What's new

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

Not having the design details available is one thing, but denying its very existence when the who's who of HAL & MOD are making official statements is lunacy.
It's an obvious fact that not everyone will have access to ALL the information available out there. Different people will break different stories. The Trishul dude has major egomania that only he has access to ALL the information and anything that anyone else says is all bogus!! I think it is all fine to indulge in commentary (as in the utility of an idea, the pro & cons etc..) but to always make decrees and declaratory statements is foolish (IMHO). (Not to mention how abusive he gets with folks for no reason at all - recently I saw him call some polite dude an 'arsehole' just because he didn't want to reveal his real name!!!)
He has made such declarations on several issues and has been proven COMPLETELY wrong. To his credit, (like everyone else) he does break interesting news himself and brings to light some interesting analysis too. But I feel others get their information wrong due to error/ignorance, this dude dishes out misinformation merely due to arrogance - for an end user like you and I, we have to be careful while consuming information from either of those types.

Regarding Tejas Mk1A, one of the essential modification promised by HAL was to reduce the weight of the landing gear - as HAL themselves claimed that the current landing gear was 'over engineered' initially.
True on Prasun.... and yes read abt that guy too!

On the MK1A, the over-engineered landing gear is for the NLCA (very old report) ... so this could be a small hint that this NLCA will be the basis for the Mk1A. Still we have to wait till something concrete comes along ... 2018 isn't far!
 
True on Prasun.... and yes read abt that guy too!

On the MK1A, the over-engineered landing gear is for the NLCA (very old report) ... so this could be a small hint that this NLCA will be the basis for the Mk1A. Still we have to wait till something concrete comes along ... 2018 isn't far!

For a while I thought the same too i.e. fix the airforce landing gear to the NLCA; but HAL never used those words. They've always said that the landing gear will be re-engineered as it is overdone (I think they feel that the airforce landing gear is over weight too). Yep, 2018 is just around the corner!!!
 
For a while I thought the same too i.e. fix the airforce landing gear to the NLCA; but HAL never used those words. They've always said that the landing gear will be re-engineered as it is overdone (I think they feel that the airforce landing gear is over weight too). Yep, 2018 is just around the corner!!!
I Do not think we need to fix NLCA landing gear for MK1A prototype( If NLCA example is being used as template for MK1A) since NLCA is based on Trainer version which has normal landing gear, So I would think that the MK1A Prototype is based on trainer where in the second seat is removed. and yes I believe a little tweak is certainly possible may be they can reduce say 100KG and beyond that I do not think so.
 
I Do not think we need to fix NLCA landing gear for MK1A prototype( If NLCA example is being used as template for MK1A) since NLCA is based on Trainer version which has normal landing gear, So I would think that the MK1A Prototype is based on trainer where in the second seat is removed. and yes I believe a little tweak is certainly possible may be they can reduce say 100KG and beyond that I do not think so.
NLCA has a very different landing gear (thunder thighs actually:-) ). Google for images. How else do you think they are able to test ski jump take offs and short landings? NLCA became the basis for the trainer - not the other way around.
I do hope the NLCA will be the basis for Mk1A, as its belly is widened (for the bigger landing gear, which when reduced in size will make way for more fuel!), has LEVCONs and overall better aerodynamics!
 
NLCA has a very different landing gear (thunder thighs actually:-) ). Google for images. How else do you think they are able to test ski jump take offs and short landings? NLCA became the basis for the trainer - not the other way around.
I do hope the NLCA will be the basis for Mk1A, as its belly is widened (for the bigger landing gear, which when reduced in size will make way for more fuel!), has LEVCONs and overall better aerodynamics!
There won't be any air frame changes in mk1A...only addition of new radar,ew systems and several changes in avionics will be done!
No new foc required for mk1a
 
Last edited:
NLCA has a very different landing gear (thunder thighs actually:-) ). Google for images. How else do you think they are able to test ski jump take offs and short landings? NLCA became the basis for the trainer - not the other way around.
I do hope the NLCA will be the basis for Mk1A, as its belly is widened (for the bigger landing gear, which when reduced in size will make way for more fuel!), has LEVCONs and overall better aerodynamics!

