LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Samej Jangir]

Bruh I watched that podcast for you till 29:00
https://www.youtube.com/live/SZaaVPP_F-8?feature=shared watch this at 29:00. The air Marshall say it's internal fuel capacity is 3000kg. Definetely he knows more than you and me

The Tejas is not some extraordinary and special plane to hide its internal fuel capacity. Why would DRDO/HAL hide this figure? Moreover, due to many imported components, even hiding such figures won't prevent the specifications from being learnt by foreign countries. It is likely a slip of tongue where he confused litres with kgs. A minor slip of tongue is common

 

[Satish Sharma]

He fumbled , he meant 3000 liters. It fits the bill 2400kg = 3000L.
Some talk in liters, some in kg. Personal choice.

Definetely we cannot figure out did he fumbled or not no point in it
Whatever it is. it's good. air force ordered 220tejas

I will do superchat when he will be live there again and ask him 'isnt 3000kg int. Fuel capacity too less'

 

[Samej Jangir]

Definetely we cannot figure out did he fumbled or not no point in it
Whatever it is. it's good. air force ordered 220tejas

I will do superchat when he will be live there again and ask him 'isnt 3000kg int. Fuel capacity too less'

He has already said that its combat range is 450km and that refueller needs to be 150-200km within borders. So, its maximum offensive range is 250km which is too small and hence mostly acts as air defence fighter.

 

[Satish Sharma]

He has already said that its combat range is 450km and that refueller needs to be 150-200km within borders. So, its maximum offensive range is 250km which is too small and hence mostly acts as air defence fighter.

Nice info
Just a random question why did Wikipedia update combat range to 1000km.

 

[spacemarine2023]

He has already said that its combat range is 450km and that refueller needs to be 150-200km within borders. So, its maximum offensive range is 250km which is too small and hence mostly acts as air defence fighter.

you mean combat radius* not range

 

[Satish Sharma]

you mean combat radius* not range

Combat range itself means radius of combat

 

[spacemarine2023]

Combat range itself means radius of combat

The combat range of a fighter plane refers to the maximum distance it can travel on a single tank of fuel without engaging in combat. On the other hand, the combat radius is the distance a fighter can travel from its base, engage in combat, and return without refueling. Essentially, combat radius takes into account the fuel required for both reaching and returning from a combat mission.

 

[NutCracker]

The combat range of a fighter plane refers to the maximum distance it can travel on a single tank of fuel without engaging in combat. On the other hand, the combat radius is the distance a fighter can travel from its base, engage in combat, and return without refueling. Essentially, combat radius takes into account the fuel required for both reaching and returning from a combat mission.

wouldnt that be ferry range on internal fuel.

Can you give source of that combat range and radius are different ?

 

[spacemarine2023]

wouldnt that be ferry range on internal fuel.

Can you give source of that combat range and radius are different ?

The ferry range of a fighter plane refers to the maximum distance it can travel without refueling. It's typically longer than its combat range since it involves flying at a more fuel-efficient cruising speed without engaging in combat maneuvers. The ferry range depends on factors like fuel capacity, weight, and configuration.

 

[NutCracker]

The ferry range of a fighter plane refers to the maximum distance it can travel without refueling. It's typically longer than its combat range since it involves flying at a more fuel-efficient cruising speed without engaging in combat maneuvers. The ferry range depends on factors like fuel capacity, weight, and configuration.

Okay but can you give source about combat range and radius being different.
In my opinion those are mutually interchangeable.

 

[spacemarine2023]

Okay but can you give source about combat range and radius being different.
In my opinion those are mutually interchangeable.

Got it from one of google links… will share the url if found

 

[Satish Sharma]

The combat range of a fighter plane refers to the maximum distance it can travel on a single tank of fuel without engaging in combat. On the other hand, the combat radius is the distance a fighter can travel from its base, engage in combat, and return without refueling. Essentially, combat radius takes into account the fuel required for both reaching and returning from a combat mission.

You are wrong combat range is itself radius because it is practical thing you know you have to return to base after combat..
F16 has combat range of 555KM does that mean it will have 277km combat radius.
And share the source to which you're referring

 

[spacemarine2023]

You are wrong combat range is itself radius because it is practical thing you know you have to return to base after combat..
F16 has combat range of 555KM does that mean it will have 277km combat radius.
And share the source to which you're referring

Not able to get the link can you share your source

 

[Blademaster]

Okay but can you give source about combat range and radius being different.
In my opinion those are mutually interchangeable.

