ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Sancho]

With 2x WVRAAM + 2x BVRAAM + 2x LGB + 1x DT + 1x EL/OP + 1x SPJ, a Swing role configuration is well illustrated in this graphics of MK-1A.

But the imporant part is to understand what the graphics shows and not run into false conclusions again. It once again, does not show mission configurations, but the new load capabilities of the MK1A compared to the earlier IOC versions.

In any strike mission, when drag an weight is further increased, Tejas requires more fuel just to compensate the higher fuel consumption. In addition to that, CAS missions include time on station, to attack targets of opportunity, to support ground forces. That's why mission configs use the larger wing fuel tanks, while the small centerline tanks are only useful for air defence or very short range operations and light loads.

So no matter if it carries 1200l tanks in the inner wing stations, or 800l on the mid wing stations, there is only space left for A2G weapons, but not for BVR missiles!

 

[Sancho]

'
Ideally, SPJ shall be mounted internally but because of space concerns, ADA decided to put it on wings.

That's why that can only be changed with re-designed airframe of the MK2, because it's not just about fitting some jamming antennas, but also to have internal space for the equipment and parts of it, should be housed in the lengthened and widened airframe too.

 

[Sancho]

Does anyone have more info's or a different report on this?

The exercise has had no glitches so far except a Jaguar fighter veering off the runway at the Bhuj airbase due to bad weather and a few Tejas light combat aircraft developing snags. “Hindustan Aeronautics Limited was able to fix the Tejas problems in less than 12 hours,” Dhanoa said.

https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-...4Y676j9b6I_amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Sancho]

Instead of endurance in minutes we need to check out the range and combat radius instead.

For Tejas endurance is the key, because it's neither meant for long range operations or long ferry flights. It's priority missions remains air defence and CAS, for which it needs to remain in the air (ideally extended with IFR), for as long as possible.
Range plays a role for pre-planned missions, to fly from A to B strike and return, but that's what more capable fighters are meant to do.

 

[Sancho]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/5303-2/viraat01+057_1_.jpg(photo of sea harrier with dual rack)

We have already built and integrated a twin rack to carry the Derby - that was integrated into the Sea Harrier upgrade. A variant of that I think will be used in the Tejas to enable it to carry 4 BVRs


vishnusom in keypub

The Sea Harrier twin rack was for 1 x Derby + 1 x Python missile and the issue is not making the rack, but that it requires space (left and right from the pylon) and adds weight and drag, to a fighter.

Tejas is already suffering from less flight performance and the more weight and drag we add, the more effect it will have.
But then again, HMS and HOBS missiles were required, to counter the flight performance issue in the first place, so carrying only a single Python V would be bad too, just as you can't avoid to have an SPJ in this day and age.

 

[Kshithij]

For Tejas endurance is the key, because it's neither meant for long range operations or long ferry flights. It's priority missions remains air defence and CAS, for which it needs to remain in the air (ideally extended with IFR), for as long as possible.
Range plays a role for pre-planned missions, to fly from A to B strike and return, but that's what more capable fighters are meant to do.

Tejas is for A2A and short range bombing. CAS is done by helicopters or other low speed, high mileage planes. Considering the fact that all Indian adversaries - Pakistan and Bangladesh lie just next to the border and are small countries, one can safely say that Tejas can be used to bomb Bangladesh and also most major cities of Pakistan - Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi as all of these lie within 300km of Indian border. In addition, entire Pakistan width is 600km from India which makes the requirement of smaller fighter higher to get things done quickly and cheaply

Tejas needs both range for A2G bombing and endurance for A2A role.

The Sea Harrier twin rack was for 1 x Derby + 1 x Python missile and the issue is not making the rack, but that it requires space (left and right from the pylon) and adds weight and drag, to a fighter.

Tejas is already suffering from less flight performance and the more weight and drag we add, the more effect it will have.
But then again, HMS and HOBS missiles were required, to counter the flight performance issue in the first place, so carrying only a single Python V would be bad too, just as you can't avoid to have an SPJ in this day and age.

The weight of AAM is significantly lower and the diameter much smaller than a LGB or other bombs. So, the racking will not reduce flight performance much. It is not that carrying 14 Astra missile of 155kg + 8 pylons weighing 20kg will hamper the performance of A2A. The overall weght will still be 2.5tons for the payload, which is well within the limits.

If you don't want to add weight at all, then you must fly the plane clean without payload. Tejas is a fighter plane and is meant to carry payload. I don't see why you unnecessarily whine about weight and drag when the increase is minimal? Is Tejas not supposed to carry any load at all? What is the point you are making?

 

[Sancho]

What is the point you are making?

If you don't understand the point, why waste both of our times with so much that doesn't make any sense?
Tejas is not only for A2A, but also for A2G since it always was considered as a multi role fighter, that's why it had to prove guided and ungided strike capability from IOC itself, so that part alone is complete nonsense!

Also it's not the weight of an LGB vs weight of an AAM , but the weight of 1 x BVR missile at the mid wing pylon vs the weight of 2 x BVR missiles + twin rack at the same pylon.

