Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

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.
basant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 25 Mar 2020 18:08

Yagnasri wrote:No gun firing as per reports? It was not part of FOC as it takes long time?

Due to lack of inert ammunition, as per DDR.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 25 Mar 2020 21:08

Airborne gun firing tests shortly. Most probably in next detachment.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 25 Mar 2020 21:54

Will that be done by NFTC test pilots on a LSP prototype?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2020 02:36

The last gun firing trial was in 2016 with that drafting paper target. It looks quite bad that inert ammo for repeating the trials was not thought of. Someone doesn't care for gun firing trials obviously. Note the caveat on air to air firing. Why not stream a banner or tow a target? What's needed is to show the shell spacing and record the gun vibrations for the designers to review.

Air to the ground can easily be demonstrated.

Kartik I would rather they do it on the FOC planes as that is what matters. LSP black box configuration might not be the same.
If it's the same as the ground firing version there is gun mounting stiffness issue. The patter on the RHS barrel is tighter. So the mounting on the left barrel is softer for some reason.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 03:42

Kartik wrote:Will that be done by NFTC test pilots on a LSP prototype?

I don't know. But that would be my guess. Last couple of test points (along with the gun) to be cleared in this detachment.

Ramana sir, they don't need to find the pattern on target. They know the gun. Among other things, they know the tolerance for a close enough patterns. As long as the vibrations are less than the tolerance. The pattern will be close enough.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 26 Mar 2020 05:32

basant wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:No gun firing as per reports? It was not part of FOC as it takes long time?

Due to lack of inert ammunition, as per DDR.


Interestingly, the article also mentions this


Meanwhile, the design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.



Dual rack pylon for the carriage of a CCM and a jammer pod or 2 CCMs on the outermost wing hardpoint is complete, originally probably meant for the Mk1A.

Is there then, any reason why the FOC Tejas Mk1 cannot carry the pylon apart from it probably not having been flight tested across the Tejas' flight envelope and certified? It would straightaway double the number of CCMs or allow carriage of a SPJ with 3 CCMs in total. If a conflict breaks out, these things will really matter if a Tejas Mk1 squadron mans the ORP at any forward Air Base.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 26 Mar 2020 05:40

Kartik wrote:Is there then, any reason why the FOC Tejas Mk1 cannot carry the pylon apart from it probably not having been flight tested across the Tejas' flight envelope and certified? It would straightaway double the number of CCMs or allow carriage of a SPJ with 3 CCMs in total. If a conflict breaks out, these things will really matter if a Tejas Mk1 squadron mans the ORP at any forward Air Base.

This is just my guess, but I'm not sure of the utility of a dual-pylon for carrying 2 R-73's on the Mk1. Don't see the reason why a Tejas would be flying with 4 CCM's in a combat sortie. Centerline EFT plus 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs should be good enough for an air-to-air mission. Now if we had a pylon which allowed 2 BVRAAMs on the mid-board stations that would be a different thing.

So the utility is only limited to carrying the SPJ pod without sacrificing a CCM in order to carry it. The ELL-8222 makes the most sense but it has not even been selected yet, let alone integrated with the aircraft. That itself is unlikely to happen before the Mk1A comes in.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 26 Mar 2020 05:49

The way I see it, in combat, 3 or 4 CCMs versus 2 CCMs is always a plus, even with the marginal drag increase. Given the scenario that was seen on Feb 27, 2019, you may only have a couple of fighters on ORP that may need to take on a large package.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 26 Mar 2020 11:50

Quite a few wing tip type of EW/ECM pods come in pairs. Provides lots more space to pack different types of sensors, counter measures, jammers and decoys.

Hoping to see in the near future DARE twin-pods for Su-30MKI adapted for LCA.

EUroFighter’s DASS
Image
Image
One side pod rear holds two towed decoys.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 26 Mar 2020 13:49

Certain jamming techniques require two spatially separated pods.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 29 Mar 2020 03:32

Read this twitter back-and-forth between aam junta on tweetar and Group Captain HV Thakur (Retd).

The patience that HVT Sir displays is truly amazing. Kudos to him.

