Nick, is this the official ASR?

Im slightly confused. Is the CTOW literally CTOW (in which case it should be around 9 T (Empty weight + Internal fuel) or is it basic AA configuration? Also MTOW…is it really meant to that high?

The above is basic AA configuration. One can calculate oneself, based on the figures given : 6.5 + 2.48 = 8.9 ton. Hence, the balance 0.6 tons must be for weapons that takes CTOW to 9 T. This has also been discussed earlier with you here, as these figure are from the Singapore Air-show placard.

Victor, as another example of substandard defence journalism, the report states and I quote, “The IAF had expressed reservations about the GE engines as it increased the plane’s weight from 8,000 kg to 10,000 kg.”, end quote. Engines can’t increase the weight of Tejas by 2 tons. Note that the same F404-FJ23 engines are used on all the 6 prototypes from 2001 till date.

Abhimanyu, both F-16 and Rafale come into more of a medium category, while LCA is meant to belong to the light category. And you are saying that (minus certain types of ammunitions) they can carry a comparable number of conventional payloads at similar combat-radii???

vikasrehman, Tejas’ max. payload capacity is meant to be >4,000 kgs. This load shall be carried on 8 hardpoints, with one reserved for the laser targeting pod.

The typical loadout for an F-16 or F-18 for any mission profile is never greater than 2,500 kgs of weapons. It is also called as ‘fighter’ or ‘normal’ config. This can be composed of (along with fuel tanks) 4 bombs, Or 4 A2A missiles, Or 2 bombs & 2 A2A missiles, Or 2-4 bombs & 4-2 A2A missiles. The Tejas too can carry all of these combinations with fuel-tanks on it’s 7 hardpoints.

But the max. payload capacities of MiG-35, F-16 and Rafale are 6,000 kgs, 7000 kgs, and 9000 kgs respectively. Thus, much of the extra payload capacity is used to carry very heavy loads like 20 ft. long cruise missiles, or nuclear warheads, along with conventional payloads. There have to be highly strengthened hardpoints to carry these load types and this increases the weight of the plane.**

As regards range, it must be remembered that F-16, Rafale etc. while carrying normal payloads, under utilize a major part of their max. payload capacity. Thus, their large empty weights meant for carrying heavy loads are only “lugged around”. However, in case of Tejas or any light fighter, this is not the case.
Hence, the advantage given by the twin engines of Rafale, or the 130 kN engine of an F-16 is offset. The Tejas while carrying normal payloads with it’s 85 kN engine should also have the same range/combat-radius.

** The max. payload can’t be carried by any plane. It is only the sum-total of the max. capacity of each hardpoint; but every hp can’t be simultaneously loaded at it’s max.

Having a radar and a pod makes it one of the best fighter in the world? OK I admit LCA is a great project, but come on!! Those guys surely need some Marketing 101!!

orko_8, I agree that it is poor reportage from the Times of India (this newspaper is usually critical of indigenous projects and is known to report falsely).

However, the ‘source’ quoted may have meant that the Tejas has an LDP which is amongst the top few globally (the same version is used in Typhoon). The MMR radar of Tejas is also expected to have a range of 120 kms against fighter-sized targets, though unconfirmed.

Pardon my ignorance. But why did India not seek help from russians…i dont think the russians put any sanctions on them???

The above is inaccurate. Tejas will carry Russian weaponry and IRST.

As mentioned earlier, technological bids for Tejas’ PD preparation were called from aircraft manufacturers from both, Russia as well as 3 western companies. Of these 4, Dassault won the competition.

For the FBW contract, Russia was approached after Dassault was rejected as the latter offered analog FBW. For unclear reasons, the Russian proposal was also rejected. Finally, Lockheed Martin was contracted for the integration and testing of FBW software developed by ADA’s engineers into the F-16 Vista, by and using LM’s ground rigs.

As mentioned earlier for the Kaveri, tender bids have been invited from Russia’s NPO Saturn and Snecma from France after rejecting Pratt & Whitney.

I honestly believe that where India went wrong (more than anything else including the lack of expertise) was poor project management which resulted in poor planning consequently leading to mistake after mistake.

As already mentioned earlier, there was “foresight” with regards to the engine, because the powerful Kaveri was initiated into development in the 1980s even as the lesser powerful F404 was chosen as the intermediate one. This prediction about the F404 has an equal counterpart in the predetermined choice of the more powerful RM-12, over the same F404.

However, with Kaveri presently having achieved only 95% of intended wet thrust, the ADA purchased 37 F404-IN-20. But the IAF has already got “ambitions” beyond the IN-20 and so it proposed the F414 (rejected) and Eurojet.

Hence this may be even more “insight”, and for this, ADA provided 3 options of 90kN+ engines to the IAF. It can be to only make it reach > mach 2.

For example, LCA was originally planned to get the Aphid, and then came the R-73E. This comes as a huge shock to me, even though IAF’s involvement/interest was fitful in the early days.

As regards the wing-design, the IAF is responsible for a delay of 1 year. In Jan 2004, the IAF “suddenly” approached the ADA to redesign the wings, which delayed the first flight of PV-2 from Dec. 2004 to Dec 2005 and that of PV-3 from Dec 2005, to Dec 2006.

