ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Defcon 1]

MK1 can carry three ASHM, KH-35 as originally planned and Harpoon in future..

those missiles will be carried by NLCA mk 2 kunal. no source for integration into mk 1. NLCA mk 1 will be used for training only.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

When some one saying LCA with KH-35, It should be abundantly clear it was mentioned about NLCA , As long as you are human it should be fine with you..

Give a read or ask, you are not aware of the Indian tejas program well, It was from beginning Tejas are suppose to conduct anti-ship role..

Regarding training, MIG-21/29, Mirage 2000 are all for training, Anyone told you they are specific for training is wrong as these Aircrafts are equipped with Radar and weapon avionics, You can check again as there are no official declaring for these jets for training only as specified in your post..

those missiles will be carried by NLCA mk 2 kunal. no source for integration into mk 1. NLCA mk 1 will be used for training only.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Wing load capacity and fuel tanks >>

Official specs and posters..

 

[Defcon 1]

Regarding training, MIG-21/29, Mirage 2000 are all for training, Anyone told you they are specific for training is wrong as these Aircrafts are equipped with Radar and weapon avionics, You can check again as there are no official declaring for these jets for training only as specified in your post..

I have read sources saying it will be used for training only.

This is one of them

Broadsword: Navy, eager for Tejas, placing orders for 8 naval fighters

Naval aviators can train on the Tejas Mark I, which is powered by the General Electric F-404IN engine. But only Tejas Mark II fighters, powered by the more powerful F-414 engine, can take off from aircraft carriers. The F-414's additional power is essential for getting the fighters airborne in a runway length of just 200 metres, which is all that an aircraft carrier offers.

I have also read the same from better sources, however i don't have time to find out more. You can find out more sources by yourself.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am follower of this blog, But cannot take his words here, the words are not official again...

If that was so ,NLCA MK1 would never put into picture with previous engine..

I have read sources saying it will be used for training only.

I have also read the same from better sources, however i don't have time to find out more. You can find out more sources by yourself.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Air to Air Missile >>

 

[p2prada]

Guide me if any Errors ..Thanks

Some incorrect terms and typos.
GsH should be GSh and AShm should be AShM.

Python is "WVR," but is is mostly intended for Mk2. For Mk1 it is R-73. It cannot carry anything else. Only 2 R-73s will be carried.

R-77 won't be part of LCA.

Astra will be 44Km, as we know from the new releases. So it is at Derby's class. 4 can be carried, same for Derby. Astra Mk2, we will know when it is ready.

KH-31 versions we have are ARM versions, not AShM. We don't yet know if it will be part of LCA program. Same with KH-35.

1500 Kg bombs will not be part of the LCA. Neither will 1000 Kg bombs. Only 500 Kg and lesser.

Three fuel tanks will be carried. 1200 L, 2x 800 L.

So as of today, 3 fuel tanks, 4 BVR, 2 WVR, 5 500 Kg LGBs and supporting pods, in different combinations. Anything else, we may have to wait for LCA Mk2. While LCA Mk1 is carrying bombs it can only carry 2 WVR missiles.

 

[ersakthivel]

I think that was 1200 litres to be exact. Don't exactly remember. If somebody remembers please post it here.

There was a problem with datalink between tejas and missile I think, Russians were not ready to give us source codes (read this all a long time ago, sorry for the rusty memory). Only our russian aircraft use russian missiles, we can't integrate them with other aircraft.

It is only IAF which is going to form 40 MK-1 fighters in their fleet. By the time HAL finishes the IAF orders naval Tejas mk-2 versions will be ready. Only due to the excess weight to be added on Tejas for carrier landing requirements navy is ordering more Tejas mk-2s. And naval tejas mk-1 will be used to radically cut short for the development of Tejas mk-2.

Naval Tejas mk-1 is as important as naval tejas mk-2 from the developmental perspective.

tejas has already fired a russian misslie R-73 in trials. And radar computers, weapon release software and mission computers of Su-30 is ours. In fact Russain airforce is buying 64 sets of the mission computers and radar computers along with weapon stores management software from HAL for their SU-30s to fire their air to air missles.

SO India already has the ability to fire any russian missile from indian made radar computers and mission computers.

SO Tejas is capable of using all available russian air to air missiles in IAF inventory, There is no way Russians can stop this. And there is no data link problem in LCA.

In all test flight programs the norm is test the air to ground role first and then go for the air to air role. That is what has been followed on Tejas as well.

Thats why the most demanding 8G turns and max speed max AOA specs are going to be tested closer to FOC.

 

[ersakthivel]

With the use of multi ejector racks as many BVR or WVR missiles can be carried on Tejas along with bombloads and external fuel tanks to the limit of it's weapon carrying capacity and it's range.

