This guy SEn Guptha is a serial liar,
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3545138702780178046&postID=2757552678142069869
All canards are active. Neither the Tejas Mk1 nor the LCA (Navy) Mk1 in weaponised modes fulfill the agility reqmts (especially sustained turn-rates) as mandated in the ASQR & NSQR.
ADA has already testes a canard version of tejas in wind tunnel and discarded it as it offered no tangible improvement for the weight and drag penalties it imposed considering IAF's ASR is the official statement which is true. cranked delta does the same vortex generation job of canards with no complex force coupling issues and additional weight penalties so they went with it after detailed wind tunnel study.
Saying that since SAAB, DAssault and EADS went with canards so it is the best , is misleading. Because they did not have large compound delta wings of tejas and their specs are not given in hot indian climate where higher temp saps ten percent of engine thrust and ten percent of wing lift.
Some on please post what is the detail of the ASR and the date on which issued?
Reality is When Aero DG tamil Mani talks about ASR of tejas , he says it is 1994 ASR.
Tejas PD was closed in 1989 itself, So there is no surprise in Tejas mk1 falling short on a few parameters of the much revised 1994 ASR , which was once again revised in 2004 (for WVR missile launching stress capability) leading to FSED- phase-2. This guy simply paints it as if tejas fell short of the original 1984 ASR!!!
If you keep on revising requirements as the project progresses there is no surprise in the end product failing to meet a few parameters.
That's the very reason why the Tejas Mk2 & LCA (Navy) Mk2 projects are being undertaken.
Wrong as usual, tejas mk2 started primarily as Navy's need to offset the additional weight penalty of carrier landing, then Airforce also joined seeing the benefits of bigger version is the commonly accepted fact, because it was navy which first funded the mk2 program with 900 crores and IAF joined only later.
Not only that, all that has been taken up so far as far as their R & D efforts go concern only the cockpit avionics updates. No one is willing to go on record about the far more daunting airframe redesigns.
cheap lie. Any one who has seen NP-2 with levcons, extra fairings and bulge behind the cockpit would have known that detailed airframe redesign has already crossed the advanced stage. Only guptha is blind to the fact.
And that is because the IAF & IN have both mandated that IRST should be incorporated & secondly, agility should be enhanced by reducing aerodynamic drag.
AFAIK , what emerged from posts of multiple posters in BR and Key publishing tejas threads , IAF or Navy hasn't yet asked for IRST , thats why still there are no plan for IRST in tejas mk2, They all clearly claim that the removal of 150 KG ballast and lengthening of the fuselage gives enuogh weight and space margins for IRST and other equippments.
And recently Aero DG tamil mani has disclosed that tejas mk2 airforce version will have 95 percent of tejas mk-1's drag after the CEMILAC prescription of increasing the fuselage length to reduce the drag is carried out!!! So we can clearly see that no big drag savings can be had in tejas mk2. And all the tall claims of excess drag in tejas in just BS.
And this can be done in only two ways: incorporation of active canards (& not LEVCONs) & if that's not possible, then incorporation of thrust-vector control nozzles.
canards about canards once again. he blissfully claims that more than twenty percent increase in the power of GE-414 will have no effect on tejas mk2 close combat specs, which is wrong.
The reason why there are no LEVCONS or canards in IAF version is they want to keep weight increase as low as possible to achieve 9G and higher turn rates,
Adding more stuff will defeat the purpose.Even navy Mig-29 is rated only for 8gs . SO Navy has no problem with extra weight of LEVCONs, landing gears and drag from newer fairings keep the naval tejas limited to 8G since most naval fighters are limited to 8G. But it wont be acceptable for Airforce.
Thats why there is only minimum change in Airforce mk2 tejas with no canards,lesser fuselage lengthening of only 0.5 meters, no levcons, no newer fairings for landing gears to free space for extra fuel,because the aim of naval tejas mk2 and IAF tejas mk2 are vastly different.
And the latter isn't possible since GE Aero Engines hasn't developed such TVC nozzles for the F414 family of turbofans. So, the only option now left on the table for ADA is to incorporate active canards & this in turn will require the MRCA's fuselage to be stretched & when this happens, then wing cord/ wing area too will have to be increased.
Fuselage stretch is only to reduce drag by 5 percent , not with the aim of adding canards or levcons for the all important IAF version. ANd already wing area was increased to keep the same wing loading. So whatever needed structural changes were already done.
This, ultimately, will result in a totally new airframe design that will require comprehensive flight-testing for airworthiness certification purposes—a process that will take almost 4 years to complete. So, if the first of 3 Mk2 prototypes is rolled out between 2018 & 2020, then SP-series Mk2 will start rolling off from HAL no earlier than 2025, & FOC-status will be achieved only three years later in 2028.
mk2 won't follow the TD first PV later and LSP after that. It will follow built for SP model straight away and SU-30 MKI was inducted with no IOC, FOC and english manuals on a silver plate given to IAF by russians. And already 100 F-35s are in USAF with not even an IOC.
It was the green field nature of tejas mk1 and stringent objection from IAf which led to tejas mk1 project being made to tow the time consuming TD-PV-LSP- model from antiquated jag production line. mk2 will have brand new high tech tejas mk1 production line and established vendor chains for quicker program realization. And any delay can easily be offset by ordering additional tejas mk1 fighters.
And that was precisely the reason why this time at the expo no one from ADA or the IAF or IN was even willing to talk about the Mk2 variants. This being the state of affairs, even the mere mention of the AMCA would appear to me to be grossly blasphemous, although the DRDO honchos openly stated during the expo that they once again wanted to opt for imported turbofans for the AMCA!!!
Stupid piece of logic, Airframe redesign for mk2 was already visible on NP-2 of tejas so what is the need to talk? And already ADA has clearly said that mk2 of IAF wont need any detailed redesign(even the air intake is proposed to be increased by 10 mm only in dia) . SO there is no point in inventing new conspiracy theories on tejas mk2 by blaming ADA for not talking, when all the aims of tejas mk2 listed out by Senguptha are infact his own speculations.
If Tejas Mk1 is 'good', then why the IAF has agreed to take only 40 of them? Why does it now want a radically re-designed Mk2? And why only from the third SP-series Tejas Mk1s will all the IAF's Tejas Mk1s conform to the specified manufacturing standard? What's then missing from the first & second SP-series Tejas Mk1s? And FYI, the only missile programme that's so far delivered on time & on cost is the BrahMos-1. All others are running far behind schedule.
because mk2 is availbale when 40 tejas mk1 production ends there is no need for IAf to order more. And if there are delays ordering an additional tejas mk1 squadron doesn't require the approval of pakistani PM perhaps!!!!
And once again mr. Sen gupthe is radically redesigning IAF tejas mk2 only in his dreams, because as per ADA other than increasing the engine power to meet 9G and higher turn rates and adding 0.5 meter to gain 5 percent lesser drag figure there is no radical redesign in IAF tejas mk2.
SP-1 and SP-2 were already part made before IOC-2 , and they will be handed over for tactic development to IAf. SO-3 onwards will come from the newer production line and conform to even FOC standard(IAF has given orders fro 20 IOC-2 tejas mk1 and 20 FOC tejas mk1!!!!). So IAF is going to get 36 FOC compliant tejas . why complain?
he ven lies that TR modules and every thing else in tejas mk1 MMR was from Israel and only atena from India,
but there are tons of materials available to show that TR modules of Tejas mk1 MMR was built in india and only the back end processor (that too for the inabilit to finish air to ground mode on time) is from Israel.
Thats why when some one counters Guptha with comments like,
On your comment regarding LCA Tejas's problems, I read this comment in one forum:
"Even tejas mk1 was not seen flying with its top AOA limit of 26 Deg and 8 plus G limits in any flying limits.
its extreme flight envelope is not yet fully opened.
And even within 6G and 20 Deg AOA limit of AeroIndia 2013 it completed a vertical loop within 21 seconds.
Ask Prasun SenGuptha what will be the thrust to weight ratio of tejas mk2 after GE-414 and what is the wing loading and G limit, AOA limit of tejas mk2 after GE-414 ?
And let him compare those figures with contemporary fighters and then we will see what agility problem remains."
I am wondering who is right here? On one hand, there are recorded interviews of all Tejas pilots, Suneet, Maolankar and others who say that its a great plane. On other hand, IAF's stalling methods say that something is missing in the picture.
What do you say? What is Tejas? is it really MiG 21+++ or Equal to Mirage - 2000? Where is the capability? Finally, when BVR age is dominant, why would you be so concerned with its agility?
He dumps even more stupid lies!!!!
To SUBIR BHATTACHARJEE: Firstly, what's shown during air shows are aerobatics, not air combat manoeuvres. Therefore, extreme flight manoeuvres are never exhibited duri8ng such events. Secondly, aerobatics are flown by aircraft in clean formation & not in weaponised configuration. Therefore, doing vertical loops in 21 seconds or 20.5 seconds is just immaterial. As for parameters like wing-loading, G-load, AoA limit etc etc, these are just figures asked by adolescent fanboys. In air combat, what matters most is the instantaneous turn rate, sustained rate, climb rate, pitch rate & roll rate—all this when carrying weapons. Has anyone to date from ADA or the IAF released any such figures? Has any foreign OEM from the West, Russia or China released any such figures for their MRCAs? Such figures can't be extrapolated from aerobatic manoeuvres performed during air shows. Nor will experimental test-pilots reveal such figures for obvious reasons. Agility still matters when dissimilar air combat engagements involving gun-versus-gun scenarios.
If he can not explain why tejas mk1 with 20 deg AOA limit and 6G limit could complete a vertical loop within 20 seconds in clean config despite all the talk of massive shortfalls in performance "as alleged by many of it's detractors", he can choose to keep quiet rather than giving such dubious info as response.
Parameters like Thrust to weight ratio, wing-loading, G-load, AoA limit etc etc define what is instantaneous turn rate, sustained rate, climb rate, pitch rate & roll rate—all this when carrying weapons and while not carrying weapons,
Btw tejas has the lowest wing loading of all fighters in IAF this factor combined with TWR determines the all crucial Instantaneous Turn rate ,(excelled by Mirage-2000
and even in mk1 tejas is "atleast equal to 45 million dollar per plane updated mirage-2000" is the award winning test pilot and IAF group captain Suneeth krishna's authentic claim).
This crucial factor is not only in useful in gun fights alone, When fighters close in for dogfight with WVR missiles the fighter with higher Instantaneous Turn Rate will get the first lock and fire solution for its high off bore MHS enabled missile like R-73 on the enemy fighter. This is no trivia that can be dismissed so easily as the guy does it so casually.
All Instantaneous turn rates, Sustained turn rate AOA and G limits published in spec sheet is only in clean config . If the fighters are loaded with similar ratio of external weapons compared to their weight , they will occupy the same space in the ranking which they occupy in clean config ITR, STR tables.
Because Instantaneous turn rates, Sustained turn rate AOA and G limits are meant only for with in visual range WVR missile and gun fights .
Fighters enter the WVR after firing their long range BVR missiles and droping ground bombs and external fuel tanks. No fighter pilot in his sane mind will try to evade enemy BVR with his heavy external fuel tanks and ground weapon while he tries to pull max Instantaneous turn rates, Sustained turn rate AOA and G .
The time taken to complete a vertical or horizontal loop in clean configuration is a measure of the fighter's agility. Thats why they are displayed in airshows giving a true measure of the fighter's ability to the viewers.
There is no need for any aeronautic expert to ask for max Instantaneous turn rates, Sustained turn rate AOA and G with various configuration. These vary according to atmospheric conditions like humidity, temp and height from sea level.
temp in bangalore is close to 30 Deg and it is close to thousand meters above sea level. it is a known fact that STR, ITR will decrease with increase in altitude. In the same way increase in temp will also lead to close to ten percent reduction in both wing lift and engine thrust in indian hot atmospheric conditions compared to the same manouvres pulled by foreign fighters at airshows abroad in sea level altitude and less than 20 deg temp.
Airshow displays are the fanboys is the guy's claim. then can every other fighter do what SU-30 MKI did at airshows away from the airshows?
Prasun Sengupta mentions that LCA MK-1 has problems in agility and even after changing engine to GE F414, this problem will not improve. In fact, only solutions, as per him, are major modifications in the aero structure itself. He mentions the need for either canards or TVC in the engine which is missing in F414. I am wondering why Tamilmani is not talking about it? He can also look at other engines with TVC.
SO if we apply the logic in reverse by remove the rafale's two 75 Kn engine and replace them with two 50 Kn engine agility, Sustained turn rate , Instantaneous turn rate, G limit, AOA , max take off weight will not change perhaps!!!! canards will take care of everything perhaps!!!!
The reason for the higher STR and ITR of rafale and Typhoon is due to their higher TWR, which directly relates to its high powered lower weight engines. Not all due to canards as eggsputrs often falsely allege. The job of canards(generating flow energizing vortex to delay stall at high AOA, allowing the fighter to have more energy level sat higher AOA) is done by lower swept wing leading edge of tejas in the form of compound delta.
Canards also act as extra control surface. To compensate for the absence of canards tejas has bigger after wing control surfaces compared to gripen.
So how come Tejas mk2 will not enjoy such an advantage if lower powered GE-404 is replaced with higher powered GE-414 engine/ Strange pieces of logic!!!!
Then even without TVC Rafale has very close combat specs compared to typhoon . How?
Govt rules for tejas mk2 engine clearly suggest L1 should be selected . SO it will be tough for any one to side step that.
it is often a tried and tested line to argue for ever that without TVC Eurojet engines and canards tejas won't be fit for IAf in mk1 or mk2. But if we ask how come tejas with 6G limits and 20 Deg AOA restrictions and lesser powered GE-404 engines can complete a vertical loop in Aeroindia 2013 within 20-21 seconds, that too at 1000 meters above sea level and at temps that are over 10 deg higher than noraml temp in airshows abroad,,,,,, all the blah, blah tumbles out to confuse every one!!!!
this is the tactic called throwing stones to hide your hand, mostly displayed in NEWSHOUR with Arnab, by all the political commentators!!!!
Prasun Sengupta mentions that LCA MK-1 has problems in agility and even after changing engine to GE F414, this problem will not improve. In fact, only solutions, as per him, are major modifications in the aero structure itself. He mentions the need for either canards or TVC in the engine which is missing in F414. I am wondering why Tamilmani is not talking about it? He can also look at other engines with TVC.
@ersakthivel or
@Kunal Biswas any clarification on this issue?
Who told Prasoon Senguptha that only canards will fulfill the agility requirement?
Does that mean J-31 is a step down on agility requirement from J-20?
Or
Adding a canard to FGFA and F-35 will increase their agility requirement?
If only canards can fulfill agility requirement why did Russians dropped it in SU-35 and gave it a higher thrust engine than Su-30 MKI for agility requirement?
Won't this way work for tejas mk2 also?
And who told Prasoon Sen guptha that tejas mk1 costs 52 million dollar each?(with ground infra he says it will go up to 7o million dollar plus)!!!
HAL says it costs 26 million dollar per plane. ADA says it is about 30 million dollar.
