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.

biswas_k11

Face to Face
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
92
Likes
35
Country flag
TEJAS five fighter jets are ready at Bikaner airforce Station LSP-03,PV-6,SP-01,SP-02,SP03 for Republic Day Take Off from Bikaner Airforce Station.
 

indiatester

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,915
Likes
20,439
Country flag
Right.

LSP-08 has started flying, means air to air refueling Test started.

It will take some time before actual refueling will happen, but at least it's progressing and probably All Groud Testing successfully completed.
I saw one Tejas in flight near HAL airport a few minutes back. Could it be of LSP08 with IFR? IFR was not visible outside near the cockpit area.
 

HariPrasad-1

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,645
Likes
21,138
Country flag
Problem is that we are expecting too much from this single engine LCA and fail to understand the exact requirement of the IAF and the real purpose of lca.

LCA is the program started to develop the capability to design the fighter plane and develop the indegenous aviation industry, and let indian industry grow to make the sub components and in this process develop a fighter plane which could replace the mig 21, the working horse of IAF. Its been a long road, and its really amazed me that lca survives despite such effort to kill this program. There is no point discussing why lca is delta design, why delta have more drag, why ada develop fighter plane which have limited range, why no cannard etc etc. Because to understand all this we have to search the history and doors of mind open -- like because tailless delta have very less control surface which make it less complicated to developed FBW and short take off and higher lift during take off and to use the mig 21 infrastucture.

now for the iaf, the most dire need is the replacement of the Mig 23, mig 27 and mig 21. when we are saying mig 21 i am not including mig 21 bison for the time being which is due to phrased out by 2024. of this mig 23 have been phrased out, and mig 27 and older mig 21 needs to be replaced. if we look at the roles of these planes, mig 23bn and mig 23 mf were ground attack and interceptor/air superiority respectively. For airsuperiority iaf now have MKI's and mig 29UPG, for interceptor role, the mig's have been upgraded to bison standard and take care of that role for the time being supported by mirrage 2000/2000 upg. For the CAS and tactical interdiction we need to phrased out mig 21MF/M which LCA Tejas mk-1(without internal IRST, jammer) could supplement. Now the big void which is 149 unit of mig 23 has to be fill quickly, and sorry to say that now IAF have to think quickly how they want to transint themselfself to which structure aka role based or only multirole fighter plane structure. If they want to go to the role based, which I think they will then, the best way is to go by converting the present DPSA (Deep Strike Aircraft) Jaguar into the ground attack role and go for the whole 140 units of Jaguar units left to the Darin III upgrade instead of 70 odd units. For the single engine CAS and tactical interdiction role go with the LCA MK-1 and Combat HAWK of HAL/BAE which will lower the cost of operation. Go for the LCA MK-2 with superior engine, internal jammer/IRST/OBOG/aerial refuel probe for the multirole and interceptor cum dogfighter capability to replace mig 21 bison 2024 onwards and with full future plan/aim to upgrade it further to replace the MIG-29UPG and Mirrage 2000 UPG too, such as fibre optics based FBW, F414 EPE, TVC.

There are some members who thinks of ADA's AMCA -- for them the plane like AMCA is never going to be cheaper operation cost, thus should be meant for the special operation such as to strike the heavily guarded target during the early stage of the war to breach the enemy air defence. And those supporting Gripen and F-16 block 60/70 they should understand that the requirement is huge and even with the huge order and make in india or tot those options have to be gauged with the financial point of view and in my view never going to be the cheaper one and should consider the infrastructure and spares/weapons also.
The issue with LCA is the unwillingness of those bunch of fools to make change when it is required. Canopy problem of aerodynamics was identified very early but they did not do anything to correct it. ENgine was underpower but they went with that shit GE 414. If the go for EJ 230 with 72 KN dry thrust and 108 wet thrust with thrust victor and makes suitable change in wing design with LERX than Tejas can become a super weapon unbeatable by anything.
 

Pandora

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
985
Likes
2,196
Country flag
The issue with LCA is the unwillingness of those bunch of fools to make change when it is required. Canopy problem of aerodynamics was identified very early but they did not do anything to correct it. ENgine was underpower but they went with that shit GE 414. If the go for EJ 230 with 72 KN dry thrust and 108 wet thrust with thrust victor and makes suitable change in wing design with LERX than Tejas can become a super weapon unbeatable by anything.
Can't comment on canopy thing but engine was never a problem with LCA,even the current GE engine is getting optimise with aerodynamics.IAF came to know after 2013,that its not engine but aerodynamic optimisation needed by LCA.Even mk1 FOC fulfill if not more ,all QSR of IAF.
 

HariPrasad-1

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,645
Likes
21,138
Country flag
Can't comment on canopy thing but engine was never a problem with LCA,even the current GE engine is getting optimise with aerodynamics.IAF came to know after 2013,that its not engine but aerodynamic optimisation needed by LCA.Even mk1 FOC fulfill if not more ,all QSR of IAF.
If engine is not a problem then why did they go for GE 414? They tried to sell Airforce version of tejas with small changes to navy and inspite of a lots of support for indigenous weapon, navy could not accept it because thet was not a design for Navy. A 72 Kn dry and 108 KN wet thrust engine fitted in 6250 KG tejas with thrust victor and LERX would have made tejas acceptable to navy but they were not willing make what navy wants but they tried to sell what they have with them. How can customer accept that. Can you imagine the difference a 72 KN dry thrust engine with Thrust victor fitted in 6000 KG tejas would have made?
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Can you provide link to your following claim about defect in aerodynamic properties? ..

You have raised similar claims without any support in past ..

If engine is not a problem then why did they go for GE 414? They tried to sell Airforce version of tejas with small changes to navy and inspite of a lots of support for indigenous weapon, navy could not accept it because thet was not a design for Navy. A 72 Kn dry and 108 KN wet thrust engine fitted in 6250 KG tejas with thrust victor and LERX would have made tejas acceptable to navy but they were not willing make what navy wants but they tried to sell what they have with them. How can customer accept that. Can you imagine the difference a 72 KN dry thrust engine with Thrust victor fitted in 6000 KG tejas would have made?
 

Saichand K

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
270
Likes
333
Country flag
Can you provide link to your following claim about defect in aerodynamic properties? ..

You have raised similar claims without any support in past ..
Actually many aerodynamics experts from my place, IISc also say tejas is not very aerodynamic and more work can be done to improve its aerodynamics, reduce drag and hence increase combat range. Tejas for its pure delta-shoulder mounted wings configuration has smaller combat radius as compared to Gripen C/D which is more aerodynamic. But ADA has no interest in modifying the air frame significantly even for Mk2 design.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
I understand their concern, But this is not the place to raise these doubt unless its official, Because there are plenty of internet experts too wanted their opinion over others via rhetoric arguments ..

To Keep the quality of this thread, I cannot allow such except genuine concerns via official portal ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top