ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
When we were denied technologies for missile, our brains developed them in-house and today we have numerous missiles to our credit.
Indeed! Also when we manage to develop something -- whose equivalents were not even on selling list before--almost sudden becomes available with so-called 100% ToT.

Case in point will be:

A) SAAB offering 100% ToT of Gripen condition we drop plans to develop Tejas MK-2.

B) Russia offering 100% ToT of BMP-3s considering we drop plans for FCIV.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,416
Country flag
Indeed! Also when we manage to develop something -- whose equivalents were not even on selling list before--almost sudden becomes available with so-called 100% ToT.

Case in point will be:

A) SAAB offering 100% ToT of Gripen condition we drop plans to develop Tejas MK-2.

B) Russia offering 100% ToT of BMP-3s considering we drop plans for FCIV.
Gripen has nothing to do with Tejas. Tejas mk2 is smaller by approx a meter compared to Gripen E

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Gripen has nothing to do with Tejas. Tejas mk2 is smaller by approx a meter compared to Gripen E

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
In terms of volume that extra 1 meter does not mean equally larger volume. Tejas is chubbier in the centre while Gripen is as slim as a pencil.

The naval variant of Tejas MK-2 is not that shorter than Gripen E either. It is short by only 0.644 m but has a larger wingspan by 0.3 m. And there is no logical reason for not using this model for IAF as well. Considering the advantage in capability in terms of fuel capacity, combat load and aerodynamic efficiency that Naval MK-2 model has over IAF MK-2 model.



Gripen e.png
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,416
Country flag
In terms of volume that extra 1 meter does not mean equally larger volume. Tejas is chubbier in the centre while Gripen is as slim as a pencil.

The naval variant of Tejas MK-2 is not that shorter than Gripen E either. It is short by only 0.644 m but has a larger wingspan by 0.3 m. And there is no logical reason for not using this model for IAF as well. Considering the advantage in capability in terms of fuel capacity, combat load and aerodynamic efficiency that Naval MK-2 model has over IAF MK-2 model.



View attachment 23258
Their is a big difference bw AF mk2 and Naval mk2, Afmk2 is 13.7mts long, 8.2mts span and 4.4m ht, Naval Mk2 is 14.56mts long, 8.9mts span and 4.64mts height. AF required enhanced performance over current design, not like naval variant. TEJAS MK2 at very best is a light multirole not a medium multirole.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Flame Thrower

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
1,676
Likes
2,731
What the ####

Why not use the same plane for both the roles!!??

@Steven Rogers and @Rahul Singh would you please post the sources of your info and the updated date.

I strongly believe that there is only one version of LCA MK2.

Thanks in advance
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
What the ####

Why not use the same plane for both the roles!!??

@Steven Rogers and @Rahul Singh would you please post the sources of your info and the updated date.

I strongly believe that there is only one version of LCA MK2.

Thanks in advance
IAF MK-2 was thought in 2009. Then it was supposed to be just a re-engined version of present Tejas to meet certain shortfall in performance. On other hand when it was found that present F-404 was simply not enough to meet thrust requirements of NLCA. A separate N LCA MK-2 was launched. This was around 2012-13 onwards. This is the reason why there are two separate models. However today when both models have seen completion of their respective design work and non of the models is under metal cutting stage there is no reason to opt for two separate designs. Earlier it was thought that AF will opt old 2009 concept of MK-2 for saving time and getting it inducted by 2018. MK-1A changed it all. However if AF will opt customised model of present NLCA MK-2 is or not, is not known. Though logic says both AF and Navy should go for same model which should Naval model because it significantly more capable than AF version.
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Their is a big difference bw AF mk2 and Naval mk2, Afmk2 is 13.7mts long, 8.2mts span and 4.4m ht, Naval Mk2 is 14.56mts long, 8.9mts span and 4.64mts height. AF required enhanced performance over current design, not like naval variant. TEJAS MK2 at very best is a light multirole not a medium multirole.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
Yeah there are differences but not as big as one would become Medium category fighter and other remain as Light.

JF-17 is almost 15 m long. Much longer than Gripen C/D. What would you call them comparatively?

Mind you even if AF version goes into service it would be only ~1 m shorter than Gripen E. But will feature chubbier mid section and a larger wing volume. So volume wise it would be only marginally smaller. And since it will fly with same engine as Gripen E the actual difference would be only marginal. Definitely not enough to call them as fighters in separate categories.

Case in point will be Gripen E vs F-16 block 70. F-16 features a far more powerful engine yet it is competing with Gripen E.

'Similarity' is the keyword!
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
'Cause of LEVCONs?
___________________________________________
It's a completely redesigned airframe unlike AF version which has seen inclusion of just a plug to accommodate a larger engine and little more fuel.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Hi @livemint, you’ve probably given people a real scare by using that picture of an LCA Tejas (flawless safety record), instead of the Virus SW80 microlight that tragically crashed.

Paid media and Dalals of Lutians are under extreme pressure from their patrons to tarnish Tejas whichever way possible.

Selection of Tejas as the title pic for an article totally unrelated to Tejas confirms that The LiveMint belongs to the said category.
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
It's a completely redesigned airframe unlike AF version which has seen inclusion of just a plug to accommodate a larger engine and little more fuel.
Question: Does Tejas squadron have 18 aircraft per squadron or 20? What about MiG-21 Bison?
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
Standard full capacity is 20 aircraft per squadron. 18 single seat + 2 tandem seat fighter conversion trainer.
One last question. Does IAF plan to begin retiring MiG-21 Bison from 2019-2023 at the rate of 1 squadron per year or do they plan to retire them all in the same year (2023)?
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
One last question. Does IAF plan to begin retiring MiG-21 Bison from 2019-2023 at the rate of 1 squadron per year or do they plan to retire them all in the same year (2023)?
They will have to retire once a Mig-21 airframe reaches expiry of life of its airframe. If replacements are made in a systematic manner than Mig-21s will be retired one by one. If not then there will be bulk retirement once significant number of Mig-21s have expired their air fram life.

In any case, if type losses sufficient numbers its role in doctrine gets weaken then it is either assigned a new role or simply taken out of service.
 
Last edited:

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,573
Likes
21,018
Country flag
The Mig 21s got reputation in India for 2 things, being "unsafe", but at the same time also being "capable", because of performance, BVR and EW capabilities of that time.

So it's good to have a safe fighter and have faith in the reliability of the engine, but the capability of the fighter is based on war fighting abilities and that's were we still are working on.
very correct. We saw in recent conflict in Middle east how effective Russian planes are. Couple of them may fail but they will be night mare for enemy.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
very correct. We saw in recent conflict in Middle east how effective Russian planes are. Couple of them may fail but they will be night mare for enemy.
If Mig-21 was such a useful platform, one can only imagine how good Tejas would perform with A2G weapons like SANT, SAAW, LGBs and Glide bombs in around border during any conflict with Pakistan and even China. Needless to mention that with A2A weapons all the time it would be defending itself on its own.

Just Keep evolving Tejas........... There is a gem in hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top