More missiles + twin racks = more weight and drag in A2A config => therfore logically reduced performance.

In close combats, fighters don't use external fuel tanks either and drop them, to lose weight and drag. But with a twin rack that won't be simply dropped before combat, you remain with it.

So the point was, while a twin rack for BVR missiles would increase it's BVR capability (in A2A config only), it comes with an effect on it's flight performance!

Next time simply ask to to explain once more, instead of making up these justifications, without even understanding what you are justifying.

 

[kstriya]

Tejas is for A2A and short range bombing. CAS is done by helicopters or other low speed, high mileage planes. Considering the fact that all Indian adversaries - Pakistan and Bangladesh lie just next to the border and are small countries, one can safely say that Tejas can be used to bomb Bangladesh and also most major cities of Pakistan - Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi as all of these lie within 300km of Indian border. In addition, entire Pakistan width is 600km from India which makes the requirement of smaller fighter higher to get things done quickly and cheaply

Tejas needs both range for A2G bombing and endurance for A2A role.



The weight of AAM is significantly lower and the diameter much smaller than a LGB or other bombs. So, the racking will not reduce flight performance much. It is not that carrying 14 Astra missile of 155kg + 8 pylons weighing 20kg will hamper the performance of A2A. The overall weght will still be 2.5tons for the payload, which is well within the limits.

If you don't want to add weight at all, then you must fly the plane clean without payload. Tejas is a fighter plane and is meant to carry payload. I don't see why you unnecessarily whine about weight and drag when the increase is minimal? Is Tejas not supposed to carry any load at all? What is the point you are making?

Is there an option to fit in the rack of the GBU 39 on Tejas, if weight permits we can make it a mini bomb truck....

 

[Kshithij]

If you don't understand the point, why waste both of our times with so much that doesn't make any sense?
Tejas is not only for A2A, but also for A2G since it always was considered as a multi role fighter, that's why it had to prove guided and ungided strike capability from IOC itself, so that part alone is complete nonsense!

Also it's not the weight of an LGB vs weight of an AAM , but the weight of 1 x BVR missile at the mid wing pylon vs the weight of 2 x BVR missiles + twin rack at the same pylon.

More missiles + twin racks = more weight and drag in A2A config => therfore logically reduced performance.

In close combats, fighters don't use external fuel tanks either and drop them, to lose weight and drag. But with a twin rack that won't be simply dropped before combat, you remain with it.

So the point was, while a twin rack for BVR missiles would increase it's BVR capability (in A2A config only), it comes with an effect on it's flight performance!

Next time simply ask to to explain once more, instead of making up these justifications, without even understanding what you are justifying.

A pylon for BVR missile does not weigh much. You don't keep 100kg pylon to carry 150kg missile. The Pulon weight is proportional to the load. The pylon for Astra is light weight - 20kg and hence the issue of extra weight does not arise

 

[Kshithij]

Is there an option to fit in the rack of the GBU 39 on Tejas, if weight permits we can make it a mini bomb truck....

Yes, small bombs can be fitted on Tejas. Such bombs are likely to be racked to conserve space

 

[Rahul Singh]

will miss u a lot ...ur.. information. .and ur knowledge...
hope we will see. u back soon

Thanks, bro! I will also miss you and rest ..........when I am back I will be associated with B737NG (@abingdonboy) in a manner that I might be restricted to off days only. Still, Tejas is something i am addicted to for many years now. So, I will be back regardless.

Leaving tomorrow.

Cute, but as you said yourself it's a"brochure" for the purpose of advertising. Also it shows weapon load configuration for each station, not mission configs, as in the ADA info I showed you before. But you already know how wrong you were, since you already made a u turn on you earlier claims wrt the fuel tanks.

But the for the pics, had not much time in the recent days.

Are you trying to cast a doubt on ADA brochure now? I hope not. Otherwise, it will be a U-Turn don't you think?

Anyway, ADA brochure clearly mentions Swing role for Tejas which reiterates my stand and that was the point.

Besides, show me where the U-turn I made wrt DTs? It must one more too many times I must have asked for this.

But the imporant part is to understand what the graphics shows and not run into false conclusions again. It once again, does not show mission configurations, but the new load capabilities of the MK1A compared to the earlier IOC versions.

In any strike mission, when drag an weight is further increased, Tejas requires more fuel just to compensate the higher fuel consumption. In addition to that, CAS missions include time on station, to attack targets of opportunity, to support ground forces. That's why mission configs use the larger wing fuel tanks, while the small centerline tanks are only useful for air defence or very short range operations and light loads.

So no matter if it carries 1200l tanks in the inner wing stations, or 800l on the mid wing stations, there is only space left for A2G weapons, but not for BVR missiles!

Good!

So tell me the factor of DRAG and consequently the number of Kilometers it cuts under the stated combat radius of plus 300km(internal fuel only) on Tejas MK-1?

Also how many Drop Tanks and of what capacities Tejas will have to carry on strike missions to Chaklala from Pathankot (distance 280 km) when carrying 15-20 km range LGBs only. And to Sialkot from Pathankot (distance 108 km) when carrying 100 km range glide bombs like Garuthmaa by DRDO?

