-flown with 1 IN-20 engine last month for the first time. Thus, it may be that the IAF concluded that the latest IN-20 engines too are inadequate (though how it reached the conclusion after only 1 flight-test may be unclear).
Thus, the older Gripen which is powered by an engine that has 4 kN lesser thrust than the IN-20, may be designed more efficiently than Tejas.
This may only be concluded now, with available facts.
AbhimanyuI disagree with the view that the Tejas project was very “over ambitious”. The matter is merely that of a more powerful engine only. But the media “overhyped” this issue to hint at ‘failure’ and “doom”. As discussed earlier, once a fighter’s weight ‘breaches’ the 6,400 kg mark, new engines are needed above 80 kN.
Thus, Gripen chose RM-12 at the outset. The Tejas too was to go with Kaveri, but as it is incomplete, it seeks Eurojet and 2 other engines. No other issue.**
The Chinese might have critics of lack of originality since Russia and several other powers claim the J-10 is a Lavi, but definitively it is alredy operational and as good as the F-16 and MiG-29.
MiG-23MLD, I agree that J-10 is equivalent to F-16 C/D (block 52) in avionics and manoueverability. However, Tejas is also equivalent to F-16 block 52 in the same fields. But these 2 planes lack some types of advanced A2G weapons like JDAMs.
What India is doing is simply relying in the Su-30MKI and soon in another J-10 equivalent (perhaps the F-18E or the Gripen if a western fighter is Chosen or the MiG-35 as the real LCA equivalent) filling the duties the LCA should had filled long time ago
I agree with the above view. It has been reported earlier that the Tejas could have been the MRCA, had it not been for the delay in it’s development.
** It is unclear what IAF plans to do with 37 GE F404 IN 20 engines that have already been ordered. Thus, the new proposal of Eurojet and 2 other engines may be for revised ASRs that may demand mach 2 for Tejas.
Sign In
