HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[Adux]

Webby,

RCS Reduction, Composites are Radar Absorbing Materials as well as stronger and lighter than metal , Therefore lower signature(harder detect) on the Radar. Check Last two pages. I have already given the pictures of the composites areas, If you check the NatGeo LCA Video posted here, You will see how Composites are used, and how they are made in India.

F-16, F-18, Mig-29K,EuroFighter and Rafale uses composites, the degree varies from different aircraft. It is calculated by Weight as well as Surface Area. Read Up. Carbon Composites are also used Ferrari Enzo and other High End cars to reduce Weight, and form a stronger body

 

[Adux]

I cant seem to find the NatGeo video, it is taken of youtube,

here is a very very old DD Video on LCA

Composites are explained as well as the manufacturing process shown

[YOUTUBE]

 

[Contrarian]

Composites apart from reducing weight also play a major part in reducing the RCS of the plane.The plane has greater thrust, etc, etc. Composites are a VITAL part in any new plane.

Among the most significant breakthrough is the use of advance carbon composites for more than 40% of the LCA air frame, including wings, fin and fuselage. Apart from making it much lighter, there are less joints or rivets making the aeroplane more reliable. Fatigue strength studies on computer models optimise performance. National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) has played a lead role. Materials include Aluminium - Lithium alloys , Titanium alloy and Carbon compositites. Composities for wing (skin , spars and ribs ) fuselage (doors and skins), elevons, fin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear doors.

The use of composites results in a 40 per cent reduction in the total number of parts (if the LCA were built using a metallic frame): For instance, 3,000 parts in a metallic design would come down to 1,800 parts in a composite design. The number of fasteners has been reduced to half in the composite structure from 10,000 in the metallic frame. The composite design helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Though the weight comes down by 21 per cent, the most interesting prediction is the time it will take to assemble the LCA -- the airframe that takes 11 months to build can be done in seven months using composites.



EW systems then....EW component has been codeveloped with Israel. The pod is called Mayavi. Israel developed this pod, so it would be fitted on the JSF and LCA for India.

Payload of LCA is 4000Kg vs JF-17's 3500-3700 Kg.
Range of LCA-850 km, what is the range of JF-17?

 

[Adux]

Malay please specify for our Pakistani friends that 850Km is the combat radius,

 

[Adux]

Bringing down the Weight, increase thrust to weight ratio, therefore providing better fuel efficiency, which inturn increases the range.

 

[Sgt. Automatic]

Technically, if this jet performs as good in real life as on paper then this would be a major break through for India. Considering that its light and small, could mean better manuvarbility, and it would be harder to spot (to some degree). But one thing that really surprises me as a NEUTRAL OBSERVER is this:

Its a well known fact and US's closest ally is Israel. But none the less, in a situation of war or sales in this case, your own country comes first, US stoped the funding of the Israeli Lavi project, once they figured out that the Lavi could match with F-16 if not better, plus it would be cheaper, a bit newer technology and so on. They took care of themselfs first and stopped the funding to keep the status of F-16's. Now I don't see why US would provide engines for the LSA, if they new that this jet was going to be "superior" to most aircraft in their inventory, or equal to JSF. (Please note these speculations are made on paper). The jet is good but definatly not as good as it looks on paper. Its already a breakthrough that India has made a jet by themselves, but high hopes such as stealth and the lot is not a very good idea, because once they figure out that LCA can't perform as good as we thought and read on the paper, no one is going to like it. But LCA lays the foundation for better jets in the future.

 

[Adux]

Sgt. Automatic

LCA is nowhere near the US jet capability like the F-35/JSF. Its just not comparable. It is a good fighter, a lot of good technology but a 5th gen fighter; it is not. It is not stealth by design, but composites. JSF/ F-22 are on other hand is designed for stealth. Some of the LCA features will be amazing, thats all. An aircarft with another aircraft is compared according to its role and era. For example you can compare an F-15 to Su-30 but not a MiG-31. so on and so forth. You want to compare the LCA, compare it with the Gripen.

US already provides these engines for the Gripen, ie Gripen uses Ge-404, and they have no problem with selling them to India. Lavi example is a very good one, but times have changed.

 

[Sgt. Automatic]

Its possible that US doesn't care about other countries aquiring Gen 4 jets, maybe becuase they now have Gen 5 jets, if thats what you mean by "times have changed". One thing I would like to point is that LCA was never kept secret, whats on paper now was still there years ago. But this is one of the reasons I said that LCA might be inferior to JF-17 is becuase Pakistan waited for LCA to emerge and then give the specifications for JF-17, this is one of the reasons along with that JF-17 is as capable as F-16 A/B. But one thing is for sure that LCA and JF-17 haven't matured yet. It might be that JF-17 will take longer to mature than the LCA simply becuase LCA was made earlier. So for now I even feel foolish saying that JF-17 is superiro to LCA, we will just have to wait till they mature and have specified weapons platform.

 

[Sgt. Automatic]

Sgt. Automatic

LCA is nowhere near the US jet capability like the F-35/JSF. Its just not comparable. It is a good fighter, a lot of good technology but a 5th gen fighter; it is not. It is not stealth by design, but composites. JSF/ F-22 are on other hand is designed for stealth. Some of the LCA features will be amazing, thats all. An aircarft with another aircraft is compared according to its role and era. For example you can compare an F-15 to Su-30 but not a MiG-31. so on and so forth. You want to compare the LCA, compare it with the Gripen.

US already provides these engines for the Gripen, ie Gripen uses Ge-404, and they have no problem with selling them to India. Lavi example is a very good one, but times have changed.

I know my post was confusing. I would never make such speculations as JSF vs LCA, its just that I read that somewhere and alot of LCA fans are bringing it up over and over again. I think it was me who said that LCA is inferior to JF-17, and JF-17 is way inferior to newer versions of F-16 (MLU) etc. So in other words LCA is inferior to F-16 which are nowhere close to F-22. I don't know if this clears anything.

 

[Adux]

Again,

LCA vs F-16 MLU, is a question of engagement zone. I dont view JF-17 superior to LCA, rahter is superior to JF-17. You can Start from FBW(LCA is a full Quad while jf-17 is analog/digi combo), composites(see video), Engine(GE-404), RCS, etc Now I know my facts pretty well, and I know where a discussion on this will lead. So I will take my leave.

Adu

 

[Neo]

Adu, why are you so focused on composites?
I know modern jets use a lot of composites and it makes the plance lighter but not superior per definition.
Just curious.

 

[Adux]

Composites,

Lighter airframe creating better thrust to weight ratio which in turn gives a better range cuz of fuel efficency on cruise mode, No corrosion, Radar absorbing which gives lower print on enemy radar, Lesser joints therefore lesser fatigue.

 

[Neo]

And very high maintenance. One sigle crack and you have to replace the whole section of the surface.

 

[Adux]

No actually it is low maintance(reason why it is used F1, SuperCars), cuz the pausibility of it happening to a surface that is stronger than metal is very low in peace time also it has no corrosion. But it takes lower amount time to fix it also. Its a next generation Technology which very new aircraft is employing, so it is definitly worth the money

 

[Keysersoze]

Composites are good and have many positive features, but will add substantively to the price. However if there are any errors in production it can create big problems. Not as likely in prototypes but in mass production it will cause problems.

I think the wingless delta is a crappy design so it doesn't really matter what it is made off.