ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[TPFscopes]

I like your enthusiasm towards LCA program but you're some how wrong on some point. I know it might hurt you but its correct. First you need to understand that What is LCA program right now because it was reviewed many times in the past.

And here I'm unable to understand that why you are chasing Gripen Program and treating it as benchmark.

"1) MK2 is an upgrade to fix MK1s problems, NOT to make Tejas to a medium class fighter

agreed

LCA MK1A is only aiming on catching up to Gripen C/D in the light class, which already has IFR, integrated EW with external jamming pod, large MFDs and is proposing AESA to it's operators as an upgrade too. "

agreed, but again compared with Gripen

These are the general misconceptions that are spread puposefully to make indian s feel that Gripen has some how become MMRCA with E version & Tejas even in mk N will be point defence & will never be able to fulfill original IAF specs,

LCA is a multi-role fighter but with some limitations.

If gripen C has IFR Tejas mkA has a bigger & better tech ASEA
If grripen can give ASEA upgrade, why cant mkA can be fitter with IFR ?
bigger MFDs??? what is the battle advantage, when Tejas mk1A has HMDS which flashed all vital info on pilot helmet?

very much confused.. unable to understand..

IAF never ever dreamt of possible RBE ASEA + meteor combo in Tejas as late as 2016, So how come any one can say that mk2 is what IAF gave specs for & mk1, mk1A are all shoddy compromises?? Even french airforce didnt have this combo in RAFALE couple of years back!!

Ahh!
In simple language, You may call mk1 as raw output of LCA program and MK1A as HAL & IAF SoP-18 compromise just to push indigenisation whereas we can expect MK2 as finished product.

Only after manohar Parrikar brough the warring factions together this mk1A suddenly jumped up.

Officially its SoP-18 and you should dig it from google to understand it.

Because if brahmos mini is available , the supersonic speed makes up of lesser Kgs of warhead & the extra couple of hundreds of Kms can easily be covered by brahmos range.

Never possible for MK1A and also not feasible for operation with IAF.

Still Tejas mk2 will surely hv lower wingloading, lesser drag, higher TWR than gripen E , if IAF doesnt load it with "Give Me More" attitude , these are all airframe advantages that will remain through out the life of tejas mk2.

Its the similar case that you are promised for Harley Davidson but later you got surprise as Bajaj Pulsar. here we are claiming Pulsar as a bad bike but its not Harley anyway..

 

[ersakthivel]

"

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANIK, RAJESH MISHRA & BUDDHA: LoLz! So finally the IAF has stated on-record what I have been saying sibce early 2013@ How so? Just do a time-check on when was the first time I had stated that the Tejas Mk.1 LCA was a ‘sub-optimal’ solution & how/why the IAF has begunb using that same term, i.e. sub-optimal. In fact, that term first originatyed in February 2013 just after the then ADA Director at an Aero India 2013 symposium openly admitted that his design team had never even realised that customers of MRCAs always placed crucial emphasis on 2 parameters: the direct operating costs per flight-hour; & the maintenance hours per flight-hour! Consequently, while a Rafale requires only 1 hand-held, notebook-based avionics tester, the Tejas Mk.1 requires 35 of them! Any IAF ground-support crew team will go berserk in such circumstances. Nor will matters be resolved with the Tejas Mk.1A, which for all intents & purposes is totally doomed since it does not contain even a single structural refinement of the Tejas Mk.1’s airframe & fuselage-encased avionics LRUs. Hence, the only VIABLE solution is to end the Tejas Mk.1 programme at 20 aircraft, totally forego the Tejas Mk.1A,& expedite the LCA-AF Mk.2/Tejas Mk.2 MRCA’s developmental process.


"

This is what happens when somebody thinks airshows alone will provide all the "Eggspretise" needed to write BS.

Tejas has already demonstrated pressure refuelling, in naval version, It can be fueled with engines running in a few minutes & can take off again for another sortie without switching off the engine,

Tejas has a comparable engine replacement time,

Most of its being a maintenenance nightmare is due to the fact that LSPs, Pvs were culled out from pre historic jaguar line, now with 50 to 80 micron tolerance laser guidance jigs in the state of the new lien, with frozen design specs, tejas build is as good as any 4.5th gen fighter ,

It has demoed more than 3 sorties in a day during some testing days,

All 3000 odd flighs were safe ones with no crashes,

Number of notepads?? Who told these fools about these numbers?

During IOC2 certification all these details were released, shutting up these blabbermouths,

Since a few years are gone these guys are starting at it again hoping everyone would hv forgotten about it,

These fools dont even know the fact that the whole idea behind mk1A version is NOT TO HAVE ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES in the first place,

because structural changes were all reserved for mk2,

& the idea behind 83 mk1As is to run the line without lack of orders, so having structural redesign would defeat the very objective of tejas mkA.

painting this as a big shortfall shows the monumental stupidity of these Journos.

Lot of refinements are to be carried out mk1A without structural changes, to make it as potent as any frontline IAf fighters with class leading features,


I think the news of RBE2 being tested for tejas has given a long running fever to these fools, because they can no longer berate it compared to any of their favorite Eurobirds

 

[ersakthivel]

I like your enthusiasm towards LCA program but you're some how wrong on some point. I know it might hurt you but its correct. First you need to understand that What is LCA program right now because it was reviewed many times in the past.

And here I'm unable to understand that why you are chasing Gripen Program and treating it as benchmark.


agreed

agreed, but again compared with Gripen

LCA is a multi-role fighter but with some limitations.

very much confused.. unable to understand..

Ahh!
In simple language, You may call mk1 as raw output of LCA program and MK1A as HAL & IAF SoP-18 compromise just to push indigenisation whereas we can expect MK2 as finished product.

Officially its SoP-18 and you should dig it from google to understand it.

Never possible for MK1A and also not feasible for operation with IAF.


Its the similar case that you are promised for Harley Davidson but later you got surprise as Bajaj Pulsar. here we are claiming Pulsar as a bad bike but its not Harley anyway..

you have completely misunderstood my post,

My whole post is aimed at busting these three myths below,

"
"1) MK2 is an upgrade to fix MK1s problems, NOT to make Tejas to a medium class fighter

2) Gripen E was proposed in MMRCA and now in the SE MMRCA tender, NOT Gripen C/D, which is the light class version

3) LCA MK1A is only aiming on catching up to Gripen C/D in the light class, which already has IFR, integrated EW with external jamming pod, large MFDs and is proposing AESA to it's operators as an upgrade too. "



"

 

[TPFscopes]

you have completely misunderstood my post,
"1) MK2 is an upgrade to fix MK1s problems, NOT to make Tejas to a medium class fighter
"

LCA itself defined it as Light fighter but MK1 is already a downgraded jet due to poor handling of project and I didn't shy to accept it. Mk2 will have what LCA program (reviewed) was aimed for

2) Gripen E was proposed in MMRCA and now in the SE MMRCA tender, NOT Gripen C/D, which is the light class version

Than whats wrong with it...

3) LCA MK1A is only aiming on catching up to Gripen C/D in the light class, which already has IFR, integrated EW with external jamming pod, large MFDs and is proposing AESA to it's operators as an upgrade too. "

MK1A will only have minor changes in cockpit. It will be very similar to MK1's cockpit.
LCA is only catching for the priority requirement of IAF which is termed as SoP-18.
I don't why you are pushing Gripen in every next sentence.



for LCA MK2 , have a look over it.
=>

Tejas mk 2 detail specifications.

IAF wants aerial refuelling, jammers, quick turnaround in new Tejas
From 2018-19 onwards, 16 'Standard of Preparation-18' Tejas fighters, which involves four major upgrades, will roll off the line each year
Ajai Shukla | HAL Last Updated at October 27, 2015 23:13 IST



With Tejas Mark II years away, HAL asks air force to buy Tejas Mark 1-ACutting-edge Israeli radar wins air force approval for Tejas fighterAjai Shukla: A second Tejas assembly lineParrikar cuts Gordian knot to boost Tejas lineWill the Tejas get foreign help?
In New Delhi on September 23, decades of friction came to an end when key stakeholders in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) finally agreed on the specifications of a fighter that would join the Indian Air Force (IAF) in large numbers, starting in 2018-19.

Termed "Standard of Preparation - 2018" (SoP-18), these specifications were agreed between four agencies. Besides the IAF, they include the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas programme; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which builds the fighter, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).


