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

[MirageBlue]

Guys on capability point of view

I read some where the tejas mark1a with elta 2052 radar and Astra bvr and extended range derby bvr could be the best bvr platform in Indian air force by 2023/2025. This is based on the lower rcs of tejas versus all other fighters bar the rafale .
My imo is that bvr rank wise in capab8kity will be

Rafale = rbe2 radar meteors and mica
Tejas = elta 2052 derby and astra
Su30mki = bars pesa r77 and r27
Mig29up/mig29k zhuk aesa r77 and 27
Mirage2000/5 = rdy400 and magic.

I refer to lethality only not range or payload.

Both rafale and tejas are harder to see and have good radars which are harder to jam and excellent range bvr missles

In this order

Su-30MKI will get the Astra before the Tejas Mk1A. MiG-29UPG will get it, as will likely, the Mirage-2000I.

Major drawback of LCA Mk-1A is it's limited operational range and fewer hardpoints. MWF will fix that but we need to fastrack the development of MWF

Tejas' max range is 2000 plus km. And it's Radius of Action is BETTER than the Jaguar.

This is from HV Thakur on Twitter. He's a former Jaguar pilot and Jaguar Squadron Commander of the IAF.

Currently PAF outclasses everything that India has as far is BVR is concerned. Derby/Astra are inferior to the SD10A. Once the Rafales turn up, shortly AESA equipped PL15s will neutralise that threat. So, India will not have a chance to outclass PAF in the BVR space.

Lol.

Yeah? Show me data that backs up your claim. Show us the manufacturer's data to back it up. Tell us EXACTLY how it is superior to the i-Derby-ER, Derby or the Astra Mk1.

Meteor is considered the pre-eminent BVRAAM out there today. Because the data shows it. Not because fanboys say so and the rest are supposed to believe it.

What is the craze with pl -15 I say, it's basically for non maneuverable slow flying aircraft at long ranges like aewacs....

It's no magic bullet. Get over the hype


Had that been the scenario PAF wouldnt have ordered American missiles.
They would have settled with SD10a

Let them believe what they want to believe. Internet wars don't really matter in the real world.

PL-15 was designed to take on USAF AWACS and tanker assets from long ranges. It isn't even a dual pulse motor BVR AAM. It will be easily out-maneuvered by any fighter and will have a very poor Pk at high ranges and very low No-Escape Zone.

Meteor is the one to beat thanks to the ramjet rocket that will keep it powered throughout it's flight. It's NEZ is supposedly far better than the latest AMRAAM.

Major drawback of LCA Mk-1A is it's limited operational range and fewer hardpoints. MWF will fix that but we need to fastrack the development of MWF

Fewer hardpoints compared to which light aircraft?

Gripen C? KAI FA-50? JF-17? All of them have 7 hardpoints for carrying weapons and most have only 3 wet points, that can carry drop tanks.

Only the Gripen C and Tejas Mk1 have 7 weapons hardpoints and 1 dedicated chin station for the LDP. JF-17 is only now getting the chin station for LDP.

 

[Zapper]

Tejas' max range is 2000 plus km. And it's Radius of Action is BETTER than the Jaguar.

This is from HV Thakur on Twitter. He's a former Jaguar pilot and Jaguar Squadron Commander of the IAF

Tejas

• Range: 1,850 km (1,150 mi, 459 nmi)
• Combat range: 500 km (320 mi, 280 nmi) with internal tanks
• Ferry range: 3,200 km (1,986 mi, 1,726 nmi) with 2x external drop tanks

Jaguar

• Combat range: 815 km (506 mi, 440 nmi) hi-lo-hi (internal fuel)

575 km (357 mi; 310 nmi) lo-lo-lo (internal fuel)
1,408 km (875 mi; 760 nmi) hi-lo-hi (with external fuel)
908 km (564 mi; 490 nmi) lo-lo-lo (with external fuel)

• Ferry range: 1,902 km (1,182 mi, 1,027 nmi) with full internal and external tanks

While Tejas would be a potent addition on the western front, it falls behind when it comes to engaging PLAAF given the vast area of Tibet

 

[MirageBlue]

Tejas

• Range: 1,850 km (1,150 mi, 459 nmi)
• Combat range: 500 km (320 mi, 280 nmi) with internal tanks
• Ferry range: 3,200 km (1,986 mi, 1,726 nmi) with 2x external drop tanks

Jaguar

• Combat range: 815 km (506 mi, 440 nmi) hi-lo-hi (internal fuel)

575 km (357 mi; 310 nmi) lo-lo-lo (internal fuel)
1,408 km (875 mi; 760 nmi) hi-lo-hi (with external fuel)
908 km (564 mi; 490 nmi) lo-lo-lo (with external fuel)

• Ferry range: 1,902 km (1,182 mi, 1,027 nmi) with full internal and external tanks

While Tejas would be a potent addition on the western front, it falls behind when it comes to engaging PLAAF given the vast area of Tibet

IAF posted Tejas info-board

Tejas max range - 2000 km

And I would go with what a Test Pilot (Grp Cpt HV Thakur) who has flown the Jaguar and knows exactly what NFTC TPs were doing with the Tejas when flying from Bangalore to Jaisalmer nonstop for weapons trials.

And he clearly stated that the Tejas' Radius of Action (ROA) is better than that of the Jaguar.

The Tejas will be a defensive fighter, to keep PLAAF fighters out of our borders. Can easily maintain CAP/BarCAP patrols on our side. Su-30MKIs will have to be the ones doing any incursions into Chinese territory if it comes down to that. They have the legs for that.

 

[Zapper]

IAF posted Tejas info-board

Tejas max range - 2000 km

2000 km with 2x external drop tanks

 

[MirageBlue]

2000 km with 2x external drop tanks

Yes, and I'd expect it to carry drop tanks (either centerline or inboard stations) on almost all missions.

 

[Zapper]

Yes, and I'd expect it to carry drop tanks (either centerline or inboard stations) on almost all missions.

Fighter jets usually tend to drop their external fuel tanks in case of a dog fight or WVR encounter for better maneuverability after which they should have enough fuel left to make it back. But again, I don't expect LCA to cross LAC but is a potent addition on our western front since most pakistani cities are within the 500km range from our borders

 

[MirageBlue]

Fighter jets usually tend to drop their external fuel tanks in case of a dog fight or WVR encounter for better maneuverability after which they should have enough fuel left to make it back. But again, I don't expect LCA to cross LAC but is a potent addition on our western front since most pakistani cities are within the 500km range from our borders

It was mostly true in the older days when drop tanks would restrict maneuvering capability a lot and combat meant dogfights. In today's day and age, where the combat may initiate at Beyond Visual ranges, it is not necessary to jettison the drop tanks.

But yes, if the pilot feels that he needs higher maneuverability, he could jettison the drop tanks and should still be able to get back and recover safely to a base. But that is not a problem unique to the Tejas. Almost all fighters need to be able to do that.

If the IAF expected to use it's Jaguars as Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft to ingress into Pakistani territory at very low altitudes (where fuel consumption is higher), climb up, strike and then egress at low altitudes (viz. lo-hi-lo profile) , then Tejas, which has a better Radius of Action, can do it too. Question is whether that type of strike profile is dangerous or not and the answer is that it is. During Gulf War 1 it was the Tornado pilots flying this type of profile that suffered high attrition.

It is far safer to use stand-off glide PGMs, LBGs and other smart munitions and allow the pilot to stay out the SAM and AAA bubbles as far as possible. And for that sort of role, the Tejas is perfectly capable as was illustrated by the fact that it had the best range scores during IAF Exercise Gagan Shakti as well as Inter-Command exercises.

When a sizeable number of Tejas fighters are in service, the IAF will task them with every role it can.

 

[MirageBlue]

Tejas trainer coming in to land

Trust #DebRana to bring to us some of the nicest shots of Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. A click from earlier today, The twin seat Light Combat Aircraft Tejas Trainer.

Twitter link

Tejas trainer with the French Air Force Chief in the back seat. Backdrop of Jodhpur's famous Mehrangarh fort.

From Tejas LCA's FB page

Two engineering excellence in one frame..
The Mehrangarh and the other your very own Tejas..
With French AirForce Chief on the rear cockpit, this was another historic moment for Tejas.

 

[The Maverick]

The

Tejas trainer coming in to land

Twitter link

Tejas trainer with the French Air Force Chief in the back seat. Backdrop of Jodhpur's famous Mehrangarh fort.

From Tejas LCA's FB page

Twin engined tejas looks the best love the raised bubble canopy of rear co pilot.
We need to make these combat capable

 

[MirageBlue]

The

Twin engined tejas looks the best love the raised bubble canopy of rear co pilot.
We need to make these combat capable

You mean twin seater? IMO, it looks a LOT better when it's up in the air. I find the landing gear ungainly on the ground.

From my interactions with those involved, it seems that there is no real plan to make the twin seater a combat twin seater. It is primarily being thought of as a trainer only.

HAL's Supersonic Omni Role Trainer (SPORT) concept is very interesting. It plans to develop a twin seat trainer into a very advanced LIFT for the IAF. Apparently HAL plans on getting a LCA SPORT prototype in the air in the next 2-3 years.

 

[MirageBlue]

Very interesting slide from a presentation that shows the changes in configuration to the Tejas from Mk1 to Mk2 and then finally to the configuration that is now final and in detail design phase.

Shows the evolution of the design as well as the evolution of IAF's requirements that led finally to a direct Mirage-2000 replacement Tejas Mk2 design.

Most interestingly, it appears (and I'm fairly confident it is) that the wing area is NOT being increased for the Tejas Mk2. The Tejas Mk1's wing is so big that even with the added weight of the Mk2, the wing loading of a Tejas Mk2 with it's canards will be quite low, which is a great thing. The canards obviously will increase the lifting surface area, so they compensate for the added weight in a way.

1. The initial Tejas Mk2 was 0.5 meter longer; (Prelim Design Review in 2014)
   1. MTOW was 15,000 kg
      
   2. Max Payload was increased from 3,500 kg to 4,500 kg
      
   3. Internal fuel was increased from 2486 kg to 2672 kg (minor increase of 200 kg)
   4. F-414-INS-6 engine
2. The next Tejas Mk2 iteration was 1 meter longer (2017)
   1. MTOW was increased to 16,500 kg
   2. Max Payload was increased from 4,500 kg to 5,500 kg
   3. Internal fuel was increased from 2672 kg to 3300 kg (major increase of 628 kg over previous Mk2 design)
      
   4. New close coupled canards added
      
   5. F-414-INS-6 engine
   6. Wing-tip stations added
3. The final Mk2 iteration is 1.35 meter longer and MTOW has gone up to 17,500 kgs
   1. MTOW was increased to 17,500 kg
   2. Max Payload increased from 5,500 kg to 6,500 kg
   3. Internal fuel was kept constant at 3300 kg
   4. 300 mm wider, most likely at the wing join; i.e. the fuselage will be wider by 300 mm but the wing size will remain same as earlier Mk2 design.
      
   5. Close coupled canards retained
   6. F-414-INS-6 engine retained
   7. Wing-tip stations retained

The yellow areas on the Tejas models are the locations where the fuselage plugs will be added. Can see the initial 0.5 m plug on the first Mk2 design, then the additional 0.5 m plug (0.5m + 0.5m = 1m total fuselage plug) in the next Mk2 design and then finally another 0.3 m plug (0.5m + 0.5m+ 0.3m = 1.3m total fuselage plug) as well in the last iteration.

 

[Nilgiri]

Very interesting slide from a presentation that shows the changes in configuration to the Tejas from Mk1 to Mk2 and then finally to the configuration that is now final and in detail design phase.

Shows the evolution of the design as well as the evolution of IAF's requirements that led finally to a direct Mirage-2000 replacement Tejas Mk2 design.

Most interestingly, it appears (and I'm fairly confident it is) that the wing area is NOT being increased for the Tejas Mk2. The Tejas Mk1's wing is so big that even with the added weight of the Mk2, the wing loading of a Tejas Mk2 with it's canards will be quite low, which is a great thing. The canards obviously will increase the lifting surface area, so they compensate for the added weight in a way.

1. The initial Tejas Mk2 was 0.5 meter longer; (Prelim Design Review in 2014)
   1. MTOW was 15,000 kg
      
   2. Max Payload was increased from 3,500 kg to 4,500 kg
      
   3. Internal fuel was increased from 2486 kg to 2672 kg (minor increase of 200 kg)
   4. F-414-INS-6 engine
2. The next Tejas Mk2 iteration was 1 meter longer (2017)
   1. MTOW was increased to 16,500 kg
   2. Max Payload was increased from 4,500 kg to 5,500 kg
   3. Internal fuel was increased from 2672 kg to 3300 kg (major increase of 628 kg over previous Mk2 design)
      
   4. New close coupled canards added
      
   5. F-414-INS-6 engine
   6. Wing-tip stations added
3. The final Mk2 iteration is 1.35 meter longer and MTOW has gone up to 17,500 kgs
   1. MTOW was increased to 17,500 kg
   2. Max Payload increased from 5,500 kg to 6,500 kg
   3. Internal fuel was kept constant at 3300 kg
   4. 300 mm wider, most likely at the wing join; i.e. the fuselage will be wider by 300 mm but the wing size will remain same as earlier Mk2 design.
      
   5. Close coupled canards retained
   6. F-414-INS-6 engine retained
   7. Wing-tip stations retained

The yellow areas on the Tejas models are the locations where the fuselage plugs will be added. Can see the initial 0.5 m plug on the first Mk2 design, then the additional 0.5 m plug (0.5m + 0.5m = 1m total fuselage plug) in the next Mk2 design and then finally another 0.3 m plug (0.5m + 0.5m+ 0.3m = 1.3m total fuselage plug) as well in the last iteration.

@Indos

 

[The Maverick]

@Indos

The mark 2 looks s clone of gripen ng.

 

[Indos]

@Indos

Nice info, thanks for tagging me

 

[MirageBlue]

The mark 2 looks s clone of gripen ng.

It may have some superficial similarity, but the fact is this- both Saab as well as ADA/HAL/DRDO are trying to solve what is essentially a similar problem. How to scale up a light fighter (Gripen C and Tejas Mk1) to a bigger design to meet higher range and payload requirements?

ADA wasn't and isn't looking to clone a Gripen E in any way. The canards were added due to very specific issues relating to Center of Lift and Center of Gravity that were arising from the fuselage plugs that lengthened the airframe by 1 meter or more.