vikasrehmanThe only difference it has with the F-16 or Rafale is that it cannot carry cruise missiles & nuclear payloads. It can carry a comparable number of conventional payloads at similar combat-radii, as these jets.
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???
vikasrehmanSens, I too agree with you, though I OTOH believe that designing a good fighter is possible even when the engine is also going through the development. There are fighters out there that have been or are being designed in such a way, but then the nations involved usually have a lot more experience in these field than India has. 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. For example, as Nick mentioned that 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. Even a novice like myself knows that fighters take years to design and (those that get through) remain in service for decades. Now if im not mistaken, work on R-73 began in 70s and it enetered service in mid 80s. It was meant to replace Aphid and weighed almost twice as much as the latter. If LCA was still designed (in 90s) to use Aphid as its primary weapon, I can only blame the lack of sight and project management.
With regard to the success of LCA/Kaveri, i also believe that their success is linked to quick induction into IAF.
vikasrehmanWeight primarily. The original wing was stressed for lighter WVR missiles per ASRs, but once the IAF put forth new specs, ie the R73E
Nick, which WVR missile was LCA meant to be using and what is the weight diffrence between those and R-73E?
Upon reading the book & other primary contributors comments on the subject, I can say its a bloody miracle that the LCA is not only flying but that its critical FBW has been actually kept on track. The entire aircraft in fact – the same issues with the engines, again all support had ceased, and there were but two instrumented engines essential for test flying. By a stroke of luck and some careful thought, the head of LCA Propulsion, had actually obtained the entire engine mathematical thrust model before the sanctions, so the LCA team was able to assess the range and performance via simulation before the test flights began and validated the assumptions.
Pardon my ignorance. But why did India not seek help from russians…i dont think the russians put any sanctions on them???
vikasrehmanThe LCA Story by AM Rajkumar is a start, it clearly states that unreasonable targets were set in order to push the project team ahead, and these targets were near impossible in the best of times, but became unattainable thanks to the Indian economic crisis of 91.
Nick, this is a really interesting point. Although I cant claim that I know much about aviation industry, but 2 the best of my knowledge this is not the norm in west, i.e. setting up of unreasonable targets in such mega projects to push the project team ahead. However, since India was trying to establish an aviation indutry and has a different culture compared with the west, it is plausible it is plausible (though not logical since failure to meet impossible deadline will be demoralising for those involved) that they may have followed this line of action. But I wonder who was setting up these tight deadlines, and why did they keep giving out such optimistic deadline again and again (over the years we have seen a number of deadlines for service entry)?
vikasrehmancoldfire2005, 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.
20?
Besides the initial order (number?) to power the earlier prototypes, I think HAL put in an order for 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines back in 2004 (worth $105 million or so) followed by a further order for 24 in 2007 (worth >$100 million)…and i make it a grand total of 41.
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20070207.html
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.
Same performance as RM12?
According to the following, RM12 produces a thrust of 80.5 KN (and yet it appears to be enough for Gripen). OTOH F404-IN 20 is more in 85 KN class (see the above website)
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/military/f404/f404-rm12.html
http://www.volvo.com/volvoaero/global/en-gb/products/Aircraft+engines/RM12/RM12.htm?TAB=2
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.
Now F404-IN 20 were first ordered in 2004, and Im sure HAL muct have started looking/negotiating for these sometime before. This raises a question. Did HAL know at the time that they are going to have problems with LCA’s weight? OTOH, if this incrased weight is more of a recent issue arising from IAF’s increased ASR, would F404-IN 20’s thrust be enough…keeping in mind the old requirements for which F404-IN 20 was ordered?
vikasrehmanNow, 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.
Poor planning and management.
Whatever be the case, the F404 is inadequate for fighters whose weight class crosses 6,500 kgs — except for trainers like T-50. The same is being felt in case of the Tejas, which like the T-50 and earlier Gripen models, has crossed the 6,400 kgs “threshold”, and hence needs a more powerful engine.**
:confused:
**As opined earlier, if the Tejas were to be declared as a trainer, it would get global orders ‘tomorrow’ (figuratively speaking).
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.:)
vikasrehmanKaduna2003, as per a news report, ADA rejected the GE-F414 engine because it would have involved substantial redesign of the Tejas’ airframe. The GE-F414 is no longer being considered for Tejas.
LCA was optimised for Kaveri, which is not exactly round the corner. You say that a substantial redesign (for F414) is ou of question. Based on this, I can only assume that another engine is also out of question, unless it fits the current LCA without any major modifications to the latter’s design…and I dont know how many there are. So where does that leave LCA? Will IAF accept it with current thrust, or will it keep waiting for Kaveri?
vikasrehmanSorry, this makes no sense whatsoever. China did not get ‘high level approval from the Russians’ to send the JF-17 to the PAF. The Russians don’t have that much say in the project. The Russians were simply sourced to provide the engine, and from the beginning they knew it was a joint Pak/Sino project, with the aircraft being operated by the PAF. IF the Russians were really serious about not allowing the PAF to have the RD-93 for the JF-17, they wouldnt have suplied the engine, simple as that. They only started making noises later when the project was advancing, and event then, only becuase India was making a big hooh ha about it.
