What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
“Though to integrate Indian weapons is not a planned test point for the final operational clearance (FOC) of Tejas, we have started working on it for some time now. The Astra missile integration with an improvised range of 80-plus km (currently 40-45 km) is the next big challenge. We have also planned some PGMs (precision-guided munitions) for Tejas, including glide bombs and GPS-guided bombs,” Mani said.

DRDO Set to Increase Desi Components on LCA -The New Indian Express

It is not Astra range, the radar range is 45 km now due to the nose composite material which absorbs limits the radar performance.

Envelope expansion upto 24 deg AOA completed...[ADA Tejas Brochure]
Also the Air Force wants the aircraft to improve its angle of attack from 24 degrees to 28 degrees before FOC...[The Hindu]

Tejas all set to get certification for IAF induction - The Hindu


It should not be a problem, the achieved 24 degree from the FOC -1 standard of 17degree in two years.
 
but bhai what is the use of such large wings LCAs wing are looks so much disproporshionate to its overall size .... i mean wat can LCA acieve from such a large wing area it produces so much drag aswell please care to explain thanks in advance


High wing area means low wing loading ,high manoeuvrability in the airframe.....Good lift characteristics... good climb rate and cruising capabilities.... Good ITR and STR..High alpha(35 deg design)... Every modern fighters are low wing loaded(TYPHOON,RAFALE,GRIPPEN,F-22,F-35,PAKFA)..
I think you mean the drag issues in STR... STR also depended on wing loading and TWR... Low wing loading and high TWR in LCA solved that issue... There were reports that IAF not satisfied with STR and LEVCONS are adding in IAF LCA'S along with NAVAL LCA's but the plan is dropped because already LCA achieved reqd STR with partially opened flight envelop and low thrust engine...
Other drag issues are reduced by extensive wing body blending and area ruled fuselage... Skin friction drag controlled with two hollow spill ducts on the wing connect with the intake splitter.....
 
It is not Astra range, the radar range is 45 km now due to the nose composite material which absorbs limits the radar performance.




It should not be a problem, the achieved 24 degree from the FOC -1 standard of 17degree in two years.


Astra MK 1 has 45 KM range.

Man, Pl read the news properly. It is non me who is saying this. This is the statement of Mr. Tamil Mani, the Director-General (Aeronautical Systems). So get cool. this is authentic statement.
 
Ramjet doesn't mean very high speed always. LRSAM uses duel pulse motor and 1/3 of the weight of Akash and still have double the range. Astra MK 1 is a very potent missile in itself having a speed of Mach 3 means as fast as Akask.


It adds kinetic performance without adding much weight, thus the expansion of no-escape zone.

Astra MK 1 has 45 KM range.

Man, Pl read the news properly. It is non me who is saying this. This is the statement of Mr. Tamil Mani, the Director-General (Aeronautical Systems). So get cool. this is authentic statement.

Depends altitude, what I read earlier in high altitude it can go till 80 km. However I will check again.
 
High wing area means low wing loading ,high manoeuvrability in the airframe.....Good lift characteristics... good climb rate and cruising capabilities.... Good ITR and STR..High alpha(35 deg design)... Every modern fighters are low wing loaded(TYPHOON,RAFALE,GRIPPEN,F-22,F-35,PAKFA)..
I think you mean the drag issues in STR... STR also depended on wing loading and TWR... Low wing loading and high TWR in LCA solved that issue... There were reports that IAF not satisfied with STR and LEVCONS are adding in IAF LCA'S along with NAVAL LCA's but the plan is dropped because already LCA achieved reqd STR with partially opened flight envelop and low thrust engine...
Other drag issues are reduced by extensive wing body blending and area ruled fuselage... Skin friction drag controlled with two hollow spill ducts on the wing connect with the intake splitter.....


Noe of the aircraft (I gauze) has low wing loading as Tejas has. I have read many discussion point to unusually big wing for drag issue and poor turn rate issue. We have seen Tejas completing vertical loop in comparatively low time (20-21 Second) but we have yet to see it doing the same in horizantal loop. This is the reason parheps they are not increasing wing size in spite of MK 2 being longer and marginally wider with more powerful engine.

It is very difficult to say anything conclusively.

Lavcon plan is not drop for Naval LCA so far as I know. It is not for STR only. It is for lift as Naval LCA is required to take off with a very short run way i.e AC.

It adds kinetic performance without adding much weight, thus the expansion of no-escape zone.


This is correct as Oxidizer is not required for combustion. However Air intake often increases the drag and nullify (To some extent) the advantage of high speed (As we show in case of Akash). Pulse motor is often used to increase the power and speed of missile as we show in case of LRSAM (you will perhaps witness the same in PDV test comming in few days if Video is released).

Depends altitude, what I read earlier in high altitude it can go till 80 km. However I will check again


This is true for All AAM not for Astra only.
 
Last edited:
Number of hardpoints will remain the same - 8 hardpoints. However increase
in payload capacity could mean we can put multiple-rack ejectors on the hardpoints.

MK1 has 8 hardpoint but MK2 would be 9 hard point.
 
The paragraph says Rafale is not a 5th generation fighter and so there is a room for AMCA from the perspective of IAF

Just that the stealth capability is not defined by the weight class! IAF don't neet a medium class fighter with stealth capabilities, unless it gives certain differences / advantages over the FGFA that is meant to add stealth capability. See F22 and F35 for example, both stealthfighters in different class, but the only reason that makes F35 different, is that it is developed with different operational capabilities in mind, not just a different weight class!
It was meant to have better strike capabilities, to be more cost-effective and to replace all other medium class fighters and take over the medium class roles. That however is not the case for AMCA in IAF, since it also is a twin engine fighter aimed on high maneuverability, with similar capabilities like SC or TVC, while it doesn't even will add a better weapon load config in strike roles. Not to forget that AMCA would work in the same class and the same roles that IAF will use Rafale in. So there are overlapping requirements, roles and even lifecycles from all points of views.
That's why I said, IF the AMCA would be developed as a downsized FGFA instead (common parts, medium class, single type 30 engine) with the aim to have a less expensive alternative to FGFA as a stealthfighter (and not to Rafale), to increase the number of stealth fighters in the most cost-effective way, it would make sense for IAF too, but then ADA/DRDO might have very limited work to do, which they won't like either.

SbQt1MT.gif

Total flights

Antony kicked some serious a... in 2013! :enjoy:
 
LCA brochure says Empty weight is 9800 Kgs and MTOW is 13000 Kgs and also the 3500 Kg ordinance... Somehow its not adding up.

It's 13300Kg MTOW:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2330/feb20112.jpg


MK1 has 8 hardpoint but MK2 would be 9 hard point.

That's not correct, the MK2 has the same hardpoint layout as the MK1, as said as it is:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I40Q_WKDw8I/TgzusFozLkI/AAAAAAAAAJs/YLqrL8qRqzA/s1600/Tejas+LCA+Mk2.jpg


Consider the fact we already have drag related issues with the platform, multiple ejector racks might be a bit of a challenge, specially for the indigenous weapons for which we have not developed such pylons (and no, fabricating and qualifying said pylons is not so simple a task). Alas the position of the landing gear ensures that the undercarriage hardpoint cannot really accommodate anything too broad otherwise one could have ventured towards a weapons pod.

True, but we are talking about the MK2, that will have more thrust to hopefully overcome the drag issue. Another point is, that IF the MK2 can gain a useful increase of internal fuel, we might need to carry only a single centerline fuel tank in strike roles, where the MK1 needs 2 x draggier wing fuel tanks. And that it always depends on what weapons will be added at what multi pylons. When we take the Rafault twin pylon as an example, that can carry 2 x 250Kg LGBs at the Mirage 2000, the drag increase compared to carrying a single 500Kg LGB might not be that different, but I share your point that such multi pylons might be a long shot for indigenous weapons. So far we know that Sudarshan is aimed on 500Kg versions and they can't be used with multi pylons for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sri
Just that the stealth capability is not defined by the weight class! IAF don't neet a medium class fighter with stealth capabilities, unless it gives certain differences / advantages over the FGFA that is meant to add stealth capability. See F22 and F35 for example, both stealthfighters in different class, but the only reason that makes F35 different, is that it is developed with different operational capabilities in mind, not just a different weight class!
It was meant to have better strike capabilities, to be more cost-effective and to replace all other medium class fighters and take over the medium class roles. That however is not the case for AMCA in IAF, since it also is a twin engine fighter aimed on high maneuverability, with similar capabilities like SC or TVC, while it doesn't even will add a better weapon load config in strike roles. Not to forget that AMCA would work in the same class and the same roles that IAF will use Rafale in. So there are overlapping requirements, roles and even lifecycles from all points of views.
That's why I said, IF the AMCA would be developed as a downsized FGFA instead (common parts, medium class, single type 30 engine) with the aim to have a less expensive alternative to FGFA as a stealthfighter (and not to Rafale), to increase the number of stealth fighters in the most cost-effective way, it would make sense for IAF too, but then ADA/DRDO might have very limited work to do, which they won't like either.

Antony kicked some serious a... in 2013! :enjoy:
My guess is AMCA will be considered only after MK-2 FOC... if MK-2 is meeting the expectations then ADA or HAL will not have any work left apart from patches and new R&D... Any way i believe there they start doing common work for both Manned and Un-Manned platforms... I believe in this way they will achieve stealth in AMCA and UCAV... This is how they will reduce cost and maintenance over head for IAF... Any way we had a conflict on future whether everything will become un-manned where i still stand disagreed , time will be the output my friend..
 
I am going to go ahead and put a odd one out in this discussion..

I Present to you the aircraft that should have been the Tejas(and would have rolled out sooner too).

The HAL/Sukhoi S-54 LCA Tejas!



Highly manoeuvrable , carrier capable with little modification; the aircraft is powered by the same AL-31F engine as the Su-30MKI which offers additional logistic commonality for the IAF. Two versions that would have 80% commonality with the other. The first is the operational fighter known as the LCA-F with the ELTA EL/M-2052 for air defence missions seen here on the runway at IAFS Kalaikunda and deploying flares during training exercises.

S-54 Tejas with operational loadout of GP-9 Gunpod, Astra BVRAAM, KH-29 missiles and R-74 WVR missiles

s2hj.jpg


S-54 Tejas punching out flares whilst on training. Carrying Derby and R-74 AAMs.
br8q.jpg




The sister AJT and LIFT version of the Tejas known as the LCA-T lacks the canards,longer nose and IFR probe of the fighter but is otherwise completely common with the LCA-F.It uses the ELTA EL/M-2032 radar with a smaller antenna that still provides excellent radar coverage to 40km and allows the usage of BVR weaponry. This version is capable of employing all the weaponry of the LCA-F and capable of augmenting or supplementing the LCA-F in strike, CAS, BAI and OCA roles whilst also capable of performing point interception and local combat air patrols.

LCA-T waiting to join in on the local training sortie. Equipped with ATGMs for CAS role along with stand off munitions dispenser.
6nes.jpg


Tejas-T with AL-31FT in full afterburner rotating out of IAFS Kalaikunda

7jey.jpg
 
I am going to go ahead and put a odd one out in this discussion..

I Present to you the aircraft that should have been the Tejas(and would have rolled out sooner too).

The HAL/Sukhoi S-54 LCA Tejas!



Highly manoeuvrable , carrier capable with little modification; the aircraft is powered by the same AL-31F engine as the Su-30MKI which offers additional logistic commonality for the IAF. Two versions that would have 80% commonality with the other. The first is the operational fighter known as the LCA-F with the ELTA EL/M-2052 for air defence missions seen here on the runway at IAFS Kalaikunda and deploying flares during training exercises.

S-54 Tejas with operational loadout of GP-9 Gunpod, Astra BVRAAM, KH-29 missiles and R-74 WVR missiles
s2hj.jpg


S-54 Tejas punching out flares whilst on training. Carrying Derby and R-74 AAMs.
br8q.jpg




The sister AJT and LIFT version of the Tejas known as the LCA-T lacks the canards,longer nose and IFR probe of the fighter but is otherwise completely common with the LCA-F.It uses the ELTA EL/M-2032 radar with a smaller antenna that still provides excellent radar coverage to 40km and allows the usage of BVR weaponry. This version is capable of employing all the weaponry of the LCA-F and capable of augmenting or supplementing the LCA-F in strike, CAS, BAI and OCA roles whilst also capable of performing point interception and local combat air patrols.

LCA-T waiting to join in on the local training sortie. Equipped with ATGMs for CAS role along with stand off munitions dispenser.
6nes.jpg


Tejas-T with AL-31FT in full afterburner rotating out of IAFS Kalaikunda

7jey.jpg

Things have change from 2008 from the day i was watching this forum...
Mods have transformed from serious people to comedians..

you where right in your foot note.. the second part to be precise
 
I am going to go ahead and put a odd one out in this discussion..

I Present to you the aircraft that should have been the Tejas(and would have rolled out sooner too).

LCA as a project started before there was talk about procuring the Su 30, which is why the S54 was not a possibility at the time I think. The general idea however is similar to what I say about FGFA => AMCA. Taking advantage of the same engine and other common parts, in a medium class single engine design. Can you do something in that regard? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom