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

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Apr 2018 09:59

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.

5 wet hard points! Wonder what the ferry range will be with all 5 external tanks?
1 x 725l
2 x 1200l
2 x 800l

I think it was 1700km ferry range with 2x 1200l tanks.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Apr 2018 09:59

One hopes the positive feedback from the field percolates to the IAF Plans and Ops Directorates.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Apr 2018 10:02

Has the Air Force version ever been seen with fuselage centreline drop tanks or stores? Only the Navy version with longer undercarriage has been seen with a centreline drop tank.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Apr 2018 10:15

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2018 11:25

srai wrote: I think it was 1700km ferry range with 2x 1200l tanks.

The ferry range is much more than 1700 km with 2X1200l tanks.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2018 11:31

tsarkar wrote:Has the Air Force version ever been seen with fuselage centreline drop tanks or stores? Only the Navy version with longer undercarriage has been seen with a centreline drop tank.

AF version can take 725 ltr tank on centerline. I was a little peeved with who designed a cylindrical tank on the centerline which can carry so much more weight. I mean look at F-16's centerline tank! The answer I got was that they want to first get qualified tanks, which is a task in itself. I agree that getting a qualified tank is not a small task, but I am not convinced that this incremental approach helped much.

If you see there studies on supersonic centerline tanks, you will see that they are going for oval cross sections now. Therefore, I expect that they will eventually develop an oval tank for the centerline with over 1000 ltr capacity. It is a very low hanging fruit.

Meanwhile, the supersonic tank has cleared all trials. Flight trials will start shortly.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 04 Apr 2018 11:40

IR Sir - is pylon reshaping slated for MK1A or MK1?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Apr 2018 11:52

Thanks srai & IR! I now look forward for a Jaguar loadout of eight 450 kg bombs on the Tejas + Litening & CCAAMs

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2018 12:12

Tsarkar sahab, Tejas can carry up to seven 450 kg bombs. The centerline cannot carry two bombs in tandem.

Suryag, pylon reshaping, once completed, can be retrofitted to both Mk1 and Mk1A.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Apr 2018 12:24

tsarkar wrote:Thanks srai & IR! I now look forward for a Jaguar loadout of eight 450 kg bombs on the Tejas + Litening & CCAAMs

Bachhe ki jaan loge kya Sir ji..?

On a serious note, how far Jaguar can go with such load out in lo-lo-lo mission..? I am thinking how would LCA compare with Jaguar in terms of range with same load and mission profile.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2018 12:33

does the F solah carry the oval pregnant spider centerline tank on A2A missions?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/417920040402675602/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2018 12:35

the fabled loaded out of 8 x 1000lb and no drop tank.
combat radius will be pretty low imo maybe 250km ?
this loadout will need A2A escorts and maybe punisher mode assault on some easy targets which are being swarmed and attacked from all directions...so go in with all you can cart and release downrange

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 04 Apr 2018 12:37

Sorry am a little math challenged(lets say challenged in all aspects), there are 4x1000lbs, if the pylons carrying drop tanks can carry similar 4x1000lbs in tandem config and if there is one more under the belly carrying 1x1000lb, shouldnt the entire loadout be 9x1000lbs(4000Kg) + 2xCCM + 1xLDP, is this even possible? Thinking about a case where we have the refuelling capacity enabled, the aircraft takes off with this on light fuel load and then once it reaches altitude gets refuelled by a tanker and then proceeds to the target area. Wow!!!! more than Jag and that rust bucket Mig27, as in tamil ad "kanna innoru laddu thinna aasaya ?"

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Apr 2018 12:43

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Thanks srai & IR! I now look forward for a Jaguar loadout of eight 450 kg bombs on the Tejas + Litening & CCAAMs
Bachhe ki jaan loge kya Sir ji..?

On a serious note, how far Jaguar can go with such load out in lo-lo-lo mission..? I am thinking how would LCA compare with Jaguar in terms of range with same load and mission profile.

450 x 8 = 3600 +
105 x 2 = 210 +
220 Litening
Comes to 4030 kg.

Both Jaguar or Tejas will have reduced range with this profile but useful in emergency situations. I hope they're able to work out a dual rack on the centreline but really not much real estate there. And for some reason, we never explored side by side dual or triple racks.

GE F-404 is much more fuel efficient than Jaguar Adour and airframe more aerodynamic. For the same load, the Tejas should go further.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2018 12:44

refueling by tankers is a mirage saar with a paltry 6 , and them will be needed to refuel the awacs and any long duration C3I/ELINT platforms.

the numerically high punisher class loads I have seen is around 26 x 100kg on a flanker, with room left for 2 AAMs

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2018 12:49

the F15E kicks it up another notch with 3 columns of pylons under the belly taking advantage of the width of the CFTs, all the way to the tailpipe.
if they were went with russi/indian style small OFABs of the above 100kg type must be some ungodly number like 30.
they are also fond of double & triple rack pylons

just like a desi "line bus" or a "holdall" we used in the old days of long train journeys, there's always room for more....even if 3 kids have to stand on it and jump up and down to make it close.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Apr 2018 12:57

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:
Bachhe ki jaan loge kya Sir ji..?

