ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Okabe Rintarou]

Su27 is basically the same in the exterior design as Su30. The materials are the same mostly. If Su30 can carry weights, Su27 can too.

Yeah, that is what I thought as well, until I saw this last night:-

^And the sauce is stated to be https://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/

Second Tejas mk1 till recently like 2 years back was certified to carry 3500kg only. After tests that value has been updated to 4000 kg. I guess it’s always the balance between weight, drag and range. Stress studies are continuously carried out and based on results after a few years if 4000kg can be increased.

Didn't they update it to 4500kg in FOC?

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Yeah, that is what I thought as well, until I saw this last night:-

View attachment 173910
^And the sauce is stated to be https://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/


Didn't they update it to 4500kg in FOC?

Ive checked it out, source is fine. In fact, su-30 seems to be slightly less powerful than su-27, but if a limit of 4000kg is there, it is most likely due to restrictions on wing loading etc (i.e. they may not have reinforced it enough, if they only considered A2A roles).

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Ive checked it out, source is fine. In fact, su-30 seems to be slightly less powerful than su-27, but if a limit of 4000kg is there, it is most likely due to restrictions on wing loading etc (i.e. they may not have reinforced it enough, if they only considered A2A roles).

So that restriction being in place, especially as a structural limitation, would mean that a Su-27 carries less payload than a Tejas Mk1, right? YES! New Tejas fact to brag about!

 

[NutCracker]

Ive checked it out, source is fine. In fact, su-30 seems to be slightly less powerful than su-27, but if a limit of 4000kg is there, it is most likely due to restrictions on wing loading etc (i.e. they may not have reinforced it enough, if they only considered A2A roles).

@Okabe Rintarou

Also su27 lacks canards so it can also be runway requirement, not enough lift etc.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

@Okabe Rintarou

Also su27 lacks canards so it can also be runway requirement, not enough lift etc.

Maybe, but I am not sure how much the canards are useful for lift generation. I think the major reason would likely be structural limitation of some kind.

 

[NutCracker]

Maybe, but I am not sure how much the canards are useful for lift generation. I think the major reason would likely be structural limitation of some kind.

Yeah its old probably lack composite usage. Some flankers have canards for multiple reasons like heavier front due to radar , 2 men , manoeuvrability .

Didn't search but I think canards might've increased atleast 5% payload capacity of MKI.

 

[Super Flanker]

Su-27 can carry around 4.5 tons as per wiki. Ofc its wiki, but it was citing Sukhoi website as sauce.

According to this source though, the SU-27 can carry a maximum payload of 6000kg, wiki is not always a reliable source.

TBH, I doubt that Tejas MK-1 can carry more than the SU-27, LCA is a fighter in light weight category whereas the SU-27 is a fighter in heavyweight category, the Su-27's engines generate more thrust than Tejas's engine too.

Here is LINK of the source which I am talking about here :

Su-27 FLANKER (SUKHOI) - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces

A comprehensive guide to Russian and Soviet nuclear forces and facilities.

nuke.fas.org

Even if we take SU-27's total payload capacity as around 4500 kgs then it still can carry more than Tejas Mk-1 which is said to have a max payload capacity of 4000 kgs. There are several sources commenting on max capacity of both planes so for me it is kinda difficult to Conclude which can carry more than than the other. But the fact that LCA can carry that much being an LCA in comparison to the Su-27 which is a heavy weight fighter is a remarkable thing to me. Tejas Mk-2 will surpass the Su-27's max capacity Afaik.

I meant that its almost the same, not strictly the same. If we go by that, even Mirage has slightly less than Tejas Mk2.
And ofc I mean Hornet when I say Hornet, not SuperHornet.

According to sources that I have looked up on the internet with reference to Tejas mk-2's max payload then they are saying that Mk-2 will be able to carry a max payload of 6500 kgs, Mirage-2000 is said to be carry 6300 kgs so yeah Tejas Mk-2 will be able to carry more than Mirage-2000.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

According to this source though, the SU-27 can carry a maximum payload of 6000kg, wiki is not always a reliable source.

View attachment 173925


Here is LINK of the source which I am talking about here :

Su-27 FLANKER (SUKHOI) - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces

A comprehensive guide to Russian and Soviet nuclear forces and facilities.

nuke.fas.org

Even if we take SU-27's total payload capacity as around 4500 kgs then it still can carry more than Tejas Mk-1 which is said to have a max payload capacity of 4000 kgs.

Wiki is not a reliable source, but its citing Sukhoi official as its source. That said, FAS is also a reliable source, so maybe they increased payload capacity to 6000kg later on. That is still 25% less than what Su-30 can do. And TEDBF would carry even more than Su-30 lol. BTW, Tejas Mk1 payload has already increased beyond 4000kg. It increased to around 4500 kg I think. @Bleh would know the exact figure.

 

[Blademaster]

LCA Mk 1 may be able to carry up to 4k kg payload but it won't be able to maneuver. It will be like flying a pig or something whereas Su-27 would be more maneuverable.

 

[vishnugupt]

Call me dumb or whatever, but I realized this just today:

Tejas Mk2 has the same payload capacity as AMCA, F-35B, KF-21, Mirage, Hornet and MiG-35
And more than J-10C.

I mean I knew about Mirage, but the rest? WTF is wrong with me?


EDIT: Holy Hell! Su-27 has LESS payload capacity than Tejas Mk1. Not Mk2, Mk1.

what are you not paying attention is “absolute weapons carrying capacity”

If you go from lower end aircraft to Heavy aircraft you will see fuel carrying tanks disappear. Means you are right to say MWF has 6.5tons payload capacity but this capacity couldn’t not be utilised for weapons alone while Su 30 payload capacity could be utilised 100% for weapons only as it does not need to carry fuel tanks.

that is why heavy category aircraft are more versatile In real sense (Multirole) in single mission than light aircraft.

 

[lcafanboy]

Very informative thread....

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

LCA Mk 1 may be able to carry up to 4k kg payload but it won't be able to maneuver. It will be like flying a pig or something whereas Su-27 would be more maneuverable.

When you've achieved total air superiority over Pakistan after a certain duration of war, the ability to maneuver would be secondary to the amount of boom sticks you can carry.

what are you not paying attention is “absolute weapons carrying capacity”

If you go from lower end aircraft to Heavy aircraft you will see fuel carrying tanks disappear. Means you are right to say MWF has 6.5tons payload capacity but this capacity couldn’t not be utilised for weapons alone while Su 30 payload capacity could be utilised 100% for weapons only as it does not need to carry fuel tanks.

that is why heavy category aircraft are more versatile In real sense (Multirole) in single mission than light aircraft.

Bhai does it look like I am comparing the entire heavy aircraft to the light aircraft? I am not that dumb bro. If we go down that route, not only internal fuel capacity, but other factors like the ability to carry a radar with more TRMs, etc also come into play. Combat Radius also comes into play. And on the flipside, maintenance costs and time also comes into play. I am aware of all these factors. I am merely trying to point out the payload capacity. Not anything else.

I am actually rather taken aback with the push back my comment is receiving. Have you guys not seen the kind of shameless marketing foreigners do for their weapons? They look for facts like these and then make it a PR headline. Don't you remember @Sancho simping for Gripen? Why is everyone nitpicking everything about our own programs?

I say its comparable to F-35B in payload and someone has to point out its 300kg short. Have you seen the way Brits talk about their destroyers on the internet? I've seen them talking about how they are better than Arleigh Burke class. No joke.

So relax. Its fine if someone wants to point out that Tejas Mk2 carries the same payload as the F-35B. Or that its more than J-10.

 

[The Shrike]

Very informative thread....

The last tweet in the quote is quite relatable TBH, almost feels like Mk2 will take longer than Mk1 for first flight. Really messed up.

 

[Blademaster]

When you've achieved total air superiority over Pakistan after a certain duration of war, the ability to maneuver would be secondary to the amount of boom sticks you can carry.



Bhai does it look like I am comparing the entire heavy aircraft to the light aircraft? I am not that dumb bro. If we go down that route, not only internal fuel capacity, but other factors like the ability to carry a radar with more TRMs, etc also come into play. Combat Radius also comes into play. And on the flipside, maintenance costs and time also comes into play. I am aware of all these factors. I am merely trying to point out the payload capacity. Not anything else.

I am actually rather taken aback with the push back my comment is receiving. Have you guys not seen the kind of shameless marketing foreigners do for their weapons? They look for facts like these and then make it a PR headline. Don't you remember @Sancho simping for Gripen? Why is everyone nitpicking everything about our own programs?

I say its comparable to F-35B in payload and someone has to point out its 300kg short. Have you seen the way Brits talk about their destroyers on the internet? I've seen them talking about how they are better than Arleigh Burke class. No joke.

So relax. Its fine if someone wants to point out that Tejas Mk2 carries the same payload as the F-35B. Or that its more than J-10.

It is not pushing back. It is making sure we don't get carry away and get trapped in our praises and come across like idiots.

We can sing praises but we need to be factually correct.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

It is not pushing back. It is making sure we don't get carry away and get trapped in our praises and come across like idiots.

We can sing praises but we need to be factually correct.

And I am factually correct, aren't I?

 

[Blademaster]

And I am factually correct, aren't I?

Yes just with a different take. Don't take it personally though. We just don't want to end up looking like PDF or that moronic Bangladeshi poster.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Yes just with a different take. Don't take it personally though. We just don't want to end up looking like PDF or that moronic Bangladeshi poster.

No, not taking it personally. Its obviously not a personal attack. I think we are too conscious of becoming like the PDF trolls but a simple solution to this is sticking to facts and then weaving them into your arguments in a way that present our weapons in a positive light. BTW, even Brits and Americans regularly make stupid claims about their weapons. They just get away with it because they don't stray too far away from the facts.

I'll give you an example: I had this little factoid I used to use in arguments online about how Indian carrier battlegroup has similar levels of protection despite Indian destroyers being underarmed because we plan to have the most heavily armed carrier in the whole world.
That I based on the expected missile loadout of Vikrant with 64 Barak-8. But then during the ceremony it was revealed that the loadout is 32, and I climbed down and stopped using the "most heavily armed carrier" fact entirely. So its fine as long as we stick with the facts.

 

[Bleh]

Wiki is not a reliable source, but its citing Sukhoi official as its source. That said, FAS is also a reliable source, so maybe they increased payload capacity to 6000kg later on. That is still 25% less than what Su-30 can do. And TEDBF would carry even more than Su-30 lol. BTW, Tejas Mk1 payload has already increased beyond 4000kg. It increased to around 4500 kg I think. @Bleh would know the exact figure.

It's not like that... HVT told me LCA can take 3 DTs with A2G ordnance by cutting internal fuel, so max-paload can be 5.3ton externally (better for ops in a possible dogfight situation at hostile air)
That's why IAF was adamant on refueling probe.

Skills be similar for Su-30.. it's complicated

 

[NutCracker]

It's not like that... HVT told me LCA can take 3 DTs with A2G ordnance by cutting internal fuel, so max-paload can be 5.3ton externally (better for ops in a possible dogfight situation at hostile air)
That's why IAF was adamant on refueling probe.

Skills be similar for Su-30.. it's complicated

Any info/estimation available about the cost of these Drop tanks ?? and super sonic drop tanks ?

 

[Blademaster]

Any info/estimation available about the cost of these Drop tanks ?? and super sonic drop tanks ?

Do we recover those drop tanks? Are they reusable after being dropped onto hard ground or rocks?