You are wrong combat range is itself radius because it is practical thing you know you have to return to base after combat..
F16 has combat range of 555KM does that mean it will have 277km combat radius.
And share the source to which you're referring

See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_action

In military aviation, the combat radius of an aircraft is often given with its mission profile (without in-air refueling). For example:

• The F-16 Fighting Falcon's combat radius is 550 km (340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 450 kg (1,000 lb) bombs.
• The F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 537 km (330 mi) on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission.

The radius of action of an aircraft is always smaller than its maximum range, the furthest distance the aircraft can fly with maximum payload and without refueling, or ferry range, the furthest distance the aircraft can fly with drop tanks, no load or ordnance and without refueling. The rule of thumb is that the radius of action is one-third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. In military aviation, this assumes a trip out and back, plus one-third of fuel for combat operations.

 

[Samej Jangir]

You are wrong combat range is itself radius because it is practical thing you know you have to return to base after combat..
F16 has combat range of 555KM does that mean it will have 277km combat radius.
And share the source to which you're referring

Not sure fully but range is generally maximum distance while radius involves to and fro distance. For example, it is possible that a plane can take off from Kolkata, drop bombs on Bangladesh and then land in Manipur. It is not always necessary for the planes to come back to their original bases. But yeah, it was combat radius of 450km mentioned. This time I had a slip/confusion and called it combat range!

 

[HariPrasad-1]

https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-indian-air-force-advances-su-30-mki-upgrade-with-indigenous-technologies-and-strategic-partnerships-3322038/

Even su-30mki are being upgraded, everything except frame and engine.

Thats 200+ aircrafts that will stay in service for a long time.

I suspect Tejas will get a lot more orders
and SU30 mki will be upgraded in greater numbers.

Tejas Mk1 Order is a compulsion as we do not have MWF in hand. Had we had MWF, It would have been a far batter option than MK1A.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

can someone plz explain:-
64000 crore is equivalent to 8 billion dollar...nd we r going to upgrade 84 su 30 mki in this. that per aircraft upgrade cost near 8000/84= 95 million dollar upgrade. in this price we can buy a new rafale (without weapon).
before we heard all 260 su 30 mki upgrade will cost 8 billion dollar. even we heard russia is demanding 8 billion dollar to upgrade all our su 30 mki. now only 84 su30 mki is upgraded in this high price.
is this high price upgrade make sense?? in this upgrade price (8 billion dollars) we can buy 80+ rafale (without weapon package).

We had Upgraded Mirage 2000 at cost one and half time the price of new Mig 29.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

su 30 mki size, engine heat etc is huge..even u use composite material its RCS remain huge with all weapons.
su 30 mki can equip 4-5 brahmos ng nd tejas mark 2 will equip 3 brahmos ng.
brahmos ng weight is 1.5 ton. so 4-5 missile will weight 1500×5= 7500 kg. su 30 mki can carry 8000 kg weapon payload.
or in other formation one brahmos A (3500 kg approx) will equip with 2 brahmos ng (1500×2=3000 kg). total 6500 kg weapon load.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-more-firepower-for-iaf-against-china-pakistan-sukhoi-30-mkis-to-get-5-next-generation-brahmos-ng-missiles-1512331/lite/

It is easy to carry weight in Fuselage but not on Wing. As you move away from main body, weight carrying capability decreases. Not only overall weight but the place where the load is going to be mounted is also very important. At wing tip, you can not carry anything but WVR missiles of weight 120 KG+-20 Kg. If you want to carry payload further away from main body, reinforcing of wing is required which means higher weight of aircraft and lesser useful payload.

 

[Chinmoy]

can someone plz explain:-
64000 crore is equivalent to 8 billion dollar...nd we r going to upgrade 84 su 30 mki in this. that per aircraft upgrade cost near 8000/84= 95 million dollar upgrade. in this price we can buy a new rafale (without weapon).
before we heard all 260 su 30 mki upgrade will cost 8 billion dollar. even we heard russia is demanding 8 billion dollar to upgrade all our su 30 mki. now only 84 su30 mki is upgraded in this high price.
is this high price upgrade make sense?? in this upgrade price (8 billion dollars) we can buy 80+ rafale (without weapon package).

No.

We are not upgrading Su-30s at 64000 crore.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Nothing to do with the deino guy I am talking about the platform and the weapons j16 is superior to MKI in almost every way and now with even longer AAM these are getting more dangerous everyday meanwhile AMCA remains and decade or more away and mk2 half a decade or more away.

No Chinese fighter is superior to Russian one. They copied J15 from Su 33 and end up making as shit which can not carry more than 2 tons from Deck. Our old Mig 29s are far better.