ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Saichand K]

@pankaj nema

Some of the concerns about combat radius of tejas is answered here:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...km-with-a-drop-tank-as-mentioned-in-Wikipedia

Saikot had analyzed both western front and eastern front air bases, distances from major enemy cities from indian air bases. In case of war, I believe IAF won't send all fighter AC on bombing mission/CAS mission keeping none to defend the airbases. Also for western front, the airbases are near by so they can send interceptor AC for defence.

Thanks to @saikot banerjee for answering. He has analyzed all air bases in west and east in the link provided above.

//Combat Radius(taken from wiki) is not that bad at all taking into mind LCA can operate from Leh with reasonable payload
View attachment 27190

//Indian airbases - Yellow
//Paki cities - Red
View attachment 27191

Even on BRF, I have seen posters having same viewpoint that most of the areas of conflict can be covered by tejas for air defence and CAS operations(in both west & northeast). I am not expert and just browse through LCA thread whenever I get spare time.

Even if Tejas is not within this radius and is placed somewhere in Madhyapradesh, it can still be used for Air defence, or for support to air defence by using 2x1200 lt drop tanks which can be shed once it enters the combat arena. The damning answer to naysayers of Tejas' combat radius is it has comparative or better combat radius as compared to Mig-21. Then what is the issue? I am sure Mk-1A with levecons will be more potent than Mig-27 in terms of better low flying characteristics.

 

[Prashant12]

CSIO develops tech for Tejas’ air-to-air refuelling at night


CHANDIGARH: The Central Scientific InstrumentsOrganisation (CSIO) laboratory has developed drogue illumination system for light combat aircraft Tejas, making India third in the world after the US and France to have this technology. This will enable airto-air refuelling, which is not possible during night/cloudy skies for fighter aircraft. The system is expected to be ready by year-end. Also, the indigenous lighting system will be one fifth of the cost available with offshore vendors and have greater illumination even than Rafael.

The Rs 2.51 crore project is funded by Aeronautical Development Agency, Bangalore. The illumination system is fitted outside the cockpit. Presently, the illumination system is undergoing rigorous certification tests by the ‘Regional Centre for Military Airworthiness’, an agency under the IAF.

Usually in fighter aircraft, which carry ammunitions, the external fuel tank is removed to adjust weapons and therefore there is shortage of fuel after 45 minutes of flight time. “However, none of the fighter aircraft in our country has illumination system for night. A pilot cannot land during a military operation and therefore lighting system is significant,” said Harry Garg, a scientist at the CSIO associated with the project. He said, “We have been informed by the IAF that only France and US have drogue illumination systems.”


The drogue light is an external lighting equipment to provide illumination of mother aircraft/tanker (the heavy aircraft that is ahead of the receiver aircraft which needs the refuelling) during air-to-air refuelling at night or low visibility conditions.


During the flight, at high altitudes there is low pressure and lot of drag force that results in vibration. This makes it tough for air refuelling as the system needs to be stabilised during the flight. For correct alignment of the receiver aircraft, the drogue needs illumination. “We have made the system using 5 LEDs, reducing the consumption from 1100 watts t0 200watts. Due to our optical design, we have been able to provide light intensity of 12 LUX, which is the highest as compared to the systems provided in the aircraft by France and the US,” said RK Sinha, director, CSIO. What is drogue?


For air-to-air refuelling, there is a technician inside the tailend of the tanker aircraft (mother aircraft) who unspools a long hose from that side. At the end of the hose is a drogue, that looks like an umbrella and reduces the drag force that vibrates the plane. Once the hose is fully extended, the receiver pilot manoeuvres a retractable probe mounted on the plane’s nose into the drogue. Both the drogue and probe is used for airto-air refuelling.


“As the circumference of the drogue is 40 metres, the pilot of the receiver aircraft cannot see anything and therefore cannot manoeuvre the probe during refuelling during low visibility conditions. So, we have designed the system is such a way that both the technician who refuels and the pilot in the receiver aircraft can see the drogue and the probe getting attached for refuelling,” said Harry Garg, a scientist at the CSIO associated with the project.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-refuelling-at-night/articleshow/65466539.cms

 

[Enquirer]

“As the circumference of the drogue is 40 metres"

Really??

Is it a refueler or a net to catch fighter jets?

 

[lcafanboy]

“As the circumference of the drogue is 40 metres"

Really??

Is it a refueler or a net to catch fighter jets?

