HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[Han Patriot]

Which besides beeing small minded, is also factually wrong, because neither the 4th gen US teen fighters, nor most of the comparable Russian 4th gen fighters has canards. Canards doesn't define a fighter generations, like you wrongly assume.

My big minded friend,

When did I ever said anything about 4th gen aircraft being canards only. I was asking why major pure delta wing users were evolving into delta canard based aircraft users. Again, let me define some terms here:

Frontal wing canard, with delta back wing = delta canard.
Only delta wing without any canard wings = pure delta.

Since you can’t define a cranked delta nor a compound delta properly, LCA is no different from another pure delta like Mirage-2000. Again, read my previous argument, all planes have tiny twitches which includes a slight notch to LCA wings and a baby ‘canard’ for Mirage-2000. Yet, officially M2K is still classified as delta winged .

My previous argument is about two things.

1) The advantages of delta canard configuration versus pure deltas
2) The real reason delta canard was’t adopted by LCA

It is pretty obvious with an addition of a canard, the agility and maneuverability is increased but so does the instability, which is also why it is highly maneuverable in the first place, hence with an advanced control system, we can reduce this disadvantage while getting the most out of it. By the way we are talking about dynamic canards here as in those canards that can twist and turn ala J-10.

Previously, it was pointed out that although deltas lacked in agility and maneuverability, it was simple and hence had less maintenance. I rebutted this and said that in that case, ADA should have used propeller planes instead since jet engines are complex. The point here is India did not dare to experiment new technology nor had the ability and hence it claimed it was bad. Like the fox who claimed the grape was sour because it could’t eat it.

On the other hand, as admitted by your compatriot, ADA did not have the balls nor the expertise to design such an advanced aircraft of that era. So, it stuck with the conventional delta with Dassault ‘advice’.

 

[Han Patriot]

First of all, there is another major mistake in your logic, because you have to differe between wing design and canards. You can add canards to any wing design with the same aim, to improve maneuverability. So when you compare the pros and cons of the delta wing design, you have to compare it with the wing designs of the other fighters, not with the canards.

Secondly, American/Russian has not developed modern fighters with delta wings?

First of all, understand my argument first before pouncing on. Canards are wings too, one is frontal and one is back or one is the main wing and one the sub wing. Delta is a SHAPE, the same DELTA in your formulas.

When I say delta winged, it automatically means a pure delta design as opposed to a delta canard design. The picture you shown is a delta canard design, the freaking same design your ADA and fellow compatriot opposed. Comprehendo?

I didn’t know X-32 which lost the JSF was an operational aircraft? LOL. In that case Mig-1.44 was operational too right ? And Russia had delta canards in operations?

READ THIS

The two X-32 prototypes featured a delta wing design, which was chosen to minimize production manufacturing costs. However, eight months into construction of the prototypes, the JSF's maneuverability and payload requirements were refined at the request of the Navy and Boeing's delta wing design fell short of the new targets. Engineers put together a new design with a conventional tail (narrowly beating out a Pelikan tail) with reduced weight and improved agility, but it was too late to change the prototypes. It was judged that they would be sufficient to demonstrate Boeing's technology.[4]

This was what it became >

Not to mention that all new UCAV developments have delta wing designs as well, be it European, Russian, US, Chinese, or Indian.

You have to understand that UCAV are meant to be long range stealth bombers, not air superiority fighters. Canards do increase RCS whereas your UCAV are meant to be stealthy. You want to try putting a Rafale and a UCAV in a dogfight? The point is LCA is not a UCAV nor a long range bomber nor stealthy, it was meant to be a fighter.

So when you compare the pros and cons of the delta wing design, you have to compare it with the wing designs of the other fighters, not with the canards.

LOL. You are a genius. I rest my case.

 

[Han Patriot]

Again you prove your lack of knowledge and understanding, because the LEVCONS will be added only on N-LCA, for specific reasons. They will be added to increase the low speed performance for carrier landings (same reason why J 15 has canards and J11 have not). Try to understand the aim behind it first, before you run into your (often wrong) conlusions!

