What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Guys the below report says
he Tejas is touted as a fly-by-wire system; that is, one that uses sophisticated computer electronics to make it as foolproof as possible. A fly-by-wire aircraft normally has four circuits for each connection, meaning even if one circuit to the landing gear fails, three others will still operate. But in reality, the Indian Tejas has only two such circuits, not four. Technically it does not qualify as a fly-by-wire aircraft.
The Invisible Bird | OPEN Magazine
Want to know how far this is true.:hitwall:

does fly-by-wire has anything to do with landing gears..?

as far as i know it's an softwere to control the arodynamic flying of a unstable aircraft...
 
.
as far as i know it's an softwere to control the arodynamic flying of a unstable aircraft...
Not necessary. Most of modern civil jets are FBW, but are aerodynamically stable.
 
.
Hey Guys the below report says
he Tejas is touted as a fly-by-wire system; that is, one that uses sophisticated computer electronics to make it as foolproof as possible. A fly-by-wire aircraft normally has four circuits for each connection, meaning even if one circuit to the landing gear fails, three others will still operate. But in reality, the Indian Tejas has only two such circuits, not four. Technically it does not qualify as a fly-by-wire aircraft.
The Invisible Bird | OPEN Magazine
Want to know how far this is true.:hitwall:

AFAIK, the Tejas is fitted with a quadruple redundant fly-by-wire system.
i.e., even if one fails, the other three may take over. It has nothing to do with the landing gear. It controls the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
Be it one circuit, or four, a fly-by-wire system is a fly-by-wire system.:pop:
 
.
does fly-by-wire has anything to do with landing gears..?

as far as i know it's an softwere to control the arodynamic flying of a unstable aircraft...

First of all we cant verify how authentic the source is... Because if this is a issue then there would be a huge buzz in the media.... Only this magazine reported and its J-20 power projection doesn't make any reliability ...
Secondly Fly-by-wire is refers to circuited control.. The author of the magazine forgot that a single circuited control is also called Fly-by-wire..
How ever there are other fly-by-wire called, dual digital/analog, quadruplex etc.... Which shows the level of author's knowledge .. who just want to add some fuel into the flame...

May be he is right on landing gear... may be he just added is own masala ...

we have to just wait and watch...

in FBW... everything is software controlled.. in Quadruplex we will have 4 different algorithms for an action.. and the end action is carried by voting on the 4 different out comes... May be for landing gear two algorithm would have been sufficient...

As far i know we have 4 computers on board to manage the redudancy ... so it means this report is just to add flames...
 
.
AFAIK, the Tejas is fitted with a quadruple redundant fly-by-wire syste
i.e., even if one fails, the other three may take over. It has nothing to do with the landing gear. It controls the aerodynamics of the aircraft.

Yeah that is the way it is. Never mind that blog or whatever. our friend 'Sri' is pressure-cooking for nothing.


[/QUOTE]Be it one circuit, or four, a fly-by-wire system is a fly-by-wire system.:pop:[/QUOTE]

If the Tejas is flying like the underlined part, then that is a "short circuit". :P
 
.
Its not Pressure cooking, just trying to show whats being reported in the week of its biggest achievement. May be our media needs to behave in a more mature way.
Chill guys...
 
.
do a combat aircraft actually need to carry dumb bombs........?

even with present f404 engine , the LCA still could have enough thrust if it fly only with 8 A2A missiles without carrying any dumb bombs...

doesn't LCA mkI can still be very good in defensive role , i mean there are many other aircrafts IAF has to bomb the enemy...
 
.
do a combat aircraft actually need to carry dumb bombs........?

even with present f404 engine , the LCA still could have enough thrust if it fly only with 8 A2A missiles without carrying any dumb bombs...

doesn't LCA mkI can still be very good in defensive role , i mean there are many other aircrafts IAF has to bomb the enemy...

It could do point interception, combat air patrol covering army units during operations, close air support, and a limited amount of interdiction. It is a very stable, easy-to-fly plane and ideal of inducting in large numbers in this kind of support role. Its major weaknesses, the radar and the engine, have to be addressed urgently: without the radar, but with a hugely better engine, better than the 414 even, it can do very well in this kind of tactical role.

If we had had an Army Aviation Corps tasked to fly fixed-wing aircraft in close coordination with brigades and upwards, this would be the key to it, the centre piece.

On the other hand, for an Air Force obsessed, as it should be, with air superiority against very advanced technology to the north, deep strike needs in the west and the north, interdiction in the west and the north, and combat air patrol over air force and big cities and industrial centres, a type of area interception, then this aircraft is frankly a pain in the elbow. That is even after discarding totally any close air support and short-range interdiction tasks. And I forgot to mention maritime roles, which our neighbours to the west harshly criticise their air force for not doing well and which we need to do with a land-based air force, whoever owns it, Air Force, Navy or Army.

A very useful aircraft being shoved into the reluctant hands of a service that is focussed elsewhere, and kept away from two services which desperately need it.

One positive in the picture is that the Air Force is keeping the initial run of 120 Tejas aircraft entirely in the Deccan Peninsula, starting with Sulur. That means their role will be primarily naval and maritime to begin with, a welcome step forward if it is a good guess.
 
.
does fly-by-wire has anything to do with landing gears..?

as far as i know it's an softwere to control the arodynamic flying of a unstable aircraft...

Fly by wire is an electronic interface which control flight movement with help of actuators.4 chanell means four channels. They stabilize the aircraft.
 