NET to catch fighters...

Desi jhola chaap reporters become defence reporters for time pass...

 

[Vinod DX9]

India is now the third country after US and France to have a Drogue Illumination System

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel In all the joint Air land Exercises for implementing the Cold Start that we have read about , it is Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 which are used along with Jaguars and Mig 27

Where as Mig 21 are used for CAP

The Sukhois are for Offensive Fighter Sweeps

The same thing will happen with Mk 1
It will take the role earlier played by Mig 21

With The additional advantage of AESA and BVR

Which in itself is a huge gain over the Mig 21

Jags & mig 27s are the past.

They can be detected easily,

They don't hv the agility to win dog fights , if intercepted,

They are the past,

Unless we hv complete air superiority, you can't rely on them.

They are the old world ,"role specific fighters", specializing in strikes, like mig 21 specialized in air to air.

But tejas is a true multi role fighter in the class of gripen & rafale, typhoon ,etc,

It can strike with LGBs,

Has state of the art ASEA radar,

DRFM AESA jammers, &

can fire a 100 km range BVR missile.

& Has high agility in close combat,

So restricting the role of tejas to mig21 is illogical, stupid choice by any future air chief.


Now lets discuss the word FUEL FRACTION,

Which determines useful can't range in combat conditions ,

with meaning ful weapon loads,

A fighter's fuel fraction, is

is the weight of the fuel

divided

by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant, i.e empty weight of fighter+ INTERNAL fuel weight)

Tejas fuel weight = 2.5 tons,
Empty weight =6.5 tons,
Gross weight =9 tons


So 2.5/ 9 = 0.28 or 28 percent.


Fuel fractions for fighters,

F22= 29℅

Typhoon=31℅

Tejas =28℅

So there is nothing ,

over weight,
under powered ,
short range

about tejas mk1

that will trouble IAF, so deeply.




Tejas has a external load capacity of 4 tons approx,

Of that we can hv 2.5 tons approx as fuel,

This too is roughly the same for other fighters.

Most of brochure specs

for ,"extra ordinary "r ,"class leading " combat range

are fraudulent claims,

Because those extra long ranges are

always meant for

all external tanks filled,

with just a couple of air to air missiles,

and for a flight profile of full economia, high altitude flights,

Then war must be a picnic,
I suppose, whats the use for a ,"multi role","omni role" fighter that hv no heavy ground strike leads??



Such missions won't make up even 20% of actual combat missions in war.

For the rest 80% of missions,

"multi role" or "omni role " 4.5 th gen fighters,

hv to carry on at least 3 tons of weapon load.

So for 80 % of missions teajas is comparable to most 4.5th gen fighters of the world.


Plus twin engined fighters may impress you by tonnage of fuel.

But they hv two engines sipping fuel,

Other than for

high altitude, air policing flight profiles ,

with just a few air to air missiles(may make up 20% of combat sorties),

They too hv to lift twice the tejas weight in punishing low altitude intrusion missions,

to justify their high life cycle cost.

So other than 30 % approx extra range over tejas

There isn't much to cheer about those expensive twin engine fighter ranges too.

Let's hope this fuel fraction comparison doesn't descend into , Rhona dhona like ,"faux paus" "wing loading" discussion.

Hope, saner counsel prevails.

 

[ersakthivel]

Overemphasizes on maneuver ability meant that LCA is short stubby Aircraft with a huuuge wing. It's draggy and heavy.

No wonder we gave up this wing design in AMCA. But LCA should be produced and developed further as it's better and cheaper than any Similar imported aircraft

AMCA too is being designed with same wing loading as tejas, is what I heard.

Extra length in tejas mk2 will improve finesse ratio.

The reason tejas appears stubby , & nose heavy is,

It sports a radome, which has a bigger diameter than gripen,rafale,

If a potent ASEA radar is mounted on tejas mk2,(with cooling requirements provided for),

It will be able to fire missiles like meteor as effective as rafale .

So sleeker looks of rafale& gripen are not necessarily a blessing for any force.

Any fighter pilot will prefer a bigger radar over sleeker looks in my opinion.

Since AESA radars also double up as power ful jammers at times, the stubby look shortfall is more than made up.

 

[pankaj nema]

Jags & mig 27s are the past.

They can be detected easily,

They don't hv the agility to win dog fights , if intercepted,

They are the past,

Unless we hv complete air superiority, you can't rely on them.

