LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

Samej Jangir

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
351
Likes
559
Country flag
Talks pe talks! Talks pe Talks! Talks pe talks

talks to bahut ho gyi Chairman sab par order nahi mila!

Only look at official sources. These are just sensationalists. India is always in talks with many countries regarding many things. That is how diplomacy works. But the success of talks is not high. The reality is that the defence orders for strategic equipments like air defence, missiles, fighter jets etc are always made on political calculations.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,100
Country flag
How would it compare to the F-16 fighter and its engine?
F-16 is an old draggy design. MWF is a modern highly aerodynamic design. Look, with 58/98 KN engine, which plane in the world has MTOW of 17.5 tons? Answer is none. This is the crazy design which exploits maximum out of an engine. F-16 may have latest Radar and electronics but its design can not change. As a platform, F-16 is going to remain inferior to MWF though it may or may not carry more modern electronics and weapons.
 

Shuturmurg

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
3,042
Likes
21,538
Country flag
Nigeria already operates Jeff Sitara, which they can afford about two squadrons of max. Argentina will end up buying old F-16s at a bargain. Not even Filipinos know what Philippines will do.
If they have enough budget, they will go for f-16, China is threatening their boats everyday, they have given even more bases for Americans, hence makes sense to go with American jet.
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
4,046
Likes
27,622
Country flag
HAL and DRDO should get a professional communications team from corporate world. These people keep making such unhinged statements regarding orders, timelines and projects - leading to uncontrollable blemishes on the organisation.
In "talks with Phillipines, Argentina and Nigeria"- what's the point of mentioning these things by Executives unless there are some orders on the anvil. And then the narrative becomes HAL lost the contract to Boeing or LM or some other company, when they were never in the race to begin with. Every seller is in "talks" with all prospective buyers all the time.
 

DumbPilot

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
1,709
Likes
4,093
Country flag
HAL and DRDO should get a professional communications team from corporate world. These people keep making such unhinged statements regarding orders, timelines and projects - leading to uncontrollable blemishes on the organisation.
In "talks with Phillipines, Argentina and Nigeria"- what's the point of mentioning these things by Executives unless there are some orders on the anvil. And then the narrative becomes HAL lost the contract to Boeing or LM or some other company, when they were never in the race to begin with. Every seller is in "talks" with all prospective buyers all the time.
HAL & DRDO makes these announcement or these armchair twitter channels ?
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
4,046
Likes
27,622
Country flag
HAL & DRDO makes these announcement or these armchair twitter channels ?
Very often- their MDs in press statements, Project Directors in conclaves, seminars

Tejas Mk2 timelines have come multiple times, Sales prospects with these countries as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKC

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,708
Likes
4,767
Country flag
F-16 is an old draggy design. MWF is a modern highly aerodynamic design. Look, with 58/98 KN engine, which plane in the world has MTOW of 17.5 tons? Answer is none. This is the crazy design which exploits maximum out of an engine. F-16 may have latest Radar and electronics but its design can not change. As a platform, F-16 is going to remain inferior to MWF though it may or may not carry more modern electronics and weapons.
F16 is definetely not a draggy design it's drag is less than mwf Or all deltas..
Anyways 58/98 is enough for Tejas mk2. Mirage has 64/94kn engine with same empty weight & mtow..
F16 has powerfull engine (76/131kn) with mtow of 19 tons ,it was becoming a overkill and costly to use heavyweight f15 all the time. They needed a cheap new jet with same f15 engine which can be maintained on same infrastructure.. without spending much on maintaining it..we can't say f16 will be inferior mwf hasn't even came out of paper so far.
But on paper with good radar amca technology used in it . And missiles like astra mk2 , descent ew, it will be a good fighter.
Hal should get the f414 EPE for mwf 58/117..
To match high thrust to weight ratio.
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,708
Likes
4,767
Country flag
To launch a Rs 10 potato chips packet in local market, you need a ground work and respective talk of 5 years.
That's what grippen was doing in 2016,17 setting narratives on media but alone narrative can't get you orders. There was so much narrative wars going on that time 16,17,18..all medias would compare and declare gripen is superior. India Today was on forefront for this
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKC

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,100
Country flag
F16 is definetely not a draggy design it's drag is less than mwf Or all deltas..
Anyways 58/98 is enough for Tejas mk2. Mirage has 64/94kn engine with same empty weight & mtow..
F16 has powerfull engine (76/131kn) with mtow of 19 tons ,it was becoming a overkill and costly to use heavyweight f15 all the time. They needed a cheap new jet with same f15 engine which can be maintained on same infrastructure.. without spending much on maintaining it..we can't say f16 will be inferior mwf hasn't even came out of paper so far.
But on paper with good radar amca technology used in it . And missiles like astra mk2 , descent ew, it will be a good fighter.
Hal should get the f414 EPE for mwf 58/117..
To match high thrust to weight ratio.
F 16 is a draggy design so as Eurofighter and F35 and Tejas.F-16 and F-18 performed poorly in Himalayas in MMRCA competition. One of our IAF officer said that F-16 and F-18 has no future. Now compare 19 ton MTOW against 76 KN dry and 17.5 against 58 kn Dry. Do the ratio and you will get answer from your own post which plane is batter design. MWF far exceeds traditional MTOW ratio which is dry thrustX250 Kg/KN. For F 16, it is exactly 250 while for MWF it is 324.
 