Seriously, when I don’t know something, I will admit it. What is this LEVCON? The point is this, if LCA was designed to reduce RCS and the main reason of rejecting the canards was due to this, then why are you again adding LEVCON that increases RCS? I was pointing out the contradictions. Do you understand?

This further proves my point that canards were so called ‘rejected’ not due to RCS issues since what difference does it make to LCA which is pretty much a big DOT on the radar anyway. RCS reduction was just an excuse for incompetence. No idea on the performance of canards for carriers, but if you said it is good then thanks. Why then is’t your LCA having one now? Why you had to reject it and then go for it later? RCS reduction or just the lack of ability? Naval LCA don't have to be 'strealthy'? LOL. Indian logics....

And please explain to me how LEVCON is supposedly more advance than dynamic canards? You know the sort used by Rafale and J-10 and Gripen? Since you are claiming ‘future’ LCA with LEVCON is more advanced than simple dynamic canards right ? Which indirectly translates into LCA > Rafale.

 

[shrivatsa]

LEVCON- Leading Edge Vortex CONtroller

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Friend,

Canards are wings too. Delta is a shape. The problem now arises, how do you classify M2K? Officially as per Dassault, it is still primarily defined as a delta wing aircraft. Or are you gonna classify it as delta back wing, frontal canard which is shortformed as delta canard? How big of a canard you need to have to qualify as a canard, what is the slant? The term are all ambigious and ill-defined.



See my point here, all aircraft have small slight differences but you cannot deny the fact that Mirage 2000 is similar to LCA. I can understand if the case was without Dassault involvement. I can't find any aircraft that looks like LCA except Mirage-2000. Can you find one?

Well readd your own post...and ou can comprehend from it...canard is not an additional wing..it is just an additional control surface. It makes use of the wind flow vortices on the leading edge of the wings to actuate the aircrat in it's pitch and Yaw axis.

Well if you want to find a similar aircraft there have been a lot more. you can try reading about Avro 707 which was a TD in 1950s that led to the development of Avro Vulcan, or u can try the canadair avro.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Seriously, when I don’t know something, I will admit it. What is this LEVCON? The point is this, if LCA was designed to reduce RCS and the main reason of rejecting the canards was due to this, then why are you again adding LEVCON that increases RCS? I was pointing out the contradictions. Do you understand?

This further proves my point that canards were so called ‘rejected’ not due to RCS issues since what difference does it make to LCA which is pretty much a big DOT on the radar anyway. RCS reduction was just an excuse for incompetence. No idea on the performance of canards for carriers, but if you said it is good then thanks. Why then is’t your LCA having one now? Why you had to reject it and then go for it later? RCS reduction or just the lack of ability? Naval LCA don't have to be 'strealthy'? LOL. Indian logics....

And please explain to me how LEVCON is supposedly more advance than dynamic canards? You know the sort used by Rafale and J-10 and Gripen? Since you are claiming ‘future’ LCA with LEVCON is more advanced than simple dynamic canards right ? Which indirectly translates into LCA > Rafale.

If you want to see levcons PAKFA has levcons. It is a movable LERX.

 

[desimorty]

My argument was mirage 2000 and tejas are almost completely identical and this was further reinforced by the fact that Dassault was the consultant.
:

Your argument has little or no basis. Just because the Tejas and mirage 2000 lack canards. Great.
But the reality isn't what YOU make of it.
The research and development of the Tejas is a mixture of the technologies available since the late 80's. The Tejas unlike the mirage 2000 is highly unstable unlike the mirage 2000, which is why it has reduced top speeds.

1) Claiming it as indigenous.
2) Claiming it as bleeding edge.
3) Claiming it as being comparable to Gripen and F-16XL. See quote below of you claiming it with same performance as Gripen.
4) Claiming that an Indian was the 'DESIGNER' of F-16XL.

I have something to gain when I dissect your argument and find the flaws, but you did not gain anything if you had not seen the reality of the LCA. If all Indians think like you, the trend will continue where more and more things are imported and no indigenous capabilities are developed. Indians will forever be oblivious to the fact that they actually do not possess any real indigenous capability and keep on living in denial. If your own ACM can call it Mig-21+ and yet you keep on trumpeting it as 4.5 gen. I have nothing to say but to congratulate Indians.

and indian was part of the development of the f-16xl. you want to spin my words around than your an ignorant idoit.
I didn't cliam anything like a 4.5 gen aircraft. you brought it up.
You chinese like to cliam everything is china is super power, if it was the Pakistani's wouldn't have modified the jf-17 and the Type 90. THey are not buying chinese things as is. Because we all know the truth.

And may I ask how did you know all these? OO, tphuang told you that and he ‘speculated’ it? So this is your source, an online dude with a nickname called tphuang. Hey, my real name is Vivek and I have a relative’s relative who works in DRDO and he told me LCA is bleeding edge.

tphuang is chinese who acted just like because he has no real evidence of anything. so he kept repeating that the j-10 is 4.5 generation with a payload of 6 tons. all off baseless speculating just like you.

I know what is HMDS. You were the one thinking LCA was cool with it, but I was telling you the point is you have to make them. And J-10 has got HMDS too. WE MAKE THEM!!!! Only ELBIT makes them? You need to learn more and know more. No point having it on LCA and not making them…comprehendo?

Helmet mounted display sight (HMDS) differs from HMS which is just a targeting input device on use first on the mig29 usually heat guided.
HMDS is whats used on the jsf project and replaces the convientional HUD. The tejas uses the same but keeps the HUD as well.
If china produces HMDS great, but i highly doubt it does.

You claim LCA had nearly the same capability as Gripen and then you claim LCA has got oxy gen but not Gripen. If this is not boasting, what else can I say. And then I prove to you Gripen has got oxy gen and then you come back to me and tell me about OBOGS and GRIPEN A.

Yes, as i said. THe gripen A does not have onboard oxgyen generator, the C varients will recieve it.
Call it boasting. But what your doing for your self is exactly that.

1) Gripen A has yet to receive OBOGS?
2) Gripen has yet to receive OBOGS.

Either way, Gripen A was upgraded to to C/D standards, so all Gripens now have OBOGS. How can you say Gripen has ‘YET’ to receive OBOGS. And at which phase did LCA get OBOGS? I could say the initial test LCA had no radars and has yet to receive radars in the same manner. The point is you are comparing an aircraft in production blocks to an aircraft which has not even been inducted. If this is not living in Bollywood land. Who else is?

You know i just fixed 2 mistakes of yours and probabily more.
This tells me that you don't do your research. YOu rant.
If you didn't know that the gripen does not have OBAGs thats your problem. Im not going to clarify for an idoit who twists my words.
And Tejas is inducted. Like the Rafale, who recently just recieved full operation clearence the Tejas is on its way. Theres a difference of induction and actually being operational. But in the mean time one can compare, because as it stands, I pointed out a difference.
So prove to me that the J-10 has HMDS? otherwise your not informed and your just an idoit.

1) LCA was based on Mirage 2000 design with Dassault involvement.
2) LCA performance does not equate Mirage 2000. Could be worse?
3) Why was there an evolution away from delta? Any other new modern Gen 4 or 5 planes with delta?
4) There is no clear definition that qualifies LCA as a ‘cranked delta’.

1. no , no no...the tejas was based off the earlier project 1.4 (if that is the correct project designation) which is very similar to the Gripen. The UK was in the initial concept of the project but bailed when the needs where for a heavier aircraft and the Typhoon emerged. That earlier project with canards went fundemental wing changes. The aircraft was given a larger compound delta wing with a slight crank to it. Evolved to what is no the Tejas. Your entire point isn't to discredit ADA but to make the LCA sound obsolete. That is your true intention. With out actually understanding it.
The mirage 2000 design was not used. Had it been used, the Tejas would have wings placed lower to the body instead of what you see now, where the wings are mounted to above the instakes. The readers can not that the Mirage 2k has its wings below the intakes.
2) because you said so? given your limited knowledge, i think id trust the pilots of the Tejas who said the handling capabilities of the tejas are superior to the mirage.
because you said so the j-10 is super advanced even though you know less about the aircraf than myself.
3) there was no evolution away from delta.
You see deltas in the raptor with tails, in the typhoon with a revolutionary canard. Delta is a type of of wing. Weather it has tails or canards does not matter because the wing is very common.
4) you got that right. Thats what was said by LCA project member who happened to say it.
Aside from all this , your a troll.
Here are some facts.
wing loading and thrust per aircraft as per wiki, and sinodefence as well as avaition monthly
j-10 =335 kg/m^2 thats awfully not that great
thrust to weight=0.98
maximum speed= mach 2
usefull load = 4.5 tons down from a PLA fan boy speculated 6 tons. lol
mirage 2000 = 337 thats awfully not that great
thrust to weight = .91
f-16 =431
thrust to weight =1.095
max speed = mach 2
gripen D <--- just so you know cause your a ignorant
wing loading =283
thrust to weight 0.97
max speed mach 2
rafale wing loading 306
thrust to weight 1.1
max speed mach 2
Tejas
wing loading 221.4
thrust to weight 0.91
max speed mach 1.6

now you might wanna note that the goal has been to have a low wing loading.
The tejas has achieved it. But the other guys wanted extra agility, expecially the typhoon, which had to reduce the wing area for the special canards.
Having no room for large canards like the typhoon and rafale means the tejas isn't as agile in the air but doesn't mean its less than a mirage or a jf17
The Gripen and Tejas are the 2 aircraft to note.
Both have nearly the same dimensions.
Considering weight, wing area and engine.
But ones max speed is mach 2 while the other a modest 1.6.
One might assume its because the tejas design is so flawed that it created drag. but that is actually the case. Its no a flaw but a design. "Staticaly" Unstable. While the gripen is is unstable because of its large canards, the tejas wings are unstable all the time. Which means it create large amounts of lift all the time and needs the fbw to fly.
Even to myself this logic is sound but its hell of a lot better than yours.

That&#8217;s the point isn&#8217;t it? Smaller aircraft has got smaller RCS. So, why are blurting so much about it as a LCA advantage. L-15 is a small trainer and has got smaller RCS. What difference does it make?
You mean the radar can&#8217;t detect LCA? What advantage does it imbue? If it is out of your knowledge, then don&#8217;t blurt it out. Don&#8217;t talk just for the sake of talking.

If both a Mig-29 and LCA were flying, most radars would pick up both aircrafts. Comprehendo? So do you still want to point out RCS reduction as a super duper LCA design characteristic?

Comprehendo you super genuis because RCS is not relevant expecially the type on the j-20 which is super stealth like the f-22. and rafale was designed with no RCS in mind! right! comprendo!

Let me correct my statement, you didn&#8217;t even have the ability to design the controls for a delta aircraft. FBW is from Lockheed, composites from the Swedes, glass, no idea. I think most aircraft used glass as cockpit material right? Or you can show me an example of plastic cockpit. You &#8216;conceived&#8217; LCA back before Rafale was having the first flight. You think the French would offer you state of the art technology? Don&#8217;t be so naïve.

fbw is indian in ADA. unlike your fc-1 which is c+
compisotes built in India with Italian machinary.
thats why the French want to sell ToT and so do the Europeans with their Typhoons and Rafales right?
India is not in the same position as China.

Indians are the only ones claiming it has got the same Multi-role function as Gripen. But again, compare the weapons load and performance, can it &#8216;ACHIEVE&#8217; that claim? Features, hey J-10 supposedly has got the same features as SU-30MKI too, are they the same? And best of all most stuff is made in China.

really
Besides HDMS the j-10 has a 8 ton payload and high endurance? hmmmm i believe you cause China superpower!

My original point was to dismiss your claim that LCA is having advantage by being lighter. Smaller, more agile, less RCS. If this was the case, L-15 is smaller, more agile and also less RCS. And your previous statement of making comparison with J-10, Mig-29 and Gripen wing loading. When you yourself admit the performance of Gripen compared to LCA cannot be verified. How does your supposedly advantages be relevant. You are comparing poodle to a bulldog.

yes. Lighter is better.
Thats why you are charged for your extra luggage on flights. Having more thrust to weight is better too.
HMDS for all, put it on your fc-1 for pakistan!
for all

Haha, so now you claim it lacks critical components to be operational. So how can you verify it can do it&#8217;s task when you don&#8217;t even have the critical components. Am I wrong in claiming it to be a half baked foreign designed and made plane? What is indigenous? So in essence, because LCA is not achieving it&#8217;s supposedly design role, it is now no more advanced than a Mig-21 Bison? I didn&#8217;t say it, you just did. LOL. OMG!! This is funny.

Let me summarize my claims:

1) You have not proven to me LCA is indigenous.
2) You just admit it is half baked.

theres a differnce between induction and operational.
like i said. just recently the rafale has just opened up all its flight envolopes.

1) The aircraft is foreign
2) The design is outdated.

the j-10 is forign. and out dated.
look at the metal! and rivits! the RCS must be huge! the engine must burn a lot of fuel!
but it still has HMDS! right! superpower china

Super power China!
HDMS, thrust vectoring! for all J-10s!

 

[BATMAN]

How many times we will have to tell you that LCA has already achieved IOC.8 are in service

To be in Service you have to produce them first! what is the production rate?

I see UCAV being discussed!!!!!!! did i missed some thing?

 

[desimorty]

To be in Service you have to produce them first! what is the production rate?

not really.
Initial operational clearance says that they are in service but thats just talk or as people would say, fancy talk. and every military has there own dictionary
IOC is fancy talk, for we will hand these over to the IAF so they can figure out how and when to use them. much like the rafale and typhoon.
The tejas is waiting on a lot of research still.
It is no where near combat ready.

 

[Nirvana]

To be in Service you have to produce them first! what is the production rate?

I see UCAV being discussed!!!!!!! did i missed some thing?

They are Under production.

Btw every time you post Non - sense About LCA and call it Teja - I think you are Jealous

 

[Water Car Engineer]

LEVCON- Leading Edge Vortex CONtroller

 

[desimorty]

You have to understand that UCAV are meant to be long range stealth bombers, not air superiority fighters. Canards do increase RCS whereas your UCAV are meant to be stealthy. You want to try putting a Rafale and a UCAV in a dogfight? The point is LCA is not a UCAV nor a long range bomber nor stealthy, it was meant to be a fighter.

and how. it does it well don't you think.
with a lower rcs than the other combat aircraft except a few. The tejas has achieved some manufacturing milestones for a country like India.

this video shows you how the compisotes are made in india.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Don't count the chicken before the eggs hatch. An upgraded Mirage-2000 could be better than LCA, who knows. First, induct the plane and make it indigenously, then talk.

So you cant debate on your points right.. an upgraded Mirage??.. An upgraded mirage cant have more MTOW... it will had only avionics.. which is already in LCA... right now LCA is lacking in thrust.. which is addressed.. it will have more MTOW and good thrust/weight..

B.t.w ... dont rant saying induct and make it indigenous... you know and we know...

 

[Han Patriot]

Well readd your own post...and ou can comprehend from it...canard is not an additional wing..it is just an additional control surface. It makes use of the wind flow vortices on the leading edge of the wings to actuate the aircrat in it's pitch and Yaw axis.

Well if you want to find a similar aircraft there have been a lot more. you can try reading about Avro 707 which was a TD in 1950s that led to the development of Avro Vulcan, or u can try the canadair avro.

Satish,

This is the definition of canard :

Also called canard wing . one of two small lifting wings located in front of the main wings

Canard | Define Canard at Dictionary.com

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Mate Canard is a french word...which means duck..

In aeronautics, canard (French for duck) is an airframe configuration of fixed-wing aircraft in which the forward surface is smaller than the rearward, the former being known as the "canard", while the latter is the main wing.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

There are 2 types of canards namely the lifting canard and the control canard...the ones you see i Fighters are control canards.

If you want to know more about lifting canard you can read about MiG 8 Utka. Close coupled canards are used in IAI Kfir, and thhe SAAB Viggen