What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is this relevant to the topic?/

By this logic anybody can claim anything.

Yuppie.. :victory::victory: i can even fly..:hang2:

It is very relevant and used very very often, It lets you claim Kashmiri's love India, Us claim the Balochi's are happy people ,the US claim that Saddam had WMD's and Micheal jackson was infact not a pedophile...only of these is true though.
 
It is very relevant and used very very often, It lets you claim Kashmiri's love India, Us claim the Balochi's are happy people and the US claim that Saddam had WMD's.

Again points that are off topic and irrelevant to the basic discussion.

The original question was "Do you have a video of JF firing a BVR?"

You brought ShahRukh Khan,**** in maya memzab Rambo, Kashmir, saddam, Baloch,etc instead of answering a simple straight forward question.
 
Offtopic ,
Kashmir / jf17 have relevant threads . Take all that discussion in respective threads .
I don't see Jf17 having any relevance to LCA thread
 
Again points that are off topic and irrelevant to the basic discussion.

The original question was "Do you have a video of JF firing a BVR?"

You brought ShahRukh Khan,**** in maya memzab Rambo, Kashmir, saddam, Baloch,etc instead of answering a simple straight forward question.

No, none was made.. but the above do illustrate something as an example, just because no one taped it doesn't mean it did not happen..
Otherwise most of us should be denying our own existence, since no proof of us being "made" actually exists.
 
when the LCA project was being envisaged, we had either of two roads in front of us (pursuing both was not an option given our precarious financial condition back then. funding even one project was a considerable stretch)

a) a low-risk option to develop a mig-21 derivative with a better radar(if available) and more fuel or a similar ajeet derivative. India's aerospace industry was at the time a full 2 generations behind russia and the west, a gap of roughly 20-25 years. to put it in another way, HF-24 marut was still our sole capability in 1980 which was equivalent to mid to late 1950's fighters from elsewhere. going this way would still keep the aerospace industry about 20 years behind the rest, since the proposed design was barely a 3rd generation. in comparison, all major aerospace powers had 4-gen fighters flying for some years at that time.
there was also the doubt whether this fighter would be useful 20-30 years in the future

b) the other route was to take the risky step to try and skip a generation in developing a 4gen straight from 2gen capabilities. that meant setting up new infrastructure, develop competencies in subjects we knew little about as a country, like FBW systems, composites, advanced avionics and so on. IOW, the LCA project was much more than a mere aircraft project, it was a project to develop a state-of-the-art aerospace sector.
if we do a little stock-taking, we can say that even if the LCA project is cancelled tomorrow morning, it is still a success. it is because of the LCA project that we are able to upgrade all our legacy aircrafts like mig-27's, that we can confidently approach the PAKFA as a contributor and even think of developing a 5gen fighter.

in hindsight, IMHO, we chose correctly, even if the project management wasn't always as expected.if we chose the other route we would now be testing a 3.5 gen fighter and dreaming of making a 4gen next, not a 5gen.

Mate i think u mis-understood wat Sancho said.

He didn say that we should have gone step by step....first a third gen,then 3.5 then to 4 and he was not faulting the Indian planners for going starightly to 4 th Gen.

Wat he meant was we ignore some obvious choices and go for ones that rarely make sense...case in point EADS/LM for N-LCA who practically have no experience in buiilding delta-winged carrier-borne fighters.
Rather it would have been gr8 if we had gone to Dassault (Rafale) or even Boeing (Super Hornet) who have experience in building fighters that operate from carriers.

And we would have gone with a JV for develping the LCA with say MiG or Dassault...in that way we could have speeded up te process and LCA would have been inducted few years back and the Mk II version would be in the final stage of trials.
 
when the LCA project was being envisaged, we had either of two roads in front of us (pursuing both was not an option given our precarious financial condition back then. funding even one project was a considerable stretch)

a) a low-risk option to develop a mig-21 derivative with a better radar(if available) and more fuel or a similar ajeet derivative. India's aerospace industry was at the time a full 2 generations behind russia and the west, a gap of roughly 20-25 years. to put it in another way, HF-24 marut was still our sole capability in 1980 which was equivalent to mid to late 1950's fighters from elsewhere. going this way would still keep the aerospace industry about 20 years behind the rest, since the proposed design was barely a 3rd generation. in comparison, all major aerospace powers had 4-gen fighters flying for some years at that time.
there was also the doubt whether this fighter would be useful 20-30 years in the future

b) the other route was to take the risky step to try and skip a generation in developing a 4gen straight from 2gen capabilities. that meant setting up new infrastructure, develop competencies in subjects we knew little about as a country, like FBW systems, composites, advanced avionics and so on. IOW, the LCA project was much more than a mere aircraft project, it was a project to develop a state-of-the-art aerospace sector.
if we do a little stock-taking, we can say that even if the LCA project is cancelled tomorrow morning, it is still a success. it is because of the LCA project that we are able to upgrade all our legacy aircrafts like mig-27's, that we can confidently approach the PAKFA as a contributor and even think of developing a 5gen fighter.

