swerve, I agree that most fighters would include IFR ‘plumbs’ as an inherent part of the empty weight. However, what was mentioned earlier was full IFR plumbing to include both refuelling types like A2A refueling,
and buddy-buddy refueling etc. In addition to this, it is unclear whether hot refueling is also present on the Tejas. All these types are NOT present on all planes.**

Hence, the inclusion of all these facilities may have resulted in a significant increase in tonnage of the Tejas.

I wonder if IAF included similar IFR requirement in RFP for MMRCA.

As the above report mentions, Boeing’s consultancy is being sought to accelerate the flight-test regime so that the target of achieving IoC by 2010 is met. I quote from it, “This will avoid unnecessary flights, saving on both costs, and even more importantly, time, enabling the ADA to compress the LCA’s flight test programme.”, end quote.

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

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.

As swerve said, I dont think this is the case. Of course additions/modifications add weight, but that is precisely why manufacturers/airforces pay a lot of attention to them. Take a look at F-16 as an example. As F-16 A/B evolved into C/D and then E/F, its weight has gradually increased. However, installment of more powerful engines has gone a long way in taking care of those increases in weight…though airforces have had to make certain compromises as well.

With regard to JF-17, of course empty weight will change as the airframe evolves further. However, these changes will be brought in gradually. For example, I know IFR is planned for JF-17 as well as extra hardpoints which would require strengthing of the airframe, but so is use of lighter composite materials and more powerful engines in subsequent batches over the years. It will be gradually upgraded in stages where one change complements another…though as in all fighter upgrades Im sure compromises will have to be made. As of now, to the best my knowledge JF-17’s empty weight is inclusive of presently chosen avionics. and though addition of newer avionics might make some difference, it wont be up to 2 tons.

take into consideration

. Take a look at the weight

Hello? Where were you all these days? Havent I and many other posters posted about the ASR revision again and again? About the Mirage 2000 being the “ideal” for the IAF & how the IAF wanted M2K performance from the LCA airframe and how challenging the task was for ADA?

Of course, I can well imagine fellows like that Burrra whatever from KSA, ignoring the facts in his intent to troll, but you are a serious chap! Take a look at a few threads previous, and you’ll see reports from the Scientific Advisor and a Navy Admiral about the LCAs development, mentioning the same thing! Now when & where these requirements began to pop up is a discussion by itself, but over the past few years, the IAF has finally made a commitment to the LCA, but after making a substantial revision to its specs in some ways.

The problem is of course, to an extent the IAFs inability to draw up a proper requirements map of what they wanted from the LCA, but to an extent what they have asked for is achievable, but after a lot of effort. The IAF wants a fleet of “desi” Mirage 2000s in a manner of speaking..in terms of some KPs, even though range and payload will still be lesser. But far more than the earlier point interceptor role that was envisaged in 1990.

Nick, So IAF has finally made a commitment to the LCA. Does this mean they were not really committed before or perhaps only half-heartedly committed…as a lot of people have said on countless occasions?
If those substantial revisions mean packing an extra 2000 (or so) kg into world’s (meant to be) lightest weight fighter, which would require another foreign engine (while the indigenous engine is not really around the corner), then IAF have indeed set a mamoth of a task for ADA to solve. ADA is not exactly the world leader in fighter innovation, and may be IAF does not realise that a child needs to learn to walk before entering 100m world cup. But then IAF is indeed the customer, and perhaps they are not as concerned about the unit cost and indigenisation etc.
To be honest, it is because of this ‘continually raising the bar approach’ over the years, and their inability to draw up a proper requirements map over the years that people raise questions about IAF’s ‘real committment’ to LCA. Of course, a lot of effort can achieve anything…but the question is whether that would be worth it in terms of LCA becoming operational. My personally opinion is that LCA would have had a much better future, had it been inducted into IAF with lower requirements, its technology allowed to be matured, and it be gradually upgraded.

