HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2]

[Carlosa]

None of the products @Water Car Engineer has mentioend are of a different quality than any other foriegn made product. They all have to adhere to the same QA.

One question guys, as I understand, the change of the engine in the Tejas takes an awful lot of time as a consequence of the aircraft been designed for one engine and then using a different engine, so I wonder if that issue has been resolved or somewhat mitigated in the Tejas MKI-A version?

 

[Sri]

One question guys, as I understand, the change of the engine in the Tejas takes an awful lot of time as a consequence of the aircraft been designed for one engine and then using a different engine, so I wonder if that issue has been resolved or somewhat mitigated in the Tejas MKI-A version?

The Problem of LCA MK1 was not primarily Thrust to Weight but Drag, Serviceability, Self protection. The Current version has pretty decent thrust to weight ratio. What is intended in MK1A is slight reduction in drag, slight reduction of weight ( there is lot of dead weight inside added for CG), improvement of internal layout for better serviceability. self protection suite, Aesa radar for better offence and defence purpose. with these improvements LCA should be acceptable to IAF.

Infact MK2 is primarily a Navy requirement.

 

[Carlosa]

The Problem of LCA MK1 was not primarily Thrust to Weight but Drag, Serviceability, Self protection. The Current version has pretty decent thrust to weight ratio. What is intended in MK1A is slight reduction in drag, slight reduction of weight ( there is lot of dead weight inside added for CG), improvement of internal layout for better serviceability. self protection suite, Aesa radar for better offence and defence purpose. with these improvements LCA should be acceptable to IAF.

Infact MK2 is primarily a Navy requirement.

I'm not talking about Thrust to Weight, I'm talking about how many hours it takes to change an engine in the LCA MK1 (a lot of hours) and I wonder if that issue has been improved in the Tejas MKI-A version.

 

[Abingdonboy]

One question guys, as I understand, the change of the engine in the Tejas takes an awful lot of time as a consequence of the aircraft been designed for one engine and then using a different engine, so I wonder if that issue has been resolved or somewhat mitigated in the Tejas MKI-A version?

Whilst it is true the LCA was designed to be powered by the Kaveri there is no issue in "dropping out"/changing the F404 now that it is fitted. All the required intergration work was done long back.

The Mk.1A features no external/structural changes to the Mk.1 (first 20 units), it is simply set to receive extra features such as an IFR probe, AESA radar, improved avionics etc etc.

The Mk.2 will be dramatically different externally (longer, larger wing area, optimised interal fuel capacity etc) to the MK.1/A and will itself be designed around the F414-GE-INS6.

 

[Sri]

I'm not talking about Thrust to Weight, I'm talking about how many hours it takes to change an engine in the LCA MK1 (a lot of hours) and I wonder if that issue has been improved in the Tejas MKI-A version.

Yes currently it takes quite a lot of time for engine replacement. as of now we do not have exact numbers as its not is active service. and the MK1A configuration should address this kind of service issue as well.

 

[Carlosa]

Whilst it is true the LCA was designed to be powered by the Kaveri there is no issue in "dropping out"/changing the F404 now that it is fitted. All the required intergration work was done long back.

The Mk.1A features no external/structural changes to the Mk.1 (first 20 units), it is simply set to receive extra features such as an IFR probe, AESA radar, improved avionics etc etc.

The Mk.2 will be dramatically different externally (longer, larger wing area, optimised interal fuel capacity etc) to the MK.1/A and will itself be designed around the F414-GE-INS6.

Well, there is an issue in the sense that it takes too many hours to replace an engine due to the differences between the Kavery and the GE engine now. I used to read that the issue was going to be solved in the MK2 version. Anyway, if there is no external/structural changes, then that means that it continues to be the same. Thanks.

Yes currently it takes quite a lot of time for engine replacement. as of now we do not have exact numbers as its not is active service. and the MK1A configuration should address this kind of service issue as well.

That would be nice then if the MK1A configuration has solved the issue.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Well, there is an issue in the sense that it takes too many hours to replace an engine due to the differences between the Kavery and the GE engine now.

The Kaveri engine was long since de-linked from the LCA project so any issues with changing the F404 of the LCA should be addressed now.

The issue with the F404 vis a vis the LCA had always been to do with air flow, the LCA's air intakes had been designed for the Kaveri engine but rhe F404 had different requirements which had been a challenge to accomadate (but now has been).

There really shouldn't be too much trouble changing the F404 on the LCA given that it is a relatively simple engine and a Western one at that.

I used to read that the issue was going to be solved in the MK2 version.

The Mk.2 will have an entirely different engine (F414) and will have been designed around this uprated engine from day one so the issues encountered with the F404 for the Mk.1 will not be encountered that is for sure.