--------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Vamsina90252211/sta ... 56358?s=20 ---> Sir, what about dual rack pylons for BVR missiles in Tejas Mk1A?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 61376?s=20 ---> Carriage of a very large number of AAMs is ungainly. Good for brochures. FOC onwards will be able to carry 4 x BVRAAMs and 2 x CCMs. That's greater than 60 crore payload on every aircraft. More than enough for any envisaged combat scenario in the Indian subcontinent.

https://twitter.com/Vamsina90252211/sta ... 79776?s=20 ---> Yes Sir, what u said is true. But if we use a dual rack pylon, Tejas can carry 4 x BVRAAMs, 2 x CCMs and at least 2 drop tanks sir. But without dual rack pylon, Tejas cannot carry 2 drop tanks which limits endurance of the aircraft.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 85888?s=20 ---> It can carry one centreline tank, one inboard tank, 3 x BVRAAMs, 2 x CCMs. Range & Endurance is huge 8)

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 56704?s=20 ---> Meteor is 20 crore. All imported missiles are 10+ crore. Only Astra is reasonable. Make In India.

https://twitter.com/WildFact_com/status ... 87555?s=20 ---> That's an odd number of BVRs. May i ask how? This?
Link to picture ---> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUGa087UcAM ... ame=medium

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12434 ... 46209?s=20 ---> No. One side EFT only. Inboard.

-----------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Mishra28Deepak/stat ... 31744?s=20 ---> Dual rack pylons is a good idea. But why can't they have triple rack pylons like some western fighters :roll: MWF has plenty of space for that and even LCA has. Gives you more ordnance carrying capacity.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 33504?s=20 ---> Should be possible in swing role configuration to carry decent payload of bombs and AAMs. Tejas Mk 2 has eleven stations. More than enough. Dual/Multi-racks are very popular for bombs (all aircraft in IAF have - for more weight-of-attack). But not for AAMs. Too many AAMs not required.

https://twitter.com/Rashmir23696747/sta ... 16480?s=20 ---> Too many AAMs not required? WHY not? Pls elaborate.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 50566?s=20 ---> Very, Very, Expensive. Unaffordable almost. 15+ crore with every trigger press. In any mission, one would expect a fighter to launch not more than four to six missiles, with reasonable assurance of kill. Beyond that, they could just be getting wasted. Possible to carry more. But ungainly.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.

-----------------------------------------------

Some examples of brochuritis..... :lol:

F-15EX

Image

F-21

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 04:12

Brochuritis, BRF lingo is spreading. I first heard it being used by hakeem!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2020 04:17

Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.


F-22A carries 6 BVR Missiles. I believe that is also the case for the SU-57. F-35 currently carries 4 but has been designed to carry up to 6 AIM-120 class missiles and the increased load out is now being taken up. Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Barath » 29 Mar 2020 07:31

brar_w wrote: Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.


4x PL15 BVRAAMs for the J20 currently
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... i-air-show

Article speculates about feasibility of 6 of these in a staggered arrangement in future, depending also on ejection mechanism


The sidekick weapons rack which will allow the f35a and f35C to go from 4 missiles to 6 has already been unveiled. The weapons bay also needs internal rearrangement of fittings

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-3 ... bat-2019-5

F35B stays at 4 because lift fan

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 10:05

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 95202?s=20 ---> All stealth aircraft carry 4 x BVRAAMs. F-22, F-35, Su-57 & J-20. That's their intended air combat payload. That is enough as per their combat experience. AMCA is also planned with 4 BVRAAMs.


F-22A carries 6 BVR Missiles. I believe that is also the case for the SU-57. F-35 currently carries 4 but has been designed to carry up to 6 AIM-120 class missiles and the increased load out is now being taken up. Not sure about the J-20 but I believe it too will go from 4 to 6 if it isn't there already.

