HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[sancho]

There are not enough hard-points for weapons load because the always-lagging IAF thinkers gave these requirements during 1990 to the designers of LCA. Now, suddenly IAF is realising their mistakes of misjuding their own projections of evolving air-force strengths & combat aircraft technology profiles in the region.

I critised it as well, but wouldn't be that harsh, because if you look at comparable fighters, it is not behind at all:

JF 17 - 7 hardpoints, no dedicated pod station
Gripen C/D - 7 + 1 just like LCA as well

The point is, for the interception role that these light class fighters are designed for, 7 hardpoints are enough, even for the same load the Jags carries, but by the fact that it should be a multi role fighter, more hardpoints or internal fuel are important.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

After 15 years, planes which carry 5 or 7 tons of payload will be totally OUTDATED.

IAF is committing a huge blunder by going for such small payload design on AMCA. Revise it to 10-Tons payload capability atleast!!!!! Stop living in stone ages, IAF!!

 

[IndianArmy]

After 15 years, planes which carry 5 or 7 tons of payload will be totally OUTDATED.

IAF is committing a huge blunder by going for such small payload design on AMCA. Revise it to 10-Tons payload capability atleast!!!!! Stop living in stone ages, IAF!!

Probably you still dont understand the advantages Service ceiling... This one feature can win you a war without taking a single hit especially when its Stealth

 

[MumbaiIndians]

I critised it as well, but wouldn't be that harsh, because if you look at comparable fighters, it is not behind at all:

JF 17 - 7 hardpoints, no dedicated pod station
Gripen C/D - 7 + 1 just like LCA as well

The point is, for the interception role that these light class fighters are designed for, 7 hardpoints are enough, even for the same load the Jags carries, but by the fact that it should be a multi role fighter, more hardpoints or internal fuel are important.

please see my 2nd post and tell me your views about this => Look at AMCA requirements which IAF has agreed on in joint panel with DRDO. Do you really think this AMCA plan suggested by IAF will stand utility of time in 2026?

Just look at MMRCA contenders. AMCA should be atleast a notch above in terms of payload capability. Because by the time DRDO will be coming out with AMCA during 2022, whole world will have moved ahead with better programs of "10Tons+ payload" class.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

Probably you still dont understand the advantages Service ceiling... This one feature can win you a war without taking a single hit especially when its Stealth

so you are saying that service ceiling can't be achieved if we design with bigger payload in mind? We will just scale up whole thing. so, why not? Better engines, better wings, better technology. why set such low design aims now and blame DRDO 12 years later?

 

[IndianArmy]

so you are telling me that service ceiling can't be achieved if we design with bigger payload in mind? ..

Are you telling me that India would achieve it even before the Developed world? See , one can Experiment all the parameters at once only when he has a Distinguished Achievement in the Field, India is not in a stage to Experiment but stick to the basics...

 

[MumbaiIndians]

Are you telling me that India would achieve it even before the Developed world? See , one can Experiment all the parameters at once only when he has a Distinguished Achievement in the Field, India is not in a stage to Experiment but stick to the basics...

So, you are saying that noone has done this yet? That's a news to me. Oh wait, why IAF would want DRDO to even go for it. Because that what they plan to import after 12 years. Isn't it?

Oh right, why develop a capability which noone has done. Mistake sir mistake! Even Kaveri was a foolish mistake. why poor country like India went in for Kaveri. blah!! Find a better logic to argue here.

And, still you haven't answered my question on why IAF is limiting the AMCA capablities and making it an outdated plane in 2025+ timeframe.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

My query is this, someone explain that how come IAF's AMCA design specifications doesn't make it an OUTDATED fighter in 2025+ timeframe, when whole world will have moved to 10Ton+ class stealth fighters?

Is AMCA's payload capacity even comparable to J-20. Heck, even J-20 will have better versions by the time AMCA comes out. So, why go into AMCA with such low & outdated design aims?

It looks like someone has promised IAF import option down the 12 years line.

 

[IndianArmy]

So, you are saying that noone has done this yet? That's a news to me. Oh wait, why IAF would want DRDO to even go for it. Because that what they plan to import after 12 years. Isn't it?

IAF are no fools, they have had there PAK FA and FGFA as Strike Force, AMCA would be nothing but a Force Multiplier, And Why not? When Indian Defense Establishments are Confident enough to make one? Spending on spare parts looks wise for you but not for R&D is it?

An Economy can be saved in crisis if we have a Booming Defense market, and One can Pour money into such activities only when the economy is not in risk...

Oh right, why develop a capability which noone has done. Mistake sir mistake! Even Kaveri was a foolish mistake. why poor country like India went in for Kaveri. blah!! Find a better logic to argue here.

Have You ever asked this Question to TATA, who started a Steel Market in an India which was not Industrialized at all... And where do you see them now? Situation dosent bother or Hinder Aspirations...

And, still you haven't answered my question on why IAF is limiting the AMCA capablities and making it an outdated plane in 2025+ timeframe.

Because IAF wants It Cheaply, IAF has a Better Option to Meet the Highest of its Demands By PAK FA and FGFA, IAF wants Good Force Multipliers, IAF wants it within Particular Timeframe,

 

[sancho]

please see my 2nd post and tell me your views about this => Look at AMCA requirements which IAF has agreed on in joint panel with DRDO. Do you really think this AMCA plan suggested by IAF will stand utility of time in 2026?

