Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7835
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Pratyush » 01 Apr 2018 10:26

** Post deleted on poster's request **
Last edited by SSridhar on 02 Apr 2018 11:01, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: User request

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2018 11:08

Pratyush wrote:As we both know that 414while more powerful than the 404. Is not sufficient to meet the stated goals desired from the mk2.

Hmm - I don't know about it. I don't know the stated goals. I don't know the rating of the F 414. I don't know what the planners have in mind. But any plan that we make for them are in the realm of speculation and on this thread that only constitutes "noise" which adds nothing to this thread. Repeated references to Al 31 in the Tejas in particular sound jarring to me because of reasons that I do not want to discuss on this thread. The idea that it can even be considered is in the realm of fiction and should not keep on getting repeated on this thread. It would IMO be a useful exercise to take the topic to the "Design your fighter thread" and make a case for the AL 31 - with some serious detail about the engine, and how it may be fitted onto a new Indian fighter. It WILL NOT go on the Tejas and definitely NOT on Tejas Mk1. So why does this stuff keep coming up? It is going to be a new and different fighter and since no Indian designer is talking about it it should be talked about by someone who knows how and why it can be done and why it would be good to use the Al-31 in particular. If you are one such person I would love to hear about it in an appropriate thread. Or else it constitutes noise.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Haridas » 01 Apr 2018 11:29

pravula wrote:
shiv wrote:Linked below is an instrument that is used in humans in some instances. I wonder if a similar instrument can be designed to make the F 404 sized LCA accommodate the Al-31
https://cdn.naughtydelight.com/pub/medi ... lack-1.jpg


You jest, but we did try the same with Marut, didn't we?

In fact the opposite.
Marut was designed assuming using an afterburning version of Orpheus-703, ended us using the standard (non afterburning) Orpheus Mk 703, which was obviously much smaller. So it musharraf could be sewed up to make it more TAFTA :twisted:

Beautiful aircraft it was.
I recall back ~1972 on Air Force Day airbases will have all aircrafts on static display for close view by family of IAF personell. The aircraft nose would be painted with cost of the aircraft. My recollection is the big SU-7 had price tag of Rs. 98 Lakh, MiG-21 Rs 67 lakh .... those days kerosene costed ~60 paisa/Liter and wheat or rice costed ~Rs 1.50/Kg. Gold was expensive at ~Rs.220/tola(10gms)

Do not recall the price tag for Marut, Gnat and Vampire.
Last edited by Haridas on 01 Apr 2018 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 221
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby pravula » 01 Apr 2018 11:56

Haridas wrote:
pravula wrote:
You jest, but we did try the same with Marut, didn't we?

In fact the opposite.
Marut was designed assuming using an afterburning version of Orpheus-703, ended us using the standard (non afterburning) Orpheus Mk 703, which was obviously much smaller. So it musharraf could be sewed up to make it more TAFTA :twisted:

Beautiful aircraft it was.
I recall back ~1972 on Air Force Day airbases will have all aircrafts on static display for close view by family of IAF personell. The aircraft nose would be painted with cost of the aircraft. My recollection is the big SU-7 had price tag of Rs. 98 Lakh, MiG-21 Rs 67 lakh .... those days kerosene costed ~60 paisa/Liter and wheat or rice costed ~Rs 1.50/Kg. Gold was expensive at ~Rs.220/tola(10gms)

Do not recall the price tag for Marut, Gnat and Vampire.


I distinctly remember reading abut one of our aircraft getting a bigger engine and the airflow getting messed up. Was it Ajeet then?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16431
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rahul M » 01 Apr 2018 12:43

Abhibhushan Sir, first of all congratulations on your anniversary.

But that post was too little to whet our appetites, especially knowing that you have a way with words. Please consider doing a write-up on how you see Tejas has progressed over the years.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 01 Apr 2018 13:53

Neshant wrote:There is always the possibility that GE could pull the rug from under the program and refuse to supply the engines.

If they do that, it will lay American hypocrisy out in the open and damage relations irreparably. I doubt Americans are dumb enough to do that. They may slow down supply of spares and other such underhanded tactics.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby RKumar » 01 Apr 2018 14:49

Its in USA's interest to supply equipments, engines and spare parts at per cost amount to India. We dont want anything for free.

More India prepared to call the Chini bluff off, the better for the whole world.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 01 Apr 2018 16:18

Abhibhushan wrote:To celebrate completion of 65 years of commissioned service and 50 years since assuming my first command of an operational unit, visited the Flying Daggers for tea and crew room Gup.