Let me clear what I was saying
The Current prototype of MK1A which is an airforce version will be based on NLCA right? and NLCA itself is based on LCA Trainer ( I hope this link explains this http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2015/07/cmde-balaji-retd-takes-over-reins-of.html )? so MK1A does not need landing gear re-engineering since the Trainer has the required landing gear already qualified ( Since MK1A will not be doing any Ski jumping :) ). the only other additions would be Levcons - again the Levcons were actually designed for deck landing and not for improving maneuverability, so either they remove it completely or reconfigure it for maneuverability.
The Gist is not much tweaking is needed in the current trainer to be modified to MK1A!!!
Hope this is clear.
 
Let me clear what I was saying
The Current prototype of MK1A which is an airforce version will be based on NLCA right? and NLCA itself is based on LCA Trainer ( I hope this link explains this http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2015/07/cmde-balaji-retd-takes-over-reins-of.html )? so MK1A does not need landing gear re-engineering since the Trainer has the required landing gear already qualified ( Since MK1A will not be doing any Ski jumping :) ). the only other additions would be Levcons - again the Levcons were actually designed for deck landing and not for improving maneuverability, so either they remove it completely or reconfigure it for maneuverability.
The Gist is not much tweaking is needed in the current trainer to be modified to MK1A!!!
Hope this is clear.
Not sure if you've been following the news since 2015, but HAL has said that it can further reduce the weight of the landing gear (even if the existing one is already 'qualified').
Whoever said that Mk1A would be doing ski jumps??? And whoever said that LEVCONs will help with maneuverability??? You invented your own notions to dissent.

There won't be any air frame changes in mk1A...only addition of new radar,ew systems and several changes in avionics will be done!
No new foc required for mk1a
No 'new' airframe will be designed right now. But we do have two different airframes for Tejas as of now (the AF mk1 and the NLCA mk1). It's not clear which one will actually be used for Mk1A - even though NLCA Mk1 would make more sense!
 
Not sure if you've been following the news since 2015, but HAL has said that it can further reduce the weight of the landing gear (even if the existing one is already 'qualified').
Whoever said that Mk1A would be doing ski jumps??? And whoever said that LEVCONs will help with maneuverability??? You invented your own notions to dissent.


No 'new' airframe will be designed right now. But we do have two different airframes for Tejas as of now (the AF mk1 and the NLCA mk1). It's not clear which one will actually be used for Mk1A - even though NLCA Mk1 would make more sense!
It's gonna be mk1 airframe with few weight shaving measures and mid air refuelling pod!
You can forget about nlca...it's not related here!
http://idrw.org/83-tejas-mk1a-orders-kitty-can-hal-deliver-will-ada-catch-tejas-mk2/
 
LCA mk1 is the platform for Mk1A,
NLCA is another development program.

Remember that IAF had dumped AF Mk1 platform long back and put their weight behind the Naval variant early in the decade. Much later MOD came back and forced them to accept few frames of the AF Mk1 in IOC2 and FOC configurations (which may actually never see combat ever - but used for training and defensive purposes in the southern part of the country). Not sure why IAF would just go back to accepting 80+ more of the bunked airframes for combat - logic might dictate that they'll ask for the Naval variant (as it has several improvement in terms of aerodynamics, fuel quantity etc.). As someone else said earlier in the conversation, 2018 is just around the corner - we'll know everything for sure :-)


@Oscar
@The Eagle
Kudos to the moderators for getting the gunk out of the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Members, avoid off-topic etc posts and stay on topic.

Thanks.
 
@The Eagle
General question: Is there a way for a member to block another member from seeing/replying-to his/her posts? I know a member can choose to ignore (to see) another members posts.
 
Of course it's af mk 1. Even 3rd grade kid would know that!!

LCA mk1 is the platform for Mk1A,
NLCA is another development program.

People Relax! ... why are we pullings hairs even before the Mk1A is rolled out

As i mentioned in my post so far no official data so far is released on the design only specs from tender docs. I do remember reading that the Mk1A will be based on the NP1/NP2 , (but again nothing is official)

Instead lets just enjoy

Tejas+Mk1+MRCA.jpg
 
I do remember reading that the Mk1A will be based on the NP1/NP2 , (but again nothing is official)
Probably on Trishul :-)
He did keep hinting at using NLCA for Mk1A - I think he does make sense on this matter. But we'll wait and see! (I just saw him refer to another guy as an 'arsehole'!!)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom