ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[SajeevJino]

So your analogy says 1 Rafale can carry the load of 3 Tejas and can be in air 3 times that of 1 Tejas flight..

It's Proved in Mali .and Last Long Flight to Reunion Island

I am not interested in childish barbs and dont want to get into Rafale and Tejas comparison further as this thread is to discuss all about Tejas development.. My last post was only to address benefit of IAF owning indigenous Tejas in place of Rafale.

Like we comparing Hummer and TATA Nano

 

[brahmastra11]

Fools were using same analogy like Hummer and Tata Nano for Sabre vs GNAT ..

If you say Tejas like Tata Nano, may god bless you.

It's Proved in Mali .and Last Long Flight to Reunion Island



Like we comparing Hummer and TATA Nano

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

.Just for info, Rafale was tested up to near mach 2.1. Operating speed and max aerodynamic speeds are different things. Its loading can be higher than 9500 Kgs, even with full internal fuel. Etc. Why do you always forget range btw.

Plz notice i didnt say anything bad to Tejas.

rafael was tasted at mach 2.1 in cool condition of france I think
.
in cool condition aircraft can fly at higher speed
.
.
tejas have range of 3000 and in real battle radar ,rcs,design etc is more important than range and payload
.
for long range scenario we have su30mki

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

If with Tejas ..Three Pilots ,Three Hangers , more amount of Fuel , More No. of Engines and Missiles .More No of Ground Crews ..More Operating costs

If comes Rafale 75% of Savings

just sometime ago you were saying about payload and now you say about a fighter should carry less missiles!
.
three tejas costs 81 million and 400 will cost 10.8 billion
.
so nearly 10 billion is saved by induction of 3 tejas instead of 1 rafael
.
in rupees it will be 660 billion
.
mirage upgrades cost is 45million a fighter , just think what we will have to pay for rafael
.
on other hand because of open architecture we can change the systems any time we want in much lower cost like later mk1 will be fitted with aesa
.
so simply tejas is all economical than any fighter in world and its not economic only act a true warrior ,a true multirole

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

It's Proved in Mali .and Last Long Flight to Reunion Island



Like we comparing Hummer and TATA Nano

tejas is 4.5 gen fighter and not a tata nano
.
tejas is better than f16 ,gripen cd,
.
even better than mirage
.
don't you want to say iaf having a fighter that's even inferior to tata nano
.

 

[ersakthivel]

If with Tejas ..Three Pilots ,Three Hangers , more amount of Fuel , More No. of Engines and Missiles .More No of Ground Crews ..More Operating costs

If comes Rafale 75% of Savings

Its been clarified so many times that for the cost of one rafale we can have 2 tejas mk-2s(which will have much better top speeds and 5 ton weapon load with much hihger range than mk-1) and one su-30 MKI which is an unbeatable combo in any situation .

 

[laughingbuddha]

In bizzaro world there is a similar thread. It is called JF-17. According to them, it is also the best warplane ever built.

FYI I too think Tejas is a good aircraft in its class.

 

[ersakthivel]

It's Proved in Mali .and Last Long Flight to Reunion Island



Like we comparing Hummer and TATA Nano

Your comparison has nothing to do with the technical discussions , reality on the ground ,or going to add any value this thread.

we are comparing technical specs . This is not an autocar show or top gear show, If one rafale take on 2 or 3 tejas mk-2s in close combat it is a fair fight. With both having the same range n ASEA radar and same BVR missiles, with same loads and same aerodynamic profiles,So it is a fair fight not Nano VS Hummer as you portray it to be.

It will be same as two gripen NGs vs one rafale. Will you also call gripen NG a TATA nano? I know you won't. Some people are trolling non stop in threads across many forums that tejas has drag does not mean it is a Nano.

In sea level the lesser power to weight ratio tejas mk1 has almost got the same top speeds of rafale which has twenty percent more thrust to weight ratio than tejas.

Why is that the Nano and Hummer having same topspeeds at the same conditions?

 

[ersakthivel]

In bizzaro world there is a similar thread. It is called JF-17. According to them, it is also the best warplane ever built.

FYI I too think Tejas is a good aircraft in its class.

In some even more Bizarre worlds,

people alway claims that one rafale can beat one Su-30 MKI + 2 tejas mk-2 or one rafale can beat three tejas mk-2s .

So it is not just good in its class. it can do what its users wanted it to do.

 

[ersakthivel]

it is good to see retired naval pilots going completely mad on tejas,

he says since tejas the engine can't be started till the pilot is fully strapped up and the ladder removed since air intake is positioned at the sides!!!!,
then where are the intakes of rafale and grippen? They too are on the sides. The same thing applies to them also. According to this gentleman all fighters should have air intakes at the nose(shall we put the asea radar in the tail?) to scramble fast!!!

Large wing is good for cruise as in gliders. for fighters, more than the wing size, its CL which is important

So compared to su-30 MKI PAKFA is a glider, and compared to F-16 , F-22 is more of a glider perhaps,

Who told this guy larger higher swept wing can not have bigger Cl max?

Compared to lesser sweep angled wing of F-16 (which has a much higher TWR),

the higher wing sweep angle Mirage-2000(even with lower TWR) ,

has a much better instantaneous turn rate ,a trait rated very highly by retired greek air force chief himself , who said this higher instantaneous turn rate of Mirage-2000 due to higher sweep angle lower wingloading tail less delta design enables Mirage-2000 to have a first look and lock to shoot advantage over F-16 in any dog fight, which will mostly be fatal for F-16 in the trained hands of Mirage-2000 pilto who can exploit this trait of mirage-2000.
captain Suneet krishna , the most prominent test pilot of tejas has already said that take offs are sharper in tejas than Mirage-2000 , indicating better lift. he is saying on record that tejas mk-1 itself is at least equal to upgraded Mirage-2000. But retired naval pilots seem to have a very different view!!!
Whose word can be taken at face value, the test pilot on the tejas or the one who never piloted tejas?

gripen C/D has only 80Kn thrust while LCA is found wanting even with 90KN,

i have posted hundred times that tejas mk-1 achieves the same sea level top speed of grippen C/D in demanding indian hot weather conditions, So where is the short fall?

max take off weight of grippen c is not very different from tejas mk-1 so where is the huge 25 percent advantage of canard delta design?

and so now needs 98KN engine which is nearly 25% higher than what Gripen c/d has, does this not prove my point.

since this engine is available , it was choosen, nothing else,

naval test pilot of tejas has gone on record saying that this new engine requirement was first put forth by NAVy as tejas mk-1 itself satisfies most of IAf needs, it was navy which wanted this higer powered engine for the higher empty weight naval tejas , And IAF just added it to their list.

Gripen was tested in the most gruiling indian conditions just like all other fighters of MMRCA and it fully met all parameters but was rated lower.

Grippen was chosen over rafale in various other tenders also. And IAF is yet to release the various performance of specs of the MMRCA contenders in indian hot weather conditions. It sill keeps it as a secret. WHY?
Note all the MMRCA contenders are also very silent on what the top specs achieved by their fighters in MMRCA trials?
No one has gone to down with claims of my fighter did this and that in hot indian conditions.
Why?

Gripen NG will have same engine and thrust levels as LCA MK2 but it will carry 7 tons of load while MK2 will be restricted to 5 tons. Which means that even with 25% higher thrust, Mk2 will be lower in perf compared to old Gripen C/D.

we would wait to know how much NG lifts in max take off weight in indian hot weather indian conditions?

LCA needed to dive down in a shallow dive from 4k feet off Goa to be able to hit a speed of 1350Km. It has never been able to do sustained 1350kms at sea level ever. Even 1.5 Mach at 15k meters was with just 2xR73s.

It took a powerless dive, not a dive with full wet thrust.

F-22 has a sweep of 42*, so does Su-30/27/35, rafale/gripen/EFT have 45% and Pak-fa has 46.5* sweep. If ADA was correct about LCA wing, than all these guys who selected lesser than 50* sweep are idiots!!

Why did they choose higher wing sweep than F-16 for F-22?

Only fools decide on wing sweep angles looking at some other fighter's design. R&D people decide on wing sweep by taking into account ASR. They wanted to better the Mirage-2000 ITR.That was the reason for the wig sweep of tejas and compound delta wing form comes from F-16 XL's proven wing form .

They did not go to tarot card reader for deciding wing sweep.

LCA shud be compared with only M2k as they have similar designs but different wings with very little diff in wing area. A cursory look at these two ac will show very clearly that even LCA mk2 will not be able to match the performance figures of M2K ever in any department even with 98KN engine. Be it speed, load, AOA or range.