Just look at MMRCA contenders. AMCA should be atleast a notch above in terms of payload capability. Because by the time DRDO will be coming out with AMCA during 2022, whole world will have moved ahead with better programs of "10Tons+ payload" class.

Payload is dependent on what your aim is!

- 3 x 1200l fuel tanks = 2880Kg
- 2 x Derby BVR missiles = 236Kg
- 2 x R73 SR missiles = 210Kg
=> 3326Kg

So even for the long range and endurance interception role (plus some more weight for pylons and stuff) , the 3500Kg payload of MK1 is enough. So the more we want to do with LCA later, the more we have to improve it, be it with more payload, more hardpoints, or internal fuel, let alone radar and avionics.
There is still good potential in LCA and I prefer further developments on LCA way more than wasting time and money on AMCA!

Btw, if we think about the inital specs of LCA, we can have an idea what the scope for payload is:

MTOW: 13500Kg

- emtpy weight ~ 5500Kg
- internal fuel ~ 2500Kg

=> payload of around 5500Kg


With the higher thrust the MTOW can be increased as well and there is a scope comparable to Gripen NG for sure!

 

[MumbaiIndians]

IAF are no fools, they have had there PAK FA and FGFA as Strike Force, AMCA would be nothing but a Force Multiplier, And Why not? When Indian Defense Establishments are Confident enough to make one? Spending on spare parts looks wise for you but not for R&D is it?

An Economy can be saved in crisis if we have a Booming Defense market, and One can Pour money into such activities only when the economy is not in risk...



Have You ever asked this Question to TATA, who started a Steel Market in an India which was not Industrialized at all... And where do you see them now? Situation dosent bother or Hinder Aspirations...



Because IAF wants It Cheaply, IAF has a Better Option to Meet the Highest of its Demands By PAK FA and FGFA, IAF wants Good Force Multipliers, IAF wants it within Particular Timeframe,

That doesn't answer my question - Why IAF has specified an OUTDATED specs for AMCA? AMCA has no future in 2025+ era.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

Payload is dependent on what your aim is!

- 3 x 1200l fuel tanks = 2880Kg
- 2 x Derby BVR missiles = 236Kg
- 2 x R73 SR missiles = 210Kg
=> 3326Kg

So even for the long range and endurance interception role (plus some more weight for pylons and stuff) , the 3500Kg payload of MK1 is enough. So the more we want to do with LCA later, the more we have to improve it, be it with more payload, more hardpoints, or internal fuel, let alone radar and avionics.
There is still good potential in LCA and I prefer further developments on LCA way more than wasting time and money on AMCA!

Btw, if we think about the inital specs of LCA, we can have an idea what the scope for payload is:

MTOW: 13500Kg

- emtpy weight ~ 5500Kg
- internal fuel ~ 2500Kg

=> payload of around 5500Kg


With the higher thrust the MTOW can be increased as well and there is a scope comparable to Gripen NG for sure!

My question is on AMCA. please see above post. what's your opinion on IAF's specs for AMCA?

 

[IndianArmy]

That doesn't answer my question - Why IAF has specified an OUTDATED specs for AMCA? AMCA has no future in 2025+ era.

Please, dont comfort yourself asking the same question repeatedly even after answering it in the simplest of humor...

 

[kingdurgaking]

After 15 years, planes which carry 5 or 7 tons of payload will be totally OUTDATED.

IAF is committing a huge blunder by going for such small payload design on AMCA. Revise it to 10-Tons payload capability atleast!!!!! Stop living in stone ages, IAF!!

Just see how many missile is F-22 and F-35 are configured to carry..

 

[kingdurgaking]

Payload is dependent on what your aim is!

- 3 x 1200l fuel tanks = 2880Kg
- 2 x Derby BVR missiles = 236Kg
- 2 x R73 SR missiles = 210Kg
=> 3326Kg

So even for the long range and endurance interception role (plus some more weight for pylons and stuff) , the 3500Kg payload of MK1 is enough. So the more we want to do with LCA later, the more we have to improve it, be it with more payload, more hardpoints, or internal fuel, let alone radar and avionics.
There is still good potential in LCA and I prefer further developments on LCA way more than wasting time and money on AMCA!

Btw, if we think about the inital specs of LCA, we can have an idea what the scope for payload is:

MTOW: 13500Kg

- emtpy weight ~ 5500Kg
- internal fuel ~ 2500Kg

=> payload of around 5500Kg


With the higher thrust the MTOW can be increased as well and there is a scope comparable to Gripen NG for sure!

I dont think currently LCA can carry 3 fuel tanks that too of 1200l .. because each 1200l is approximately 1 tonne... 3 fuel tank means 3 tonne but at present it can carry only 2800 kg of external payload.. so an mission will be 2 fuel tanks with two short range missile and bombs.. or 4 long range missile...

so the need in MK2 should be more internal fuel.. approximately 1500l increase... seeing the increase in size i think it is possible.. and one 1500l tank in the center pylon... which should be more than enough for any mission....

by this LCA can carry more bombs and missile.... hoping that MTOW is 18 tonne..

this configuration will be achievable one.. as the weight can be increased by 4 tonne.. so dual launchers with derby of 8 missile with 2 tonne of bombs is possible..

a deadly combination...