The boys are all experienced pilots.
Boys come from varied backgrounds. M2K,Jaguar, Mig29, Mig27 are all represented. Soon there will be boys from SU30MKI as well. The boys were all very upbeat about their present mount.


Some snippets from crew room chatter.

— the Mk1 is better than Unupgraded M2K
— talk about difficulties with maintenance exaggerated
— intensive operations tried out successfully
— lots of scope to increase its might.
—if it is compared with all other fighters in the IAF for all-round ability, it will easily be within the top third of the list.

A very happy day for me.

Congrutulations on the milestone sir!! and very happy with the updates. We should put this on the sticky of the first page. There is no authentic feedback on Tejas than this.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 01 Apr 2018 16:21

My guess on the top 3 - SU30MKI, Mig 29 UPG, Tejas, M2k un-upgraded.....or SU30MKI, M2K upgraded, Tejas, Mig29 uph

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Bala Vignesh » 01 Apr 2018 17:32

Abhibhushan sir,
I am lost for words here on how best to congratulate you on the milestones and express my gratitude for the same. I hope a simple thank you and congratulations, does get the emotions across.

Also thanks for the update on the Tejas from the very bowel of the squadron. It really warms my cockles to see this feedback.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Bishwa » 01 Apr 2018 18:54

fanne wrote:My guess on the top 3 - SU30MKI, Mig 29 UPG, Tejas, M2k un-upgraded.....or SU30MKI, M2K upgraded, Tejas, Mig29 uph


Abhibhushan's note said "it will easily be within the top third of the list."

Note the top third rather than top 3.

How many types of fighters do we have?

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1290
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 01 Apr 2018 19:13

at that level the ranking doesnt matter. It just shows what's possible with MK1A and whats to come with MK2. I am quite sure this feedback has been reaching the echeleons of MoD, which possibly is driving the support. As abhibhushan sir said, the pilots are seniors, These pilots should be in senior positions not very far in time. Their experiences with Tejas and HAL/DRDO will be instrumental in setting up a domestic MIC

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2018 22:51

Bishwa wrote:
fanne wrote:My guess on the top 3 - SU30MKI, Mig 29 UPG, Tejas, M2k un-upgraded.....or SU30MKI, M2K upgraded, Tejas, Mig29 uph


Abhibhushan's note said "it will easily be within the top third of the list."

Note the top third rather than top 3.

How many types of fighters do we have?


Su 30
MiG 29
Mirage 2000 upgraded and not yet upgraded
Jaguar Darin II and now III
MiG 21 variants BIS, Bison
MiG 27
Tejas

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Suresh S » 01 Apr 2018 23:04

Tx for your service Abhibhusan sir. your post was like a Bramhos fired at the musharaff of all naysayers.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 02 Apr 2018 06:51

What is one-third of seven? I am going to bet my right testimonial (hakeem ji patented use of the left) that the pecking order in 'fight' is Rambha-Tejas and 'flight' is Tejas-Rambha.

Meen-avial, shouldn't we have a pet name for Tejas? Being kind of ignorant of bollyboobs, which is the petite but potent babe of bollywood now?

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Bishwa » 02 Apr 2018 08:28

shiv wrote:
Bishwa wrote:
Abhibhushan's note said "it will easily be within the top third of the list."

Note the top third rather than top 3.

How many types of fighters do we have?


Su 30
MiG 29
Mirage 2000 upgraded and not yet upgraded
Jaguar Darin II and now III
MiG 21 variants BIS, Bison
MiG 27
Tejas


Are all Mig29s UPG or are they a mixed bag like the M2Ks?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 02 Apr 2018 11:03

Thread cleaned up. No need for naming contest here.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22947
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SSridhar » 02 Apr 2018 11:13

fanne wrote: We should put this on the sticky of the first page.

Agreed & done.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2018 11:21

"Top third" is an assessment like 85% of reports about damage to the Arihant are false.

Let me guess what a pilot would mean by "top third' versus what I usually see BRFites consider as top . A combat aircraft pilot is in BRF lore someone who wants to drop the maximum number of bombs as shoot down the maximum number of enemy aircraft

In general the "top aircraft" in BRF lore is something like this:
Image


What does a combat aircraft pilot want?

I am guessing that a combat aircraft pilot would want an aircraft that will help him do his job efficiently and safely. What is his job? His job is to sit in the machine and fly it safely so that several thousand kg of aircraft do not come crashing down. Once he has mastered that art he wants to be able to navigate to wherever he has to go and return safely to base rather than trying to land on Taj Mahal. Night or day. He also wants to make sure that he has enough fuel to get back to a safe landing place and keep a tab on wide variations on fuel usage depending on how he flies the aircraft for a given mission. He also wants to ensure that he can stay with and cooperate with other pilots in the air without losing them or bumping into them. He also needs to make sure of how to do all this in bad weather. After this he wants to be able to perform the complex task of locating and dealing with targets using complex munitions that have strict release conditions - because he has to ensure that those release conditions are met.

If you look at it from this angle - there is no guarantee that Su-30 is number 1. It may be. It may not be.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 02 Apr 2018 12:13

shiv wrote:"Top third" is an assessment like 85% of reports about damage to the Arihant are false.

Let me guess what a pilot would mean by "top third' versus what I usually see BRFites consider as top . A combat aircraft pilot is in BRF lore someone who wants to drop the maximum number of bombs as shoot down the maximum number of enemy aircraft

In general the "top aircraft" in BRF lore is something like this:
Image


What does a combat aircraft pilot want?

I am guessing that a combat aircraft pilot would want an aircraft that will help him do his job efficiently and safely. What is his job? His job is to sit in the machine and fly it safely so that several thousand kg of aircraft do not come crashing down. Once he has mastered that art he wants to be able to navigate to wherever he has to go and return safely to base rather than trying to land on Taj Mahal. Night or day. He also wants to make sure that he has enough fuel to get back to a safe landing place and keep a tab on wide variations on fuel usage depending on how he flies the aircraft for a given mission. He also wants to ensure that he can stay with and cooperate with other pilots in the air without losing them or bumping into them. He also needs to make sure of how to do all this in bad weather. After this he wants to be able to perform the complex task of locating and dealing with targets using complex munitions that have strict release conditions - because he has to ensure that those release conditions are met.

If you look at it from this angle - there is no guarantee that Su-30 is number 1. It may be. It may not be.


I take "top third" comment as - "LCA is right in the league of the top dogs of the business". Its futile to make quantitative comparison of multiple fighters all of which are designed with different goals (only the broad spectrum tech evaluations such as one in MMRCA would have any credibility really, even they might fail to consider all the factors of importance, which may be non-technical even). There is little common ground. An aircraft may not be top notch on some parameters compared to others simply because it was not intended to be so by design. That does not make the aircraft necessarily inferior.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 02 Apr 2018 16:58

Abhibhusham sir is having quite a chuckle at our expense. Anyways, LCA is a four legged cheetah, not 3 for sure. Increasing it's might = Probably it can as of now only fire limited a-a weapon (derby, IR based CCMs), some limited A-G weapon - Those supported with Litening pods, dumb bombs etc. Now that we own everything in the aircraft, other weapons can be further integrated/developed. All Indian munitions - ASTRA, SAAW, sudershan can be easily integrated, they may get tested on SU30MKI or Jags, but will be soon ported to LCA. Whatever weapon we use cross platform (MICA?), where we know how to interface western with Russian and vice versa, all of these can go in LCA.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby mody » 03 Apr 2018 15:17

Having our own weapons is going to be the biggest change that IAF will see in the next 2-4 years.
Astra, NGARM, SAAW, Garuda/Guruthma, Astra MK-2 with dual pulse motor, Follow on to Sudarshan LGB (don't know is the program is on, or we are just going to import Griffin-III kits), Rudra MK-II/MK-III (still not clear as to what these are), aircraft launched version of SANT etc.
All of the above along with all new dumb bombs that have been recently tested by ARDE.

A plane is only as good as the weapons that it can deliver. A Mig-21 armed with only K-13 missiles was no good. A Su-30MKI armed with R-77 is only as good as the performance of the missile.

Once all the above mentioned programs bear fruit, the IAF will be a completely different beast!!
Air launched version of Nirbhay and a 1,200 Kg air launched version of Brahmos-NG with a 300-350 Km range and Mach 3.5 speed, will truly complete the picture. These can then to ported to Su30, Tejas, Mig-29, M2K and Rafael.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 03 Apr 2018 23:01

From the Tejas-LCA FB page

Image

It's been customary to complete the handling and carriage trials and assess the aircraft performance and flight flutter test before any of the stores combinations are cleared from flight test perspective. Flight Flutter test, Stores separation tests and carriages trials are so interlinked that it takes huge amount of deliberations in inter-disciplinary meetings to operationally clear a particular stores combination.
We dedicate this image of KH-2014 landing back after a carriages trial with 4X1000lbs inert bombs in two tandem pylons in the IB and 2X800 Ltr DTs in MB and 2XR-73 CCM to all those backroom boys and girls who put their heart out in this effort.
Afterall, it is those efforts from each of such individuals has resulted in Tejas, the way she is today.

Jai Hind..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 03 Apr 2018 23:10

And another image of the Tejas Mk1 LSP-8 with Derby BVRAAM

Image

The process of integrating a new store onto the aircraft has multiple stages beginning with wind tunnel data generation for the combination. The aerodynamic derivatives estimated from this process would require flight test to refine on a later stage before completely certifying the store. The team which estimates all these parameters and finally ensures that the handling quality of the aircraft with the store is as per requirement, is known as Parametric Identification and the team plays a crucial role in the control law evolution process.
We dedicate this image of KH-2018 with BVRs (Derby) on the MB station to this specialized team.

Jai Hind.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50414
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 03 Apr 2018 23:14

Kartik, some thing odd in above image. The green painted radome is Kevlar? or Quartz?
Reason I ask is is the Derby is cleared for quartz radome.

I guess if we know what type of radome on LSP 8 that settles the issue.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 03 Apr 2018 23:32

This was the older kevlar radome, not the newer quartz one. But as the Tejas LCA FB page admin mentioned, 4 of the prototypes were fit with the newer radome- LSP-3, 4, 5 and 7. This green radome was recycled from one of the older PV models and fit onto the LSP.

LSP-8 has been sporting this old radome for quite a long time. It was the first airplane that was fit with the IFR probe as well.

Image

and it has been seen with a non-green kevlar radome as well..this picture dates back to 2015. Later that radome was changed to the green one.

Image

Another image worth posting

Image

Expanding the operational flight envelope through flight flutter test with combination of all stores, has been incremental and cautionary over the years. This approach has yielded in a clean safety record in Tejas Development flight testing. PV-3 (KH-2005), one of prototype vehicle, seen here landing back with one such heavier configuration of 2X800 Ltr Drop Tanks, 2XLGBs, 2XR-73 CCMs and the LDP.
We dedicate this image to all the engineers, scientists and flight test crew who are involved in this kind of specialized flight test objective.
Last edited by Kartik on 03 Apr 2018 23:53, edited 1 time in total.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby John » 03 Apr 2018 23:44

Kartik wrote:From the Tejas-LCA FB page

Image

It's been customary to complete the handling and carriage trials and assess the aircraft performance and flight flutter test before any of the stores combinations are cleared from flight test perspective. Flight Flutter test, Stores separation tests and carriages trials are so interlinked that it takes huge amount of deliberations in inter-disciplinary meetings to operationally clear a particular stores combination.
We dedicate this image of KH-2014 landing back after a carriages trial with 4X1000lbs inert bombs in two tandem pylons in the IB and 2X800 Ltr DTs in MB and 2XR-73 CCM to all those backroom boys and girls who put their heart out in this effort.
Afterall, it is those efforts from each of such individuals has resulted in Tejas, the way she is today.

Jai Hind..

That works out to well over 5500 lbs in external load.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 04 Apr 2018 00:00

Thats just shy of 4000kg or 9000lbs.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby John » 04 Apr 2018 00:05

JayS wrote:Thats just shy of 4000kg or 9000lbs.

External tanks might not be full loaded right?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6880
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 04 Apr 2018 00:10

The tanks were full ;-)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cybaru » 04 Apr 2018 02:17

1200 Liter tanks right?
Three spots plumbed to carry those correct?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nachiket » 04 Apr 2018 02:56

Cybaru wrote:1200 Liter tanks right?
Three spots plumbed to carry those correct?

The centerline hardpoint can carry the 800ltr (or 725l?) tank not the 1200l one.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cybaru » 04 Apr 2018 03:01

Any chance Tejas will carry 1700 liter ones like the M2k? Even if the center line doesn't go higher, with 1700L tanks, it will go up to 4200 (1700 + 1700 + 800) liters external carriage, leaving roughly 1800kgs/4000 pounds for weapons. if the internal on mk2 touches 4000 liters, it pretty much packs the same punch as the mirage.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 04 Apr 2018 03:24

Cybaru wrote:1200 Liter tanks right?
Three spots plumbed to carry those correct?


