LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
sbhatia
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sbhatia » 26 Jan 2016 22:03

Thats the performance when ADA was over cautious in its design.Can't Imagine what will be the performance once we perfect it :) .Now i have high hope for Tejas Mk2 and good part is Navy is leading the developement.Just my view !
Last edited by sbhatia on 27 Jan 2016 06:00, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 26 Jan 2016 22:16

indranilroy wrote:
shiv wrote:Min radius turn 350 meters at 160 kt/300 kmph

That is an important bit of information, isn't it. It tells us a few things about the sustained rate of turn.
1. The plane is pulling roughly 4Gs. It is elementary to calculate this centripetal acceleration = v^2/(r*g) Gs.
2. It is turning at 27.27 degrees per second, angular velocity = v/r radians. This is mind blogglingly fast. That is a complete turn in under 14 seconds!

P.S. I used r=175 mtrs. If I use r=350 mtrs
1. It would be pulling 2Gs, which is too low.
2. And turning at 13.65 degrees per second, again too low.


But from the 1st day video from Bahrain TV, it seems it did a 270deg turn which took 20sec. That gives 13.5deg/sec which agrees well with R=350sec. Also when 110knot is stall speed at 1G, it make sense to have max G load possible at 160knot to be close to 2 and not close to 4. If you draw a rough V-n diagram for LCA from the data for stall speed - 110knot at 1G (level flight) and 340knot at 8G (corner speed) - this stall limited line is parabolic in shape - then you will see that 2G at 160knot makes all the sense. (FYI with more accurate formula that the one you have used gives 2.2G for R=350m). For 4G the stall speed would be around 270knots.

Note: The corner speed of 340 knot for 8G can be calculated from the 8G pull up that LCA does immediately after TO or from the one in Square loop. I calculated 22-23deg/sec ITR in pull up at 8G with V=340knots, R=450m, ~4sec for 90deg turn.

BTW from this data, and if we can add to it, T/W and W/S values we can calculate even more interesting figure - Cdo and a factor which gives drag due to life. We can construct approximate Cl vs Cd curve for this. I am trying to do this.

To all: Please give your inputs about what could be the T/W and W/S for LCA during the BIAS display?? Basically total weight is the unknown - that is how much fuel it was carrying.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Jan 2016 22:27

^Keeping in mind that low str was one of the issues iaf had suggested thanks to a lack of power, wouldn't 27.7 be a truly exceptional rate. Iows, iaf would have nothing to complain about since even the fulcrum doesn't manage that kind of turn.... iirc from vague pics of comparison of the flanker/fulcrun and solah , they barely managed anything as high.....

What is a layman like me missing?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 26 Jan 2016 22:41

Cain Marko wrote:^Keeping in mind that low str was one of the issues iaf had suggested thanks to a lack of power, wouldn't 27.7 be a truly exceptional rate. Iows, iaf would have nothing to complain about since even the fulcrum doesn't manage that kind of turn.... iirc from vague pics of comparison of the flanker/fulcrun and solah , they barely managed anything as high.....

What is a layman like me missing?


I counted 25-26sec for full 360 horizontal turn. Taking best value of 25sec, we get STR of ~14.5deg/sec. Thats not too bad considering there will be AoA enhancement to atleast 24deg if not more, which will boost this rate to may be 16deg/sec. That's good enough. We will see the real deal in MK2 where higher T/W could possibly push the STR to 18deg/sec and beyond.

Correction: The time for 360deg loop should be 22sec which gives STR of ~16.5deg/sec..!!
Last edited by JayS on 26 Jan 2016 23:24, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 26 Jan 2016 22:43

Keep up the high quality discussion.

nileshjr update us when you are ready.
And run it by Vivek_Ahuja.

What was the STR requirement for LCA? And at what loadout?

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Bharadwaj » 26 Jan 2016 22:48

nileshjr wrote:
I counted 25-26sec for full 360 horizontal turn. Taking best value of 25sec, we get STR of ~14.5deg/sec. Thats not too bad considering there will be AoA enhancement to atleast 24deg if not more, which will boost this rate to may be 16deg/sec. That's good enough. We will see the real deal in MK2 where higher T/W could possibly push the STR to 18deg/sec and beyond.


