ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[airtel]

First Derby, now Astra, then with Astra- MkII and when in 2019 Rafale would arrive along with Meteor, then IAF would ask for integration of Meteor before FOC of Tejas.

Great going.

Probably they are testing performance of Astra Missile Instead of Tejas .

There are other Things required to obtain FOC it has to fire any WVR missile and GSH-23mm cannon .

 

[TPFscopes]

to Get FOC any one BVR missile is Enough ......... Probably they are testing performance of Astra Missile Instead of Tejas .

LCA Tejas was already planned to have below mentioned AAM Integrated with it:
1. Astra
2. Derby
3. Python-5
4. R-77
5. R-73

@Chinmoy
To integrate METEOR on LCA , Developers need to upgrade the Radar to enhance the Detection and tracking capabilities of LCA.

 

[Chinmoy]

LCA Tejas was already planned to have below mentioned AAM Integrated with it:
1. Astra
2. Derby
3. Python-5
4. R-77
5. R-73

@Chinmoy
To integrate METEOR on LCA , Developers need to upgrade the Radar to enhance the Detection and tracking capabilities of LCA.

Exactly, but I am talking about the attitude of IAF regarding FOC. Even in IOC standard it has passed all the firing trials except for Python and GsH in my knowledge, but still its FOC is getting delayed. Now IFR probe is something which was a precondition for FOC, but when you keep on shifting goalposts from time to time, you do seriously hamper the production line.
Astra itself has been cleared for production on trial basis. What is the point of asking for its integration even before the system itself matures? That way it would be no big deal if IAF ask for Sudarshan test onboard Tejas before FOC.

 

[Chinmoy]

Probably they are testing performance of Astra Missile Instead of Tejas .

There are other Things required to obtain FOC it has to fire any WVR missile and GSH-23mm cannon .

We do have MKI to test Astra performance. What is the need to fire it from Tejas to test its performance?

 

[Filtercoffee]

Exactly, but I am talking about the attitude of IAF regarding FOC. Even in IOC standard it has passed all the firing trials except for Python and GsH in my knowledge, but still its FOC is getting delayed. Now IFR probe is something which was a precondition for FOC, but when you keep on shifting goalposts from time to time, you do seriously hamper the production line.
Astra itself has been cleared for production on trial basis. What is the point of asking for its integration even before the system itself matures? That way it would be no big deal if IAF ask for Sudarshan test onboard Tejas before FOC.

A question about the IFR probe, will they consider a retractable ? A MIG 29 or a Hornet setup here would let the nose section increase to cater that but be aerodynamicably better.

 

[TPFscopes]

A question about the IFR probe, will they consider a retractable ?

LCA mk1a didn't have enough space to house Retractable IFR probe but LCA mk2 may have retractable IFR probe...

 

[Chinmoy]

A question about the IFR probe, will they consider a retractable ? A MIG 29 or a Hornet setup here would let the nose section increase to cater that but be aerodynamicably better.

Don't give ideas. But on other side, with IAF going for Mirage and most recently Rafael with non-retractable IFR and rejecting F-16 with one in MMRCA tender, they left themselves little room to wiggle around here.
Never the less, all are well aware of crunch in internal space of Tejas.

 

[Filtercoffee]

LCA mk1a didn't have enough space to house Retractable IFR probe but LCA mk2 may have retractable IFR probe...

I read MK 2 has already been finalised? And MK 3 has done first or secound rounds of design upgrade requirements?

 

[Filtercoffee]

Don't give ideas. But on other side, with IAF going for Mirage and most recently Rafael with non-retractable IFR and rejecting F-16 with one in MMRCA tender, they left themselves little room to wiggle around here.
Never the less, all are well aware of crunch in internal space of Tejas.

I this side of the world we just hope for a better carrier for our own. I think it will be done...?

 

[Chinmoy]

I this side of the world we just hope for a better carrier for our own. I think it will be done...?

For start, Tejas is not designed to be a long range deep penetrating fighter. Retractable IFR is one key aspect of such fighters. e.g MKI. For Tejas a removable IFR would suit the role IMO e.g Mirage, Rafale.

 

[Filtercoffee]

For start, Tejas is not designed to be a long range deep penetrating fighter. Retractable IFR is one key aspect of such fighters. e.g MKI. For Tejas a removable IFR would suit the role IMO e.g Mirage, Rafale.

The extra thrust could allow a retractable. Why is it that we have to label an IOC fighter as it can be modified, come on Chinmoy cheer up, it just an opinion. Multirole fighter should be the new tag. :biggrin2:

 

[TPFscopes]

I read MK 2 has already been finalised? And MK 3 has done first or secound rounds of design upgrade requirements?

Mk2 is still in design phase and design yet to be freezed. Also there is nothing like Mk3 till now...

 

[TPFscopes]

Enjoy some Great pics of LCA Tejas

 

[Filtercoffee]

Enjoy some Great pics of LCA Tejas

And an energy weapon like kali will do wonders on it soon. :bounce:

 

[Vijyes]

Mk2 is still in design phase and design yet to be freezed. Also there is nothing like Mk3 till now...

Can you tell me what is so different about Mk2 that design needs to be frozen? Isn't it the same design increased in scale (magnified) by a few percentage?

 

[varun9509]

@TPFscopes, how close are we to achieving foc for Tejas, and to Tejas mk1a?

Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk

 

[TPFscopes]

Can you tell me what is so different about Mk2 that design needs to be frozen? Isn't it the same design increased in scale (magnified) by a few percentage?

The few upgradations that will appear on Tejas mk2 are:

• Higher Thrust Engine
• More modular design to minimize maintenance time
• Enlarged length & Width
• Structural Weight Reduction
• Aerodynamic Improvements
• Upgrade of Flight Control Computer
• Electronic Warfare Suite
• Avionics Upgrade
• In flight refuelling retractable probe
• On board oxygen generation system
• Increased fuel capacity
• External stores capacity will be boosted to 5,700kg (as opposed to 3,500kg for the Tejas Mk1)

modification on airframe shifts the Center of Gravity, which results to change in angle of attack and flight laws. Most probably the wheel retraction will also be changed to free up internal storage.
Also there will be some free space available for MLUs.

profile wise Mk2 will almost different from Mk1 and will be comparable with Gripen...

 

[TPFscopes]

@TPFscopes, how close are we to achieving foc for Tejas, and to Tejas mk1a?

FOC process is fast tracked in recent months and expected to be achieved by first half of 2018.

There will be no FOC for Mk1a..

 

[Vijyes]

The few upgradations that will appear on Tejas mk2 are:

• Higher Thrust Engine
• More modular design to minimize maintenance time
• Enlarged length & Width
• Structural Weight Reduction
• Aerodynamic Improvements
• Upgrade of Flight Control Computer
• Electronic Warfare Suite
• Avionics Upgrade
• In flight refuelling retractable probe
• On board oxygen generation system
• Increased fuel capacity
• External stores capacity will be boosted to 5,700kg (as opposed to 3,500kg for the Tejas Mk1)

modification on airframe shifts the Center of Gravity, which results to change in angle of attack and flight laws. Most probably the wheel retraction will also be changed to free up internal storage.
Also there will be some free space available for MLUs.

profile wise Mk2 will almost different from Mk1 and will be comparable with Gripen...

I understand. But by design, MK2 is similar to tejas Mk1. Isn't it? I am speaking of only aerodynamic design, not the components used in making them or other changes in modularity. So, the way the plane is manufactured may be different but design wise, it is just enlarged Mk1 with bigger hole for engine, higher fuel capacity etc

 

[TPFscopes]

I understand. But by design, MK2 is similar to tejas Mk1. Isn't it? I am speaking of only aerodynamic design, not the components used in making them or other changes in modularity. So, the way the plane is manufactured may be different but design wise, it is just enlarged Mk1 with bigger hole for engine, higher fuel capacity etc

Mk2 will be much more similar to NLCA to have greater aerodynamic effect an stability.
Hence to design it with IAF specifications it takes more time to freeze the design.