LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Dark Sorrow]

A-G load out generally consists of two CCM/ wvr + drop tanks ( flying low needs more fuel) + spice / hammer or other bombs.

Its time to replace Migage-2000 with Tejas for A-G mission. We need to develop tactics for Tejas.

 

[IndianHawk]

Its time to replace Migage-2000 with Tejas for A-G mission. We need to develop tactics for Tejas.

For now numbers are so low that Tejas can barely fullfill Air defense role of retired mig21 squadrons. However it can drop hammer from standoff distances over terrorism camps.

I doubt Tejas will be used for deep penetration as it lacks internal ew . Mwf will do that. Till then Mirage will hold that fort.
Mirage 2000 will serve till 2035 at least.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

that wont be the case but 500 kms gives us enough cushion and leverage to take diverted routes, etc to reach... Say.. Islamabad.

And doing CAP with Air to Air missiles, without drop tanks would still give it a flight time over an hour and a half.
Air time of 15-30 mins? Wtf. Mazaak chal raha hain kya edhar comment section mein?

500 kms combat radius is when their is no parasitic drag from wing load-out.
With full load-out combat radius will reduce exponentially.
Another issue is that 500 kms combat radius is when aircraft continuously flies forward and then at 500 kms mark return back however in CAP aircraft will be turning more frequently causing it to bleed more energy to maintain in area of operation.
I have been told that aircraft hold 1/3 to 1/4 of fuel in reserve in case of emergencies or last minute engagement.
Most CAP will generally be carried near front-line which are significantly far away from airbase (e.g. Drass Srinagar distance is around 100 km and Kargil Srinagar distance is around 150 km) hence such a small flight time in CAP
.
Islamabad is way to too contested airspace for direct strike from Tejas. Our stand-off weapons can easily target them.

 

[tribendra bisoi..]

500 kms combat radius is when their is no parasitic drag from wing load-out.
With full load-out combat radius will reduce exponentially.
Another issue is that 500 kms combat radius is when aircraft continuously flies forward and then at 500 kms mark return back however in CAP aircraft will be turning more frequently causing it to bleed more energy to maintain in area of operation.
I have been told that aircraft hold 1/3 to 1/4 of fuel in reserve in case of emergencies or last minute engagement.
Most CAP will generally be carried near front-line which are significantly far away from airbase (e.g. Drass Srinagar distance is around 100 km and Kargil Srinagar distance is around 150 km) hence such a small flight time in CAP
.
Islamabad is way to too contested airspace for direct strike from Tejas. Our stand-off weapons can easily target them.

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

 

[Blademaster]

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?

 

[DumbPilot]

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?

better engine efficiency, more fuel storage, etc.

 

[IndianHawk]

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?

Djinn technology

 

[Blademaster]

better engine efficiency, more fuel storage, etc.

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.

 

[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.

TBH I've seen vid of defence matrix / alpha defence.

That compared fuel efficiency numbers of Rd-33/93 maybe.. with GE404. They are near identical.
GE having an edge in Dry but consumes more in Wet.

Tejas and Jf-17 will have identical range , only avionics + Uttam + Astra will make difference

+ GE has better lifespan

 

[Johny_Baba]

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?

you're forgetting the big difference between Mig-21 and JF-17 in Engines,
one has Turbojet previous gen engine,
other has current gen Turbofan with afterburner one.
^there lies your answer

 

[Blademaster]

you're forgetting the big difference between Mig-21 and JF-17 in Engines,
one has Turbojet previous gen engine,
other has current gen Turbofan with afterburner one.
^there lies your answer

The turbofan engine is a RD-33, the same engine used in MiG-29s. Moreover, looking at the fuel consumption numbers, it is nearly the same as 404 but a bit heavier. No way it can outperform JAS-Gripen.

 

[Johny_Baba]

The turbofan engine is a RD-33, the same engine used in MiG-29s. Moreover, looking at the fuel consumption numbers, it is nearly the same as 404 but a bit heavier. No way it can outperform JAS-Gripen.

The one variant used in paki one is custom made improvised version, not exactly same as Mig-29's.
Anyway i never put this reply based on JF-17 vs JAS-39 but solely on ;JF-17 being Mig-21 derivative and still outperforming it;

 

[Blademaster]

The one variant used in paki one is custom made improvised version, not exactly same as Mig-29's

Ha ha ha ha where do you get this information? This is a russian engine. To date, Russia has not given permission to China or Pakistan to modify or customize the engine. They don't have the expertise or knowledge to make such enhancements. Otherwise, the LCA Tejas program wouldn't be sitting on its ass for the GE-414 engines but gone ahead for the RD-33 engines and incorporate it into their design.

 

[Blademaster]

Anyway i never put this reply based on JF-17 vs JAS-39 but solely on ;JF-17 being Mig-21 derivative and still outperforming it;

J17 outperforming JAS-39 Gripen?? sure whatever you say.

 

[Johny_Baba]

J17 outperforming JAS-39 Gripen?? sure whatever you say.

stop being a 13 year old internet edgy retard and try to read, if you can

all i said was, i just put that reply on this first post of yours where you doubted over JF-17 outperforming Mig-21 etc that JF-17 has got better, a generation above engine than one on Mig-21 hence it outperforms it

and i didn't put my reply based on your later post here where you brought JAS-39 in picture for whatever reasons...

and i never said JF-17 beating JAS-39 at anywhere, you're putting your words in my mouth now.

so don't try to drag me to your levels for petty fights because i never meant anything like that.
And if you believe that RD-33 of JF-17 is not better than Tumansky of Mig-21...then you do you i don't care.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

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?

J-17 has a combat range of 1,200 km with 3,000 L internal fuel; 1 x 800 L centre-line drop tank; 2 x 800 L inboard under-wing drop tanks.
Earlier Mig-21 version were notorious in having low amount of internalfuel.
Mig -21F variant and later has a range of around 800 km at 10,000 m with 2160 liters internal fuel tanks 800 L drop-tank.

RD-93 has Specific fuel consumption: 75 kg/(kN·h) dry; 188 kg/(kN·h)
Meaning it burns 75 kg of fuel per kiloNewton per hour.
Generally 0.8 kilograms of jet fuel is 1 liter.

R-25 has Specific fuel consumption: 98 kg/(h·kN) at maximum military power; 229 kg/(h·kN)max afterburner

In addition to have better engine efficiency and more fuel JF-17 is aerodynamically better than Mig-21 due to aerodynamic advances over the years leading to less bleeding energy loss.

 

[DumbPilot]

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.

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:

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:

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.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

TBH I've seen vid of defence matrix / alpha defence.

That compared fuel efficiency numbers of Rd-33/93 maybe.. with GE404. They are near identical.
GE having an edge in Dry but consumes more in Wet.

Tejas and Jf-17 will have identical range , only avionics + Uttam + Astra will make difference

+ GE has better lifespan

RD-33/93 has a bit better fuel efficiency in dry thrust but GE404 has better fuel efficiency in reheat thrust.

GE definitely has better lifespan (almost double) and requires much less maintenance.

I read on internet that RD-33/93 tends to suffer considerable damage to turbine blades over their life.

 

[NutCracker]

RD-33/93 has a bit better fuel efficiency in dry thrust but GE404 has better fuel efficiency in reheat thrust.

Yeah. I got it other way round..

still searching for vid can't find it.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Yeah. I got it other way round..

still searching for vid can't find it.

You can compare the specific fuel consumption for each engine.