HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[indiatester]

To all my all Indian members

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=715545218508931

Thanks, already posted though.

 

[DacterSaab]

2. Even if steam catapult is selected , still the technology will come from US

i agree but steam catapult tech would not have that strigent restrictions as EMALS

The IN can't make a state of the art ACC without bits and pieces from the US- this is a entirely mandatory.

What you are saying is true but question is how sensitive the tech is and what restrictions come with it we are using US stuff on Tejas. Even big names like EFT, Gripen and Mistral use US techs but they are all being actively exported without restrictions.

 

[Abingdonboy]

What you are saying is true but question is how sensitive the tech is and what restrictions come with it

That is the question. But really I don't think the US will impose excessively restrictions on India- they're not that stupid.

Even big names like EFT, Gripen and Mistral use US techs but they are all being actively exported without restrictions.

Well one thing is for certain that each one of these requires the USG's nod of approval if it is being sold to a third party.

 

[sancho]

Although no operational examples exist study has proven that Rafale can operate in STOBAR conditions without additional modifications.

As I said in my last post, the arrested landing is the same, no matter if you land on an French carrier, or the INS Vikramaditya, so no modifications on the fighter needed there. The take off is the differentiating point and all that the Rafale M need to take off via ski-jump, is a good TWR. So if the current thrust is sufficient, you can use the Rafale M from INS Vikramaditya, without any further modification, if not, the engine needs modification and not the fighter either.

F-35B should also be able to operate in STOBAR config if it is retrofitted with arrestor hook of F-35C

Doubtful, the hook might not be able to be fitted on the B, because it's engine is folding down for vertial take off or landings, where the C carries the hook, so integration of the hook might remove that capability.
Even if the hook could be fitted, it is not the only change that is required for arrested landings, but you need to strenghten the airframe and most importantly the gears to take the forces during the arrested landings, but the gears for the B are not strenghtened:

F35B

F35C

So an F35B would require credible modifications, to use it with arrested landings, which is why it would land only vertically on INS Vikramaditya.

If I remember correctly even the Sea Gripen was aimed to operate in both STOBAR and CATOBAR configs although am not sure about the status of the program

The Gripen was developed with some airframe and gear strenghtening, even for it's air force version, because one of the requirements was, to be able to land on normal roads and not only an dedicated air bases. Saab therefor say, that they can build the Sea Gripen, based on these already implemented modifications and depending on the customer requirements (STOBAR was aimed on IN, CATOBAR on Brazilian navy), it could navalise it to the required level, without too many modifications, but to make it able to take off via catapults is far more demanding and would require more modifications too.

Bottom line is, when you have a fighter designed and developed for the air force, you can navalise it for STOBAR carriers, whit the necessary modifications, while it's difficult make it useful for CATOBAR operations, since far more changes are required. That's why we should design and develop AMCA for CATOBAR operations directly, with enough thrust to use it from STOBAR carriers as well!

 

[Abingdonboy]

F-35B should also be able to operate in STOBAR config if it is retrofitted with arrestor hook of F-35C

As @sancho pointed out the F-35B is not designed to have an arrestor hook and its basic design vis a vis its folding engine would seem to make an arrestor hook an unlikely addition. From day one it was designed as a STOVL fighter like the Harrier. If the Royal Navy is set to operate the F-35Bs without arrestor hooks in the STOVL configuration off the mammoth 65,000 ton carrier then it points to the above that it just isn't feasible. If there was ever a candidate for fitting an arrestor hook and operating in STOBAR configuration it is the Royal Navy with the QE Class ACCs to bring about all the advantages STOBAR has over STOVL (in the RN's context).

 

[DacterSaab]

Well one thing is for certain that each one of these requires the USG's nod of approval if it is being sold to a third party.

You mean US agreed on Mistral sale to Russia?

So an F35B would require credible modifications, to use it with arrested landings, which is why it would land only vertically on INS Vikramaditya.

That's why we should design and develop AMCA for CATOBAR operations directly, with enough thrust to use it from STOBAR carriers as well!

So according to you the F-35C or Super Hornet could operate in STOBAR config Provided they have sufficient TWR?

off topic but could you highlight the what factors limit the development of CATOBAR version of Su-30MKI, EFT, Mig29K and Tejas.

also has China been able to develop a STOBAR version of J-10 or FC-1/JF-17?

As @sancho pointed out the F-35B is not designed to have an arrestor hook and its basic design vis a vis its folding engine would seem to make an arrestor hook an unlikely addition. From day one it was designed as a STOVL fighter like the Harrier. If the Royal Navy is set to operate the F-35Bs without arrestor hooks in the STOVL configuration off the mammoth 65,000 ton carrier then it points to the above that it just isn't feasible. If there was ever a candidate for fitting an arrestor hook and operating in STOBAR configuration it is the Royal Navy with the QE Class ACCs to bring about all the advantages STOBAR has over STOVL (in the RN's context).

@sancho , @Abingdonboy guys I made a mistake by only considering the way the aircraft would take-off from the carrier didn't think about landing it. I change my claim F-35B can operate as it is from Vikramaditya but in STOVL/VTOL format.

 

[nomi007]

 

[Indus Falcon]

DSI is missing wrong comparison!!

 

[SRP]

DSI is missing wrong comparison!!

RAM and American Engine is missing. Wrong comparison

 

[Abingdonboy]

So according to you the F-35C or Super Hornet could operate in STOBAR config Provided they have sufficient TWR?

Of course, being naval fighters already the landing gear is already strong enough and come with an arrestor hook so landing on an ACC wouldn't be an issue the only issue is the take off. As you rightly point out the TWR is the issue as the fighter will have to take off under its own power.

Incidentally Dassualt have claimed the Rafale-M would be able to take off from the IN's STOBAR carriers.

off topic but could you highlight the what factors limit the development of CATOBAR version of Su-30MKI, EFT, Mig29K and Tejas.

Catapult launches put tremendous strain through an airframe without specifically designed strengthening you could literally rip the fighter in half . Unless a fighter is designed from the outset to be launched from a catapult it is going to be very hard to retrofit this capability onto an airframe as the original design of the fighter may inherently mane this unviable.

also has China been able to develop a STOBAR version of J-10 or FC-1/JF-17?

It doesn't look like they have to date nor does there seem to be much need for a nasalised version of the JF-17, the PLA/PLAN(N) simply aren't interested in the Thunder and the only user of it (the Pakistanis) don't have any ACCs nor are any on the horizon.

@sancho , @Abingdonboy guys I made a mistake by only considering the way the aircraft would take-off from the carrier didn't think about landing it. I change my claim F-35B can operate as it is from Vikramaditya but in STOVL/VTOL format.

No worries friend , we all make these mistakes!

 

[sancho]

So according to you the F-35C or Super Hornet could operate in STOBAR config Provided they have sufficient TWR?

Either that, or enough space on the deck, for a long take off run, meaning that the carrier could be bigger with a bigger deck space, like the Russian and Chinese carriers.

off topic but could you highlight the what factors limit the development of CATOBAR version of Su-30MKI, EFT, Mig29K and Tejas.

The EF consortium evaluated the Sea Typhoon development for the UK at first, but they concluded that re-designing the EF for CATOBAR carriers would be too difficult and costly, because too many changes on the airframe itself would be needed. It's not only the front gear that will take a lot of forces, but the whole airframe structure. It simply was not developed with the aim of being operated on a carrier, especially to take off from a catapult, so navalising would be limited to arrested landing and ski-jump take off and the same would apply to other fighters, that are designed without strenghtenings from the start.

also has China been able to develop a STOBAR version of J-10 or FC-1/JF-17?

No, they seem to aim on the J15 (based on the Su33) and might add a 5th gen fighter later to it, possibly the J31.
A single engine carrier fighter has no importance for them and should be operationally not a good choice either.

 

[nomi007]

DSI is missing wrong comparison!!

1st check idiot its pt-01 vs LSP-1

 

[Indus Falcon]

1st check idiot its pt-01 vs LSP-1

Dear Armchair general, Kindly don't call someone who served his country with distinction names!!!

 

[Sergi]

A single engine carrier fighter has no importance for them and should be operationally not a good choice either.

Why ???

 

[sancho]

Why ???

Why no importance? Because of J15 and most likely a stealth fighter coming in future.
Why not a good choice? Because it requires a lot of thrust to take off with a useful load via ski-jump and the J10 already suffered from too less thrust and too much weight and same goes for N-LCA too.