HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[INDIAISM]

^^Or maybe for the future upgrade or Mk 3{whatever they will call it} of LCA and Mig29K....

To be frank at present IAF need a fighter jet which can replace vintage era fighters like Mig 21 and Mig 27 ASAP....

 

[sancho]

^^Or maybe for the future upgrade or Mk 3{whatever they will call it} of LCA and Mig29K....

To be frank at present IAF need a fighter jet which can replace vintage era fighters like Mig 21 and Mig 27 ASAP....

Exactly, but the fact that they dream about an MK3 version and call it stealth, while they didn't even get MK1 ready again shows that our industry has other requirements than our forces.

 

[INDIAISM]

Exactly, but the fact that they dream about an MK3 version and call it stealth, while they didn't even get MK1 ready again shows that our industry has other requirements than our forces.

Sir to be frank DRDO and Hal are behaving like a toddler who has just begun to walk and he has already started dreaming about representing his country in olympics 100 Mtr race..

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

And you think 2 hard points makes it heavier than increasing the fuselage size, integrating more fuel tanks, a heavier radar, a heavier engine, addition avionics, while the fighter is 1t overweighted anyway?

Adding two hard points will require strengthening of the whole wing structure and fuselage that is a very complex and time consuming process. ADA is doing what minimum is required to satisfy the IAF requirements and they know that not having extra hard points wont make LCA any less capable. Same is true for IAF as they didnot ask for extra hard points.

Payload doesn't make the fighter more capable, when it don't have enough hardpoints to carry such loads. LCA has only 3 heavy / wet stations, the external stations are limited to WVR missiles, so no matter how much more payload LCA gets, there are only the 2 mid wingstations left to carry weapons. That's why it's more important to either add hardpoints, or to free hardpoints by increasing internal fuel.

So as per you ADA guys are fools (actually you think that which is clear by most of your posts on LCA) by highlighting increased payload capability? Current Total weapons load capability of hard points is 5500 Kgs, but LCA can only carry 3600 Kgs. MK2 will be able to carry 5000 Kgs that is close to its full capability. It will be able to use multi-racks for AAMs, LGBs etc., which will make it far more capable than MK1. Also, additional fuel will mean no requirement of fuel tanks i.e. availability of hard points for long missions.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

 

[Abingdonboy]

Check out my vid on this:

@BlueDot_in_Space

 

[arp2041]

NICE VIDEO @Abingdonboy

But, for next time i'll recommend just a music in the background than a song.

Anyways, carry on the GOOD WORK.

 

[sancho]

Adding two hard points will require strengthening of the whole wing structure and fuselage that is a very complex and time consuming process.

Not really and the Swedes have even shown us how!

They have integrated a new engine, therefor increased the air intake size and re-designed the fusalage. Since they had to do it anway, they also figured how to make the fighter more capable, with within these changes, that's why they also increased the internal fuel, which reduces external fuel tanks and added up to 2 more fuselage hardpoints, while the wings remains the same, except that the gears are positioned below them now.

It will be able to use multi-racks for AAMs, LGBs etc., which will make it far more capable than MK1.

There are no multi racks shown or mentioned so far and even if, you can't mix different weapons on the same pylons, that's why fighters often carry 2 x 500lb bombs, instead of 1 x 1000lb bomb, like the LCA does so far.

But that still doesn't free any hardpoints to add BVR missiles during strike missions, that's why LCA will always need additional escorts with A2A config, unless the internal fuel is increased enough to replace at least 1 x fuel tank and free hardpoints on the wings. If that is not the case, the load configs of LCA MK1 and 2 won't be different, if at all MK2 might be able to carry bigger fuel tanks, but that's it.


So lets sum it up:

Gripen NG / LCA MK2

New engine: Check / Check
Bigger air intakes: Check / Check
Re-designed fuselage: Check / Check
Increased internal fuel: Check / Check
Increased payload: Check / Check
Re-positioned gears: Check / Check (at least for N-LCA as reports from AI suggest)
Re-designed wings: Nope / Nope
Additional hardpoints: Check / Nope


Result:

A Gripen NG can carry:

2 x wing fueltanks
2 x 2000lb LGBs
1 x LDP (missing in the pic above)
2 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles
=> Load of more than 5t

LCA MK2 can carry:

2 x wing fueltanks
1 x 2000lb LGBs
1 x LDP (missing in the pic above)
2 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles
=> Load of roughly 3.5t

Which shows, that it doesn't matter if the MK2 has a maximum payload of possibly 5ts, since it has not enough hardpoints for weapons. While the Gripen NG not only increased the payload, but also the load capability with a minimum ammount of changes (only those, that were necessary anyway!)

