LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[patriots]

Nothing was mentioned about RCS, but it'll get a jammer.
But there is no reason to keep the airframe absolutely same! They can bulge the back to improve internal fuel & aerodynamics... same way as older Mig-21s.
View attachment 34290

Bhai written....reduced radar signature.........in 2 nd photo....

 

[patriots]

Nothing was mentioned about RCS, but it'll get a jammer.
But there is no reason to keep the airframe absolutely same! They can bulge the back to improve internal fuel & aerodynamics... same way as older Mig-21s.
View attachment 34290
IAF asked for a modified canopy in Mark 1A.

If anyway they will be able.......have 500 kg more fuel in mk1a then it will be great

 

[Bleh]

Bhai written....reduced radar signature.........in 2 nd photo....

Oh right.. Some semi-stealth features of Mark 2 maybe, they'll have similar development timeframe.

If anyway they will be able.......have 500 kg more fuel in mk1a then it will be great

They're trying to shave off few hundred kilos, that can be replaced by extra fuel to increase range & also reduce drag with modified canopy.

 

[patriots]

@Sancho ...is now days saying....tejas foc was a milestone.....
................,

 

[rone]

My take on mk1 and mk1a is rather than avionics upgrade mk1a don't have any structural changes than mk1 only significat thing is duel rack pylon for short range ccm, I think still hal or Ada not fully understand their own design I remember one hal stall staff at aero India 2017 said me LCA have g envelop form 8.5 to -3.5 it going to became 9 in mk1a version also improve payload to 4 ton but in this config as shown in picture it still 3.8 ton

 

[Bleh]

My take on mk1 and mk1a is rather than avionics upgrade mk1a don't have any structural changes than mk1 only significat thing is duel rack pylon for short range ccm, I think still hal or Ada not fully understand their own design I remember one hal stall staff at aero India 2017 said me LCA have g envelop form 8.5 to -3.5 it going to became 9 in mk1a version also improve payload to 4 ton but in this config as shown in picture it still 3.8 ton

Their placards are always faulty...

Payload was orginally supposed to be 4 tons but then the thing turned overweight, thus reducing its effective payload.
Now they're planning on reducing the empty weight, which would increase payload to 3.8tons in Mark1A.

If their planning on any weight reductions then there'd be atleast some design changes, maybe not very drastic. Plus, if Mark 1A will carry the real Uttam, then maybe real Brahmos NG too someday.

IAF demanded a modified & thickened canopy, but hard to tell for sure whether the redesigned one above would be for Mark 1A or MWF... Same for the stealth enhancements.

 

[garg_bharat]

Bhai written....reduced radar signature.........in 2 nd photo....

If they can manage less than one sq meter, very good.

 

[Bleh]

If they can manage less than one sq meter, very good.

Official version available to public already is 0.3-0.5 m². Either that or 0.3 from above & 0.5 otherwise... clean configuration.

 

[rone]

I still not getting what IAF want from LCA, lets say they want lcaas multi-role and have all possible new tech weapons on it like even bramos ng but did they deploy in that config ? ,No becoz we have more or less 300 su30 for that job, k then wat abt deep strike roles?, even lca mk1 have better payload than jaguars, then abt air superiority ? LCA made as mig21 reaplcement it point intercepcter fighter , so instead of fast induction in 100 nos of mk1 IAF acting like cry baby for more foreign mal and making IAF virtual air space zoo, atleast porkis know how to allocate their reapurces they fast reaplce f7 with jf17 even it junk but it is much better than f7 and M5 and 3 s, but look at IAF still fly soviate a relics and deploy in front lines if any one questions them they say they are upgraded ones but in reality how much modification u done to Maruti 800 it still can't compare with a new i10, some spolied Bart's in IAF forgotten their oath they taken

 

[garg_bharat]

rone, I think LCA is now M2K class. So real multi-role.
SU-30 I think is primarily air defence and air superiority.

 

[rone]

rone, I think LCA is now M2K class. So real multi-role.
SU-30 I think is primarily air defence and air superiority.

that's my point instead of waiting for rusii american miracle to happen IAf and army should flow like navy induct more Indian weapon tech, in the way the gradually upgraded and finally they achieve the western level performance instead waiting for some miracle happen and buy every new and expensive jets and make a virtual zoo

 

[Bleh]

The best manoeuvres of Tejas, on practice day before LIMA 2019 started. (not sure if already shared)
Tejas old & new(?) canopy:

LSP8

 

[Bleh]

Detailed studies were carried out on the aerodynamic characteristics of CCM carriage at wing tip stations rather than the underwing station, as in the Mk1. The CFD studies found that carrying a CCM at the wingtip station increased lift-to-drag (L/D ratio) in subsonic, transonic and supersonic regions. Additionally, the fighter with the wingtip stations exhibited better Cnβ characteristics which would aid in the higher AoA flight regimes.
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

Maybe besides modifying the canopy, they should move the outer weapon stations to wing-tips as well...

 

[patriots]

Detailed studies were carried out on the aerodynamic characteristics of CCM carriage at wing tip stations rather than the underwing station, as in the Mk1. The CFD studies found that carrying a CCM at the wingtip station increased lift-to-drag (L/D ratio) in subsonic, transonic and supersonic regions. Additionally, the fighter with the wingtip stations exhibited better Cnβ characteristics which would aid in the higher AoA flight regimes.
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/
View attachment 34355

Maybe besides modifying the canopy, they should move outer weapon stations to wing-tips as well...

Bdw what will be the combat range...mk2

As ada writes 300 km for tejas mk1

 

[Bleh]

Bdw what will be the combat range...mk2

As ada writes 300 km for tejas mk1

Technically there is no such thing. For a Mark1A flying with 5 tanks & 4 AAMs on its new dual-rack, at high altitude, the range can be near its ferry range!

MWF's engine isn't ready yet... If the newly offered uprated 116kn GE414 is chosen then again another.
Ferry range for MWF is being estimated between 2000km & 3500km.

 

[Armand2REP]

Technically there is no such thing. For a Mark1A flying with 5 tanks & 4 AAMs on its new dual-rack, at high altitude, the range can be near its ferry range!

MWF's engine isn't ready yet... If the newly offered uprated 116kn GE414 is chosen then again another.
Ferry range for MWF is being estimated between 2000km & 3500km.

Combat radius has a specific definition, it is how far the aircraft can carry a normal combat load and return before running out of fuel. This is a picture of that configuration...

 

[Bleh]

Combat radius has a specific definition, it is how far the aircraft can carry a normal combat load and return before running out of fuel. This is a picture of that configuration...

And won't "normal combat load" vary between missions types, so can number of fuel tanks?

As i said, Tejas Mark 1A with jammer, could carry better than that due to dual-racks, a (2×LGB+4×AAM) set... with upto 3 fuel tanks. But i doubt that config would be used instead of more ordnance.

 

[Armand2REP]

And won't "normal combat load" vary between missions types, so can number of fuel tanks?

As i said, Tejas Mark 1A with jammer, could carry better than that... a (2×LGB+4×AAM) set with upto 3 fuel tanks due to dual racks, in theory. But i doubt that config would be used instead of more ordnance.

You have to use something as a reference point, that pictured load-out is the reference point.

 

[patriots]

And won't "normal combat load" vary between missions types, so can number of fuel tanks?

As i said, Tejas Mark 1A with jammer, could carry better than that due to dual-racks, a (2×LGB+4×AAM) set... with upto 3 fuel tanks. But i doubt that config would be used instead of more ordnance.

Though combat range will change from mission to mission with payload...
But why ada wrote 300 km..,

 

[Bleh]

Though combat range will change from mission to mission with payload...
But why ada wrote 300 km..,

Lowest possible, for highest drag payload maybe.

They need to work on the pylons next... just a dual-rack won't do. Compared to some other designs being used on contemporary aircrafts, a lot of optimisation needed.