The Mirage 2000 features a low-set thin delta wing with cambered section, 58 degrees leading-edge sweep angel, which clearly impressed IAF enough , so IAF asked for 124 Mirage-2000s after kargil war, which is now the MMRCA tender.

comparing anything with anything must be done in a fair manner.



After kargil war IAF did not ask for a lesser wing sweep Mig-29 .

It asked for higher wing sweep Mirage-2000 with 58 degree leading edge sweep,

Then Why ADA is hauled over the coal for the higher wing sweep for Tejas.

Was all the2000 (low wing loading high sweep leading edge) Mirage-2000s bought all over the world are for gliding or fighting?

Were IAF and Dassault bloody fools as per the retired naval pilots?

 

[SajeevJino]

just sometime ago you were saying about payload and now you say about a fighter should carry less missiles!

I never said about """fighter should carry less missiles! """ .Don't Put Words into my Mouth
.

three tejas costs 81 million and 400 will cost 10.8 billion
.
so nearly 10 billion is saved by induction of 3 tejas instead of 1 rafael
.
in rupees it will be 660 billion

Up keep Costs ...?
.

mirage upgrades cost is 45million a fighter , just think what we will have to pay for rafael

Irreverent here in ADA Tejas Thread .You are freely to contribute it in Dedicated Mirage 2000 thread
.

on other hand because of open architecture we can change the systems any time we want in much lower cost like later mk1 will be fitted with aesa

We already Discussed it ..Isn't
.

so simply tejas is all economical than any fighter in world and its not economic only act a true warrior ,a true multirole

Disagreed ..It's not enough for this Modern World

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

@SajeevJino
.
why should I post reference of mirage in thread of mirage if it is related to tejas
.
what I mean is rafael will cost more and more after its purchase
.
we can have much bigger numbers of squadrons instead of 126 rafael
.
carrying more missiles is a good thing eg.
rafael can carry 14 missiles and 3tejas will carry 21. so more number of kills
.
one tejas carries 3 bvr so 3 tejas can carry 9 bvr while 1 rafael will carry much lesser

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The comparison was about Singular Unit VS Singular Unit ..

Don`t troll over the thread ..

If with Tejas ..Three Pilots ,Three Hangers , more amount of Fuel , More No. of Engines and Missiles .More No of Ground Crews ..More Operating costs

If comes Rafale 75% of Savings

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Please Gents, Stick to Tejas updates and News ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Home-grown Astra AAM

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) said in a statement that the missile test had met all its mission objectives by proving successful separation from the Su-30. The test also proved the indigenously developed data link, onboard computer, inertial navigation system, and the fibre-optic gyroscope.

The DRDO began developing the Astra missile as an all-weather missile in the same class as the Denel R-Darter, Chinese LY-60/PL-11, and MBDA IRIS-T missiles. It exhibits elements of both the French-built Matra R 530D and the Russian Vympel RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') designs.

The Astra is a single-stage solid-propellant missile that is 3.57 m long and 178 mm in diameter, with a 154 kg launch weight and a 15 kg conventional explosive payload. It has active radar terminal guidance, electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), and smokeless propulsion.

The missile has been designed to be capable of engaging high-speed targets at short range (up to 20 km in tail chase mode) and long range (up to 80 km in head-on chase mode). At sea level it has a range of up to 20 km but could have a range of 44 km from an altitude of 8,000 m and 80 km if launched from an altitude of 15,000 m.

A Mk II variant of the Astra with a range of 100 km could be tested by the end of the year, he said. The DRDO previously said the Mk II would have a new dual-pulse solid rocket motor that it is claimed would more than double the missile's optimum range to 100 km.

Source : India successfully tests home-grown Astra AAM - IHS Jane's 360

============================
@ersakthivel, Must read this ..

 

[ersakthivel]

see It's already discussed with relevant Explanation of Rafale Mirage and Jaguar capabilities against Tejas


What I understand By Reading DFI and Some other Forums Gather Knowledge from Experts and My own analogy

Tejas is Something whose range is nearly 700 km or 40 min with two 1200 ltr Drop Tanks with Some Normal Payloads of 2 A2A Missiles and 2 500KG PGM's

Those who are all saying cranked Delta , It can stand against F 16 ,Gripen ..two MK 1 Defeat rafale all are

Please continue such Matters here ..where i don't want to bring down the quality of the Thread

Thanks mate ,

fuel fraction is the critical factor in deciding range the of a fighter plane, not fancy specs given by makers,

If you only get official IAF answers regarding each MMRCA contender's

maximum take off weight in hot and humid indian summer conditions,

STRs and ITRs achievedin hot and humid indian summer conditions,

range with what weapon load in what altitude in hot and humid indian summer conditions,

their top sea level speed in indian hot weather conditions ,

and compare it with tejas mk-1s spec ,

you can get an objective view on the facts before you,

Do you know that IAf has given the above info in sealed covers to the respective MMRCA fighter makers with an oath that it will never reveal them openly.