CFTs are one of the ways, but in terms of fuel consumption, dont think the payload and range will be affected drastically. IFR is also being added for the same. Remember, its all about trading payload for performance, and with 230 MKIs, 126 MRCAs, 50 odd Mirage 2000s and 63 MiG-29s- each with a modern avionics fit, not to mention at least 40MiG-27 Upg and twice that number of Jags, the LCA will not be required to be a heavy duty bomb truck.

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. Neither for instance has the option of TFR, which the LCA will have, or for that matter radar imaging.

What the IAF wants of the LCA is what it wants of everything it inducts, worldclass performance in terms of avionics, and airframe performance, in every respect. That allows them flexibility in using it as they see fit. Yes, to a degree they are irresponsible, in that they constantly ask for the moon.

Now its a moot point whether the LCA even requires many of the items being added to it, cheaper and simpler alternatives exist – but the harder path has always been asked by the IAF, and since they are the customer, ADA has to move viz the same.

I think only time will reveal to us as to what IAF wanted LCA to be. As of now, I see no guarantees whatsoever that by the time ADA readies LCA with new requirements IAF won’t turn round and raise those requirements once again…since the world class performance (demanded by IAF) would be higher in another few years time than what it is as of now.

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.

Per IAF itself, the basic Ge404 LCA is enough as a Mig-21 replacement – original ASRs, but they think the LCA is capable of more and want more. ADA has agreed provided IAF is reasonable and takes the first Ge equipped tranches – which the IAF is.

Nick, Nothing amiss???

I think there is a lot here that is beyond logic/comprehension. Didn’t IAF or ADA realise that packing a small airframe like LCA with all this stuff would would increase its weight and require a more powerful engine? Im sure all the avionics of F-15 can be packed into F-16 (just imagine the advantages with logistics and billions of $ saved), but there are reasons as to why USAF operates both types. As Abhimanyu put it earlier in this thread, ‘In short, the IAF wanted a Mirage-2000’s weapon-load and fuel-range — in the airframe of the size of a MiG-21.‘, and Im beggining to think that this might be true.

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. It is precisely these rumours which make people think that perhaps someone in India does not want to see LCA in IAF service…in numbers. I won’t be surprised, if tomorrow IAF raises an issue about its range not being adequate.

If these interceptions are taking place within international space, then all countries have to behave professionally…as one little spark can cause a big fire. OTOH, if it happens within a particular country’s airspace which I dont think has happend so far, then it should be forced landing.

The smart solution is to lower the specifications for the LCA with the present interim engine, to bring a usefull number of LCA into service as quick as possible. The later replacement with Kaveri as an option. At least the Chinese are clever enough to do so with the similar FC-1/RD-93.

Over next few years, a number of IAF Mig-21s are to be phased out…please correct me if Im wrong about it. LCA, even with lower specs will start replacing those old Mig-21s meaning that IAF will maintain its present strength. A while back, due to IAF declining strength, GOI gave the nod for another 40 MKI. When those Mig-21s start going out and LCA is not there to fill the gap, MMRCA will be the obvious way to maintain its strength. Regardless of what anyone says, in terms of technology/performance any MMRCA contender is better than LCA…and may be (just may be) IAF (being worried about the usual indian aquisition delays) wants to push GOI to make a quicker decision about MMRCA and hence all this fuss about LCA.

Abhimanyu, I dont think i quite understand you. The weight you quoted for T-50 (11,974 kgs) is it ‘maximum takeoff weight’ which would be substantially more than its ‘normal takeoff weight’ (around 9,500 kg?; emptyweight + internal fuel + couple of missiles and rails). I dont think IAF is stupid enough to have wanted LCA to be only 8000kg with its full internal fuel and external payloads. The figure I have seen floating around for normal takeoff weight for LCA is around 8,500 kg (i guess this includes internal fuel and couple of missiles with rails…radar is normally included in empty weigt as its an integral part of the aircraft just like engine), and i think the airforce source was probably talking about the normal takeoff weight. The normall take off weights (persumably fighter configuration?) for other lightweight fighters such as Ching Kuo and FC-1 are 9,525 kg and 9,072 kg, respectively. Even Gripen in its basic fighter configuration was meant to around 8,500 kg.