LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[MonaLazy]

Can we expect more trms in mk2 as it's size is larger?

Nooo! Internal IRST of Mk2 pushes the radar plate forward reducing it's diameter in a conical radome compared to Mk1.

 

[Gyyan]

Nooo! Internal IRST of Mk2 pushes the radar plate forward reducing it's diameter in a conical radome compared to Mk1.

View attachment 194193

And the same radar is to be housed on both?
Considering a lot of people are calling it uttam mk2?

 

[karn]

Nooo! Internal IRST of Mk2 pushes the radar plate forward reducing it's diameter in a conical radome compared to Mk1.

View attachment 194193

The internal IRST is not reducing the nose cone .. The nose cone has been sharpened to improve the aerodynamic performance.

 

[MonaLazy]

And the same radar is to be housed on both?
Considering a lot of people are calling it uttam mk2?

LCA Mk2 has a more powerful radar (GaN based) than Mk1A (GaAs based) even though Mk2 has a smaller radome. This was true atleast till Mk1A had 780 GaAs TRMs & Mk2 992 GaN TRMs.

idrw totally skips on the details so hard to say if this is further refinement of Uttam Mk1 or upscaled Uttam Mk2 ported to Tejas Mk1A. Let's wait on updates from more reliable sources.

 

[MonaLazy]

The internal IRST is not reducing the nose cone .. The nose cone has been sharpened to improve the aerodynamic performance.

Source please. From what I could gather nose cone of both Mk1 & Mk2 are nearly identical.

To house IRST, radar mounting point is forward in Mk2 effectively reducing the diameter available for it.

Some optimisations have been carried out:

..but not seeing any reference for nose shortening.

Sancho contests IR saying there is a .2m nose plug that houses IRST, even then nose would be same size as Mk1:

 

[silverghost]

That’s true but the hysteria around these bids is tiresome. Pretending like they are certain and then having the deals scrapped or awarded to others because the reality is HAL has no hope without the GoI representing them

Our MoD folks do the same to foreign aircraft manufacturers. So, what is the difference? The lesson is we shouldn't get excited about any deals until it is signed.

 

[Gyyan]

Source please. From what I could gather nose cone of both Mk1 & Mk2 are nearly identical.

View attachment 194219

View attachment 194222

View attachment 194223

View attachment 194224

To house IRST, radar mounting point is forward in Mk2 effectively reducing the diameter available for it.

Some optimisations have been carried out:

View attachment 194226

View attachment 194227

View attachment 194228

View attachment 194229

View attachment 194230


..but not seeing any reference for nose shortening.

Sancho contests IR saying there is a .2m nose plug that houses IRST, even then nose would be same size as Mk1:


View attachment 194233

Hope so since Mk2 is bigger in size has canards and irst popping out I assume it's rcs is greater than mk1A(if no other rcs reduction measure is taken).
And if we then house the same AESA and Mk2 has less space in the nose cone then

 

[THESIS THORON]

Hope so since Mk2 is bigger in size has canards and irst popping out I assume it's rcs is greater than mk1A(if no other rcs reduction measure is taken).
And if we then house the same AESA and Mk2 has less space in the nose cone then

the mk1a's peak radar power will be less than that of mk2, due to its more powerful engine.

 

[THESIS THORON]

btw, I got tejas mk1a from this year's def expo

 

[NutCracker]

Hope so since Mk2 is bigger in size has canards and irst popping out I assume it's rcs is greater than mk1A(if no other rcs reduction measure is taken).
And if we then house the same AESA and Mk2 has less space in the nose cone then

i dont think IRST will affect RCS when we already got whole ass dangling refuelling probe. and yes canards too.

If it does ,we can try making that like F-35 EOTS, even if its in front of canopy, we can make it wedge shaped instead of conventional sphere.

 

[MonaLazy]

Hope so since Mk2 is bigger in size has canards and irst popping out I assume it's rcs is greater than mk1A(if no other rcs reduction measure is taken).
And if we then house the same AESA and Mk2 has less space in the nose cone then

RCS will be greater, but then that is also true of Rafale, EF, Gripen & J-20.

Mk2 is bigger in size but the question is how. It is bigger longitudinally, with a plug each in the nose and behind cockpit so may not affect the crucial frontal RCS so much because of being 'bigger', even the wings are almost same- canards will be the main contributor to RCS here. This is from 2019, so slightly outdated but still posting here fwiw:

Tracking The Tejas: How The Tejas Mk2 Design Became The Medium Weight Fighter | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

In order to overcome the internal space constraints of the Tejas Mk1, MWF has been lengthened to 14.65 m, a sweet spot for a modern single engine multirole fighter. This allows the fighter enough internal volume for carrying the necessary systems, while having enough fuel for the range, endurance and performance requirements. This increase in length is achieved using two plugs, one in the nose, and another behind the cockpit. As both of these plugs are ahead of the wing, the CG shifts forward with respect to the CoL, thereby reducing the static stability margin, or in general terms, the maneuverability of an aircraft. As mentioned above, canards help to compensate for this by shifting the CoL forward proportionally to maintain the same static margin.