Please explain why such a clause was put forth in the MMRCA tenders,

And please note that none of the MMRCA contenders have gone to down with what each and every one achieved in indian humid hot weather conditions?

It would have been a great PR material to publish them. Why are they not doing it and asking IAf to keep quiet about it?

Please go through how the hot and humid or arid atmosphere conditions do to engine thrust and other extreme specs like top speed to any fighter.

That will reveal more than what you believe in my or any body else's claim.

Those Guys Put Your Expert on their Ignore list

but I will not ignore their wrong claims on tejas in this thread or any other thread.

And I will continue to give factual replies to their irrelevant nonsense with irrefutable stats to show their true worth in the way they deserve,

What will be more entertaining for me is they will try to counter me with even more irrelevant nonsense and ultimately will be caught with their pants down,

Like some jockey guy whose bluff is being called right now, His irrelevant nonsense about fighters with 58 and more degree wing sweep are useless has blown on his face,

by my reminding him gently that IAF wanted to buy the 126 of the same higher 58 degree , RSS fly by wire ,low wing loading ,tail less deltas, large wing area, even lower TWR, Mirage-2000 as late as 2004.

At that time IAf did not want to buy lower wing swept angle, lower wing area, high wing loading , non RSS ,high TWR, non delta fighter like Mig-29 which he praises sky high.

And it was the refusal of the NDA govt to be not sucked into allegations of corruption in a single vendor deal which transformed the 126 mirage-2000 deal into MMRCA tender.

Why even a few years ago IAF wanted to buy used mirage-2000 from Qatar, and just now spending close to 40 million dollar per fighter to upgrade the same higher 58 degree , RSS fly by wire ,low wing loading ,tail less deltas, large wing area, even lower TWR, Mirage-2000 , which some jockey guy says is useless.

higher 58 degree , RSS fly by wire ,low wing loading ,tail less deltas, large wing area, even lower TWR, Mirage-2000 mirage-2000 has a much better top speed than the later era high TWR delta canard like rafale which is extolled by the guys. Why?

If same higher 58 degree , RSS fly by wire ,low wing loading ,tail less deltas, large wing area, even lower TWR, Mirage-2000 is draggy how come mirage-2000 has a much higer topspeed than rafale?

 

[halloweene]

If same higher 58 degree , RSS fly by wire ,low wing loading ,tail less deltas, large wing area, even lower TWR, Mirage-2000 is draggy how come mirage-2000 has a much higer topspeed than rafale?

I'm getting tired to try, but compare their engines specs.

 

[ersakthivel]

I'm getting tired to try, but compare their engines specs.

Mate ,

these posts are not aimed at you or either superiority of mirage over rafale or rafale over mirage,

i know very well that every fighter design is unique and designers choose the most optimum design to suit the ASR,

Mirage-2000 had a different role to fulfill and rafale has a different role to fulfill,

So it is only natural that they have different aerodynamic lay out , and wing sweep angles.

I was aiming at few mudheads posing as experts in some forums across the border and a namesake forum, posting BS without understanding all the unique requirements of a fighter design and continue to dump BS on tejas with baseless claim.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

I'm getting tired to try, but compare their engines specs.

truly sir that's the point ,speed or range doesn't make a fighter better
.
its rcs,hmds,radar,ew suite, makes it war capable
.
many said t90 is powerful and arjun is accuracy that's why arjun beated t90
.
but if its was who looks at accuracy and all that , a kill is a kill
.
similarly who looks at range, speed (1.6 mach is enough), payload ( 5-6t enough) etc.
.
rcs,hmds,ew suite, radar etc are the important things
.
though one deep strike fighter is needed which have range and payload and for that we have su30mki

 

[halloweene]

i was not talking about that, but compression rate, dulution rate etc. M53 was originnally designed as to be a mach 2.5+ engine, not M88 (much better fuel efficiency etc.)