in hindsight, IMHO, we chose correctly, even if the project management wasn't always as expected.if we chose the other route we would now be testing a 3.5 gen fighter and dreaming of making a 4gen next, not a 5gen.

Besides what Karthic Sri said

True we took the right choice for a project with potential, but the way we choose to do it was wrong!
Just as you said there were enough fields where we knew very little about, so we should have focused on them, while getting off the shelf parts in fields where we had no idea. Radar for example, Zhuk ME, or Elta 2032 of the shelf, or if possible a co-development with them, would have reduced the delays by a good part, not to mention if we had a partner in Kaveri development from the start.
That's what I meant, we took the more difficult ways, instead of these obviously easier once and that's where the development went to trouble and imo we still doing it with choosing less experienced partners.

Btw I don't agree with you that even if we cancel LCA now, it would be a success, because all the developments and money would be lost for nothing! It would be clearly too much just to get experience to upgrade some older fighters and way too less to be useful for NG fighter developments. So far we learned nothing from this development, because we have nothing else then some prototypes, but this development was about developing an fighter for operational service, not a tech demonstrator only. That's why I keep saying focus on LCA MK2 and further developments of it, forget about AMCA now, because we have to master 4. and 4.5 gen techs first. This is not done by testflying some prototypes only, but through years of operational service of several squads.
The potential is there, but it's on us to get it out of LCA!
 
he Russian designers stared transfixed at the monitor as the model of India’s Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) went into a spin, rotating like a fan uncontrollably. Despite every attempt to straighten it out with the aircraft controls, the Sitara kept spinning. If this had been a real flight, rather than just a “spin tunnel” test in Russia, both pilots in the Sitara would have died as the uncontrollable trainer smashed into the ground.

Instead, Indian designers at the Aircraft R&D Centre (ARDC) in Bangalore — which is designing and testing the Sitara — have tweaked the Sitara’s aerodynamics until it has passed the “spin tunnel” test.



But now, Chief Test Pilot Baldev Singh has to actually test-fly the Sitara, deliberately throwing the trainer into a hair-raising spin and then coaxing it into level flight again.

Only after that can the Indian Air Force use the Sitara to teach rookie pilots the vital skills needed to recover an aircraft from a spin. During training, IAF instructors will put the IJT into a spin and then hand over controls to the trainee, allowing him or her to stabilise the aircraft.

These are literally testing times at the ARDC, a unit of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, which is preparing for several risky test flights that will determine the success or failure of its key projects.

Although the Sitara has cleared the “spin tunnel” test in Russia, that is no guarantee that the Sitara will recover from its first real life spin. Therefore, to minimise the risk to the test pilot, a special parachute is being fitted on the aircraft’s tail, which the pilot opens if he is unable to recover from a spin. Acting as an aerodynamic drag, the parachute retards the spin, allowing the pilot to recover control.

“There are always uncertainties in testing something for the first time”, explains HRS Prasad, the general manager of ARDC. “So we make doubly sure there is a system that will enable (the pilot) to recover from a potentially disastrous situation. But we are confident of demonstrating that the Sitara can recover from a spin… that is a basic requirement for a trainer.”

Even more dangerous are the flight tests ahead for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), to demonstrate its ability to handle higher angles of attack, or Alpha, as the designers call it. Simply put, a flying aircraft’s angle of attack is the angle it makes, nose to tail, with the horizontal. A high Alpha provides several benefits to a fighter, especially letting it fly slower to land on shorter runways.


The Tejas has currently tested an Alpha of just 22-24 degrees, and will go up gradually to 28 degrees. But flying a higher Alpha risks stalling the fighter; its engine could go off (or flame out, as pilots call it) leaving the Tejas, without propulsion power, or electrical and hydraulic power for its fly-by-wire controls, to fall out of the sky like a stone.