Brar sahab, it is correct that these aircraft can carry up to 6* BVRs. But, I can't imagine any of these aircrafts going into battle with 6 BVRS and no WVRs! I am with HVT here. For a light fighter to carry 4 BVR+ 2CCMs is more than enough. I can't imagine a scenario where one aircraft will use more than these amount of missiles in one sortie.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2020 10:18

^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Mar 2020 10:48, edited 2 times in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4222
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Mar 2020 10:23

Rakesh wrote:----------------------------------------------

Some examples of brochuritis..... :lol:

F-15EX

Image

F-21

Image


Brochuritis it might be Rakesh Sir, but damn those are some TFTA pics (therefore deserve resposting in full glory). Nothing beats US marketing - and weapon systems - altogether new level.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1072
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby shaun » 29 Mar 2020 11:31

brar_w wrote:^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).


Maybe due to the structural and electronics fatigue these missiles undergo when used for CAP role . What was the missile loading per strike A/c during desert storm ( even that wont be a good example as the opponent could not pitch enough A/c against !!)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2020 12:12

brar_w wrote:^^ I don't understand, why wouldn't they carry those Missiles? The F-22, Su-57, and the J-20 can carry CCM's internally in addition to the BVRAAM's. The F-35 and other 5th gen concepts can do that, at the moment, externally and the AIM-9 replacement will be an MRAAM ranged missile which is IWB compliant so it too will have 6+ missiles internally with 4 being LRAAM's and the remaining MRAAM's (possibly 4 more).

I was not talking about external carriage (I don't think HVT was speaking of that either). But, I had forgotten about the side bays on the F22. J20 and the wingroot ray of the PAKFA.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2020 05:42

Vaya Shakti 2019

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:11

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 91554?s=20 ----> PAF managed perceptions very well. Chinese aircraft, Fighter China-1 Xiaolong (JF-17) production in PAF is nothing like LCA. It exactly follows Su-30MKI model albeit with a lesser fighter, which is delayed. By comparing with LCA their sordid tales get occulted conveniently.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 60288?s=20 ----> LCA is the first 4th generation aircraft, exclusively designed, developed & produced in India. It follows the Chinese J-10 model, which is expensive & not cost-effective for exports. J-10 exports = Big Fat Zero. With time, a cost-effective export variant of LCA will be created.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 70112?s=20 ---> PAC Kamra is like an IAF BRD. You never heard anything negative about either. That’s perception management. Indian PSUs are at the wrong end of the stick for everyone. LCA is delayed, but like ALH, it is a huge success in an otherwise, import-hungry nation (for everything).

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 43424?s=20 ---> Calling JF-17 Paki is a scream. Su-30 is more Indian than the JF-17 is Paki. Su-30s are exported the world over, but you don’t see IAF rejoicing. We’ve been training and supporting Su30MKM for years. Chinese exported three JF-17s to Nigeria and six to Myanmar. No reason for Pak to jump about.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 92864?s=20 ---> LCA is an exclusive IPR. Exclusive FCS+CLAW (could count on fingers how many countries in the world have that). Exclusive Indian airframe. Exclusive Indian cockpit/systems (hydraulic, electrical, gears, FB-braking, auto-T/O, auto-Rec, you name it), No exclusive Paki in JF-17 ZERO.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 68864?s=20 ---> LCA & JF-17 could be compared in performance if you must. But please reconsider over-crediting PAF for assembling JF-17s. No big deal. No big deal at all. IAF’s BRDs can do that any day they want. Decades of effort on LCA is not to be lowered to this scale of welding-and-assembly.

https://twitter.com/somnath1978/status/ ... 94528?s=20 ---> Great thread. Downwards arrow. But misses the point - issue isn't if JF17 is fully Paki or only 5%, but whether it serves the purpose. PAF has inducted 100+, pushed it in combat, posited it as baby-F35. LCA - 17 inducted, IAF sneered at it as MiG-21++, still wants 100 Rafale/Fxx.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 94817?s=20 ---> The point is JF-17 & LCA cannot be used in the same sentence. It is Su-30MKI which IAF inducted in 100s. JF-17, with whatever little performance, is trying to meet Su-30MKI numbers. It is lagging behind miserably. To cover their tracks they keep calling out LCA. The LCA is not related.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby fanne » 31 Mar 2020 08:23

the effort put by 11 BRD for MIG 29 UPG has lot more value addition than what Kamra does for JF-17

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:25

https://twitter.com/PunitOnline/status/ ... 4358049794 --> @ hvtiaf Sir how important are mach nos in real life scenario? Most of 4th generation single engine planes like Mirage 2000, F-16, etc can achieve Mach 2.2+ but both LCA and JF 17 have lower - Mach 1.8 and 1.6 respectively. Why is this so? Engine issue or something else?

Click on the above link to read some great tweets by BRF's own Nilesh Rane.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12441 ... 32928?s=20 ---> Let's address this the geeky way. Assume JF-17 can reach Mach 1.8 in level flight (very big assumption for JF-17) against Mach 1.6 of LCA. It can have a speed advantage of 60 knot above 28,000 feet. Below 22,000 feet no advantage. At low levels (<22,000 feet) only max CAS matters. All jets 730-750 knots.

Image

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12441 ... 80384?s=20 ---> It's not so much an engine-thrust issue, as it is an intake design issue. LCA employs a simple pitot type intake. Hassle-free, no pilot intervention throughout its envelope. Mirage-2000 & MiGs use intake cones. MiG-21 does Mach 2.2 with a 69 kN engine.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12443 ... 75200?s=20 ---> On an aircraft like JF-17, having a Max Mach Limit (Vne) of Mach 1.8 is a resultant of aerodynamic buzz (vibrations), high-speed buffet or possible loss of FCS control. JF-17 cannot reach Mach1.8 in level flight. There is no combat relevance of Mach 1.8, except in a "getaway dive".

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 91072?s=20 ---> Interesting, FCS control loss. Due to which phenomenon exactly?? Intake buzz or something else?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12443 ... 40864?s=20 ---> Depends on modelling/handling of time to double (instability) at Mach 1.8. High frequency oscillations (like buzz/flutter) are difficult to kill by FCS. Close to Vne, many kinds of phenomena may occur. Not much PID would've been done in this portion, if it can't reach in level flight.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 79776?s=20 ---> But aren't the aircrafts statically stable in supersonic conditions due to the huge afterward movement of Center of Lift? To have a statically unstable config either one would need massive static instability margin at subsonic or big CG movement using fuel transfer.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12444 ... 71104?s=20 ---> Will study. The mainplane effect is always de-stabilizing. Even at supersonic angles of attack (-2 to -3 degrees).

Image

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 84322?s=20 ---> The usual cambered aerofoil is naturally unstable in pitch. Hence we need tail or canard to balance it. Thats what the figure shows. Flying wings/delta wings typically reduce this instability using inverse camber on Trailing edge side if tail/canard not present. Based on whether designer wants stable or unstable. Config, tail or canard can be more beneficial. But I digress. Perhaps most famous example of the effect I was talking about was the in relation to the Concorde. I had active fuel management system to manage its CG position.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 18560?s=20 ---> There is a phenomenon associated with this shift of CoL called "Mach Tuck" . Aircraft becomes nose heavy near M1 and beyond. I wonder if you have faced it in real life flying. Probably the plans that exist today are designed well enough for this effect not be much prominent.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 70177?s=20 ---> It occurs on older aircraft. Not M2K, LCA etc.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 15234?s=20 ---> Mach Tuck-in occurs when you're hauling high-g at Sonic speeds. As the aircraft decelerates rapidly, the sudden forward movement of CP causes a transient increase in pitch rate, causing sudden g-exceedance (beyond limit).

https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/124 ... 38657?s=20 ---> Vortex generators on elevators can also help a pilot to recover this, right?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12445 ... 66144?s=20 ---> Hmm! Not sure. I wonder. Normally we use VGs the main plane.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 54562?s=20 ---> Could help in some specific cases where tail tends to get into increased downwash of the main wing reducing tail efficiency or even stalling it. But I think that would be the case for rather old planes. None the planes that exist today would have this issue anymore.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 08:25

Gurus (IR, JayS) please provide input on below...

https://twitter.com/nitjas/status/12441 ... 48736?s=20 ---> Sir, on the subject of Tejas air intake design, is this claim true?

Image

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby fanne » 31 Mar 2020 08:30

IF I may take a shot at it. LCA -IOC, LCA -FOC and LCAMK1 (123 planes in total) uses F404 and not f414. MWF will use F414, but a definite design of intake is not in public domain to make a comment that it is adequate or not.
No Tejas as of now (or in future) will use F414, MWF will
repeat
No Tejas as of now (or in future) will use F414, MWF will

Ps - Kaveri was supposed to have higher inflow than F404, and the design should be sufficient from that angle. It may or may not be inefficient on its own merit.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:09

https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1 ... 23841?s=20 ---> Future of Indian Air Force Is TEJAS, and TEJAS variants is the future of IAF. Repeat it again and again. INDIA is proud of Air Commodore Kalianda Appaya Muthana (retd), Group Captain Harsh Vardhan Thakur, Group Captain Subroto Chaki, Wing Commander Pratyush Awasthi and Team Tejas at HAL. READ This!

I am going to put this article on page 1 of this thread. There is one paragraph in the article below that is going to give the import lobby on BRF so much takleef. The risk assessor on BRF claimed that the Tejas Mk2 would never come.

The pilot who helped Tejas breast the FOC tape
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/in ... 19475.html
31 March 2020 - By Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (Retd)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:13

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 62210?s=20 ---> Chief of Test Flying originated the idea of LCA Mk-1A for the country and drove d entire decision making apparatus up to MoD to accept the case. His vision is on the threshold of taking shape as he retires today, leaving the legacy for his colleagues to further.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:17

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 57952?s=20 ----> With so many flying & practising military strategists under one roof, you should be disheartened is something is not always brewing.

Above tweet is in response to the tweet below...

https://twitter.com/wasimabrar/status/1 ... 77473?s=20 ---> ORCA!!

@hvtiaf Sir @rhinohistorian Sir

Something is brewing...

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:24

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12399 ... 60801?s=20 ----> Flavour of the day. Maiden flight of LCA FOC series production fighter SP-21 tail number LA-5021, piloted by HAL's Chief of Test Flying, Air Commodore KA Muthana VSM.

https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... 33184?s=20 ----> Yet another white haired test pilot being lost to the system? We really need a formalized way of harnessing priceless flight test wisdom that is actually the nation’s investment and treasure. Test pilots need to be put to work till they turn senile!

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12448 ... 43777?s=20 ---> Couldn't agree more! Not going to test till this gets formalised.

https://twitter.com/mikeslackenerny/sta ... 12193?s=20 ---> Where is Wing Commander Rajiv Kothiyal these days? Almost 20 years since he took first flight.

https://twitter.com/mikeslackenerny/sta ... 25728?s=20 ---> He is a pilot at Etihad now. Quit IAF in 2002!

https://twitter.com/BahadurManmohan/sta ... 80099?s=20 ---> Petty minded as we are, Wing Commander Kothiyal was not absorbed by ADA due they not meeting his requirement of an adequate 'grade' in DRDO hierarchy due his IAF rank! He left and joined civil aviation. The LCA program lost a wealth of experience! We, though, pay millions to foreign consultants!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 18:45

Cain Marko wrote:Brochuritis it might be Rakesh Sir, but damn those are some TFTA pics (therefore deserve resposting in full glory). Nothing beats US marketing - and weapon systems - altogether new level.

Pictures that serve *NO* purpose in real war. None whatsoever. TFTA pictures are good for us aam junta to get wowed at. For the decision makers - i.e. the IAF - it has the opposite effect, as Group Captain HV Thakur (retd) just illustrated. At the end of the day, their decision is the only one that matters.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 20:06

What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby deejay » 31 Mar 2020 20:29

brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.


Good Point. But purely from a sales perspective it is a good pitch. In a marketing research for a sports company, images shown to "experts" tended to bias their decisions despite factual knowledge suggesting something else. This was done for a sports website.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby deejay » 31 Mar 2020 20:31

Rakesh wrote:...

https://twitter.com/BahadurManmohan/sta ... 80099?s=20 ---> Petty minded as we are, Wing Commander Kothiyal was not absorbed by ADA due they not meeting his requirement of an adequate 'grade' in DRDO hierarchy due his IAF rank! He left and joined civil aviation. The LCA program lost a wealth of experience! We, though, pay millions to foreign consultants!


