LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[IndianHawk]

Bro he said with 2 DTs. I can't get how all this will fit. 4BVR,2 CCM, 2 DTs IRST and jammer. 8 Hardpoints right. 1 for targeting pod, 2 for DTs. 2 CCM 2BVR. 1 under-fuselage being avoided for drag. Where other 2 BVRs go?

4 bvr configuration will only have centre dt .

 

[Ghost hale]

4 bvr configuration will only have centre dt .

very poorly worded tweet for sure. This makes sense.

 

[Bleh]

Happy Poila-Boishakh..

 

[Bleh]

@Ghost hale Only 4-BVR config on Tejas is this.. For some reason only displayed on LCA Navy yet.

And if the stars align, then someday in future the MWF's belly dual-rack may make its way to Tejas & give us my dream LCA loadout..

 

[Ghost hale]

@Ghost hale Only 4-BVR config on Tejas is this.. For some reason only displayed on LCA Navy yet. View attachment 85400

And if the starts align, then someday on future the MWF's belly dual-rack may make its way to Tejas to give us this loadout..

View attachment 85401

What about BVR in internal pylons with central DT. That can give 4 BVR with 2 CCM as suggested by @IndianHawk .

 

[Bleh]

What about BVR in internal pylons with central DT. That can give 4 BVR with 2 CCM as suggested by @IndianHawk .

Yes, that's the 1st one (2nd one would be significantly better tho). I've been trying to find out from HVT if that's an official target or not. Probably is, there's been a lot of official cases of depicting it. Eg:

We've only been making fanarts of it for a while based on it...

 

[Ghost hale]

Yes, that's the 1st one (2nd one would be significantly better tho). I've been trying to find out from HVT if that's an official target or not. Probably is, there's been a lot of official cases of depicting it. Eg:
View attachment 85405

We've only been making fanarts of it for a while based on it...

View attachment 85407

That is what Indranil roy seems to be quoting that in a year this will be done as if its already in progress but he mentioned 2 DTs which confused me. Tried asking him that but no response.

 

[Bleh]

That is what Indranil roy seems to be quoting that in a year this will be done as if its already in progress but he mentioned 2 DTs which confused me. Tried asking him that but no response.

Just saw. No no, just a misunderstanding.

He probably assumed that both you & op knows of the 4BVR loadout.. It's as I said, this is the best-case-scenario A2A loadout for LCA Tejas. 2×1200lt DT, 4×BVRAAMs & SPJ+2×CCMs.

I really hope it'll happen someday.

 

[Ghost hale]

Just saw. No no, just a misunderstanding.

He probably assumed that both you & op knows of the 4BVR loadout.. It's as I said, this is the best-case-scenario A2A loadout for LCA Tejas. 2×1200lt DT, 4×BVRAAMs & SPJ+2×CCMs.View attachment 85410


I really hope it'll happen someday.

Not sure how are they managing drag in MK2 with dual rack. If thats possible in MK2 than whats stopping it to be put in MK1. If we have option of dual ejectors, that can take care of both the requirements.

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

Just saw. No no, just a misunderstanding.

He probably assumed that both you & op knows of the 4BVR loadout.. It's as I said, this is the best-case-scenario A2A loadout for LCA Tejas. 2×1200lt DT, 4×BVRAAMs & SPJ+2×CCMs.View attachment 85410


I really hope it'll happen someday.

center line will use dual launcher or 2 separate launcher.

 

[BON PLAN]

Just saw. No no, just a misunderstanding.

He probably assumed that both you & op knows of the 4BVR loadout.. It's as I said, this is the best-case-scenario A2A loadout for LCA Tejas. 2×1200lt DT, 4×BVRAAMs & SPJ+2×CCMs.View attachment 85410


I really hope it'll happen someday.

The shape of the frame is very interesting on this pic.

 

[Bleh]

Not sure how are they managing drag in MK2 with dual rack. If thats possible in MK2 than whats stopping it to be put in MK1. If we have option of dual ejectors, that can take care of both the requirements.

Thier T/W may be same but MWF is significantly more drag optimised.. Even its pylons & fuel-tanks are better.
Plus much more fuel, means it can afford to burn a lot of it at a draggy config. Also, it's only BVRs so they'll be jettissoned in a dog-fight (unlike in Mark1A).

That's my take on it.

 

[Ghost hale]

Thier T/W may be same but MWF is significantly more drag optimised.. Even its pylons & fuel-tanks are better.
Plus much more fuel, means it can afford to burn a lot of it at a draggy config. Also, it's only BVRs so they'll be jettissoned in a dog-fight (unlike in Mark1A).

That's my take on it.

Few points :
1. Not sure removing 2 DTs and keeping only center DT is more draggy. Yes when we have three DT config at that time 3rd is more of issue to range-drag ratio. But with 2 AAMs in inner pylon, drag with single center pylon should be less than 2 DTs.
2. 2 DTS and center pylon with if possible dual ejection config will substantially reduce drag issue.
3. Forward bases to LOC and LAC are 100-150 KM. Interceptor role for which we need 4 BVRs won't need that much range to be needing 2 DTs.

MWF is whole other beast with more load and better engine. What I wanted to discuss was our 123 interceptors and options we have with those. Once we have glide bombs tested, It can be a great bomber too. Small, quick and great for mountain flying with excellent FBW.

 

[Bleh]

center line will use dual launcher or 2 separate launcher.

1 Dual.

Few points :
1. Not sure removing 2 DTs and keeping only center DT is more draggy. Yes when we have three DT config at that time 3rd is more of issue to range-drag ratio. But with 2 AAMs in inner pylon, drag with single center pylon should be less than 2 DTs.
2. 2 DTS and center pylon with if possible dual ejection config will substantially reduce drag issue.
3. Forward bases to LOC and LAC are 100-150 KM. Interceptor role for which we need 4 BVRs won't need that much range to be needing 2 DTs.

MWF is whole other beast with more load and better engine. What I wanted to discuss was our 123 interceptors and options we have with those. Once we have glide bombs tested, It can be a great bomber too. Small, quick and great for mountain flying with excellent FBW.

1. Ofcourse. But the size of those droptanks nullify any drag penalty & increase range by nearly 1000km each... And with those two on the central five a less than 200km more, so it remains empty... Might as well have BVRs (especially as a unique option is available).

2.

3. Yes. The CAP config with 1 central DT for that. Even then they might need to much it before its empty. Better burn as muchas you can as quickly as possible, or you'll end up like Abhinandan.

Actually this tested swing-role config may find the central DT useful, in case of any short ranged airstrike.

 

[Ghost hale]

1. Ofcourse. But the size of those droptanks nullify any drag penalty & increase range by nearly 1000km each... And with those two on the central five a less than 200km more, so it remains empty... Might as well have BVRs (especially as a unique option is available).

U are relying on drag calculation of central DT with values u received from 3DTs config. That is not correct. How much drag is incurred with just central tank is not available as number but will definitely be less than 3 DTs config.

3. Yes. The CAP config with 1 central DT for that. Even then they might need to much it before its empty. Better burn as muchas you can as quickly as possible, or you'll end up like Abhinandan.

I find that a bit distasteful even when I myself believe he was at fault to take the bait (CC instructions jammed or not is not confirmed). But agree with ur point that burn to get to chase with high machs and then jettison the damn thing to have cleaner fighter.

 

[Spitfire9]

Every now & then a new member of this forum displays his ignorance and questions production capacity. Then rest of us engaged ourselves in useless conversation.
Can anyone tell me why should HAL increase production capacity of Tejas when it has only 14 FOC Fighters & 8 FOC Trainers to deliver before starting production of MK1A. From those 14 FOC Fighters, 4 has been completed, flight tested & waiting to be delivered in batch. 6 more FOC Fighters are in various stages on assembly line.
No manufacturer could invest to expand production capacity for 20 fighters. If IAF bosses and some of our friends are so worried about depleting squadron strength, instead of 83, why aren't they ordering 20 squadrons (320 fighters & 80 trainers) and mandate HAL to deliver in 5 years ? If HAL couldn't adhere to delivery timeline, severely penalize them, let GOI sack HAL MD / CEO, stop his terminal benefits. If HAL boss has his skin on table, he will screw each & every employee to get the job done.

1st batch of 20 x Tejas was ordered Mar 2006, delivery to be competed before 2012.
2nd batch of 20 x Tejas was ordered Dec 2010, delivery to be completed before 2016.
3rd batch of 83 x Tejas was ordered Feb 2021, delivery to be completed before 2029.

HAL were 7+ years late delivering 1st batch.
HAL are currently 5+ years late delivering 2nd batch.

HAL's production of 2 Tejas a year over the 2010-2019 decade hardly inspires confidence in their abilities as a fighter aircraft manufacturer.

Who got sacked as the 1st batch fell further and further behind? Who got sacked as the 2nd batch fell further and further behind? Has HAL been shaken up to transform it into a dynamic organisation able to adhere to schedules in the future? If it has not been transformed, would it not be sensible to approach other companies to set up production of MWF/AMCA?

 

[BON PLAN]

HAL's production of 2 Tejas a year over the 2010-2019 decade hardly inspires confidence in their abilities as a fighter aircraft manufacturer.

[/QUOTE]

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Thier T/W may be same but MWF is significantly more drag optimised.. Even its pylons & fuel-tanks are better.
Plus much more fuel, means it can afford to burn a lot of it at a draggy config. Also, it's only BVRs so they'll be jettissoned in a dog-fight (unlike in Mark1A).

That's my take on it.

I have always maintained and repeatedly said that the success of any platform lies in making it better in aerodynamics, lighter in weight and maintenance friendly. Electronics and weapon comes and goes. Any damn good electronic will become outdated within four to five years. The only thing that remains is the basic platform. This is the reason why Mirage 2000 is favourite plane of any pilot even today.

 

[FalconSlayers]

HAL's production of 2 Tejas a year over the 2010-2019 decade hardly inspires confidence in their abilities as a fighter aircraft manufacturer.

[/QUOTE]
Sad but true

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Too many variables. Lets take data from worst reliable source(wikipedia) for options.
Tejas
1,850 km (1,150 mi, 459 nmi)
3,200 km (1,986 mi, 1,726 nmi) with 2x external drop tanks

F-16
4,217 km (2,620 mi, 2,277 nmi) with drop tanks

Gripen
3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)

J-10
3,800 km (2,400 mi, 2,100 nmi)

Mig-21
660 km (410 mi, 360 nmi) clean at 11,000 m (36,089 ft)
604 km (375 mi; 326 nmi) at 11,000 m (36,089 ft) with two R-3S missiles
793 km (493 mi; 428 nmi) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft) with two R-3S missiles and 800 l (210 US gal; 180 imp gal) drop-tank

JF-17
3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external drop tanks

To which u want to compare to and what are the options?

Tejas' Design has the potential to accommodate few hundred kg more fuel internally. Mk1 a will have 60 kg more fuel capacity due to canopy redesign. With the arrival of onboard oxygen generatior, the space to keep cylinder may be used to keep fuel by enlarging fuel tank.