LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[NutCracker]

You can compare the specific fuel consumption for each engine.

@DumbPilot

I like this video. One spot for all details.

 

[Hari Sud]

Alphadefence has a good article and there he mention about combat radius . Go through this .

Tejas - Not what you think it is. - Alpha Defense

– By Raflanker A new storm stirred up yet again on competence of Tejas. Time again,Tejas, a Light Combat aircraft is expected to perform like a medium category fighter. Allegations are made on its payload capacity, range, EW suite, weight and delays. But are these points really tenable? Let’s...

alphadefense.in

‘First, Tejas 1A version in its own category is the finest. The Alphadefense is anti Tejas marketing article most likely put out by anti Tejas lobby. They wish to sell their own aircraft and oppose Tejas. Second, as a light aircraft it has the capability to beat medium and heavy aircrafts in the combat. Sooner than later it will have missiles so capable that it will be feared by legacy F-16 and most overhyped Chinese made aircrafts.

 

[karn]

‘First, Tejas 1A version in its own category is the finest. The Alphadefense is anti Tejas marketing article most likely put out by anti Tejas lobby. They wish to sell their own aircraft and oppose Tejas. Second, as a light aircraft it has the capability to beat medium and heavy aircrafts in the combat. Sooner than later it will have missiles so capable that it will be feared by legacy F-16 and most overhyped Chinese made aircrafts.

Alphadefence does the most boosting for the Tejas

 

[DumbPilot]

Thanks, I didn't know about this. I googled about it, and interestingly the fuel capacity for the JF-17 is about 2,300kg, which is about 5100lbs.

The F-16 alone has 7100lbs of internal fuel..

Now this is interesting. Looked at what engine the JF-17 uses - which is a Guizho WS-13, directly copied from the Soviet Kilmov RD-93, which is used in the MiG29s. Very very interesting.

Now I looked through the MiG-29 aircraft manuals from some former East German MiG-29 Fulcrums:

Total internal fuel quantity is 4,300kg, which is about 9400lbs:
View attachment 167261
View attachment 167262

In it, they say that the practical flight range is around ~1000km at medium altitude(roughly) on internal fuel consumption alone. This would translate to about ~500km combat radius give or take:

View attachment 167263

View attachment 167264

This should match up with reality.. The JF-17 has half the engine(half the specific fuel consumption) and almost half the fuel, which means it definitely should not have such a high combat radius.

Unless it is talking about radius with fuel bags, then of course even the F-16/F-18's combat radius will be far beyond just 500km.

Alright so I did a little more digging, this time into a 2001 -1(aircraft systems and performance) manual printed by the Americans on the former East German MiG-29s.

Via gross weight, standard MACH operating speed(mach 0.7), and standard mission drag index, I traced the fuel index value to be 42.

On the next graph, I traced the fuel index and standard operating altitude(~20000ft) such that the the average net specific fuel consumption came out to be 8kg/NM:

This means that if the MiG-29 carries 4300kg of internal fuel, it can operate about some ~450-ish nautical miles(if we set the fuel consumption rate to 10kg/NM), and 450 nautical miles translates to 830km. This falls in line what I predicted up above, and if 830km is the total granted range, a round trip + some reserve means the effective comat range is about ~400km.

Now keep in mind this is for two RD-33/93s in a MiG-29, which has roughly twice the fuel as the JF-17. Divide that away and you can still see the JF-17 doing approximately 400-450km for combat range while on internal fuel.

Now unfortunately with this we don't have drag-index values, or standard flight performance characteristics of the JF-17(they will be absolutely classified IMO) so at best whatever I can come up with is an approximation based upon the German(or even our own) MiG-29 as described by the Soviets and Americans.

 

[DumbPilot]

I think if I look into this any deeper I will probably be put on some sort of watchlist because even getting these Soviet/American manuals for the F-16 and the MiG-29 was a stretch

 

[MirageBlue]

Wiki says J17 has a combat radius of 1,350 km or 750 mi. WtF? J17 is essentially a MiG 21 platform and MiG-21 has a combat radius of 350 kms. F-16s has a combat radius of 550 kms so does F-18s. So how the hell does a J17 have a combat radius of 1,350 km as wiki says?

Because the madrassa educated Pakis cannot distinguish between ferry range and combat radius.

The buffoons on PDF (from where most Pakis pick up this kind of rubbish data) don't understand the meaning of combat radius, which requires the fighter to travel X km one way, fight/maintain CAP for Y minutes and then fly back X km.

 

[MirageBlue]

ha ha ha. No. J-17 is nearly the same size as JAS Gripen but weighs more than that and carries the same fuel load and does not use western engines. Yet JAS Gripen combat range is 800 kms. Someone is fudging the numbers for J17.

Who are they fooling? Any prospective customer won't be fooled by such rubbish data because they will actually get access to proper data. Fooling the Paki aawaam and all those who don't understand the meaning of combat radius means nothing, since we aren't playing Fighter Trump Cards, where you publish some specs and win based on that.

Truth is that the JF-17's combat radius won't be any better than the Tejas. Similar size, empty weight, fuel onboard and engine specific fuel consumption plus unfortunately having similar laws of physics not affected by Djinn technology means as much as they fart online, it'll fly this much distance only.

 

[NutCracker]

Alright so I did a little more digging, this time into a 2001 -1(aircraft systems and performance) manual printed by the Americans on the former East German MiG-29s.

View attachment 167308

Via gross weight, standard MACH operating speed(mach 0.7), and standard mission drag index, I traced the fuel index value to be 42.

On the next graph, I traced the fuel index and standard operating altitude(~20000ft) such that the the average net specific fuel consumption came out to be 8kg/NM:
View attachment 167309

This means that if the MiG-29 carries 4300kg of internal fuel, it can operate about some ~450-ish nautical miles(if we set the fuel consumption rate to 10kg/NM), and 450 nautical miles translates to 830km. This falls in line what I predicted up above, and if 830km is the total granted range, a round trip + some reserve means the effective comat range is about ~400km.

Now keep in mind this is for two RD-33/93s in a MiG-29, which has roughly twice the fuel as the JF-17. Divide that away and you can still see the JF-17 doing approximately 400-450km for combat range while on internal fuel.


Now unfortunately with this we don't have drag-index values, or standard flight performance characteristics of the JF-17(they will be absolutely classified IMO) so at best whatever I can come up with is an approximation based upon the German(or even our own) MiG-29 as described by the Soviets and Americans.

Bhai itni mehnat kyu.. video dekh le mene jo post kii hai just upar..

Data is available for kg/kNHour in that video.

Because the madrassa educated Pakis cannot distinguish between ferry range and combat radius.

The buffoons on PDF (from where most Pakis pick up this kind of rubbish data) don't understand the meaning of combat radius, which requires the fighter to travel X km one way, fight/maintain CAP for Y minutes and then fly back X km.

Bruh , those PDFools also cant even comprehend between KG and Liters.

Blunder-17 has 2400 L , Tejas has 2400KG. means 25% more in Liters.

 

[DumbPilot]

Bhai itni mehnat kyu.. video dekh le mene jo post kii hai just upar..

Data is available for kg/kNHour in that video.

Ah shit, sorry lol I didn't see the tag. Thanks for the video

 

[NutCracker]

ha ha ha. No. J-17 is nearly the same size as JAS Gripen but weighs more than that and carries the same fuel load and does not use western engines. Yet JAS Gripen combat range is 800 kms. Someone is fudging the numbers for J17.

Not true.. JF17 has 2300 L means around 1800 KG .

Grippen C has 2400 KG..

 

[sakalasiva]

Dual pylons is confirmed for 2 CCM, though it hasn't been tested yet. but correction on my part , Not sure if they can accommodate 2 BVR.
And i wouldn mind if there are more BVR missiles. Tejas can perform air superiority roles inside Pakistan if needed.
1 x Jammer pod/IRST
4 x BVR
2 x CCM
1 x Drop Tank
1 x Litening pod.

12 of these travelling together is a deadly combo for any incoming fleet.

Air superiority in enemy territory. Do not you think expecting too much from nimble jet. Dude let it perform it's intended role. This mindset of one thing for every thing will spoil it and it will be like jack of all and master of none.

 

[Tridev123]

Air superiority in enemy territory. Do not you think expecting too much from nimble jet. Dude let it perform it's intended role. This mindset of one thing for every thing will spoil it and it will be like jack of all and master of none.

You speak the truth.
Many guys are even comparing it to the F16 and one even to the J20.
It is like asking an Flyweight boxer to take on an Heavyweight boxer(the legendary Mohammed Ali was an Heavyweight boxer) in the ring.
Grossly unfair expectation that the flyweight will win against the heavyweight.

The LCA was originally visualised as an replacement for the Mig 21.The superlative performance of the IAF Gnat fighter against superior PAF aircraft in past wars also probably influenced the choice of an light, nimble LCA.

And the truth is that the LCA is an quantum jump over the Mig 21.Technology wise.
It may not match the Mig 21 in raw acceleration and turn rates but thats OK. The nature of air conflict has changed over the decades. Having good radars and good AAM's are much more important than simply raw speed.

The LCA is an unqualified success for the role it was originally meant to be play. An agile, cheap(relatively), effective interceptor. I would go as far as to say that one LCA will be as effective as two Mig 21aircraft.

Let us not burden it by comparing it to much bigger and heavier aircraft.

The only hesitation some of us may have is that the engine is American not Indian.
If we succeed in developing an suitable indigenous engine then nothing better in its class for the IAF.

 

[MonaLazy]

Tejas - LCA Technology Development

 

[Adm Kenobi]

This means that if the MiG-29 carries 4300kg of internal fuel

A big & rightly placed 'if',
just to clarify, MiG-29 carries some <3.5T of fuel & had one of the worst fuel fraction.
Successive variants carried more.

Not true.. JF17 has 2300 L means around 1800 KG .

Grippen C has 2400 KG..

You got a source for that L? Pretty sure it isn't 2300L.

Truth is that the JF-17's combat radius won't be any better than the Tejas.

It is, you have to accept it, be it today or tomorrow.
JF-17 'Flies on the prayers of the ummah after fuel runs out', LCA Tejas, simply can't.

 

[NutCracker]

A big & rightly placed 'if',
just to clarify, MiG-29 carries some <3.5T of fuel & had one of the worst fuel fraction.
Successive variants carried more.


You got a source for that L? Pretty sure it isn't 2300L.

It is, you have to accept it, be it today or tomorrow.
JF-17 'Flies on the prayers of the ummah after fuel runs out', LCA Tejas, simply can't.

I came across that on very first page of porky forum of jf-17.


Other sources say KG though.

 

[DumbPilot]

A big & rightly placed 'if',
just to clarify, MiG-29 carries some <3.5T of fuel & had one of the worst fuel fraction.

Yeah. I am glad that we will be phasing them out(hopefully) soon. To my knowledge aside from bad fuel configurations, they did not even have enough power to take off from INS Vikramaditya in full fuel+battle load(unlike the Super Hornet).

 

[DumbPilot]

Here's a really good video if you want to understand how they made the LCA Tejas' flight control system.


Videos like this make you realize how much often goes into engineering these beasts, and makes you appreciate the machines.

 

[MonaLazy]

Somebody in HAL leadership might have found people like hvt who share periodic updates, good information & photos for mango people to be anti-PSU ethos & culture. We cant have that !!!

Both @HTT40PRASHANT & @hvtiaf are working again!

 

[Flying Dagger]

Yes. Simply put- there is no LIFT on earth with an AESA radar. The HLFT-42 will almost certainly come with that option (users can choose not to go with one to reduce cost), and the weapons integrations are also done, including some serious BVRAAM weapons. Other LIFTs like the M-346, Hawk and L-15 can't match up in terms of weapons, avionics or performance.

There is Gripen...

 

[Raj Malhotra]

I have written a long article on this form, you guys should search it, but the sum total of the article is that LCA has a strike radius of 1000 km with 2000 KG payload. It can carry out Osirak type attack equivalent to F – 16 aircraft of Israel. The main reason of efficiency of LCA is that the Delta wing inspite of having large surface area has low drag. Presently it seems latest FOC LCA has empty weight 7000kg, MTOW 14200kg, internal fuel 2900kg. FOC LCA is equivalent to Mirage 2000 in range, payload & LCA MKIA will be better.