Iam not sure how you are getting that figure... The DRDO video clearly shows around 22 secs for the full 360

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 26 Jan 2016 23:11

Bharadwaj wrote:
nileshjr wrote:
I counted 25-26sec for full 360 horizontal turn. Taking best value of 25sec, we get STR of ~14.5deg/sec. Thats not too bad considering there will be AoA enhancement to atleast 24deg if not more, which will boost this rate to may be 16deg/sec. That's good enough. We will see the real deal in MK2 where higher T/W could possibly push the STR to 18deg/sec and beyond.


Iam not sure how you are getting that figure... The DRDO video clearly shows around 22 secs for the full 360


My bad. I was counting from starting of banking to again when it becomes level. Thats slightly more than 360 deg. It is indeed 22-23sec. In that case STR is ~16.5deg/sec which is even better figure.

With that correction my calculations fit well. Since only one data point, namely, the turn rate, its not possible to calculate Velocity, Radius of loop and G load accurately. But assuming 4G turn gives V=256knot and R=450m. This assumption makes sense to me since it fits into the approximate estimation of 270knots for 4G I had made in one of the previous posts and R value also seem reasonable. 5G and more do not give sensible values, in my opinion.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Jan 2016 23:38

Now I realize this is not absolutely about the tejas .....but the link is pertinent to our current conversation....this is chat between an israeli af f15 pilot (baz driver) with a hotshot usaf exchange pilot who flew both teens and the fulcrum (fulcrumflyer) Conclusion is that the viper has the best str...the fulcrum @ 0.85m, 9g @ sea level has an str of about 17 degs, possibly a little more than the eagle...both of which are lower than the viper according to fulcrumflyer...

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... e&start=15


How does that compare with the tejas in bahrain which would also be sea level...of course velocity being quite different..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2016 01:12

Nilesh,

27.27 degrees per second was too difficult for me to fathom as well. Probably 17 degrees will be about it, and very respectable at that. That is F-18 ball park area. Mk2 will turn faster. The LCA is not a slouch by any measure.

However, I have seen F-16s completing a minimum radius turn in 18 seconds or so. But that obviously includes starting the turn at a much higher speed and finishing the first and second quadrant mindbogglingly fast. Beating an F-16 Block 30 in sustained turn rates is going to be tough, very very tough.

Enjoy, one of the legends of modern aviation.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2016 01:24

Cain Marko wrote:Now I realize this is not absolutely about the tejas .....but the link is pertinent to our current conversation....this is chat between an israeli af f15 pilot (baz driver) with a hotshot usaf exchange pilot who flew both teens and the fulcrum (fulcrumflyer) Conclusion is that the viper has the best str...the fulcrum @ 0.85m, 9g @ sea level has an str of about 17 degs, possibly a little more than the eagle...both of which are lower than the viper according to fulcrumflyer...

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... e&start=15


How does that compare with the tejas in bahrain which would also be sea level...of course velocity being quite different..


I've posted a link to the fighter-pilot's (fulcrumflyer) interview in the past here.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shaun » 27 Jan 2016 08:07


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 27 Jan 2016 08:23

indranilroy wrote:Nilesh,

27.27 degrees per second was too difficult for me to fathom as well. Probably 17 degrees will be about it, and very respectable at that. That is F-18 ball park area. Mk2 will turn faster. The LCA is not a slouch by any measure.

However, I have seen F-16s completing a minimum radius turn in 18 seconds or so. But that obviously includes starting the turn at a much higher speed and finishing the first and second quadrant mindbogglingly fast. Beating an F-16 Block 30 in sustained turn rates is going to be tough, very very tough.

Enjoy, one of the legends of modern aviation.


