LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

VikingGod

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
50
Country flag
It's not how much composite LCA has, its what quality that composite possesses counts. LCA even after having large portion as composite is still over-weight. Quality of the composite must be questioned.
Probably that's Why LCA is so Reliable Plane without any crash , We using good quality composite & not compromising on strength for lower Weight .
 

Blank

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
170
Likes
869
Country flag
For all esteemed members sharing so much new and unheard of "FACTS", Kindly provide some data or source also so that we can be enlightened. It was really nice to hear IAF is using underpowered Mirage 2000 and developing another underpowered machine. Even LCA composite are of lower quality is a worthy addition to our collective knowledge base. Thanks.
Our boy spitting FACTS here. I like your confidence.
 

Ashok84

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
114
Likes
244
Country flag
What happened to foc standard tejas mk1 March 21 target?? What's the problem of delivery by hal or acceptance by IAF.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,270
Likes
13,127
Country flag
MWF airframe will be far lighter than Mirage thanks to more composits. Even lca has more composits than Rafale.
Ge f414 is far more fuel efficient than decades old m53 in Mirage . Electronics is more compact although MWF will carry far more sensors than Mirage ever could.
The other very important aspect is that GE 414 is 1 meter short in lenght which releases a lots of space in fuselage.
 

kamaal

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
270
Likes
502
Country flag
Aluminium made FC-1 has empty weight of 6.8t & FA-50 is 6.47t.. LCA's structural strength beats them by several quintals on main pylons allowing varied loadouts & several ton higher MTOW.

Our final LCA has weight of 7t & payload of 4.3t/3.9t (tested/certified), as per ADA:
Thanks for replying.

You are comparing Tejas a full fledge fighter jet with FA-50 an advance trainer. It should be compared with Gripen C/D and E/F, its actual competitor. With empty weight of 6,600 kg, it looks heavy on such a small jet with delta design. Plus its payload capacity of 3.7 tons is nothing to brag about, the composite material if is a world class product should have either reduced the empty weight to 6,100-6,200 kg or at least increased the payload capacity with the existing empty weight to at least 4.5 tons.

To me the specifications of LCA makes the composite material mediocre. If HAL can enhance this specification in MK1A, which we all are hearing from unverified sources, then we can praise the composite material.
 

Narasimh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
687
Likes
1,774
Country flag
Aluminium made FC-1 has empty weight of 6.8t & FA-50 is 6.47t.. LCA's structural strength beats them by several quintals on main pylons allowing varied loadouts & several ton higher MTOW.

Our final LCA has weight of 7t & payload of 4.3t/3.9t (tested/certified), as per ADA:
This PDF has bunch of corrections that Dr Girish has marked and one can view in pdf viewer. They released it as is without removing the tags!?
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,582
Likes
3,220
Thanks for replying.

You are comparing Tejas a full fledge fighter jet with FA-50 an advance trainer. It should be compared with Gripen C/D and E/F, its actual competitor. With empty weight of 6,600 kg, it looks heavy on such a small jet with delta design. Plus its payload capacity of 3.7 tons is nothing to brag about, the composite material if is a world class product should have either reduced the empty weight to 6,100-6,200 kg or at least increased the payload capacity with the existing empty weight to at least 4.5 tons.

To me the specifications of LCA makes the composite material mediocre. If HAL can enhance this specification in MK1A, which we all are hearing from unverified sources, then we can praise the composite material.
It's not 3.7 tons, it's 4.3 tons. Also, it depends on the way the specs are listed for aircraft. For example, the empty weight of some aircraft do not add the weight of the hardpoints/weapons attachment equipment like rails and addition of other equipment and things like weight of a loaded gun, etc, while all these are taken into account even in empty weight of Tejas. Then there is the fact that these limits are only what the Tejas has been tested to at certain g-limits, because IAF requirements are more stringent about the number of g an aircraft should be able to pull when fully loaded.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,582
Likes
3,220
Some magic marketing for Gripen C/D, taken from above article:
Now, how is this payload capability calculated? The designers simply take the maximum take off weight (MTOW) of the Tejas Mk1 which is about 14.1 t and subtract its clean takeoff weight (i.e. full internal fuel and no payload) of 9.8 t from the former. This gives a payload capacity of approximately 4.3 t. Now let us look at the claim for the Gripen made in the TOI article. First of all 6 t is the payload capacity of the Gripen E/F, an aircraft which will not become available before 2023 and not that of the Gripen C/D which is currently in service with some Air Forces around the world. The Gripen E/F’s Indian compatriot, i.e. the MWF is currently being designed to be capable of flying with a maximum 6.5 t of payload and is expected to begin test flights by 2023. Returning to today’s reality, the clean and maximum take-off weights of the Gripen C/D are 10 t and 14 t respectively. Using Tejas-like calculations the payload should be 4 t (i.e. similar to that of the Tejas). Then how is that the Gripen C/D is advertised as having a maximum payload of 5.3 t, you may ask? This brings us to the magic of marketing, of which both DRDO and HAL are bereft (more on that some other day!). Gripen can take off with 5.3 t of payload, only if it significantly sacrifices on the carriage of internal fuel. But what good is such a configuration in operational service? Nothing, it just makes the brochures look better.
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,389
Likes
2,858
Composites don't reduce weight, they increase the amount of stress the structure can take. Which means higher payload for the same weight. Get your facts straight b4 making retarded comments. Mk.1 FOC weighs 7040 kg empty, and has MTOW of 13500 kg (Wikipedia, correct if I'm wrong). That's 6460 kg of payload. That is pretty significant for a bird of its class.
I guess it depends on the composite and its role in the product but practically speaking carbon fibre bikes are lighter by a good margin vs AL and even TI made ones and are very robust with in the defined boundaries. 787 is also a case in point.
 
Last edited:

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,389
Likes
2,858
Some magic marketing for Gripen C/D, taken from above article:
Now, how is this payload capability calculated? The designers simply take the maximum take off weight (MTOW) of the Tejas Mk1 which is about 14.1 t and subtract its clean takeoff weight (i.e. full internal fuel and no payload) of 9.8 t from the former. This gives a payload capacity of approximately 4.3 t. Now let us look at the claim for the Gripen made in the TOI article. First of all 6 t is the payload capacity of the Gripen E/F, an aircraft which will not become available before 2023 and not that of the Gripen C/D which is currently in service with some Air Forces around the world. The Gripen E/F’s Indian compatriot, i.e. the MWF is currently being designed to be capable of flying with a maximum 6.5 t of payload and is expected to begin test flights by 2023. Returning to today’s reality, the clean and maximum take-off weights of the Gripen C/D are 10 t and 14 t respectively. Using Tejas-like calculations the payload should be 4 t (i.e. similar to that of the Tejas). Then how is that the Gripen C/D is advertised as having a maximum payload of 5.3 t, you may ask? This brings us to the magic of marketing, of which both DRDO and HAL are bereft (more on that some other day!). Gripen can take off with 5.3 t of payload, only if it significantly sacrifices on the carriage of internal fuel. But what good is such a configuration in operational service? Nothing, it just makes the brochures look better.
It is by no means underpowered in the point defence role at average loads and mostly A2A interceptions......combat range seems to be on the lower side vs mig29 but in India vs Pakistan context this plane with its AESA radar and BVR load outs will be potent enough even in first versions. Not sure presenting Tejas in first two versions against any plane that is already in the market is that important. It is a first functional fighter of modern needs from India and success is it built the discipline leading to competent ones in the later part of this decade. Claiming any other titles vs Grippen or even M2k without evidence is just cart before the horse. Let the product speak for itself in the next few years, impressive record so far avoiding any crashes (fortunately).
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,928
Likes
18,437
Country flag
Thanks for replying.

You are comparing Tejas a full fledge fighter jet with FA-50 an advance trainer. It should be compared with Gripen C/D and E/F, its actual competitor. With empty weight of 6,600 kg, it looks heavy on such a small jet with delta design. Plus its payload capacity of 3.7 tons is nothing to brag about, the composite material if is a world class product should have either reduced the empty weight to 6,100-6,200 kg or at least increased the payload capacity with the existing empty weight to at least 4.5 tons.

To me the specifications of LCA makes the composite material mediocre. If HAL can enhance this specification in MK1A, which we all are hearing from unverified sources, then we can praise the composite material.
Your living in the past... Tejas has more payload capacity than Gripen C/D too. It has taken off with 4.3t over its 10.3t clean takeoff weight, making it's MTOW 14.6t (600kg more than Gripen).

And although Tejas can't take off with it, but its wings can hold 5.3t payload. That allows for variable assortment of heavyweight configs. Like this..
IMG_20210418_054530.jpg
 
Last edited:

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,389
Likes
2,858
Fair enough. Same thing. Aluminium is lighter. Tejas has more payload capacity that Gripen C/D too.

