LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

Unlikely. But who would you blame here? lack of foresight from IAF or HAL as usual ?
Not sure - who to blame

One hand you have the IAF, who as you say signed the contract and have now changed the requirement, so do we blamed IAF for the delay?

OR

On the other hand the HAL, for the delay in achieving the milestones (such as AAR, where in turn they are blaming ADA), but instead are finger pointing at the finances and the IAF!!, so do we then blamed HAL for the delay? ...


Which one to choose?
 
I'd blame ADA/HAL for not keeping their designs future ready.

A refuelling probe was a requirement from last decade. They should have designed the Trainers with refuelling probes from the start. There was plenty of time.
 
All bases must be ready to hold all type of aircraft including heavy transport ones. It is a matter of preparedness as one can't predict everything beforehand. So, capex and logistics cost can be considered as fixed. Operational cost is the main factor.

The operation cost mainly relies on fuel consumption. MCA will weigh 8yons when empty and have fuel of 4000litres whereas MK1A weighs 6.7tons empty and 3000 litre fuel. The MCA definitely has more fuel than LCA even by fuel to weight ratio. But cost of operating MCA will still be higher per unit time or mileage due to about 18% higher weight and hence higher fuel consumption

In addition, canards are coming in MCA which will raise the cost of replacing moving parts

The cost we generally refer to is without fuel.
 
The cost we generally refer to is without fuel.

how the hell can you calculate opex without fuel and maintainence? Those are the two biggest cost components. One hour of flight can be as high as USD 4000 to 5000 in the cheapest of fighters- that's about 2.8 lacs to 3.5 lacs. A lighter jet obviously lesser cost.
 
I'd blame ADA/HAL for not keeping their designs future ready.

A refuelling probe was a requirement from last decade. They should have designed the Trainers with refuelling probes from the start. There was plenty of time.
Not HAL's design. Repeat it a 100 times. How about IAF try this $hit with Dassault by changing the TR modules for rafales ordered, see what they do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ashutosh and Ashwin
Not sure - who to blame

One hand you have the IAF, who as you say signed the contract and have now changed the requirement, so do we blamed IAF for the delay?

OR

On the other hand the HAL, for the delay in achieving the milestones (such as AAR, where in turn they are blaming ADA), but instead are finger pointing at the finances and the IAF!!, so do we then blamed HAL for the delay? ...


Which one to choose?
It's simple try changing the specs on an already ordered aircraft, say add CFT's on the already placed order for rafales, see what they accommodate. Or go book a naturally aspirated engined car and then ask for a twin turbo instead. See how accommodating the dealership is?

HAL should have never gotten involved in the LCA program to begin with, it should have just let ADA and IAF hash it out.
 
how the hell can you calculate opex without fuel and maintainence? Those are the two biggest cost components. One hour of flight can be as high as USD 4000 to 5000 in the cheapest of fighters- that's about 2.8 lacs to 3.5 lacs. A lighter jet obviously lesser cost.

Maintenance is labour intensive. No point calculating since if you are talking about just one air force, the cost is pretty much the same. It just depends on the number of people involved. If you consider only the cost of labour, it only means less work and more slack-off time as the stuff is easy to maintain and manpower requirements for two SE aircraft of the same class will be similar.

As for fuel, you can burn the entire load in just 3 min of AB usage. Calculating fuel costs is simple anyway. A single Su-30MKI sortie with full fuel and no nonsense can last 3.5 hours. So 12000 liters multiplied by cost of fuel divided by 3.5 = CPFH of fuel. That's $2600. Of course, it's an irrelevant figure because you can go supersonic and reduce that to just one hour or less. Even payload obviously affects fuel consumption. The fuel is volatile, the price is volatile and so is the performance. This is not a civilian airliner that flies the same every time.

In neither case is the OEM paid any significant amount. So the only thing that actually goes to the OEM is the spares.

You can calculate CPFH based on fixed flight profiles and missions, it's useful in tenders, but pointless in real life.

Back to the point that pachawry brought up. The MCA with a greater fuel load will still consume as much fuel as the LCA. The F414 may have greater power, but the fuel efficiency is also superior. Basically, both have the same engine class, so why bring fuel into the picture? In fact, with a better airframe design and more modern engine, you can say that the MCA will actually consume less fuel per hour. So the advantage is actually with the MCA. As for maintenance, the MCA will be more maintenance friendly than the LCA. And due to its maintenance friendly design and greater lifecycle of the higher quality parts being designed for it, the overall cost of the MCA will be lower than the LCA.

Since the MCA is more advanced, it will be more expensive to buy it, but the CPFH of the aircraft, with all costs included, will likely be less than the LCA. LCA Mk1's CPFH may likely be higher since the maintenance downtime is very high.

If the MCA gets better build quality, higher service life and better quality parts, then the LCC cost of the jet will likely be lesser than LCA Mk1A.

So the choice will be between higher quality, more expensive but rarely replaced parts versus low quality, cheaper but frequently replaced spares. Or a healthy mix of both.
 
Not HAL's design. Repeat it a 100 times.

I know. I just add those two together when we speak of prototypes anyway since HAL is actively involved in this stage.

How about IAF try this $hit with Dassault by changing the TR modules for rafales ordered, see what they do.

Bad example, because that's an option. :D

Even CFTs are an in-built option. You just have to buy the tanks.

See, the thing about Rafale is, it is future ready.

HAL should have never gotten involved in the LCA program to begin with, it should have just let ADA and IAF hash it out.

ADA's doing that with AMCA.
 
Maintenance is labour intensive. No point calculating since if you are talking about just one air force, the cost is pretty much the same. It just depends on the number of people involved. If you consider only the cost of labour, it only means less work and more slack-off time as the stuff is easy to maintain and manpower requirements for two SE aircraft of the same class will be similar.

As for fuel, you can burn the entire load in just 3 min of AB usage. Calculating fuel costs is simple anyway. A single Su-30MKI sortie with full fuel and no nonsense can last 3.5 hours. So 12000 liters multiplied by cost of fuel divided by 3.5 = CPFH of fuel. That's $2600. Of course, it's an irrelevant figure because you can go supersonic and reduce that to just one hour or less. Even payload obviously affects fuel consumption. The fuel is volatile, the price is volatile and so is the performance. This is not a civilian airliner that flies the same every time.

In neither case is the OEM paid any significant amount. So the only thing that actually goes to the OEM is the spares.

You can calculate CPFH based on fixed flight profiles and missions, it's useful in tenders, but pointless in real life.

Back to the point that pachawry brought up. The MCA with a greater fuel load will still consume as much fuel as the LCA. The F414 may have greater power, but the fuel efficiency is also superior. Basically, both have the same engine class, so why bring fuel into the picture? In fact, with a better airframe design and more modern engine, you can say that the MCA will actually consume less fuel per hour. So the advantage is actually with the MCA. As for maintenance, the MCA will be more maintenance friendly than the LCA. And due to its maintenance friendly design and greater lifecycle of the higher quality parts being designed for it, the overall cost of the MCA will be lower than the LCA.

Since the MCA is more advanced, it will be more expensive to buy it, but the CPFH of the aircraft, with all costs included, will likely be less than the LCA. LCA Mk1's CPFH may likely be higher since the maintenance downtime is very high.

If the MCA gets better build quality, higher service life and better quality parts, then the LCC cost of the jet will likely be lesser than LCA Mk1A.

So the choice will be between higher quality, more expensive but rarely replaced parts versus low quality, cheaper but frequently replaced spares. Or a healthy mix of both.

Again, you are just making tangential discussions to take the focus away from the fact that fuel and maintainence are the biggest lifecycle costs of operaing aorcraft. So long as the AF doesn't have unlimited budget it will have to mix and match.
 
I know. I just add those two together when we speak of prototypes anyway since HAL is actively involved in this stage.

Bad example, because that's an option. :D

Even CFTs are an in-built option. You just have to buy the tanks.

See, the thing about Rafale is, it is future ready.
MoD doesn't have the balls to do any such things with foreign vendors. If it does let it revise one such aspect of already ordered product.

Anil Bhai will add CFT's as per IAF's design choice, are you sure about that. Just like DCNS threw in AIP on scorpene's free of charge, right?
 
Last edited:
MoD doesn't have the balls to do any such things with foreign vendors. If it does let it revise one such aspect of already ordered product.

Anil Bhai will add CFT's as per IAF's design choice, are you sure about that. Just like DCNS threw in AIP on scorpene's free of charge, right?

Another Anil Bhai deal? Sweet. Hopefully ADA at-least picks a L&T type competent entity.

*yawn* Now you've moved back to whining.
 
It's simple try changing the specs on an already ordered aircraft, say add CFT's on the already placed order for rafales, see what they accommodate. Or go book a naturally aspirated engined car and then ask for a twin turbo instead. See how accommodating the dealership is?

HAL should have never gotten involved in the LCA program to begin with, it should have just let ADA and IAF hash it out.
Whats the alternative to HAL at that time?
 
Whats the alternative to HAL at that time?

If HAl cannot be trusted to design, it shouldn't be for manufacturing either. We have enough book order, and even if revenue's go down with MKI overhaul, ALH/LCH, AJT, etc, bottom lines can still remain healthy without LCA. HAL was given a horrible manufacturing package, with haphazardly executed schematics, exceptionally poorly conceived jigs and fixturing. Even rev-control on drawing was not maintained properly by ADA. ADA has the poorest of poorest professional culture, HAL had to make runs to get the right part drawings, barely any vendor qualifications, zero production part approval systems. Nothing in the existing lines could be levereged for LCA and in addition HAL was tasked with building iterations and prototypes that IAF never intended to buy and FOC LCA's are still far from completion and validation by ADA themselves, But HAL has to deliver these in the correct time and without price change.
And then there are dimwits by the dozen in MoD and elsewhere, to contend with who do not leave a single chance to beat down on HAL.

ADA was brainchild of IAF and DRDO intended purely to snub HAL and especially ARDC Banglore. Why limit it to design, ADA should have been given money and IAF should have taken the ownership and built LCA. Its unfortunate that HAL has to buckle to DRDO's facilities clout, if it was me i would have kicked ADA out of our hangars a long time ago and instead worked on design package for a viable AMCA, with Russia or EADS to compete against ADA,. Just becoming the competition to Asinine Delay Agency would be good enough to not afford them HAL's infrastructure even if we lost out on AMCA design.
 
Last edited:
Show me one spec changed, without delay/price escalation with a foriegn vendor? dcns? Rosoboron? Dassault? Bae?

Show me one example where the armed forces have allowed to convert serial units into prototypes.

The flexibility of working with a domestic company is much greater. This stuff happens constantly.
 
If HAl cannot be trusted to design, it shouldn't be for manufacturing either. We have enough book order, and even if revenue's go down with MKI overhaul, ALH/LCH, AJT, etc, bottom lines can still remain healthy without LCA.
HAL is not a designing agency. R&D is different from manufacturing. ADA is part of DRDO and is R&D institute.

HAL was given a horrible manufacturing package, with haphazardly executed schematics, exceptionally poorly conceived jigs and fixturing. Even rev-control on drawing was not maintained properly by ADA. ADA has the poorest of poorest professional culture, HAL had to make runs to get the right part drawings, barely any vendor qualifications, zero production part approval systems. Nothing in the existing lines could be levereged for LCA and in addition HAL was tasked with building iterations and prototypes that IAF never intended to buy and FOC LCA's are still far from completion and validation by ADA themselves, But HAL has to deliver these in the correct time and without price change.
And then there are dimwits by the dozen in MoD and elsewhere, to contend with who do not leave a single chance to beat down on HAL.
This is called ranting without facts. ADA can do only as much as they are supported by government funds. Be grateful that ADA did something with minimal funds instead of nothing. HAL already had infrastructure to make planes. MiG21 was made in HAL fully. Su30 was also partly made in HAL since late 2000s and Al31F is being made in HAL since 2015 fully.

The quality and other factors can be assured with sufficient funding. HAL can't do magic and get things for free.
ADA was brainchild of IAF and DRDO intended purely to snub HAL and especially ARDC Banglore. Why limit it to design, ADA should have been given money and IAF should have taken the ownership and built LCA. Its unfortunate that HAL has to buckle to DRDO's facilities clout, if it was me i would have kicked ADA out of our hangars a long time ago and instead worked on design package for a viable AMCA, with Russia or EADS to compete against ADA,. Just becoming the competition to Asinine Delay Agency would be good enough to not afford them HAL's infrastructure even if we lost out on AMCA design.
WHo told you that DRDO wanted to snub HAL? How can IAF build Tejas? Are you living in a world of delusion whereby you can get a new set of qualified engineers and scientists or simply barge into Russia or France and make AMCA there?

Do you even know what you are speaking? I have read several comments of yours. You continually act like a fool with sole intention of quarelling and keep shouting till everyone says 'Yes' to you.
 
ADA didn't had money ? They had HAL, DRDO & ISRO infra, they could have designed a space ship if they wanted to. All they need was integration with some research institutes, that's it.