Su-27 in 1995 Farnborough show finished full turn in 14s. :mrgreen:

But I do not get your point. Min R turn and max turn-rate turn are two different things. And typically min R turn occurs at lower velocity (and thus lower that STR turn rate). Highest turn rate occurs at corner speed but its unsustainable and thus is ITR. STR occurs slightly lower on the stall line on V-n diagram but near to the corner. Rmin occurs much farther down the stall line typically ie. at much lower speed.

Assuming LCA started the turn as a "Rmin" turn (meaning at the velocity required for Rmin turn), then 13.5deg/sec and R=350m fits well in the picture.

Of coarse. the weak link in my argument is:- "it does 270deg loop in 20sec". If you or others can verify this is right or wrong data point it would be great. In the 1st day BIAS video from Bahrain TV, its between 9:13 and 9:33.

That F-16 might have started with ITR turn, then settle for STR turn till may be 180deg and then go for Rmin for rest of the loop. It would bleed energy in form of Velocity in first half, so that it can be low enough for Rmin turn in second half. I am just giving one theoretical possibility and from the video, it does complete 1st half much faster than the second half.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2016 08:56

indranilroy wrote:Nilesh,

27.27 degrees per second was too difficult for me to fathom as well. Probably 17 degrees will be about it, and very respectable at that. That is F-18 ball park area. Mk2 will turn faster. The LCA is not a slouch by any measure.

However, I have seen F-16s completing a minimum radius turn in 18 seconds or so. But that obviously includes starting the turn at a much higher speed and finishing the first and second quadrant mindbogglingly fast. Beating an F-16 Block 30 in sustained turn rates is going to be tough, very very tough.

Enjoy, one of the legends of modern aviation.


17 degrees was the ASR requirement! If the LCA approaches it, very respectable. The ITR was 30 degrees.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articl ... ge_02.html

One thing to note - at time of LCA requirement, it was to be guns and all aspect missiles (but with limited seeker FOV) only! No HMS and no 5G missiles!!

IMO, the decider will be the DASH HMS w/the Python-5. The missile combo is the crucial decider against the PAF F-16s with JHMCS with AIM-9L which has a narrower FOV and a non IIR seeker. To the LCAs credit, it can go head to head with the F-16.

Against the JF-17, Mirage 3/5, J-7s - its far ahead.

Ditto against the J-10 variants. Against Su-27/30MKK variants - again, competitive but a tough call, since its Python-V vs R73E. The former is literally unjammable, the R73E, hopefully since we have them, we can figure out flare vulnerabilities.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2016 10:03

Yeah, using a minimum radius turn, STR, ITR etc. is not correct. Unless we know the entry and exit speed, it can just be called minimum time to complete a circle. I had posted about the 14 second turn at Farnborough 1990. I have not seen a faster turn ever since. The Su-27 at close to bingo fuel has amazing TWR, 1.85 Clmax, and with those small wings one of the best L/D out there.

In ITR of LCA was expected, and is now demonstrated to be right at the very top of the bracket: Mirage 2000, Su-27, and F-16 Block 30. This was expected. In STR, if it beats the Mirage 2000 it will be at least 19 degrees. Gripen is supposed to be able to do sustained turns at 20 deg/second. Rafale/su-27/EF/Mig-29 at 21-22, and the F-16 Blk 30 at close to 23 deg/sec.

Karan, in a aerial fight between an LCA and an F-16, the LCA should try to take the battle as high and as fast as possible. At lower altitudes, I would put my money on a comparably armed F-16.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 27 Jan 2016 10:16

Karan M wrote:17 degrees was the ASR requirement! If the LCA approaches it, very respectable. The ITR was 30 degrees.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articl ... ge_02.html


So far I believed the ASR req for STR and ITR were classified and are not mentioned anywhere in public domain. Thanks for the data point. But STR = 17deg/sec seems smaller by IAF's "typical demand" standard. Though the article says "maximum atainable", we still don't know under what conditions this value is applicable. It might not be wise to equate BIAS performance at SL with clean config and least possible fuel on board to the ASR requirement which in most probably will be specified for a A2A combat load with good amount of fuel still on board. JMT.

BTW Karan whats 5G missile?? 5th Gen??

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 27 Jan 2016 10:27

indranilroy wrote:Yeah, using a minimum radius turn, STR, ITR etc. is not correct. Unless we know the entry and exit speed, it can just be called minimum time to complete a circle. I had posted about the 14 second turn at Farnborough 1990. I have not seen a faster turn ever since. The Su-27 at close to bingo fuel has amazing TWR, 1.85 Clmax, and with those small wings one of the best L/D out there.

In ITR of LCA was expected, and is now demonstrated to be right at the very top of the bracket: Mirage 2000, Su-27, and F-16 Block 30. This was expected. In STR, if it beats the Mirage 2000 it will be at least 19 degrees. Gripen is supposed to be able to do sustained turns at 20 deg/second. Rafale/su-27/EF/Mig-29 at 21-22, and the F-16 Blk 30 at close to 23 deg/sec.

Karan, in a aerial fight between an LCA and an F-16, the LCA should try to take the battle as high as possible to exploit the difference in wing loading. At lower altitudes, I would put my money on a comparably armed F-16.


Sorry for being dense, but how did you get the ITR value??

19deg/sec seems very much possible. It has some margin on AoA, G loading even in MK1 form. Add to it additional refinement in L/D, increase in T/W. So in MK2 form it will kick some assess. It will be top of the line. I hope we do make MK2 in numbers for IAF.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2016 10:44

Please don't apologize. Dense is good. How did I calculate ITR for LCA?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 27 Jan 2016 10:55

indranilroy wrote:Please don't apologize. Dense is good. How did I calculate ITR for LCA?

yeah. I am asking since you said :

In ITR of LCA was expected, and is now demonstrated to be right at the very top of the bracket:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2016 11:05

interceptors high on altitude and speed are perhaps going to launch salvos of AAM at bombers & escorts trying to sneak in low below the radar cover ? many dpsa missions will be self escorted and feature no high level escorts because the movement of escorts gives away movement of bombers hiding on the deck?

in that sense even a tubby JSF armed with its big radar, good discrimination of low level targets, all-aspect ESM sensors and long-strike AAMs should be adequate as a interceptor while staying well of range of any SRAAM carried by the bombers for self defence.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Ganesh_S » 27 Jan 2016 11:23

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Now I realize this is not absolutely about the tejas .....but the link is pertinent to our current conversation....this is chat between an israeli af f15 pilot (baz driver) with a hotshot usaf exchange pilot who flew both teens and the fulcrum (fulcrumflyer) Conclusion is that the viper has the best str...the fulcrum @ 0.85m, 9g @ sea level has an str of about 17 degs, possibly a little more than the eagle...both of which are lower than the viper according to fulcrumflyer...

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... e&start=15


How does that compare with the tejas in bahrain which would also be sea level...of course velocity being quite different..


I've posted a link to the fighter-pilot's (fulcrumflyer) interview in the past here.


OT. But this is what Ajay Shukla had claimed earlier with a big "if".
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 007_1.html

If IAF demanded a “sustained turn rate” (the quickness with which a fighter can turn around in the air) of 24 degrees per second, each fighter was physically put through this manoeuvre to establish that it met this requirement. (Incidentally, both the US fighters failed to meet IAF’s “sustained turn rate” requirements)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2016 11:30

indranilroy wrote:Karan, in a aerial fight between an LCA and an F-16, the LCA should try to take the battle as high and as fast as possible. At lower altitudes, I would put my money on a comparably armed F-16.


IMHO, high or fast or low and slow is no longer the issue - situational awareness and silent launch is. Whosoever gets the drop on the opponent first and launches his missile within missile parameters and then exits the merge before a counter launch, will be the winner.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2016 11:33

nileshjr wrote:
Karan M wrote:17 degrees was the ASR requirement! If the LCA approaches it, very respectable. The ITR was 30 degrees.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articl ... ge_02.html


So far I believed the ASR req for STR and ITR were classified and are not mentioned anywhere in public domain. Thanks for the data point. But STR = 17deg/sec seems smaller by IAF's "typical demand" standard. Though the article says "maximum atainable", we still don't know under what conditions this value is applicable. It might not be wise to equate BIAS performance at SL with clean config and least possible fuel on board to the ASR requirement which in most probably will be specified for a A2A combat load with good amount of fuel still on board. JMT.