They are the old world ,"role specific fighters", specializing in strikes, like mig 21 specialized in air to air.

But tejas is a true multi role fighter in the class of gripen & rafale, typhoon ,etc,

It can strike with LGBs,

Has state of the art ASEA radar,

DRFM AESA jammers, &

can fire a 100 km range BVR missile.

& Has high agility in close combat,

So restricting the role of tejas to mig21 is illogical, stupid choice by any future air chief.


Now lets discuss the word FUEL FRACTION,

Which determines useful can't range in combat conditions ,

with meaning ful weapon loads,

A fighter's fuel fraction, is

is the weight of the fuel

divided

by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant, i.e empty weight of fighter+ INTERNAL fuel weight)

Tejas fuel weight = 2.5 tons,
Empty weight =6.5 tons,
Gross weight =9 tons


So 2.5/ 9 = 0.28 or 28 percent.


Fuel fractions for fighters,

F22= 29℅

Typhoon=31℅

Tejas =28℅

So there is nothing ,

over weight,
under powered ,
short range

about tejas mk1

that will trouble IAF, so deeply.




Tejas has a external load capacity of 4 tons approx,

Of that we can hv 2.5 tons approx as fuel,

This too is roughly the same for other fighters.

Most of brochure specs

for ,"extra ordinary "r ,"class leading " combat range

are fraudulent claims,

Because those extra long ranges are

always meant for

all external tanks filled,

with just a couple of air to air missiles,

and for a flight profile of full economia, high altitude flights,

Then war must be a picnic,
I suppose, whats the use for a ,"multi role","omni role" fighter that hv no heavy ground strike leads??



Such missions won't make up even 20% of actual combat missions in war.

For the rest 80% of missions,

"multi role" or "omni role " 4.5 th gen fighters,

hv to carry on at least 3 tons of weapon load.

So for 80 % of missions teajas is comparable to most 4.5th gen fighters of the world.


Plus twin engined fighters may impress you by tonnage of fuel.

But they hv two engines sipping fuel,

Other than for

high altitude, air policing flight profiles ,

with just a few air to air missiles(may make up 20% of combat sorties),

They too hv to lift twice the tejas weight in punishing low altitude intrusion missions,

to justify their high life cycle cost.

So other than 30 % approx extra range over tejas

There isn't much to cheer about those expensive twin engine fighter ranges too.

Let's hope this fuel fraction comparison doesn't descend into , Rhona dhona like ,"faux paus" "wing loading" discussion.

Hope, saner counsel prevails.

Jags & mig 27s are the past.

They can be detected easily,

They don't hv the agility to win dog fights , if intercepted,

They are the past,

Unless we hv complete air superiority, you can't rely on them.

They are the old world ,"role specific fighters", specializing in strikes, like mig 21 specialized in air to air.

But tejas is a true multi role fighter in the class of gripen & rafale, typhoon ,etc,

It can strike with LGBs,

Has state of the art ASEA radar,

DRFM AESA jammers, &

can fire a 100 km range BVR missile.

& Has high agility in close combat,

So restricting the role of tejas to mig21 is illogical, stupid choice by any future air chief.


Now lets discuss the word FUEL FRACTION,

Which determines useful can't range in combat conditions ,

with meaning ful weapon loads,

A fighter's fuel fraction, is

is the weight of the fuel

divided

by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant, i.e empty weight of fighter+ INTERNAL fuel weight)

Tejas fuel weight = 2.5 tons,
Empty weight =6.5 tons,
Gross weight =9 tons


So 2.5/ 9 = 0.28 or 28 percent.


Fuel fractions for fighters,

F22= 29℅

Typhoon=31℅

Tejas =28℅

So there is nothing ,

over weight,
under powered ,
short range

about tejas mk1

that will trouble IAF, so deeply.




Tejas has a external load capacity of 4 tons approx,

Of that we can hv 2.5 tons approx as fuel,

This too is roughly the same for other fighters.

Most of brochure specs

for ,"extra ordinary "r ,"class leading " combat range

are fraudulent claims,

Because those extra long ranges are

always meant for

all external tanks filled,

with just a couple of air to air missiles,

and for a flight profile of full economia, high altitude flights,

Then war must be a picnic,
I suppose, whats the use for a ,"multi role","omni role" fighter that hv no heavy ground strike leads??



Such missions won't make up even 20% of actual combat missions in war.

For the rest 80% of missions,

"multi role" or "omni role " 4.5 th gen fighters,

hv to carry on at least 3 tons of weapon load.

So for 80 % of missions teajas is comparable to most 4.5th gen fighters of the world.


Plus twin engined fighters may impress you by tonnage of fuel.

But they hv two engines sipping fuel,

Other than for

high altitude, air policing flight profiles ,

with just a few air to air missiles(may make up 20% of combat sorties),

They too hv to lift twice the tejas weight in punishing low altitude intrusion missions,

to justify their high life cycle cost.

So other than 30 % approx extra range over tejas

There isn't much to cheer about those expensive twin engine fighter ranges too.

Let's hope this fuel fraction comparison doesn't descend into , Rhona dhona like ,"faux paus" "wing loading" discussion.

Hope, saner counsel prevails.

Let me put out a few points very clearly

I don't want India to loose any future war

I don't want IAF to take any un necessary
Risks and sacrifice its pilots just to prove a point about Tejas' s capabilities to the Indian public

Having said that it is also improper to say that IAF keeps rejecting Tejas because it wants foreign "goodies "

Like the chief said a few months back
That Many IAF personnel have died while flying and testing Indigenous planes

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.hi...e-chief/story-EuU7X9jIeZbAECMBNUDlRI_amp.html

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen C has the same engine as our M K 1
But much better combat radius

You can fight or bomb the enemy only if you are flying in the air

If you are out of fuel you have to turn back

This obsession with wing loading and
WVR is meaningless

Once you have secured a Lock on with an AESA and fired a BVR missile the enemy will be forced to break away and take evasive action

The FOC on MK 1 is held up because of BVR capability

Tejas has fired the R 73 WVR long back

All JF 17 s will get AESA and BVR AAMs

What is the combat radius of gripen C ,

in a punishing low altitude intrusion mission,

with 3 ton weapon load , in high temp,

high humidity indian conditions?

Answer won't be revealed by Any SAAB PR team,

This is what I call fooling people with brochure BS,

Gripen C engine has same fuel efficiency, lower thrust than tejas engine,


It has lesser internal fuel &
Higher empty weight than tejas mk1 , EVEN THOUGH it has lower wing area.

Thats due to lower composite percentage in gripen C.

It cant hv those fancy brochure ranges in this condition.
Tejas mk1 range in these conditions may even surprise you.

 

[ersakthivel]

Let me put out a few points very clearly

I don't want India to loose any future war

I don't want IAF to take any un necessary
Risks and sacrifice its pilots just to prove a point about Tejas' s capabilities to the Indian public

Having said that it is also improper to say that IAF keeps rejecting Tejas because it wants foreign "goodies "

Like the chief said a few months back
That Many IAF personnel have died while flying and testing Indigenous planes

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.hi...e-chief/story-EuU7X9jIeZbAECMBNUDlRI_amp.html

Winning the next two front war is all about building mil aviation industry at home.

It all depends upon the ,"number of decent tech level fighters IAF will be abkeato field for a given BUDGET".

Buying fancy toys that suck dollars throughout their lifecycle, upgradation is effectively reducing IAF fighter strength.

I certainly won't trust french or swedes to stand up to chinese pressure & supply us with vital spares in a a future war.

China is gonna be the world's no1 economy & fearsome military power in the world by ,"BUILDING" weapons industry at home,

Not by buying weapons from abroad.

Just look at the rate at which it is turning out N subs, war ships,

Tejas is not gonna fight F22 over Alaska,

It's good enough for Chinese ,Pak air force 4th gen fighter levels.

Just 100 rafales won't mean much, unless you hv 300 cost effective tejas to swarm the skies, to prevent chinese swarm of fighters.

Otherwise 100 odd rafales .may be good enough to kill 2
300 PLAF fighters in a swarm.

But they won't have a base to land on,

Not by ,"Importing" weapons from abroad.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Let me put out a few points very clearly

I don't want India to loose any future war

I don't want IAF to take any un necessary
Risks and sacrifice its pilots just to prove a point about Tejas' s capabilities to the Indian public

Having said that it is also improper to say that IAF keeps rejecting Tejas because it wants foreign "goodies "

Like the chief said a few months back
That Many IAF personnel have died while flying and testing Indigenous planes

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.hi...e-chief/story-EuU7X9jIeZbAECMBNUDlRI_amp.html

The only way to win wars is by having quantity with decent quality, not quality alone, The equation you must understand is this:

Quantity x Quality x WillPower = Strength.

Keeping Willpower aside, the other two parameters are Quantity x Quality. So, the right balance between the two is needed. If 2 Tejas can be made for the cost of 1 rafale, then 2 Tejas is better. Also, in war, attrition rate becomes very important. The BVR or SAM that will shoot down planes will shoot down only 1 plane per missile, whether rafale or Tejas. So, having 2 Tejas ensures that there is still one left to fight.

And, the quantity of planes needed is in thousands and lakhs over a few years time in a war, not hundreds. So, making assumptions of 36/72 rafales beating enemy to pulp is just fantasy.

 

[pankaj nema]

Winning the next two front war is all about building mil aviation industry at home.

It all depends upon the ,"number of decent tech level fighters IAF will be abkeato field for a given BUDGET".

Buying fancy toys that suck dollars throughout their lifecycle, upgradation is effectively reducing IAF fighter strength.

I certainly won't trust french or swedes to stand up to chinese pressure & supply us with vital spares in a a future war.

China is gonna be the world's no1 economy & fearsome military power in the world by ,"BUILDING" weapons industry at home,

Not by buying weapons from abroad.

Just look at the rate at which it is turning out N subs, war ships,

Tejas is not gonna fight F22 over Alaska,

It's good enough for Chinese ,Pak air force 4th gen fighter levels.

Just 100 rafales won't mean much, unless you hv 300 cost effective tejas to swarm the skies, to prevent chinese swarm of fighters.

Otherwise 100 odd rafales .may be good enough to kill 2
300 PLAF fighters in a swarm.

But they won't have a base to land on,

Not by ,"Importing" weapons from abroad.

You do realise that 300 Tejas also means 300 pilots

As things stand today , we are also short of pilots

I just want that Tejas should not be
"forced " to do things which it cannot

How can they make the best use of its capabilities should be left to the professionals

Tejas is just another Tool in their Tool Box

In the Gagan shakti exercise we learnt that after 72 hours of pounding the Pakis , the IAF turned its attention to the Chinese

So we can assume that in 72 hours PAF would be sufficiently degraded and the Remaining tasks can be accomplished by Tejas

But for the initial full frontal assault on Pakistan we will need Rafales and Sukhois
To decimate their AWACs and F 16s, SAMs
And Radars

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

You are assuming that PAF are morons who will be decimated in 3 days! Also, the SAMs and other AAA will come into picture. Countries like Turkey, Arabs, Iran may give their planes. Turkey may develop its own plane and manufacture enmasse in thousands and give it to Pakistan.

Also, 300-500 pilots are peanuts. If you need to win wars, better get 1 lakh -2 lakh pilots. In a country of 1.4 billion people, we should not be fooling around for just 300-400 pilots. If you can't field even 0.01% of the people into IAF, then you don't deserve to win. So, first ask if you deserve to win and then behave accordingly.

You do realise that 300 Tejas also means 300 pilots

As things stand today , we are also short of pilots

I just want that Tejas should not be
"forced " to do things which it cannot

How can they make the best use of its capabilities should be left to the professionals

Tejas is just another Tool in their Tool Box

In the Gagan shakti exercise we learnt that after 72 hours of pounding the Pakis , the IAF turned its attention to the Chinese

So we can assume that in 72 hours PAF would be sufficiently degraded and the Remaining tasks can be accomplished by Tejas

But for the initial full frontal assault on Pakistan we will need Rafales and Sukhois
To decimate their AWACs and F 16s, SAMs
And Radars

 

[Sancho]

The major reason I feel why the weight is high, inspite of using the composites is because of over design in several areas. This is because LCA is a first ever effort of India to build a fighter jet.

No doubt about that, we simply lack design know how and experience and it was a major mistake, to jump into the project mainly with the aim to do everything alone, when we had no clue what we are doing. We even had to hire EADS/Airbus as consultants for the testing and certification of the fighter and didn't used that consultancy to the full extend either, because ADA thought they know it better.

So we did it the first time, can't be an excuse, because we chose to do it alone, instead of using a design and development from scratch and till we succeed, like we did with the production, like we did it with Dhruv or Shakti engine.

Slowly with time I am confident that with more and more indigenisation the weight of Tejas could come down to target 5.6 t or so. For starters, redesign of landing gear by ADA is already on cards which reduces the overall weight by perhaps 400 kgs.

Sadly that's hard to achieve, because the more systems will be added, that also adds more weight. Replacing the pulse dopper radar from the MK1 IOC and integrating an AESA into MK1A, adds around 50Kg weight. The additional airframe parts of MK2, will logically add weight too.
The gear weight issue only applies to NLCA, not the IAF version.

 

[Enquirer]

Hyper jingoism shouldn't obscure facts & reality!

Gripen has smaller wing, lower composites, lower engine thrust, lower fuel etc etc...doesn't automatically lead to a poorer aircraft! It has BETTER DESIGN that gives it higher payload capability, range and maneuverability. Constantly fooling people to the contrary doesn't serve any rational purpose. Tejas is a decent outcome for a first time effort, but it's insane to falsely project it as the best aircraft out there! It's laughable to suggest that every claim SAAB makes is excessive but somehow Tejas/DRDO deliberately understates its capabilities!!

In a nutshell what's wrong is that (if I may use a culinary analogy) someone who's oblivious of the principles of cooking and further lacks any taste buds is arguing about which dish would taste great - just by looking at the ingredient list & personal affiliation with the cooks.

If someone were to think (for whatever reason) 'ginger' is the ONLY key to flavor (likes no other ingredient matters),then a recipe which uses the most ginger & cooked by one's close associate(who may be just learning to cook btw), is drummed up with false propaganda as the BEST dish in the world - ostensibly because it uses the most amount of ginger (than any other dish or that any other cook would use)! Of course, connoisseurs know better!

 

[ersakthivel]

"Gripen has smaller wing, lower composites, lower engine thrust, lower fuel etc etc...doesn't automatically lead to a poorer aircraft! It has BETTER DESIGN thatgives it higher payload capability, "

Its a

Hyper jingoism shouldn't obscure facts & reality!

Gripen has smaller wing, lower composites, lower engine thrust, lower fuel etc etc...doesn't automatically lead to a poorer aircraft! It has BETTER DESIGN that gives it higher payload capability, range and maneuverability. Constantly fooling people to the contrary doesn't serve any rational purpose. Tejas is a decent outcome for a first time effort, but it's insane to falsely project it as the best aircraft out there! It's laughable to suggest that every claim SAAB makes is excessive but somehow Tejas/DRDO deliberately understates its capabilities!!

In a nutshell what's wrong is that (if I may use a culinary analogy) someone who's oblivious of the principles of cooking and further lacks any taste buds is arguing about which dish would taste great - just by looking at the ingredient list & personal affiliation with the cooks.

If someone were to think (for whatever reason) 'ginger' is the ONLY key to flavor (likes no other ingredient matters),then a recipe which uses the most ginger & cooked by one's close associate(who may be just learning to cook btw), is drummed up with false propaganda as the BEST dish in the world - ostensibly because it uses the most amount of ginger (than any other dish or that any other cook would use)! Of course, connoisseurs know better!

"Gripen has smaller wing, lower composites, lower engine thrust, lower fuel etc etc...doesn't automatically lead to a poorer aircraft! It has BETTER DESIGN thatgives it higher payload capability, rangeand maneuverability."

So what ever you can neither understand nor explain becomes ,"better design" perhaps,

Since when did Brochure chutpaz became ,"better design"?

You don't even know why fighters from 4.5th gen onwards are sporting low wing loading Relaxed Static Stability fly by wire tech till a week ago?,

Now you are certifying ,"better design " by SAAB on gripenC???

LOL

Please tell the forum, "what are the secret masala ingredients", of this better design????

ROFL,

DO YOU refer to the stupid fly by wire software , that SAAB developed, which led to two prototypes crashing,,,
,
Sending test pilots scurrying into retirement???

After this ,"ground breaking" fly by wire effort, (literally because a prototype crashed into ground, just in a routine landing),

SAAB outsourced the fly by wire effort (nervous system of a RSS fly by wire fighter)
to US firm.

Compare that to 4000 flawless test flights of Tejas of fly by wire tech.

So much so that US pilots remarked, that their f16 flies better with tejas fly by wire software,

What this Enquirer guy is cooking here??

 

[ersakthivel]

No doubt about that, we simply lack design know how and experience and it was a major mistake, to jump into the project mainly with the aim to do everything alone, when we had no clue what we are doing. We even had to hire EADS/Airbus as consultants for the testing and certification of the fighter and didn't used that consultancy to the full extend either, because ADA thought they know it better.

So we did it the first time, can't be an excuse, because we chose to do it alone, instead of using a design and development from scratch and till we succeed, like we did with the production, like we did it with Dhruv or Shakti engine.



Sadly that's hard to achieve, because the more systems will be added, that also adds more weight. Replacing the pulse dopper radar from the MK1 IOC and integrating an AESA into MK1A, adds around 50Kg weight. The additional airframe parts of MK2, will logically add weight too.
The gear weight issue only applies to NLCA, not the IAF version.

As usual you don't know that there is already 300 kg led plate BALLAST weight in Tejas mk1, to balance CG,

This 300 kg wil be removed & AESA , plus cooling system will go in.

So no big weight gain as you are, "professing " here.

But facts are of little relevance, when you paint a narrative far from truth.

ROFL.

Please tell the forum, "what design know how and experience ,we lack", that SAAB has as far as tejas is concerned,,

ROFL,

DO YOU refer to the stupid fly by wire software , that SAAB developed, which led to two prototypes crashing,,,
,
Sending test pilots scurrying into retirement???

After this ,"ground breaking" fly by wire effort, (literally because a prototype crashed into ground, just in a routine landing),

SAAB outsourced the fly by wire effort (nervous systemof a RSS fly by wire fighter)
to US firm.

Compare that to 4000 flawless test flights of Tejas of fly by wire tech.

So much so that US pilotsremarked, that their f16 flies better with tejas fly by wire

 

[ersakthivel]

EADS, Boeing are consulted for naval temas landing gear redesign.

Not for air force version.

 

[Enquirer]

Constantly filling answer sheets with lengthy and irrelevant garbage might have fooled lazy examiners and given some know-nothings a passing score, but they get easily exposed in real life!

Dumping metal and plastic together doesn't make is it a supersonic aircraft. There's something called AERODYNAMIC DESIGN.

Folks interested should start reading Whitcomb's Area rule to understand some drawbacks in Tejas Mk1 (to be rectified in Mk2). Come back for future assignments.

Stating one company's claim as a complete set of lies while claiming DRDO 'understates' its product capability is the epitome of hyper jingoistic deception.

 

[ersakthivel]

Constantly filling answer sheets with lengthy and irrelevant garbage might have fooled lazy examiners and given some know-nothings a passing score, but they get easily exposed in real life!

Dumping metal and plastic together doesn't make is it a supersonic aircraft. There's something called AERODYNAMIC DESIGN.

Folks interested should start reading Whitcomb's Area rule to understand some drawbacks in Tejas Mk1 (to be rectified in Mk2). Come back for future assignments.

Stating one company's claim as a complete set of lies while claiming DRDO 'understates' its product capability is the epitome of hyper jingoistic deception.

A guy who didn't even know the significance of low wing loading for 4.5th gen RSS fly by wire delta wing fighters,

Is expounding on ,"AERODYNAMICS" NOW.

ROFL.


When , guys who claim to be ,"examiners", don't even know abc of the subject,
Answer sheet may look like martian language.

That I can't help it.

Whitcomb's area rule cones into effect , only in ,"SUPERSONIC" flight regime.

Not in subsonic corner velocities, where teja attains max Gs, AOA, ITR, STR etc.

What the CEMILAC report pointed out was the ," sudden cross section increase along the fuselage approx 4 metres behind tip "

, is STOPPING tejas from attaining SUPERSONIC speeds at SEA LEVEL.

But now teja has gone supersonic at sea level & has the same top speed of Su 30 MKI at sea level.

To say Whitcomb's rule will apply in subsonic corner velocities where ITR, STR, AOA G max are pulled us pure ignorance,



The "AUTOLAY" software ADA developed for fabrication of composite parts in Tejas is now being licensed BOEING.


Plus the mission computer , radar computer & weapon release software developed for su 30 mki has its origins from Tejas effort.

Just remember the brahmos launch from su 30 mki , to know what I am talking.

Russians were so impressed by it, they ordered 64 sets of mission computers, weapon release store software for their su 30 SM fighters.


So if you want to any credible info about tejas read my posts & learn.

ADA doesn't understate's tejas s specs. It gives specs at normal indian combat conditions where temp is 40 deg, humidity is high,
at normal weapon loads.

Others give it at IDSA (or ISDA,I am not sure) conditions , where temp is 20 deg, & humidity is low.

Endless whinning is of no use to any one.