.
the fly by wire is a set of programs which automatically controls the plane and the pilot has to just give command to it.it allows super agility and reduces the burden. the quadraplex system means u have 4 comp working on ur jet.every part of the plane is connected with the f.b.w.
New to the forum can anyone tell me what type of F.B.W j-17uses?
 
.
Is this just me or does anybody share the concern that MKI is way too expensive keeping in view its capability. I believe mkII will be a great fighter, but the question is what will be the cost of MKII, Specially when we are thinking of inducting around 200 of these...??/
 
.
Its not Pressure cooking, just trying to show whats being reported in the week of its biggest achievement. May be our media needs to behave in a more mature way.
Chill guys...

Get your point.
Hence, please do not take everything that appears in the press seriously. Most times, the reporters seem to be 'ignorant people trying to explain things to the ignorant'.
Enthusiasm cannot replace knowledge; viz. the likes of Shiv Aroor please note.
 
.
It could do point interception, combat air patrol covering army units during operations, close air support, and a limited amount of interdiction. It is a very stable, easy-to-fly plane and ideal of inducting in large numbers in this kind of support role. Its major weaknesses, the radar and the engine, have to be addressed urgently: without the radar, but with a hugely better engine, better than the 414 even, it can do very well in this kind of tactical role.

If we had had an Army Aviation Corps tasked to fly fixed-wing aircraft in close coordination with brigades and upwards, this would be the key to it, the centre piece.

On the other hand, for an Air Force obsessed, as it should be, with air superiority against very advanced technology to the north, deep strike needs in the west and the north, interdiction in the west and the north, and combat air patrol over air force and big cities and industrial centres, a type of area interception, then this aircraft is frankly a pain in the elbow. That is even after discarding totally any close air support and short-range interdiction tasks. And I forgot to mention maritime roles, which our neighbours to the west harshly criticise their air force for not doing well and which we need to do with a land-based air force, whoever owns it, Air Force, Navy or Army.

A very useful aircraft being shoved into the reluctant hands of a service that is focussed elsewhere, and kept away from two services which desperately need it.

One positive in the picture is that the Air Force is keeping the initial run of 120 Tejas aircraft entirely in the Deccan Peninsula, starting with Sulur. That means their role will be primarily naval and maritime to begin with, a welcome step forward if it is a good guess.

Good points above, Sir Joe.
The problem is that when division/application of air assets is concerned, the services have been locked in an interminable turf-battle. The IAF extremely reluctantly conceded ground to the IN in this regard. Thank god; the IN had factored in Aircraft Carriers in to their fleet right from independence, otherwise the IN would never ever had a Fleet Air Arm. What i mean is that since the IAF would never have been able to operate Aircraft Carriers, the Navy could buy their own aircraft. If the IN had followed the Soviet Navy pattern, the maritime air assets would have consisted entirely of obsolete, lumbering, land-based bombers. i thank the visionaries at the helm of the RIN/IN who saw a role for carriers and people like Adm. A.K. Chatterjee (as Director, Plans) and Capt. H.C. Ranalds (as first Director, Naval Aviation) among others who gave it physical form. And the godfather of it all was (then) R/Adm. Mountbatten who stayed on the side-lines. The first bunch of volunteer Naval officers for the Fleet Air Arm numbered 13. Of them 4 survived to be commissioned as the first Naval Aviators.
But the IAF's grouses never disappeared.
 
.
Is this just me or does anybody share the concern that MKI is way too expensive keeping in view its capability. I believe mkII will be a great fighter, but the question is what will be the cost of MKII, Specially when we are thinking of inducting around 200 of these...??/

I don't see why people are bother about Cost... Does any one know what was the cost of Israeli LAVI project???? It was 9 billion USD (12.4 billion USD as per curent money)... Compare to this What is Indian LCA Development cost???? any guess???/

1 or 2 billion max??? .. Indigenous programs give knowledge. Look at the broader picture what we can gain from it...
 
.
Good points above, Sir Joe.
The problem is that when division/application of air assets is concerned, the services have been locked in an interminable turf-battle. The IAF extremely reluctantly conceded ground to the IN in this regard. Thank god; the IN had factored in Aircraft Carriers in to their fleet right from independence, otherwise the IN would never ever had a Fleet Air Arm. What i mean is that since the IAF would never have been able to operate Aircraft Carriers, the Navy could buy their own aircraft. If the IN had followed the Soviet Navy pattern, the maritime air assets would have consisted entirely of obsolete, lumbering, land-based bombers. i thank the visionaries at the helm of the RIN/IN who saw a role for carriers and people like Adm. A.K. Chatterjee (as Director, Plans) and Capt. H.C. Ranalds (as first Director, Naval Aviation) among others who gave it physical form. And the godfather of it all was (then) R/Adm. Mountbatten who stayed on the side-lines. The first bunch of volunteer Naval officers for the Fleet Air Arm numbered 13. Of them 4 survived to be commissioned as the first Naval Aviators.
But the IAF's grouses never disappeared.

1. On a conservative estimate, we could do with 33 squadrons of LCA Mk 1 for these roles, one per division.
2. If we leave out the Mountain Divisions, for obvious reasons, the number comes down a bit. But that number has to be 'compensated' (and not with attack helicopters, which are just as unlikely, from Soviet experience, to work in mountain territory).
3. We need significant numbers of attack helicopters for the western front, but we need a different solution for the mountains. I wish somebody would listen.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom