Experts, now that HAL is all set to reduce the weight of Tejas MK1 by almost a ton why cannot we integrate the Kaveri GTRE engine with 75kn. It will save us a lot of forex instead of buying GE engines. We can later improve its performance or add 3D TVC in later MK's.
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter
- Thread starter Kunal Biswas
- Start date
Light aircrafts is possible with any configuration but not all are going to be efficient. One of the important decisions to be made while designing an aircraft is the Thrust to weight ratio of the engine itself and hence the need to be on the cutting edge of the engine design process itself. You can can check out the TWR for F-404 vs Adour Mk 871 and you will get your answer. Though they are some generations apart and the situation w.r.t. TWR will change if newer engines like F-125 IN are considered. But then these newer engines get hampered by their diameter which is bigger than even the Kaveri. At least Adour Mk871 was much smaller diameter. And you can well guess what 2 engines of large dia will do to the aerodynamics of the aircraft you want modified.
You can rest assured whoever begins to design a light aircraft has already thought through these design trade-offs, for next 10-20 years.
References:
Adour Mk871 (I think 27KN to 37KN):
Kaveri (achieved and confirmed 52KN to 75KN but higher side in standard conditions could be like 78-80KN):
F-124 (non after burning 28KN) from which F-125IN was to be derived for achieving (28KN to 44KN):
Do not believe in what the IAF honchos, put out to keep the support for LCA Tejas from building up. This is called deflection.
Last edited:
sabari
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2015
- Messages
- 303
- Likes
- 85
Thank you sir for enlighting me
Since it is ultimately about TWRs involved, why would the Kaveri not work if the weight is reduced to a level that the TWR is maintained. However, you could be under-estimating the challenges involved in the life cycle issue (Capital Costs, MTBO) besides there is still the question of the higher weight of the Kaveri itself and then there is off course the capability of the engine itself (is it going to work at least in the same manner with the same reliability as the F-404 all through the envelop).
If you think like a mission planner, would you not like to have the best of capabilities in terms of aerodynamic performance all through the flight envelop, war-loads, fuel-loads, structural integrity, max. mach numbers, RCS, altitudes performances, attitude control, dives, climb rates, angles of attack, pressure recoveries for the engines, Instantaneous Turn Rates, Sustained Turn Rates.
In most cases the engine placement inside the fuselage helps all these matters or at least does not militate against these requirements. OTOH in most cases the engine placement on the wings will begin to hurt your wishlist w.r.t. the above.
Its not like engine placement on the wings for high performance jets not been tried. B-58 Hustler is a great example. That was the time when people used to design stable (non-RSS) airplanes and B-58 had a reputation for very smooth ride quality and yet outperforming the contemporary Soviet interceptors. But then it began to experience massive challenges in terms of almost all the above requirements. Advanced Soviet SAMs then basically made the B-58 redundant. Even the early Tu-22 had the engines outside the fuselage - later the Soviets moved it to inside the fuselage. The same evolutionary path was taken by the fighters too, so its not like it is limited to bombers only.
Best would be that you read about Max-Q and its relationship with Velocity. After that if you have the gumption then you could try the much more complex velocity vs. turn rates and shock waves and associated drags. That should make apparent the constraints under which you will have to work with various layouts/planforms.
Last edited:
sabari
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2015
- Messages
- 303
- Likes
- 85
Thank you sir for enlightening me
Oh BTW here is the 2015 brochure for LCA more detailed than the earlier one. Hope it was not posted earlier.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas Brochure-2015.pdf
http://www.tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas Brochure-2015.pdf
3The Crossbow
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 17
Go to tejas IV and read page no. 252 report on tejas.
The funds were released in 1993 as you say to build protype but design was freezed?
when we released fund or not is a different debate but the fact remains ada/drdo promised jet in 1998/99 then in 2004/6 2010 and so on.
and still discussing on that is what i call e waste you can go on and do that...
i am repeating again i never said i want a low rcs stealthy mig 29 . I will explain you simply why i asked for a mig 29. but you must agree that tejas is inspired by mirage may be we can say kurt tank zindabad!
As you suggested that missiles hanging out do not increase rcs then my question is what does.
they certainly do increase the rcs but it doesn't matter much because we are not trying to make a stealthy jet but a low cost interceptor fighter. and to make a jet stealthy we have to reduce the rcs drastically.
about china i agree they do create a lot of hype and its working in their favor. On one hand they believe they are able to produce fifth gen jet and then they are buying sukhoi 35 when they are already builiding j-10 / j-11 their super duper jets. it clearly says until next decade su - 35 will be their best jet. though you may never know what future holds.
now you wanted a solution for design and all the stuff.right.
I am not a mechanical engineer here but my solution rise from the simple fact. IAF knew that they need mmrca and from 2006 - 2008 there was a clear neglect of tejas.
in 1998 america put sanction on india. and during that time mig was facing lot of difficulty to sustain. It is the order to upgrade iaf jets and indian navy's order of 45 mig 29 which kept it running for long.
during that time we could have based our jet on russian engines instead of ge.
mig was trying to develop mig 35 we could have got the design and other stuff from mig corp giving them money they needed and use their help to develop kaveri.
a twin engine config of tejas based on mig 29 will solve two problems first we will always have the option to power it with kaveri. due to its high load / range we could have shelved the rafale deal and instead use that money on tejas and amca.
mig 29 is a killer design and so is mig 35. they are basically mini sukhoi iaf said no not because they are not capable but since they wanted diversity in the platform they are buying and for western package.
i am a big fan of typhoon and mig 29 and everyone will agree both jets are best do fighter currently flying in the sky.
i am not against tejas but i am against the act that when we had time and money everything we needed then why not drop rafale and bring indian jet in sky. iaf is putting limits on tejas as they say they have very short range and that is true.also iaf relies on twin engine jet based on their past experience specially when it will be abt operation in enemy airspace. but if a twin engine jet could have been realised things might have been better and we might have order of 400 - 500 indian jets in the sky instead of 120 + .
Baahar se pura jet khareedne se achha joint venture hain. na se haan sahi..
Anyhow i just said i am not happy with what we are doing when we could have done better than this and tejas may be a great tech demonstrator but capability wise it is not going to add anything new in IAF nor it is fully indigenous.
and last but not the least we cannot do much that is true but then this forum is to discuss and think what we could have done discuss and then sleep over it right?
yes we can update it in batches but you cannot make a cotton turn into wool specially when you need it during cold times.
we shall understand why do we need these jets for to protect ourselves or to regain our lost pride i.e kashmir. If India wish to be sitting duck over kashmir then yes it is great jet go on.
Dear Crossbow, I do agree with your point that Tejas would have been a great Technology demonstrator and would not add anything new in our armory. But again we would have to look at bottom line here. Concept of Tejas had been layed out as a Light Combat Aircraft. Had any specific role been assigned to it at that time? I think the main purpose of Tejas was to build up an indigenous fighter. Now when that had been done after that brain storming is done to assign it a role. But the basic concept was to build up light combat aircraft and we should give 100/100 to DRDO and all concerned for achieving it.Go to tejas IV and read page no. 252 report on tejas.
The funds were released in 1993 as you say to build protype but design was freezed?
when we released fund or not is a different debate but the fact remains ada/drdo promised jet in 1998/99 then in 2004/6 2010 and so on.
and still discussing on that is what i call e waste you can go on and do that...
i am repeating again i never said i want a low rcs stealthy mig 29 . I will explain you simply why i asked for a mig 29. but you must agree that tejas is inspired by mirage may be we can say kurt tank zindabad!
As you suggested that missiles hanging out do not increase rcs then my question is what does.
they certainly do increase the rcs but it doesn't matter much because we are not trying to make a stealthy jet but a low cost interceptor fighter. and to make a jet stealthy we have to reduce the rcs drastically.
about china i agree they do create a lot of hype and its working in their favor. On one hand they believe they are able to produce fifth gen jet and then they are buying sukhoi 35 when they are already builiding j-10 / j-11 their super duper jets. it clearly says until next decade su - 35 will be their best jet. though you may never know what future holds.
now you wanted a solution for design and all the stuff.right.
I am not a mechanical engineer here but my solution rise from the simple fact. IAF knew that they need mmrca and from 2006 - 2008 there was a clear neglect of tejas.
in 1998 america put sanction on india. and during that time mig was facing lot of difficulty to sustain. It is the order to upgrade iaf jets and indian navy's order of 45 mig 29 which kept it running for long.
during that time we could have based our jet on russian engines instead of ge.
mig was trying to develop mig 35 we could have got the design and other stuff from mig corp giving them money they needed and use their help to develop kaveri.
a twin engine config of tejas based on mig 29 will solve two problems first we will always have the option to power it with kaveri. due to its high load / range we could have shelved the rafale deal and instead use that money on tejas and amca.
mig 29 is a killer design and so is mig 35. they are basically mini sukhoi iaf said no not because they are not capable but since they wanted diversity in the platform they are buying and for western package.
i am a big fan of typhoon and mig 29 and everyone will agree both jets are best do fighter currently flying in the sky.
i am not against tejas but i am against the act that when we had time and money everything we needed then why not drop rafale and bring indian jet in sky. iaf is putting limits on tejas as they say they have very short range and that is true.also iaf relies on twin engine jet based on their past experience specially when it will be abt operation in enemy airspace. but if a twin engine jet could have been realised things might have been better and we might have order of 400 - 500 indian jets in the sky instead of 120 + .
Baahar se pura jet khareedne se achha joint venture hain. na se haan sahi..
Anyhow i just said i am not happy with what we are doing when we could have done better than this and tejas may be a great tech demonstrator but capability wise it is not going to add anything new in IAF nor it is fully indigenous.
and last but not the least we cannot do much that is true but then this forum is to discuss and think what we could have done discuss and then sleep over it right?
yes we can update it in batches but you cannot make a cotton turn into wool specially when you need it during cold times.
we shall understand why do we need these jets for to protect ourselves or to regain our lost pride i.e kashmir. If India wish to be sitting duck over kashmir then yes it is great jet go on.
Where the problem is in accepting it in a particular role. For that there is no point in bashing DRDO or IAF. All of them who are involved in the project from day 1 are responsible for delays and setback. Here I have found some people arguing that why not use twin engine instead of one, as it would facilitate deep penetration. But where is the meaning of Light Combat Aircraft if you use two engines? Why it has not been conceptualized early that we need a deep penetrating fighter? Moreover some do say that it is to replace Mig-21. But does its design stand up to that?
I think we could see Tejas more as a ground attack fighter like Jaguar and Mirage. Now again the question rises that if its been designed accordingly, then why it is taking such a long time? The answer is yet again the same. Each and every one who was involved, who is involved and ofcourse who is going to get involve have his own share of thought and plan for it. Everyone is trying to tweak it for one purpose or other. I dont say that its bad, infact its a good thing that everyone is trying to fine tune the product. But the problem is more the people gets involve, more delay it would face.
Although some would say that involving a foreign OEM would be a good concept, but we should also keep in mind that what is our final objective. I think our final objective is to make a world class engine, a world class body design, world class avionics and to advance from current LCA to AMCA. I think LCA is a good platform to work on AMCA design and concept. We should learn from the setbacks and get inspiration from the success. Merely involving a third party is not the long time solution. We would have to groom our intelligence and expertise. As far as LCA is concerned, its my personal belief that, we should utilize this bird. Only after using it extensively, you would be able to draw out its +ve's and -ve's. Unless and untill IAF use it extensively with other aircrafts in our inventory, it would not be wise to keep on commenting on it.
One more thing which I left. Regarding why we didn't used Russian engines when there were sanctions on us. I think its all because what had been available at the time. Its always safe to assume that when you are new to something, one should always go with tried and tested method before indulging into something unknown. We had the tried and tested Mig's, Jaguars and Mirage at that time. Now since sanctions were imposed, getting engines from Europe was impossible. That left us with engines of Mig's. Now using the engines of 21 or 25 in LCA was out of question due to its airframe. And moreover it might be the thrive for engine tech know how which might have stopped us from using it. But its all based on my speculations only
.I would just like to say that as per me, whether its up to our expectations or not, we should use LCA and pitch it against other fighters to know exactly what it lacks and where it excels. When it comes to gain knowledge, pride doesn't have a place and neither does reverse engineering
.
3The Crossbow
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 17
no one is taking credit away from DRDO/ADA and most of the guys if are unhappy and miffed they blame HAL or our political inability to support the project like they should have.
and yes tejas was supposed to be the replacement of mig 21 new age interceptor based on experience with mirage and Gnat. it was supposed to be lca because later DRDO assured that they can make an engine which can produce desire thrust to power this plane. they did not wanted to repeat the mistake of marut when we did not had enough powerful engine.
the concept of twin engine is talk of the town sine 2006 as IAF shifted its doctrine to have a twin engine jet also with F-16 making its way into paf and j- 10 in china it was justified. but drdo kept pushing tejas and never offered the twin engine jet. using two engines do not take away the meaning of lca as a matter of fact f-16 with single engine were pitched as mmrca and mig 29 are light weight fighter too.
here they lack the basic understanding that the jet is supposed to meet iaf requirement and not just a learning curve for them. it is also a shame to see despite our relation with usa improving our defense ministry could not push usa directly to let us have ELTA - 2052 radar.
I do not understand much from it but can say Tejas is a multirole jet and a jet which says it is a truly 4th gen or 4.5 gen this is the minimum criteria to be fulfilled.
we are buying from outside joint reasearch production is way better than that. and to be true most of our successful programmes have foreign help russian or israeli.
when we say russian engines than due to their reliability issue everyone ask for a twin engine fighter. for lca russian engines could have been used from the beginning our defense strategy need to understand the political reality too. but due to the success of nuclear program those days indian elite scientist had say in everything they wanted specially from 1974 and you may see most of the projects whether arjun or other are plagued because of those decision. i don't have any doubt on their capability but when they behave like supermen it is too much to handle. to an extent the not so keen interest from our defense minister in these projects is also a reason these people were able to play around for decades.One more thing which I left. Regarding why we didn't used Russian engines when there were sanctions on us. I think its all because what had been available at the time. Its always safe to assume that when you are new to something, one should always go with tried and tested method before indulging into something unknown. We had the tried and tested Mig's, Jaguars and Mirage at that time. Now since sanctions were imposed, getting engines from Europe was impossible. That left us with engines of Mig's. Now using the engines of 21 or 25 in LCA was out of question due to its airframe. And moreover it might be the thrive for engine tech know how which might have stopped us from using it. But its all based on my speculations only
IAF has already identified what ti lacks and from 2006 - 2008 onwards too they asked for an improved version but no one listened to them and now drdo blame iaf doesn't support them. the fact remains drdo do not listen to what iaf say and expect them to support them.I would just like to say that as per me, whether its up to our expectations or not, we should use LCA and pitch it against other fighters to know exactly what it lacks and where it excels. When it comes to gain knowledge, pride doesn't have a place and neither does reverse engineering
we do not have much choice other than to support tejas and we will it is our baby but criticizing drdo/ada and deaf HAL is something we must do with full throttle. they are the spoilt brat of indian defense busy producing medicines instead of what they should.
cannonfodder
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,570
- Likes
- 4,426
@3The Crossbow , even if IAF realized that it needed twin engine fighter in lets say 2006, it would have been foolish to abandon all the work done on Tejas till that point and start from scratch for 2 engine jet fighter. Another question arises, do IAF really want to replace all MIG's with twin jet engine? Also remember its our first attempt to design/develop aircraft, and it has high learning curve. Everyone is frustrated with the delays in Tejas but it is not prudent to but all the blame squarely on ADA/DRDO folks. IAF could have taken leading role in development instead of having pure customer-producer relationship and may have anticipated this requirement well before as these aircraft development timeline run into decades. It is known that it is not the best aircraft, but it will hopefully led to shorter development times in future with lot of infrastructure available now.
The delays, timelines, requirements and changes specified by IAF and are well discussed in DFI on MK1 threads.
I am not that much of an expert on this issue but hopefully @ersakthivel who is an expert on Tejas will help you. But first give an read to MK1 thread.
The delays, timelines, requirements and changes specified by IAF and are well discussed in DFI on MK1 threads.
I am not that much of an expert on this issue but hopefully @ersakthivel who is an expert on Tejas will help you. But first give an read to MK1 thread.
As far as I know, first flight of LCA had taken place on 2001. As per my thinking, if there was a need for any major structural changes, why did IAF had to weight till 2005 / 2006. It shows both HAL and IAF did lacked farsightedness at that time. Moreover the designing had not been freezed without the consultation and go ahead of IAF. What I suggest is that both of them should have sat together and drawn out what they require and what should be left for future up gradation. Anyone would go crazy when you would demand something outrageous from them time to time and would sure act stubbornly as a result. Same is here with IAF and HAL. Each year after one fine or other they do come up with a new demand to be incorporated in it. And moreover where is the funding for it. When one see that the future of the LCA is not secured with IAF, why would one worry about working on it. Why such deadlocks not appearing with Navy?
What I suggest is, IAF and HAL should work in tandem in designing. It should be just a relationship of manufacturer and consumer. If they cant help in manufacturing, at least they should accept whats on offer and then try to make it better (just like jf-17 with PAF). Now its on paper that LCA would not see much (any) action, but it doesnt mean that we should lose hope of HAL and ARDE. Let IAF and HAL sit together and start working on AMCA. We should learn where we lacked in LCA and what we had gained from LCA. LCH has been a success and it shows that there is a lot in HAL and DRDO to offer.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
Tejas was no mere Gnat or mig-21 replacement, if that is the case ADA would have built a JF-17 old hag type with a russian engine, It was designed to bridge the development gap across four fighter generation techs and has succeeded in it..
A GE-404 was always kept in mind as replacement if there is trouble with Kaveri, so the shortfalls in kaveri has no effect on tejas program. If tejas flies with GE engines , by 2026 when it comes for engine replacement a Kaveri derivative derivative can easily qualify.
All airforces in the world bar china and russia(whose engine tech is not equal to west) have single engine planes as majority, Far into future many europen airforces and USAF will be single engine dominated with the huge F-16s at present and the arrival of F-35 which is also single engined.
Tejas more than meets IAFR needs spelt out for it and with proposed 1 ton weight reduction in mk1 A and much higher powered tejas mk2 will easily exceed the brief given by IAF, It is the IAF which is maintaining a stoic silence on HAL's tejas mk1A 5.5 ton empty weight fighter proposal.
NO tears need to be shed over ELTA 2052, ASEA for tejas will be ready in two years already the air to air mode is complete and air to ground mode is underway. It will be far better .
Tejas is no laarningcurve for holistic defence reasearch as you make it out to be, A trainer hawk costs 22 million and tejas a 4.5th gen fighter costs around 26 million, so it is a tremendously useful cost effective fighter with true multi role capacity,
And it has a combat radius of 500 Km wich is more than enough for pakistan, which is the main area of operation for tejas.
ALready kaveri produces around 80 Kn (if co related to sea level altitude) and tenders for parts for building 20 kaveri engine has been floated towards speeding up vertification, with the proposed shaving off weight from landing gear and nose cone ballast leading to 1 ton lesser weight tejas mk 1A the 80 Kn fat rated kaveri is more than enough for tejas mk1 A, SO it is not as if superamn scientists hoodwinked govt as you are saying.
It is not their fault if UPA govt freezes recruitment for DRDO for the past 8 years and refused to give increased budget outlays, The present govt has increased DRDO budget by 60 percent and now GTRE is floating a tender for building 20 kaveri engines.
The Arjun engine development was stalled by IA import lobby which refuses to give a clear 500 plus order which will lead to economical engine development program.
So situation is not as bad as you paint it to be.
IAF came abroad tejas only after 2006 , thats why we are seeing a Navy man who originally proposed naval tejas heading ADA which is developing tejas right now. Till 2006 IAF has confessed to CAG, that ,"it did not have competent persons to represent it even in a simple liasion committee". It was all written down in CAG report , Go and read it.
Fighters like F-35s are built and inducted in 100s even before a simple IOC with much watered down capacitites, Even rafales and typhoons are being continuously developed after induction in various F standards and trache standards,
So nothing wrong with Tejas as it too is following the same way.
Last edited:
@ersakthivel I doubt that Tejas would qualify as an interceptor like Mig-21 with its current design and speed. Could you kindly throw in some light on it?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
If mig-21 flies at mach 2 even for just few minutes it would fall out of sky buring all fuels. And in this age of missiles flying mach 3 plus mach 2 topspeed is not worth much. Even rafale is limted to mach 1.8.
What matters is turn rates , ITR and STR along with climb rates, low RCS , multi role ability and decent range, with larger radar and longer BVR missiles along with HMDS enabled high off bore visually cued missiles like R-73 , DRFM Based EW suit,which matters most in evading enemy fighters and missiles, not top speeds.
In all these areas Tejas is closer almost on par with upgraded mirage-2000 (upgradation itself is 45 million dollar per fighter) far far better than mig-21.
people using topspeeds to beat down tejas are just confusing people.
read all that in ADA tejas -IV here in DFI
That's encouraging
. But what is its Rate of Climb. I think plying altitude and rate of climb is important for interceptor role.
3The Crossbow
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 17
No one is asking to abandon tejas project but realise that in order to go for amca we should have also tried to go for a twin engine jet simultaneously. yes we cannot replace everything with twin engine jets as their serviceability is low with high cost of operation. But IAF is spending on rafale right? because we need twin engines too. the operation requirement in india is very different then the other world we are talking abt.
If tejas would have been delivered in 90's as iaf wanted then by this time we may have been seeing a tejas with single engine but bigger size and higher thrust in the same league as f-16 . this is the main fallout of ejas mk1.
anyhow why are we going for amca which is twin engine why not single engine amca ?
see what china did it tried hand on jf-17 (if any paki says it started in 1992 tell them f off as it started in 1980 super mig china google)
they acknowledge that the jet will never fulfill their requirement fortunately they had pakis to buy it.
but learning from the exp they developed j-10 in a very short time. similarily with our experience with tejas HAL could have developed a twin engine jet too and may be by 2020 we will be having our own jet close to rafale removing the need for french tantrums.
we cannot dump tejas like china did and frankly this is a good jet which in future will help iaf fighter for transitioning to fifth gen fighter jet as grippen is used by raf to train their pilots. it is many times better than jf-17 and in future will evolve and will be comparable to f-16 block 52 not in capability but in tech for sure.
IAF wanted a say but denied initially and then iaf boss did not worried about it because of the delays during atalji time and sanction on india iaf realised its importance and since then they tried hard to get into it but ada and hal partially blocked them. its a funny scenario but IAF do want this jet as they know it will not just serve to make indigenous industry but help them in training their pilots and increase the number by the time amca comes in.
you can blame upa govt too as drdo and hal realised this a little later and wanted increase in the staff and more money for amca but upa never supported the idea. that is why most of the defense/amca enthusiast are anti upa
3The Crossbow
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 17
for a good inteceptor
it's engine should be ready for an interception mission in the quickest time like mig 21. tejas almost on par
Speed to be adequate enough to intercept the jet and tejas will be able to fly around mach 1.8 - mach 2
tejas have more hardpoints than mig 21 and better radar . mig 21 bison radar range is 40 km .
it is much better than mig 21
look at the missile arsenal of tejas derby python , R-73 and our astra in future
isn't 10 times better than any mig 21 variant the upgraded mirage will be a bit better but than the cost and future upgrades of tejas will make it better than mirage. its a different thing we are comparing tejas with jets which are not in production now.
Speed is important when it is mach 4 like russia's mig 41 in development now. it will be able to operate 75000 ft altitude and a combat range of 800 - 1000 km .after mig 25 IAF relies on satellite and drones but i feel we may have a place for such jets not because of speed but altitude a jet flying at that altitude will be able to avoid anti aircraft defense of pak easily and bomb the desired target or city (it may be able to deliver nukes).
