Best Ever LCA - Tejas Pics Collection !

[Kompromat]

LCA Wing area is almost identical to SAAB 37 Viggen. Its the best comparison possible.

SAAB 37 Viggen.

HAL LCA.

 

[tallboy123]

Even the french Mirage has the same as viggen

Even J-10

even rafale is similar

But i think people call it Delta wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing
and Vigggen and LCA are not identical

 

[Kompromat]

^ I was talking about the wing area ONLY you are confusing other parts of fuselage too with it.

Mirage , J-10 , Rafale have different configuration to that of SAAB37s. Wing area on LCA and Viggen is larger and further extended towards the canopy and both of them are low mounted which is not the same in any of the other birds apart of J-10 including Grippen.

All one needs to do to understand the flight performance of LCA at altitudes is to study Viggen.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

 

[tallboy123]

 

[tallboy123]

 

[Ignited Mind]

The best kikazz pic of LCA I've ever seen.

The pic says: Hell yeah baby, I'm comin to get ur a$$...

 

[tallboy123]

 

[angeldemon_007]

LCA Wing area is almost identical to SAAB 37 Viggen. Its the best comparison possible.

Its true....but SAAB never consulted in LCA mk1 i think it was dassault. Not to mention, you cannot just copy a fighter using its jpeg image....

 

[Black Widow]

LCA Wing area is almost identical to SAAB 37 Viggen. Its the best comparison possible.

SAAB 37 Viggen.There are Limited number of Wing design for Fighter aircraft
1. Delta design
2. cranked Delta design
3. Forward swept wing and reverse swept wing
4. Tailed Delta Cropped Delta, tailless delta, compound delta


AND UNFORTUNATELY all of these design were used in some or more planes... So if you see as layman you can find many plane copy of each other... French were consulted for LCA project , so if you claim that Mirage left some impression on LCA then its acceptable...

But based on JPEG , you are claiming LCA to be copy of Viggen, Its ridiculous... You are wasting time of all in that case... jkkjjkjkjk

HAL LCA.

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

[saumyasupratik]

The wind tunnel model of the LCA before compound delta-wing was perfected for it had cropped canard delta wing like the Gripen.

Photo of wind tunnel model of LCA along with the HF-73

LCA and Mirage 2000 in comparison.

 

[drunken-monke]

we need a more potent design and a lighter yet sturdier airframe. the tejas have a pathetic design and after 30 years of R&D we come up with this? We need something to counter a 4th gen or 4.5 gen threat j-10, JF-17, F-16. we cannot put all the work on MKI or wait for MMRCA orders to arrive. We need to step up the game and take some lessons from China. Nevertheless i am proud of my countrymen for their efforts to increase our security and hats off to them.

Dear Mr. GareebNawaz,

Before calling that aircraft a pathetic one, do you have basic knowlwdge of a aircraft. Although i have posted this in other threads still would be posting here to show you and Mr. Flameboard some facts about LCA.

Lets compare Tejas with most popular modern strike fighter today: F-16 block 50.

Their electronic eqipment is very similar EL/M-2032 or APG-68 radars with slotted planar array antenna and SAR capabilities. Both carry Litening E/O targeting system, have Dash HMD.

---------------------- Tejas ------ F-16 blk50
empty weight ----- 6540 kg ----- 8,700 kg
wing area --------- 38.4 m2 ----- 27.87m2
power ------------- 8,600 kg ----- 13,180 kg
intermal fuel ------- 2400 kg ------ 3,250 kg

Now lets calculate two missions.

1) Fighter mission with 4 MR AA missiles + 2 SR AA missiles.

That's 4*160 + 2*90 = 820 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 2400 = 9760 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 820 + 3,250 = 12770 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/9760 = 0.246
F-16 - 3250/12770 = 0.254

Very close, that means range will be pretty similar. F-16 however can add CFT, then F-16 gets advantage in range.

Half fuel weight in fighter mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 1200 = 8560 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 820 + 1625 = 11145 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/8560 = 1
F-16 - 13,180/11145 = 1.18

Serious advantage of F-16, better acceleration and vertical maneuvring.

wing loading:
Tejas - 8560/38.4 = 223 kg/m2
F-16 - 11145/27.87 = 400 kg/m2

Serious advantage of Tejas, can provide better horisontal maneuvring and take off/landing capabilities

2) Strike mission with 2 2000-lb bombs + 2 short range AA missles + 2 MR AA + Litening pod.

That gives 2*900 + 2*90 + 2 * 160 + 200 = 2500 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 2400 = 11440 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 2500 + 3,250 = 14450 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/11440 = 0.21
F-16 - 3,250/14450 = 0.22

Again pretty close.

Half fuel weight in strike mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 1200 = 10240 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 2500 + 1625 = 12825 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/10240 = 0.84
F-16 - 13,180/12825 = 1.03

wing loading:
Tejas - 10240/38.4 = 267 kg/m2
F-16 - 12825/27.87 = 460 kg/m2

Quite a similar picture as it was in fighter mode (in fighter mode F-16 has 18% advantage in t/w ratio, while in strike mode - 23%).


Lets check this loading.

F-16 fuel:
3250 kg (internal) + 2200 kg (2 wing 370-gal) + 900 kg (300 gal central) = 6350 kg.

F-16 weight:
8700 kg (empty) + 6350 kg (fuel) + 300 kg (drop tanks) + 1800 kg (2 LGBs) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 17,850 kg

Tejas fuel:
2400 kg (internal) + 1900 kg (2 wing 1200l) = 4300 kg

Tejas weight:

6540 kg (empty) + 4300 kg (fuel) + 200 kg (drop tanks) + 900 kg (1 LGB) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 12,640 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 0.34
F-16 - 0.36

Thats very close, especially considering that more fuel additional tank and bomb make more drag. So range would be about same, but F-16 carries 2 times more bombs.

If Tejas takes 2 LGBs and 1 drop tank then we get:

3350 kg fuel and 12,490 kg weight. Thats 0.27 fuel weight ratio compare to 0.36 of F-16. Thats 33% less. But actual range difference will be lower that 33% because of drag (20-25% I guess). In short either one bomb at similar range or same number of bombs at lower range.

Light fighters can be very good for CAS missions too, they fall in deep strike missions.

Tejas needs F414 engine. It gives 15% more thrust but weights almost same as F404 + additional fuel. That was done on Grippen NG.


Conclusion:
Tejas can compete with F-16 block 50 both in strike and fighting missions.

Pros:
Cheaper to prosecute and operate. Much smaller wing loading, thats good for take of and landing, training.

Cons:
Underpowered (that can be corrected with F414), no CFT option.

Have you guyz went through whole this thread, know what sort of AESA radar LCA has?? No bcoz you dont want to se that.. Its a product from israel and will be replaced by some local AESA after some time. Bashing Tejas is enough, first get your basics clear about a FAC..

People shud understand the role of Tejas in IAF. Second thing, there are very few contries who manufacture all components of a Fighter aircraft indegenously. Even china is not able to develop (Full functional ) engine WS 15 or so.. By the way India's Kavari Engine which earlier failed high altitude trials, Passed this time after some modifications.. I will post some pictures after some searching... So my sincere request to all members that give some respect to this bird which it surely deserves and let it become operational.. after that you can surely analyze it.. And same goes for JF 17 of Pakistan.. offcource the experience gained in these projects will help the developers for sure. Mean while unlike JF 17 LCA tejas uses composite materials and RAM hence that factor should also be considered which is a very high achievement in my opinion..

With regards
Drunken Monke
(Shrikant Parwate, India)

 

[drunken-monke]

To all newbees,

Underestimating tejas wont stop it from killing other fighter jets or dropping lethal bombs on the targets. Gyz due to its small size and composits its RCS would be less than or equal to 1m2. How significant that would be do these newbees know. Sadly they cant understand of significance of being light. And Indian armed forces set their technical requirement at high level, hence they want more and more in LCA. How much tech can be incarporated in a small plane??

Understand the point by keeping the mind open gyuz.
By the way thanks to all for posting lovely pics of Tejas

Regards

 

[saumyasupratik]

I read somewhere that LCA has 1/3rd the frontal RCS as the Mirage 2000.

 

[sancho]

^ I was talking about the wing area ONLY you are confusing other parts of fuselage too with it.

Mirage , J-10 , Rafale have different configuration to that of SAAB37s. Wing area on LCA and Viggen is larger and further extended towards the canopy and both of them are low mounted which is not the same in any of the other birds apart of J-10 including Grippen.

All one needs to do to understand the flight performance of LCA at altitudes is to study Viggen.

Please check the LCA pics again, because you are mistaken here!