What's new

Tejas grounded after snag in landing gear

Give me an example of any engine of bike or car or any automotive that is designed, built and in series production in Pakistan. You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need to troll this thread with one liners. If you can give me an example of an engine, then I will have some respect. If not, I rest my case.
Sir,
with due respect why we destroy our money in inveting of new engine when it was happend a centurey ago the fate of KAVERI engine is very nice example after 40 years and spending lot of money you are facing the reality to export engines for LCA from USA (F414-GE).
 
lcanavaltejas071.jpg

Its look like a cheap mechanic workshop, see guy wearing chapal lolsss

lcanavaltejas061.jpg
 
@ramu & @knight11 have a question sir the reason we went for LCA(a light aircraft ) was our inexperience in developing an aircraft plus the engine , now we neither are inexperienced nor making an indegineous engine so y not try to go for an slightly bigger design of Tejas something in the league of F16 around 7.5 ton to 8.5 ton . Then Tejas would not be just a point defence fighter and will be able to undertake more duties as it will have more fuel and will also be able to do ground strike duties of Mirage much better .

@ramu
give it a read I think Tejas will fit in perfectly here for us.(if we ever face such a scenario.)

Japan Scrambling Jets at Cold War Levels | The Diplomat
 
Sir,
with due respect why we destroy our money in inveting of new engine when it was happend a centurey ago the fate of KAVERI engine is very nice example after 40 years and spending lot of money you are facing the reality to export engines for LCA from USA (F414-GE).

Its not about inventing, its about gathering the technology and building an industrial base using it. Let me give you an example, when we were having trouble procuring high grade steel from the Russians for our IAC program, we developed it in house, because we had both the technology and industrial base to do that. Something which Pakistan needs to start working on.

And regarding Jet Engine, why don't you say this to your Chinese friends. You are waiting for them to develop their own engine so that it can be integrated in your JF-17.
 
@ramu & @knight11 have a question sir the reason we went for LCA(a light aircraft ) was our inexperience in developing an aircraft plus the engine , now we neither are inexperienced nor making an indegineous engine so y not try to go for an slightly bigger design of Tejas something in the league of F16 around 7.5 ton to 8.5 ton . Then Tejas would not be just a point defence fighter and will be able to undertake more duties as it will have more fuel and will also be able to do ground strike duties of Mirage much better .

Aircrafts are costly. They are built based on strategic needs and we cant start building a new aircraft from scratch that is a 4th generation. FGFA will use all the experience we have gained in LCA. Without capacity building and pay hikes in HAL and ADA, there is no chance we can build them. Talent retention is almost impossible given that there are so many opportunities in manufacturing thanks to Make in India initiative. I believe, investing in LCH and bringing it closer to the avionics of Apache is a much better for balancing new tanks (Type 99?) that may get inducted by Pakistan though China.

Engine design is top shelf science. We are not experienced enough in making fighter aircraft engines. Period. For good or bad, for reasons beyond the will of India, GTRE has failed to deliver. We have not managed to get technology of the 90s mastered by UK, USA and Russia. Even failed to reverse engineer reliably. Embarrassing is the only word.

We have to encourage startups in India, those that build parts with exotic materials, consume them, teach them what works and what does not. Build companies with potential, for example, those that 3D print in resins for a start, then composites or metal. It is down to material science when it comes to some of the problems we face today. Basic science of heat and mass transfer is not a preferred area for PhDs in premier institutes in India as much of the research is done abroad and there are no Profs to guide. We build solvers and software engineer large applications for computational fluid dynamics but fail to apply them to Kaveri and other spin-offs. It will take another generation and people smarter than what we have in GTRE to get the job done. Maybe with some private interference and maybe some divine grace.
 
LCA never compearied with F-16 or F-22
since 80's era failure of KAVERI Engine ! Over waight problem , after refused by IAF convert it in navel version and now this problem How can you saving your face behind F-22 or F-16 occassional incidents?
Bhaijaan.....i am not comparing the jets......i was just showing that landing gear problems are common with civillian and military aircrafts now a days
 
@ramu & @knight11 have a question sir the reason we went for LCA(a light aircraft ) was our inexperience in developing an aircraft plus the engine , now we neither are inexperienced nor making an indegineous engine so y not try to go for an slightly bigger design of Tejas something in the league of F16 around 7.5 ton to 8.5 ton . Then Tejas would not be just a point defence fighter and will be able to undertake more duties as it will have more fuel and will also be able to do ground strike duties of Mirage much better .

@ramu
give it a read I think Tejas will fit in perfectly here for us.(if we ever face such a scenario.)

Japan Scrambling Jets at Cold War Levels | The Diplomat
Good question to explore the reason we have to go to the time when the HAL proposed the GOI for the development of the fighter plane for the replacement of Mig-21. But govt. created ADA, and asked the IAF to formulate and submit its ASQR i.e requirement. Now IAF took 9 years to submit its ASQR, after which the ADA was given the funds for the preminary design study to check whether the technology in India is able to develop LCA. After which the funds could be released for the development of the prototype.

Now its clear that ADA have to develop the fighter plane as per the requirement of the IAF, so the small light wt requirement of the IAF could be due to the following reason :

1. IAF was impressed with the GNAT, which was small but agile fighter plane with short take off capability. So in another word you can treat LCA as the direct decendant of the GNAT.
2. IAF have mig-21 in large numbers, so they want the fighter plane that could fit in the already existed hangers.
3. IAF primrary wanted the fighter plane to replace mig-21, which was given the role of the interceptor, so they don't want long range for deep strike but for the point defense fighter plane, whose role fighter was been replaced with it.
4. IAF intended to use in mountainous airfield, which could take off from small airfield.

The earlier target was 1995, which was the fighter plane which was gen-3, a GNAT-2 fighter plane. But IAF took 9 years to formulate ASQR, and govt took another 3 years to release the fund due to economic crisis. The time was wasted but ADA used this time to study and work on 4 core technology, because now new technology was started impressing IAF -- FBW, Composites, FADEEC & turbo fan, BVR capability.

From Mig -29 - radar, BVR, WVR missile (Earlier fighter planes were only guns, rockets only)
from mirrage 2000 - FBW, FADEC, BVR, RADARS, glass cockpit
Jaguar -- LGB, Aerial refuel
Later on -- EW Suites, Center fusion, Data link,

So, the requirement of IAF now increases, because of the emergence of new technology and the goal post was changed for the LCA for the 4 gen from 3rd gen.

Question arises why they gone for the Delta wing with no tail and not the conventional design
Answer lies in the requirement of taking off with full load, in high altitute like LEH. The FBW developed for the LCA is another reason why ? Because with this design, they have less control surface, and if they could have included the Canard like Grippen, the FBW, and the Control law would have been more complex, so they came up with unique design of the wing, thus eliminating the canard and simple air inlet design.


Question why they go for the composite and that too in such high percentage
So LCA have to use the composite to fulfill its ASQR requirement

Question arises why Kaveri fails :
Changes required more thrust and power, which cannot be increased now. So the new ASR requirement of the IAF killed kaveri, because to achieve that, the engine have to be developed from the zero again and with the budget of 1.2 billion allocated, it was not possible, because the M88 engine was developed with 2.5 billion by the dassault in 10 years with experience of decades of engine making. And for those making fun of the kaveri project, no where in any country, the engine (turbo fan) was developed from the scratch in less than 40 years. China is an example, and very well know the difficulty in this development, because they have pumped around 100 billion in various engine development and R&D.

Question arises why difficulty in IOC, FOC
The first flight of the Legendary F-14 ended up in the crash, such thing could send LCA into the gallow.
For FOC the reason is the small size of the LCA, now makes things complicated, because the avionics have to packed taking care of heat problems in small space. So, the problem of the space makes the choice of off shelf foreign product difficult.


As far as you question is concerned, there is one another question Should they have gone for bigger fighter plane.
The answer is ADA have done great, because the knowledge, and technology they have learned in the fighter plane making give us the capability, now that we can go for the bigger MMRCA in Tejas MK3 with G-414 EPE engine with 110 kn. And I think this was the last chance we have to become self reliance in this field, because the technology is evolving way too fast and to keep up with that, it would have been impossible to cope up with without pumping huge amount of money, because till the time you develop a fighter plane, several new better technology evolves and the old Giants like LM, boeing, MIG, Sukhoi, Chinese won't like it be happened in the country which is the biggest arms importer in the world. After all its all buisness.

Rest assure there is no technology which is more than 5 year old in Tejas and

The one who flies swear to it, and who never flies discuss it.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

So---is that why it is not working---because it is too advanced or what---.:coffee:
And too heavy for single engine light fighter if you see above posted close up pics of landing gear you will find over worked big and heavy landing gear it reminds me old story when my elder cousin purchased a bicycle for me when shop owner told him that big and small bicycle same in price even parts are same so what he decide he choose bigger seat large handle for me so I feel comfortable but when bicycle assembled everybody laughs 16 inch cycle with 22 inch seat and handle it look like dwarf with grown face and belly with short legs same case with LCA
 
Last edited:
Bhaijaan.....i am not comparing the jets......i was just showing that landing gear problems are common with civillian and military aircrafts now a days


F-35 Fighter’s Tires Wear Out Too Soon, Pentagon Finds - Bloomberg Business
Tires that wear out too soon are adding to the troubles facing Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system.

Landing-gear tires made by Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Ltd. for the Marine Corps version of the fighter have “been experiencing an unacceptable wear rate when operating as a conventional aircraft,” according to Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Defense Department’s F-35 program office.
 
lcanavaltejas071.jpg

Its look like a cheap mechanic workshop, see guy wearing chapal lolsss

lcanavaltejas061.jpg
Cheap plane model & cheap mechanic ?
Matched !lolzz


F-35 Fighter’s Tires Wear Out Too Soon, Pentagon Finds - Bloomberg Business
Tires that wear out too soon are adding to the troubles facing Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system.

Landing-gear tires made by Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Ltd. for the Marine Corps version of the fighter have “been experiencing an unacceptable wear rate when operating as a conventional aircraft,” according to Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Defense Department’s F-35 program office.
Omg , here we go , our Indian friends comparing a cheap stupid prototype with a super fighter 5th generation jet ?lolzz
 
Back
Top Bottom