SoP-18 involves four major, and several minor, improvements. As Business Standard reported on Monday ("Cutting edge Israeli radar wins air force approval for Tejas fighter"), a crucial enhancement in the SoP-18 Tejas will be "active electronically scanned array" (AESA) radar, which Israeli company, Elbit, will develop with HAL.

Besides AESA radar, the SoP-18 Tejas will be equipped with the capability for air-to-air refuelling, a "self-protection jammer" (SPJ) mounted in an external pod to confuse enemy radar, and an improved layout of internal systems to ease maintenance.

HAL is currently building 20 Tejas fighters to the initial operational certification (IOC) standard. HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju says, over the next three years, production will ramp up from four aircraft this year to seven in 2016-17, and eight in 2017-18, thus completing the order for 20 IOC fighters. From 2018-19 onwards, 16 SoP-18 Tejas fighters will roll off the line each year.

"Ramping up production to 16 Tejas per year will cost us about Rs 1,252 crore. We have mutually agreed that HAL will provide half the cost, and the IAF and navy will together pay the other half," says Raju.

Meanwhile, ADA will continue developing the Tejas Mark II, replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a new GE F-414 engine. The IAF remains sceptical about the Tejas Mark II, but the navy is certain the Tejas must have the more powerful F-414 engine to enable it to get airborne from short aircraft carrier decks.

That means that, along with the SoP-18 Tejas that would remain in production till 2024-25, the Naval Tejas Mark II would have to be somehow produced alongside.

Air-to-Air refuelling
The integration of air-to-air refuelling has been regarded as essential to give the Tejas enough reach. Currently, its internal tanks carry just 2,300 litres of fuel, with another 2,400 litres carried in external pods. However, external pods cannot be carried into battle, and they take up two weapon stations, reducing the fighter's punch. Without external fuel tanks, the Tejas has a combat radius of barely 300 kilometres.

Air-to-air refuelling will step up combat radius to 500 km. Towards that, a late prototype of the Tejas, numbered LSP-8, was fitted with an external fuel probe. This is being integrated and will soon undergo flight-testing.

Says a veteran fighter pilot: "As important than the ability to fight is the ability to turn up at the fight. That requires long legs and, for a light fighter, that requires air-to-air refuelling".

External jammer pod
Tejas designers admit the absence of a jammer to throw enemy radar off the scent is a key vulnerability of the Tejas. While designing the fighter, they simply ran out of space for an internal jammer. With the IAF dropping its insistence on an internal jammer, ADA and HAL have now offered an "external jammer pod".

While this threatened to reduce the Tejas' weapons carriage by occupying one of its seven hard points, HAL is overcoming that problem by fitting a "twin-arm" at that hard point. "One of the arms will carry the jammer, while the other will mount an air-to-air missile", says the designer.

Maintainability
For the IAF, which must mount multiple missions every day with each Tejas fighter, easy "maintainability" and "low turn-around-time" are key attributes. The HAL chief says the IAF wants the fighter to take maximum 14 minutes between landing after a mission; and taking off for the next mission, fully checked, rearmed and refuelled. Currently, the Tejas takes about 20 minutes.

"The IAF has carried out a 'maintainability evaluation' on the Tejas, and provided requests for action (RFAs) to HAL. Each RFA deals with a particular way to improve maintenance. We will be making 27 modifications in the fighter", says Raju.

The Tejas already has built-in-test-equipment (BITE), which is a software programme that automatically checks the functionality of every crucial system. In case an aircraft system is not working optimally, the BITE flashes a warning light.

On the other hand, if no warning lights are evident, maintenance engineers know that all systems are working satisfactorily. The need to check each one manually is no longer there.

This also involves fitting "pressure refuelling" of the kind that exists in Formula One racing cars, which requires fuel to be pumped under pressure into the fuel tanks. Refuelling the Tejas takes just four minutes, and two more to fill drop tanks as well.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...k-turnaround-in-new-tejas-115102701594_1.html

 

[patriots]

I have one question why all are criticising hal..for slow production rate ....why we r not criticising dassault ....we HV ordered in 2016 .....we will get First Rafael in 2019. after 3. yrs....and we will get last batch in 2022


I mean 36 Rafael in 3 years...12/year


the problem is in lower no of order s....so they will not set up new production line .......
if iaf would have order more ioc..and foc.. version s then ...the pic would have different (only 40 orders)....

 

[pmaitra]

I have one question why all are criticising hal..for slow production rate ....why we r not criticising dassault ....we HV ordered in 2016 .....we will get First Rafael in 2019. after 3. yrs....and we will get last batch in 2022


I mean 36 Rafael in 3 years...12/year


the problem is in lower no of order s....so they will not set up new production line .......
if iaf would have order more ioc..and foc.. version s then ...the pic would have different (only 40 orders)....

IAF and IA are both used to acquiring and operating off-the-shelf products. These products are typically those that have gone through the phases of maturity in their home countries and have received revisions and refinement from their respective mlitaries, mainly the USSR and France. Therefore, IA and IAF sources, unnamed in many news reports, tend to reflect what they are traditionally used to.

Now, unnamed sources are either true or made up. We shall never know.

 

[sthf]

IAF and IA are both used to acquiring and operating off-the-shelf products.

I strongly disagree with this. There are plenty of examples that prove otherwise.

Mig-29 - Ordered before it entered Soviet service.

Su-30MKI - Russians ordered SM more than a decade after they were operational in India.

Vijayant - Never saw service in British Army.

T-90 - Limited service in Russian Army but India is the largest user.

And cherry on top are the latest and comic attempts to induct Gripen E and Armata.

Gripen E - First flight in 2017, 5/6 years away from induction in the primary air force let alone be a mature platform.

Armata - Hasn't even finished the development but IA is restless to know it's weight so as to modify the weight requirements in the RFI.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA itself defined it as Light fighter but MK1 is already a downgraded jet due to poor handling of project and I didn't shy to accept it. Mk2 will have what LCA program (reviewed) was aimed for

Than whats wrong with it...

MK1A will only have minor changes in cockpit. It will be very similar to MK1's cockpit.
LCA is only catching for the priority requirement of IAF which is termed as SoP-18.
I don't why you are pushing Gripen in every next sentence.



for LCA MK2 , have a look over it.
=>



http://www.business-standard.com/ar...k-turnaround-in-new-tejas-115102701594_1.html

If mk1 has such serious shortfalls, it is impossible for mk1a SOP18 to give a new mk1A with ASEA, meteor possible combo ,

That too with no serious redesign of airframe.

HAL has over weight landing gear & some conservative design in mk1 ,which led to extra weight with a dead weight to balance .

These and some minor maintenance issues will be ironed out to an extent to give mk1a, which is thrive capable than the mig21s it it going to replace.

IAF ASR for tejas was not an exercise by Phd holders in aeronautical engineering.

It is a fluid moving goalpost ay best.

With mk1A there will be some shortfalls in G limits & many above ASR capability in ASEA, Meteor, Astra, Python combo.

So when we point out the few shortfalls of mk1a ,

We must remember it overshoots ASR in many significant areas vital to aircombat.

 

[ersakthivel]

Reason I M comparing it yo Gripen is despite the sanction prone, on & off support & funding Tejas mk1A will overshoot Gripen C,D in many critical air combat specs .

So no point in treating it as a consolation prize for IAF.

Tejas mk2 has nothing to do with IAF ASR.

It will breach IAF ASR& capability of many in service fighters in all critical areas.

That too tejas mk1A, & tejas mk2 will come at half the cost of comparable Gripen version, with a mil aviation industry as a bonus,

No OE maker extortion during MLU freedom to upgrade it as & when any tech is available
Lower lifecycl e cost.
All will make it 9ne third of any Gripen import cost.

 

[ersakthivel]

There are reporeports that smaller brahmos versions specific to Tejas , mig29s is 8n the works.

This will take tejas leagues ahead of any Gripen E in strike powet

 

[Kshithij]

you have completely misunderstood my post,

My whole post is aimed at busting these three myths below,

"
"1) MK2 is an upgrade to fix MK1s problems, NOT to make Tejas to a medium class fighter

2) Gripen E was proposed in MMRCA and now in the SE MMRCA tender, NOT Gripen C/D, which is the light class version

3) LCA MK1A is only aiming on catching up to Gripen C/D in the light class, which already has IFR, integrated EW with external jamming pod, large MFDs and is proposing AESA to it's operators as an upgrade too. "



"

If mk1 has such serious shortfalls, it is impossible for mk1a SOP18 to give a new mk1A with ASEA, meteor possible combo ,

That too with no serious redesign of airframe.

