ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[G10]

I vote to ban enquirer
Damn that 30 characters

 

[Rahul Singh]

@Kunal Biswas

Tejas is the only thing that brings me back to DFI. Unfortunately, DFI has become everything but Tejas. Locked Thread(first time), Tejas MK2 thread being used for general posting on Tejas. It's not how it used to be for a decade.

What is going on?

 

[Enquirer]

All Moderators,

The pattern is repeating all over again. ersakthivel comes out of the wood works to abuse me (his offensive post has since been deleted by Virendra), I defend myself and his worthless 'chela' gang comes to attack me.

I point out the reason why the last thread on Tejas was blocked (again due to ersakthivel initiating and relentlessly abusing me, & his 'chela' gang joining in), and the scum starts bubbling.

I see the ageless art of victim bashing being practiced with great zeal and with active patronage. Previous attempts to reason with the mob weren't very effective. Instead of dispensing surgical justice, you mods prefer dropping napalm (apparently due to the limited time you devote to this voluntary service)

I don't expect the mob and mods to do any better this time round. You can definitely surprise me

 

[FactsPlease]

HAL Chief said so. So its not an inaccurate term. IAF would provide FOC. As of now CEMILAC has certified the model going for FOC to be air worthy.

No announcement yet?
To be precise - FOC supposed to be cleared by IAF, right? and "FOC model" (so-called FOC design, for production purpose) are two different things, right?
This kind of game in wording/term is truly confusing, well, to me... ...

 

[vampyrbladez]

No announcement yet?
To be precise - FOC supposed to be cleared by IAF, right? and "FOC model" (so-called FOC design, for production purpose) are two different things, right?
This kind of game in wording/term is truly confusing, well, to me... ...

It will be ready (1st FOC built aircraft) by late 2019. This was verification of design!

 

[Enquirer]

No announcement yet?
To be precise - FOC supposed to be cleared by IAF, right? and "FOC model" (so-called FOC design, for production purpose) are two different things, right?
This kind of game in wording/term is truly confusing, well, to me... ...

The FOC design might be frozen and key aspects already well tested. But for the FOC to be 'declared' IAF/ADA should have completed a full run of ALL tests in different flight envelopes - essentially dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. This is what takes time.

That said, the gun issue is still lingering. It didn't appear like they did any firing while in flight. So, being strictly from a project management perspective the gun cannot be on the aircraft and remain untested in flight. They either need to give FOC without qualifying the gun to be used in the current configuration or need to come up with some other kind of compromise - like allowing production to start while they sort out couple of minor issues.

 

[cannonfodder]

IR from BRF had long indicated that gun firing has been de-prioritized and delinked from FOC. Now some reports are tagging AESA/EW suite to FOC which is required in MK1A.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/b...-weaponised-version-of-lca-tejas-3354451.html

I think lets celebrate this limited FOC (like IOC-1/2) or whatever they want to call it. It is big achievement for our aero industry; what we want is some more MK1(current standard) orders & ramp up in production. MK1A will be again long painful journey; lets enjoy it. What I have seen in 2-3 years is that by the time HAL/ADA fly MK1A some more things will be added; this is part of aircraft life cycle.

 

[Enquirer]

IR from BRF had long indicated that gun firing has been de-prioritized and delinked from FOC. Now some reports are tagging AESA/EW suite to FOC which is required in MK1A.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/b...-weaponised-version-of-lca-tejas-3354451.html

That report is obviously erroneous!
AESA radar & EW was never linked with FOC!
Also, does it seem logical that production could been given a go ahead without ever testing or even fitting the AESA radar? Qualifying a new radar will require missile compatibility tests too!
Also, AESA radars were never ordered for the 20 FOC aircraft!

They obviously found something wrong with the ground based gun firing, as such did not even attempt firing it in the air. BRF did discuss deprioritization of gun tests, but I doubt if it is delinked. I would think IAF would roast DRDO on hot coals if it were asked to officially delink the gun.

 

[cannonfodder]

This what IR had said about delinking with FOC; does not mean that it is not needed on LCA(This update was around Aug 17). I think ADA/IAF were in sync regarding gun integration during that time frame. After this there was little discussion on gun testing and validation (or I have missed that update). In back of my mind I was not expecting gun integration issue popping up for FOC declaration. S Jha has recently suggested that some work is needed for gun but it is kind of expected.