Bleddy could not agree more. HAL applied this to me when I applied for a different job (no, no where close to flying).

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1880
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby srin » 31 Mar 2020 20:38

Rakesh wrote:I am going to put this article on page 1 of this thread. There is one paragraph in the article below that is going to give the import lobby on BRF so much takleef. The risk assessor on BRF claimed that the Tejas Mk2 would never come.

The pilot who helped Tejas breast the FOC tape
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/in ... 19475.html
31 March 2020 - By Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (Retd)


What a bitter-sweet paragraph
India’s LCA project has still some distance to go before it wins the complete trust of the IAF’s fighter pilots, with several of them arguing that even a futuristic twin-engine LCA MK II will not match up to the Rafale in every domain. However, it now appears to be on a stable footing with complete government and corporate backing, and an excellent and committed team. A current LCA test pilot argues, “LCA now represents India in a big way – not just HAL anymore. LCA-bashing should get behind us, sooner than later.”


Expectations, expectations - Rafale capabilities in Mig-21 size at desi cost :lol:

And this also goes to show how much the Tejas test pilots had swim against the tide. Respect.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 20:55

brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

In addition to what deejay said, you and HVT Sir are both saying the same thing. See his tweet below....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 33504?s=20 ---> Should be possible in swing role configuration to carry decent payload of bombs and AAMs. Tejas Mk 2 has eleven stations. More than enough. Dual/Multi-racks are very popular for bombs (all aircraft in IAF have - for more weight-of-attack). But not for AAMs. Too many AAMs not required.

His point is with regards to carrying anything beyond 4-6 AAMs per aircraft is where the issue lies. Any professional air force will look at those pictures of the F-15EX and F-21 and quite frankly chuckle. It is meant - as you aptly put it - what aam junta sees. It is brochuritis onlee.

Air Combat is not "Rambo/Sylvester Stallone" style, where one person (or aircraft) takes on an entire air force with 30 AAMs. Missions are always flown in pairs or in four ship units. But no aircraft flies alone into combat or neither do they do in peace time. There are a number of reasons for that, which you are well aware of. I doubt even F-22 flies alone, but you would know more on that. And as HVT Sir put it earlier, a four ship formation (each carrying 4 AAMs) is more than sufficient for an air interception mission.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 21:14

F-22 in OCA/DCA carries all 8 missiles in wartime. Only time it will carry fewer is when it is carrying a mixed strike role in which the missile count will be halved for a self escort mission. F-35 will carry 4-6 missiles for now. Later more because the # of targets to prosecute are going to be growing in the future given companion drones, decoys and UAS targets. I can see both the F-35A and F-22A carrying more than a dozen AIM-X's in future missions when performing specific misisons. But the USAF is unique given its expeditionary nature and the fact that it is likely to be numerically mismatched given its logistical train vs that of its expected opponent.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2020 22:05

What are those specific missions? Nine times out of ten, would they be flying with a dozen AIM-9Xs? In an IAF scenario, a four ship formation, each carrying 10 AAMs (as those pictures of the F-21 and F-15EX show) would be unrealistic. 40 air-to-air missiles in a mission is overkill.

Another example of brochuritis, onlee this time in a movie. I think you have seen this already though. The Khan really knows marketing. That is one thing to learn from the Khan. Nobody does marketing like them.

A constructive criticism of Top Gun 2 from C.W. Lemoine, a retired USN Hornet pilot.

See from 1:36 onwards.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2020 22:16

Rakesh wrote:What are those specific missions? Nine times out of ten, would they be flying with a dozen AIM-9Xs?


shaun wrote:What was the missile loading per strike A/c during desert storm ( even that wont be a good example as the opponent could not pitch enough A/c against !!)


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2424659#p2424659

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 01 Apr 2020 00:28

Where is this coming from?

Inlets for Mk1 and Mk1A are optimized for F404, not Kaveri. People keep rehashing things which were current from the turn of the century, primarily brought forward by the late Air Commodore Parvez Khokhar.

There is no perfectly optimized inlet. You can optimize for one design point and it will be suboptimal for every other point in the flight envelop.