That particular configuration carried 2 X 800 ltr drop tanks. So approx. 800 kgs per drop tank, including the weight of the drop tank itself. i.e. assuming density of 800 grams/liter and drop tank weight of 160 kgs.

So 1600 kgs for fuel and drop tank.
Plus 2000 kgs for bombs,
Plus ~220 kgs for 2 R-73 missiles + the APU-170 pylon adaptors for the R-73
Plus 208 kgs Litening III LDP

~4000 kgs give or take a couple hundred kilos depending on the fuel fraction in the drop tanks.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cybaru » 04 Apr 2018 03:31

:oops: bah, it's written up there! I needs coffee.. Thank you though...

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 863
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Mihir » 04 Apr 2018 03:34

Abhibhushan wrote:To celebrate completion of 65 years of commissioned service and 50 years since assuming my first command of an operational unit, visited the Flying Daggers for tea and crew room Gup.

The boys are all experienced pilots.
Boys come from varied backgrounds. M2K,Jaguar, Mig29, Mig27 are all represented. Soon there will be boys from SU30MKI as well. The boys were all very upbeat about their present mount.


Some snippets from crew room chatter.

— the Mk1 is better than Unupgraded M2K
— talk about difficulties with maintenance exaggerated
— intensive operations tried out successfully
— lots of scope to increase its might.
—if it is compared with all other fighters in the IAF for all-round ability, it will easily be within the top third of the list.

A very happy day for me.

May I post this on Twitter/FB? Would it be alright if I used your real name to go with it?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nachiket » 04 Apr 2018 03:39

Kartik wrote:That particular configuration carried 2 X 800 ltr drop tanks. So approx. 800 kgs per drop tank, including the weight of the drop tank itself. i.e. assuming density of 800 grams/liter and drop tank weight of 160 kgs.

So 1600 kgs for fuel and drop tank.
Plus 2000 kgs for bombs,
Plus ~220 kgs for 2 R-73 missiles + the APU-170 pylon adaptors for the R-73
Plus 208 kgs Litening III LDP

~4000 kgs give or take a couple hundred kilos depending on the fuel fraction in the drop tanks.

To put this in perspective, that is approximately the max payload of a Mig-27. Now is the Mig-27 a light or medium aircraft for the IAF?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6880
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 04 Apr 2018 04:02

There are a couple of things that are important about that picture:
1. There are 5 wet hardpoints.
2. The payload is certainly greater than 3.5 tons. They were also thinking having a centerline tank or a 1000lb bomb on the centerline.

I am not sure of their external tank policy. They have said that they want to cut down on the types of tanks. On the other hand, they have an inboard tank design which can carry more than 1300 ltrs, has lower drag and lower interference with the ammunition in the MB pylon. This tank is too big to go on the centerline pylon or the MB pylon. Now, the centerline pylon can carry more than 800 ltrs, but such a tank has to have an oval cross section. Such a tank cannot go on the MB pylon. So, I am not sure what will happen.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 04 Apr 2018 09:30

John wrote:
JayS wrote:Thats just shy of 4000kg or 9000lbs.

External tanks might not be full loaded right?


They equally might be fully loaded as well right..? What exactly makes you tilt on the other direction...?

Anyhow what's the point of taking up empty or half loaded EFTs..? They are clearly flight testing various configurations.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 04 Apr 2018 09:34

Indranil wrote:There are a couple of things that are important about that picture:
1. There are 5 wet hardpoints.
2. The payload is certainly greater than 3.5 tons. They were also thinking having a centerline tank or a 1000lb bomb on the centerline.

I am not sure of their external tank policy. They have said that they want to cut down on the types of tanks. On the other hand, they have an inboard tank design which can carry more than 1300 ltrs, has lower drag and lower interference with the ammunition in the MB pylon. This tank is too big to go on the centerline pylon or the MB pylon. Now, the centerline pylon can carry more than 800 ltrs, but such a tank has to have an oval cross section. Such a tank cannot go on the MB pylon. So, I am not sure what will happen.


Given what we know about IAF, they would likely ask for all possible options still on. :wink: Eventually they will settle for a couple of subsonic and a couple of supersonic options I think. Anyhow with possible freeing up of space under the wing, there might be possibility of bigger tanks on MB pylons in future, though only for MK2 perhaps.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests