LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D

[sancho]

last time I checked......mk2 was headed for a hybrid el/m 2052 aesa radar

It is stated by ADA officials that the indigenous AESA radar development might be delayed and not in time for the MK2 production start. The rumors about the 2052 are neither officially confirmed, nor did they state a timeline of availability.

 

[narcon]

Check the centerline of LCA and how much space there is in width and length between the gear bays, then you will understand what limitations there are.

My reply to you was not LCA specific, it was general/common.
However, you are portraying a LCA with a big drop tank, which in most cases have to be dropped after the fuel has been exhausted. It is used to give a fighter an extra range. But when it comes mission specific role on any given day during war, if the LCA can carry such a huge drop tank, why not missiles?

The role is supposed to be mission specific.

Now you see:

You have given a photo of LCA under belly carrying a huge load:

If that is possible (Size wise), then what is NOT possible, as for the "width" ?

 

[fsayed]

tejas is just waste of money

why u r wasting ur time here. plz dont bother about our money

 

[sancho]

Do you think there is less space?

Look at the limited space between the 800l fuel tank and the gear bay:

That's the width restriction the station has, so only payloads that fit between these gear bays are useful. For the length restriction, the ground clearance during take off and landing will be important. And as said, many fighters have similar restrictions:

The gearbays of the EF, makes it difficult to carry wider payloads than the 1000l fuel tank.

The gearbay of the Mirage 2000 limits the length of payloads carried at the 4 fuselage stations to around 3m, which is why MICA can be carried there, but neither Astra or Meteor. And lenght limitations of the centerline during take offs, should be the reason for the limit it to the smaller fuel tank, while the wings can carry the larger once too.

For the Tejas, the coming payload tests will show what payloads the centerline will be able to take, I even think that we saw only tests with the 725l tank so far, while the 800l tank was displayed on the centerline only at the ground and integrated to the wingstations apart of the 1200l.

 

[sancho]

My reply to you was not LCA specific, it was general/common.

And the quote you refered to was about the Eurofighter = EF so you didn't even understood the quote and then posted completelly unrelated stuff, because you don't understand what restrictions the centerline has apart of weight limits.

You have given a photo of LCA under belly carrying a huge load

Which as stated in the last post is no big fuel tank, but most likely even the smallest of LCA the 725l. The rest explained in the post above.

 

[narcon]

And the quote you refered to was about the Eurofighter = EF so you didn't even understood the quote and then posted completelly unrelated stuff, because you don't understand what restrictions the centerline has apart of weight limits.

What quote?
EF was not on my mind at all nor did I mentioned it in words.

But first and foremost, your thrust was/is on belly/centerline load's width limitation:

That clearly implies LCA design is flawed. Because centerline load is most important (which carries the most weight.) of all other weapon stations involved.

In other words, when LCA was designed, this was NOT provisioned?

 

[rockstarIN]

What quote?
EF was not on my mind at all nor did I mentioned it in words.

But first and foremost, your thrust was/is on belly/centerline load's width limitation:

That clearly implies LCA design is flawed. Because centerline load is most important (which carries the most weight.) of all other weapon stations involved.

In other words, when LCA was designed, this was NOT provisioned?

I think most of the delta wing fighters face the same problem. The underbelly loading is less.

@sancho see the below pic and see the underbelly fuel tank of Rafale.

It is reshaped to fit into the belly IMO, we can do the same for LCA.

 

[GURU DUTT]

What quote?
EF was not on my mind at all nor did I mentioned it in words.

But first and foremost, your thrust was/is on belly/centerline load's width limitation:

That clearly implies LCA design is flawed. Because centerline load is most important (which carries the most weight.) of all other weapon stations involved.

In other words, when LCA was designed, this was NOT provisioned?

your right to an extend LCA was never designed to be a multi role or ground attack strike fighter bomber it was concieved as a point defence light fighter to replace mig 21 but deu to constant goal post change and chnges in airframe , manufacturing materials and engine & radar it can now do job of a mig 21 + a jaguar in a single sortie but yes its short legged (500Km) and can carry just around 4 tones of wepons/extranal feul

 

[pursuit of happiness]

why u r wasting ur time here. plz dont bother about our money

---

 

[pursuit of happiness]

I think most of the delta wing fighters face the same problem. The underbelly loading is less.

@sancho see the below pic and see the underbelly fuel tank of Rafale.
View attachment 148748


It is reshaped to fit into the belly IMO, we can do the same for LCA.

--

--
We need Rafale

 

[sancho]

What quote?
EF was not on my mind at all nor did I mentioned it in words.

You didn't I did:

You can take the EF for comparision too, that can carry a 1000l fuel tank on the centerline, just as a targeting pod, but width limitations restrict it from carrying a cruise missile or even an GBU 10 LGB (2000lb).

Source: LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D | Page 20

You quoted this, but didn't realized about what I was talking, because you didn't read properly.

That clearly implies LCA design is flawed. Because centerline load is most important (which carries the most weight.) of all other weapon stations involved.

Since that size limitation is visible on many fighters, you can see that it's a common problem, depending on the size of the fighter. You have to put the gears somewhere and since it needs to be close to the centerline station, there can be payload limitations. For LCA which was designed as a very small fighter, that might be even more troubling, but we will see that only in the coming months when more payload is tested.[/QUOTE]

 

[sancho]

your right to an extend LCA was never designed to be a multi role or ground attack strike fighter bomber

That's not correct, LCA was always meant to be a multi role fighter, just as Gripen, M2K..., even some of it's very early concepts and windtunnel models shows it with strike loads and even the MK1 equals the Jag in strike capability.

 

[rockstar08]

comparing a Operational Plane with a non operational plane , " Kya yeh khula tazad nai " ?

 

[sancho]

I think most of the delta wing fighters face the same problem. The underbelly loading is less.

It's not the wingdesign that is the issue, but where you place the gearbay and how much space you have in between.
The Rafale has a wider fuselage, therefore more space to fit the gears and one point is still how long a payload can be at the centerline, to not hit the ground during take offs, because even if the 1200l tank would not interfere with the gearbays by width, the length difference to the smaller tanks is credible.

 

[rockstarIN]

It's not the wingdesign that is the issue, but where you place the gearbay and how much space you have in between.
The Rafale has a wider fuselage, therefore more space to fit the gears and one point is still how long a payload can be at the centerline, to not hit the ground during take offs, because even if the 1200l tank would not interfere with the gearbays by width, the length difference to the smaller tanks is credible.

Rafale centre line fuel tank shape is different from other tanks, narrow width near the gears.