HAL has over weight landing gear & some conservative design in mk1 ,which led to extra weight with a dead weight to balance .

These and some minor maintenance issues will be ironed out to an extent to give mk1a, which is thrive capable than the mig21s it it going to replace.

IAF ASR for tejas was not an exercise by Phd holders in aeronautical engineering.

It is a fluid moving goalpost ay best.

With mk1A there will be some shortfalls in G limits & many above ASR capability in ASEA, Meteor, Astra, Python combo.

So when we point out the few shortfalls of mk1a ,

We must remember it overshoots ASR in many significant areas vital to aircombat.

All that you are saying has already been discussed on this thread itself. You are only being repetitive.

First, MK1 was a short sighted mistake of making as small a plane as possible without considering the futuristic requirements.

MK1 can't fit in EW, Jammers within due to lack of internal space. Having AESA radar will not change that. Also, fuel of 3000 litres is less considering that payload carrying ability is also less and hence fuel tanks will be hard to be carried. So, please stop reiterating AESA again and again.

Tejas designed to be multirole fighter. Only fools say it is designed as an interceptor. It is incapable of doing bombing missions due to hopelessly small fuel and payload and hence small range. So, it is forced to be used as interceptor plane. Tejas is AERODYNAMICALLY fit to be multi-role but practically unfit only due to low fuel

IFR is only useful for patrol and not bombing missions. Don't give too much importance to it.

Bringing in meteor, python makes no sense here. We can develop our own astra for it. Indigenous means fully indigenous, including weapons.

Tejas MK2 is meant to increase fuel, engine size and payload so that Tejas can be a PRACTICAL multirole plane.

Tejas MK1 and MK1A are not good enough even with IFR to be multirole. There is no point in insisting on it. Tejas MK2 is a must. Along with it, Kaveri engine and UTTAM AESA is also a must for mass production. All these things take time. Have patience.

Comparing Gripen is foolish at best. Gripen is a HOPELESS plane. They have nothing other than an Airframe and avionics as theirs. Rest is all imported. SAAB doesn't even have a proper production unit for Gripens.Gripen C has already somewhat become obsolete and useless due to lack of any modern systems in it.

Indian budget is not infinite and hence right balancing must be done. Tejas can be mass manufactured to satisfy the lunatics who keep shouting. But, with imported engines, radars, insufficient fuel and without MK2 version will only end up as wasteful and obsolete in next 10 years. Why do wasteful induction like these?

PS - No brahmos will come for LCA-Tejas. Brahmos will be too heavy and have too short a range. Nirbhay ALCM is more likely option.

 

[ersakthivel]

k1 has HMDS enabled visually cued high off bore WVR missile combo, DRFM based ASEA jammer, external self protection suit, refuelling probe, Astra combo which were not in IAF ASR.

So when mk1 has G limit, top speed shortfall, it exceeds IAF ASR in many areas,

In fact even the 50 million dollar per plane m irage2000 doesn't hv these features & has lower TWR, & wingloading than even tejas mk1.

Mk1A will add ASEA radar,& if it is European can have meteor missile capability, same as rafales primary air to air combo, something not even dreamt off by IAF planners 2 yrs ago.

Mk2's 98 kn engine, & higher combat radius, weapon load, combat specs will out do IAF ASR by a huge margin

 

[ersakthivel]

Then SU 30 MKI which carries a self protection jammer in external pylon also is not an MRCA!

Gripen CD & tejasmk1, mk1a hv almost identical specs, weight, engine power.

tejas mk2 too hv same foot print as that of Gripen E,most possibly with lesser empty weight, there by having a better TWR& lower wingloading than Gripen E.

All eggsperts hv no qualms in calling Gripen MRCA, while get their knickers in knot when it is pointed out that tejas is also the same class

 

[ersakthivel]

DRDO is saying brahmos mini is in the works for mig29s, tejas,

I tend to believe that, because they make tejas & brahmos.

All that you are saying has already been discussed on this thread itself. You are only being repetitive.

First, MK1 was a short sighted mistake of making as small a plane as possible without considering the futuristic requirements.

MK1 can't fit in EW, Jammers within due to lack of internal space. Having AESA radar will not change that. Also, fuel of 3000 litres is less considering that payload carrying ability is also less and hence fuel tanks will be hard to be carried. So, please stop reiterating AESA again and again.

Tejas designed to be multirole fighter. Only fools say it is designed as an interceptor. It is incapable of doing bombing missions due to hopelessly small fuel and payload and hence small range. So, it is forced to be used as interceptor plane. Tejas is AERODYNAMICALLY fit to be multi-role but practically unfit only due to low fuel

IFR is only useful for patrol and not bombing missions. Don't give too much importance to it.

Bringing in meteor, python makes no sense here. We can develop our own astra for it. Indigenous means fully indigenous, including weapons.

Tejas MK2 is meant to increase fuel, engine size and payload so that Tejas can be a PRACTICAL multirole plane.

Tejas MK1 and MK1A are not good enough even with IFR to be multirole. There is no point in insisting on it. Tejas MK2 is a must. Along with it, Kaveri engine and UTTAM AESA is also a must for mass production. All these things take time. Have patience.

Comparing Gripen is foolish at best. Gripen is a HOPELESS plane. They have nothing other than an Airframe and avionics as theirs. Rest is all imported. SAAB doesn't even have a proper production unit for Gripens.Gripen C has already somewhat become obsolete and useless due to lack of any modern systems in it.

Indian budget is not infinite and hence right balancing must be done. Tejas can be mass manufactured to satisfy the lunatics who keep shouting. But, with imported engines, radars, insufficient fuel and without MK2 version will only end up as wasteful and obsolete in next 10 years. Why do wasteful induction like these?

PS - No brahmos will come for LCA-Tejas. Brahmos will be too heavy and have too short a range. Nirbhay ALCM is more likely option.

 

[ersakthivel]

DRDO is saying brahmos mini is in the works for mig29s, tejas,

I tend to believe that, because they make tejas & brahmos.

All that you are saying has already been discussed on this thread itself. You are only being repetitive.

First, MK1 was a short sighted mistake of making as small a plane as possible without considering the futuristic requirements.

MK1 can't fit in EW, Jammers within due to lack of internal space. Having AESA radar will not change that. Also, fuel of 3000 litres is less considering that payload carrying ability is also less and hence fuel tanks will be hard to be carried. So, please stop reiterating AESA again and again.

Tejas designed to be multirole fighter. Only fools say it is designed as an interceptor. It is incapable of doing bombing missions due to hopelessly small fuel and payload and hence small range. So, it is forced to be used as interceptor plane. Tejas is AERODYNAMICALLY fit to be multi-role but practically unfit only due to low fuel

IFR is only useful for patrol and not bombing missions. Don't give too much importance to it.

Bringing in meteor, python makes no sense here. We can develop our own astra for it. Indigenous means fully indigenous, including weapons.

Tejas MK2 is meant to increase fuel, engine size and payload so that Tejas can be a PRACTICAL multirole plane.

Tejas MK1 and MK1A are not good enough even with IFR to be multirole. There is no point in insisting on it. Tejas MK2 is a must. Along with it, Kaveri engine and UTTAM AESA is also a must for mass production. All these things take time. Have patience.

Comparing Gripen is foolish at best. Gripen is a HOPELESS plane. They have nothing other than an Airframe and avionics as theirs. Rest is all imported. SAAB doesn't even have a proper production unit for Gripens.Gripen C has already somewhat become obsolete and useless due to lack of any modern systems in it.

Indian budget is not infinite and hence right balancing must be done. Tejas can be mass manufactured to satisfy the lunatics who keep shouting. But, with imported engines, radars, insufficient fuel and without MK2 version will only end up as wasteful and obsolete in next 10 years. Why do wasteful induction like these?

PS - No brahmos will come for LCA-Tejas. Brahmos will be too heavy and have too short a range. Nirbhay ALCM is more likely option.

 

[Kshithij]

k1 has HMDS enabled visually cued high off bore WVR missile combo, DRFM based ASEA jammer, external self protection suit, refuelling probe, Astra combo which were not in IAF ASR.

So when mk1 has G limit, top speed shortfall, it exceeds IAF ASR in many areas,

In fact even the 50 million dollar per plane m irage2000 doesn't hv these features & has lower TWR, & wingloading than even tejas mk1.

Mk1A will add ASEA radar,& if it is European can have meteor missile capability, same as rafales primary air to air combo, something not even dreamt off by IAF planners 2 yrs ago.

