ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[shiphone]

https://saab.com/globalassets/comme...ms/arexis/product_sheet_arexis_webb_17096.pdf

---------------
and you got the "EW suite" on Mig-29UPG here, try to have a look at that... btw,AESA is just a ' a phased array system'.the AESA antenna array is right used in your daily mobile communications （applyed in Base Station Subsystem）

 

[Kshithij]

TWR of aircraft matters, not TWR of engine! One has to hope that IAF is not filled with uneducated rectums like you to make moronic choices. If rectums like you exist in the country, then there's a probability that similar rectums exist in IAF too - who might talk like idiot as you do. By the end of the day, saner voices will prevail; rectums like you will be kicked to the curb.

Engine is the heart of a plane. It is like you want the size of your heart to be equal to heart of a buffalo but expect your body to remain the same size!

GTRE is not hardening the blades? The entire field involves 'directionally hardened' blades, and growing single crystals for kinematic hardening!

Kaveri is made from 2nd generation Directionally solidified blades. Blades are not hardened but crystallised in a directional manner with the crystals being aligned in a particular direction. The other method is single crystal blades where entire blade is just one crystal. This is inferior to DS blades unless 'rhenium' is used in SC blades.

The blades are not hardened or thickened. It is just that the blades are increased in length or number of stages are increased which reduces the peak pressure and peak temperature over the turbines by distributing over a larger area. This in turn consumes more fuel

 

[dumdumdum]

Why don't you 2 take your fight outside the bar? Maybe Arm Wrestle or something?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

What exactly is the problem? This thread in the last few pages only have more abuses and less content

 

[Kshithij]

You always feel good about yourself by regurgitating few obvious statements? and then sneak in some nonsense because you never understood the statements you spewed out?
Sometimes you should use your brain to understand what's being talked about!

"not hardened but crystallised"?? Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean? Is hardening possible without changing the crystalline structure?
Folks with zero education in science comment with the confidence that they're Einsteins!
Hot forge, cold forge, tempering, annealing.....all done for hardening the metal changes the crystalline structure. Single crystal is special case of achieving harder material by controlling the crystal formation!

"crystallised in a directional manner with the crystals being aligned in a particular direction." Please do explain to the other rectum, that there is something called hardening in a particular direction of choice (that scumbag cannot understand shit if said using different words)!!

What you and the other rectum is obscuring is a simple question of 'optimal compromise'! The question was if in a hypothetical case a significantly higher engine thrust achieved through a slight penalty in engine weight is a decent compromise! The simple answer is Yes! Because the worst engine weight increase being considered will only translate into 1% increase in overall aircraft weight PERIOD

You and the other rectum run from a losing fight by flinging the kitchen sink - whatever nonsense you can lay your hands on! Trying to confine the debate to a meaningful problem-solution equation is impossible here on the forum because idiots will keep flinging nonsense to confuse the debate and seek an escape route! All this is done because you know very well that ignorant sheep like @Willy3 think that the last guy who spoke on the subject won the debate; and will worship you for time thereafter!

Hardening means a process where metal or alloy is heat treated and then suddenly cooled. We don't do such things on engine turbine. Don't you have basic common sense about basic metallurgy? Hardening has no direction and is infact the opposite of it!

I have told you that you can't have the heart the size of a buffalo's heart with your body size. Same way, planes can't simply be fitted with larger engine without increasing the body size to ensure other parameters like range is not affected. Tejas already has low range and getting an inefficient engine which will consume more space and reduce fuel tank size will make Tejas horrible plane to use.

You keep sniffing your rectum and stop farting loudly at others.

 

[G10]

I hate this. People hurling abuses and berating each other. The quality of the forum has gone pathetic.

 

[lcafanboy]

Not a 300 kg extra weighing kaveri with 20 percent extra thrust. I.e 1550 KG (1250+300 kg )giving 96 KN (80KN +16KN )Thrust

By the way you don't seem to know the current weight of Kaveri engine...

Do you know what current weight of Kaveri engine is?

It's just 1050kgs.. yes gtre and DRDO have reduced the weight of Kaveri engine substantially. The lenght of afterburner section has been increased by about 40cms this has eliminated the strange screeching sound kaveri engine made.

Also dry thrust is now at 57kn and wet 81kn flat rated. So it means thrust is already above 91-92kn since for flat rating thrust is reduced by around 12-15%. The final aim is to get 60kn dry and 90-95kn wet thrust for now.

Further the engine has become very stable. That's also the reason why French have certified it's fit for high altitude air trials.