Last edited:

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,100
Country flag
That's what grippen was doing in 2016,17 setting narratives on media but alone narrative can't get you orders. There was so much narrative wars going on that time 16,17,18..all medias would compare and declare gripen is superior. India Today was on forefront for this
Gripen is a far superior aircraft available today with ultra modern design and electronics but it comes with a great cost. It has many goodies and very cheap to operate. It has ultra modern western weapons like meteor, ASHRAM etc. and very good AESA. I remember our ex IAF chief saying that It should be Rafale for IAF and second choice shall be Gripen. Such a good aircraft Gripen is.

Our MWF shall be in same league but customized for Indian conditions. With lower wing loading, it will be highly effective in Himalayas. It will match Gripen in Air to Air missile package with batter ground attack capabilities with send off weapons like SAAW and Brahmos NG. If we are able to put a top class EW suite like Spectra in MWF, it can surpass Gripen in its capabilities. If we are able to put proposed 75/125 KN engine, it will be a wonder. If we are able to make it a frontal stealth and detachable weapon bay, and TW 75/125 KN engine, only F-22, F-35 and Su 57 can have an edge over it. It will be a grand pa of all 4.5 generation plane. All what I have stated is possible within a decade of first flight of MWF. Wepaon bay is already consider for Tejas. I think we have frontal stealth in mind for ORCA, We have planned 75/125 KN TWC for AMCA. All technologies are in pipe line. We need to integrate it in MWF.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,215
Likes
26,022
Country flag
Now compare 19 ton MTOW against 76 KN dry and 17.5 against 58 kn Dry. Do the ratio and you will get answer from your own post which plane is batter design.
Mere bhai tujhe aerodynamics ka ku6 samajh hy?.. bas power ratio se ho gya? Area-ruling, wing-loading, vortex sab gya tel lene?

F-16 is a much less draggy setup with thin, small wings meant to outturn MWF in a sustained rate-fight because it's designed as an energy fighter. MWF set-up can be compared to Kfir whose close coupled canards were purposed to increase payload & cut drag as much as possible.
nellis_kfir.jpg
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,708
Likes
4,767
Country flag
Gripen is a far superior aircraft available today with ultra modern design and electronics but it comes with a great cost. It has many goodies and very cheap to operate. It has ultra modern western weapons like meteor, ASHRAM etc. and very good AESA. I remember our ex IAF chief saying that It should be Rafale for IAF and second choice shall be Gripen. Such a good aircraft Gripen is.

Our MWF shall be in same league but customized for Indian conditions. With lower wing loading, it will be highly effective in Himalayas. It will match Gripen in Air to Air missile package with batter ground attack capabilities with send off weapons like SAAW and Brahmos NG. If we are able to put a top class EW suite like Spectra in MWF, it can surpass Gripen in its capabilities. If we are able to put proposed 75/125 KN engine, it will be a wonder. If we are able to make it a frontal stealth and detachable weapon bay, and TW 75/125 KN engine, only F-22, F-35 and Su 57 can have an edge over it. It will be a grand pa of all 4.5 generation plane. All what I have stated is possible within a decade of first flight of MWF. Wepaon bay is already consider for Tejas. I think we have frontal stealth in mind for ORCA, We have planned 75/125 KN TWC for AMCA. All technologies are in pipe line. We need to integrate it in MWF.
F 16 is a draggy design so as Eurofighter and F35 and Tejas.F-16 and F-18 performed poorly in Himalayas in MMRCA competition. One of our IAF officer said that F-16 and F-18 has no future. Now compare 19 ton MTOW against 76 KN dry and 17.5 against 58 kn Dry. Do the ratio and you will get answer from your own post which plane is batter design. MWF far exceeds traditional MTOW ratio which is dry thrustX250 Kg/KN. For F 16, it is exactly 250 while for MWF it is 324.
Really, there is no way gripens GaAs based radar will surpass T mk2s GaN based radars which both are powered by same engine. What advantages gripen has is it's meteor missile & dude it is not ashram ,u might call It asaram bapu..anyways it's asraam. Tejas has all best IR missiles weather it is new aim 132 British asraam or python 5(best) or Russian one.. secondly Tejas mk2 will also have meteor by the time even Tejas mk1 will have it when indian radars will be used on it. Mbda is ready to integrate on indian radar. Just remove the Israeli components..