Mk2's 98 kn engine, & higher combat radius, weapon load, combat specs will out do IAF ASR by a huge margin

Why are you rambling the same things again and again? No matter if tejas satisfy IAF initial GSQR or not, what matters is if Tejas is practically usable. Answer is - only for short range mission, patrol and interception due to small fuel. Unless fuel is increased significantly, Tejas will be confined to this role. For example, Tejas MK1A can't be used to bomb QUETTA of Pakistan but can be used to bomb Lahore, Rawalpindi or Islamabad

 

[ersakthivel]

DRDO is saying brahmos mini is in the works for mig29s, tejas,

I tend to believe that, because they make tejas & brahmos.

All that you are saying has already been discussed on this thread itself. You are only being repetitive.

First, MK1 was a short sighted mistake of making as small a plane as possible without considering the futuristic requirements.

MK1 can't fit in EW, Jammers within due to lack of internal space. Having AESA radar will not change that. Also, fuel of 3000 litres is less considering that payload carrying ability is also less and hence fuel tanks will be hard to be carried. So, please stop reiterating AESA again and again.

Tejas designed to be multirole fighter. Only fools say it is designed as an interceptor. It is incapable of doing bombing missions due to hopelessly small fuel and payload and hence small range. So, it is forced to be used as interceptor plane. Tejas is AERODYNAMICALLY fit to be multi-role but practically unfit only due to low fuel

IFR is only useful for patrol and not bombing missions. Don't give too much importance to it.

Bringing in meteor, python makes no sense here. We can develop our own astra for it. Indigenous means fully indigenous, including weapons.

Tejas MK2 is meant to increase fuel, engine size and payload so that Tejas can be a PRACTICAL multirole plane.

Tejas MK1 and MK1A are not good enough even with IFR to be multirole. There is no point in insisting on it. Tejas MK2 is a must. Along with it, Kaveri engine and UTTAM AESA is also a must for mass production. All these things take time. Have patience.

Comparing Gripen is foolish at best. Gripen is a HOPELESS plane. They have nothing other than an Airframe and avionics as theirs. Rest is all imported. SAAB doesn't even have a proper production unit for Gripens.Gripen C has already somewhat become obsolete and useless due to lack of any modern systems in it.

Indian budget is not infinite and hence right balancing must be done. Tejas can be mass manufactured to satisfy the lunatics who keep shouting. But, with imported engines, radars, insufficient fuel and without MK2 version will only end up as wasteful and obsolete in next 10 years. Why do wasteful induction like these?

PS - No brahmos will come for LCA-Tejas. Brahmos will be too heavy and have too short a range. Nirbhay ALCM is more likely option.

 

[Kshithij]

DRDO is saying brahmos mini is in the works for mig29s, tejas,

I tend to believe that, because they make tejas & brahmos.

It is possible but not practical. Brahmos has too small a range for too much weight. Mini brahmos will have even smaller range. Also, carrying such heavy missile will induce serious drags and range problems.

 

[ersakthivel]

Ha, ha, ha,

I hv listed out the capability of various tejas mks & the Hillier than thou IAF ASR.

That is not rambling , but fact finding.

It is not small fuel or big fuel which determines the range, it is fuel fraction , which determines the range.

Tejas has comparable figures to all world fighters.

In combat no one sends their fighters with all external fuel tanks & just to 2 close combat missiles & bullets in pilots pistol ,

to use these ," stupid brochure ranges" of 1000s & 1000s of kms on & unending number of hours on station.

All fighters are sent with two external tanks & all other pylons occupied with weapons on a demanding low profile penetration mission.

Here tejas can hv at best 20%to 30 % range difference even if we compare it to rafael.

We can fly 4 tejas on place of one rafael & atleast 2 tejas in place of one Gripen for the same budget .

So all weapon load, range shortage thrust on tejas is only academic.

 

[ersakthivel]

It is possible but not practical. Brahmos has too small a range for too much weight. Mini brahmos will have even smaller range. Also, carrying such heavy missile will induce serious drags and range problems.

What is your expected range& explosive weight for brahmos mini,
Why it is too small?
Brahmos mini won't induce more drag than external fuel tank & it will increase the strike range of tejas by atleast 200 kms,

That too 2.8 Mach kinetic energy & almost no escape hits on targets.

No Gripen or f16 will give this capability to IAF