Dileep wrote:Heat removal is the number one problem in AESA. It was some jubilation when Uttam could finally fit everything into the Tejas budget.
LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
It won????

Dileep wrote:Heat removal is the number one problem in AESA. It was some jubilation when Uttam could finally fit everything into the Tejas budget.
LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
Dileep wrote: LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
srai wrote:^^^
Is this 450L tank new addition?
Then there is a 710L supersonic tanks as well.
Similarly, computation fluid dynamics (CFD) studies on a variety of drop tanks have yielded fuel tank geometries which could carry more fuel at marginal to no extra cost in drag. For example, Figure 5 shows the modified supersonic drop tank arrived by choosing optimal lengths for the conical nose and tail sections. The final shape allowed the carriage of 58 percent more fuel (710 L against the current 450 L) at only two counts greater supersonic drag. This provided a significant increase of about 11 percent in flight mission time. This tank can also be seen at Aero India 2019.
Dileep wrote:Heat removal is the number one problem in AESA. It was some jubilation when Uttam could finally fit everything into the Tejas budget.
LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
JayS wrote:srai wrote:^^^
Is this 450L tank new addition?
Then there is a 710L supersonic tanks as well.
450L supersonic tank is been there for a while now. 710L is optimised version. From the DDR Article on LCA,Similarly, computation fluid dynamics (CFD) studies on a variety of drop tanks have yielded fuel tank geometries which could carry more fuel at marginal to no extra cost in drag. For example, Figure 5 shows the modified supersonic drop tank arrived by choosing optimal lengths for the conical nose and tail sections. The final shape allowed the carriage of 58 percent more fuel (710 L against the current 450 L) at only two counts greater supersonic drag. This provided a significant increase of about 11 percent in flight mission time. This tank can also be seen at Aero India 2019.
I can imagine Rafale pilots "Mere pass AESA hai", LCA pilots "mere pass bhi AESA hai...desi", with Su30 pilots "mere pass only PESA"
Dileep wrote:Heat removal is the number one problem in AESA. It was some jubilation when Uttam could finally fit everything into the Tejas budget.
LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
fanne wrote:Evolution of LCA from Vanilla LCA to Medium Weight Fighter...
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 7790715905 ---> Evolution of LCA Mk2 design over the years (Air force version).
Cain Marko wrote:Those seem like some very extensive changes. Airframe is totally different - 300mm wider, 1 meter longer at least, newer engines/intake designs. This has very little in common with the current Tejas. I wonder what the empty weight will be. This is a M2k or Gripen-E for sure. Lets hope they can keep it below 8 tons. ...
fanne wrote:Idranil, just based on few numbers (engine being same, AUW increasing by 2500kg, some 17%), shouldn't MWF be 'less'. Is that mitigated by design changes (canards? and area ruling optimization) or just by need to have a plane in that range to meet MMCRA requirement. What drove that change. MK2-PDR 2014 would have had far better TWR, wing loading etc. copared to MWF. It looks like we went the same road that F-16 A went (towards F-16 D/E).
rgds
Aditya_V wrote:If that table is correct and AUW means MTOW then empty weight of MWF should ~ 7700KG
ArjunPandit wrote:Aditya_V wrote:If that table is correct and AUW means MTOW then empty weight of MWF should ~ 7700KG
does AUW stand for all-up weight?
Mort Walker wrote:Dileep wrote:Heat removal is the number one problem in AESA. It was some jubilation when Uttam could finally fit everything into the Tejas budget.
LRDE is preparing to make LSP builds now, as per chaiwale.
GaN should not have this problem unless they operate it at saturation.
India's indigenous multirole light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas will soon get more teeth with the integration of advanced air-to-air missile Astra, which may encourage the Indian Air Force (IAF) to increase its squadron strength.
The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which successfully integrated Astra on IAF's frontline air-superiority fighter Sukhoi-30MKI (Su-30MKI) will soon begin testing Astra on Tejas, reports say.
..
Dileep wrote:Mort Walker wrote:
GaN should not have this problem unless they operate it at saturation.
Actually, the Power Added Efficiency of GaN is not really better than that of GaAs. The benefit of GaN is in higher power density. You still waste power as heat, and you still need to remove it.
Kartik wrote:This report claims that Astra BVRAAM integration with the Tejas Mk1 will begin now. Don't know how accurate it is, although it is logical, given that the Astra has completed all user trials now.
linkIndia's indigenous multirole light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas will soon get more teeth with the integration of advanced air-to-air missile Astra, which may encourage the Indian Air Force (IAF) to increase its squadron strength.
The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which successfully integrated Astra on IAF's frontline air-superiority fighter Sukhoi-30MKI (Su-30MKI) will soon begin testing Astra on Tejas, reports say.
..
srin wrote:Does RoA stand for "radius of action" ? or something else ?
fanne wrote:That should put to rest range of lca. It can take care of all tactical targets in west or north
Rakesh wrote: Additional Mk1As can replace a good number of the older Jaguar squadrons. If the RoA is better than the Jaguar, then why not?
Rakesh wrote:And that is why the IAF must order more Mk1A squadrons. 83 is too little an order. They can solve squadron shortage problem with a stroke of a pen! ......
MMRCA is also done.
naird wrote:Rakesh wrote: Additional Mk1As can replace a good number of the older Jaguar squadrons. If the RoA is better than the Jaguar, then why not?
Arent Jags known for extremely low level flying ! Not sure what it means to design such a/c and if LCA or any other a/c in IAF inventory is capable of that. However with updated technology and stand off PGM's - we may not even need that !
JayS wrote:I dont know if this was posted here - Tweet by GP HVT, HAL's TP
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1176062910537187329
As it's already a widely acknowledged fact, Jag has a significant RoA. It's noteworthy that LCA is even better.
Indranil wrote:JayS wrote:I dont know if this was posted here - Tweet by GP HVT, HAL's TP
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1176062910537187329
As it's already a widely acknowledged fact, Jag has a significant RoA. It's noteworthy that LCA is even better.
I know LCA's RoA. I do not know the Jag's RoA. But I expected it to be better with so much internal fuel. I guess I fell for brochure numbers here. Much to learn.
Rakesh wrote:srin wrote:Does RoA stand for "radius of action" ? or something else ?
yesfanne wrote:That should put to rest range of lca. It can take care of all tactical targets in west or north
And that is why the IAF must order more Mk1A squadrons. 83 is too little an order. They can solve squadron shortage problem with a stroke of a pen! Sorry if anyone finds that as hubris, but it is frustrating to see the measly 83 order. Additional Mk1As can replace a good number of the older Jaguar squadrons. If the RoA is better than the Jaguar, then why not?
One additional MiG-29UPG squadron, 18 more Su-30MKIs and 2 - 3 more Rafale squadrons. MMRCA is also done.
fanne wrote:Btw the nap of the earth flying for a longer range bomber (like Jags, that it can fly low and a circuitous route to target) is still a very valid scenario to beat enemy defense. Pop out few miles ahead of target from an unsuspecting direction, use smart munition and disappear back in the clutter
fanne wrote:Jags with high wing loading can do it (LCA cannot, very low wing loading, it will crash if flies near the ground with so much turbulence, or the pilot would have separate barf bag attached to his suite).
Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”
Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, brar_w, Google [Bot], JohnWalker, nam, suryag and 47 guests