Tejas FOC : Miles to go

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Soon as the design of MK2 is finalized, we should move for LCA MK3 design. Length 15 M, 120 KN engine , Empty Weight 6 tons, stealth, weight carrying 7 tons.

The ultimate design would be

1) All composite
2) fin less and instead use engine thrust vectoring

 

[kurup]

The ultimate design would be

1) All composite

Tejas already has high amount of composites .

2) fin less and instead use engine thrust vectoring

Not going to happen .

 

[Dillinger]

The ultimate design would be

1) All composite
2) fin less and instead use engine thrust vectoring

Lets set the record straight. There is no Tejas Mk.3, planned or thought upon, nor will there be any. The Tejas's core design is that of a light fighter with limited real estate for fuel and ordinance, the Mk.2 has already pushed that envelope to the absolute limit. Any notion of a heavier, longer legged fighter will call for an ab-initio design which would then make it a whole new platform.


ANY FURTHER TINKERING WITH THE TEJAS WILL LEAD TO DIMINISHING RETURNS (COMMIT THIS STATEMENT TO YOUR MEMORY).


SO LET US REITERATE:-

1) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO "STEALTHIFY" THE TEJAS.

2) NO, ITS SMALL SIZE AND Y-SHAPED INTAKES DO NOT MAKE IT A CANDIDATE FOR "STEALTHIFYING". EVERYTHING FROM FSS RADOMES TO FLUSH DATA SENSORS TO VLO/LO RATED APERTURES WILL BE REQUIRED AND THE TEJAS JUST DOES NOT HAVE WHAT IT TAKES. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IT LACKS THE REAL-ESTATE FOR AN INTERNAL WEAPONS BAY- FITTING ONE CENTER LINE FUEL TANK WAS HARD ENOUGH.

3) ITS STATED "LOW" RCS IS JUST THAT- LOW- NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH LO MUCH LESS VLO AND SUCH A FIGHTER WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH MINIMAL AVENUES OF GROWTH CANNOT BE UPGRADED AD INFINATUM.


IN SUMMATION, NO STEALTH TEJAS EXISTS ON PAPER OR WILL EVER EXIST OTHERWISE AND WITH GOOD REASON. MOVE ON.

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Lets set the record straight. There is no Tejas Mk.3, planned or thought upon, nor will there be any. The Tejas's core design is that of a light fighter with limited real estate for fuel and ordinance, the Mk.2 has already pushed that envelope to the absolute limit. Any notion of a heavier, longer legged fighter will call for an ab-initio design which would then make it a whole new platform.

. .

Take it easy dude, i know there wont be mk3, at least not for one more decade. but using thrust vectored engine for fin replacement is an evolutionary path for Tejas. So in future its plausible provided ADA masters engine thrust vectoring

Tejas already has high amount of composites .

Not going to happen .

composite content will be increased and for the second part it can happen but only provided we build our own thrust vectored engine and enable FCS to use thrust vectoring as a replacement for the fin. So yeah not possible for at least one and half decade

 

[Dillinger]

Take it easy dude, i know there wont be mk3, at least not for one more decade. but using thrust vectored engine for fin replacement is an evolutionary path for Tejas. So in future its plausible provided ADA masters engine thrust vectoring

Its not an evolutionary path for the Tejas, it was a design consideration during the early days of the MCA (when it was still highly prospective rather than its current status of being in cold storage), said design consideration was based on the condition of it being a twin engined fighter (which the Tejas never will be).

That post isn't just meant for you, it is implicitly addressed to @HariPrasad as well.

 

[KingMamba]

Its not an evolutionary path for the Tejas, it was a design consideration during the early days of the MCA (when it was still highly prospective rather than its current status of being in cold storage), said design consideration was based on the condition of it being a twin engined fighter (which the Tejas never will be).

That post isn't just meant for you, it is implicitly addressed to @HariPrasad as well.

No one asked you.

 

[Dillinger]

No one asked you.

Its a simple running policy, clean up misconceptions and provide relevant data. I generally rope in Oscar to do the dirty work or Hyperion when he used to be available but of late Oscar has taken a less than charitable view of my slothful attitude and thus refuses to do the heavy lifting in my stead.

@KingMamba Besides you of all people know how exacting I can be about everything from technicalities to semantics..remember my retraction when I got my facts wrong in a certain thread (dealing with an attack on an IA personnel in Kashmir)?

 

[Nova2]

Lets set the record straight. There is no Tejas Mk.3, planned or thought upon, nor will there be any. The Tejas's core design is that of a light fighter with limited real estate for fuel and ordinance, the Mk.2 has already pushed that envelope to the absolute limit. Any notion of a heavier, longer legged fighter will call for an ab-initio design which would then make it a whole new platform.


ANY FURTHER TINKERING WITH THE TEJAS WILL LEAD TO DIMINISHING RETURNS (COMMIT THIS STATEMENT TO YOUR MEMORY).


SO LET US REITERATE:-

1) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO "STEALTHIFY" THE TEJAS.

2) NO, ITS SMALL SIZE AND Y-SHAPED INTAKES DO NOT MAKE IT A CANDIDATE FOR "STEALTHIFYING". EVERYTHING FROM FSS RADOMES TO FLUSH DATA SENSORS TO VLO/LO RATED APERTURES WILL BE REQUIRED AND THE TEJAS JUST DOES NOT HAVE WHAT IT TAKES. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IT LACKS THE REAL-ESTATE FOR AN INTERNAL WEAPONS BAY- FITTING ONE CENTER LINE FUEL TANK WAS HARD ENOUGH.

3) ITS STATED "LOW" RCS IS JUST THAT- LOW- NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH LO MUCH LESS VLO AND SUCH A FIGHTER WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH MINIMAL AVENUES OF GROWTH CANNOT BE UPGRADED AD INFINATUM.


IN SUMMATION, NO STEALTH TEJAS EXISTS ON PAPER OR WILL EVER EXIST OTHERWISE AND WITH GOOD REASON. MOVE ON.

TT bro,how couldn't u have one positive rating till date?kinda hard to belive

 

[KingMamba]

Its a simple running policy, clean up misconceptions and provide relevant data. I generally rope in Oscar to do the dirty work or Hyperion when he used to be available but of late Oscar has taken a less than charitable view of my slothful attitude and thus refuses to do the heavy lifting in my stead.

@KingMamba Besides you of all people know how exacting I can be about everything from technicalities to semantics..remember my retraction when I got my facts wrong in a certain thread (dealing with an attack on an IA personnel in Kashmir)?

Nah bro I know I was just trolling you, long time man.

 

[Dillinger]

TT bro,how couldn't u have one positive rating till date?kinda hard to belive

I went dark when the new system came online. Just resurfaced a week or so back to see what my old pals were up to here. On a more pertinent note, I've never cared for ratings/thanks much, most of my posts aren't exactly aimed at pleasing the folks.

Nah bro I know I was just trolling you, long time man.

As if I didn't know. LONG TIME!! Recently re-connected with our Kashmiri bovine and @Hyperion came back from cryo-sleep day before...now you're here. Almost like the good old days.

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Its not an evolutionary path for the Tejas, it was a design consideration during the early days of the MCA (when it was still highly prospective rather than its current status of being in cold storage), said design consideration was based on the condition of it being a twin engined fighter (which the Tejas never will be).

That post isn't just meant for you, it is implicitly addressed to @HariPrasad as well.

Twin engine is not a requirement for replacing fin. Major challenge is designing FCS to use thrust vector for fin replacement.

 

[KingMamba]

As if I didn't know. LONG TIME!! Recently re-connected with our Kashmiri bovine and @Hyperion came back from cryo-sleep day before...now you're here. Almost like the good old days.

I have been dropping by for a few months but since I seen none of the oldies were around I never logged in and just read articles. I've been more active this month though.

Anyway no more derailing this thread lol.

 

[Nova2]

I went dark when the new system came online. Just resurfaced a week or so back to see what my old pals were up to here. On a more pertinent note, I've never cared for ratings/thanks much, most of my posts aren't exactly aimed at pleasing the folks.



As if I didn't know. LONG TIME!! Recently re-connected with our Kashmiri bovine and @Hyperion came back from cryo-sleep day before...now you're here. Almost like the good old days.

Ohh...i didn't knew tht u were off for a while,i hv been following the pdf since 2011 n gota say that perhaps many great minds had left since then,anyways thanks and good to hv you back

 

[Dillinger]

Twin engine is not a requirement for replacing fin. Major challenge is designing FCS to use thrust vector for fin replacement.

Twin engine is a requirement for credible flight profile and flight safety sans "fin". Go through the old releases on the MCA you will find what you need.

I have been dropping by for a few months but since I seen none of the oldies were around I never logged in and just read articles. I've been more active this month though.

Anyway no more derailing this thread lol.

Meh! When were we ever shy of derailing a thread..imagine if Buttsy and ZY were here right now..we'd be turning this into the carnival complete with references to feces smeared buffalo butts crushing people.

Besides @Hyperion would have something to say on this thread I believe.

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Twin engine is a requirement for credible flight profile and flight safety sans "fin". Go through the old releases on the MCA you will find what you need.
Besides @Hyperion would have something to say on this thread I believe.

No No! FCS and engine. UCAVs are example. For manned would require complex FCS