Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2022/page1 ... rcise.html
Guys..... Before we contemplate if India should have sent Tejas to UK. May be we should consider if UK is continuing with the exercise. Looks like it was not India's decision after all
Guys..... Before we contemplate if India should have sent Tejas to UK. May be we should consider if UK is continuing with the exercise. Looks like it was not India's decision after all
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
This link also seems to suggest that the exercise might be cancelled: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 086682.ece
A lot of confusion here. It is possible that with the increased RAF deployment to Europe and around, there might've been issues with Waddington itself, since that is the RAF ISTAR hub, so very likely a massive number of operational deployments of their RC-135's & MQ-9 Reapers from there, along with other NATO aircraft. Would make for very crowded airspace & possible disruptions to the exercises themselves, enough to cause the IAF to pull out. Could also be that the Il-76s are required for other more urgent operations at this time?
[EDIT]: 3 IAF C-17s seen on flighttracker heading towards Europe, most likely the ones carrying relief supplies for Ukraine. Combined with the one that was previously reported by ANI, that makes 4.
If the IAF pulled out of Cobra Warrior because they couldn't spare the C-17s, that might suggest that we need many more large transport aircraft.
A lot of confusion here. It is possible that with the increased RAF deployment to Europe and around, there might've been issues with Waddington itself, since that is the RAF ISTAR hub, so very likely a massive number of operational deployments of their RC-135's & MQ-9 Reapers from there, along with other NATO aircraft. Would make for very crowded airspace & possible disruptions to the exercises themselves, enough to cause the IAF to pull out. Could also be that the Il-76s are required for other more urgent operations at this time?
[EDIT]: 3 IAF C-17s seen on flighttracker heading towards Europe, most likely the ones carrying relief supplies for Ukraine. Combined with the one that was previously reported by ANI, that makes 4.
If the IAF pulled out of Cobra Warrior because they couldn't spare the C-17s, that might suggest that we need many more large transport aircraft.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
https://alert5.com/2022/02/27/exercise- ... -canceled/
The UK govt cancelled Cobra warrior 2022 due to ukraine situation.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 968982.cms
The C-17s evacuated indians from neighbouring countries (where they had reached) - op ganga.
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 040_1.html
Tejas, C-17,C130 and 140 + iaf aircraft, aa like spyder will take part in vayu shakti in pokhran
The UK govt cancelled Cobra warrior 2022 due to ukraine situation.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 968982.cms
The C-17s evacuated indians from neighbouring countries (where they had reached) - op ganga.
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 040_1.html
Tejas, C-17,C130 and 140 + iaf aircraft, aa like spyder will take part in vayu shakti in pokhran
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
RAF pulled the plug on the exercise, all contingents stood down. I believe the IAF may have been hasty with their tweet as they deleted soon after and the Indian HC in the U.K. tweeted the U.K. had cancelled the Ex soon afterk prasad wrote:This link also seems to suggest that the exercise might be cancelled: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 086682.ece
A lot of confusion here. It is possible that with the increased RAF deployment to Europe and around, there might've been issues with Waddington itself, since that is the RAF ISTAR hub, so very likely a massive number of operational deployments of their RC-135's & MQ-9 Reapers from there, along with other NATO aircraft. Would make for very crowded airspace & possible disruptions to the exercises themselves, enough to cause the IAF to pull out. Could also be that the Il-76s are required for other more urgent operations at this time?
[EDIT]: 3 IAF C-17s seen on flighttracker heading towards Europe, most likely the ones carrying relief supplies for Ukraine. Combined with the one that was previously reported by ANI, that makes 4.
If the IAF pulled out of Cobra Warrior because they couldn't spare the C-17s, that might suggest that we need many more large transport aircraft.
https://twitter.com/ksingh_1469/status/ ... 12166?s=21
What’s crazy is the tempo this fleet is working at
Singapore (x3) , Cobra Warrior in the U.K. (x5), gargantuan Shakti/iron fist 2022 that starts in a few days (x? At least 5 platforms I’d say) all within weeks of each other, in fact the IAF firepower exercise and cobra warrior were to overlap, this combined with ongoing frontline duties and training commitments means these birds are really being flogged hard and the line pilots are getting a lot of time on the type. Such a large proportion of the tiny fleet is active, it’s quite absurd and that too with so few 2 seaters to hand.
https://twitter.com/ksingh_1469/status/ ... 12166?s=21
Just a shame deliveries have totally dropped off a cliff and there’s still another 2 year wait for the MK1As to come (IAF’s own fault entirely)
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Gurus, In the above video, from 0:41 to 0:48 seconds, there seems to be a vortex formed mid wing during take off. I have never in any of Tejas viewings seen this. Can some one please shed light on this? is this something new that has been added to FoC version.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
They should reduce the size of that refueling pod. It looks so long and odd along with the aircraft. Sometimes, indian designers really miss a mark. In both Mirage 2000 & Rafale, the pod is so appropriately sized that it adds to the beauty of the aircraft. If they reduce the length by say 4 to 6 inches, it will look really great along with the aircraft.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
What? This is for functionality, not for beauty. During the design and analysis phase if it was determined that chopping of 4-6 inches would give it optimal performance the designers would have done that. This is not a circumcision that's done for looks.viveks wrote:They should reduce the size of that refueling pod. It looks so long and odd along with the aircraft. Sometimes, indian designers really miss a mark. In both Mirage 2000 & Rafale, the pod is so appropriately sized that it adds to the beauty of the aircraft. If they reduce the length by say 4 to 6 inches, it will look really great along with the aircraft.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
....it really appears awkward.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Vivek: Functionality trumps everything else, including awkwardness.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Plus we have to remember that refuelling in air with all the turbulence has to happen in a safe manner so not to damage other parts or nose cone.Jay wrote:What? This is for functionality, not for beauty. During the design and analysis phase if it was determined that chopping of 4-6 inches would give it optimal performance the designers would have done that. This is not a circumcision that's done for looks.viveks wrote:They should reduce the size of that refueling pod. It looks so long and odd along with the aircraft. Sometimes, indian designers really miss a mark. In both Mirage 2000 & Rafale, the pod is so appropriately sized that it adds to the beauty of the aircraft. If they reduce the length by say 4 to 6 inches, it will look really great along with the aircraft.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
... and lest we forget, visibility. In drogue-and-hose refueling that we use, the pilot is almost completely responsible for the probe-and-hose mating process. If the pilot cannot see the hose, they cannot get the probe in. If that means the probe looks 'ugly', so be it.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Tejas' nose section and front fuselage is small volume, and already jam packed with radar backend and avionics, leaving no room for a retractable IFR probe. Given the complexity, testing and certification effort and time required, I'm not sure even Mk2 will have it retractable. The probe stands out because it can't be made any smaller due to the reasons evoked above, though the a/c itself is smaller than a Mirage 2000. Drogues tend to have a certain whiplash movement due to turbulence and the biggish probe helps maintain a safe distance to not knock the a/c fuselage with it when such whiplash happens. Our pilots have tested and certified it, so its good enough. Given the trips Tejas has made to UAE, Singapore etc it seems to bee working flawlessly.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
I think you meant the probe. The design of the refueling probe is done for functionality and not appearance. It will have been designed keeping in mind a minimum separation of the refueling drogue basket from the Tejas so that a sudden gust doesn't cause the drogue basket to impact the canopy or the side of the fuselage. Both can be very dangerous as there have been accidents that have caused canopies to shatter when a drogue basket suddenly swayed. Aesthetics is NOT a criteria, aerodynamics and safety certainly are!viveks wrote:They should reduce the size of that refueling pod. It looks so long and odd along with the aircraft. Sometimes, indian designers really miss a mark. In both Mirage 2000 & Rafale, the pod is so appropriately sized that it adds to the beauty of the aircraft. If they reduce the length by say 4 to 6 inches, it will look really great along with the aircraft.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
IIRC IFR probe is from Cobham for Mk1, it might have been designed for bigger a/c, and was perhaps not redesigned for Mk1.
I stand corrected on Mk2, assuming this report is accurate:
https://idrw.org/british-company-to-des ... lca-afmk2/
Hope it comes thru.
I stand corrected on Mk2, assuming this report is accurate:
https://idrw.org/british-company-to-des ... lca-afmk2/
Hope it comes thru.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Yes yes very true. Maybe they could reduce the angle further a bit. Then it may appear more aerodynamic. Right now it looks like there is more drag to it than any form of assistance. Also, prone to breaking in terms of durability. I may be completely wrong.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Mate the damn thing was not just slapped on. There was a lot of analysis done before it’s position was determined. The probe effect on the airflow has to be and was studied in depth.viveks wrote:Yes yes very true. Maybe they could reduce the angle further a bit. Then it may appear more aerodynamic. Right now it looks like there is more drag to it than any form of assistance. Also, prone to breaking in terms of durability. I may be completely wrong.
Prone to breaking? Do you realise the stress it has to endure when refuelling is being done mid air?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
On what basis you are saying this? Show us your analysis that this is needed.viveks wrote:Yes yes very true. Maybe they could reduce the angle further a bit.
Do you want it to be more aerodynamic or just want it to appear more aerodynamic?Then it may appear more aerodynamic.
Again, are you just basing this conclusion based on looks or is there data to your conclusions?Right now it looks like there is more drag to it than any form of assistance.
May be they should not just build the plane, because it's also prone to breaking like any object.Also, prone to breaking in terms of durability.
Finally, something sensible.I may be completely wrong
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
LoL Jay ! VivekS please avoid idle speculation, there is so much knowledge and insight on this forum, focus on that saar!
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
You guys are eyeballing what would be less drag?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Please don't do such idle speculation. One doesn't take a probe "designed for a bigger a/c" and just use it on another. It is optimized for the Tejas. It's location was even changed compared to where it was on earlier prototypes.Cyrano wrote:IIRC IFR probe is from Cobham for Mk1, it might have been designed for bigger a/c, and was perhaps not redesigned for Mk1.
I stand corrected on Mk2, assuming this report is accurate:
https://idrw.org/british-company-to-des ... lca-afmk2/
Hope it comes thru.
The probe design is keeping in mind aerodynamics, drag plus requirements to avoid having the drogue basket collide with the radome or canopy or fuselage in case of sudden gust while refueling. ADA/HAL/Cobham know what they're doing.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
You are completely wrong. The overall design of the probe is similar to that of the Mirage-2000 but it's positioning and sizing has been done as per the requirements of the Tejas. In aircraft design, aesthetics is not a determining factor. And eye-balling something to say that they can change the angle or do this or that to make it APPEAR more aerodynamic without having ANY access to data is simply put, quite silly.viveks wrote:Yes yes very true. Maybe they could reduce the angle further a bit. Then it may appear more aerodynamic. Right now it looks like there is more drag to it than any form of assistance. Also, prone to breaking in terms of durability. I may be completely wrong.
As to being prone to breaking in terms of durability, you are again making a baseless comment. Do you even know what it is made of? Or what tests it undergoes for strength, fatigue, etc.? Why do you assume that just looking at it, you are more qualified to judge whether it's design is suitable or not, compared to actual aircraft and part designers who have access to ALL the data, assumptions and analyses?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
viveks wrote:Yes yes very true. Maybe they could reduce the angle further a bit. Then it may appear more aerodynamic. Right now it looks like there is more drag to it than any form of assistance. Also, prone to breaking in terms of durability. I may be completely wrong.
In my design classes professors kept on telling us that "Form follows Function".
IAF won't accept it if it doesn't perform. It won't be accepted if it hinders the cone of vision for the pilot. It won't be accepted if it breaks and poses danger to the aircraft, pilot or the refueller.
Yet it is cleared for operation. This confirms that it operates as it should. It might look like an ugly protrusion, but that doesn't matter as long as it serves the purpose.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
All valid points. I completely agree that my observations may be misplaced. And I dont have data to back it up. Just mere speculation. But when you say the pod is 100% like the Mirage-2000, that may seem far fetched. I think the position of the pod is great...but maybe the angle could be reduced from around 80 degrees to 66-70 degrees, keeping the length of the pod intact. I think it may far fetched to even say this...I would be curious to know the test results of the wind tunnel for this modification.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Can I humbly suggest you refrain from continuing on this topic any further? You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.viveks wrote:All valid points. I completely agree that my observations may be misplaced. And I dont have data to back it up. Just mere speculation. But when you say the pod is 100% like the Mirage-2000, that may seem far fetched. I think the position of the pod is great...but maybe the angle could be reduced from around 80 degrees to 66-70 degrees, keeping the length of the pod intact. I think it may far fetched to even say this...I would be curious to know the test results of the wind tunnel for this modification.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 206
- Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Dear all,
Any information on further production, runs or deliveries this year?
Thank you
Any information on further production, runs or deliveries this year?
Thank you
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
HVT on Twitter
Terrain Following Radar mode
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
At this point, apart from not having stealth, what's left to be proven for Tejas? This is one amazing bird.basant wrote:HVT on TwitterTerrain Following Radar mode
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
It is at least 100s of feet above ground - typically tfr allows really nap of earth - allegedly 60 ft for m2k and some magic number for Rafale.
I suspect in case of lca it is being proven in mountainous region where 1000s of feet above ground but in zig zag valley is as good as 60 feet in planes
I suspect in case of lca it is being proven in mountainous region where 1000s of feet above ground but in zig zag valley is as good as 60 feet in planes
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
People seriously expect HVT to post a picture of the LCA while it is flying at treetop heights?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
It would be fun though wouldn’t it?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
Please correct me if I'm wrong..., this is the first mention of TFR capability on Tejas Mk1 -- that too straight on deployment/development. Isn't that so?
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
But wasn’t it known that it had such a feature? I had thought this was taken as a fact given the EL/M-2032 being onboard?basant wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong..., this is the first mention of TFR capability on Tejas Mk1 -- that too straight on deployment/development. Isn't that so?
Not that the SU-30MKI has TFR
Lots of things to come from MK.2 and AMCA using this soldi foundation
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
ELTA 2032 advertises Terrain Avoidance not Terrain Following. Two different things.
Not optimal to use TFR on a mechanically scanned array until and unless you receive data linked air to air data. With Mk1A onwards, AESA will allow multiple modes of operation simultaneously.
Not optimal to use TFR on a mechanically scanned array until and unless you receive data linked air to air data. With Mk1A onwards, AESA will allow multiple modes of operation simultaneously.
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
TFR on Tejas perplexes me. First, it is out of blue, and second, we do not know if it is deployed or under development (the tail no. in the image is removed and the FCR could be 2032/2052). TF/TA system is available off-the-shelf from Elbit but only for (slow moving) transport a/c and helicopters. But could it be ported so quickly even if required?
Elbit Systems to equip Korean fighter jets with TF/TA systems
Elbit Systems to equip Korean fighter jets with TF/TA systems
That said, can't deny that Tejas having an actual 'TFTA' component delights me.Elbit’s TF/TA system interfaces with the autopilot system and fuses data from a range of on-board sensors and a digital terrain elevation database, along with flight performance characteristics.
This will enable the fighter jets to maintain optimal altitude throughout the mission.
Last February, the TF/TA system became operational on board C-130 aircraft of an unidentified airforce.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: Air Force Tejas Mk1: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022
What's the resolution of these terrain following radars? Example: there will be many tall trees on the slopes. Is the radar good enough to not just avoid the ground, but also avoid the trees?