So if more bombs need to be delivered across longer ranges requiring external fuel tanks then more number of fighters will be deployed.

If conformal fuel tanks are designed it will free up more hard points as per the mission requirement.

So there is no such limit as only 2missiles when carrying bombs. It is a practice world over in all airforces across all fighters.

And mk-2 will have the interface to carry meteor 120 km range missile built into it from the design phase itself.

Also by 2020 the light weight Astra mk-2 with 120 km range will be available for tejas mk-1 as well.

Since Akash mk-1 is to be carried on Tejas mk-1 , it goes without saying that the 120 km range Akash mk-2 too will be carried on the Tejas mk-1. Already Tejas's wings were reinforced to carry higher launch stree higher range, higher weight BVRs in 2004 in FSED-2.

SO all Tejas versions will have top of the line 120 km range BVRs available to them in service along with ASEA raadrs by 2020.

 

[SajeevJino]

Guide me if any Errors ..Thanks

@ersakthivel.Sir your views on this Graph ..and Pls Guide me for the 6 BVR and 4 BVR and TWO drop tank

 

[Defcon 1]

I am follower of this blog, But cannot take his words here, the words are not official again...

If that was so ,NLCA MK1 would never put into picture with previous engine..

Ok I will give u better source

Navy backs Tejas with Rs 900 cr | Business Standard

P S Subramaniam, the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency, which coordinates the LCA programme, explains: "We will fly the Naval LCA with the current GE-404 engine to test its flight characteristics, and whether its structural strength is sufficient for aircraft carrier operations. After the LCA is fitted with a new, more powerful engine we will take the next step of operating from an aircraft carrier.

I hope this is official enough for you. One shouldn't make statements like "You are not well versed with the Tejas project", when one doesn't have sufficient info.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Read your link again, there is nothing you talking about in the article and still does not qualify your previous post..

"We will fly the Naval LCA with the current GE-404 engine to test its flight characteristics, and whether its structural strength is sufficient for aircraft carrier operations. "

I don't read anything declaring that NLCA MK1 wont be used for carrier operations, It will be tested weather MK1 will able to commence carrier ops after testings, MK1 is meant for Anti-ship role from very beginning..

As said, read the thread or web and dont post conclusion with half or no knowledge and certainly dont post for argument winning sake..

I hope this is official enough for you. One shouldn't make statements like "You are not well versed with the Tejas project", when one doesn't have sufficient info.

 

[Defcon 1]

Read your link again, there is nothing you talking about in the article and still does not qualify your previous post..



I don't read anything declaring that NLCA MK1 wont be used for carrier operations, It will be tested weather MK1 will able to commence carrier ops after testings..

As said, read the thread or web and dont post conclusion with half or no knowledge and certainly dont post for argument winning sake..

Kunal it clearly says that NLCA will be operated from carrier only after fitting a new engine. What does mean according to you? To me it means that NLCA mk1 will be restricted to shore based test facility, which is for training & certification only.

I am not trying to win any argument here. The fact that NLCA mk1 will be used for training only is common knowledge. It has been discussed on this forum itself. I was surprised to see that you didn't know about that.

I also asked a question to you regarding it a few months ago. Leave it anyways, I am not in the mood to fight.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Read the previous post, It clear words..

There are NLCA MK1 and MK2 , The above is for MK1 and it is presently undergoing modification to have capability to land carrier also take off, where as MK2 wont have such issues with powerful engine..

If someone suggested you that MK1 with such modification is suppose to operate from shore is unaware or lack knowledge or self styled expert about NLCA design itself..

It would good if you dont go for argument winning..

Kunal it clearly says that NLCA will be operated from carrier only after fitting a new engine. What does mean according to you? To me it means that NLCA mk1 will be restricted to shore based test facility,

I am not trying to win any argument here.

 

[Defcon 1]

Read the previous post, It clear words..

There are NLCA MK1 and MK2 , The above is for MK1 and it is presently undergoing modification to have capability to land carrier also take off, where as MK2 wont have such issues with powerful engine..

If someone suggested you that MK1 with such modification is suppose to operate from shore is unaware or lack knowledge or self styled expert about NLCA design itself..

It would good if you dont go for argument winning..

Kunal I am still not able to get you. Are you saying that NLCA mk1 is currently not fit for carrier operations, but after integrating the above components, it will be fit for carrier operations? which of the equipments you quoted produced more power, the basic issue with NLCA mk1

The equipment you posted above will integrated with NLCA mk1, yes, but it will be used at SBTF, as SBTF itself comes with arrester wire and is shorter than normal airstrips.

Again, the issue here is not that whether NLCA mk1 cannot take off from a carrier or not, but can it take off with proper operational weight? Anyways, this is my last post on this topic. I have got work to do. Ciao

 

[ersakthivel]

Kunal it clearly says that NLCA will be operated from carrier only after fitting a new engine. What does mean according to you? To me it means that NLCA mk1 will be restricted to shore based test facility, which is for training & certification only.

I am not trying to win any argument here. The fact that NLCA mk1 will be used for training only is common knowledge. It has been discussed on this forum itself. I was surprised to see that you didn't know about that.

I also asked a question to you regarding it a few months ago. Leave it anyways, I am not in the mood to fight.

whatever fighter that is fit enough to be operated on shore based facility , is supposed to be fit enough for carrier operations.

I guess that is why people are developing naval tejas mk-1 for that to be tested on shore based landing with the landing strip simulating the exact slope and length of the carrier, with arrester hook and strengthened under carriage.

What thew ADA chief was saying by the time IAF order of 40 tejas mk-1s are produced as a first priority , naval MK-2 will be almost ready for operation.

So naturally navy will go for Tejas mk-2 for it's carrier as it will offer substantially more capacity.

but this cannot be construed as naval Tejas mk-1 is not fit for carrier operations. it will be fully capable of carrier landing . But since it's more capable version naval tejas mk-2 will arrive hot on the heels of naval tejas mk-1, it won't be substantially produced to play a bigger combat role.

most of the time it will be used to train pilots. And in war time it will be capable of carrying out naval combat duties if situation demands.

So please don't say that the tejas mk-1 in it's naval version was unfit for carrier landing.

if it is unfit for career landing why is ADA developing it before the development of naval tejas mk-2?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Read the link you provided to me, Read that carefully i wont need to reply you then, but since you are not so..

Yes, NLCA MK1 presently cannot do carrier ops due to overweight of landing gear which is presently under modifications, Read the thread you will find Navy waiting ADA for MK1 second flight with lighter landing gear for carrier ops..

Kunal I am still not able to get you. Are you saying that NLCA mk1 is currently not fit for carrier operations, but after integrating the above components, it will be fit for carrier operations? which of the equipments you quoted produced more power, the basic issue with NLCA mk1

 

[Defcon 1]

Read the link you provided to me, Read that carefully i wont need to reply you then, but since you are not so..

Yes, NLCA MK1 presently cannot do carrier ops due to overweight of landing gear which is presently under modifications, Read the thread you will find Navy waiting ADA for MK1 second flight with lighter landing gear for carrier ops..

You miss the point again. The issue is not only with the landing gear. The issue is also with the shorter runway of the carrier. An aircraft with maximum stores capcity of 3.6 tonnes will not able to take off with 3.6 tonnes when it is using a shorter runway. So the actual weight that the aircraft will carry will be much lesser and this will make it unsuitable for carrier ops. This problem will only be solved with a better engine.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel.Sir your views on this Graph ..and Pls Guide me for the 6 BVR and 4 BVR and TWO drop tank

With a combination of multi ejector rakes and future development of conformal fuel tanks a versatile combination of Russian , Western and indian Astra versions can be carried on both the Mk-1 and mk-2.

And if in a decade's time K-10 development is completed when the Tejas mk-1 comes for re engine cycle, then it will carry a lot more with that light weight more powerful K-10. Since this powerful engine will give a much higher MTOW for tejas mk-1 a lot may change.

So We will have to wait for it's full development to complete and whether any conformal fuel tanks are going to be introduced with side hard points to know how many missiles and bombs can be carried out in how many pylons.

Right now it can be safely said that it will carry as much as the Mig-29 carries when it's induction matures in IAf and most fighters in the crucial air to air role are not expected to carry more than 3.5 tons. So it will be more than enough capavity for tejas in that crucial role.

Since we have RAFALE and SUKHOIs in hundreds it won't be called on for Deep penetration strikes . And for close air support strikes on the border it will do the strike cum air to air role with same efficiency as a latest model F-16 can do. Since it won't be required to carry three external fuel tanks in that role and lot of hard point will be free for missiles.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

As i said read the thread, " You will find Navy waiting ADA for MK1 second flight with lighter landing gear for carrier ops.. "

You miss the point again. The issue is not only with the landing gear. The issue is also with the shorter runway of the carrier. An aircraft with maximum stores capcity of 3.6 tonnes will not able to take off with 3.6 tonnes when it is using a shorter runway. So the actual weight that the aircraft will carry will be much lesser and this will make it unsuitable for carrier ops. This problem will only be solved with a better engine.