The new 18 Block-52 F-16’s will be the only 4+ generation aircraft with the PAF, this is a pitiful number considering what it will have to come up against. Yes, it is obvious the PAF can’t get more western 4+ generation aircraft due to lack of purchasing power, like I emphasised in my previous post.
China always had the tacit approval from Russians about RD-93 re-export to PAF, and that is why PAF always maintained that there was no issue wrt the engine. You say that The Russians don’t have that much say in the project. FC-1/JF-17 was built around RD-93, and while Russians cant influences its development, they had a lot of say about engine since it was of russian origin. If im not mistaken, China had only purchased 5 or so engines for the prototypes, and the contract for 100 engines was only signed couple of years back. Why do you think both Pak and China invested heavily into this project if they were not sure of the engine. Of course, another foreign engine could have been used (as of now China does not have a domestic equivalent in operational service) had the Russian not allowed the re-export, but that would have meant re-designing the aircraft (for optimum performance) which would have taken more time and money. Point being that there never was any real issue about the re-export of RD-93 to PAF. Of course J-11 B/BS can be sold to Pakistan (though PAF as of now has no interest in this machine), but any such sale would require either a Russian approval or a landslide decline in Russian-Chinese relations.
PS. All F-16s in PAF will be upgraded (MLU), which is generally considered to be roughly equivalent to Blk 50/52.
vikasrehmanYou speak of logic and reality, yet you seem to forget that China has been making un-licensed copies of Russian aircraft for quite some time now. These include copies of the Mig-17, Mig-19 (J-6, Q-5 Fantan), Mig-21 (J-7). China has not only produced thousands of these copies, but exported hundreds of them to dozens of countries, including Pakistan, and yet, Russia never rasied any objections, even if it could, what could Russia do about it?
Mig-17, -19, -21…all first and second gen aircrafts. One must realise that it was the deteriorating relations between Russia and China as well as the latter’s political isolation at the time that pushed China towards unlicensed production. Right now, China and Russia have rather good relations (though not forgetting their self interests), and I dont think either would want to do something silly. This is why China pushed and waited to get the formal approval from the highest level in Russia before sending first JF-17 to Pakistan.
The PAF is acquiring 18 new Block-52 F-16, quite a pitiful number considering what it will likely be up against, and will be acquiring ~30 used F-16s upgraded to Block 52 standard, in addition to the ~30 current F-16s, also likely to be upgraded to Block 52 standard. This would indicate ~80 F-16s, between 4-5 squadrons. The PAF had originally planned to operate ~100 F-16s, so all the support and maintenance infrastructure is in place to support these additional F-16s, not much further expenses would be required to support this number of F-16’s.
Why do you think PAF is buying a ‘pitiful’ number? Not the lack of trust, rather the depth of their pocket. OTOH, J-11B might be cheaper to buy, it will be heck of a lot more expensive to maintain and fly. Ask the Israelis (with their Eagles) and IAF.
Only time would tell. But if PAF sticks to its current plans, then the logical step after FC-20 is next gen fighter, and if these plans materialise J-11 has no place in present PAF plans.
vikasrehmanvikasrehamn, 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.
Sens, as per news reports Tejas currently “suffers” from lack of thrust only.
So why does it suffer from the lack of thrust, when its meant to be smaller and lighter than T-50 and Gripen? What does Tejas has that the others two dod not?
vikasrehmanThere is an air of desperation in your comments….how can you be so sure China won’t sell?? If it is willing to sell the J10, which it kept secret for so many years, why wouldn’t it consider selling the J11? It’s hardley an unkown or secretive project. Why is a Flanker derivative out of Pakistan’s league? In what sense? The J11 will probably have alot of carry over technology from the J10, which the PAF are getting anyway, so not sure what you mean here. In fact, the J11 would be perfect for complimenting the J10. If the PAF did go for the J11 or the J11BS, the only thing new for the PAF would be operating a twin engined heavy fighter, which the PAF has traditionally avoided, instead prefering multi-role single engined fighters.
The minimum strenght you speak of will be maintained by the JF-17, which is epected to be procurred in large numbers. The F-16 and J10 are expected to be acquired in far smaller numbers, relative to the JF-17. So it’s not inconceivable to imagine the PAF operating 2-3 squadrons of J11/J11BS.
Desperation? Sorry, but you are very much mistaken. I was talking of logic & reality and not some mere fantasy.
So, why wouldn’t China sell J-11 to Pakistan? Well, regardless of what anyone says, J-11 B/BS remains a Russian design which is manufactured in China. I have no doubt that majority of its components are being manufactured in China, and tomorrow it will be a 100% chinese product, but this does not make it a chinese design. JF-17 is a sino-pak design, filling it up with french everything does not make it a property of french…or does it? Today’s China and Russia are very much different from what they were a decade or so ago. China has increasingly integrated itself into capitalist society, and realises the importance of intellectual property rights with her own R&D expanding rapidly. Fighter purchases are usually big news, and while Russia might look the other way if China keeps producing J-11 at home for PLAAF, exporting it to another country (without involving Russians) would be totally different ball game, and I dont think either country would want to take that route…for a number of reasons. One must also remember that China will not be completely independent (in terms of military technology) of Russia for some years yet and Russia of today is no loger that cash-starved country of 90s that could not do anything. Such a sale wouldn’t go down too well with Russians, if you know what i mean.
Now take a look at Pakistan. First you are mistaken that PAF has traditionally shied away from twin engined aircrafts. F-6 and A-5…both are twin engined. Athough, one might wish for PAF to maintain parity with IAF, reality is somewhat different. Take a look at PAF…its a regional force with financial limitations and has to face a foe much larger its size. PAF’s primary moto is the defence of Pakistani air space followed by providing support to Pakistan’s armed services. Keeping this in mind, JF-17 will become operational in PAF by next year, and if proven in service it will become the backbone of PAF (over next few years) by replacing F-7s, A-5, and Mirages. This will take up a lot of resources and not only for procurement of those fighters but also establishing all the facilities. PAF will also get those new F-16s and standardise the whole lot by upgrading all it present A/B and the used ones she will get from US. That is not a small number, but 5 to 6 squadrons, and all those maintenance/logistical facilities will have to be expanded. More resources would be consumed by gradual induction of AEW&C, refuellers, and air-defence systems. Only when F-16 is fully inducted, would PAF venture into J-10…and hopefully by then J-10 will be a mature technology with more advanced variants avaliable. But this would again take up a lot of resources, leaving no room for something like J-11…just ask the indians or israelis how expensive the flying of big flankers and eagles, respectively, is. Anyway, by that time PAF will be more interested in chinese next gen rather than something J-11.
One common mistake, a lot of us make is that we tend to look at only one side of picture. Pakistan will not be in any rush to attack India for whatever reason under any forseeble circumstances. Pakistani high brass knows that India armed forces will manitain their qualitative/quantitative edge over Pakistan, so they have putting greater efforts into integrating their defence over the years. Over coming few years, economic situation allowing, you will see more modernisation along those lines, and maximum effort will go into establishing a credible nuclear triad. They have their land based systems, more sophisticated air launched systems are around the corner, and a lot of work is currently going into establishing the third leg. Taken into consideration all this, J-11 B does not bring anything new to Pakistan’s defence, but greater financial burden.
vikasrehmanRight now the top priority of the Tejas is to develop more thrust from any engine available globally.
The T-50 which weighs slightly more than Tejas’ empty weight is “tolerated” with a top speed of Mach 1.4 and 8G limit, because it is only a trainer. For a full-fledged fighter like Tejas, the current M 1.4 and 6G are not tolerated.
Incidentally, both the T-50 and Tejas are powered by the same engine, i.e. GE-F404 and T-50’s official website also describes it as an ‘LCA’. So, there may be no “cause for alarm”, as we have the T-50 as an example to prove that Tejas’ current performance is normal.
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.
vikasrehmanIt 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.
Indeed what matters in a fighter is what is inside it and not the mere shell. But the shell has to be big enough for everything to be packed inside it and still maintain the performance (to an extent). LCA upon its conception was meant to be a replacement for Mig-21, and considering everything the small shell was good enough for the purpose. Unfortunately for LCA, IAF over the years has been evolving, and in 21st century it wants to be recognised as a global airpower and not only the regional…dats why you see all these requirements for MRCA, MKI etc. While you can pack a lot into that small shell of LCA, it would undoubtedly lose some of its flight charactersitics…and may be that is why IAF is still hesitant about this little fighter.
PS. IAF is an operating service. When it requires new equipment, GoI supplies the funds. IAF is bothered about flying those machines, and not where they come from, who pays for them, or how indigenous they are. IAF will be happy as long as it gets those machines to perform the way it wants. Over the last decade or so, IAF has made a lot of purcahses , and knows that GoI will provide funds as required. So why go for an indigenous product with limitations when off the shelf better proven products are available.
vikasrehmanBeautiful bird… Has Pakistan shown any interest yet?
China will not sell, and Pakistan is not interested in buying an flanker or its variants. The only time PAF showed some interest in flanker was back in 90s though it turned out to be mere part of pressure tactics for US to release embargoed F-16. What is clear that PAF wants to build an AF around F-16/JF-17 and J-10 (when more advanced variants are available). Flanker is almost out of PAF’s league considering the fact that PAF wants to maintain a minimum strength.
vikasrehmanWhat’s the big deal? It ain’t no Su-35BM, SM level at best.
Didn’t Russia try to sell SM type upgrade to China for her SU-27/J-11. But producing an equivalent in China sends a message to the Russians that China is no longer interested in downgraded purchases.
Sign In