On a serious note, how far Jaguar can go with such load out in lo-lo-lo mission..? I am thinking how would LCA compare with Jaguar in terms of range with same load and mission profile.
450 x 8 = 3600 +
105 x 2 = 210 +
220 Litening
Comes to 4030 kg.

Both Jaguar or Tejas will have reduced range with this profile but useful in emergency situations. I hope they're able to work out a dual rack on the centreline but really not much real estate there. And for some reason, we never explored side by side dual or triple racks.

GE F-404 is much more fuel efficient than Jaguar Adour and airframe more aerodynamic. For the same load, the Tejas should go further.

You have answered it yourself. Not much space there for such arrangement. Weight is not obviously an issue. I believe LCA in current avatar could go upto 5T in best situations (SL, lower temps, longer runways etc). And even if they manage to put it on, LCA would be severely restricted (size really help here, even few centimeters could be crucial). We may yet see those kind of heavily loaded configs though in future. Past 2025 may be when ADA is bit free from work load of MK2.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Apr 2018 13:02

Air Marshal Rajkumar's radio interview Feb 2017. Pliss watch for 3-4 minutes from here
https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=171

10 minutes ago I saw "Wings" on WION featuring Tejas: They said : 3500 kg weapon load, 500 km radius. Jingo khush hua

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Apr 2018 13:53

shiv wrote:Air Marshal Rajkumar's radio interview Feb 2017. Pliss watch for 3-4 minutes from here
https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=171

10 minutes ago I saw "Wings" on WION featuring Tejas: They said : 3500 kg weapon load, 500 km radius. Jingo khush hua

Not bad for a 3 legged cheetah.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 04 Apr 2018 15:59

The video link has Philip Rajkumar say 4ton payload over 300 km radius.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 04 Apr 2018 16:07

Trikaal wrote:The video link has Philip Rajkumar say 4ton payload over 300 km radius.

So on A to A cap role the Radius will be much higher and will be able to match the Brochure claims of the Gripen.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Apr 2018 16:22

Aditya_V wrote:
Trikaal wrote:The video link has Philip Rajkumar say 4ton payload over 300 km radius.
So on A to A cap role the Radius will be much higher and will be able to match the Brochure claims of the Gripen.

I don't think anyone can match Gripen brochure claims. Simply because they are utterly ridiculous. They are like ARAI milage numbers for cars and bikes. Only in simulations and lab testing under highly idealized conditions the numbers are achievable and real life performance is far from the numbers.

There is some Marketing material somewhere on internet comparing Gripen NG with F35. IIRC Gripen out ranges F35 in that for CAP missions with radius of like 1500km (or some such very high and utterly unbelievable number) and 3+hr on station time in some other profile.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Apr 2018 16:34

SAAB can get away with that to some degree because they are a monopoly supplier in their domestic/home nation and don't have pushback from others within that construct when they make these outlandish claims especially since I don't think the Swedish government puts out anything even remotely comparable to the non classified requirements documents, or US style Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR) for major weapons programs which cover things such as "demonstrated radius", "anticipated radius", and the objective and threshold numbers to see whether those were met or not. SAAB and other OEMs have taken these "USAF/USN/USMC configuration data" and overlaid it against their "best-case" brochure numbers to show superiority. I had seen one chart where SAAB compared the Gripen-E (which was a paper project at that time (around 2014)) Air to Air combat radius with the USAF specified F-35A KPP which specifies combat radius for the strike mission carrying two 2,000 lb bombs and missiles....But most serious and interested parties can look past that as they seek verified data (from host nation operator rather than OEM) or verify it themselves through demonstrations and evaluations.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Apr 2018 19:50

Singha wrote:the F15E kicks it up another notch with 3 columns of pylons under the belly taking advantage of the width of the CFTs, all the way to the tailpipe.
if they were went with russi/indian style small OFABs of the above 100kg type must be some ungodly number like 30.
they are also fond of double & triple rack pylons

just like a desi "line bus" or a "holdall" we used in the old days of long train journeys, there's always room for more....even if 3 kids have to stand on it and jump up and down to make it close.

Check out quad launcher

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2018 20:28

16 AAMs

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2018 20:44

tsarkar sir,

Carrying two 450 kg bombs in parallel is not a viable solution on any aircraft AFAIK. Too much drag and encroaches onto the space of the nearby pylons. I have wondered (and asked) about dual carriage of 250kg SDBs. They will certainly have dual pylons for A2A missiles.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 04 Apr 2018 22:53

Wall of F15s = bristling with AAMs onlee. With tanker support.

SAAW is carried in quad packs. 250kgs on a pylon with two abreast and tandem. On my mobile, so forgive me for not finding your old post of SAAW launcher tender. But do your remember it's dimensions? Can it be carried in the centerline station? If not, anywhere else without compromising adjacent hardpoint.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Apr 2018 23:17

JayS wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
So on A to A cap role the Radius will be much higher and will be able to match the Brochure claims of the Gripen.
I don't think anyone can match Gripen brochure claims. Simply because they are utterly ridiculous. They are like ARAI milage numbers for cars and bikes. Only in simulations and lab testing under highly idealized conditions the numbers are achievable and real life performance is far from the numbers.

There is some Marketing material somewhere on internet comparing Gripen NG with F35. IIRC Gripen out ranges F35 in that for CAP missions with radius of like 1500km (or some such very high and utterly unbelievable number) and 3+hr on station time in some other profile.

Exactly. Gripen brochure claims are just that- bogus brochure claims. the Swiss discovered that when the Gripen C reached bingo fuel well within Swiss airspace itself, which if the brochure figures were right, should have been no problem at all. the largest distance from east to west in Switzerland is ~350 km, but the Gripen couldn't make that intercept mission as it reached bingo fuel status before that itself.

So that makes it clear that in operational scenarios, the Gripen C's range is likely NO BETTER THAN that of a Tejas. Physics only.

Gripen E obviously outranges it significantly since it carries so much more fuel internally. And so, there is a chance that the IAF may ask for Gripen E like fuel on board the Tejas Mk2. Which would then mean getting empty weight of ~8000 kg, like the Gripen E.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Apr 2018 23:56

The gall of the Swedes is that they were making these ridiculous claims when the Gripen E wasn't even flying yet. Just compare that to the Tejas case where we still lowball every official range and payload value. Indranil said above that the ferry range with 2 1200l tanks is more than what is commonly claimed and we are left figuring out from pictures that the Tejas is carrying more payload than what its max claimed payload is. Why? After so many attacks on the poor aircraft from vested interests there needs to be pushback on the marketing front. Especially when whatever you are claiming is the absolute truth and it is still impressive.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Apr 2018 00:11

Kartik wrote: Gripen E obviously outranges it significantly since it carries so much more fuel internally. And so, there is a chance that the IAF may ask for Gripen E like fuel on board the Tejas Mk2. Which would then mean getting empty weight of ~8000 kg, like the Gripen E.

What are the internal fuel numbers for Gripen E? I haven't seen anything, other than a 40% number thrown around (Unsure gripen model it is being compared against!). If I am right, then they are comparing it to the two seat gripen model that has the least amount of fuel. Given saab's marketing history. I would go with that. so 40% more than 1900-2000 kgs is not that impressive. we are looking at 2800 kgs of fuel at max.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Apr 2018 06:08

2x2 pylon for sdb

https://goo.gl/images/Go4uys

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2018 06:30

In time, you will see quad racks for SAAW family integrated with LCA. I was speaking of this dual racks for two 500 lb PG bomb on same pylon.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 05 Apr 2018 07:00

Cybaru wrote:What are the internal fuel numbers for Gripen E?

3400 kg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Apr 2018 08:21

shiv wrote: https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=171

This is an interesting shot from this tube

pravula · Post by **pravula** » 05 Apr 2018 08:37

How so?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Apr 2018 09:00

Per wiki, the hardpoints #1,2 & 7 can carry the drop tanks.
The hardpoints 3 and 4 in addition to the above center points can carry "KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs" which is 1500kg each.

That means we have 1500 x 5 hardpoints capability. I'm not talking about total payload with F414 that comes in Mk2.

Just doing some paki logic

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Apr 2018 13:58

SaiK wrote:Per wiki, the hardpoints #1,2 & 7 can carry the drop tanks.
The hardpoints 3 and 4 in addition to the above center points can carry "KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs" which is 1500kg each.

That means we have 1500 x 5 hardpoints capability. I'm not talking about total payload with F414 that comes in Mk2.

Just doing some paki logic

Havan't they already qualified all five of above hard points for EFT now...? I think they did.

And as far as logic goes for total payload, Stockholm is not too far from Lahore..

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 05 Apr 2018 21:15

Was looking into Mig29 , For a lay man like me the weapon carry capacity looks near to 4tons similar to LCA .Is my naked eye correct ???

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Apr 2018 22:45

The external drop tanks of all capacities have different certification process as far as aerodynamic, flight control system, stores management system or store separation procedures are concerned. They pose different challenges. The fuel system ensures the integrity of these drop tanks from sequencing point of view keeping in view of the C.G management aspects. Even though the robust flight control system handles perturbations, it is the individual system designer's challenge to mitigate all possible risks involved in the process.
Here we dedicate this image of KH-2014 taxying out with the Centrline Drop tank for a test sortie, to all the designers starting involved in the process along with the instrumentation engineers who provide data to prove and improve the system.

from the Tejas LCA FB page

titash · Post by **titash** » 06 Apr 2018 00:19

Kartik wrote:

Interesting pic...looks like the tank being so far forward might interfere with the lightening pod during separation if not during carriage. If so, the centerline tank might be for air defence config only, freeing up all 6 wrong stations for AAMs