Abhimanyurayrubik, the Litening pod provides FLIR capabilities (similar to IRST). However it is not known whether Tejas has a dedicated IRST sensor too in addition to Litening unlike Su-30 MKI, which has an IRST sensor in addition to the Litening. This sensor is the OLS-30 M of UOMOZ that provides IRST and laser ranging to the Su-30 MKI.
The datalink of the Tejas shall be equivalent to that in Su-30 MKI, if developed by DRDO as all systems developed for Su-30 MKI are directly ported on the Tejas. Anyway, it shall be contemporary.
The MMR pulse-doppler radar shall be a conventional radar, however whether its range and resolution are comparable to the Bars radar is unknown. Note that even Typhoon and Rafale use pulse-doppler radars only, and not ESA radars of the kind of Bars. The functionality lies in the speed and quality of the processing of the signals that determine range-resolution, which shall be equivalent to global systems as they shall have radar processors developed by DRDO (under the same project as for Su-30 MKI).
——
Now, one other area other than max. weapon load capacity that the Tejas may be disadvantaged against the foreign MRCAs, is the capability of very advanced HARM sensing. The F-16 Block 52 carries a AN/ASQ-213 HTS target pod, that is specifically meant only for the classification of targets for the HARM missiles carried.
Some other “frill” add-ons absent from Tejas may include voice commands, a cartridge for digital terrain mapping (using a SAR emitter) etc.
Other than these 2 things, Tejas may be fully qualified to meet the MRCA requirements.
I would like to confirm if the SIVA pod that is to be installed on the Tejas has DFRM capabilities.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu,
really????how???????
rayrubik, the above has been discussed earlier already in a few posts above this one only.
I reiterate once again, that Tejas uses equivalent or advanced versions of avionics & systems of Su-30 MKI, like the Tarang RWR, Core Avionics mission computer, Litening pod (same version as on Typhoon), and other systems developed under project Vetrivel that include display processors and radar computer.
Now, the major difference between the Tejas and the Mirage-2000 remains the weapon-load capacity of 1,500 kgs. In fact, most contenders for MRCA have max. external weapon loads of 8,000 kgs. of which only 2,000 to 3,000 kgs is ever used for all mission configs. Thus, Tejas can compete with all these contenders for selection as an MRCA. The complete capacity of 6-8 tons in the foreign MRCA contenders can only be used to deliver nuclear warheads, and merely this capability alone does not merit their purchase.
scooter, as we have discussed earlier, the Tejas shall receive IoC by 2010 itself, whereas the MRCA selection shall consume most part of the next decade. Thus, Tejas shall have sufficient time to be considered for the MRCA.
AbhimanyuPlease note that as the Su-30 MKI is considered equivalent to Rafale, the Tejas should also be avionically equivalent to Rafale too, because it uses the same, or more advanced avionics than the Su-30 MKI. As an example, the Litening pod (version EF III) is the same one that is used in Eurofighter Typhoon.
Thus, sensor capabilities of Tejas are fully equivalent to Su-30 MKI, and they approach that of Typhoon in atleast one respect. The mmr radar of Tejas shall be multimode, and will use outer electronic boxes of the Elta 2032 radar, that are used in IsAF F-16s.
Hence, Tejas is rightly classified as a 4++ plane by Mr. Parthasarthy and Mr. Raman in their article. As reinforced by their article, Tejas would be the best cost-effective soluion for the MRCA, instead of expensive foreign planes. As pointed by Mr. Horumz’s article, the weapon-load of Tejas equals the MiG-29 (and MiG-27 bombers), leave aside MiG-21.
The “tag” of “lightweight MiG-21 replacement” is floated entirely by the media, and even found a reciprocative mention in the report of the Standing Committee of Defence.
vikas, I am atleast not aware of IN’s funding the N-LCA. However, the Tejas is one of the few projects of ALL time to have a land-variant, trainer as well as Naval variant being developed.
If any one thing that has the potential to kill this program is its engine development. By all accounts, the ball has been dropped in this aspect of the program and is a giant target for those who want this program closed. In every other aspect, the program has made acceptable progress.
Victor, I agree with your view. The IAF has expressed concern over propulsion, which in turn is due to supposedly increased empty-weight. The weight of Tejas cannot be more than 6,200 kgs because it is smaller than even T-50.
In its latest release from the Singapore Air Show, DRDO has expressed confidence in achieving IoC for the Tejs by 2010 using the newer GE-404 IN engines.
AbhimanyuOTOH, if MRCA is to be as late as you are saying-in this could actually happen in every likelihood-what would happen to IAF’s overall strength in between? Am i right in assuming that they would be forced to look for further stop-gap solutions, i.e. possibly buy more MKIs etc and/or upgrade more Mig-21s?
With regard to ASR, soes IAF want LCA to be a fully fledged true multirole machine from its induction or are they planning to take a machine which is able to do a few things like air defence (to start with) and gradually evolve into a true multirole platform?
vikasrehman, in my post above this one, the equivalence of Tejas with Rafale is discussed, along with its full multi-role capability. The IAF plans to induct the Tejas as a full multi-role fighter only.
For stop-gap solutions till the fruition of the MRCA deal, the IAF has already purchased an additional 40 Su-30 MKIs, and HAL is constructing an additional 20 Jaguar planes under licence. Upgrade programmes for extending the service spans of MiG-21s ,MiG-27s and other planes is also underway.
The Tejas is unlikely to be a “point-defence” plane as its range on a normal fighter configuration is estimated to be ~900 kms. Thus, a 400-450 km combat radius is sufficient for medium surgical strikes inside say, Pak or China.
AbhimanyuIt must be noted that as per Mr. Hormuz Mama’s article posted earlier, the Tejas can carry weapon-loads equivalent to MiG-29s (and MiG-27s) i.e. of the order of 4000 kgs. Range is also equivalent to these two planes.
Hence, Tejas can supplant even the MiG-29s and MiG-27s of the IAF, and not just MiG-21s only.
The following are the latest images of the Tejas from last month (courtesy of Mr. Ajai Shukla, ex-Indian army) :-
Static testing of Tejas (new LSP unit)
Structural coupling on the Tejas
Photos of Tejas LSP units (courtesy of Mr. Shiv Aroor, Headlines Today).
It must be noted that Tejas is equivalent if not more advanced than the Su-30 MKIs of the IAF in terms of avionics, because the Su-30 MKI has essentially been a test-bed for the avionics that are to be eventually installed in the Tejas. These include the Core avionics Mission computer, radar processors, display processors, and Tarang RWR.
Besides these, the Tejas shall also be equipped with the Israeli Litening pod (same as in IsAF F-16s), and a pulse doppler MMR with Elta supplied outer electronics box. This shall be equivalent to the pulse-doppler radars used in Rafale and Typhoon.
EADs has also offered AESA radar units for the Tejas, however this is at a quite preliminary stage currently. Hence from the above, the Tejas is equivalent to the Rafale in terms of technology, and will be superior if AESA radar is installed on the same.
It must be remembered that Tejas is a multirole fighter plane. With 8 hardpoints (equal to Gripen), it can carry the targeting pod, air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles and fuel tanks simultaneously. Its multi-mode radar (MMR) shall expedite the use of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. Air to air weapons shall include BVR missiles, and air to ground weapons shall include guided missiles like Matra and Kh- series of missiles, and laser guided munitions also.
Farooq, this report by Mr. Shiv Aroor, a known defence journalist on Headlines Today, has updates about the Tejas’ Naval version. It’s undercarriage needs strengthening due to the weights of the underhook and tension while landing. As per some magazine articles and ACIG reports, it shall feature controllable leading edge vortex extensions, along with a more “drooping” nose than the main Tejas.
The trainer version shall be flown first this year, as it is nearing construction (refer to the article with photos above).
Abhimanyuvikasrehman, as per ADA/DRDO, the Tejas shall achieve IoC by 2010. As we discussed earlier, going by the track record of slow procurements, the MRCA deal is unlikely to finalize before 2015, with deliveries to start even later. This delay may be increased further by the high number of competitors.