Every time govt is not at fault, it is ADA itself built on idea of separate program executing agency, they developed LCA in isolation at first with IAF's input when everything was falling apart HAL came to rescue and some are blaming HAL for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volcano
Aeromag

LCA Tejas Gears up for Aerial Refuelling

The Light Combat Aircraft Tejas is all set to commence its Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) flight trials. Aeronautical Development Agency has been carrying out various tests regarding the AAR for the past few months which have been successful. But, the process is a challenging one, and hence, it is very much important to make it flawless. All the simulated ground tests have been successfully completed as Tejas was refuelled by placing it at various attitudes. The technical integration for AAR has been completed and the trials were commenced on the ground. We expect to make Tejas ready for air-to-air refuelling by May. Once Tejas achieves the operational aerial refuelling capability, it will help the fighter to extend its flight duration considerably, says Dr. Girish S Deodhare, Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) and Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). Dr. Deodhare speaks with Aeromag about the latest updates on the LCA programme.
Dr. Girish S. Deodhare is the Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) and Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the nodal agency for the design & development of LCA. He did his B. Tech in Electrical Engineering (1984), M. Tech in Controls and Instrumentation (1986) both from IIT Bombay and Ph.D. (1990) in Control Theory from University of Waterloo, Canada. He has started his career in DRDO as Scientist in Centre for AI and Robotics (CAIR), Bangalore from 1990 till 2007. In March 2007, he has joined the Aeronautical Development Agency as Scientist 'G'. He has been elevated to Outstanding Scientist/Sc ‘H’ in July 2012.
He is a Lead Member of the National Control Law (CLAW) team for LCA and is Project Director (CLAW) since 2016. In 2013, he has taken over as the Technology Director (Integrated Flight Control Systems), ADA and held additional charge of Associate Programme Director (New Programmes and Systems Engineering) from 2015. He is involved in the design and development of flight control systems for the Indian Light Combat Aircraft using both classical and modern control synthesis techniques. On April 28, 2017 he has taken over as the Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) and Director, ADA to lead the Tejas (LCA) programme.
1. Could you share the latest developments on the LCA Tejas programme?
The LCA Tejas programme is having a very fast progression. Currently, we are focusing on increasing the flying rate of the Mk1 aircraft to 60 flights every month. We expect to get the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) for the Mk 1 by June-July 2018. Most of the tasks for the FOC are in the final stage and the rest will be completed soon. Some of the tasks under focus are the completion of integration of all FOC weapons including flight envelope expansion with the Derby BVR missiles. The software fine tuning for complete carefree manoeuvring is also in progress. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and ADA are working together to speed up the FOC activities. The experienced IAF/IN pilots of National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), who have been involved in flight testing the aircraft from day one, are continuously improving the flight capabilities with their inputs and suggestions.
Another important task we are working on now is the Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) of Tejas. We have been carrying out various tests regarding the AAR for the past few months and have been successful. But, the process is a challenging one, and hence, it is important to make it flawless. The technical integration for AAR has been completed and the trials have been commenced on the ground after initial carriage flight trials.
All the simulated ground tests have been successfully completed as Tejas was refuelled by placing it at various attitudes on the ground.
This was to monitor the pressure at which the fuel is pumped into the aircraft. The aerial refuelling must be done without taking much time. We are very much careful about even minute things that should be considered during the process. We expect to make Tejas ready for air-to-air refuelling by May. Once Tejas achieves the operational aerial refuelling capability, it will help the fighter to extend its flight duration and endurance considerably.
Last year in December, HAL has confirmed the order of 83 aircrafts of Mk 1A configuration in addition to the earlier 40 aircrafts. From the 124thaircraft onwards, LCA Mk II will enter service. It will be a bigger aircraft with a higher capacity engine, higher range and payload capacity, improved aerodynamics etc. The Mk II project is in the detail design stage.
We have received the approval to prove unmanned technologies like auto take-off and landing on LCA for future uses. The unmanned version will sport Flush Air Data Systems technology for stealth feature. The design of the front also will be modified. The project will begin immediately after receiving the FOC for Mark 1.
2. Could you elaborate on the plans to upgrade the weapons capability and advanced technologies of LCA Tejas? What is the future roadmap for LCA Tejas?
We are planning to enhance the combat capabilities of the Mk 1A by integrating new weapons. Tejas has already completed precision bombing with laser-guided 1,000lb bombs and unguided bombs. The integration of Rafael’s Derby fire-and-forget missile will be completed soon, and it will serve as the Tejas’ initial medium range air-to-air armament. The integration of Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) radar is underway, and it is expected to be done soon. The AESA radar will improve air-to-air superiority and strike missions and to achieve long detection ranges and multi-target tracking capabilities.