While you do your calculation do consider mid-air refuelling also.

PS: Do you actually believe it is possible for ADA to illustrate all types of load configurations for a number of missions for targets at varying distances on a single A4 size paper especially with the ever-expanding plethora of weapons with diverse capabilities joining the list? Ask me, i bet it will take at least 5 pages for typical missions only.

That's why that can only be changed with re-designed airframe of the MK2, because it's not just about fitting some jamming antennas, but also to have internal space for the equipment and parts of it, should be housed in the lengthened and widened airframe too.

It can also be housed in a conformal attachment on MK-1 also. Once studies to find a suitable location is over we will see it on Tejas MK-1 MLU.

 

[Rahul Singh]

@Kshithij

Some clarification with respect to one post in MK-2 thread. LINK

Tejas also has split Elevons. As seen in the pic. It can also be separately deployed just like Gripen.

Gripen

 

[abingdonboy]

Ok guys I am taking a 4-5 month leave for professional reasons. You guys keep this thread lively and continue celebrating the rise of Phoenix named Tejas. Our Tejas!

Hope ADA and HAL keep providing you enough reasons for lungi dance now and then.

God bless you all.

Rahul Singh out!

Is it Type rating time bro?


.....

 

[Rahul Singh]

Is it Type rating time bro?


.....

737 all the way. Wish me luck!

 

[Sancho]

Are you trying to cast a doubt on ADA brochure now? I hope not. Otherwise, it will be a U-Turn don't you think?

Lol, you are the one who outright refused official ADA infos, because they countered your theories. I only point out, that they, like any other developer of a fighter, use marketing terms to make their product look special. That's why I explained you back then, why Dassault uses the marketing term "Omnirole", or why LM advertise the F16 B70 with "F35 technologies" as marketing terms as well.

The facts however remain, that to swing between roles in the same mission (swing role), LCA needs to be able to carry wing fuel tanks, bombs, SPJ/WVR missiles "and" BVR missiles and that's simply not possible with 7 weapon stations.

So your attempt to justify yourself, didn't work, just as most of your theories.

But still wish you good luck for your training!

 

[cannonfodder]

Great update coming from BR:

At Defexpo Aeromag was hanging out show daily, the day 1 issue has an interview of Dr. Giridh Director of ADA with title 'LCA Tejas to be fully operational with AAR soon' which has a lot of info and updates, will list out some of them

1, currently focusing on increasing the flying rate of MkI to 60 flights every month
2, FOC by June-July 2018
3, HAL & ADA working together to speed up FOC
4, All tests conducted on Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) have been sucessful
5, All simulated ground tests have been successfully completed as Tejas was refueled by placing it at various attitudes on the ground. This was to monitor the pressure at which the fuel is pumped into the aircraft.
6, We expect to make Tejas ready for AAF by end of april
7, Tejas MkIIis in detaildesign stage
8,We have received the approval to prove unmanned technologies like auto take-off and landing on LCA for future uses. the unmanned version will sport flush air data system technology for stealth features. the design of the front also will be modified. the project will begin immediately after the foc for MkI
9, Many countries like Singapore, Srilanka, Turkmenistan have shown interest in Tejas. Singapore has come forward to show intrest in the trainer version of Tejas for training purpose of air force personal
10, Tejas Navy has completely mastered the ski jump talk-off from carriers, even at night time also... The hook for the arrested landing has been integrated and we are now progressing towards demonstration of arrested landing. We expect to prove careier compatibility by end of this year

 

[Rahul Singh]

Lol, you are the one who outright refused official ADA infos, because they countered your theories. I only point out, that they, like any other developer of a fighter, use marketing terms to make their product look special. That's why I explained you back then, why Dassault uses the marketing term "Omnirole", or why LM advertise the F16 B70 with "F35 technologies" as marketing terms as well.

The facts however remain, that to swing between roles in the same mission (swing role), LCA needs to be able to carry wing fuel tanks, bombs, SPJ/WVR missiles "and" BVR missiles and that's simply not possible with 7 weapon stations.

So your attempt to justify yourself, didn't work, just as most of your theories.

But still wish you good luck for your training!

Lol So Cmdr Balaji is also wrong wrt swing role theory(at 06:14)???? May be he is also unaware of no. of stations Tejas has??

Thanks for wishes anyway.

 

[Rahul Singh]

4, All tests conducted on Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) have been sucessful

Fantastic if such is the case. Hope dry contact testing also goes smooth.

We have received the approval to prove unmanned technologies like auto take-off and landing on LCA for future uses. the unmanned version will sport flush air data system technology for stealth features. the design of the front also will be modified. the project will begin immediately after the foc for MkI

Basically a Tejas UCAV but why? May be as technology feeder to AURA. Or a full fledged compliment?

 

[Prashant12]

Life-Support systems and Onboard Oxygen Generation System for the Tejas aircraft.

 

[abingdonboy]

737 all the way. Wish me luck!

F*ck yeah bro! Go make us proud