BTW Karan whats 5G missile?? 5th Gen??


IMHO, 17 deg ITR was based on that extrapolated from M2K and so was ITR, but we don't know under what loadout and speed. IAF may have well asked for a heavy loaded platform to still do as above. IOW exactly as you said, but then again, A2A loadout for LCA with 4AAM/1EW pod/1FT may well be a light config allowing for decent perfo!

5Gen missile - IIR equipped w/TVC or quasi TVC controls and near BVR ranges plus high G load.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2016 11:39

Nilesh, I thought the pull up right after the takeoff was negotiated in about 3-4 seconds.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RoyG » 27 Jan 2016 12:10

I think MKII will approach 19-20 STR especially if we take into account 5-10% reduction in drag and higher thrust. We'll have an aircraft far better than mirage2000.

SidSom
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SidSom » 27 Jan 2016 13:52

Any news on the Derby Firing...?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_20453 » 27 Jan 2016 14:05

Looking at the new video, one thing's certain, the Tejas will be a excellent dogfighter, firstly, the thing is visually small, against regular 4th gen fighters, it will pull in and out of the enemy's visual like no body's business. With the MK-1A shedding the some weight, the performance will be even better. This thing is one neat fighter, with AESA, I-DerbyER, Python-5 it can quite confidently challenge any fighter. I only hope they try to get some proper passive sensors on board, something similar to the OSF/OLS and IRST.

SidSom
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SidSom » 27 Jan 2016 14:30

If Mig-21 Bison troubled the US, Tejas will be a pain in the a$$ for them. Same size as Mig-21 but with better stealth (read higher level of composites). Should be quite a handful.

Aside, being so indigenous, we should be able to integrate both Russian and Israeli weapons on it. HAL needs to get its act together and Produce it at the rate of knots...

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 27 Jan 2016 14:35

Once the Tejas squadron is formed, and the IAF fully explores the flight envelope, I am sure we will pit it against the F16 Block 52 in one of the many exercises we conduct with the US military. Whether those results will be disclosed is another matter.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2016 14:37

i think its high time we added a unsightly dorsal hump like the Mig29upg perhaps with a RAM air generator also to house a rack of EW gear and passive sensors 360'

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1848
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby uddu » 27 Jan 2016 15:15

Not only that it will be always have the latest technology in it, because it's our fighter. 10 years down the line if something new comes up, we can fit it in Teejaas. whereas the imported fighter will be outdated and we will be running behind the foreign firms paying them huge amounts and getting outdated stuff. So in its entire life, Tejas will fly with top notch technology.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29172 » 27 Jan 2016 15:20

Apologize if this has been asked before, but what will the IAF lose by not inducting ridiculously high priced rafale and replacing the order with 200 LCAs instead? Is rafael really as important as it's made out to be?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6704
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby habal » 27 Jan 2016 15:45

As the soviet motto proved, there is always strength in numbers. Numbers have a quality of their own.
And when the numbers of a/c are of the quality of LCA, then that quantity has an extremely high quality on its own. What is IAF exactly trying to do here, I do not really know.

We should get whatever we can get cheaply in huge numbers.
'huge numbers' is the key.
So instead of 36 Raf, why not 200 LCA and 300 Su-30 from our own production base.
Import some 35 Su-35 if there is need for it to replace 36 Raf.
The Chinese have within a short period of time produced 400 J-10, 400 Su-27 and varients and have now imported Su-35 for domestic engine development.
Can anybody explain that in front of such a force of 1000 something modern combat aircraft, what difference is 36 Rafale going to make.
We seriously have missed the bus, and are pretending to fool around hoping that others do not find out that mistake.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 27 Jan 2016 16:15

Singha wrote:i think its high time we added a unsightly dorsal hump like the Mig29upg perhaps with a RAM air generator also to house a rack of EW gear and passive sensors 360'

More doable stuff is (i.e not going into too much of structural and basic flight testing etc) is:
1) Create a pair of wing-tip-fixed-pod system for DRFM SPJ (from C to S to X bands)
(note the EL/L-8222 pod carried by the Bisons are about 100Kg, but being completely self-sufficient podded system would have it's own RWR/DF gear - which in this case would be redundant etc). SIVA pod type system will not work out.

2) A dual-colour-IIR MAWS
(and find a place to mount it - won't be easy - maybe one wing-tip pod for the integral SPJ and the other for MAWS)

3) A front-facing "torch-light" IRST right in front of the canopy (will our all-weather-friend Russians oblige us, I doubt!!)
(will further obviate the need of the ballast etc - and a smaller one somewhere ahead of the front-landing gear (passive "look down" system))

4) Last but not the least, side looking strip-AESA-antenna on two lateral sides of the Uttam main-antenna

... if only, wishes were horses, Sigh!! :|

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3616
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kashi » 27 Jan 2016 16:19

I believe it may also have to do with ego..the IAF brass have hedged their prestige with Rafale..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2016 16:20

habal I think nudity in these matters does not remain hidden and the PLAAF is well aware of all this.

they will trample all of our backsides because in many places iaf would have no numbers to contest the issue at all.

now if it were 36 F22-I with jedram next gen missiles and APG77mk2 I would understand the h&d, ego and the intimidation factor of just having them on the flightline but not 36 x 4.5 gen rafale :oops:

clearly once they get 36, it will knives out for the Tejas under the rational argument of 36 not being cost effective for the infra costs and support costs.....another 36 and then another to drive final nail into coffin.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 27 Jan 2016 16:27

Yup they will like Bollywood movie proclaim they have no plan b and hope that bravado will intimidate plaaf or tspaf.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2016 16:37

immediate PMO level intervention is needed to ensure funds are provided to HAL to step up production rates and development work on 1A and 2. weekly standup scrum meetings chaired by DM himself are needed to push along the plough through the dry red earth. the safety of our collective backsides depends on deploying the Tejas @ web scale.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6704
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby habal » 27 Jan 2016 16:43

there is this maybe US-sponsored school of thought infiltrated critical Indian circles, I am sure it infiltrated the planning commission of previous govt, that India should be strong enough to wipe out Pakistan but just about 'hang in there' with China. If we become strong as equal to China, or on equal footing. That means Pakistan is non-entity because it is no match to such an entity. So this is a critical dance. Since this is US sponsored, it is also wise to be critical of selection of US engine for LCA, however good that may have been. It is a mistake, since there is some kind of geo-political micro-management going on here.

there is a weak understanding of 'national self-interest' here in India. 'Somebody sent their kid to college in USA and is now doing Ok, so we are one big world family' kind of weak atmosphere pervades the air.

the only way we are breaking out of this mess, is to create 10 seperate LCA lines in various parts of the country. Each manufacturing 6/year and slowly upscales every year, and maybe HAL Bangalore can crank out 24/year. In that way, we may have something resembling a decent air force within a decade and throw every 'I need spare parts' hangar queens out to dry.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2016 16:50

Maitya, more than gizmos I'd add more fuel, a stretched fuselage and an even larger wing (if needed) with more pylons...

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_20453 » 27 Jan 2016 16:59

Singha sahab is right, production rate needs to be increased asap, ideal prdocution rate by 2020 should be about 36-44 i.e IAF should be able to recieve 2 sqds per year while having another 6-8 slots for exports. Another way to have a high production capacity is to use LCA MK-1 trainer as 4th stage LIFT trainer. Being a trainer, it doesn't need all the changes needed for frontline use, barebones is just fine, as long as pilots can learn to fly supersonic, at high G, dogfight, PGM weapons release, usage of pods, tactics, BVR etc. its fine. IAF could certainly use around 3 sqds of such trainers and Navy 1 sqd thats around 72 aircraft that can be ordered rightaway. Add this 72 to the 100 LCA MK-1A order and we are looking at a very big motivation for 40+ aircraft per year capacity.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests