What's new

Where Tejas falls behind

That's a very old article. The Arjun and Akash have been successfully inducted into the forces since it was written. The Arjun has outperformed the T-90, and Akash SAMs have an order book of several billion dollars. Two regiments of Akash SAMs have already been inducted by the IAF, with more to follow. One regiment of Arjun tanks (or is it two?) are already in service, and India's future MBTs will all be future variants of Arjuns.

Unfortunately, the delays in the LCA program are still continuing, and although the LCA has evolved since then, its FOC still remains painfully elusive.

about LCA first they should finalize it and induce it in IAF...
I am always hearing discussion about its MK1 and MK2 versions....first simple should be induced it will increase the speed of project...
when 1st basic version is ready then generating other versions and evolving it are not too tricky...
and this induction will help the IAF to be familiar with jets soo others will easily be induced as done with JFT...its basic version is induced without HMD and Digital FBW control and now in 2012-13 its 2ns block will be in service with all that wanted for basic fighter....i.e 8 head points and full figital FBW and HMD with improved radar and payload with more use of composites while block 1 are just +-50 in number.....
the delays will not help it...
a 50% less capabilities LCA now is better than 50% more capabilities after 6-7 years for IAF in wterm of training and basic testing and evolution etc....
 
.
about LCA first they should finalize it and induce it in IAF...
I am always hearing discussion about its MK1 and MK2 versions....first simple should be induced it will increase the speed of project...
when 1st basic version is ready then generating other versions and evolving it are not too tricky...
and this induction will help the IAF to be familiar with jets soo others will easily be induced as done with JFT...its basic version is induced without HMD and Digital FBW control and now in 2012-13 its 2ns block will be in service with all that wanted for basic fighter....i.e 8 head points and full figital FBW and HMD with improved radar and payload with more use of composites while block 1 are just +-50 in number.....
the delays will not help it...
a 50% less capabilities LCA now is better than 50% more capabilities after 6-7 years for IAF in wterm of training and basic testing and evolution etc....

Well, that's how most of us feel. For some reason best known to them, the IAF seems to think otherwise.

The LCA mk1 is more advanced and brings more capabilities to the table than the entire fleet of mig 21, mig 27 and the jaguars. And yet, the IAF insists on flying these vintage platforms when we have a better home grown alternative in hand.

One of the reasons for this attitude of the IAF is that they have the MKIs, and Rafales soon to follow, and so they can afford to go slow on the LCA front. Unlike PAF, for which the JF-17 is going to be their backbone, the LCA is only expected to serve the low end needs of the IAF. So IAF acts like a spoilt child, inducting these pricey foreign aircrafts, and demanding ever increasing capabilities from the Tejas before accepting it.

This attitude is very discouraging for our nascent aerospace sector. IMO the IAF should have accepted the LCA MK1 in 2010 or so, and got it into full serial production, and waited until 2016 for the mk2. A hundred or so mk1 in service currently would have meant more combat capability for the IAF, than having 200 3rd gen aircrafts currently flying.

One LCA mk1 brings more capabilities to an air force than one mig 21 and one mig 27 put together. While keeping operational costs and training costs low, money spent within India, and pilots flying a much easier platform. It is really disheartening that the IAF doesn't want to support the domestic efforts, like PAF or PLAAF does. PAF inducted the JF-17 even before it had any air to ground capabilities. Though that may have hampered one or two squadrons' capabilities for a year or two, it helped the domestic production industries immensely. In India's case, the Tejas is going on and on like a science project by HAL, while IAF keeps inducting uber expensive foreign toys, and keeps complaining about falling squadron numbers and the difficulties of keeping ancient migs airborne. Something is wrong somewhere.
 
.
YUP they should Replace all the Mig 21 and 27 with the LCA and then Do the upgrade Because on Paper it is way better then all those migs so i dont know why they are not doing it, they should that way they would support the local production and then they can Upgrade to Mk what ever they like Later and the Pilots wont be in danger like how they are in those migs
Keep the mig 29 though
 
.
about LCA first they should finalize it and induce it in IAF...
I am always hearing discussion about its MK1 and MK2 versions....first simple should be induced it will increase the speed of project...
when 1st basic version is ready then generating other versions and evolving it are not too tricky...
and this induction will help the IAF to be familiar with jets soo others will easily be induced as done with JFT...its basic version is induced without HMD and Digital FBW control and now in 2012-13 its 2ns block will be in service with all that wanted for basic fighter....i.e 8 head points and full figital FBW and HMD with improved radar and payload with more use of composites while block 1 are just +-50 in number.....
the delays will not help it...
a 50% less capabilities LCA now is better than 50% more capabilities after 6-7 years for IAF in wterm of training and basic testing and evolution etc....
exactly sir,you just made my point.LCA was developed to replace the aging Mig-21 variants used by the IAF.so when you consider these two planes you will find that Tejas MK-I is miles ahead of the Mig-21Bison(which is the ultimate upgraded version of the Mig-21 series).the IAF at first told HAL to build an intercepter which would fire BVR missiles and would have a better payload and avionics and this was around in 83-84 and HAL started working in 93-94 and when they finally built something like that IAF cam up with all sorts of new demands like it wanted an aircraft with multi-role capacity and so on!this is the reason behind the so called "delay" of this project.
 
.
exactly sir,you just made my point.LCA was developed to replace the aging Mig-21 variants used by the IAF.so when you consider these two planes you will find that Tejas MK-I is miles ahead of the Mig-21Bison(which is the ultimate upgraded version of the Mig-21 series).the IAF at first told HAL to build an intercepter which would fire BVR missiles and would have a better payload and avionics and this was around in 83-84 and HAL started working in 93-94 and when they finally built something like that IAF cam up with all sorts of new demands like it wanted an aircraft with multi-role capacity and so on!this is the reason behind the so called "delay" of this project.

but in my opinion HAL should have launch that what they have maybe they got sone orders for export.....:)
 
.
Q- Where Tejas falls behind

A:- Here

http ://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mZRW7kQze7k/TQ3iBkrzI2I/ AAAAAAAAAWA/cM08k8u0VHI/s1600/1337033_corruption2.jpg

Here

http ://www.easttown.com/_files/images/ wine.jpg

and Here

http: //www.lankaeagle.com/wp-content/uploads /2012/11/prostitution.jpg




Give these to Politician/Babu/Armed forces , LCA will march ahead of all... :)




Deleted:
Reason -Offtopic
 
.
Instead of commenting on Tejus's compound delta wing, I think we need to more detail on Tejus tailless configuration............

Feature of talless
Tailess fighters are relatively low cost.
But tailless aircraft face unique technical challenges in the area of flight controls:
(1) Control effectors exhibit non-linearities
(2) Typically significant aerodynamic interactions occur between the various controls effectors
(3) Effectors generate control moments about multiple axes, resulting in a highly coupled system
(4) Factors 1 through 3 make control allocation a very important issue
(5) Instabilities in multiple axes make control priorities
(6) Maximum vehicle efficiency is achieved by effectively using control redundancy, when it is available, to maximize lift and drag or minimize signature.


Benefits

--tailless aircraft directional control has been provided by spoilers or drag rudders.
spoilers and drag rudders have high attendant actuator requirements (a result of large hinge moments) and provide inadequate control power at high AOA.
--Reduced drag (compared to a tailed airplane)
--Reduced weight (compared to a 1995 SOA tailless airplane)
--Improved high-AOA agility and flying qualities
--Reduced actuator redundancy requirements
--Reduced number of Operational Flight Program (OFP) design cycles
--Reduced control-related accidents and mission-critical vulnerability.

Drag reduction

Minimum drag data for two configurations employing vertical tails shows that the vertical tail accounts for 5% to 10% of the total airplane minimum drag at a cruise Mach number of 0.9. Configuration features like area distribution and interference effects results in variation of the tail contribution. Nevertheless, 5% CDmin is still significant.

Risks

--risks and penalties of tailless aircraft when compared to conventional tailed aircraft.
Increased structural weight - A vertical tail and rudder are still the most weight efficient directional control and stabilization device for most of the flight envelope (see previous slide).
--Increased hydraulic power requirements - Primarily this increase is caused by increased actuator rate requirements of the innovative effectors.
--Increased FCS complexity. A tailless design incorporating innovative controls drives the configuration to include the integrated/adaptive flight control algorithms to mitigate the complexity involved with using traditional control design philosophies.
--Integration of innovative controls may compromise wing camber design on some configurations. This depends on planform and mission, and applies to wings having no leading-edge flaps. Note that the spoiler-slot-deflector controls do not carry this penalty.
:tup:
 
.
@ANPP
Its a noob question but can u explain me why Tejas is regarded as Tailless???

Bcoz i can see one vertical tail at the end of Tejas...:what:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@ANPP
Its a noob question but can u explain me why Tejas is regarded as Tailless???

Bcoz i can see one vertical tail at the end of Tejas...:what:

Nice question bro:tup:
Although LCA have a tail but all its aerodynamic control and stabilization functions in pitch and roll are incorporated into the main wing. Rather than they dont have any horizontal stabilizer(tailplane) & although have vertical tail (tail fins, semi tailless).

All plane who doesnt have horizontal stabilizer or any other mean of horizontal surface are tailles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom