ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Enquirer]

How much experience did HAL have in making helicopters? Also, the LCH helicopter was able to fly in 3 years. It was other factors like lack of softwares for combat role, lack of sensors, lack of missiles & integration and moat important, sabotage by UPA government which is responsible for delay. UPA even shelved IMRH program in 2008.

In case of MWF, AMCA etc, India now has supportive government, sensors, softwares, weapons Integration and other infrastructure and tested well on Tejas MK1. Only thing needed is airframe testing. So, it will be different from making something from scratch and will be much faster

LCH was based on the successful ALH! So, HAL had good experience in building helos!
LCH has the exact same engine, rotors, gear system, tail rotor etc etc!!

There are several years between 'able to fly' to 'ready for induction'!!! Fanboys don't appreciate the testing regime!!!

 

[Bleh]

@Advaidhya Tiwari exactly!

LCH has the exact same engine, rotors, gear system, tail rotor etc etc!!

Developing LCH from ALH was like, making a APS equipped MPV with ATGM & RCWS based on the chasis of a successful model of truck...

Tejas Mk2 & other Deltas. View attachment 32368

Just elongated the LCA & drew some canards...That looks nothing like MWF.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

LCH was based on the successful ALH! So, HAL had good experience in building helos!
LCH has the exact same engine, rotors, gear system, tail rotor etc etc!!

There are several years between 'able to fly' to 'ready for induction'!!! Fanboys don't appreciate the testing regime!!!

Do you understand that ALH is just a transport chopper? ALH Rudra was just under development and not yet completed back then. You are missing the most important factor - software. Software is not easy to make. Making the flight controls, fire control, missile integration etc take time. ALH didn't have all these things. If Rudra variant was ready, then LCH could have been completed quickly. But without Rudra, HAL had to develop entire set of softwares for LCH which took lot of time.

It was not the design of LCH airframe but the software that took the time. Otherwise, the LCH that flew in 2010 could have been used with some extra fitted cannon and called as LCH.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

@Advaidhya Tiwari exactly!


Developing LCH from ALH was like, making a APS equipped MPV with ATGM & RCWS based on the chasis of a successful model of truck...

Just elongated the LCA & drew some canards...That looks nothing like MWF.

What according to you should look like MWF?

 

[Bleh]

What according to you should look like MWF?

You know... this:

The nose, canopy, spine, base of tail, air-intakes, (maybe) the positioning of engine etc. have been changed.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

You know... this:

View attachment 32370
The nose, canopy, spine, base of tail, air-intakes, (maybe) the positioning of engine etc. have been changed...

So what if it is changed? This is not the answer of my question.

 

[Enquirer]

@Advaidhya Tiwari exactly!


Developing LCH from ALH was like, making a APS equipped MPV with ATGM & RCWS based on the chasis of a successful model of truck...

Totally inappropriate analogy!!
MPV and APS have completely different chassis! Different engines requirement, different gear/transmission system, different wheels/tracks!

ALH & LCH are essentially the same person with different clothes!! Same engine, same gear/transmission, same rotor blades, same avionics, SAME WEAPONRY (Rudra was developed before LCH)

Do you understand that ALH is just a transport chopper? ALH Rudra was just under development and not yet completed back then. You are missing the most important factor - software. Software is not easy to make. Making the flight controls, fire control, missile integration etc take time. ALH didn't have all these things. If Rudra variant was ready, then LCH could have been completed quickly. But without Rudra, HAL had to develop entire set of softwares for LCH which took lot of time.

Dude! Rudra was developed before LCH. While LCH airframe was being conceived, Rudra was weaponized - and the same stuff went into LCH!

It was not the design of LCH airframe but the software that took the time. Otherwise, the LCH that flew in 2010 could have been used with some extra fitted cannon and called as LCH.

You think they'll just copy-paste Mk1s software into Mk2???????
Mk2 has canards, wing size is different! They'll need to rewrite the FCS! The basic understanding of delta wings etc will definitely come handy.
There's more similarity between LCH-ALH software than there would be between TejasMk1-Mk2 software!!!

You're a typical fanboy. You see some tech demonstrator fly and you think its ready for action on the front!!!

 

[Bleh]

So what if it is changed? This is not the answer of my question.

So it doesn't look like the real MWF Tejas...

The dimension comparisons are good though. How massive Tejas' wings really are compared to its peers!

Q: "What according to you should look like MWF?"
A: This:

 

[chetan chopade]

if HAL makes MK2 ready for IOC in say 5-6 years (theoretically!)...would it be having same capability of eurofighter/rafale? at least gripen?

 

[HariPrasad-1]

So it doesn't look like the real MWF...

"What according to you should look like MWF?"

What looking has to do with MWF. It is a weight category. If MTOW of plane is 17.5 Tons as it is in the case of MWF, it falls in medium weight category like F 16 of US.

 

[Enquirer]

if HAL makes MK2 ready for IOC in say 5-6 years (theoretically!)...would it be having same capability of eurofighter/rafale? at least gripen?

More like Gripen.
Rafale/Eurofighter have longer ranges & higher payload capabilities (because of their twin engines)
Mk2 is an entry level in the medium-weight category.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

if HAL makes MK2 ready for IOC in say 5-6 years (theoretically!)...would it be having same capability of eurofighter/rafale? at least gripen?

No. They are much advance planes. However , Tejas Mk2 can substitute them in many roles. Tejas with advance AESA, EW and IRTSS system shall be like a cost effective version of these planes.

 

[chetan chopade]

No. They are much advance planes. However , Tejas Mk2 can substitute them in many roles. Tejas with advance AESA, EW and IRTSS system shall be like a down graded version of these planes.

but it could be equivalent to gripen i guess

 

[chetan chopade]

a chinese guy on "other" forum came up with this... let us admire his effort!

 

[HariPrasad-1]

but it could be equivalent to gripen i guess

Yes equivalent to Gripen E....................

 

[Bleh]

What looking has to do with MWF. It is a weight category.

I meant Teja Mark 2 (being designated at MWF, like Mark 1 as LCA).

The thread should be renamed to: ADA MWF Tejas Mark-II

More like Gripen.
Rafale/Eurofighter have longer ranges & higher payload capabilities (because of their twin engines)
Mk2 is an entry level in the medium-weight category.

Question: How does Rafale has longer range while it's powered by two engines, despite being very similar in size?

 

[tsunami]

Can't stop myself from doing stupid calculations... So hear they are...

Max. take Off Weight =17.5 tons
Weapon Load = 6.5 tons
So Loaded Weight = 11 tons
Internal Fuel = 3.3 tons
So empty weight = 11000 Kg - 3300 kg - 500 Kg (Additional Load) = 7200 KG (7.2 tons)

Fuel fraction = 30%
Wing will be around 40 sq Meter
So wing loading should be around 275 Kg/Sq Meter
If an 70/110 Kn engine is used then Trust to weight Ratio will be 0.65 Dry and 1 max.

ADA defiantly have tried for a very good plane in terms of specs at least on paper.

 

[Enquirer]

Can't stop myself from doing stupid calculations... So hear they are...

Max. take Off Weight =17.5 tons
Weapon Load = 6.5 tons
So Loaded Weight = 11 tons
Internal Fuel = 3.3 tons
So empty weight = 11000 Kg - 3300 kg - 500 Kg (Additional Load) = 7200 KG (7.2 tons)

Fuel fraction = 30%
Wing will be around 40 sq Meter
So wing loading should be around 275 Kg/Sq Meter
If an 70/110 Kn engine is used then Trust to weight Ratio will be 0.65 Dry and 1 max.

ADA defiantly have tried for a very good plane in terms of specs at least on paper.

Empty weight will be less than 7200 kg because there are a lot of lubricants, coolants etc that are not counted in empty weight. Also there's the pilot!

My guesstimate is that empty weight is slightly below 7000 kg.

(I don't want to talk about wing loading - bad memories on this forum )

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Dude! Rudra was developed before LCH. While LCH airframe was being conceived, Rudra was weaponized - and the same stuff went into LCH!

Can you tell me which weapon was used in Rudra? Except for cannon and Mistral ,Rudra had very limited weapons. The integration was done by France and they would not give the codes.

Entire Rudra as well as LCH had to be developed indigenous systems. That took time.

You think they'll just copy-paste Mk1s software into Mk2???????
Mk2 has canards, wing size is different! They'll need to rewrite the FCS! The basic understanding of delta wings etc will definitely come handy.
There's more similarity between LCH-ALH software than there would be between TejasMk1-Mk2 software

The FBW has to change somewhat but the avionics, fire control, weapons Integration, radar etc are available. Even FBW changes are minimal in terms of additional controls. It is not the FBW but the other weapons software that takes time. Why do you think it takes 7-8 years to make a radar? The radar module is simple electronics but the software part is the hardest

Can't stop myself from doing stupid calculations... So hear they are...

Max. take Off Weight =17.5 tons
Weapon Load = 6.5 tons
So Loaded Weight = 11 tons
Internal Fuel = 3.3 tons
So empty weight = 11000 Kg - 3300 kg - 500 Kg (Additional Load) = 7200 KG (7.2 tons)

Fuel fraction = 30%
Wing will be around 40 sq Meter
So wing loading should be around 275 Kg/Sq Meter
If an 70/110 Kn engine is used then Trust to weight Ratio will be 0.65 Dry and 1 max.

ADA defiantly have tried for a very good plane in terms of specs at least on paper.

The empty weight will be higher as increase in 1.35m length (as said in livefist interview), increase in engine size & its chassis, addition on internal system like IRST, EW suite etc will increase the empty weight from current 6.6 ton to 7.5 ton. Additional weight like pilot, coolant etc will be another 500kg. So, the expected payload may be 6ton. 6.5ton is only desirable payload but may not be practical

 

[Enquirer]

Can you tell me which weapon was used in Rudra? Except for cannon and Mistral ,Rudra had very limited weapons. The integration was done by France and they would not give the codes.

Entire Rudra as well as LCH had to be developed indigenous systems. That took time.


The FBW has to change somewhat but the avionics, fire control, weapons Integration, radar etc are available. Even FBW changes are minimal in terms of additional controls. It is not the FBW but the other weapons software that takes time. Why do you think it takes 7-8 years to make a radar? The radar module is simple electronics but the software part is the hardest


The empty weight will be higher as increase in 1.35m length (as said in livefist interview), increase in engine size & its chassis, addition on internal system like IRST, EW suite etc will increase the empty weight from current 6.6 ton to 7.5 ton. Additional weight like pilot, coolant etc will be another 500kg. So, the expected payload may be 6ton. 6.5ton is only desirable payload but may not be practical

I think (as usual) you've lost track of the subject matter of the conversation. Reread the thread and comment again if u wish.