ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[dumdumdum]

When will the next Tejas model be handed over to the IAF?

In 3 days and 10 days is what we heard more than a month back. It seems Tejas is endangered by HAL's inability to deliver more than any Videshi SE fighter.

 

[Babloo Singh]

@ersakthivel

I am assuming that 0.5 fuselage plug-in will increase the fuselage length. Again, this will shift the Centre of Gravity. Which way, that is something worth finding out.

Guess What......
Kaveri is 341 cm long where as GE 404 & 414 both are 391 CM long.....
By using Kaveri we get equivalent of 0.42 plug in by default..... :bounce:

 

[pmaitra]

Guess What......
Kaveri is 341 cm long where as GE 404 & 414 both are 391 CM long.....
By using Kaveri we get equivalent of 0.42 plug in by default..... :bounce:

Don't count your chickens yet. What if Kaveri ultimately meets the requirements and in doing so, increases in size/length?

 

[Babloo Singh]

Don't count your chickens yet. What if Kaveri ultimately meets the requirements and in doing so, increases in size/length?

Well GE 404 & 414 both being exact 391... gives hope that Kaveri can be improved without any change in length,
As I have said before... amazing things can happen if we get Safaranized Kaveri working, in fact most of LCA decisions are help of awaiting outcome...
Lets hope for the best

 

[TPFscopes]

@TPFscopes

Yes, now that you mention Naval-LCA has least ballast, and couple this with a heavier landing gear, this makes me wonder, would that not push the Centre of Gravity aft thus increasing the probability of a deep-stall?

NLCA has LEVCONS as a feature over AF LCA, the LEVCONS are meant to give NLCA more control at carrier landings and at lower speed, . And specially, this shift in CG help it in maintaining the angle if approach while carrier landings. Anyways, ASAIK NLCA has the most aerodynamic design between all three (LCA-AF, NLCA , LCA-Trainer).

Those who have confusion in NLCA , should watch this video.

in fact most of LCA decisions are help of awaiting outcome...
Lets hope for the best

Not really, they are waiting for FOC and amazing things will happen if LCA achieved its FOC.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lets not confuse between IOC and FOC versions, true capability is what IAF has drawn for it, That should be considered ..

Actually, LCA MK1 is as much a strike fighter as the Jaguar and as vulnerable against enemies as well, the IOC verion even more than the Jag, since the gun and the Python V missiles will come only the FOC.
Jags and LCA share load similarities, because they have comparable numbers of weapon station, with the only advantage of LCA being the dedicated pod station. But when it comes to defending itself, while being in strike config, both are highly limited, since they can't carry BVR missiles and have to carry a SPJ pod on 1 hardpoint, which leaves just a single WVR missile. So no matter if we send Jags or LCAs, escorts fighters are unavoidable.

LCA has fired Derby BVR. So, don't go into IOC version technicality. Certification is for useless people. What is needed is the ability. LCA has shown this. Just because it was not certified, doesn't mean it is unable to fire BVR.

Next, pods are kept in the side of fuselage and doesn't necessarily use a hardpoint. I too initially thought that a hardpoint is wasted, but it is not so. Pods are small and can be fitted under alternative locations. Jaguars don't have load similarity except officially. Jaguar has 50kN engine (2 engines of 25kN) while Tejas has 90kN engine. By what logic do you expect similar loading? Number of hardpoint is not everything.

So, LCA MK1 can actually protect itself and deliver the payload effectively. Also, you forgot the maneuverability part. Jaguar is hopeless in it. Tejas has good maneuverability and hence can evade attacks to a good extent.

@TPFscopes why validate Python-5 when Derby has been validated? Is it necessary that all brands of AAM must be validated before use to ensure compatibility? Is the same procedure also needed to validate Python-5 on Su30 too? Or is it especially for Tejas?

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes it does, because flight testing or just making some test launches, doesn't mean the missile is fully integrated and can be used in war scenarios. That's why the FOC is so important for the LCA programme, because it gets LCA to the capability level, to take over A2A roles of the Mig 21, even if flight performance will remain limited.



That depends on the fighter and on the pod itself. The Elta SPJ pods IAF uses, are always integrated on a weaponstation and we already know that IAF complained about that, which is why this was proposed as a solution:

A standard guided strike load for both fighters would be:

1 x LDP
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb LGBs
2 x WVR missiles (1 if you add the SPJ pod)

Both have no hardpoints for BVR missiles left, which leaves them with the minimum self defence capability, 1 or 2 WVR missiles.

Just one single question I want you to answer,

Just after mere 6 test flights, The first Gripen fighter went into serial production jigs.

Of these six test flights, one ended in a crash.

Also the second production gripen version crashed again.

You want me to believe that ADA is incapable of adding WVR, EW, BVR, gun to the first 20 IOC tejas mk1s,

While SAAB managed all for gripen even after two crashes??

Comparing jag to tejas is height of ignorance.

Let's compare the STR, ITR of Tejas & jag to know that this comparison is a joke.

All IAF Tejas mk1s(whether IOC 1 or IOC2, or FOC) will be qualified in future to fly with multi ejector racks that can accommodate LGBs, WVR missikes,EW, litening pods, BVR missiles ,

all in a single sortie
as a true multi role fighter.

Making mid board pylons wet & getting multi ejector racks that can accommodate LGBs, BVR missiles in one pylon is no rocket science for people who mated brahmos with su 30 mki.
The first 20 tejas mk 1 ,IOC fighters will all be retrofitted with these capabilities, because these involve no deep airframe structural changes.
Comparing tejas with jaguar just shows the ignorance of the person doing it.

 

[Kshithij]

Yes it does, because flight testing or just making some test launches, doesn't mean the missile is fully integrated and can be used in war scenarios. That's why the FOC is so important for the LCA programme, because it gets LCA to the capability level, to take over A2A roles of the Mig 21, even if flight performance will remain limited.

That depends on the fighter and on the pod itself. The Elta SPJ pods IAF uses, are always integrated on a weaponstation and we already know that IAF complained about that, which is why this was proposed as a solution:

A standard guided strike load for both fighters would be:

1 x LDP
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb LGBs
2 x WVR missiles (1 if you add the SPJ pod)

Both have no hardpoints for BVR missiles left, which leaves them with the minimum self defence capability, 1 or 2 WVR missiles.

When you are worthless, you become Theoretically worthy by getting certification. As I said, just because certification hasn't been done doesn't prove anything.

The side weapons can be Astra BVR. Unnecessarily Branding a BVR as WVR to satisfy your ego ruins the mood. Only those who are mentally unsound use WVR-exclusive missiles. Medium ranged AAM like Astra can also act as WVR. Do you know of any WVR used by USA? Why do you think they don't need it?

 

[TPFscopes]

The side weapons can be Astra BVR. Unnecessarily Branding a BVR as WVR to satisfy your ego ruins the mood. Only those who are mentally unsound use WVR-exclusive missiles. Medium ranged AAM like Astra can also act as WVR.

Its like using a sniper instead of a simple gun.. which makes its costlier and incapable. Generally BVR have Inertial and Radar guidance whereas WVR have IIR.

No additional hints required....

Do you know of any WVR used by USA? Why do you think they don't need it?

Have you heard about AIM-9 Sidewinder.....

 

[Kshithij]

Its like using a sniper instead of a simple gun.. which makes its costlier and incapable. Generally BVR have Inertial and Radar guidance whereas WVR have IIR.

No additional hints required....

Have you heard about AIM-9 Sidewinder.....

Ok, WVR may be required in addition to BVR. But, he was unnecessarily stating that there is no place to hold BVR. He wanted to create an impression that Tejas can't carry BVR. So, I lashed out against him.

Expecting to carry 4 AAM missiles - 2WVR and 2BVR in 4 hardpoint and still delivering payload is a bit excessive

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If anyone has questions regarding payload of Tejas in different roles under its specified combat radius ..

Refer to this chat which is official, Its old but relevant ..

 

[TPFscopes]

Ok, WVR may be required in addition to BVR. But, he was unnecessarily stating that there is no place to hold BVR. He wanted to create an impression that Tejas can't carry BVR. So, I lashed out against him.

Expecting to carry 4 AAM missiles - 2WVR and 2BVR in 4 hardpoint and still delivering payload is a bit excessive

When your are heading for battlefield support, there is no need to have BVR on-board..
Do not mix the roles...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I think, he said that such configuration is feasible,

If you read the chart then you can notice, Air-superiority role has :

2 x BVR
2 x WVR
2 x drop tanks
1 x air2ground munition ( Which is missing here at mock up )

Here is a mock up of Tejas at AERO INDIA ..

When your are heading for battlefield support, there is no need to have BVR on-board..Do not mix the roles...

 

[Sancho]

You want me to believe that ADA is incapable of adding WVR, EW, BVR, gun to the first 20 IOC tejas mk1s

What you believe is up to you, but it's the facts that matters!
The gun was tested on the ground as far as I know, we already saw reports about integration problems of Python V, Derby integration just started..., while the production and delivery of the first 20 is already going on. So the issue is not if they get these capabilities at a certain point, but that they don't have it now.

