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.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 14 Jun 2020 21:52

what the Gnat length??

anupamd
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 22:36

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

Postby anupamd » 14 Jun 2020 22:29

manjgu wrote:what the Gnat length??


Around 29 ft 8 inch (9 m) as per this Team BHP article

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commerci ... e-6-a.html

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3429
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 14 Jun 2020 23:14

so LCA-2/MWF will still be shorter than Mig 21, that means all the PENS in JK and Awantipur and throughout west and north border that was made for Mig 21 (our smallest plane) can be used without modification for LCA-2/MWF (and of course LCAMK1A).
The bigger PENS used for Mig 29, Jags, SU30mki etc. can be also used by our Tejas and its siblings.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 14 Jun 2020 23:25

fanne wrote:so LCA-2/MWF will still be shorter than Mig 21, that means all the PENS in JK and Awantipur and throughout west and north border that was made for Mig 21 (our smallest plane) can be used without modification for LCA-2/MWF (and of course LCAMK1A).
The bigger PENS used for Mig 29, Jags, SU30mki etc. can be also used by our Tejas and its siblings.

LCA is wider by 1m wrt Mig-21. Hope that would not be an issue.

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

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

Postby amar_p » 15 Jun 2020 01:06

I always wondered about the large wing area Tejas presents in a WVR fight to incoming missiles detonating with proximity fuses or to strafing by guns.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jun 2020 09:44

amar_p wrote:I always wondered about the large wing area Tejas presents in a WVR fight to incoming missiles detonating with proximity fuses or to strafing by guns.

Wing area large in relation to what?

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

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

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Jun 2020 13:59

amar_p wrote:I always wondered about the large wing area Tejas presents in a WVR fight to incoming missiles detonating with proximity fuses or to strafing by guns.

That is always going to be there, unless you go with a short stubby wing like the ones on F104, but that would not work when you want hot and high performance.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 16 Jun 2020 03:16

amar_p wrote:I always wondered about the large wing area Tejas presents in a WVR fight to incoming missiles detonating with proximity fuses or to strafing by guns.


The large wing means its ITR is going to be superlative.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 16 Jun 2020 05:20

^^^
ITR of nearly 30 degrees per second

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 19 Jun 2020 12:11

Gurus, is it possible to arm Mk.1 IOCs with BVR quickly? We can dream of self-reliance if we could have got the 3 other FOCs delivered by now! How long are we going to put up with 'in a few days'?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 19 Jun 2020 12:43

IOC to FOC mostly software upgrade from my understanding.

Heard IFR might be an issue but all rest should be doable either at one go or in phases. It is probable some of the upgrades might have already been released on IOC aircraft.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 19 Jun 2020 14:26

Afaik
no gun
No IFR

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 23 Jun 2020 22:11

I m curious on why we r nt gng for 414 on Mk1A?
Till Dec 2017 - Tejas mk2 was lca with 414. It is gr8 that we branched out for MWF.
But same almost frozen airframe config of Dec 2017 can be used for Mk1A? Does 414 adds too much of cost?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 23 Jun 2020 22:50

hemant_sai wrote:I m curious on why we r nt gng for 414 on Mk1A?
Till Dec 2017 - Tejas mk2 was lca with 414. It is gr8 that we branched out for MWF.
But same almost frozen airframe config of Dec 2017 can be used for Mk1A? Does 414 adds too much of cost?


I think the current intake design only caters to 404 engines... For 414, they need to redesign the intakes... Any change in basic design of air frame would mean lot more tests and further delay of the project...
Also, the power in 404 is enough for the Mk1A upgrade anyway...
So, they're going ahead with 404 only...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 23 Jun 2020 23:23

It is much more than just the intakes that need to be redesigned. The electrical systems would need to be redesigned too, due to the higher electrical power it would generate.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 24 Jun 2020 00:15

Even I wonder at times about the same. Lower fuel burn, much higher thrust, both dry (30%) and wet and hence better range, payload and more agility. It would also provide more electrical power, useful for AESA radar. Lesser hassel compared to Mk2 to realize. Would be interesting to compare expected metrics of GE414 in Mk1A wrt Mk2. :)

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2838
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 24 Jun 2020 00:30

Thats basically the early design MK2 (with 0.5 plug, no canards and modest spec increase). Would have made eminent sense if we could designed and put it into production by now, and could have aimed for developing at this period ORCA/TEDBF now.

Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 24 Jun 2020 04:14

Current LCA Mk1 FOC is really good enough to replace the squadrons of retired MiG-21/27. So much better. Very cheap (~$30 million/unit). Could be bought in huge numbers even with a limited defense budget. A squadron of LCA Mk1 for the price of 3-4 Rafales, or 4 squadrons of LCA Mk1 for the price of 1 Rafale squadron. If numbers are required, LCA Mk1 is the way to go.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 24 Jun 2020 09:38

Raveen wrote:
basant wrote:I could be wrong. Thanks for the correction. :)


Basant, you are actually correct from the perspective of brakes



http://www.frpinstitute.org/pdf/Carbon- ... 20guru.pdf

Csaurabh is right, Tejas uses carbon-carbon matrix composites for brake pads (and other places). The PDF is a nice reference, with pics of process, equipment etc. I recommend it

Edit: Looks like Karan M posted this before, in 2015.
viewtopic.php?t=6964&start=3960#p1918324 and also posted
http://fgks.in/images/pdf/conf/Harinarayana.pdf

-----

A bit more detail on brake material (but only couple of pages are free). C/C composite brakes are also used in Formula 1, for example.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JRg ... sc&f=false

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 24 Jun 2020 14:04

abhik wrote:Thats basically the early design MK2 (with 0.5 plug, no canards and modest spec increase). Would have made eminent sense if we could designed and put it into production by now, and could have aimed for developing at this period ORCA/TEDBF now.

Image

This is kind of non-descriptive image. It's not just improvements of aerodynamics that has resulted in higher payload (4.5T to 6.5T!). Something was sacrificed to get a bit of something else (apart from a few refinements, of course). May be Mk1.A could even supercruise with GE-414 (Gripen did in a demo!).

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 24 Jun 2020 14:52

What my small brain understands that - it is simple case of keeping GE404-IN20 alive - rest are excuses. Otherwise there would have been plan for Mk1B for sure to accomodate GE414.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 24 Jun 2020 14:56

People,

Before hypothesising and guessing and what have you please read Indranil et al article on the LCA.

All your questions and musings have been addressed.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 24 Jun 2020 15:14

^^^
To clarify, issue is not why and how MWF came about. It's about what Mk1.A with 414 would be capable of.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 25 Jun 2020 04:21

Can any one help:

ramana wrote:
Nihat wrote:I'd suggest reading up on the interview with the chief test pilot of the LCA tejas program in Hush kit.

The LCA is fully combat ready but at the same time it's still an evolving and maturing platform. It's armed with astra and derby as a2a missiles and capable of undertaking CAP and limited penetrative ground strike missions including delivery of precision weapons.

As far as pushing it into the current crisis goes, if necessary it will be deployed but given that it's training and tactics are still evolving, this is not the most optimum option currently.


Please give this quote.
I thought Tejas was qualified with Derby only.
I don't know why both IAF and DRDO did not push for at least captive flights of Astra on Tejas.
Everything was only about Su-30MKI integration and Tejas later.

Thanks in advance.


A few factoids:
ADA wanted to integrate on Tejas Mk1. Would involve flight control software and a few changes.
HAL wants to integrate on 83 Mk1A. ADA says that is their internal matter.

Next set of reports say
IAF senior official in Jan 2020 says want to integrate Astra on Tejas as French not allowing Meteor integration on Israeli Radar.

This is end of June 2020. No reports of progress.
And we have hot borders.
Neither is HAL rushing out to produce the rest of FOC contract.

From talking to folks major tasks are :
1 Simulation
2 Dummy fit checks
3 Ground testing
4. Flight testing.
5. Certification by a CEMILAC.

And many sub-tasks under each major tasks.

And don't know status of the 50 Astra production?

Nor did the weapons mandrins in IAF agree to order more Astra!!!
After the March 2019 FizzleYa attack, first priority should be to ensure a better missile is ready for use in 18 months.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 25 Jun 2020 04:27

basant wrote:Even I wonder at times about the same. Lower fuel burn, much higher thrust, both dry (30%) and wet and hence better range, payload and more agility. It would also provide more electrical power, useful for AESA radar. Lesser hassel compared to Mk2 to realize. Would be interesting to compare expected metrics of GE414 in Mk1A wrt Mk2. :)

The 414 will use more fuel than the 404. The slightly higher SFC will be more than offset offset by the demands of the higher thrust generated by the engine. It would most certainly negatively impact range/endurance since the Mk1A has the same fuel capacity as the Mk1. Integrating the 414 in the Mk1A does not make sense. There would be changes needed to the air-intakes and electrical systems. Testing time necessary would be much greater as well.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 25 Jun 2020 10:13

nachiket wrote:The 414 will use more fuel than the 404. The slightly higher SFC will be more than offset offset by the demands of the higher thrust generated by the engine. It would most certainly negatively impact range/endurance since the Mk1A has the same fuel capacity as the Mk1.

I am not advocating for 414 in Mk1.A, just wondering. Also, 414 has 10% higher thrust with a penalty of weight about 3% weight (IN20 vs IN6). To me it should increase range, not the other way round.

To quote:
The new engine has increased thrust, an improved thrust-to-weight ratio of 9:1 and a 3- to 4-percent cruise-specific fuel consumption improvement over the F404-GE-400 engine.
...
It has 30 to 40 percent more thrust in the heart of the flight envelope to give the F/A-18E/F the advantage during close-in aerial combat, 25 to 30 percent more thrust supersonically for high altitude air combat intercept missions and over 40 percent more thrust for low-altitude air-to-ground missions where high speeds to and from the target area greatly enhance aircraft survivability.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 25 Jun 2020 10:25

GE404IN20 is improved version with 53.9 kN dry thrust and 89.8 kN wet thrust which is just 8% less thrust than GE414. The switch would have further delayed the project.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 25 Jun 2020 11:03

The inlet of Tejas mk1 is designed for 90 KN . For 98 kn of GE414 you would have to enlarge the inlet along with other modifications due to change in engine which would have delayed the project.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 25 Jun 2020 17:18

^^^
I am not suggesting that Mk2 should be dropped or Mk1.A must have 414. Just wondering what Mk1 airframe would be capable of with 414 (with whatever minimal changes warranted). Yes, it's about 8-10% of extra dry thrust and about 15% wet thrust, but the same has resulted in payload of 6.5T from 3.5 despite additional weight of Mk2 with 4T total AUW increase. My thoughts are academic, and I agree there is no point in continuing the discussion. IAF chose whatever was optimal set of performance metrics from the available set.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 27 Jun 2020 01:37

HOW ABOUT THAT!!! I love this picture. I don't know why :D

Image

From Sanjay Simha!

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 27 Jun 2020 02:10

^^^
Lovely! Makes me feel as I am in the lead with Tejas as wingman! Is it a Su30?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2020 02:26

basant wrote:^^^
I am not suggesting that Mk2 should be dropped or Mk1.A must have 414. Just wondering what Mk1 airframe would be capable of with 414 (with whatever minimal changes warranted). Yes, it's about 8-10% of extra dry thrust and about 15% wet thrust, but the same has resulted in payload of 6.5T from 3.5 despite additional weight of Mk2 with 4T total AUW increase. My thoughts are academic, and I agree there is no point in continuing the discussion. IAF chose whatever was optimal set of performance metrics from the available set.



It will be a redesign. In that case better go for Mk1A and on to Mk2.

During mid life upgrade can consider that.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jun 2020 02:43

basant wrote:^^^
Lovely! Makes me feel as I am in the lead with Tejas as wingman! Is it a Su30?

It is a Su-30 and a fantastic picture indeed. Gorgeous!

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3632
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 27 Jun 2020 02:52

IR sir is it even possible to bring up LSPs and PVs to IOC-FOC standard? I believe there are 4 PVs and 8 LSPs and this already makes about a good half squadron if not more. I understand each one of these were built to different standards however, if there is action these 12 birds can definitely help. Also it makes sense for ADA to upgrade them to final IOC or FOC build standard if MoD sanctions some money so that the border situation notwithstanding they have latest and the greatest internals for the birds for further testing.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 27 Jun 2020 05:10

Indranil wrote:HOW ABOUT THAT!!! I love this picture. I don't know why :D

Image

From Sanjay Simha!


So beautiful!

Because it is SO rare to see air to air shots of the Tejas. And I firmly believe it is so much more elegant in the air than it is on the ground, which is where we see 90% of it's pics.

Even the twin seater looks very elegant in air to air shots, which are super rare. The only ones I've seen so far are the ones that Vishnu Som posted on Keypubs forum after his flight in a twin seater.

Looking for the higher res version of this image

Image
Last edited by Kartik on 27 Jun 2020 05:23, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 27 Jun 2020 05:16

Su-30MKI + MiG-21 Bison combo eventually replaced by Su-30MKI + LCA Tejas MK.1/A combo. Former pairing have been highly successful in air combat; LCA would bring in more modern capabilities.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 27 Jun 2020 16:49

HVT tweet
Smiles
@nishthavaan

@hvtiaf sir, could (modified) Tejas Mk1 with F414 (ie, first version of Mk2 with just 0.5m plug) have got supercruise ability? Gripen demonstrated already such an ability, so was wondering why the capability was not a priority.

+

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Replying to @nishthavaan

Yes.
Mirage-2000 goes supersonic in dry power. Gripen is similar, without any stores or fuel tanks.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 28 Jun 2020 08:50

^^^
Even a Hawk AJT can go supersonic in a shallow dive.

“Super cruise” doesn’t mean a thing unless it can used in a combat mode.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 28 Jun 2020 10:16

srai wrote:^^^
Even a Hawk AJT can go supersonic in a shallow dive.

“Super cruise” doesn’t mean a thing unless it can used in a combat mode.



As a thumb rule, Super cruise is used to get there and get back faster (while expanding more fuel than subsonic cruise and less than afterburner), while actual combat doesn't preferably occur in cruise, super or not.

Of course, lots of exceptions..depending upon fuel, duration, tactical scenario etc

Probably a terminology issue..but still.. getting to your combat area from station keeping obviously matters. You probably meant with combat stores ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 28 Jun 2020 10:22

higher super cruise with required payload, and max possible combat radius are all inversely proportional to each other.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Julian_Bashir and 33 guests