- Jul 15, 2018
surface pressure field on lca
CFD study of belly abnormal landing
The vortices generated are much more healthy and uniform. I think they increased the height of wings at leading edge to maintain a uniform vortex throughout wing's cross section. Other blue line at front fuselage is chiefly due to refuelling probe so the CFD is calculated for MK1 FOC or MK1A.
Logical upgradation. We have already made canopy severance system (CSC) and intregated into LCA, IJT and HTT40. We have also developed the ejection seat parachute for Su30.Why ? Most of the jet manufacturer are fine with Martin Baker ones..!
Good luck in developing an ejection seat. It would be useful for a rival to MB to emerge in years to come and obviously avoids UK approval being needed for sale to end users.Logical upgradation. We have already made canopy severance system (CSC) and intregated into LCA, IJT and HTT40. We have also developed the ejection seat parachute for Su30.
So, logically next development should be ejection seat.
It also frees us from UK govt. pressure via MB to stop export of a certain product to a certain country over their own geopolitical interest.
At the Defexpo trade show in February 2020, PM Narendra Modi called for an export target of Rs 35,000 crore ($5 billion) annually within five years.
While the trajectory has been impressive thus far, to maintain this momentum and meet the $5 billion target will take some doing. Among the measures already adopted are a mandate for state-owned public sector units to earn 25 per cent of annual revenue through exports by FY2023...
Alternate to MB already exists.Good luck in developing an ejection seat. It would be useful for a rival to MB to emerge in years to come and obviously avoids UK approval being needed for sale to end users.
On that tack - export sales - what would happen if a Mk1A export sale was secured? Would India do what France has done with Rafale and stop deliveries to the home air force while export aircraft were being built? I don't see any other way with a production limit of 16 a year.
Restricting Mk1A production to 16 a year runs counter to this expressed target, doesn't it? I hope a decision to increase capacity to 24 a year will be taken soon.
Putting my business hat on, the number of SAAB Gripen, KAI-FA-50 light fighters exported in the last ten years is very small (<100, I guess) so I don't see a market for many MK1A's in the next 10 years (even assuming production was extended/production capacity was increased so that more than 83 could be delivered by 2030). However I think 1 or 2 small orders would be very useful as a learning exercise in terms of providing customer support. That could build customer confidence for MWF, for which I think there will be a much larger market.
I would add the proviso that if Mk1A proves to be an excellent little fighter with cheap Indian weapons available, it may be the best option for countries with limited defence budgets. Who knows, if marketed and sold well it could attract export sales of 50+.
When the resources are limited then using them on things like Ejection Seat is waste of resources.Alternate to MB already exists.
Of them some are good and some are crappy.
But MB currently are the best.
So one might ask, if alternative to MB already exists why develop one more?
It's the same, why we are developing our own artillery when atleast half a dozen suppliers exists.
That too will be replaced.When the resources are limited then using them on things like Ejection Seat is waste of resources.
There are many other things which needs urgent attention.
By the way we are also using british radome for tejas . Right ?
Good to hear. Does it match the performance of the Cobham one (was Cobham, wasn't it?) In reality I don't think that matters - a small performance reduction is acceptable if it eliminates political risk. Especially, too, if it is much cheaper (and I imagine it is).One was in testing ,photos were there on a thread here , lighting test if i remember
I think the earlier one was somewhat problematic for it ,new one is being tested ,wait fir resultGood to hear. Does it match the performance of the Cobham one (was Cobham, wasn't it?) In reality I don't think that matters - a small performance reduction is acceptable if it eliminates political risk. Especially, too, if it is much cheaper (and I imagine it is).
Impossible. How will you feed it with increased airflow (85-90 kg/s) required for delivering 110-120kN from the same inlets designed for F404 (70 kg/s)? The best bet for re-engining Mk1/A is certifying the Kaveri with Safran (dry variant is already slated for testing around 2022-23) including reheat section. Second, best is to use M88-2 (Rafale also flew with F404 initially so both engines should be somewhat interchangeable) by adding some redundancy in controls for single-engined fighters. Latter option seems likely only if MWF fails to stick to its time line- and India goes for a larger order (100+) of Rafale and gets to assemble M88-2s locally.
In addition to commitments on the Indo-Pacific, the two countries agreed to build on existing government-to-government collaboration on India’s future combat air engine requirement. As part of a ‘2030 Roadmap’, they agreed to work closely together in support of India’s indigenous development of the Light Combat Aircraft Mark 2.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|LCA Tejas: Photos & Footages (no text other than headings)||Military Multimedia||24|
|LCA TEJAS and what makes it stand out||Knowledge Repository||8|
|W||Rise of LCA Tejas Multi Role Fighter Aircraft||Indian Air Force||23|
|C||LRUs or parts of LCA Tejas Made and designed in India||Indian Air Force||16|