The Mk II is being designed to sport an array of upgraded weapons system along with all sensors and will be capable of carrying all futuristic indigenous weapons. The major thrust of the aircraft will be its ability to carry missiles like Astra and BrahMos. It will have Software Defined Radios (SDR) and all equipment to wage electronic warfare. The Mark II will be much superior in terms of its combat capabilities and will belong to the Medium weight class.
3. Kindly share your thoughts on increasing the annual production of LCA Tejas to meet the requirements of IAF.
ADA is helping HAL in every possible way to increase the production of LCA Tejas. In fact, we conduct coordination meetings every day to discuss on accelerating the project and secure the FOC at the earliest. Meetings are also held with members of LCA Squadron to get suggestions from them regarding what should be improved in terms of design. HAL has opened its new assembly line and it will increase the rate of production.
In the case of MK II, it will be easier for HAL to manufacture it as ADA is making a production-friendly design for the aircraft. We are leveraging the experience got from the Mk 1 and Mk 1A. Now, the designers are familiar with the production processes and they know its challenges. Hence, we are focusing on a design for manufacture for the Mk II. Also, it will make the maintenance process easy.
4. Are there any further plans to promote the Make in India programme of the Central Government through the absolute indigenisation of more vital components of Tejas?
The indigenisation of the components of LCA Tejas is one the major thrusts at present. The production of Tejas is closely on the line of promoting the government’s Make in India programme. Initially, the idea was to develop a new light combat aircraft indigenously to prove the technology. Hence, in the beginning we had to rely mostly on proven imported components. But now, more than 60% of the LRUs of Tejas are indigenously made. We are also aggressively encouraging the vendors/developers who are ready to take up the development of the components. For the Mk II, we will provide completely upgraded Flight Control Systems, avionics, sensors etc. of which the indigenous development has already started.
5. Tejas is acclaimed as the lightest and smallest multi-role supersonic fighter aircraft. How does Tejas outweigh its rivals in this segment?
LCA Tejas is the smallest and lightest Multi-Role Supersonic Fighter Aircraft of its class. This highly manoeuvrable combat aircraft is designed for specific roles. Tejas is often compared to JAS 39 Gripen of Sweden, Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder etc. Every aircraft is built for a specific purpose. Hence, it is not easy to compare them with each other and reach on a conclusion on the better one. But, taking into consideration Tejas’s far superiority in terms of avionics, digital flight control systems, advanced digital cockpit and manoeuvrability, it is competitive enough to lock horns with any of the multirole aircrafts in its class.
6. The Naval Version of LCA for operation from Aircraft Carriers has successfully completed its test flight. What are the latest updates on this project?
The naval version of Tejas has completely mastered the ski jump, take-off from aircraft carriers, even at night time also. But, the arrested landing of the aircraft is still a challenge to be overcome. The hook for the arrested landing has been integrated and we are now progressing towards demonstration of arrested landing. We expect to prove Carrier Compatibility of Tejas by the end of the year.
7. Kindly shed more light onto the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft project of ADA
The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is a 5th generation fighter concept. The feasibility study of the AMCA has been completed and a feasible configuration has been evolved. The design of AMCA will meet the requirements specified by the IAF. The AMCA will feature a twin-engine and single-seat layout. It will have inherent stealth mode and will be able to carry advanced weapons. Initially it is planned to build two Next Generation Technology Demonstrators (NGTD). These will leverage the existing technology of the LCA to achieve the target of first flight within five years.
8. What are the vision, goals and priorities you have set for the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) during your term as the Director? What are the new initiatives?
These are exciting times for aerospace industry. ADA is fully confident about developing the optimal design for aircrafts that will bolster the Indian defence sector. When we started the LCA programme the most often heard question was “Can you make an aircraft?”. But, we have proved the capabilities by presenting a fully operational LCA Tejas. Now the question is “How long will it take to make an aircraft?”. We are backing the HAL in the production of Tejas by providing design-friendly design and essential upgradations.
Our focus is currently on the LCA Mark II, along with giving equal importance to the production of Mark 1A. The development of AMCA is another priority. A lot of youngsters have joined ADA’s design team. We are focusing on transferring the rich experience of our senior designers to the younger generation to make them capable to take up the projects efficiently in future. ADA is also promoting the involvement of women scientists and more than 40% of the designers are women. The government policies are giving a huge impetus to aerospace industry in India. With the support of the government, we are confident to take the industry to further heights.
 
ADA didn't had money ? They had HAL, DRDO & ISRO infra, they could have designed a space ship if they wanted to. All they need was integration with some research institutes, that's it.

Every time govt is not at fault, it is ADA itself built on idea of separate program executing agency, they developed LCA in isolation at first with IAF's input when everything was falling apart HAL came to rescue and some are blaming HAL for everything.

ADA has capable scientific personnel. But the infrastructure was not fully available. ADA is not a money making organization. It needs funding from govt. ISRO is only useful for space and rocket technology. The aeronautical engineering is the duty of ADA & HAL and both need sanctions from govt. Development of Kaveri engine needed test bed which was denied by government. Tejas needed heavy funds to dobrapid test flights which were denied.