3The Crossbow
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 17
1. No one said that it is gnat but he design was based on the success of gnat IAF wanted a agile and maneuverable dog fighter like gnat. since kurt tank was the one who designed it based on successful mirage design.
2. Tejas was not designed to bridge the gap but to build machine to fight with enemy. due to the delay i became a phrase where drdo started saying that it is our start and tech demo to build industry. but the real reason was delay both from political will and DRDO.
we know that but kaveri is still atleast a decade away and russian engine would have been easy for us resulting in earlier deployment of tejas. russia is the nation which was ready to give us cryogenic engine in early 90's. a russian engine was always a safe bet than no engine.
thats why i say drdo /gtre lives in a world of their own dreams we always were aware of this that usa supports pak we were sanctioned in 1974 too remember? russia tried to give us cryogenic engine who stopped it?
Brahmos is another example and so is our nuclear triad of russian indian combine unfortunate it is that a turbofan engine is not added into it
[ QUOTE] All airforces in the world bar china and russia(whose engine tech is not equal to west) have single engine planes as majority, Far into future many europen airforces and USAF will be single engine dominated with the huge F-16s at present and the arrival of F-35 which is also single engined. [/QUOTE]
single engine f-16 and single engine tejas are no comparison f-16 is a jet of 70's the new evolve f-16 blk 60 is much bigger and have more capability. it is not abt single engine or double engine but simple fact in our operational scenario where we prefer twin engine. just read iaf doctrine why they want twin engine jets.
Here you are wrong again it does not even hal ask iaf to induct it to help in industry building iaf said yes to tejas mk1 a as hal said they cannot deliver mk2 before 2022 and iaf believes and many others they may extend that dead line too
finger crossed on mk2 let it come first then tell what it is or not.No it is not going to be better but will be indian so yes am good. But please in our swadeshi pyaar don't say we will develop better radar then elta 2052 in next two years. we could have got it if our political leadership had a little bit love for our domestic projects.
4.5 th
tell this to iaf and HAl and see how they respond. though i like the idea tejas filling the gap as a trainer between fifth gen jet as a fourth gen trainer. IAF is going to do the same.80 tonnes really? it is not functioning well and constant failure was one of the prime reason it was closed. there will be major changes in the design.
i agree on that and we all know what upa did to all defense projects but then they did the same too marut one of the reason we are still stuck here.
Arjun is seriously heavy and even drdo acknowledges it there have been two suggestion too reduce the weight but on't know whether they will be able to reduce it. one is an american gas turbine engine but that will require serious engineering challenge. second is use of composites in engine and structure in very high amount like japanese did with their tyep1.
arjun line can be kept open with other 200 - 300 order need not order 500 or so tanks right now. t-90 are quite cheap at less than half the price of arjun. they should work on
depends if i say i want an indian attack on pakistan compltely turning them into ashes and taking punjab and kashmir back diving them into baloch .
it is bad really bad. trust me our pm modi if he had a clear advantage over pak he will not shy away from doing so when he will get such opportunity. we know a next terror attack will happen and we have to prepare to use that as a leverage to attack pak and settle the score even.
well i will say navy got good PR , tell me why they are not interested in naval amca and did they put req for tejas? IAF ask DRDO to make an indigenous fighter not the other way around.
CAG also says tejas is not able to meet iaf requirements and is a nightmare for pilots. go read that too.
do not do iaf bashing they waited for sitara for a decade resulting in death of many pilots low level of training.
mig 21 were supposed to be replaced in early 21st century but they waited for tejas. hal / ada unka kaat rhi they also know that
they have years of experience please do not bring f-35 f-22 into pic when we talk abt tejas it hijacks the whole point.
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter | Knowledge Repository | 6 | |
|
|
AERO INDIA 2021 | Science and Technology | 308 | |
|
ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions | Indian Air Force | 17457 | |
| P | ADA DRDO and HAL Delays a threat to National Security | Internal Security | 20 |