“Subhramanyan says that the Kaveri is a possibility.. They have achieved around 95% of the target and the remaining 5%, they are falling short because of lack of strength in the titanium alloys!..He says that they have got thus far on their own, and no country is willing to share the technology to reach the last 5% .. I guess, that this really means that the Kaveri needs better materials than what we have currently to reach full potential.

21Ankush, thanks for posting the above interview of Dr. Subramanyam. It is “stamped” with “unquestioning” authority and may not be refuted by either the media, or Tejas’ detractors.

What may be unfortunate is that a “belligerent” media, is in a subjective manner, “disproportionately” critical of the Kaveri, while totally disregarding that there are only 5-6 nations that can design and produce aircraft engines. An attempt itself by India in this regard may be deserving of an acknowledgment atleast, let alone appreciation. However, the media is highly biased.

The media laity perhaps does not distinguish between a motor engine and an aircraft engine.

A figure of 18 years to develop is relative : insufficient to develop a dam like 3 gorges, but too long to design a car.
The Indian media may thus be “guilty” of unilaterally deciding that 18 years is too large a time to develop a fighter engine. Setting standards like this is misleading to the readers, besides being poor journalism.

Also about engine, the ADA head said that they would give the report on engine choices to the IAF within 3 months and the IAF would make the choice of the engine..

From the above it is clear that the IAF may need engines superior to even the future F404 IN-20. Thus, a top speed of mach 2 or above and greater range may be possible with the choices of the 3 above mentioned engines (one of which is Eurojet).

Also that the IAF is now fully involved with the project and that the IAF team is absolutely “thrilled” with the aircraft.. Their deployment doctrines are constantly evolving and that they are able to incorporate that into the aircraft ..something that is simply not possible with a foreign aircraft..

It may be left to the readers of Indian dailies to decide why all the above is always omitted conspicuously by the Indian media, while focusing only on criticisms.

It must be remembered that it is not the first time that ADA officials have aired the above views; its has been done regularly since the past few years. The test-pilots pilots of Tejas too have compared it’s handling during take-off and landing to the Mirage-2000. They have accorded it with first class ratings at all times.

However, all this has never been reported by ToI, The Indian Express, or Outlook.

coldfire2005, earlier I totally forgot that HAL has already ordered 20 GE-F404-IN engines for the first squadron of the Tejas. For this order of the first 20 Tejas units, HAL has ordered 20 GE-F404 – IN 20 engines, which provide a max. wet thrust of 85 kN, as aginst only 78 kN of the current F404s in use.

Now as per the IAF, a max. wet thrust of 90 kN may be required to meet ASRs. However, it is likely that the new F404-IN 20 itself enables Tejas to meet it’s ASRs, as has exactly the same performance as the RM-12 engine of Gripen C/D.

But in the highly unlikely ‘scenario’, if even the F404-IN 20 proves insufficient to power the Tejas (as per IAF’s ASRs), then the first Tejas squadron that it has ordered may have to be subjected to “downgrading” to some degree, in order to reduce overall weight.

Whatever be the case, it is likely that the remaining 0.2 mach of the Tejas’ top speed can be provided by the F404- IN 20.

Poor planning and management.

I disagree with the above, because the more powerful Kaveri was already envisaged along with the Tejas. The F404 was an interim engine only.

Hence, like the RM-12 for the Gripen the Tejas’ designers too had anticipated that the F404 would be inadequate. However, unlike the RM-12 the Kaveri is yet to succeed and so F404 is currently being used.

:confused:

See, the T-50 is a trainer. So it’s performance is “tolerated”. But the Tejas and Gripen are fighters, and so they have to “look beyond” the F404.

I may predict that on similar lines, a new engine will eventually be sought for the JF-17 also, as it has the same level of performance as a very advanced trainer like T-50, and not that of a mature fighter. No modern fighter has an 8G max. turn rate, and top speed of just mach 1.6.

Why isn’t then offered as a trainer on the export market now as a trainer. Im sure all those global orders would only enhance it stature and perhaps IAF will show a bit more committment…may be IAF won’t even have to think of buying more Hawks (as was reported a while back). And last but by no means least, more funds will be available for further development of present into a better fighter.:)

As per the director of ADA Dr. P Subramanyam, ADA plans to utilize the Tejas platform as a Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT). ADA has commenced work on the project.

The Tejas 2-seat trainer itself is being constructed at HAL Bangalore. It is expected to make first flight in the latter part of this year.

Reference :-

ADA plans supersonic fighter trainer

Hyperwarp, as per media reports posted earlier, the Tejas would have to undergo redesign of it’s airframe in case the GE-F141 were to be selected. Hence, ADA rejected this particular engine.

For other engines like Eurojet or the earlier Snecma M-88, the ADA is considering these.

The current GE-F404 is also the engine “of choice” of most fighters like the T-50, and the Mitsubishi F-2, not to mention earlier Gripen models.
However, as the empty-weight of these planes increased to over 6,400 kgs it proved to be inadequate. The Gripen switched to the more powerful RM-12, and eventually to the GE-F414 for the Gripen -NG. The T-50 did not attempt any further, for its goal of being a low speed trainer was already met.

Now, the same “history” may be “repeating” with Tejas as the “protagonist”. Though it’s naked weight is much lesser than the T-50’s 6,400 kgs, now with numerous additions it’s weight has “swollen” to 6,500 kgs — more than even the larger JF-17. Hence the need for a more powerful engine.