Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

LCA Tejas Multirole Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Dark_Prince, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,388
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    Country Flag:
    India
    Private companies to carry out 70% of production work for Light Combat Aircraft Tejas

    BENGALURU: In a move that will help meet delivery deadlines, defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has decided to outsource majority of the production work of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. The move will see private firms make nearly 70% of the aircraft.

    Presently, HAL is manufacturing LCA Mk1 and is a working on the ramping up of production capacity from eight to 16 aircraft per annum, which it expects to happen by 2019.

    "Major sub-assemblies such as front fuselage, centre fuselage, rear fuselage, wings et al, have been outsourced to private industry. The orders have been placed and they need about an year to supply these. Soon, nearly 70% will be made by our industry," a senior official part of the LCA project told TOI.

    About 85 vendors (private firms) will be involved in the production of LCA. Some major players are: Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, Bengaluru (front fuselage); VEM Technologies, Hyderabad (centre fuselage); Alpha Tocol, Bengaluru (rear fuselage); L&T, Coimbatore (wings); while the tail fin and rudder will be supplied by NationalAerospace Laboratory and Tata Advanced Materials Ltd.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    "With increased level of outsourcing and capacity within HAL, we will be able to speed up the deliveries to cater to the present and futurerequirements of our customers.Enhanced outsourcing is the norm being followed across some important projects at HAL. For example LCH production will involve outsourcing as a major strategy," another senior HAL official said.

    HAL has established a second line series production of Tejas, which has come up at Aircraft Division and is being equipped with full-fledged assembly jigs. HAL's plan for expanding Tejas production to 16 fighters per year involves establishing a second assembly line. This has physically replaced the Hawk trainer line.

    5 delivered, 6th Tejas soon

    The number 45 squadron (Flying Daggers) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) has already taken possession of five LCA Tejas aircraft and will soon have the sixth one. "The sixth one is expected to fly in the next three days and the seventh in about 10 days. By end of March 2018, we hope to deliver 11 planes (including the five delivered)," the official said.


    For the first time, the IAF squadron completed the armamentdetachment—weapons firing—in September and October this year. "That was the proof of the pudding. It was not a developmental test, the squadron that will fly and fight hascompleted the detachment, and we were glad that it was successful," an IAF source said.

    The Flying Daggers Squadron is presently operating from HAL in Bengaluru, but will eventually move to its official base in Sulur, Tamil Nadu.

    Tejas, which was first conceived in the early 1980s and officially approved in August 1983, is an indigenous fighter that has undergone several changes before being accepted by the IAF in January 2015. While the first 40 aircraft will be supplied in the presentconfiguration, the IAF has sought more improvements for future ones.

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ction-work-for-tejas/articleshow/61363473.cms
     
  2. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    725
    I did a bit of research and some math, and here is what I get -

    Using rack of three missiles on the two inner pylons on either side, say with the following mix -

    Astra 154 kg x 3 = 462 kg
    Derby 118 kg x 3 = 354 kg
    Python 105 kg x 3 = 315 kg
    R-77 175 kg x 3 = 525 kg

    TOTAL weight for 12 missiles = 1,656 kg

    MTOW of LCA = 13,500
    Empty Weight = 6,560
    Internal Fuel Capacity = 2,458
    External Fuel Capacity = 2 x 1,200 = 2,400 drop tanks
    Weight Capacity left for missiles = 2,082

    So, LCA can carry 12 missiles on a long distance and duration enemy aircraft killing mission. Can it not? The above numbers says so. The left over weight (2,082 - 1,656) plus the weight reduction achieved from extracting the dead weight would accommodate EW internally.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  3. cannonballs

    cannonballs FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2017
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    28
    Country Flag:
    India
    And what about weight of pylons?
     
  4. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    And number of pylons available.
     
  5. Sathya

    Sathya Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    794
    Country Flag:
    India
    Also there was reply in FB , twin pylon is not possible without increasing the wing span .
     
    Sancho likes this.
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    There are some problems with your example. One that using the inner stations, would mean you can't carry fuel tanks anymore, so I guess you meant the mid wing station.
    But the more important issue is, that weight is not the problem here, but space and drag!

    Adding a triple launcher to the mid wing stations, must be within the width limitations between the 1200l fuel tank and the IR missile at the external station. For example, the Rafaut triple launcher of Rafale has a width of 650mm, add the width of 2 x Derby's and you have a guess of what is required.
    But adding a triple launcher also adds much drag, which again is counterproductive for a fighter that already suffers from performance issues. JF17 and J10 have twin pylons for AAMs, which adds the same problem of drag for LCA too, but at least would be a fix to carry a standard load of 4 x BVR missiles in CAP roles.
    However, that's limited to A2A roles only, since in strike roles, the same mid wing station is occupied by the strike weapon.

    So 2 more BVR missiles, for increased drag and no benefit for strike configs. Is that really a useful trade?

    The dead weight will be replaced by the AESA and new RWRs, but won't make the integration of the jammers possible into the LCA airframe, since here as well not weight is the issue, but the lack of space. That's why the MK1A upgrade requires OEMs to offer an external SPJ pod, which most likely occupies one of the external wing stations.
    ADA considered to counter the problem with a twin launcher for the SPJ and the IR missile (with similar problems as mentioned before):
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
  7. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    725
    So it looks like that when the LCA was conceived, such consideration that we are discussing were not contemporary at that time? Looks like DRDO and IAF were simply looking for Mig-21 replacement rather than develop a platform to achieve a war strategy.
     
  8. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    621
    Country Flag:
    India

    I do not know why people try to derive the capability from tejas for which is not made for.
     
  9. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    621
    Country Flag:
    India
    My simple solution for tejas is that do aerodynamic changes (Which Shall allow it to carry some more fuel) and reduce the weight. That should let tejas extend its range to 2000 KM without fuel tank and 2700 KM with one 800 kg fuel tank and that should be good enough. Why people want tejas to carry out missions far away beyond 700 to 800 KM?
     
    Angel Eyes likes this.
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    More or less, back when ADA started LCA concepts and designs, it was common standard to carry external jamming pods, but the programme is delayed by over a decade modern standards put more focus on EW than on radar and sadly the design focus on being the smallest fighter in it's class, now turns out to be a disadvantage in many ways, because it limits the internal space within the airframe, as well as the space below the wings, for hardpoints and weapon configuration. I still think a twin pylon is possible, be it for LGBs in strike or BVR missiles, but that's a crucial field where medium class fighters, with more space for systems and weapons have a clear advantage over Tejas.
     
  11. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    That's what the MK2 upgrade was meant for, but that's not simple, because it requires a complete re-design.

    - Airframe extention and drag reduction to improve aerodynamics and internal space for EW and avionics
    - Airframe widening to add additional fuel tanks, as initially required by IN
     
  12. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    725
    Looks like Tejas will turn out to be a platform for mastering most aspects of an aircraft design and development process, similar to the SLVs and ASLVs of ISRO which lead to development of its main work horse, the PSLV and GSLV Mk xxx. Similar developments have happened on the DAE side with BARC coming up with indigenous designs for 500 MW PFBR.

    Successful R&D effort turning into an Ace product to accrue profits is what companies the world over aim for. And none will part with their technologies. DRDO will have to get it right on their own. And time, money, support, encouragement and patience is the only way it can happen.
     
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Well, so far we are fighting to fix problems, keep the production line alive and at least get it to provide the minimum development goals.
    Add the distractions of ADA and DRDO for side projects, which further increases the problem and unrealistic expectations.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
    Golden_Rule likes this.
  14. sunny6611

    sunny6611 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    130
    Country Flag:
    India

    harrier jump jet was a Naval Fighter ........................ single engine ????????????
     
    Angel Eyes and sunstersun like this.
  15. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    there are always exceptions, doesn't mean the rule isn't good.

    although i believe more planes in the future will gravitate towards single engines anyways.
     

Share This Page