ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Sancho]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

For strike missions in general? Really? Where you read that a strike mission irrespective of distance will always require 2x drop tanks?

Yes as explained, the weight incerase of using bombs and the limited fuel capacity of the centerline station makes that unavoidable, which ADA confirms that too:

http://i.imgur.com/GEW98nW.jpg

If you would inform yourself and not only conclude things, you would have know that.

Are you sure that those 5 hardpoints out of 7+1 seen on MK-2 scale models won't be carrying any MER?

Depends on the weight and size limitations of the hardpoint. The mid wingstation for example might get a twin launcher for 500lb LGBs, instead of the single 1000lb. But that still doesn't give any hardpoint for BVR missiles.

Considering you have been so rhetorically saying we don't know the specifications of Tejas MK-2.

Nope, factually! You are the one that is using imaginary specs and loads out of the lack of proper infos and understanding.

BTW below is DRDO developed SAAW. A 120kg PGM in 2x configuration per MER, on a Jaguar. What are the chances that Tejas MK-2 won't be able to carry these on strike missions (to strike as far away as 100Kms from point of its release)?

Basically explained above... The mid wing station would be able to carry the twin launcher and 2 x SAAW, while it won't be able to carry a quad launcher and 4 of them at that station. That would only be possible at the inner wing stations, maybe on the centerline, but that needs to be seen (size limitations).

Apart from fact that so-called dumb bombs are getting smarter with just a smart tail fin (eg JADM).

Lol, a dumb bomb have no guidance or navigation kit's, unlike smart bombs like LGBs or satellite guided bombs like JDAM.
Also one of the advantages of smart bombs is, that you can launch them further away from the target, to not be exposed to ground threats. Dumb bombs on the other side, are launched directly overy the target.
But to be smart, you need guidance kits, with fins that requires larger space => lower numbers of bombs.

Rafale is called an Omni role fighter. And Su-30MKI is called a multi-role fighter. Care to differentiate as per your 'Lahori' logic.

Omnirole is a PR term used by Dassault only =>

When the Rafale programme was launched, the French Air Force and French Navy published a joint requirement for an omnirole aircraft that would have to replace the seven types of combat aircraft then in operation.

The new aircraft would have to be able to carry out a very wide range of missions:

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design/

The point is always the same, a single fighter can be used in various roles, without the need of specific customizations or versions, as it was the case for older 2nd and 3rd gen single role fighters. The only difference for swing role, is as explained the instant change of roles and that's where light class fighters, with limited load capabilities, are had capped by design.

That's the difference between informing yourself first, instead of just getting into conclusions based on an opinion!

 

[patriots]

it will not take too much time to develop mk1a....as we are achieving maximum objective s in foc.,........,.....
so relax guys...hope we will see ..mk1a soon ....

Specification of Tejas MK1-A :
1. AESA Radar (will not take much time as they have already done with jaguar)



2.Aircraft's weight reduced by 1000 kg from its
initial weight of 6500 kg.(can't confirm but they may change the over engineered landing gear )

3.Made maintenance friendly by re-configuring
some of its LRUs and proper distribution of the
dead weight in the aircraft.

5.In-flight refueling capability.(will be achived. in foc)

6.Integrated electro-optic Electronic Warfare
(EW) sensor.

7.Integration of BVR's like Astra and Derby (I,II).(derby already tested)

8.Integration of Aircraft Parachutes , which will
help pilot to land the aircraft if engine fails .


source .....quora

 

[asingha94]

Never ending Saga..............................

 

[PD_Solo]

8.Integration of Aircraft Parachutes , which will
help pilot to land the aircraft if engine fails .


source .....quora

isn't Tejas a bit heavy for it ?

 

[Adioz]

Aircraft Parachutes , which will
help pilot to land the aircraft if engine fails .

LoL WTF?

 

[patriots]

LoL WTF?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-specs-of-Tejas-Mk-1A
Bhai It's according to a quora user .....
it is called parachute recovery system..

https://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/dec05/recovery.htm

I have quoted my source as quora. ...sorry if I am wrong
@soikot banerjee can say more on this....

 

[Adioz]

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-specs-of-Tejas-Mk-1A
Bhai It's according to a quora user .....
it is called parachute recovery system..

https://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/dec05/recovery.htm

I have quoted my source as quora. ...sorry if I am wrong

This is awesome!!! Although it is for spin-recovery, not for landing.
Advantages of a light fighter. Bet you can't do that on a Su-30MKI.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes as explained, the weight incerase of using bombs and the limited fuel capacity of the centerline station makes that unavoidable, which ADA confirms that too:

http://i.imgur.com/GEW98nW.jpg

If you would inform yourself and not only conclude things, you would have know that.



Depends on the weight and size limitations of the hardpoint. The mid wingstation for example might get a twin launcher for 500lb LGBs, instead of the single 1000lb. But that still doesn't give any hardpoint for BVR missiles.



Nope, factually! You are the one that is using imaginary specs and loads out of the lack of proper infos and understanding.



Basically explained above... The mid wing station would be able to carry the twin launcher and 2 x SAAW, while it won't be able to carry a quad launcher and 4 of them at that station. That would only be possible at the inner wing stations, maybe on the centerline, but that needs to be seen (size limitations).



Lol, a dumb bomb have no guidance or navigation kit's, unlike smart bombs like LGBs or satellite guided bombs like JDAM.
Also one of the advantages of smart bombs is, that you can launch them further away from the target, to not be exposed to ground threats. Dumb bombs on the other side, are launched directly overy the target.
But to be smart, you need guidance kits, with fins that requires larger space => lower numbers of bombs.



Omnirole is a PR term used by Dassault only =>

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design/

The point is always the same, a single fighter can be used in various roles, without the need of specific customizations or versions, as it was the case for older 2nd and 3rd gen single role fighters. The only difference for swing role, is as explained the instant change of roles and that's where light class fighters, with limited load capabilities, are had capped by design.

That's the difference between informing yourself first, instead of just getting into conclusions based on an opinion!

Remeber our last twitter exchange on #Tejas_LCA hash tag??

https://twitter.com/search?q=#Tejas_LCA&src=typd

There is my never ending replies to all tejas LCA naysayers,



But You are still repeating the same views

I exhort all tejas enthusiasts in this forum to copy my tweets in the above hashtag & use it to defend in all debates in all social forums,,

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes as explained, the weight incerase of using bombs and the limited fuel capacity of the centerline station makes that unavoidable, which ADA confirms that too:

That "limited" fuel capacity is more than enough to cover all prime targets in western sectors & many battle field targets in himalayas.

The fabulous low wing loading of tejas allows it to excel on the high himalayan altitude , which is india's primary threat area.

http://i.imgur.com/GEW98nW.jpg

If you would inform yourself and not only conclude things, you would have know that.



Depends on the weight and size limitations of the hardpoint. The mid wingstation for example might get a twin launcher for 500lb LGBs, instead of the single 1000lb. But that still doesn't give any hardpoint for BVR missiles.

Other than outboard stations all hard points can be multi racked, As you hv seen in gripen E concept drawings, Right now prioirity is to get the fighter upto FOC, combinations & permutations can come later.

Nope, factually! You are the one that is using imaginary specs and loads out of the lack of proper infos and understanding.



Basically explained above... The mid wing station would be able to carry the twin launcher and 2 x SAAW, while it won't be able to carry a quad launcher and 4 of them at that station. That would only be possible at the inner wing stations, maybe on the centerline, but that needs to be seen (size limitations).

Till now no one has ever authoritatively stated about the "it won't be able to carry quad launcher.

As far as I know having Quad or twin rack has nothing to do with fighter weight, Only factor that is needed to be considered is the pylon weigh limitations & space , ground clearance."

Lol, a dumb bomb have no guidance or navigation kit's, unlike smart bombs like LGBs or satellite guided bombs like JDAM.
Also one of the advantages of smart bombs is, that you can launch them further away from the target, to not be exposed to ground threats. Dumb bombs on the other side, are launched directly overy the target.
But to be smart, you need guidance kits, with fins that requires larger space => lower numbers of bombs.

Tell me another fighter that has "more space for fins" than tejas in MMRCA competition.

Omnirole is a PR term used by Dassault only =>

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design/

The point is always the same, a single fighter can be used in various roles, without the need of specific customizations or versions, as it was the case for older 2nd and 3rd gen single role fighters. The only difference for swing role, is as explained the instant change of roles and that's where light class fighters, with limited load capabilities, are had capped by design.

Then I can say both rafale & typhoon are also crippled fighters against china , because there is no worthwhile target within their useful combat ranges in Tibet, considering 1000s of kms of icy expanses that separate any worthwhile military target from these multi billion birds


Dont you know that more than 90% of chinese population lives more than 3000 Km away from indian borders?

SO can we call rafale & typoon crippled fighters as far as china is considered?

Infact the money can be better utilized in raising strategic conventional ICBM divisions holding thousands of MIRVed conventional warheads that can lit up the night skies over shangai & beijing , sending shivers down the spine of chinese commies, in below N threshold warfare.

This is a surefire peace maker than investing in "crippled fighters" like Rafale & typhoon which can atbest fly to reach a few icy Tibetian rail heads & supply depots.

Look what north korea does with few ICMBs.

That's the difference between informing yourself first, instead of just getting into conclusions based on an opinion!

"Informing Yourself" starts with informing Oneself about the geopolitical realities of indian frontiers & make informed choices, rather than wasting tens of billions of dollars ogling at the brochures of MNC fighter makers.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes as explained, the weight incerase of using bombs and the limited fuel capacity of the centerline station makes that unavoidable, which ADA confirms that too:

http://i.imgur.com/GEW98nW.jpg

If you would inform yourself and not only conclude things, you would have know that.



Depends on the weight and size limitations of the hardpoint. The mid wingstation for example might get a twin launcher for 500lb LGBs, instead of the single 1000lb. But that still doesn't give any hardpoint for BVR missiles.



Nope, factually! You are the one that is using imaginary specs and loads out of the lack of proper infos and understanding.



Basically explained above... The mid wing station would be able to carry the twin launcher and 2 x SAAW, while it won't be able to carry a quad launcher and 4 of them at that station. That would only be possible at the inner wing stations, maybe on the centerline, but that needs to be seen (size limitations).



Lol, a dumb bomb have no guidance or navigation kit's, unlike smart bombs like LGBs or satellite guided bombs like JDAM.
Also one of the advantages of smart bombs is, that you can launch them further away from the target, to not be exposed to ground threats. Dumb bombs on the other side, are launched directly overy the target.
But to be smart, you need guidance kits, with fins that requires larger space => lower numbers of bombs.



Omnirole is a PR term used by Dassault only =>

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design/

The point is always the same, a single fighter can be used in various roles, without the need of specific customizations or versions, as it was the case for older 2nd and 3rd gen single role fighters. The only difference for swing role, is as explained the instant change of roles and that's where light class fighters, with limited load capabilities, are had capped by design.

That's the difference between informing yourself first, instead of just getting into conclusions based on an opinion!

1.That "limited" fuel capacity is more than enough to cover all prime targets in western sectors & many battle field targets in himalayas.

The fabulous low wing loading of tejas allows it to excel on the high himalayan altitude , which is india's primary threat area.

2.Other than outboard stations all hard points can be multi racked, As you hv seen in gripen E concept drawings, Right now prioirity is to get the fighter upto FOC, combinations & permutations can come later.

3.Till now no one has ever authoritatively stated about the "it won't be able to carry quad launcher.

As far as I know having Quad or twin rack has nothing to do with fighter weight, Only factor that is needed to be considered is the pylon weigh limitations & space , ground clearance."

4.Tell me another fighter that has "more space for fins" than tejas in MMRCA competition.

5.Then I can say both rafale & typhoon are also crippled fighters against china , because there is no worthwhile target within their useful combat ranges in Tibet, considering 1000s of kms of icy expanses that separate any worthwhile military target from these multi billion birds


Dont you know that more than 90% of chinese population lives more than 3000 Km away from indian borders?

SO can we call rafale & typoon crippled fighters as far as china is considered?

Infact the money can be better utilized in raising strategic conventional ICBM divisions holding thousands of MIRVed conventional warheads that can lit up the night skies over shangai & beijing , sending shivers down the spine of chinese commies, in below N threshold warfare.

This is a surefire peace maker than investing in "crippled fighters" like Rafale & typhoon which can atbest fly to reach a few icy Tibetian rail heads & supply depots.

Look what north korea does with few ICMBs.


6."Informing Yourself" starts with informing Oneself about the geopolitical realities of indian frontiers & make informed choices, rather than wasting tens of billions of dollars ogling at the brochures of MNC fighter makers.

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

TEJAS - MK2 TO FLAY BY 2022 AND IAF GIVEN IN WRITING FOR 201 TEJAS - MK2 BIRDS

DR. CHRISTOPHER

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...etter-than-pakistans-says-drdo-chief-5083268/

India’s AWACS is low-cost, better than Pakistan’s, says DRDO chief
DRDO chief Dr S Christopher said the indigenous AEW&C built by DRDO using modified Brazilian Embraer jets is cost effective and better than the Swedish systems owned by Pakistan.

The indigenous airborne early warning and control system (AEW&C) built by Defence Research and Development Organisation using modified Brazilian Embraer jets is cost effective and better than the Swedish systems owned by Pakistan, said DRDO chairman Dr S Christopher at an event in Gujarat University on Thursday.

Giving an insight into various modern technologies being developed for the military, Christopher, delivering the first i-talk organised by Gujarat Innovation Society (GIS), spoke about how DRDO’s AEW&C platform, christened “Netra”, was close to his heart since he was involved in it right from inception. “In 1985, we thought we should make an AWACS (airborne warning and control system) because at that time the US had brought in their own system,” Christopher said while narrating how the DRDO faced teething problems in the project, which also involved a crash.

The DRDO chief said they had gone for a simpler and smaller platform by using the Brazilian Embraer-145 jets when the project was restarted. “It started with a simpler and smaller platform that is the Embraer,” Christopher said, adding how the five-hour endurance of the system was expanded by adding a complex air-to-air refueling facility.

Claiming that the DRDO’s AWACS was cheaper than its Pakistani counterpart, Christopher said except for the aircraft, the electronics was indigenously made. “Except for the aircraft, all the electronics is ours. So when you compare the cost, it is less than what Pakistanis are having; the Swedish system. In addition to that, their aircraft itself is not as good as ours. It is because our is a jet and that is a turboprop,” the DRDO chief said. Pakistan has Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C from Sweden.

Tejas Mark-II to fly by 2022

Speaking of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, Christopher said HAL had already got an order to manufacture 123 LCAs. “In addition to that, the air force has given in writing another 201 aircraft, which is the next version, that we call as Mark-II. We are working on it and by 2022 it will be flying,” he said.

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

So friends we will have :

Tejas MK-1 : 40
Tejas MK-1A: 83
Tejas MK-2: 201

Total - 324 Tejas variants more then SU-30MKI what we have.

I sincerely hope above new is correct.

 

[ersakthivel]

Firstly. The inner stations will carry 2400 litres of extra fuel only when the mission requires doubling the endurance and range from +30 minutes and +300 KM(lo-lo-lo) respectively. Still, it will have 2x outboard, 2x mid-board, 1x centre-line and 1x EL/OP station free. Which means apart from carrying 2x 1200 liter drop tanks on inner-board stations, it can carry 4x AAMs on wings and 1x Exocet class ALCM on centre-line.

Certainly, such a load configuration speaks of a self-escorted deep deep strike mission into Pakistani theatre and into TAR.

Still, it is one of many load configuration that Tejas can carry. Which is to remind that inner board stations are not only to suitable to carry fuel only. It is a multipurpose station. As depicted in pic i had posted earlier carrying 2x 500 pounders in tandem configuration per inner-board station.

Secondly. Tejas MK-1 is a light category fighter just like Gripen C. It could do what both are meant to do.

Tejas was supposed to be just a point interceptor. But today GCI concept is gone and Tejas is a swing role fighter.

During a campaign such as Cold-Start Tejas can not only take out border defence of Pakistanis with its A2G weapons but also can conduct anti-armour and provide Air cover to our invading army. Still few of many mission in carrying out in Pakistan.



This confidence has come from advance technologies which have gone into Tejas which has ensured not safe flying but also allowed operational tempo as impressive as +3 sorties per day and clocking 600 hours in a year with just 5 Tejas. Still, we are only at IOC phase.

FOC is just another milestone. It only means incorporation of suggested changes learned and for to be necessary after putting IOC varients in its expected roles. Which is what is being done.

The inclusion of upcoming weapons is an ongoing process and forever it will be.

It is said that Genious in a Kid known since the birth. Small glimpse is in this video. And )old video. Besides how many of Tejas contemporaries entered service with such capabilities.

Even the center pylon of tejas can be configured to carry multiple LGBs

SO we will have

1.Any number of LGBs on center line pylons,(limited by pylon weight )

2. Two fuel tanks on inner pylons,

3.four BVR missiles on mid wing pylons,(quad rack will be further improvement upon this,)

4. Two WVR missiles on outer wing pylon.

With a decent range to cover around 400 to 500 Km radius in hi-l0-hi mode.

The fuel fraction calculations in this config is still decent for india's primary theater of war, Pakistani airspcae & Himalayas.

What matters is , even with this config tejas will still have lower wing loading than any other fighter in service in PLAf or PAF.

it means

1.tejas can fly better,

2.will hv lower RCS, meaning better survivability,

3.Can take off from shorter himalayan runways in high altitude than any chinese or pak fighter,

4. Will hv world class HMDS enabled high off bore WVR missiles for close combat,

5. Will hv air to air refueling extending its range & loiter time,

6. With hot refuelling can go in for air policing at far shorter turnaround time,

7. Has best in class engine replacement time in IAF,

8.Will hv DRFM based ASEA Ew suit fr self protection,

All at half the cost of any imported fighter.

 

[Galaxy 7]

When will tejas mk1A make first flight?

.........

.............mm.

 

[pankaj nema]

Even the center pylon of tejas can be configured to carry multiple LGBs

SO we will have

1.Any number of LGBs on center line pylons,(limited by pylon weight )

2. Two fuel tanks on inner pylons,

3.four BVR missiles on mid wing pylons,(quad rack will be further improvement upon this,)

4. Two WVR missiles on outer wing pylon.

With a decent range to cover around 400 to 500 Km radius in hi-l0-hi mode.

The fuel fraction calculations in this config is still decent for india's primary theater of war, Pakistani airspcae & Himalayas.

What matters is , even with this config tejas will still have lower wing loading than any other fighter in service in PLAf or PAF.

it means

1.tejas can fly better,

2.will hv lower RCS, meaning better survivability,

3.Can take off from shorter himalayan runways in high altitude than any chinese or pak fighter,

4. Will hv world class HMDS enabled high off bore WVR missiles for close combat,

5. Will hv air to air refueling extending its range & loiter time,

6. With hot refuelling can go in for air policing at far shorter turnaround time,

7. Has best in class engine replacement time in IAF,

8.Will hv DRFM based ASEA Ew suit fr self protection,

All at half the cost of any imported fighter.

Sir when the Forward Air bases are under attack
The IAF planes will have to move Inwards say 200 Km inside the Indian territory

In that case Will The small combat Radius of Tejas really help

 

[Sancho]

But You are still repeating the same views

It's not about views, but about facts! That's why it needs to achieve FOC and the later upgrade milestones to change things.

2.Other than outboard stations all hard points can be multi racked

Lol, actually ADA is planing to use multi racks for the external pylon, to counter the problem of losing 1 missile, when the SPJ is added.

As far as I know having Quad or twin rack has nothing to do with fighter weight, Only factor that is needed to be considered is the pylon weigh limitations & space , ground clearance."

So you agree with me, because that's what I said as well:
"That would only be possible at the inner wing stations, maybe on the centerline, but that needs to be seen (size limitations)."

4.Tell me another fighter that has "more space for fins" than tejas in MMRCA competition.

Any MMRCA because they all have more hardpoints => more space to carry LGB.

 

[Sancho]

When will tejas mk1A make first flight?

.........

.............mm.

MK1A doesn't change much from the FOC, since it uses the same airframe and engine. But HAL will need to select a radar and EW supplier soon, to integrate, test and certify the new parts. However, FOC remains to be the key.

 

[pankaj nema]

MK1A doesn't change much from the FOC, since it uses the same airframe and engine. But HAL will need to select a radar and EW supplier soon, to integrate, test and certify the new parts. However, FOC remains to be the key.

MK1 and Mk 1 A should be used as Pure Interceptors given the Range Limitations

Instead of Bombs they should carry Drop tanks

 

[Galaxy 7]

MK1A doesn't change much from the FOC, since it uses the same airframe and engine. But HAL will need to select a radar and EW supplier soon, to integrate, test and certify the new parts. However, FOC remains to be the key.

But IAF so far commited to only 83 aesa equipped tejas? But still we dont know which aesa they wil use for mk1a? Integrating aesa radar will take lot of time.

 

[Sancho]

MK1 and Mk 1 A should be used as Pure Interceptors given the Range Limitations

Instead of Bombs they should carry Drop tanks

Tejas is a multi role fighter and at this point, it's actually more useful for strikes than for interception or air policing.

With wing fuel tanks, it has enough range for a light class fighter, but it's the lack of hardpoints and the external SPJ that will limit it's load and self defence capabilities.

Also in A2A roles, it's not range that it needs, but endurance. It uses the smaller 800l fuel tanks, that's why IAF required the addition of the refueling probe, to extend the endurance. That helps on that issue, but not on the limited number of weapons and then lack of flight performance.