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Check out my vid on this:

@BlueDot_in_Space

One of the coolest videos!!! perfect track choice!! I hope to see more from you

 

[Abingdonboy]

One of the coolest videos!!! perfect track choice!! I hope to see more from you

Thanks mate- stay tuned for more!

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Not really and the Swedes have even shown us how!

Swedes are doing it does not mean we also have to do it. They have years of experience in fighter design that will come handy which is not the case with ADA. Also, did IAF ask for more hard points? They asked for higher thrust engine only and not more hard points that means something. IAF knows what they are gonna use LCA for and they know that the number of hard points are sufficient for that role.

Not really and the Swedes have even shown us how!



But that still doesn't free any hardpoints to add BVR missiles during strike missions, that's why LCA will always need addition escorts with A2A config, unless the internal fuel is increased enough to replace at least 1 x fuel tank and free hardpoints of the wings. If that is not the case, the load configs of LCA MK1 and 2 won't be different, if at all MK2 might be able to carry bigger fuel tanks, but that's it.

Is it?
Assuming WVR <120 kgs, BVR < 250 Kgs, LGB =1000 Kgs

 

[sancho]

Swedes are doing it does not mean we also have to do it. They have years of experience in fighter design that will come handy which is not the case with ADA.

True, but it shows that there was a good way to make LCA MK2 more capable than what ADA/DRDO have presented so far!

Also, did IAF ask for more hard points? They asked for higher thrust engine only and not more hard points that means something.

Wrong, reports from AI confirms that it was IN that asked for the higher thrust engine and the new internal fuel tanks. Just like IAF never asked for touch screen displays for LCA MK2, like HALBIT or other companies are offering, but still these things are considered by ADA/DRDO as the lead parts of the project and that's silly part that they constantly show, since they don't understand how to do things simple, realistic and fast.

Is it?
Assuming WVR <120 kgs, BVR < 250 Kgs, LGB =1000 Kgs

Yes it is:

1200 LITER FUEL => 960Kg x 2 = 1920Kg
WVR missiles weighs around 90Kg, R73 105Kg x 2 = 180 - 210Kg
BVR missiles only weights 150Kg x 2 = 300Kg
A 2000lb LGB (GBU 24 for example) weighs around 900Kg
An LDP weighs around 200Kg

All in all, around 3530Kg

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

True, but it shows that there was a good way to make LCA MK2 more capable than what ADA/DRDO have presented so far!

You can always make a plane more capable, what is important is it should be capable enough for the role its designed for. LCA is a light fighter and for that role far more capable.

Wrong, reports from AI confirms that it was IN that asked for the higher thrust engine and the new internal fuel tanks. Just like IAF never asked for touch screen displays for LCA MK2, like HALBIT or other companies are offering, but still these things are considered by ADA/DRDO as the lead parts of the project and that's silly part that they constantly show, since they don't understand how to do things simple, realistic and fast.

Which also confirms that in eyes of IAF LCA MK1 is more than capable for its required role and doesn't require higher thrust engine and additional hard points. You just proved yourself wrong on additional hard points and all the rants about LCA being not capable.

Yes it is:
1200 LITER FUEL => 960Kg x 2 = 1920Kg
WVR missiles weighs around 90Kg, R73 105Kg x 2 = 180 - 210Kg
BVR missiles only weights 150Kg x 2 = 300Kg
A 2000lb LGB (GBU 24 for example) weighs around 900Kg
An LDP weighs around 200Kg

All in all, around 3530Kg

Allow me to add something

1200 LITER FUEL => 960Kg x 2 = 1920Kg
WVR missile 105Kg x 2 = 110 kgs
BVR missiles Astra mk1 (150 kgs), Derby (120 kgs), astra mk2 (>200 Kgs), R77 (150 kgs), R77M1 (226 kgs), meteor (185 Kgs) 185Kg x 4 = 800Kgs (multi-rack)
2000lb LGB (GBU 24 for example) weighs around 900Kg = 1000 Kgs
An LDP weighs around 200Kg

further changes can be made as per the requirement of IAF.
Total : 4000 kgs with enough room to add configurations with havier wepons, more fuel.

 

[sancho]

Which also confirms that in eyes of IAF LCA MK1 is more than capable for its required role and doesn't require higher thrust engine and additional hard points. You just proved yourself wrong on additional hard points and all the rants about LCA being not capable.

You might not like it, but the points I made are facts which you can't deny anymore. And I never said LCA is not capable, but without freeing hardpoints or adding new once, it will only able to carry the same strikeload as our 3th gen Jaguars and require dedicated escorts too. That is not the standard a 4th gen fighter should provide, even as a low end fighter and such changes would be more important to make the fighter more capable, than silly changes on the cockpit displays!

 

[subincb]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93398182@N04/8491258861/in/photostream/lightbox/

Coutesy TARMAK007