Thus, the Tejas has a chance of being considered for the MRCA “sweepstakes”, ADA shall have sufficient time to prove its capabilities to the IAF. Note that the ASRs of the Tejas are nearly equivalent to that of the Mirage-2000 of the IAF, and as the MRCA proposal actually began “incubation” only as a need for more Mirage-2000s (before France stopped all production), the Tejas can justify the role.
It is a misinformation generated by the media that ASRs of Tejas are equal to MiG-21. As per the article of Mr. Parthasarthy and Mr. Raman (quoted earlier), the ASRs of Tejas nearly match or exceed the Mirage-2000 in technology. These 2 gentlemen were advisors to the defence ministry, and have strongly proposed the Tejas as the MRCA — the first major media “voice” to say so.
AbhimanyuI think I have made “serious” errors in estimation of empty weights of Gripen & Tejas.
Earlier I had mistakenly subtracted 800 kgs of internal fuel from Gripen’s empty weight of 7,100 kgs (from Swedish Defence’s official website) because I thought it ought to have carried its full internal fuel. However, keeping swerve’s suggestion in mind I agreed later, that 7,100 kgs for Gripen is accurate.
Now, while making the reconciliation in post#315, I mistakenly subtracted a further weight = half of Tejas’ internal fuel weight from 7,100 kgs (Tejas’ empty weight as per placard) while completely forgetting that, that figure was arrived after having already subtracted the full internal empty weight from the MTOW of 13,500 kgs.
However, as Tejas is smaller than Gripen and uses a lighter engine, it can’t weigh 100 kgs more than Gripen.
The Singapore Air Show placard is also unacceptable (as per which Tejas weighs 6,500 kgs, because although this is still 0.5 tons lighter than Gripen, somehow it ends up weighing heavier than the larger and all-metal JF-17 (6,400 kgs).
Thus, in my view, Tejas’ empty weight must not exceed 5,500 to 6,500 kgs. Because, then either ADA is mistaken, or PAC Kamra must revise the weight of JF-17 by over an estimated 800-900 kgs
AbhimanyuActually earlier I arrived at 6,300 kgs of empty weight for Gripen considering data from official Swedish FMW itself. Arthur and swerve’s suggestion should have struck me that time itself. However at that time, actually I avoided refuting FMW’s data as it is official data. The end point was to prove Tejas lighter than Gripen.
By the end of the same post however, I concluded Tejas to be >1 ton lighter (instead of 0.5 tons) than Gripen, which though true now, was paradoxical for that particular post.
AbhimanyuAs Arthur said, maximum T/O weight is not the sum of empty weight, full internal load & full external load. For some types, full external load necessitates half-empty internal fuel tanks. Max T/O weight also depends on atmospheric conditions (pressure, temperature) & runway length.
swerve, the above is new information to me, which I admit I failed to understand earlier.
In that case, the earlier quote of mine that Arthur was refering to can be reconciled. I thought that the unlabelled placard was inaccurate.
However, as discussed earlier, as per the unlabelled placard posted earlier (ref. from BR forum), MTOW of Tejas was 13,500 kgs; internal fuel was ~ 2482 kgs and max. external stores as we know is 4,000 kgs. This equates to 7,100 kgs of weight inclusive of engine, which is greater than even 6,500 kgs as per Singapore Air Show.
From the above we can subtract 1,241 kgs of internal fuel further from the arrived figure of 7,100 kgs empty weight. This is because of swerve and Arthur’s correction that full internal fuel cannot be carried upon full external load.
Thus, subtracting a further 1,241 kgs of internal fuel from 7,100 kgs empty weight, we can arrive at 5,859 kgs empty weight of Tejas. This figure is again consistent with the earlier conclusion of the empty weight of Tejas being in the range of 5,500 to 6000 kgs only.
So, the unlabelled placard is also accurate, with the inaccuracy being only in the placard at the Singapore Air Show.
We can also reconcile the earlier inaccurate comment of mine regarding Gripen :
As per official Swedish Defence Material Administration, the empty weight of Gripen is 7000 kgs, max. external load is 5,300 kgs and MTOW is 14,000 kgs. This leaves only 1700 kgs for internal fuel, which cannot be the case as even Tejas carries > 2200 kgs fuel. Subtracting 800 kgs more internal fuel to make it fuel-less, we can arrive at 6,300 kgs.
The above subraction of a further 800 kgs of internal fuel from Gripen’s weight of 7000 kgs was thus wrong, as no more 1,700 kgs is possible upon full external load. Thus, Gripen’s empty weight including engines and without internal fuel is 7000 kgs.
AbhimanyuAlso, fuel weight is not a constant. If differs in temperature and density that’s why the FMV page you linked to on the Gripen lists the fuel in litres. That’s how a serious official source would write it. Not playing around with guesses, rumours and weights that changes over its operative use.
3000 liters is official for Gripen 39A/C. Which when using the most commonly used density factor of 0.8 puts it at 2400 kgs.
(The effective use of that fuel also depends on factors such as airframe drag and engine consumtion. The RM12 is less fuel hungry to a minor extent than the F404 versions fitted to the Tejas.)
There’s a higher amount of composite in the 39C version than in the 39A, that’s how the jet can now take 5300kg of patyload as opposed to 3600 on the 39A. With MTOW at 14t on 39C as opposed to 12t on 39A. The amount of composite, and what type of material (!) for the 39C is not publically available.
signatory, the internal fuel capacity of Tejas in litres is 2,727 litres at pressure of 49 kPA. The total fuel capacity is 5,127 litres with external fuel maintained at 70 kPA.
Although unconfirmed, it is unlikely that military planes have widely differing kPA values for fuel storage, more so for planes that have variants of a similar engine.
As discussed earlier, as per the official websites of Typhoon and Tejas, the percentage of composites in Tejas is greater by way of surface area and also by way of weight. Subjectively, keeping Typhoon as a benchmark, it is unlikely that the percentage of composites in the Tejas is significantly lesser than the Gripen (if at all).
See the F-16. It can carry 10 tons externally but with full internal fuel it goes down to 7 tons. Whole point is that u takeoff aircraft with almot no fuel and refuel it two to three times in air. This concept pretty much works with USAF as plenty of tankers and airdominance over combat area.
Note that max. external load of F-16 is 6.9 to 7 tons only, as per most quoted sources. The figure of 10 tons is not even for Su-30 MKI (8tons) or F-18 (8 tons), or Rafale & Typhoon (9-9.5 tons).
FC-1 specificaiton confusion is due to changes into prototype 04 from earlier that made the aircraft bigger. 15m length & 9.5m wing span.
See note that, that issue was pertaining to an error on 2 consecutive pages of the PAC website. Other than top speed at altitude (not sea-level), the max. external loads also differ.
And there is no operational status of Teja having actually lifted 4 tons. u have to gurantee 6000 to 8000 hrs with such loads. And ur not even at 2000 Flight test mark which Gripen achieved 13 year ago. it is very long process to become a multirole. So Teja cannot be considered for MMRCA.
Till now, actually Tejas has lifted ~3 tons considering addition of drop-tanks with dummy missiles. As per ADA’s website, total flight time needed for certification is 2,000 hours.
The MRCA deal, as per most estimates cannot be concluded before the latter part of next decade considering the track record of slow pace of defence procurement. The Tejas is scheduled to obtain IoC by 2010, by which time it can be a competitor for the MRCA.
AbhimanyuAnd what makes you think that full internal + full external loads don’t exceed the maximum total load? I’m sure you have heard about tankers refuelling combat jets right after takeoff in order to fill up their fuel tanks? Yep, that’s because they took off with a full external load, but then needed to reduce their internal load. You can’t just blindly add-up these numbers.
Arthur, in that case the added Max. Take-Off Weight will be even lesser than 13,500 kgs as claimed. The 4000 kgs external load of Tejas is inclusive of ~ 2812 kgs fuel.
Your comparison with the Gripen’s weight is fishy too, unless you really know the structural details of the airframe. And there’s more to that than the amount of plastic used.
Actually, the figures quoted are from official Swedish Defence Material Administration site only.
AbhimanyuNow, member of a bigoted forum should be taken as proof on flight testing
See, the member K Prasad is credited with the image of the placard from Singapore Air Show, which I posted earlier.
You had claimed 6g yourself here, but now claim 4g based on 2005 reports.
So they have forgone the X altitude and Y speed as untainable goals and concentrating instead to fire directionless missiles:rolleyes:
The above is your conclusion only. The altitudes, speed and G limits were reached in clean config, i.e. without any load. Now, they were tested with various loads and at varying locations like sea-level at Arakkonam. Himalayan and desert testing with varying loads is to be done.
It is not just Mr Putin was the wintness to the flying capabilities of LCA, there were others and anybody who doubted LCA capabilities to fly
Former premier of France Mr. Raffarin was seated in Tejas’ mock cockpit as per this page. The visit of Presidents of Venezuela and Chilean Defence minister from ADA’s list is not mentioned (probably not counted as tests), though I only performed search and did not search individual records of the site.
Even then, the number will not exceed 6, which is a small fraction of 843 tests done till now (or even 480 till 2005), contrary to the magazine’s false claim of portraying “numerous” flights for air-shows or dignitaries.
The testing goes on to the production units also, but the objective of TD phase were not achived even today.
As per the this site posted by you, it mentions and I quote, “The truth is that LCA is still under ‘Technology Demonstrator’ stage…”, end quote. Thus, the Technology Demonstration stage includes the PV units also and not “rigidly” the TD units only.
As mentioned earlier, ADA’s website also mentions that testing is to be done through TD as well as PV units, and not TD units alone.
Now we are down to Thunder from coparision:D , I thought we will be comparing F-22 compexities and how Typhone timline is skewed tooo.
That was in response to “mistakes” issue you raised. PAC Kamra did not get specifications of top speed and empty weight correctly on its website, in same manner as ADA did not get specifications of Tejas consistently on placards of Singapore 2008 and DefExpo 2008.
The only concern remaining now is the issue of low thrust, which the IAF claims. As per official Swedish Defence Material Administration, the empty weight of Gripen is 7000 kgs, max. external load is 5,300 kgs and MTOW is 14,000 kgs. This leaves only 1700 kgs for internal fuel, which cannot be the case as even Tejas carries > 2200 kgs fuel. Subtracting 800 kgs more internal fuel to make it fuel-less, we can arrive at 6,300 kgs.
This figure is inclusive of engine weight, as further subtracting 1,100 kgs of the weight of GE-414 would yield the implausible figure of 5,200 kgs.
Gripen is larger than Tejas with lesser composite percentage. Its wing area is ~ 25.5 sq. m and taking per canard area of Su-30 as ref+1, total wing area of Gripen is >33 sq. m. This is not much lesser than Tejas’ 38.4 sq. m wing area.
Thus, even inclusive of engines, Tejas’ empty weight must be less than 6,300 kgs of Gripen. Thus, figure of placard of Singapore Air Show must be inaccurate, and the figure of 5,680 kgs as in the DefExpo 2008 was accurate. Note that this figure is inclusive of GE-F404 engine.
However, as discussed earlier, as per the unlabelled placard posted earlier (ref. from BR forum), MTOW of Tejas was 13,500 kgs; internal fuel was ~ 2482 kgs and max. external stores as we know is 4,000 kgs. This equates to 7,100 kgs of weight inclusive of engine, which is greater than even 6,500 kgs as per Singapore Air Show.
In this context, we finally take the figures listed on ADA’s website itself : clean weight of 8500 kgs, external load of >4000 kgs. Subtracting internal fuel weight from clean weight gives ~6,000 kgs (which is again 1 tonne less than Gripen) inclusive of engine, avionics, canon etc. Note that the site independently lists empty weight as 5,500 kgs.
Whatever be the case, empty weight of Tejas is between 5500 and 6000 kgs only, which still makes it >1 ton lighter than Gripen and 0.5 tons lighter than T-50 in present configuration.
References :-
AbhimanyuWhat makes you surre that it is indeed the case?? Do you have inside info of Flight testing or based on the report? If it is latter could you kindly back it up.
Actually as per a member on bharat rakshak forum, upon inquiry from officers at Singapore Air Show 2008 they answered that Tejas has reached 6.5 G. I too recalled reading a news report to the same effect, but could not find it since past few days.
Also, as mentioned earlier, sea-trials, drop tank trials etc. have been conducted within the parameters, as merely achieving x altitude and y speed is not sufficient.
You sound like conspiracy theorist now……. that all ganged up against LCA. Could you not contrive it as geniune concern in the slippage of LCA schedule?
President Putin’s record of witnessing Tejas is on ADA’s weofficial website here.The entire record of Tejas’ flight tests is maintained on ADA’s site here
Total tests in AI-07, 05 and 03 and Mr. Putin’s visit do not exceed 4.
Have you read that article, which says it specifically about TD……unless you have a cousin/uncle in loop:D to know contrary to that.
As per ADA’s website itself, the testing phase is to include not only TD-1 and TD-2, but also PV units 1, 2 and 3. Note that PV-1 onwards significant weight reduction was achieved.
So they are not sure what the weight is ……….. or….. spreading confusion in the ranks of Enemy by disinformation:diablo:
As mentioned earlier, the SA placard might have included the engine weight also.
But it could also be a mistake similar to the one in the official website of PAC Kamra, which on this page lists max. speed of JF-17 as 1.6 M on altitude, whereas on this page it is 1.8 M. The max. external loads on both pages are also different.
AbhimanyuIf, the Gripen can take a GE-414 in place of the original GE-404. You would think India could do the same with the LCA??? That said, maybe India should join the NG Gripen Program and just cancel the languishing LCA!?!?!?
scooter, actually GE-414 was proposed by the IAF, but was rejected by the ADA as many structural changes would have to be done to the Tejas airframe, which would delay the aircraft.
A member from Bharat Rakshak forums said that the placards at the Singapore Air Show mentioned the empty weight as 6,500 kgs whereas the DefExpo 2008 exhibition mentioned the empty weight as ~5,600 kgs.
Another placard at an unspecified exhibition mentioned MTOW as 13,500 kgs, internal fuel as 2485 kgs and external as 2812 kgs. In addition to that is we take (from public sources) weight of GE-404 engine as 1100 kgs, weight of radar as 100 kgs and newer avionics as 100 kgs, the empty weight of Tejas conforms to 5,600 kgs.
Thus, the figure quoted at Singapore Air Show may be empty weight inclusive of the engine.
Thus, GE-404 engine should be sufficient propulsion for Tejas. However, the IAF’s objections are not yet made public.
References :-
1) http://www.thehindu.com/2007/12/01/stories/2007120156141600.htm
2) Tejas MTOW
AbhimanyuThen, pray tell me what are they doing for the last 800 Flights, when the flight parametrers are not expanded from 2005 onwards.
Flight parameters have been expanded within those already obtained, but they are not advanced further.
What do any one make out, and being Air Marshell he should be knowing something about “Flight Testing” to comments like that!!!:rolleyes:
The respected Marshal definitely knows, but he was not commenting about Tejas in particular.
The magazine inserted his generalized comment to imply something false i.e. Tejas only takes off and lands during tests.
The magazine is also mistaken about air-shows and shows before delegates which do not number more than 4.
That is the point you are missing, the objectives of Technical Demonstrator were not met and they went for some “show off” of dummy missile fire…..heck even LTTE could fire from their make do DIY fighters:D
No the above were not objectives of TD-1 and TD-2 (Technical Demonstrator) alone, but those of PV series and LSP series also. As mentioned earlier, the expansion included sea-trials, drop tank carriage, missile firing, and testing of HUD, HMDS, reinforced composite structures, better sensors and avionics.
Note that each flight test lasts for only 40 minutes (now increased to 1 hour after drop tank addition). Thus, many tests are needed to validate all behaviours under all scenarios and occurences. Note that a similar quad FBW plane, the Gripen had once crashed during flight testing.
Sign In