Comparing jag to tejas is height of ignorance.

Comparing the strike config of a multi role fighter, to the one of a strike fighter is wrong, but praising the turn rates of LCA compared to the same strike makes sense?

If you would look at it more realistically, you would understand, that being able to offer the same strike load as the Jag is actually an achievement for the LCA programme and even is good for IAF to increase the numbers of fighters for CAS missions, in areas where air superiority is achieved.
The problem however is, that LCAs prime role is air defence and so far it lacks all the necessary capabilities to do the job until FOC was achieved.

 

[Kshithij]

What you believe is up to you, but it's the facts that matters!
The gun was tested on the ground as far as I know, we already saw reports about integration problems of Python V, Derby integration just started..., while the production and delivery of the first 20 is already going on. So the issue is not if they get these capabilities at a certain point, but that they don't have it now.



Comparing the strike config of a multi role fighter, to the one of a strike fighter is wrong, but praising the turn rates of LCA compared to the same strike makes sense?

If you would look at it more realistically, you would understand, that being able to offer the same strike load as the Jag is actually an achievement for the LCA programme and even is good for IAF to increase the numbers of fighters for CAS missions, in areas where air superiority is achieved.
The problem however is, that LCAs prime role is air defence and so far it lacks all the necessary capabilities to do the job until FOC was achieved.

The concept of strike fighter jet itself is bad. If the fighter jet doesn't even survive till the payload is delivered, what is the point? If air superiority is already achieved, why not use Boeing 747 modified to carry hundreds of heavy payload? Do you call such jets as fighter jets?

When your are heading for battlefield support, there is no need to have BVR on-board..
Do not mix the roles...

One does not carry 2 LGB for battlefield support, if I am right. We would replace that with probably 4 BVR in rack of 2 each instead of LGB.

 

[Sancho]

The concept of strike fighter jet itself is bad. I

True, I think any single role fighter is outdated and doesn't fit to modern air warfare anymore, unless you fight Taliban or IS. India doesn't have such a luxury and therfore we need capable multi role fighters.

One does not carry 2 LGB for battlefield support, if I am right. We would replace that with probably 4 BVR in rack of 2 each instead of LGB.

That's possible, as we can see at Chinese fighters for example. The downside is that it might increase weight and drag, which is already an issue for LCA.

 

[Sancho]

This configuration is meant for air superiority..
This is what I said many times that there are various munition requirements for various type of missions.
Weapon configuration always planned according to the mission type.

Planned mission configs =>

 

[Babloo Singh]

NLCA has LEVCONS as a feature over AF LCA, the LEVCONS are meant to give NLCA more control at carrier landings and at lower speed, . And specially, this shift in CG help it in maintaining the angle if approach while carrier landings. Anyways, ASAIK NLCA has the most aerodynamic design between all three (LCA-AF, NLCA , LCA-Trainer).

Those who have confusion in NLCA , should watch this video.


Not really, they are waiting for FOC and amazing things will happen if LCA achieved its FOC.

Yes sir, amazing things will happen to Tejas MK 1 once FOC is achieved...
I am talking about direction Tejas MK 1A & Mk II will take once Safran Delivers on it's part of deal.

 

[ersakthivel]

In a fighter plane center of gravity keeps shifting within a defined limit all the time,

Due to depletion of fuel, weapon release, etc.


In a cutting edge Relaxed Static Stability 4 channel ,all digital fly by wire software operated flight control system like tejas,

The flight computer receives data relating to CG shifts from sensors,

& Operated actuators , to move the control surfaces .

This results in correction of the combined lift forves to counter the CG shift & to keep the plane flying level.
The above scenario is managed by altering fly by wire software for dynamic shifts in CG , during flight.


The same process is followed for a plug in that is permanent shift in CG ,

With alterations to fly by wire software & validation by test flights.

 

[pmaitra]

In a fighter plane center of gravity keeps shifting within a defined limit all the time,

Due to depletion of fuel, weapon release, etc.


In a cutting edge Relaxed Static Stability 4 channel ,all digital fly by wire software operated flight control system like tejas,

The flight computer receives data relating to CG shifts from sensors,

& Operated actuators , to move the control surfaces .

This results in correction of the combined lift forves to counter the CG shift & to keep the plane flying level.
The above scenario is managed by altering fly by wire software for dynamic shifts in CG , during flight.


The same process is followed for a plug in that is permanent shift in CG ,

With alterations to fly by wire software & validation by test flights.

Good explanation. I have one question. What is the source of this information below?

In a cutting edge Relaxed Static Stability 4 channel ,all digital fly by wire software operated flight control system like tejas,