To guard against that, the ARDC is fitting a test Tejas with a fast-response power pack that US company, Honeywell, manufactures for such flight-testing. Within milliseconds of the Tejas main engine going off, the hydrogen-operated power pack starts up, providing power to the fighter’s hydraulic and electrical systems, and re-lighting the main engine.

“In flying a single-engine aircraft, there is no bigger emergency than a flame-out”, says a former Tejas test pilot. “But no fighter engine should flame out at just 28 degrees Alpha. However, the Tejas air intakes have not been well designed and, as the Alpha increases, the intakes constrict the airflow, and the engine dies for want of air.”

In contrast to the Tejas’ maximum Alpha of 28 degrees, India’s Sukhoi-30MKI can comfortably handle an Alpha of over 50 degrees. The US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet can manage an Alpha of 58 degrees.

The Tejas flight test programme, India’s first such testing process, has been controversial, with critics charging that the slow speed of testing has delayed the Tejas’ induction into service. On the positive side, the Tejas testing has given birth to the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), a test facility that is of global standard. The Aeronautics Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas’ development, has now engaged European aerospace giant, EADS, to advise on how to speed up testing.

“We have to proceed cautiously”, the Tejas programme director, PS Subramaniam told Business Standard, while witnessing a test last year. “We have managed to come so far without a single mishap. An accident would seriously damage the credibility of the Tejas programme.”

---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------

LSP 4 Video ..HQ

http://www.ada.gov.in/LSP4.wmv
 
First Drawbacks of the LCA tejas ,

low Angle of Attack.

Can only mange about 20 degree's

this has been attributed to poorly designed Air Intakes, If TVC is ever to be Installed , they have to be re-designed.

This could also mean no TVC , Meaning new engine will be the GE-414
 
NICE TAKE OF PICTURE OF LCA

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 
BY EDITOR AT 27 JULY, 2010, 1:34 AM
Note: Vinayak shetty is admin of www.lca-tejas.org had also has his own blog at Point blank
BY: Vinayak shetty


In a busy Hangar in Hal complex a lone Tejas Pv-1 in the corner of the Hanger waits for Integration with the Kaveri engine , mating should have taken place a decade ago but delays in kaveri engine by GTRE only delayed the whole event , this also shows how off track whole Kaveri engine Project really is .

PV-1 has been pulled out of the current rigorous Tejas Test program since it no longer has all the new avionics equipments and its subsystems , nor does it has weapons integrated to carry out weapons testing ,but it will not join the fate of TD-1 and TD-2 where both have been dismantled and usable parts already been removed from the aircraft and waits it last resting place neither in a museum or a IAF Base .

Efforts are on to integrate Kaveri engine to its airframe , PV-1 is the only aircraft which was designed keeping Kaveri engine in mind , but it flew with American Ge engine , it still needs a lot of rework on its fuel lines and also on plumping systems ,so does LRU in the aircraft, Tejas LSP aircrafts have gone lot of changes recently to match LSP , PV-1 will also require number of changes to its mission computer and software .

Sources close to www.lca-tejas.org have told us that PV-1 up gradation and rework may delay the whole integration of Kaveri engine , HAL engineers are also working on possibility of integrating it with Tejas LSP-1 which is a newer airframe and has better equipment on-board then Pv-1 .

Which aircraft will take the honor will be decided soon and Kaveri engine will fly on board a Tejas Air frame by early 2011 or some time later in the year
 
An interesting comparison..

tejas.png


Tejas Mk2 is assumed to have the GE F414 engine. The other options are the GE F414 Enhanced Performance Engine or the EJ200 Thrust Vectored Engine. In any of the cases, the basic performance characteristics are expected to be similar.
courtesy - pogularrocky
 
Some points are worth to be noted-

F-114EPE will have dry thrust of 70 KN and Max. thrust of 116KN. will further enhance its TWR...
however i am not sure about SC capability ...
Service ceiling is 16.5 km...not the best but certainly not worst..
Combat radius is best..
Max. speed at Mach. 2.2 is doubtful..
 
@ jha ji

i too pointed out fe 414'EPE' a while ago for tejas mk2 but a senior member said that such high thrust would be an 'overkill' for tejas ......

so he said that tejas will be getting fe414 but not the EPE version if it gets selected....

the chart says that tejas mk2 will have a combat "radius" of 1200 km which also I highly doubt....

sorry to say guys i am also a little disappointed with the payload = 3.4tns
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom