As far as the production rate of LCA is concerned, I think the real limitation factor is the ability of IAF (and this would apply to any and every modern air force) to assimilate LCA rather than how many HAL can produce per year. Im sure HAL (if they want to) can churn out 50 LCA per year, but IAF does not have unlimited sources. IAF has various other programmes going on at the same time, and every one of them requires resources and attention. While IAF is inducting LCA, IAF has to concentrate on MKI. MMRCA would be coming in a few years time, and then there is FGFA. That’s a heck of a lot of new fighters and a lot of pilots would need a lot of hours on these new machines. You are talking about setting up of new maintenance shops, logistics and so on. So the LCA production rate would be determined by IAF and not HAL.

Direct Fit means it will fit into the airframe with little or minor modifications to the engine/airframe.

Any official source about minor modifications only? Of the top of my head, one engine would require more changes than the other, though Im not sure which one.

Come on people, please leave these non-related disccusions out of this thread. Lets get back to the topic.

[QUOTE=Abhimanyu;1507567]However, for brevity the figure of 6,500 kgs is accepted, as displayed on an official ADA placard at Aero-India 2009.[QUOTE]

Thank you.

OBOGs, strengthened weapons stations, and the most important : ever more avionics demands like an all-glass cockpit, full HMDS system, and all the “bells and whistles” from Su-30 MKI, like core avionics computer, DARE suit, and many other properties that are simply non-existent in a MiG-21.

All of the above undoubtedly increase the empty weight of Tejas from 5,500 to 6,500 kgs.

First of all, I don;t think anyone can say with abs authority that it was ONLY the new ASR which increased the weight by 1,000 kg. Can you say with absolute certainty that ADA would have met the target of 5,500 kg if IAF had not changed the original ASR?

Second, IAF gave its first ASR in 80s. Being the end user, they were only interested in the final product being delivered on time. It was the job of the designers and project managers to take into consideration the impact of delays. If they told IAF (at the start) we would give you a product in this year, so be it. Times change & so do the rules of combat. And if IAF had to change the goal posts in 21st century because they did not get the final product on time, then they are hardly to be blamed for it. Having said so, I do believe that more flexibility from IAF would have been better for LCA and indian aviation industry.

I fully agree with the above. The IAF must indeed seriously consider the Tejas Mk.2 for it’s MRCA requirement, instead of importing an expensive foreign fighter. This is because, with the Tejas Mk.1 already a match to the Gripen C/D, the Tejas Mk.2 is likely to match the Gripen NG, (which is an MRCA contender).

The article in post 293 states that MMRCA fighter trials would be completed by the April 2010. Do you think ADA/HAL can send something remotely resembling MK.2 for these trials before IAF submits its final reports?

no insig, the MKI,MKM and MKA form a type. the later two are derivatives of the MKI.

the MKK, MKK2, MK3 and MKV form another type.

it all started with the su-27PU combat capable trainer. that’s where the similarity ends. the MKI and MKK are significantly different to be called different aircrafts. they are also made at different factories in russia, the MKI at IAPO and the MKM at KnAAPO.

Rahul, F-16 Block 1 and Block 60 also have more than significant differences? Can they be called different aircrafts?

vikas, abhimanyua, I don’t think the 6500 t figure includes the testing equipment. 5.5t empty was initial projection only but the project people have been consistently speaking of 6.5 t for sometime now.
if we estimate from ajai shukla’s figures for loaded weight, current empty weight is a little more than 7t out of which 300 odd kg is from telemetry etc equipment. and some more weight, around 200-300 kg can be shaved off from the display systems etc according to the designers. the detailed figures can be found in my posts in BR’s LCA thread.
final empty weight of Mk1 will be a little less than 6500 kg IMO.

Thanks Rahul. That makes a lot more sense than anything I had come across previously. I always thought that giving the increased ASR and so on, an increase in empty weight should have been expected (though I don’t know how much of an increase IAF were expecting?). But the impression I got from some posters here was that LCA’s current empty weight (of 6,500 kg) includes all the testing equipment and so, and the final figure should be closer to 5,500 kg rather than 6,500 kg.

Vikas,

The g limits are built into the design- its not a question of reducing x components weight and getting to a lower g limits. So when you have designed for certain capability, why downgrade – when you can add a higher power engine and manage.

And the LCA’s “weight problems” have to do with scope creep – the IAF added a fair bit of stuff because of which the weight reduction from ADA was only partially offset. PV-2

Teer, Im not talking about downgrading it. So let me ask the question form a different angle. Had an 8G limit built into LCA’s design, would LCA’s empty weight been the same or lower?

As for IAF’s addition, I think it was BRF where I came across a debate about this issue quite recently. And the argument against pinning the whole blame, i.e. for weight increase, on IAF was not a weak one. But then these are just opinions, and we cant say much since we don’t the exact details of it all, i.e. viewpoints of all concerned parties.

APP being real loony. A photoshop of an IAF tanker to boot, couldnt they have just waited for the actual tankers to arrive.

Edited: Ankush nailed it as well.

It was idiotic indeed.:)

LCA is significantly under budget, although it is late by 3-4 years.

Rahul, any details on the budget, i.e. how much was planned and how much has been spent?