 

[Carlosa]

The Kaveri engine was long since de-linked from the LCA project so any issues with changing the F404 of the LCA should be addressed now.

The issue with the F404 vis a vis the LCA had always been to do with air flow, the LCA's air intakes had been designed for the Kaveri engine but rhe F404 had different requirements which had been a challenge to accomadate (but now has been).

There really shouldn't be too much trouble changing the F404 on the LCA given that it is a relatively simple engine and a Western one at that.

There is an issue due to the size difference of the 2 engines, the GE engine has been adapted to the current airframe in the only possible way that it could be done, but it resulted in taking a lot of hours to replace an engine. This issue was covered extensively in this thread in the past. I know the issue will be fully solved in the MK2, but I was wondering / hoping that it would be fixed / improved in the MK-1A version. @Sri thinks it might be. That would be nice. Anyway, read his post, he knows about this issue.

 

[Abingdonboy]

There is an issue due to the size difference of the 2 engines, the GE engine has been adapted to the current airframe in the only possible way that it could be done, but it resulted in taking a lot of hours to replace an engine. This issue was covered extensively in this thread in the past. I know the issue will be fully solved in the MK2, but I was wondering / hoping that it would be fixed / improved in the MK-1A version. @Sri thinks it might be. That would be nice. Anyway, read his post, he knows about this issue.

The Mk.1A may feature some design optimisation to further enhance the capability of the LCA but it won't see any major structural changes to the Mk.1. The Mk.1A is about adding all the equipment the IAF would like to have (AESA radar, IFR probe, improved avionics etc). As far as the changing engine issues I don't think they will be particuarly troublesome on the Mk.1 as the IAF will have outlined a set of requirements around this and a maximum time period such things should take, the Mk.1 has passed this benchmark. Considering the F404 itself is a very durable and reliable engine with a high TBO I don't think this matter is of much concern at all.

 

[Sri]

There is an issue due to the size difference of the 2 engines, the GE engine has been adapted to the current airframe in the only possible way that it could be done, but it resulted in taking a lot of hours to replace an engine. This issue was covered extensively in this thread in the past. I know the issue will be fully solved in the MK2, but I was wondering / hoping that it would be fixed / improved in the MK-1A version. @Sri thinks it might be. That would be nice. Anyway, read his post, he knows about this issue.

Hi Carlosa, What I mean is -- the engine is not the current issue but other LRU etc are. Since you may have to remove some LRUs to reach/replace the engine. The LRUs will be better arranged in the modified avatar leading to reduction in time taken for replacement.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Whilst it is true the LCA was designed to be powered by the Kaveri there is no issue in "dropping out"/changing the F404 now that it is fitted. All the required intergration work was done long back.

The Mk.1A features no external/structural changes to the Mk.1 (first 20 units), it is simply set to receive extra features such as an IFR probe, AESA radar, improved avionics etc etc.

The Mk.2 will be dramatically different externally (longer, larger wing area, optimised interal fuel capacity etc) to the MK.1/A and will itself be designed around the F414-GE-INS6.

No. The Mk2 has been dropped. Its going to be only Mk1A. DM wants more concentration of AMCA.

 

[Sri]

No. The Mk2 has been dropped. Its going to be only Mk1A. DM wants more concentration of AMCA.

Makes sense, but what about Navy's requirement.

 

[Abingdonboy]

No. The Mk2 has been dropped. Its going to be only Mk1A. DM wants more concentration of AMCA.

Untrue, the Mk.2 project is very much on, the MK.1A will simply cover the time for it to be developed. The AMCA is an entirely seperate project with no relation to the MK.2 at all, both will be pursued.

Makes sense, but what about Navy's requirement.

The IN is ONLY interested in the Mk.2, for this reason alone the Mk.2 project is going ahead and the IAF itself is actually very interested in the Mk.2 for 2020 and beyond.

 

[Carlosa]

Hi Carlosa, What I mean is -- the engine is not the current issue but other LRU etc are. Since you may have to remove some LRUs to reach/replace the engine. The LRUs will be better arranged in the modified avatar leading to reduction in time taken for replacement.

Ah ok, I think you nailed it. Then it should be ok in the MK-1A version. That's even more important now that the production will be consolidated into the MK-1A version. In an actual conflict its important to be able to turn around the plane right away.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Untrue, the Mk.2 project is very much on, the MK.1A will simply cover the time for it to be developed. The AMCA is an entirely seperate project with no relation to the MK.2 at all, both will be pursued.


The IN is ONLY interested in the Mk.2, for this reason alone the Mk.2 project is going ahead and the IAF itself is actually very interested in the Mk.2 for 2020 and beyond.

It will be dropped. You just wait and see. Maybe concentration on NLCA might happen with modified NLCA MK2. But not the AF version.