HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[shaktiman2010]

LSP stands for limited series production and these are improvements made to the prototype and it is the production model of LCA MK1

Basic design is same in LSP-1 to LSP-5 in all models.

So, why they are simply repeating same thing? Why waste so much time and effort on same design?

They should now start experimenting and build variants of new ambitious designs and airframes like Russians do.

For how many years more, we will keep doing LCA now? Will we ever begin more heavy-class airframes design and testing or (AMCA) types?

 

[Dark Angel]

Why we are designing same fighter(LCA) again and again.

Its stupid. They should be more ambitious and build variants of new designs.

There is no point in repeating same thing again and again(LSP-1 has same design as LSP-5).

Standard practice around the world, will seem stupid to stupid people

 

[shaktiman2010]

It looks like India will keep doing(over-doing) same LCA design for 10 more years and it will never take next leap into new heavy class(AMCA) of fighters.

Actually, going by timeline MRCA won't arrive before 2014 and there is full capability to roll out first AMCA by 2014. So, why not invest those 12Billion$ tax money in domestic sector?

Why Indian policy makers are so dumb?

 

[Iggy]

It looks like India will keep doing(over-doing) same LCA design for 10 more years and it will never take next leap into new heavy class(AMCA) of fighters.

Actually, going by timeline MRCA won't arrive before 2014 and there is full capability to roll out first AMCA by 2014. So, why not invest those 12Billion$ tax money in domestic sector?

Why Indian policy makers are so dumb?

Sir do your posting make any sense to you??do you really know what you are talking about??I dont know who is really dumb here..

 

[sancho]

8 is more than enough for a light aircraft...how many more u need?

Actually it has only 7, because 1 is only for pods like the Litening targeting pod and in any A2G, or anti ship mission where it has to take 2 wing fuel tanks + 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles, it will leave only the centerline weapon station for A2G weapons. So only 1 bomb, or anti ship missile, but if you add the 2 wingtip stations instead for WVR missiles, LCA could carry 2 more bombs, or missiles on the wingstations.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Actually it has only 7, because 1 is only for pods like the Litening targeting pod and in any A2G, or anti ship mission where it has to take 2 wing fuel tanks + 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles, it will leave only the centerline weapon station for A2G weapons. So only 1 bomb, or anti ship missile, but if you add the 2 wingtip stations instead for WVR missiles, LCA could carry 2 more bombs, or missiles on the wingstations.

Well LCA is a point defence aircraft with secondary ground attack role. LCA is in airforce terms called as cannon fodder. So it is mainly built for air interdiction and anyways it can use multiple racks for launching extra missiles. anyway the load is going to be constant at 4000kgs.

 

[shaktiman2010]

Standard practice around the world, will seem stupid to stupid people

If you follow the norms in world, you will always remain behind.

Start thinking on your own.

 

[Iggy]

Actually it has only 7, because 1 is only for pods like the Litening targeting pod and in any A2G, or anti ship mission where it has to take 2 wing fuel tanks + 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles, it will leave only the centerline weapon station for A2G weapons. So only 1 bomb, or anti ship missile, but if you add the 2 wingtip stations instead for WVR missiles, LCA could carry 2 more bombs, or missiles on the wingstations.

Sacho yaar but LCA is mainly used for air defence only right??Is there any chance that A2G operations should be assigned to them?

 

[Dash]

self delete- already answred

 

[shaktiman2010]

Sir do your posting make any sense to you??do you really know what you are talking about??I dont know who is really dumb here..

Why don't you answer my question rather than getting personal here?

The question was "Why they need to repeat same thing again and again? Even Russians don't keep repeating tests on same design for 12 years."

Its foolishness if one doesn't have confidence in graduating from LCA's basic design to new ambitious heavy-class fighter designs even after 10 years of testing.

Now, if you have some good reason for that, then answer it. Otherwise, only answer to that is, LCA design was imported and done in western labs. So, India lacks confidence to move to heavy-class fighter designs even in 2010.

 

[sancho]

Well LCA is a point defence aircraft with secondary ground attack role. LCA is in airforce terms called as cannon fodder. So it is mainly built for air interdiction and anyways it can use multiple racks for launching extra missiles. anyway the load is going to be constant at 4000kgs.

No, LCA is meant as a 4. gen multi role fighter, which means it should offer some promising A2G capabilities too. Don't misunderstand me, I am not talking about additional heavy bomb loads to make him a strike fighter. But even for CAS it should be able to carry more than 2 fuel tanks and a single 250/500 Kg bomb right? And as I said, adding the wing tip stations is not a big deal, so won't need too much work. I hope to see them on the MK2.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Why don't you answer my question rather than getting personal here?

The question was "Why they need to repeat same thing again and again? Even Russians don't keep repeating tests on same design for 12 years."

Its foolishness if one doesn't have confidence in graduating from LCA's basic design to new ambitious heavy-class fighter designs even after 10 years of testing.

Now, if you have some good reason for that, then answer it. Otherwise, only answer to that is, LCA design was imported and done in western labs. So, India lacks confidence to move to heavy-class fighter designs even in 2010.

Yes. We are doing it. It is called as MCA. The GSQR has just reached the ADA and they are going thorugh it. After which a design will be drawn. This will then undergo flight tests in wind tunnels and all other simulations before the tech demonstrator is built. This is how all aircrafts are made.

 

[sancho]

Now, if you have some good reason for that, then answer it. Otherwise, only answer to that is, LCA design was imported and done in western labs. So, India lacks confidence to move to heavy-class fighter designs even in 2010.

We still lack experience and knowledge!
How do you want to power MCA, if Kaveri engine is not even ready for LCA?
Which radar do you want to integrate in MCA, if LCA did not even have an indigenous one?
Which wepons should it carry, if Astra, or PGM are only under development so far?
Where do you think will the knowledge for stealth, SC, or TVC will come if we never developed and made these techs operational by our own?

Bottom line is, without LCA operational and with improvements, there will be no MCA at all!

Btw, LCA design was made in India, with western consultancy, not in western labs. Clear difference!

 

[Iggy]

Why don't you answer my question rather than getting personal here?

The question was "Why they need to repeat same thing again and again? Even Russians don't keep repeating tests on same design for 12 years."

Its foolishness if one doesn't have confidence in graduating from LCA's basic design to new ambitious heavy-class fighter designs even after 10 years of testing.

Now, if you have some good reason for that, then answer it. Otherwise, only answer to that is, LCA design was imported and done in western labs. So, India lacks confidence to move to heavy-class fighter designs even in 2010.

Sir you are saying like before passing kindergarten we should have our graduation ...we are newbie to this sector..we are devaloping systems by our own..Tejas is the first of its own kind devaloped by our country ..testing it again and again is to make it perfect..and as for heavy class we are going to devalop MCA..just have patience..

 

[satishkumarcsc]

No, LCA is meant as a 4. gen multi role fighter, which means it should offer some promising A2G capabilities too. Don't misunderstand me, I am not talking about additional heavy bomb loads to make him a strike fighter. But even for CAS it should be able to carry more than 2 fuel tanks and a single 250/500 Kg bomb right? And as I said, adding the wing tip stations is not a big deal, so won't need too much work. I hope to see them on the MK2.

The IAF dosent think that way. What you are tryng to tell me is what IAF was trying to get 5 years before...Get a Mirage in a Gnat.