Correct. But the issue is not just of plumbing for an IFR probe – there has to be a pressure refuelling system and additional rerouting of tubes (replication), plus CoG issues etc. All in all, it complicates matters in the LCAs compact airframe. Fuel is not just used for …fuel, it also acts as a coolant to a limited degree for some avionics items, whereas the system LRUs also need to be accessible and placed so that a fuel system rupture doesnt cause a catastrophic failure – this was a redesign point earlier.

It may be mentioned that all the above was implied in full by Arthur, because IFR involves not only a standalone probe, but also the above mentioned mechanisms to make possible the act of IFR.

Arthur contended that IFR is an inseparable part of the empty weight. In my view, the only possible explanation could be that although this contention is correct, we can still include the addition of IFR (and it’s mechanisms) to Tejas’ naked weight of 5,680 kgs, because it may not have been in the original ASRs in the first place.

Similarly, I may reiterate that planes which don’t have IFR now, like the JF-17, will see a significant increase in their current empty weights.

The other facilities like buddy-refuelling as discussed earlier, may involve insignificant weight increase, besides being impractical for a small plane like Tejas (as mentioned by Arthur).
Other factors for Tejas’ weight gain may be mechanisms for hot-refueling and on-board oxygen system (as mentioned earlier by someone), which may be termed as “add-ons”, and not necessarily implicitly built-in to the empty weight.

Other additions have been a fully internal EW suite, which if the IAF ends up with its usual, might have to have APA jammers with TRMs.
Additional reinforcement of superstructure and wings (avionics, fuel and more load carrying ability)
More avionics LRUs have been added dime a dozen, moving the LCA from useful point interceptor with secondary A2G capability to full blown ‘we want Mirage 2000-x” land.
All this has to be done keeping in mind estate management and current test instrumentation.

As the addition of newer avionics LRUs has reached a peak, there is also a subsequent process of increasing redundancy in the various LRUs to reduce their number (and hence weight) without loss in functionality.

It can be safely said now that technologically, the Tejas is inferior in no way to the Mirage-x series.

I don’t understand who came up with the idea of GTX-35(Why 35… lineage of engines?)Kaveri engine, when they knew of Marut fiasco. It is not that India had great lineage of turbine engines, heck even a diesel engine was not there.

As per DRDO the above was infact the technological ‘challenge’ undertaken by GTRE. As per news reports, the Kaveri has reached full expected dry thrust and 90% of after burning thrust. The only issue remaining is the 15% extra weight, which is possibly the cause of the yet unrealized wet thrust.

LCA is just becoming Lost Chance Aircraft with each passing day..

As discussed above, the Tejas has met G specifications. As per news reports and ADA itself, it has already reached Mach 1.6 and can carry over 3,000 kgs of external load. Hence, it’s current physical specifications are equivalent to that of the JF-17.

It is apparent that you’ve never read Roy Boot’s book, which is entirely factual and further supported by the NAL windtunnel model of the early LCA/P.106B.

Your sole source of information is a 2001 BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR article:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITO…-5/wollen.html

Consider for a moment that Bharat Rakshak is a Indian-nationalist website.

TinWing, I think it may have not come to your notice that the auhor, Air Marshal MSD Wollen was the project director of HAL, which currently manufactures the Tejas. He is an established authority on the Tejas.

Besides, as Mr. Boot quoted by you clearly stated that BaE was involved in initial negotiations only. This is consistent with Mr. Wollen’s article that prior to 1985, 3 contenders had submitted feasibility studies to ADA. Of these and one more contender, all of which bid in 1987, Dassault was selected. This company helped in the development of the Project Definition itself, which culminated in the 1/7 scale model by 1989, and subsequently, the first prototype in 1995.

Abhimanyu, the main difference between T-50/A-50 and LCA is that while the former was designed as an advanced jet trainer/Light Attack aircraft and meets the requirements in this role, the latter is meant to be 4/4+ generation multirole combat aircraft (I will leave it to you to decide whether it meets IAF’s requirements). So, I dont think we can compare LCA’s current performance with T-50, and say its normal.

vikasrehamn, the above was exactly my view. As Tejas’ size and weight are lesser than T-50, and also as both use the same engine, their performance is equivalent. Hence, aerodynamically there may not be anything “amiss” in the Tejas.

However, T-50 having only a trainer’s expectations is acceptable, whereas Tejas is not.

.. and surprisingly both Gripen and T-50 can Super cruise with the available thrust of F-404, but LCA well…:( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-50_Golden_Eagle

The above is inaccurate, the Gripen reportedly exhibits supercruise only in the ‘NG’ version which utilizes a localized GE-F414, and not the F-404. The external reference in the wikipedia article of T-50 also has no mention of supercruise. The official website of T-50 too makes no such claim.

No, Dassault’s collaboration was far greater, involving the selection of the current configuration of the LCA. In truth, BAe was involved in the LCA even earlier, with the BAe P.106 forming the basis of the first canard-delta LCA configuration.

TinWing, the above is inaccurate. BaE is known to have exited the Tejas program even before conceptual studies began. As per the article by Air Marshall MSD Wollen (retd). who also headed the Tejas program once, Dassault aviation was selected amongst 4 contenders. Though the others are not named, Dassault was the sole contractor for contracting design software/tools and such.

The so-termed P.106 of BaE finds mention as the predecessor of the P.110 fighter bomber, which in turn was the predecessor of the Eurofighter. It is true however, that the P.106B was similar in design to the Gripen.

In any case, BaE was ‘showcasing’ such various designs to potential financiers only. The French refused and went ahead with their indigenous ACX, that was later to become the Rafale. The P.110 in tandem with Italian and West German inputs (from Aeritalia and MBB respectively) became the Typhoon.

India’s ADA around the very same time was interested in an indigenous fighter, but had a lack of software tools to provide even basic, preliminary concept about the design of the fighter plane. These tools and design consultancy was provided by Dassault, which was the winner in a tender competition.

That a canard was not chosen, and a crank and compound were added is the uniqueness of the Indian design.

The LCA has a far greater wing area than either the Gripen or T-50. Low wing loading might be beneficial in terms of maneuverability or airfield performance, but it is entirely detrimental in terms of drag. Keep in mind that the LCA stems from the same BAe P.106B study as the Gripen, but after Dassault’s entry into the program, the configuration increase in wing area and dropped the canards. My guess is that the canard was dropped to reduce production costs while the increase in wing area was meant to offset the loss of the canard.

The above is inaccurate. To compensate the drop of canards, a frontal “drooping” crank was added to the wing’s leading edge. There is no Lerx either. The crank was meant to generate vortices that canards do. The canards are in fact “suspected” to increase drag, as they are unalligned with the wing.

The wings of Tejas are clipped, and are convex compounded. These may help reduce induced drag and forward drag respectively.

Production costs have been reduced by reduction in the part-count to just 7,000 which is one of the lowest globally.

So far the Kaveri is not front-line ready and the LCA do suffer from problems related to drag. Non serious one can be surprised by that, because the interim F404 does just fit to the LCA. Similar problems can be exspected from the F414, when there is no redesign of a new propulsion system. But doing so, you are unable to switch back to the Kaveri.

Sens, as per news reports Tejas currently “suffers” from lack of thrust only.

With the GE-F404 still powering it, the Tejas, like the T-50, has a top speed “stuck” at mach 1.6 only and a 6G limit. To reach the target of mach 1.8 and 9G, a more powerful engine has been proposed by the IAF. Eurojet is one such candidate.

References :-

1) The Light Combat Aircraft Story (by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (retd)

2) The Eurofighter Typhoon

here is the picture of LSP-3 posted in Aroors blog (Blogs,fansites donot qualify for some in this international forum ) while this is no Photoshop

The above photo has been confirmed as that being of the LSP-3 version on BR, as the trainer version (whose photo was posted earlier) is different. It is expected to fly by end of this month, and will constitute the first tranche of 8 units to be delivered to the IAF.
As a side note, Buraidiah has posted a number of comments in the above blog.

It may be unfortunate that the Air Chief did not seek to comment on his visit. Though not mandatory, usually they are known to comment even when visiting foreign countries. An example was when the previous chief visited Russia and was shown a demonstration of the MiG-35, and he (famously) said,and I quote, “…a plane is a khokha (shell), it’s what is inside that matters,” end quote.

The present chief too has commented on the PAK-FA, MRCA, etc. but remaining silent on arguably the most important project of the IAF and the Indian aviation industry may send “worrying” indications.

Umm, But your incoherent responses belay your claims as Your claims of LCA flight data. I would expect Master of Journalism -that you claim, to articulate your thoughts much better than what you have done so far.

Since you demand journalist or media sources, it is unclear why coldfire’s media report is unacceptable. His claims are not “belied”, as they are consistent with what was reported at BR.

Hence, they are all the more attested now.

You should know Mr. Master of Journalism, that some LRU Engineer told me so and my chacko friend wrote the same in his website don’t cut much in the international forum.

That it is unacceptable to you, is your maxim and the cause of your consternation alone. The goal here is to gather information from all sources be they ‘insider’, or the media.

Your ad hominem premise that this is the result of an “uncle” acqueising to the “tantrum” of a child is your assumption only.

Again, it is contradictory on your part to first claim only media reports, and then reject the reportage of a resident journalist member of this forum, as a non-media claim.

Anyway, the standard of reporting in an international forum are set by Mercurius, who has a vast experience and a network of defence sources globally.

I did provided as recent as Feb 2008, check it out if not done yet.

That has already been dismissed as being inaccurate by ADA’s placards.

Again, you rely on Indian media reports themselves to dismiss another Indian journalist’s reportage that has further been confirmed by ADA’s placards themselves. The reasoning behind this is unclear.

With this, we must halt the further digression from the topic at hand.

The problem only gets worse as the delays continue of course: requirement creep sets in, and what may have been a perfectly acceptable MiG-21 replacement by 1994-IAF-standards will no longer be acceptable by 2008-IAF-standards. So because of the delays new standards are set, which have to be worked into the development process, which cause more delays…

I agree with the above. It is a self-feeding cycle.

I honestly think that a brand new development organisation like ADA should have been given something smaller for it’s babyteeth to chew on. A domestic advanced jet trainer/LIFT somewhere along the lines of the Hawk/Alpha Jet/T-50 would IMHO have been a far more manageable program. And take it to the next level from there.

It must be noted that Tejas already has smaller dimensions and weight than the T-50 trainer of S. Korea.

Fair enough, but telling fantasy stories based on Uncle and Aunties is no no. How difficult it is for kids like shetty to bug his Uncle and Aunties for info on LCA Super Cruising until they give in, now you have it LCA supercruising on his personal website meant for tom toming LCA is the contemporary of F-22.

Not that am dissing the sources, these Uncle and Aunties are good source of entertainment in fantasy land of BR

The above hypothesis of “uncle aunties” as you say may be applicable only in the Pak military fora, where many members are ex-military servicemen and have relatives/friends in the Pak military establishment (the single biggest corporate enclave that runs Pakistan). The information by coldfire is first-hand from defence exhibitions, and is accurate.

The Tejas’ potential super-cruise ability upon the addition of an engine of higher thrust has been discussed in articles dating back 4-5 years. The same has also been claimed of the Gripen.

Abhimanyu, Could you grow up from comparing for everything and look each on its own basis. You compared LCA from F-22, rafale down to T-50 trainer in trying to prove something or the other.

The above is inaccurate. Whereas the originality of a previously unattempted project was compared earlier with the F-22, the Rafale’s technologies and T-50’s dimensions have been compared.

Why would they Misquote 1.6 to 1.4 mach?? why would they miss out the BIG 6G achievement?? Accept that you and your friends been caught lying and misinforming in the forum.

If you have contacts with the magazine’s representatives in media “censored” KSA, it may be prudent of you to ask them that.
Your “report” that claims Mach 1.4 has been confronted with ADA’s official placard that displays Mach 1.6 reached.

This “dogged” adherence to a sole report from Feb 2008, when the ADA’s placards themselves show Mach 1.6 reached is futile and in vain. From a foreign nation, you use an Indian news report (not Reuters, or Jane’s but Indian) to counter ADA’s official announcement and first-hand info by Indian’s themselves. Such an argument is untenable.

There would have to be some plumming for an IFR probe, but considering buddy-buddy refuellng is going to be done with a refuelling pod, that is not going to put on extra weight on the LCA. Besides, with the LCA already on the small (and heavy) side, i doubt it would make any use whatsoever as a buddy refueller. Unless the naval-LCA grows into something operational, where it would be a possible fuel picket loitering around the carrier (similar to the buddy-refuelling A4Ds on the CVLs). Many IFs in that scenario though.

Arthur, as discussed earlier, not just the 2 types of refueling, but also hot refueling may also be present on the Tejas. This may definitely be wanting of more equipment to facilitate the same.

As regards buddy refueling, a provision to house, and retract an extensible probe from the fueller to the receiver must be present. This will involve additional mechanical equipment. However, it is unclear if Tejas shall have buddy refueling and as you mentioned rightly, a small plane like it is unlikely to have one.

Adding test-related gear as additional weight is fair enough for the development aircraft, but it won’t make any sense if this weight is somehow taken along in the official presentation of the aircraft’s specifics. On the other hand, leaving out the weight of the radar in those very same presentations makes even less sense. I know you’re clutching at straws left and right and doing all the creative thinking you’re capable of to come up with a reasonable (yet uncritical) explanation for the weight issues, but all you seem to do is dance around the obvious fact that there seems to be a serious weight issue with the Tejas. Whether that’s due to impossible demands set by the IAF, incompetence at ADA, or simply a poor noise-to-signal ration in all the LCA-banter, I don’t know.

I disagree with the above. There is no “poor noise to signal ration” (as you said above), for it has already been acknowledged and concluded here with proof from ADA’s placards that Tejas’ empty weight has apparently shown an increase from 5,680 kgs to 6,500 kgs.

ADA’s placards usually show the progress reached so far till date (contrary your claim of showing ‘official presentation’). As we discussed earlier from the placard from Aero-India 2007, it showed Tejas’ top speed reached to date as Mach 1.6. The S’pore Air Show placard similarly showed M 1.4 reached at 15 kms altitude in 815 test flights till date.

Now, as already mentioned earlier a few times (and also quoted by you), there are 2 figures from Tejas’ empty weight from 2 air-shows held in the same year, and which were held within one week of each other. They were DefExpo 2008, New Delhi and Singapore Air Show 2008. Surprisingly, ADA’s placards at the former show Tejas weighing 5,680 kgs empty, whereas at the latter they show 6,500 kgs empty.

By the ADA’s own admissible account, the attainment of weight reduction to the production standard of 5,500 kgs by a systematic modularization of LRUs to as few in number as possible, and also by the reduction of onboard test equipment (refer Radiance of the Tejas). Tejas has also gained weight by the stage wise addition of permanent onboard equipment, notable among them the radar, sensors, and electronic “boxes” to handle the same.

Hence, this 6,500 kgs quoted for the current weight is the resultant of both these measures i.e. presence of test equipment as well as addition of newer (and permanent) equipment. The 5,680 weight on the other hand, is the “naked” weight.
Using this measure, I also guessed that the JF-17’s empty weight of 6,400 kgs (lesser than the smaller Tejas) will also increase after the addition of IFR, and as yet un-finalized avionics.

But the concern is a very viable one. An LCA which is small but not all that light will not be able to fulfill the requirements as they were stated for the original light combat aircraft. Fuzzy maths won’t change that.

I think the so-termed “fuzzy” math may be attributed to the IAF source, who was quoted in the news report posted earlier. He expected Tejas’ ‘normal’ weight to remain at 8,000 kgs after full internal fuel and weapons load. That it did cannot turn out to be so was a matter of “concern” for him. As discussed earlier, this “concern” does not hold ground.

Now what does this mean? Maximum AoA is 20deg, unless certain conditions are met? The maximum of 22deg has only been achieved under special circumstanses which don’t occur in ‘normal’ flights? I know you’re trying to give a positive spin to the whole program (which I have no problem with), but only a little critical reading of your posts actually puts the LCA in a more negative light.

Target AoA is 26 deg. 20 deg has been achieved, whereas 22 deg. has been touched. 20 deg is the current limit over which the flight test envelop is expanded to presently.

Lavishly Consulted Aircraft?

That should have been done years ago. Simply Poor project management.

I think were it to be done “years ago”, then the Tejas would have been criticized even further for being ever “lavish” in foreign consultancy. Hence, it can be decided by both of the above quoted, i.e Arthur and vikasrehman.

Nothing amiss. The IAF upgraded its requirements for the LCA to include a fully internal comprehensive EW suite with multiple jammers, the LCA has to have an IRST as well, and the MMR has moved from a circa ~100 km system to a full Zhuk ME class one. To add to that the IAF wants full IFR plumbing, an OBOGS, and the superstructure beefed up to allow more multipurpose pylons capable of carrying fuel / weaponry – these all have resulted in the LCA weight increase. The airframe design can take it, but the engine thrust will also have to keep pace.

The addition of IFR “plumbing” (as mentioned above) along with oxygen generators must have increased Tejas’ weight substantially, as these are heavy metallic additions. However, as regards the addition of sensors, one of the aims is to modularize all the electronic “boxes” that handles these sensors, into fewer such boxes, to help reduce the weight.

It can be said with confidence now that empty weights of all fighters are exclusive of most of these additions. The JF-17, whose benchmark we’d taken earlier in the discussion, is not known to have a functioning IFR yet, and is yet to decide on the European avionics suite (which implies more electronic equipment). Hence the figure of 6,400 kgs available from PAC Kamra’s website is the “naked” figure only with an anticipated increase.

Similarly, the figure of 7,000 kgs for the Gripen available from the official website of Swedish Defence Materials website may increase much more if the purchaser decides to customize it.

Now here is very important question.

LCA is one of the smallest fighters in the world. Now if its overall (normal takeoff) weight is to be increased by up to 2000 kg, what sort of impact would that have on its range/combat radius. How about the impact of installing a more powerful engine on its range (while the fuel remains the same)? If LCA is one of the most densely packed aircraft as well (as the latest article posted by Buraidah claims), how do you creat more space for fuel? CFTs? But that would be a lengthy process, add more weight, and cause drag. Small aircraft always suffer from these problems (weight, power, range etc) due to their small size, and LCA was meant to be the smallest in this category.

vikasrehman, if we assume the verbatim statement of the IAF ‘source’ quoted in Buraidiah’s news report to be true, then the IAF may be said to have “goofed” in demanding that the normal take-off weight exceed no more than 8,000 kgs. Globally no such aircraft exists — not even trainers like the T-50, which we examined earlier.

Thus, the IAF has no case against the Tejas if we strictly take the comments of the IAF ‘source’ to be true.

Now, as regards the sea-trials at Arakkonam, the Tejas was indeed reported to be lacking thrust in the hotter, humid and pressurized environment there. Hence, the IAF asked ADA to examine the F414 or any other engine that delivers higher thrust. The thrust needed at those conditions can be given by the Kaveri, which being flat-rated, can give a more or less constant thrust of 90 kN at all altitudes.

Since there are no other engines available that claim to be flat-rated, the IAF has laid a guideline of 100 kN peak at high altitude, so that they manage 90 kN at sea-level atleast. The F414 is one such engine which was investigated by ADA at IAF’s request. It was rejected because of the substantial reworking needed in the Tejas’ airframe.

With 2 WVR and 2 BVR missiles, plus a centerline tank + 2 others, and IFR, the LCA can be a very useful A2A asset. With a LDP (special pylon), 2 LGBs, 2 WVR Missiles, and 2-3 fuel tanks ..the LCA can be a decent strike platform as well. And in either case, the LCA will be superior to the current backbone of the IAFs strike fleet, the Jag/ MiG-27 Combination.

The above combinations of weaponry are exactly those which match the Gripen-C, which also has Tejas’ 8 hardpoint layout, and similar payload capacity. These are also typical ‘fighter’ config loadouts carried by planes like the F-16 or F-18 to be delivered in a radius of 800 kms.

Hence, the Tejas may ideally be suited for MRCA.