Rakesh wrote:Gurus (IR, JayS) please provide input on below...

https://twitter.com/nitjas/status/12441 ... 48736?s=20 ---> Sir, on the subject of Tejas air intake design, is this claim true?

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 01 Apr 2020 01:24

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:What aam junta sees - Look fighter X can carry 30 missiles
What the operator sees - Ah..so they opened up additional hard points and developed new racks..and that means additional payload flexibility which potentially opens up new missions, or enhances the ones these platforms currently perform.

In addition to what deejay said, you and HVT Sir are both saying the same thing. See his tweet below....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12428 ... 33504?s=20 ---> Should be possible in swing role configuration to carry decent payload of bombs and AAMs. Tejas Mk 2 has eleven stations. More than enough. Dual/Multi-racks are very popular for bombs (all aircraft in IAF have - for more weight-of-attack). But not for AAMs. Too many AAMs not required.

His point is with regards to carrying anything beyond 4-6 AAMs per aircraft is where the issue lies. Any professional air force will look at those pictures of the F-15EX and F-21 and quite frankly chuckle. It is meant - as you aptly put it - what aam junta sees. It is brochuritis onlee.

Air Combat is not "Rambo/Sylvester Stallone" style, where one person (or aircraft) takes on an entire air force with 30 AAMs. Missions are always flown in pairs or in four ship units. But no aircraft flies alone into combat or neither do they do in peace time. There are a number of reasons for that, which you are well aware of. I doubt even F-22 flies alone, but you would know more on that. And as HVT Sir put it earlier, a four ship formation (each carrying 4 AAMs) is more than sufficient for an air interception mission.


No it is not brochuritis. Please don't paint it all as just marketing gimmicks.

There was and is a serious concern in the USAF that if a shooting war were to erupt between the US and China, the PLAAF will swamp the limited number of F-22 and F-15 fighters with much larger numbers of fighters that will eventually overwhelm the technologically superior force. The simple reason being that when flying away from their bases, and carrying 4-6 missiles each, each F-22 or F-15 will fire salvos at each target and within no time be all out of missiles. At that time the numerically larger PLAAF fighter force would extract a heavy toll on the defending USAF fighters and tanker and AWACS assets. There was a very interesting RAND study that did a simulation of such a scenario and came up with very uncomfortable results for the USAF. It is one of the primary reasons why there are development programs for smaller form factor missiles that can be carried in larger numbers.

The scenario may not be the same for the IAF, but there is a reason why all folks on BRF go ga-ga over images like this.

Image
Image

This is an Air-Dominance fighter. Count the missiles in the first pic- 4 each of R-27s, R-77s and R-73Es, for a total of 12. 11 in the second. It doesn't need dual or triple racks because it has the hard-points to carry them individually. Doesn't mean that 11 or 12 are not carried. But in this loadout, 2 Su-30MKIs on CAP could in theory take on an entire PAF or PLAAF package. Imagine 4 Astras, 4 R-27s and 4 R-73Es in a Feb 27 like situation and the Su-30s would have extracted a toll on the F-16s. This type of loadout will not be normal, but just the fact that a Su-30 has this flexibility means a lot for the rare missions where a real shooting war is possible. Feb 27 came as a surprise because the IAF didn't expect the PAF to start firing missiles from within it's own airspace and set it's ROEs accordingly. Next time around, that may not be the case.

There are certain types of missions where it makes the most sense to go with this kind of loadout- for e.g. if the IAF wants to go after the AEW&C and tanker assets of the PAF, which will always be defended by escorts. The cost of those missiles will pale in comparison to what an AEW&C will cost in capability and $ to any air force. Expect the same for the PAF- if a real shooting war was to break out, expect them to come after our Netra and Phalcons and the escorts better be well armed.

To just say that 4 BVRAAMs and 2 CCMs is always more than enough is to say that these Su-30 images were just photo ops and don't represent a real mission loadout. As for the price of a missile, assess that versus the price of a single fighter or a single pilot. They can always acquire more missiles, especially if they're made locally, that shouldn't be the defining factor.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shakthi and 45 guests