Tejas can't take off with it, but can hold 5.3t payload. That allows for variable assortment of heavyweight configs. Like this..

View attachment 85727
Also, is it not a practice to send the plane up with less fuel and more armament and then get it air refueled to avoid take off issues? Not ideal but in CAP under tense times one or two tankers are always in the air.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,928
Likes
18,437
Country flag
Also, is it not a practice to send the plane up with less fuel and more armament and then get it air refueled to avoid take off issues? Not ideal but in CAP under tense times one or two tankers are always in the air.
I don't know. Theoretically, if you fill 1500kg fuel instead of 2500kg then Tejas should take off with 5.3ton, like @johnq's above post says. But far too impractical in our scenario. NATO can dip it to bomb rabble maybe. Time is of essence for us.

This PDF has bunch of corrections that Dr Girish has marked and one can view in pdf viewer. They released it as is without removing the tags!?
Probably done after they released it..
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,389
Likes
2,858
I don't know. Theoretically, if you fill 1500kg fuel instead of 2500kg then Tejas should take off with 5.3ton, like @johnq's above post says. But far too impractical in our scenario. NATO can dip it to bomb rabble maybe. Time is of essence for us.
If my memory serves me correctly then it is (still is or was) a practice with jets taking off from carrier......with Tejas we can get numbers on cheap, therefore probably refueling was built in ofcourse in addition to the primary role of having it for ferry and other things in combat. We have a mixed fleet of heavy and light, I think it perfectly makes sense if take off power is the issue in any particular mission. India has the depth too to do these things in the rear. On paper this plane looks very practical for Indian needs.....kudos to our engineers on the first take!
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,582
Likes
3,220
Maximum estimated ferry ranges of aircraft in brochures are based on linear flight at optimal altitude with maximum fuel in internal and external tanks (and not carrying any other stores), starting and stopping at the same altitude. This can be achieved by getting to altitude and then refueling to max. I am not sure about Tejas' full range because it has not flown at optimal altitude in a straight line with maximum fuel loadout. Taking off and getting to optimal altitude uses up a lot of fuel also. And Tejas' flights within India have not been at optimal altitudes (it has flown at lower altitudes, which uses up a lot more fuel), yet it still covered a very long range even after using up fuel in the takeoff and getting up to altitude, and still had fuel to spare. I suspect that Tejas' actual ferry range is around the same as the Gripen C/D.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,928
Likes
18,437
Country flag
HAL Plans to Certify Astra Mk1 and ASRAAM within This Year
April 15, 2021

HAL Plans to Certify Astra Mk1 and ASRAAM Air to Air Missile
Indian state-owned aerospace and defence company, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is carrying out integration works on one of the Limited series LCA-Tejas aircraft that will enable it to fire Astra Mk1 Beyond Visual Range Air to air missile by end of this year, Plans are also been prepared to start computer-generated data for integration of Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) from the European missile-maker MBDA that has been approved for fitting on LCA-Tejas after talks were held between HAL and MBDA.
Heat-seeking, ASRAAM air-to-air missile will be supplementing Russian R-73 for Close Combat air to air combat for the entire LCA-Tejas fleet starting with the Tejas Mk1A fleet that goes into production in 2023. ASRAAM is already been integrated on the Darin-III upgraded Jaguar ground strike fighter jet fleet and IAF is keen that next-generation Close Combat air to air missile becomes a standard missile type across the fleet.
IAF also has been offered I-Derby-ER that has a range of 100km by Israel since Tejas Mk1 already has been integrated with older 60km range I-Derby, which according to Israeli company will be Plug and play system, that will be requiring no changes in the hardware or the Mission Computer system of the aircraft.
A final call on I-Derby-ER might be taken at a later stage, while the focus remains on enabling Astra Mk1 and ASRAAM on the Tejas Mk1A fleet, which will also be supplemented with I-Derby and R-73. Astra Mk2 a Dual-Pulse motor based 160km Beyond Visual Range Air to air missile is also being developed to be tested from Sukhoi-Su-30MKI later this year, it is expected that the missile will take few years of developmental and user trials before it is cleared for production. Astra IR (imaging infra-red homing seeker), along with the Astra Mk2 (160km) and Astra Mk3 (340km) will eventually replace imported air-to-air missiles in long run.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top