They are trying to further reduce weight and increase thrust to above 70kn dry and 110kn wet flat rate by increasing by pass rate, this will make Twr of Kaveri engine much better than even current ej200 and snecma, this will take upto 9-10years of development this will go into re-engining lca Mk1A and Mk2.

There's one more engine project which is in working with Rolce Royce project GANGA with aim to develop 125kn engine which will go into AMCA....

 

[ersakthivel]

Hmm. Perhaps we should banish the #$@$! $!@#@$@ (I promised other folks I wouldn't swear!) who posted this on July 26th (one week before the post you cited)?

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/wap....he-tejas-get-foreign-help-115071401389_1.html


"furthermore, the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast: dead weight inserted while designing the fighter to correct its centre of gravity. The ballast removed, and the Mark II could instead carry 300 more kilos of useful payload. "


If all the balancing weight needed to balance extra 300 KG weight version kavery(FOR 16 KN extra thrust )


why is there a ballast in tejas mk1?


ADA shouldn't hv put this ballast & instead distributed this 300 kg as ,"useful fuel & pay load" weight in mk1 itself.

Read Ajai shukla's word again,

"furthermore, the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast: dead weight inserted while designing the fighter to correct its centre of gravity. "

So it's obvious when unforeseen weight increase takes place behind CG ,to rebalance CG counter ballance ballast weight needs to be introduced.

This is what structural engineer is all about.

You can't use all unforeseen weight increase productively.

This 300 kg ballast is gona be replaced by useful avionics in mk1 & extra fuselage length in mk2

,that remain there on the fighter permanently, not fuel & weapon load, that get dumped in mission.

Why??

Because to fit into RSS Fly by wire CLAWS in all FLIGHT regimes ,

this lead plate ballast needs to be placed permanently.

Now mk1A dumps the ballast for avionics(some say ASEA cooling unit)

Mk2 with other design elements.

If you put extra 300 kg weight on the tail of tejas mk1 again,

You must add more than 300 KG Ballast in front of CG again.

Cant use this 300 kg for fuel & weapon ,as this weight needs to be permanently there on the fighter.

So it now becomes 300+300= 600 KG extra weight.

To support this extra weight you need at least 100 Kg of landing gear & fuselage strengthening.


Because this 600 kg at 8G loads will impact 8x 600 KG= 4.8 TON load on the fighter.

This why I questioned your competence in structural engineering.

 

[ersakthivel]

By the way you don't seem to know the current weight of Kaveri engine...

Do you know what current weight of Kaveri engine is?

It's just 1050kgs.. yes gtre and DRDO have reduced the weight of Kaveri engine substantially. The lenght of afterburner section has been increased by about 40cms this has eliminated the strange screeching sound kaveri engine made.

Also dry thrust is now at 57kn and wet 81kn flat rated. So it means thrust is already above 91-92kn since for flat rating thrust is reduced by around 12-15%. The final aim is to get 60kn dry and 90-95kn wet thrust for now.

Further the engine has become very stable. That's also the reason why French have certified it's fit for high altitude air trials.

They are trying to further reduce weight and increase thrust to above 70kn dry and 110kn wet flat rate by increasing by pass rate, this will make Twr of Kaveri engine much better than even current ej200 and snecma, this will take upto 9-10years of development this will go into re-engining lca Mk1A and Mk2.

There's one more engine project which is in working with Rolce Royce project GANGA with aim to develop 125kn engine which will go into AMCA....

My point being you can not add 300 kg extra weight on tejas engine(kaveri or GE or any other engine) for 96 KN thrust (just 16 KN i.e 20% extra thrust) as GE 404 weighs close to 1000 KG Already.

Because we may need to add more ballast , in a detailed redesigning.


Only the availability of better engine TWR kaveri can call for redesigning of tejas to take kaveri in.

No use in putting a 96 KN engine weighing close to 1400 KG weighing kaveri & expecting tejas mk1, mk2A to improve on performance.

That's what I am saying.

Just to get more thrust , you cant increase engine weight in a haphazard manner & expect the fighter to perform.

I am.not sure of current developments on kaveri weight.

If what you say is correct, it is good news only,

Because lesser weight , more Engine TWR kaveri is the right way to go.

Only then we can get a better tejas,

 

[Enquirer]

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/wap....he-tejas-get-foreign-help-115071401389_1.html


"furthermore, the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast: dead weight inserted while designing the fighter to correct its centre of gravity. The ballast removed, and the Mark II could instead carry 300 more kilos of useful payload. "


If all the balancing weight needed to balance extra 300 KG weight version kavery(FOR 16 KN extra thrust )


why is there a ballast in tejas mk1?


ADA shouldn't hv put this ballast & instead distributed this 300 kg as ,"useful fuel & pay load" weight in mk1 itself.

Read Ajai shukla's word again,

"furthermore, the Tejas Mark I is burdened with 300 kilos of ballast: dead weight inserted while designing the fighter to correct its centre of gravity. "

So it's obvious when unforeseen weight increase takes place behind CG ,to rebalance CG counter ballance ballast weight needs to be introduced.

This is what structural engineer is all about.

You can't use all unforeseen weight increase productively.

This 300 kg ballast is gona be replaced by useful avionics in mk1 & extra fuselage length in mk2

,that remain there on the fighter permanently, not fuel & weapon load, that get dumped in mission.

Why??

Because to fit into RSS Fly by wire CLAWS in all FLIGHT regimes ,

this lead plate ballast needs to be placed permanently.

Now mk1A dumps the ballast for avionics(some say ASEA cooling unit)

Mk2 with other design elements.

If you put extra 300 kg weight on the tail of tejas mk1 again,

You must add more than 300 KG Ballast in front of CG again.

Cant use this 300 kg for fuel & weapon ,as this weight needs to be permanently there on the fighter.

So it now becomes 300+300= 600 KG extra weight.

To support this extra weight you need at least 100 Kg of landing gear & fuselage strengthening.


Because this 600 kg at 8G loads will impact 8x 600 KG= 4.8 TON load on the fighter.

This why I questioned your competence in structural engineering.

Seriously???
You still can't get me out of your mind? Seems like you've become my #!~ch!

You still want to argue about it?????
Only a bare-bones aircraft coupled with amateur designers will result in ballast use!
Tejas when appropriately loaded with sensors & weaponized doesn't need any ballast!
Minor additional weight in the engine can easily be accommodated by introducing IRST etc (which Tejas does not carry today). Only amateurs think of lead blocks!
Of course you forget all about the 20% additional thrust that was part of the equation. Never mind.

Look buddy! I have gauged your level of intellect and integrity. It's a waste of my time to engage with you. Please talk to @Willy3 who is eager to listen to 'your' kind of faux-science and is ever eager to declare you as the 'winner'.

 

[ersakthivel]

Seriously???
You still can't get me out of your mind? Seems like you've become my #!~ch!

You still want to argue about it?????
Only a bare-bones aircraft coupled with amateur designers will result in ballast use!
Tejas when appropriately loaded with sensors & weaponized doesn't need any ballast!
Minor additional weight in the engine can easily be accommodated by introducing IRST etc (which Tejas does not carry today). Only amateurs think of lead blocks!
Of course you forget all about the 20% additional thrust that was part of the equation. Never mind.

Look buddy! I have gauged your level of intellect and integrity. It's a waste of my time to engage with you. Please talk to @Willy3 who is eager to listen to 'your' kind of faux-science and is ever eager to declare you as the 'winner'.

Who is this

@Willy3


, I dont even know,

Why are you taking pains to mention him every time??

IRST or ASEA cooling unit by replacing 300 KG ballast is an agreed compromise between IAF ,HAL,& MOD fashioned by Manohar Parrikar after 13 meetings spread over months to keep tejas line chucking on till mk2 arrives.


another 300 kg engine weight + a ballast weight of (300 kg * X , X being the distance factor ) + 100 KG Fuselage weight for just 16 KN extra thrust is not going to lead to any better tejas version after another decade (or 5 to 7 years)of redesigning than impending mk2.

& God won't send another Parrikar for another round of plea bargaining between HAL,ADA,MOD for apt replacement of this new 300*X Kg ballast weight with more useful items.



By the time a fully redesigned tejas mk2 with better engine TWR GE 414 WILL BE READY for production.

If it is a waste of time to engage with me,

It is even more of a waste of your precious time judging whether my science is fauxpaus or about the quality of my integrity & intellect.

No one here is interested in these useless judgements.

Every one can read & comprehend stuff,

Just advance plain argument with technical details like @lcafanboy


or let it be,

 

[no smoking]

Also dry thrust is now at 57kn and wet 81kn flat rated. So it means thrust is already above 91-92kn since for flat rating thrust is reduced by around 12-15%. The final aim is to get 60kn dry and 90-95kn wet thrust for now.

In DRDO websit, they clearly list that the 81kn is the MAXIMUM after burner power thrust.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=kaveri-new.jsp

Flat rated engine is an engine that manufacturer guarantee a certain level of engine thrust only for certain type of flying condition, such as take off, cruise, climb by adjusting the air flow, inlet temperature, etc. The idea of this is make the plane performance predictable and cost saving, fuel efficiency. But, no one will downgrade the thrust in other flying condition such dog fight. So, in the case of Kaveri, if the maximum thrust is 81kn, as a flat rate engine, the guaranteed thrust in certain stage should be lower than this level.

 

[Pulkit]

Loosing my mind over the speculation in news that IAF is going to take over the division on DRDO HAL ADA working on Tejas....
The other thing about which I am loosing my patience is Tejas Mk2 first flight projected to be 2023 + 5 years testing (being generous IAF gonna linger for more than a decade over it) and induction in 2028.

Not my figures read few news columns and articles here and there.

Is there any truth in this?

If IAF takes over Tejas now they are gonna bury it so deep that no one will ever be able to revive it.
I thought MK2 was supposed to be first flight by 2020-21 not 23 and induction complete first squad by 2025.

Please help.....

 

[lcafanboy]

In DRDO websit, they clearly list that the 81kn is the MAXIMUM after burner power thrust.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=kaveri-new.jsp

Flat rated engine is an engine that manufacturer guarantee a certain level of engine thrust only for certain type of flying condition, such as take off, cruise, climb by adjusting the air flow, inlet temperature, etc. The idea of this is make the plane performance predictable and cost saving, fuel efficiency. But, no one will downgrade the thrust in other flying condition such dog fight. So, in the case of Kaveri, if the maximum thrust is 81kn, as a flat rate engine, the guaranteed thrust in certain stage should be lower than this level.

Those are old figures. Kaveri engine has been improved a lot firstly due to in house improvement by DRDO and also now snecma providing help as off set for Rafale deal. Kaveri will be tested early next year. We need help in uprating core by adding stages once we get that India will be able to make family of turbofan engines. And yes Kaveri engine is as contemporary as any western engine.

 

[Pulkit]

My point being you can not add 300 kg extra weight on tejas engine(kaveri or GE or any other engine) for 96 KN thrust (just 16 KN i.e 20% extra thrust) as GE 404 weighs close to 1000 KG Already.

Are you suggesting that we keep GE 404 only for Tejas Mk2 if Kaveri doesnot come through?
based on my information Mk1 weighs close to 6,500 kg and given the change in dimensions and size of Mk2 it is supposed to go upto 7200+ Kgs given all the composites does the GE 404 has enough power to support it?
Lets say we add 300kgs of new engine to this 7500 kgs does the new engine has enough power?
These are all empty weights one must remember.

According to me we need more power in the same weight group, but is it possible?

Because we may need to add more ballast , in a detailed redesigning.


Only the availability of better engine TWR kaveri can call for redesigning of tejas to take kaveri in.

No use in putting a 96 KN engine weighing close to 1400 KG weighing kaveri & expecting tejas mk1, mk2A to improve on performance.

Agreed, But I have not heard of the term Mk2A yet?
and I also don't think they were gonna put them in Mk1 and Mk1A.
They were aiming it for Mk2 version and if they can keep the weight in check lets say under 7200kgs of empty weight they can go for the heavier 96KN engine. Weight to power proportion will be more in that case hence I am assuming the performance will improve.

That's what I am saying.

Just to get more thrust , you cant increase engine weight in a haphazard manner & expect the fighter to perform.

They need to keep a check on weight.

I am.not sure of current developments on kaveri weight.

If what you say is correct, it is good news only,

Because lesser weight , more Engine TWR kaveri is the right way to go.

Only then we can get a better tejas,

true.....

 

[FactsPlease]

Those are old figures. Kaveri engine has been improved a lot firstly due to in house improvement by DRDO ...

Source, please?

If you got source, my great gratitude that you and No Smoking are at least debating on FACTS, not speculation. Thanks.

 

[Kshithij]

Those are old figures. Kaveri engine has been improved a lot firstly due to in house improvement by DRDO and also now snecma providing help as off set for Rafale deal. Kaveri will be tested early next year. We need help in uprating core by adding stages once we get that India will be able to make family of turbofan engines. And yes Kaveri engine is as contemporary as any western engine.

Adding an extra stage will not make it as contemporary as other engine but heavier

Are you suggesting that we keep GE 404 only for Tejas Mk2 if Kaveri doesnot come through?
based on my information Mk1 weighs close to 6,500 kg and given the change in dimensions and size of Mk2 it is supposed to go upto 7200+ Kgs given all the composites does the GE 404 has enough power to support it?
Lets say we add 300kgs of new engine to this 7500 kgs does the new engine has enough power?
These are all empty weights one must remember.

The Mk2 weighs 8tons when empty and fully equipped with all the internal items and cannon. MK2 is having additional 1m length, larger wings which add to its airframe weight. Then it has AESA radar, SPJ, Laser pods, OBOGS, heavier landing gear, heavier engine etc which add 1.3ton of weight to the currently existing 6.7ton weight.

