LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Blood+]

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

Man, you really have a thing for the word 'ultra', are you a fan of Roboat Girlyman??

 

[Satish Sharma]

Man, you really have a thing for the word 'ultra', are you a fan of Roboat Girlyman??

Dude wtf he said it first so I did in his way to explain. Please read his comment to which I replied
He said it has ultra modern avionics. I said those are not that ultra modern i don't even know, what is roboat girlyman ?how do you know?

 

[Blood+]

Dude wtf he said it first so I did in his way to explain. Please read his comment to which I replied
He said it has ultra modern avionics. I said those not that ultra modern

Relax, I was just pulling your legs.

i don't even know what is roboat girlyman ?how do you know?

Well, google is your friend.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Man, you really have a thing for the word 'ultra', are you a fan of Roboat Girlyman??

He just want to display his ultra high knowledge. There are so many new development in the field of avionics. By the time anything comes in, there is some new development. So no avionics by his definition is ultra modern. Some guys have a passion to exhibit their ultra high knowledge and to do that they say so many things which are irrelevant to discussion. We should respect their Ultra high knowledge.

 

[karn]

He just want to display his ultra high knowledge. There are so many new development in the field of avionics. By the time anything comes in, there is some new development. So no avionics by his definition is ultra modern. Some guys have a passion to exhibit their ultra high knowledge and to do that they say so many things which are irrelevant to discussion. We should respect their Ultra high knowledge.

 

[Satish Sharma]

He just want to display his ultra high knowledge. There are so many new development in the field of avionics. By the time anything comes in, there is some new development. So no avionics by his definition is ultra modern. Some guys have a passion to exhibit their ultra high knowledge and to do that they say so many things which are irrelevant to discussion. We should respect their Ultra high knowledge.

Ohh really calling f16 a old draggy design and calling it as draggy as a delta wing. Is this your ultra high knowledge

 

[Satish Sharma]

He just want to display his ultra high knowledge. There are so many new development in the field of avionics. By the time anything comes in, there is some new development. So no avionics by his definition is ultra modern. Some guys have a passion to exhibit their ultra high knowledge and to do that they say so many things which are irrelevant to discussion. We should respect their Ultra high knowledge.

Lol, can't spell asraam calls it ashram show ur ultra pro knowledge. iaf officials should learn from you and integrate 75/125 engine as it is very underpowered by 58/98..

You're ultra knowledge mind should explain why f16 is as draggy as a delta ??

Lol I'm not displaying my ultra knowledge. If you're ultra knowledge would have been so riyal then iaf would have used 75/125kn in mwf. Sadly iaf is not understanding it.
so bad india never cares about riyal talent

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Ohh really calling f16 a old draggy design and calling it as draggy as a delta wing. Is this your ultra high knowledge

Your ultra high knowledge has reached to such a level that you are unable to comprehend simple writing. Tell me where did I say that F 16 is a Delta wing? F-16 is an old design as it was designed 5 decades back. You prove that it is a modern design and also quote me where did I say that it is a delta wing.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Lol, can't spell asraam calls it ashram show ur ultra pro knowledge. iaf officials should learn from you and integrate 75/125 engine as it is very underpowered by 58/98..

You're ultra knowledge mind should explain why f16 is as draggy as a delta ??

Lol I'm not displaying my ultra knowledge. If you're ultra knowledge would have been so riyal then iaf would have used 75/125kn in mwf. Sadly iaf is not understanding it.
so bad india never cares about riyal talent

You are only good for Proof reading. So confine yourself to that only. do not indulge into technical discussion. Where did I say that F-16 is Delta? Why don't you join primary school and learn to read and comprehend a simple sentence? Your problem is that you do not pay attention to what is written. You are always in hurry to exhibit your ultra high knowledge without paying attention to what is being written. I have already explained why F-16 is old and out dated design with facts and figures but you are repeating your rant again and again.

 

[Blood+]

You are only good for Proof reading. So confine yourself to that only. do not indulge into technical discussion. Where did I say that F-16 is Delta? Why don't you join primary school and learn to read and comprehend a simple sentence? Your problem is that you do not pay attention to what is written. You are always in hurry to exhibit your ultra high knowledge without paying attention to what is being written. I have already explained why F-16 is old and out dated design with facts and figures but you are repeating your rant again and again.

Man, don't get me wrong but you need to drasticaly ramp up your comprehension skills; it's getting absolutely ridiculous at this point.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Man, don't get me wrong but you need to drasticaly ramp up your comprehension skills; it's getting absolutely ridiculous at this point.

I am ready to Improve. Now quote me where I said that F-16 is a delta design. I repeating this for third time.

 

[Satish Sharma]

You are only good for Proof reading. So confine yourself to that only. do not indulge into technical discussion. Where did I say that F-16 is Delta? Why don't you join primary school and learn to read and comprehend a simple sentence? Your problem is that you do not pay attention to what is written. You are always in hurry to exhibit your ultra high knowledge without paying attention to what is being written. I have already explained why F-16 is old and out dated design with facts and figures but you are repeating your rant again and again.

You said f16 as draggy as a eurofighter & f35.
If you read again carefully I wrote 'explain why f16 is as draggy as other delta as you compared them in yesterday's comments. ' you never said f16 is delta neither Im sayings it. read the comment again. !!

 

[Satish Sharma]

What are you smoking dude

 

[Satish Sharma]

Lol, can't spell asraam calls it ashram show ur ultra pro knowledge. iaf officials should learn from you and integrate 75/125 engine as it is very underpowered by 58/98..

You're ultra knowledge mind should explain why f16 is as draggy as a delta ??
(This above sentence doesn't mean I said f16 is a delta ) you're ultra knowledge
Lol I'm not displaying my ultra knowledge. If you're ultra knowledge would have been so riyal then iaf would have used 75/125kn in mwf. Sadly iaf is not understanding it.
so bad india never cares about riyal talent

 

[Satish Sharma]

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.

1)Then what's the point of this statement if we're getting by the time mwf will be ready. Then we're getting it. Does that mean it is inferior to others what are trying to explain?? I said mwf will have GaN based radars compared to gripen. So you replied me this whose final conclusion is were are working on GaN based radars, do you mean we couldn't make it.
What is bs in first statement..





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.

[/QUOTE]
2) Look of iaf would have felt that they need a 75/125 they would have used it ,only you're saying it that mwf need a 75/125, they have 2 option of American ones still preferring f414 because it is enough for it , and it's a cropped delta wing which has less drag than mirage like delta wings...


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?

[/QUOTE]
3)Lol this is not what f16 was made for its only job was to use it where f15 would have been over kill. USAF had a basic requirement which it fullfiled then why would they make a 21 ton f16 I don't get it why.
If you see from f16 block 15 TO block 62 there have been already alot of enhanced which have increased its payload capacities. I don't get it this 21 tons bs

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.

[/QUOTE]
4)Well I said the same thing before mwf is better than mirage, also considering thrust to weight ratio.
with similar weight & mtow. However you said dry thrust is important so anyways mwf is more aerodynamic than mirage 2000. And the dry thrust difference is just 5.2kn is this problem to you(58.8vs64kn) still mwf will perform better than mirage 2000 on dry thrust at mtow, better fuel economy better aerodynamics and it also has canards..

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.
[/QUOTE]

5)I never said mwf is inferior you're the one who is repeating this rudimentary rant please read again.

 

[Blood+]

I am ready to Improve. Now quote me where I said that F-16 is a delta design. I repeating this for third time.

Before that, you quote the exact line where Satish claimed or even insinuated that you had said F-16 was a delta wing design.

 

[Satish Sharma]

Before that, you quote the exact line where Satish claimed or even insinuated that you had said F-16 was a delta wing design.

He can't ,he should go to primary instead of telling me

 

[Blademaster]

Guys get a room.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Before that, you quote the exact line where Satish claimed or even insinuated that you had said F-16 was a delta wing design.

Why do not you quote that. I have not changed anything. Infact, I can not change anything after half of an hour.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

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.

Hi

@Blood+ ,

Above is my post for Delta wing description. Please tell me whether it is about F-16?

Before that, you quote the exact line where Satish claimed or even insinuated that you had said F-16 was a delta wing design.