Tejas FOC : Miles to go

[MilSpec]

How do you think UCAVs fly without vertical stabilizers?

If maneuverability of Ucav's is what we desire, then god help us...

 

[kaykay]

IMO Tejas and JF-17 are very agile planes given their relaxed stability design due to for example relatively small vertical stabilizers. 8g is not bad, but 9g would have been optimal. Anyone know the g numbers of say F-5 and MiG-21?

for Mig-21s, It was 7g for early models and 8.5g for latest models.

 

[Dillinger]

@sandy_3126 I think the issue here is that we are not being able to communicate properly. Its not that what he's saying is impossible given the laws of physics and what the science of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering dictate but rather that it is not feasible given the target platform in question and targeted operational requirements, and ergo not going to be pursued.

 

[SQ8]

And you missed the point. Let me clarify for your benefit. A single engined platform does not lend itself to a complex and hitherto un-tested (non-operational) design ergo under "real world" conditions (that is to say while keeping the operational realities faced by the IAF in mind) such a design choice would only be remotely feasible on a more robust twin-engined fighter. That having been said even then the novelty of the design will still not provide any spectacular return as opposed to the costs imposed. I ventured to address two different yet inter-connected facets in two separate posts in order to aid comprehension and to further furnish my assertion in the face of your post. Collating the data provided in both my posts and thereby constructing a cogent narrative could not have been that difficult.

Now do me a favor, exhibit a cranked delta wing UCAV design sans vertical stabilizers.

The issue here being that much like a spoiler on a car.. i.e.

Being turned into this

makes the Tejas transformation just as easy.

The F-16 is an example of an aircraft that has literally been pushed to its very limits in terms of design change and weight..Yet, apart from the XL(which was essentially a fairly expensive upgrade) the other F-16s have stuck close to the basic planform and have ended up sacrificing a small amount of agility(while tripling in cost) for their upgrade.

The Best that could possibility be done with the Tejas is the Mk2, upgrades of which may one day bring better weapons or improved fuel tanks. Anything else drives its cost into an unacceptable range which essentially negates its very idea.
Its a fine spade... but lets call it a spade I¬¬D ..not an excavator.

 

[kingdurgaking]

algorithms to schedule the pitch and yaw vectoring to provide control in the absence of fin or vertical stabilizers

Just want to add vertical stabilizer functionality in engines is risky and thats why fly wings design crafts use there wings to do the same.. An engine is a main point failure at this point of time and if you add this functionality it is going to be disastrous... secondly technology is not matured enough to handle this.. if you give engine all functionality then wings will be removed in future as this is redundant just the body will be used as a lift surface... and this kind of design may take more than 5+ decades or not feasible at all to be in practical as there will be no fail safe

 

[kingdurgaking]

The issue here being that much like a spoiler on a car.. i.e.


Being turned into this


makes the Tejas transformation just as easy.

The F-16 is an example of an aircraft that has literally been pushed to its very limits in terms of design change and weight..Yet, apart from the XL(which was essentially a fairly expensive upgrade) the other F-16s have stuck close to the basic planform and have ended up sacrificing a small amount of agility(while tripling in cost) for their upgrade.

The Best that could possibility be done with the Tejas is the Mk2, upgrades of which may one day bring better weapons or improved fuel tanks. Anything else drives its cost into an unacceptable range which essentially negates its very idea.
Its a fine spade... but lets call it a spade I¬¬D ..not an excavator.

The reason for MK-2 coming into existence is because of Navy as the aircraft is too heavy to fly and need more power to wrroom in the short run path... other wise Tejas in current form is more potent aircraft ... When IAF saw the navy requirement they to jumped in and said we want the same ... Other wise MK-1 order would have definitely an follow on order once the 40 aircrafts are delivered and an operation plan was set up around it..

 

[MilSpec]

@sandy_3126 I think the issue here is that we are not being able to communicate properly. Its not that what he's saying is impossible given the laws of physics and what the science of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering dictate but rather that it is not feasible given the target platform in question and targeted operational requirements, and ergo not going to be pursued.

Theoretically we can do a lot of things, doesn't mean we need to. We can turn tejas into a Bat, but we wont.

Now if we could go back to the FOC issue where this started, My understanding differs from that of idrw people

FOC will also include IOM and training for BRD's, along with supply chain for spares and parts. Operational Approval will arrive before FOC happens and the milestones listed are for the same. Once the infrastructre at BRD's are generated, IOM's are released that is when the craft will reach FOC.

 

[Dillinger]

Theoretically we can do a lot of things, doesn't mean we need to. We can turn tejas into a Bat, but we wont.

Now if we could go back to the FOC issue where this started, My understanding differs from that of idrw people

FOC will also include IOM and training for BRD's, along with supply chain for spares and parts. Operational Approval will arrive before FOC happens and the milestones listed are for the same. Once the infrastructre at BRD's are generated, IOM's are released that is when the craft will reach FOC.

All that while Antony's successor will pull figures and dates out of thin air.

 

[MilSpec]

The reason for MK-2 coming into existence is because of Navy as the aircraft is too heavy to fly and need more power to wrroom in the short run path... other wise Tejas in current form is more potent aircraft ... When IAF saw the navy requirement they to jumped in and said we want the same ... Other wise MK-1 order would have definitely an follow on order once the 40 aircrafts are delivered and an operation plan was set up around it..

Some of it is correct, some of it is conjecture, for the wroom, weight reduction could have been an option, FG414 specs were released by GE, to IAF, as it wanted to move to a better product as the bypass is less leaky.

Next IAF also changed quite a few requirement's not just the engine, whatever the reasons might have been, it looks like it worked in our favor.

But the biggest saving grace for LCA mk2 may turnout to be economic slowdown, not performance or agility...

 

[kingdurgaking]

Some of it is correct, some of it is conjecture, for the wroom, weight reduction could have been an option, FG414 specs were released by GE, to IAF, as it wanted to move to a better product as the bypass is less leaky.

Next IAF also changed quite a few requirement's not just the engine, whatever the reasons might have been, it looks like it worked in our favor.

But the biggest saving grace for LCA mk2 may turnout to be economic slowdown, not performance or agility...

As per the latest report there are dead weights added.. and more layers of secured structure too (though too late, they have realized at the end because they are not sure about the Carbon composite performance on long term and it turned out to be tooooooo good than they have originally anticipated it).. In this case the MK-2 will be a blessing in disguise and i am expecting the empty weight to go down further which as mentioned in new ADA specs ... as of 414 it was because of Navy i am pretty sure about it as they need more oil and power to push it, but yes it has turned out to be IAF's pet too and they have shelved some of there own funds for the same ... which is a pretty good step..

 

[Secur]

@Dillinger

You are wasting your time , but still can I persuade you to stay for the night and explain the " kill switch " concept and possibility to my countrymen ?

 

[shree835]

IMO Tejas and JF-17 are very agile planes given their relaxed stability design due to for example relatively small vertical stabilizers. 8g is not bad, but 9g would have been optimal. Anyone know the g numbers of say F-5 and MiG-21?

@Oscar and @Aeronaut Bhai Jaan... Again this guy brought JF-17 into Tejas discussion... Please take him.

 

[Superboy]

Does anyone know whether Tejas has set world record for having taken the longest development time out of any fighter plane? Is there a Guinness record for this?

I'm assuming Tejas is still in development, since it needs a new nose cone to improve radar range?

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

LCA Tejas evolution in the distant future (2030+)

 

[Superboy]

LCA Tejas evolution in the distant future (2030+)

Not a looker IMO. It's like a tailless fish. What radar does Tejas Mk 1 have? EL/M-2032?