The addition of weight between F414 an F404 is just about 45kg (4%) while the addition of thrust is about 16%. So, this makes things easier to handle. However, if one is suggesting that Kaveri engine should have 20% or even 10% weight penalty over F404 but have same performance as F404, then it becomes too much to handle. Even a 10% penalty at 1200kg for 84-85kN Kaveri becomes unacceptable. TWR of 8 is minimum requirement for an engine to be reasonably good. Even engines like Al31F have 7.8 TWR.

If the idea is to add a stage to F404 and maintain TWR of 8 while getting higher thrust, it is acceptable. An engine weighing 1225kg for 98kN engine is acceptable, even if it weighs 100kg over F414 as it still has TWR of 8. But 1200kg for 85kN will become too heavy

 

[ersakthivel]

Those are old figures. Kaveri engine has been improved a lot firstly due to in house improvement by DRDO and also now snecma providing help as off set for Rafale deal. Kaveri will be tested early next year. We need help in uprating core by adding stages once we get that India will be able to make family of turbofan engines. And yes Kaveri engine is as contemporary as any western engine.

Are you suggesting that we keep GE 404 only for Tejas Mk2 if Kaveri doesnot come through?
based on my information Mk1 weighs close to 6,500 kg and given the change in dimensions and size of Mk2 it is supposed to go upto 7200+ Kgs given all the composites does the GE 404 has enough power to support it?
Lets say we add 300kgs of new engine to this 7500 kgs does the new engine has enough power?
These are all empty weights one must remember.

According to me we need more power in the same weight group, but is it possible?

Agreed, But I have not heard of the term Mk2A yet?
and I also don't think they were gonna put them in Mk1 and Mk1A.
They were aiming it for Mk2 version and if they can keep the weight in check lets say under 7200kgs of empty weight they can go for the heavier 96KN engine. Weight to power proportion will be more in that case hence I am assuming the performance will improve.

They need to keep a check on weight. true.....

GE 414 for mk2

GE 414 has better Engine Thrust to weight ratio than GE 404, So it can support the additional weight without cutting range, weapon load or ruining AOA, STR,ITR.

I am referring to thrust to weight ratio of engines.
i.e Engine Thrust / engine weight.

It is a measure of engine's effectiveness in powering plane with better combat specs.

Instead of mk1A I typed mk2A by mistake , sorry for that.


There is no mk2A

 

[ersakthivel]

Adding an extra stage will not make it as contemporary as other engine but heavier



The Mk2 weighs 8tons when empty and fully equipped with all the internal items and cannon. MK2 is having additional 1m length, larger wings which add to its airframe weight. Then it has AESA radar, SPJ, Laser pods, OBOGS, heavier landing gear, heavier engine etc which add 1.3ton of weight to the currently existing 6.7ton weight.

The addition of weight between F414 an F404 is just about 45kg (4%) while the addition of thrust is about 16%. So, this makes things easier to handle. However, if one is suggesting that Kaveri engine should have 20% or even 10% weight penalty over F404 but have same performance as F404, then it becomes too much to handle. Even a 10% penalty at 1200kg for 84-85kN Kaveri becomes unacceptable. TWR of 8 is minimum requirement for an engine to be reasonably good. Even engines like Al31F have 7.8 TWR.

If the idea is to add a stage to F404 and maintain TWR of 8 while getting higher thrust, it is acceptable. An engine weighing 1225kg for 98kN engine is acceptable, even if it weighs 100kg over F414 as it still has TWR of 8. But 1200kg for 85kN will become too heavy

"However, if one is suggesting that Kaveri engine should have 20% or even 10% weight penalty over F404 buthave same performanceas F404, then it becomes too much to handle."

I assume you are referring to mk2

I think instead of F404, it should be F414 in the above passage.

Correct ? or wrong?

 

[ersakthivel]

Those are old figures. Kaveri engine has been improved a lot firstly due to in house improvement by DRDO and also now snecma providing help as off set for Rafale deal. Kaveri will be tested early next year. We need help in uprating core by adding stages once we get that India will be able to make family of turbofan engines. And yes Kaveri engine is as contemporary as any western engine.

Uprating core
&
Adding stages are two entirely different things.

Are you sure , french are suggesting additional stages, to increase thrust? (This will lead to significant engine weight increase, with thrust increae, it won't lead to optimal redesigning of tejas to extract better performance)

Or

Suggesting better core(this will lead to better thrust without significant weight increase, this will lead to better tejas)

To increase kaveri thrust?

If you hv any source , give link.