The canards also help smooth out the discontinuity in the area ruling curve ahead of the wing that exists for Mk1 (see this). By employing a canard and a fatter spine, MWF no longer needs as bulged a canopy as recommended by earlier studies. While those studies predicted a 6 percent supersonic wave drag resulting in a 20 percent improvement in transonic acceleration and 2 percent improvement in maximum speed, MWF is expected to exhibit even greater transonic and supersonic performance improvements given a near perfect area ruling through the changes such as the addition of a nose plug, elongated and fattened front fuselage, optimized canopy shape and rear fuselage. The canards lower the trim drag across the flight envelope, further enhancing overall aircraft performance. As a matter of fact, MWF is expected to have a top speed of Mach 1.8 in level flight with two close-combat missiles (CCMs), which is a 12.5 percent increase over its existing performance.

But whatever our misgivings with respect to canards what matters is Mk2 is not a stealth aircraft and more crucially it fulfils the original IAF ASQR in toto & that is all we should care for.

The payload capacity of MWF will be 6.5 tons as compared to the Mk1’s 3.9 tons. To carry this increased payload, the number of pylons have been increased from 8 to 11. The gun has been moved to a shoulder mounted position which has freed up space below the right intake for an additional pylon. Each wing also features four stations instead of the current three. ADA is also developing multi-rack pylons for carrying two BVR AAMs. The addition of the nose plug has also afforded space for an infra-red search and track (IRST) system, and the fuselage plugs facilitate the availability of space for an internal self-protection jammer and significantly higher internal fuel. Cumulatively, these changes not only enhance mission capability of the aircraft, but add greatly to its flexibility. What is more, MWF brochure indicates that all this additional capability comes with no additional empty weight. This optimistic estimate probably arises from the optimization of airframe structures in the second design iteration of LCA. Realistically though, some increase in the empty weight can be expected. Even with some weight gain, MWF will retain its exceptionally low wing loading. With this low wing loading, increased T/W ratio owing to its more powerful engines and optimized airframe for wave drag and enhanced manoeuvrability on account of canards, MWF is expected to achieve all the performance parameters specified by 1985 ASQR.

 

[lcafanboy]

 

[jai jaganath]

Guys what happened to hvt sir's account
Why it got blocked
People are bashing hal
Are they responsible for this shit

 

[SKC]

Guys what happened to hvt sir's account
Why it got blocked
People are bashing hal
Are they responsible for this shit

He did used to post fake snaps of projects. Many times posted fake claims.

 

[jai jaganath]

He did used to post fake snaps of projects. Many times posted fake claims.

U mean hvt sir the hal test pilot
He is most reliable
Coming to posting he post those things which are not any secretive or confidential things
He post those things which are informative and truth

 

[SKC]

U mean hvt sir the hal test pilot
He is most reliable
Coming to posting he post those things which are not any secretive or confidential things
He post those things which are informative and truth

I posted one of his tweet here also only to find it was fake!

 

[jai jaganath]

I posted one of his tweet here also only to find it was fake!

Just bcoz of 1 tweet or misunderstanding u can't blame him to be fake
He is very prompt in answering and has also cleared many queries on enthusiasts
I get a feeling those cuck guys sitting in hal did this
First they can't do pr and if someone else tries to clear their mess then create mess around him

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

View attachment 194213

View attachment 194214

View attachment 194215

View attachment 194216

LCA Mk2 has a more powerful radar (GaN based) than Mk1A (GaAs based) even though Mk2 has a smaller radome. This was true atleast till Mk1A had 780 GaAs TRMs & Mk2 992 GaN TRMs.

View attachment 194217



idrw totally skips on the details so hard to say if this is further refinement of Uttam Mk1 or upscaled Uttam Mk2 ported to Tejas Mk1A. Let's wait on updates from more reliable sources.

All of the so called updates from Indranil is BS at this point. Until unless an radar is deployed, data gathered, none can call an paper radar, leading edge. As much hardware for radar, software is also much important in ignoring clutters and what not. And that data can only be gathered when it’s deployed.

US and Israel is powerhouse in radars because of software and the tons of data they have gathered over the years which help them refine the hardware. Ours are patting ourselves on our back without having single radar operational. Pilots will see and use radars in a different way than scientists.

 

[IndianHawk]

All of the so called updates from Indranil is BS at this point. Until unless an radar is deployed, data gathered, none can call an paper radar, leading edge. As much hardware for radar, software is also much important in ignoring clutters and what not. And that data can only be gathered when it’s deployed.

US and Israel is powerhouse in radars because of software and the tons of data they have gathered over the years which help them refine the hardware. Ours are patting ourselves on our back without having single radar operational. Pilots will see and use radars in a different way than scientists.

Uttam was tested in airborn mode with airforce professionals in the modified test bed. Pilots know very well how it works .

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Uttam was tested in airborn mode with airforce professionals in the modified test bed. Pilots know very well how it works .

As I said, flights done by very few experimental test pilots cannot replace hundreds of inputs provided by actual users aka pilots. And weapons test have to be conducted as well on Uttam.
Don’t fly the chickens before they are hatched. Uttam will take its own sweet time to mature and that can happen only after it’s inducted into airforce in significant numbers