 

[FactsPlease]

The FOC design might be frozen and key aspects already well tested. But for the FOC to be 'declared' IAF/ADA should have completed a full run of ALL tests in different flight envelopes - essentially dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. This is what takes time.
That said, the gun issue is still lingering. It didn't appear like they did any firing while in flight. So, being strictly from a project management perspective the gun cannot be on the aircraft and remain untested in flight. They either need to give FOC without qualifying the gun to be used in the current configuration or need to come up with some other kind of compromise - like allowing production to start while they sort out couple of minor issues.

Fully agreed, esp for that part of project (accountability) management.

In my career, I never allow my team, nor myself, to deem ourselves successful and celebrate, as long as a task or project got scale down or "moving target". I believe that's the norm of a professional. So, guess we really have to see how it goes, instead call it a complete FOC (as planned).

 

[Enquirer]

View attachment 30839

This what IR had said about delinking with FOC; does not mean that it is not needed on LCA(This update was around Aug 17). I think ADA/IAF were in sync regarding gun integration during that time frame. After this there was little discussion on gun testing and validation (or I have missed that update). In back of my mind I was not expecting gun integration issue popping up for FOC declaration. S Jha has recently suggested that some work is needed for gun but it is kind of expected.

View attachment 30841
View attachment 30840

IR normally does seem to have inside information from HAL/ADA. However, he himself doesn't sound very confident on the gun delink from FOC.
To be honest, I've no inside info on the subject. My viewpoint is merely from a logical perspective. Merely from the optics ADA doesn't look good dropping the gun; and IAF normally hasn't spared ADA when such goof ups happen. I would be very surprised if IAF just let it go. Even ground firing of the gun (the most elementary of all) being done only ONCE, that too this late in the project is absurdly shocking!

That said, IR is wrong on the physics of stress on airframe when gun is fired. The truth is that the stress on the airframe can actually be more while it is flying than what it might experience while being tethered to ground!
When tethered at ground, the force acting at the gun/airframe junction is only that caused by the gun recoil. However, while in air the aircraft could be accelerating at times; when gun is fired then the cumulative force at the gun/airframe junction (due the gun recoil & forward acceleration of the aircraft ) would be much larger than it would have been while at ground!

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Its fine but the name of Su 30 MKI and Mirage should be interchanged to make sense.

 

[Skdas]

The truth is that the stress on the airframe can actually be more while it is flying than what it might experience while being tethered to ground!
When tethered at ground, the force acting at the gun/airframe junction is only that caused by the gun recoil. However, while in air the aircraft could be accelerating at times; when gun is fired then the cumulative force at the gun/airframe junction (due the gun recoil & forward acceleration of the aircraft ) would be much larger than it would have been while at ground!

Well I won't say you are completely wrong neither IR is completely wrong as well. Both are correct in their own regard.

When firing the Gun (pff... It's a ducking Autocanon, firing bullets heavier than a Nokia 3310, with an explosive tip... Gun.!!) On the ground , the vibrations and pulsating reverse thrust can be accurately measured. There are no other forces acting on the airframe and give good idea about the other parameters like the amunition transfer rate, hot gas expulsions, spent casing expulsions etc. Moreover, if I am not completely wrong, this gun fires from an open bolt with very high instantaneous rate of fire. There is no motor to spool up hence better at engaging targets of opportunity.

And I do agree that "Gun" firing trails is happening too late in the Dev cycle. For comparison, A10 was designed arround the GAU-8 not the other way around. I am not saying but we should have done the same but still could have validated once we had the bird flying.

As for forces being lesser while the bird is in flight and the weapon is fired, even it's true to an extent. This "Gun" is the only weapon system that is pushing against the thrust of the engine. But the "Gun" produces an impulse of a force acting against a constant thrust of the engine. Only when you are hell bent on Bollywood style "Mag Dumps" , the reverse thrust would be an issue. Also there are only 200 rounds of ammo. It's like a 4~5 sec of trigger time.

The problem with a flying "gun" fire test is the twisting of the airframe. See both the forces are not axially on the same plane (Assuming the "Gun" is mounted in a gun pod and not internally mounted). When fired in full auto, both the forces not really negate each other rather have a twisting torque on the airframe. Add to it the flex of airframe while doing high G turns. It will see it's maximum use in a turning fight. And that's where the devil lies.

 

[Enquirer]

Big guns or small guns, at the end of the day everything is a gun! Even a howitzer is a gun. Rapid fire cannons bigger than gsh-23 (like l-70) are still guns (anti aircraft guns). So no shame is calling them as such without the need of double quotes

As for forces being lesser while the bird is in flight and the weapon is fired, even it's true to an extent. This "Gun" is the only weapon system that is pushing against the thrust of the engine. But the "Gun" produces an impulse of a force acting against a constant thrust of the engine. Only when you are hell bent on Bollywood style "Mag Dumps" , the reverse thrust would be an issue. Also there are only 200 rounds of ammo. It's like a 4~5 sec of trigger time.

Just to clarify, I mentioned that the 'increased force effects' would be mostly due to an 'accelerating aircraft'. Wherein the chief area of concern is the viability of the gun mount itself against forces much larger than those experienced at ground.
Secondly (something I deliberately chose to leave out in the last post) the thrust itself is actually never really 'constant'. Even at (an apparent) constant velocity of the airframe, the thrust produced by fast exiting gases is actually imparting 'pulsating forces' on the airframe. As such, even at constant velocity, the gun's recoil force could be acting against a forward pulse of force thus increasing the forces at the mount.

The problem with a flying "gun" fire test is the twisting of the airframe. See both the forces are not axially on the same plane (Assuming the "Gun" is mounted in a gun pod and not internally mounted). When fired in full auto, both the forces not really negate each other rather have a twisting torque on the airframe. Add to it the flex of airframe while doing high G turns. It will see it's maximum use in a turning fight. And that's where the devil lies.

The twist that you talk about is just one of the many effects (something that would be present even due to the drag induced by an underslung missile or fuel drop tank). The primary effect of course being increased forces at the mount.

Net-net. IR's postulation that flight test (with gun firing) will be much more kinder on the airframe (as compared to the ground firing test) is completely untrue.

 

[kunal1123]

https://www.business-standard.com/a...r-jets-may-buy-30-of-them-119010900029_1.html

Tejas Steals Sino-Pakistani ‘Thunder’? Malaysia Shifts Interest From JK-17, May Buy 30 Indian LCAs
by Swarajya Staff - Jan 09 2019, 5:27 pm,

India’s LCA Tejas. (Raj K Raj/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)
In what is being seen as an endorsement to the Indian Tejas’s quality, Malaysia may be shifting its interest from the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 ‘Thunder’ to India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and is reportedly keen on buying 30 such planes.

Kuala Lumpur has asked New Delhi to send a Tejas fighter plane to the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition 2019 (LIMA’19) which is Malaysia’s premier defence exhibition, as reported by Business Standard.

Malaysia switching to the Indian fighter instead of the one developed jointly by China and Pakistan will be the second setback to Islamabad after Sri Lanka earlier backed away from the JF-17 despite expressing interest in it.

The Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), though not fully developed, is considered far deadlier than the JF-17 Thunder fighter by many experts.

The current version of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s (HAL) Tejas might be slightly costlier than its Pakistani counterpart with the former priced at $28.5 million and the latter at $25 million. However, Tejas reportedly offers better performance compared to the Pakistani jet, which has been developed jointly by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation of China and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra.

Tejas excels JF-17 in the technologies that are utilised in it, including lightweight composite material body, sophisticated quadruplex digital flight control system, microprocessor-based utility controls and the superior American GE-404IN engine among others.

The Malaysian Air Force is already flying Sukhoi-30MKM, which is modelled on the IAF’s Sukhoi-30MKI.

 

[lcafanboy]

30000000000000000000000000

 

[Aman kumar]

Why does Malaysia wants twin seated jet...
I am afraid that our trainer jet is not much capable

 

[Vilander]

Tried and tested Malay method. Just order what India orders. Lol, save money and time on analyzing based on trials and extended procurement cycles.

 

[mayfair]

Unlikely that Malaysia will go for LCA. It's just trying to leverage this in negotiations with other manufacturers.

 

[Enquirer]

Unlikely that Malaysia will go for LCA. It's just trying to leverage this in negotiations with other manufacturers.

Depends on their timeline.
Mk2 can effectively compete with most others. But Mk1/Mk1A will suffer badly on the range and payload aspects - even if offered at an attractive price point.
If Malaysian air force is anything like IAF then Mk2 stands a chance! Quite unlikely to happen though!