LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[patriots]

In the year 2019, they are trying to deliver 12 more aircraft

...
Says indranil.....brf
and may be foc variant before October

 

[patriots]

Beautiful just beautiful.........
..........,..,........

 

[Bleh]

Question:

Compared to this older image of Tejas Mark1 IOC...

...top of the cockpit-canopy of the LSPs presently at LIMA 2019 seem, a bit flattened.

I don't think it's just the picture angle. It looks the same in multiple images!

Have they made any drag-reducing changes to the canopy shape to increase performance?

 

[Immortal]

Malaysian PM Mahathir is in Pakistan for a three day visit and he will be getting a demonstration of JF-17 that is why they didn't participate in LIMA 2019.

Edit: https://www.thenewstribe.com/2019/0...laysia-to-visit-pakistan-on-march-21-23-2019/

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, will visit Pakistan on 21-23 March 2019, at the invitation of Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The Malaysian Prime Minister will be accompanied by a high-level delegation including several leading businessmen.

During his stay in Islamabad, Prime Minister Tun Mahathir would be the Guest of Honour at the Pakistan Day Parade on 23 March.

Prime Minister Mahathir’s bilateral engagements include a call on the President of Pakistan, one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Imran Khan followed by delegation level talks. The two Prime Ministers will also speak at the Round Table meeting of the CEOs of Industries, who desire to invest in automobile and telecommunication sectors of Pakistan.

Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir’s visit would further cement the existing brotherly and friendly relations between the two countries. The focus of the interest is on enhancing economic, trade, investment, and defence ties, for the mutual benefit of the peoples of the two countries.

It’s not the PM who selects a plane. It’s the Air Force and the specialists. No substitute for not taking part in the Air show. Pakistan did the same coup,e of years ago also when LCA took part in Bahrain air show. They refused to send their aircraft at the last minute when they came to know of LCA s participation

 

[Prashant12]

===================================================

 

[Prashant12]

------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bleh]

Question:

Compared to this older image of Tejas Mark1 IOC...

...top of the cockpit-canopy of the LSPs presently at LIMA 2019 seem, a bit flattened.

I don't think it's just the picture angle. It looks the same in multiple images!

Have they made any drag-reducing changes to the canopy shape to increase performance?

Again, the canopy top looks flattened in the above post's photo too...

 

[Bhadra]

****************JAHAJ BHI HAM BANATE HAIN*****************

 

[Biplab]

Same dumps as earlier. I especially hate this harping on "concessions".

False Argument 3: The LCA falls short on several performance parameters like empty weight, range, turn rates, etc. The IAF has allowed 53 concessions/permanent waivers in the design.

Like the 32-year delay, this too is a scary looking that paints a false picture of how fighter aircraft programmes work.

First off, it is important to remember that the Tejas can carry out most of the tasks intended of it quite competently. It can fight other aircraft at beyond visual range (when equipped with an AESA radar and Derby/Derby-ER missiles, it could end up becoming the most capable BVR platform in IAF service. Better than the Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000). The addition of an Israeli helmet-mounted sight coupled to missiles whose seekers had a wide
field of view (R-73 and Python IV/V) make it a fearsome dogfighter and compensate for minuscule shortfalls in aerodynamic performance. It can drop laser-guided bombs on ground targets with great precision. It is very easy to fly. In the words of the IAF, the fighter’s “control harmony is comparable to the best in the world… The intuitive cockpit layout and highly reliable life support systems provide for comfort as well as excellent situational awareness.” There are many such triumphs; too many, in fact, to recount here.

Secondly, every fighter project concludes with specifications that aren’t met, or a few deficiencies in performance. It’s never that big of a roadblock to induction in service. And all said and done, 53 is a very small number as far as design concessions go; a pretty small portion of the entire range of capabilities. Even simpler aircraft (like the C-17) enter service with more deficiencies. These are either compensated with using technologies in other areas to offset performance shortfalls, or accepted in the interest of availability for combat.

Again, I’ll go back to the Eurofighter Typhoon to illustrate my point. Remember I mentioned that it first flew in 1986? Twenty-two years later, it couldn’t independently drop a laser-guided bombon a target with any precision. Basic BVR combat capability was not available until Tranche 2 models were procured in 2008, 14 years after the first flight. Even in close air combat, its capabilities were decidedly limited. The helmet mounted sight (HMS) — a system that allows the pilot to cue weapons onto an enemy aircraft by simply turning his head and offers a quantum jump in dogfighting capabilities — did not enter service until 2010.

The F-35 was hobbled by similar issues (and terrible program management) for several years. It didn’t begin to turn a corner until 2012 or so, after which it began rapidly demonstrating some of the capabilities that were expected of it.

This all happened despite the likes of Boeing, EADS, and Lockheed in charge of these projects. How then do you expect the ADA, which has never developed a fighter in its entire existence, to deliver a more capable product before inducting any into operational service?

Heck, even the IAF works with deficient designs all the time. They happily flew the short-legged, limited-payload Gnat and even procured it in great numbers. Ditto with the Su-7. The MiG-21, when initially inducted, was underwhelming. Its range was limited and its missiles didn’t work. The Bison is still riddled with issues. The Jaguar had a deficient nav-attack suite. It was practically useless in the long range strike until the IAF and HAL developed and implemented the DARIN upgrades. The MiG-27’s navigation system never worked well, and its reliability was terrible; at night especially, it was no better than dead weight. But none of this troubled the IAF. Why then is the LCA failing to achieve a handful design parameters something to raise a huge hue and cry about?

From: https://medium.com/indian-defence/demolishing-some-lca-tejas-falsehoods-6e6b335faf97

Same dumps as earlier. I especially hate this harping on "concessions".

False Argument 3: The LCA falls short on several performance parameters like empty weight, range, turn rates, etc. The IAF has allowed 53 concessions/permanent waivers in the design.

Like the 32-year delay, this too is a scary looking that paints a false picture of how fighter aircraft programmes work.

First off, it is important to remember that the Tejas can carry out most of the tasks intended of it quite competently. It can fight other aircraft at beyond visual range (when equipped with an AESA radar and Derby/Derby-ER missiles, it could end up becoming the most capable BVR platform in IAF service. Better than the Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000). The addition of an Israeli helmet-mounted sight coupled to missiles whose seekers had a wide
field of view (R-73 and Python IV/V) make it a fearsome dogfighter and compensate for minuscule shortfalls in aerodynamic performance. It can drop laser-guided bombs on ground targets with great precision. It is very easy to fly. In the words of the IAF, the fighter’s “control harmony is comparable to the best in the world… The intuitive cockpit layout and highly reliable life support systems provide for comfort as well as excellent situational awareness.” There are many such triumphs; too many, in fact, to recount here.

Secondly, every fighter project concludes with specifications that aren’t met, or a few deficiencies in performance. It’s never that big of a roadblock to induction in service. And all said and done, 53 is a very small number as far as design concessions go; a pretty small portion of the entire range of capabilities. Even simpler aircraft (like the C-17) enter service with more deficiencies. These are either compensated with using technologies in other areas to offset performance shortfalls, or accepted in the interest of availability for combat.

Again, I’ll go back to the Eurofighter Typhoon to illustrate my point. Remember I mentioned that it first flew in 1986? Twenty-two years later, it couldn’t independently drop a laser-guided bombon a target with any precision. Basic BVR combat capability was not available until Tranche 2 models were procured in 2008, 14 years after the first flight. Even in close air combat, its capabilities were decidedly limited. The helmet mounted sight (HMS) — a system that allows the pilot to cue weapons onto an enemy aircraft by simply turning his head and offers a quantum jump in dogfighting capabilities — did not enter service until 2010.

The F-35 was hobbled by similar issues (and terrible program management) for several years. It didn’t begin to turn a corner until 2012 or so, after which it began rapidly demonstrating some of the capabilities that were expected of it.

This all happened despite the likes of Boeing, EADS, and Lockheed in charge of these projects. How then do you expect the ADA, which has never developed a fighter in its entire existence, to deliver a more capable product before inducting any into operational service?

Heck, even the IAF works with deficient designs all the time. They happily flew the short-legged, limited-payload Gnat and even procured it in great numbers. Ditto with the Su-7. The MiG-21, when initially inducted, was underwhelming. Its range was limited and its missiles didn’t work. The Bison is still riddled with issues. The Jaguar had a deficient nav-attack suite. It was practically useless in the long range strike until the IAF and HAL developed and implemented the DARIN upgrades. The MiG-27’s navigation system never worked well, and its reliability was terrible; at night especially, it was no better than dead weight. But none of this troubled the IAF. Why then is the LCA failing to achieve a handful design parameters something to raise a huge hue and cry about?

From: https://medium.com/indian-defence/demolishing-some-lca-tejas-falsehoods-6e6b335faf97

1. With EW / ECM system, how tejas will defend itself from enemy's BVR and SAM missile ????? It will be sitting duck like Mig-21 in recent clash with PAF.

2. Todays network centric warfare age, one to one dog fight is not expected. In recent clash with PAF shows many fighter from both end clash with each other. When Mig-21 was shooting down F-16 , it was targeted by another PAF plane with BVR. In that case how Tejas will protect it.

3. Tejas has just drop 500 kg LGB. But in real war aircraft need to deploy wide range of air to ground weapon. Gun, Rocket, Missile etc. Tejas yet to get those capabilities.

4. "Remember I mentioned that it first flew in 1986? Twenty-two years later" --- This is called distortion of facts. Eurofighter project was not started by then. Britan, Germany, Spain were in talk with each other. The aircraft which was flew in 1986 was experimental prototype of British aerospace. Do not mix up this with actually eurofighter , just based on their same aero dynamic design. The first prototype of the finalised Eurofighter made its first flight on 27 March 1994. Enter service in 2003. So development time is 9 years. That delay too due to political issue between partner countries. Otherwise , it would take much less time than 9 years.

5. If Tejas was enter service in early 2000s than IAF would happy to accept it without BVR and LGB. But after 18 years of development , these some extra features are IAF's right to ask. IAF never ask for these feature in IOC. But still IOC development took 13 years.

6. Why you people always compare Tejas development time with eurofighter and Rafael. Why not with Mirage-2000, Mig-29, F-16, F-18, F-CK-1, TAI 50, Grippen, JF-17, Su-27 etc ???

 

[Rahul Singh]

\\

===================================================

Possibly for the first time the Cargo Ramp of either C-130 or IL-76 was used to take this A2A pic shot.

Obviously, a marketing video will be released with clips of the same at LIMA 19.

Waiting for the eye candy.

 

[Rahul Singh]

#JF-17KAKB...............................................

 

[maomao]

Tejas is very fast with 414 engine it will be too tough to dogfight for any fighter. Please stop comparing it with Lethargic, heavy & slow JF17 which is too low on technology!

 

[abingdonboy]

Question:

Compared to this older image of Tejas Mark1 IOC...
View attachment 33491
...top of the cockpit-canopy of the LSPs presently at LIMA 2019 seem, a bit flattened.
View attachment 33492
I don't think it's just the picture angle. It looks the same in multiple images!
View attachment 33495
View attachment 33496
Have they made any drag-reducing changes to the canopy shape to increase performance?

What I don’t understand is why I have yet to see a single squadron pilot flying a SP using a HMD.

For LSPs since around 2008 every flight has seen a HMD used.

Has IAF been cheap and not ordered them for their SQN aircraft? I’ve also noticed this with the MIG-29UPG, they were flown with HMD in Russia but not one picture of them flying in India with a HMD in use.

Even Mirages and DARIN III were to get HMD but again, no sign....

 

[abingdonboy]

Possibly for the first time the Cargo Ramp of either C-130 or IL-76 was used to take this A2A pic shot.

Obviously, a marketing video will be released with clips of the same at LIMA 19.

Waiting for the eye candy.

IAF/ADA should invest in some modern cameras and video production equipment and go on a blitz, you’d be surprised how quickly the LCA’s image will be improved just by having some HD (1080p and above) footage of them doing all of their operational activities (taxi, take off, a few bomb drops etc)

 

[Bleh]

#JF-17KAKB...............................................

It's turning harder than in earlier AirShow's videos!!!

 

[Shashwat]

Possibly for the first time the Cargo Ramp of either C-130 or IL-76 was used to take this A2A pic shot.

Obviously, a marketing video will be released with clips of the same at LIMA 19.

Waiting for the eye candy.

As beautiful as the pic is. its not from Lima contingent. You are not going into a trade show with weapons - this is probably from Leh testing. Moreover there are landing pics of Tejas with noting but DTs.

 

[Narasimh]

Question:

Compared to this older image of Tejas Mark1 IOC...
View attachment 33491
...top of the cockpit-canopy of the LSPs presently at LIMA 2019 seem, a bit flattened.
View attachment 33492
I don't think it's just the picture angle. It looks the same in multiple images!
View attachment 33495
View attachment 33496
Have they made any drag-reducing changes to the canopy shape to increase performance?

definitely looks like they made changes there.. good observation

 

[Prashant12]

Tejas taxying back amidst a downpour indicating the extended operational capabilities.

 

[patriots]

Tejas in lima 2019......
Photos from yesterday......

 

[Bleh]

Tejas in lima 2019......

Ok, now i'm 100% sure they flattened the canopy in these two models.