Gripen is ultra modern really it is a good fighter but not the way you are saying it. It's avionics and systems are not going to be ultra better than Tejas..
Selecting Eurofighter & Americans options will keep our sovereignty in there pockets especially Germany who delayed engine for jorawar tanks. And Russian options were already sidelined so naturally gripen became our second option.. anyways
Gripen has already lobbied to alot to create certain narratives. What, 1st paragraph gripen is better second paragraph no Tejas will match it's capabilities. Stick to one thing. Secondly gripen is that expensive because most of the systems are imported from Europe Sweden doesn't make all even landing gears like systems are imported..

Mk2 is going to have quite capable EW developed by drdo. it is going to have amca technologies like distributed aperture systems and alot more of amca..

There is no need of a 75/125 engine not really I said so many time look at mirage with more draggy design same weight & mtow with less powerful engine (64/94) it goes mach 2.2 and has quite good range good performance. Then definately mk2 with 58/98 will be as good as it is...
Gripen has the same engine both has 1.8 mach who needs this big engines which will weight more and definitely they will not be as efficient as this ge f414 engines. Even if iaf thought of more powerful engine there is a epe variant which makes 58/117.. so there is no problem here hope u get it.
And amca is not going to have a 75/125. There is no such thing in pipeline. Only a ge f414 engine will be used in amca mk1. That's it and tedbf & T mk2 will have it. All technology are already in pipeline bruh hal is going to use alot of amca tech in mk2...
Right now only ge f110 and pratt Whitney F100 Engine can give 75/125 and there is no such thing of using them in it.

And no way you said f16 is as draggy as eurofighter Tejas & f35..
Lol calling f35 a draggy design do u even know that trapezoidal wing are THE MOST EFFICIENT compared to most of the wing types. They produce way less drag than eurofighter and other deltas.. it could be more draggy than f16 because stealth & aerodynamic are inversely proportional to each other but there is no way f35 is more draggy than deltas like eurofighter.

And last thing I I'm again repeating you are straight away comparing f16 thrust to Tejas mk2 .
F16 uses this powerfull engines not because it needs them the whole development of f16 was because the f15 was becoming very expensive to use it for all operations. It was becoming overkill and risking this big fighter was not a good choice. That's why in less than a decade after the f15 , f16 was inducted.. the purpose of this using this engine of f15 was not need but rather to reduce the cost of operating because it uses f15 engine it doesn't need another mro facility no need for different crew. Already developed engine, same operation support equipments etc etc. It is the most cheap aircraft to operate.. now you are comparing it's thrust to weight ratio with Tejas mk2 and saying it's inferior lol it's not look at gripen with similar mtow look at mirage 2000 with similar mtow it uses even less powerful engine of max thrust 94kn With even more draggy design...
What Tejas mk2 has is all fine the engine is enough comparing it with other overpowered doesn't make sense even if iaf thought of it there is GE F414 EPE. Of 117kn.
And fighter do not fly at mtow all the time they fly in numbers of 2,4,6,8. By that way the payload is delivered, mtow is hardly reached when bombing missions are given to the fighter.. whenever you go to bombing you don't send it with mtow. It doesn't happen like that. And when is good thrust to weight ratio needed when you are engaging enemy or evading missiles. By the time you will reach there atleast half of fuel will be used that's how .
Thrust to weight ratio are generally calculated.

In bombing configuration if you find enemy engaging you you are not gonna fight to with heavy bombs with you you will drop the all and defend yourself that's how it is. No way you need enough thrust to keep bombs armaments with you and then engage with enemy. Usually other fighter escort you with below mentioned configuration..
There is no need to compare 19ton mtow with 76kn
And 17.5 ton with 58kn

With 7850kg+3400kg fuel+ 800kg ideally 6 missile
4 astra +2 asraam
(For Interception configuration that's when good thrust to weight ratio is needed & Tejas has it ) it gives mtow of 12050kg. Which will have thrust to weight ratio of 0.82. considering the consumption half fuel it will be 0.95. and there is always a option of EPE variant with 117kn Thrust. Then it will have 0.95 with full fuel & 1.13 with half fuel consumed.
iaf will possibly use the F414-GE-EPE. As it doesn't require change or increase in intake. Dry thrust is same it's just afterburning thrust which is increased to 117kn
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,100
Country flag
Mere bhai tujhe aerodynamics ka ku6 samajh hy?.. bas power ratio se ho gya? Area-ruling, wing-loading, vortex sab gya tel lene?

F-16 is a much less draggy setup with thin, small wings meant to outturn MWF in a sustained rate-fight because it's designed as an energy fighter. MWF set-up can be compared to Kfir whose close coupled canards were purposed to increase payload & cut drag as much as possible.View attachment 232349
Just do not throw some words here. I am ready to discuss every technical parameter you explain. Simply asking tuje kuchha samaj hai does not prove anything. You are talking of area ruling than you must know that Tejas has poor area ruling because of small size which makes it draggy and super cruise could not be achieved because of that issue only. When Initially Tejas was designed, It was designed for super cruise which it could not be achieved. That was the reason why atleast 1 Meter long tejas design was later on conceived to make it more area compliant than what it is. Since you have started technical discussion, I am ready to discuss all the parameters. Let us begin.

All modern fighters carry much higher payload with same engine than old generation fighters. Rafale carries more payload than MKI having 50% more powerful engine. Aerodynamics is simply not drag. Aerodynamic design influences all aspects out of which some are choices for which you want to incorporate into your plane for which you want to optimize it and technology you have. For example delta wing is a draggy design and was unpopular till RSS came in, which made the design viable for fighters. Russian designs their planes on stable platform and gives it a high maneuverability with TWC. Earlier, they used to use asymmetric horizontal stabilizer to make plane maneuverable.

I invite you to start technical discussion on any of the parameter related to Tejas or MWF. It will be a nice discussion.
 

TopWatcher

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Messages
1,715
Likes
4,556
Country flag
Talks pe talks! Talks pe Talks! Talks pe talks

talks to bahut ho gyi Chairman sab par order nahi mila!

Bhai fighter plane, chaawal nahin hai. Paisa bhi to chahye , jo hai hi nahin unke pass.

Defense negotiations takes years.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,100
Country flag
What advantages gripen has is it's meteor missile & dude it is not ashram ,u might call It asaram bapu..anyways it's asraam. Tejas has all best IR missiles weather it is new aim 132 British asraam or python 5(best) or Russian one.. secondly Tejas mk2 will also have meteor by the time even Tejas mk1 will have it when indian radars will be used on it. Mbda is ready to integrate on indian radar. Just remove the Israeli components..

BS on first sentence itself. We do not have any GAN based AESA right now. Uttam is an GaAS radar. We are working on GaN based radar so as others. When we will get GaN based radar, others too will get it much before us as they have AESA almost a decade before us.



F16 uses this powerfull engines not because it needs them the whole development of f16 was because the f15 was becoming very expensive to use it for all operations. It was becoming overkill and risking this big fighter was not a good choice. That's why in less than a decade after the f15 , f16 was inducted.. the purpose of this using this engine of f15 was not need but rather to reduce the cost of operating because it uses f15 engine it doesn't need another mro facility no need for different crew. Already developed engine, same operation support equipments etc etc. It is the most cheap aircraft to operate.. now you are comparing it's thrust to weight ratio with Tejas mk2 and saying it's inferior lol it's not look at gripen with similar mtow look at mirage 2000 with similar mtow it uses even less powerful engine of max thrust 94kn With even more draggy design...


Why are you repeating this rudimentary rant without relevance. Even if it does with MTOW , by the time it gets airborne, it would have consumed 150 KG fuel. So it is not important whether it operates at highest MTOW or not. What is important is what is MTOW. If you have to operate a car at 120 KMPH, Maruti and Mercedes both will do that but Mercedes will do it much less effort.

And fighter do not fly at mtow all the time they fly in numbers of 2,4,6,8. By that way the payload is delivered, mtow is hardly reached when bombing missions are given to the fighter.. whenever you go to bombing you don't send it with mtow. It doesn't happen like that. And when is good thrust to weight ratio needed when you are engaging enemy or evading missiles. By the time you will reach there atleast half of fuel will be used that's how .
If they wanted to use same engine, why did they designed the plane which utilizes its power fully. They could have made the plane with MTOW of 21 tons or above had it had the same MTOW to power ratio. Or do you want to say that they intentionally kept it low?

You gave the example of Mirage by quoting 94 KN engine. you even do not know that it is dry thrust which is important for MTOW not afterburner. Afterburner comes into picture only at the time of take off and some extreme maneuvers. Planes flies all the time without afterburner so MTOW is related to dry thrust and not wet thrust. Dry thrust of M2K is higher than MWF yet both has same MTOW. So even by this logic, MWF is a batter design.

In bombing configuration if you find enemy engaging you you are not gonna fight to with heavy bombs with you you will drop the all and defend yourself that's how it is. No way you need enough thrust to keep bombs armaments with you and then engage with enemy. Usually other fighter escort you with below mentioned configuration..
There is no need to compare 19ton mtow with 76kn
And 17.5 ton with 58kn

With 7850kg+3400kg fuel+ 800kg ideally 6 missile
4 astra +2 asraam
We are not comparing combat scenarios. We are discussing which design is optimum. If I go simply by your logic, even though MWF is a batter design as it does the same thing with less powerful engine. It can escort and carry as many Air to air missile as F16. So even buy your logic. MWF is a batter plane.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top