LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[HariPrasad-1]

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..
[/QUOTE]

The point is that you are giving wrong information. We do not have GaN based AESA. It is in making and same way it is in making with other countries as well. You can not compare which is not there with us and what we are going to get in future ignoring that by the time we develop it, Sweden will also develop it. This is a wrong comparison.

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?

You are saying this because you do not have any idea of engine. You are asking why India did not choose 75/125 KN engine of F-16? and why India will use 75/125 KN variant to be developed? Right? Answer is this:

AL-31 engine also has almost similar thrust of something like 78/130+. Can it be used in MWF? No. It has far bigger dimension and weight. No way it is suitable for MWF. Similarly, F-16 engine can not be fitted in MWF. You need same dimension engine to replace F 414. It can be either EJ 200 variant of GE 414 EPE or something we are considering in JV With Rafale. It should have same dimension and should be in same weight class. This is the reason why we do not choose F-16 engine. Is it clear now?

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]
Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.

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

You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:

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...

 

[Satish Sharma]

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..

The point is that you are giving wrong information. We do not have GaN based AESA. It is in making and same way it is in making with other countries as well. You can not compare which is not there with us and what we are going to get in future ignoring that by the time we develop it, Sweden will also develop it. This is a wrong comparison.



You are saying this because you do not have any idea of engine. You are asking why India did not choose 75/125 KN engine of F-16? and why India will use 75/125 KN variant to be developed? Right? Answer is this:

AL-31 engine also has almost similar thrust of something like 78/130+. Can it be used in MWF? No. It has far bigger dimension and weight. No way it is suitable for MWF. Similarly, F-16 engine can not be fitted in MWF. You need same dimension engine to replace F 414. It can be either EJ 200 variant of GE 414 EPE or something we are considering in JV With Rafale. It should have same dimension and should be in same weight class. This is the reason why we do not choose F-16 engine. Is it clear now?

[/QUOTE]
Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.



You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:
[/QUOTE]


My response -
-----When did I say mirage is better? Please quote it and show it. Bhai I never said yaar mwf is inferior I just said why there is no need of 75/125
I never said we need 75/125 this is the below screenshot and I just proved why we dont need 75/125 by comparing it with M2000. You're so confused .
In first paragraph you said the point is we do not have GaN based so far dude we don't even have mwf. All things are in development and will be ready on time. It is just a scaled up of already developed uttam.

Ulta chor kotwal ko datte .
And show it when I said mirage is better ??

 

[HariPrasad-1]

The point is that you are giving wrong information. We do not have GaN based AESA. It is in making and same way it is in making with other countries as well. You can not compare which is not there with us and what we are going to get in future ignoring that by the time we develop it, Sweden will also develop it. This is a wrong comparison.



You are saying this because you do not have any idea of engine. You are asking why India did not choose 75/125 KN engine of F-16? and why India will use 75/125 KN variant to be developed? Right? Answer is this:

AL-31 engine also has almost similar thrust of something like 78/130+. Can it be used in MWF? No. It has far bigger dimension and weight. No way it is suitable for MWF. Similarly, F-16 engine can not be fitted in MWF. You need same dimension engine to replace F 414. It can be either EJ 200 variant of GE 414 EPE or something we are considering in JV With Rafale. It should have same dimension and should be in same weight class. This is the reason why we do not choose F-16 engine. Is it clear now?

Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.



You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:
[/QUOTE]


My response -
-----When did I say mirage is better? Please quote it and show it. Bhai I never said yaar mwf is inferior I just said why there is no need of 75/125
I never said we need 75/125 this is the below screenshot and I just proved why we dont need 75/125 by comparing it with M2000. You're so confused .
In first paragraph you said the point is we do not have GaN based so far dude we don't even have mwf. All things are in development and will be ready on time. It is just a scaled up of already developed uttam.

Ulta chor kotwal ko datte .
And show it when I said mirage is better ??

View attachment 232541
[/QUOTE]

You said that mirage with less powerful enine gives same MTOW. Did you say it or not?

I refute it by saying that the information is not correct. For MTOW, dry thrust is considered not the afterburner thrust. Mirage engine has 64 kn dry thrust against 54 of GE 414 so what you argued was wrong. Utari baat bheje mai. What you have said is quoted by me in previous post. You don't know what you say or what I said. Where did I say that F 16 is a delta aircraft? I am asking you for the fifth time.

 

[Covfefe]

 

[Corvus Splendens]

 

[Satish Sharma]

Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.



You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:

My response -
-----When did I say mirage is better? Please quote it and show it. Bhai I never said yaar mwf is inferior I just said why there is no need of 75/125
I never said we need 75/125 this is the below screenshot and I just proved why we dont need 75/125 by comparing it with M2000. You're so confused .
In first paragraph you said the point is we do not have GaN based so far dude we don't even have mwf. All things are in development and will be ready on time. It is just a scaled up of already developed uttam.

Ulta chor kotwal ko datte .
And show it when I said mirage is better ??

View attachment 232541
[/QUOTE]

You said that mirage with less powerful enine gives same MTOW. Did you say it or not?

I refute it by saying that the information is not correct. For MTOW, dry thrust is considered not the afterburner thrust. Mirage engine has 64 kn dry thrust against 54 of GE 414 so what you argued was wrong. Utari baat bheje mai. What you have said is quoted by me in previous post. You don't know what you say or what I said. Where did I say that F 16 is a delta aircraft? I am asking you for the fifth time.
[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.



You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:

My response -
-----When did I say mirage is better? Please quote it and show it. Bhai I never said yaar mwf is inferior I just said why there is no need of 75/125
I never said we need 75/125 this is the below screenshot and I just proved why we dont need 75/125 by comparing it with M2000. You're so confused .
In first paragraph you said the point is we do not have GaN based so far dude we don't even have mwf. All things are in development and will be ready on time. It is just a scaled up of already developed uttam.

Ulta chor kotwal ko datte .
And show it when I said mirage is better ??

View attachment 232541
[/QUOTE]

You said that mirage with less powerful enine gives same MTOW. Did you say it or not?

I refute it by saying that the information is not correct. For MTOW, dry thrust is considered not the afterburner thrust. Mirage engine has 64 kn dry thrust against 54 of GE 414 so what you argued was wrong. Utari baat bheje mai. What you have said is quoted by me in previous post. You don't know what you say or what I said. Where did I say that F 16 is a delta aircraft? I am asking you for the fifth time.
[/QUOTE]

You won bro I need to give up. people are laughing at us. U won dude. I'm quitting now.
Before that quote the line where I claimed that you said f16 is delta??.
F414 makes 58kn not 54kn.

You won let me quit my life

 

[HariPrasad-1]

F414 makes 58kn not 54kn.

Yes.

 

[abingdonboy]

Talks pe talks! Talks pe Talks! Talks pe talks

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

One has to understand that 90%+ of major global arms deals are all political, if GoI isn’t serious about these things then success is going to allude these export bids.

you’re going up against the biggest players on the planet with P5 UNSC members backing them to the hilt

 

[Satish Sharma]

One has to understand that 90%+ of major global arms deals are all political, if GoI isn’t serious about these things then success is going to allude these export bids.

you’re going up against the biggest players on the planet with P5 UNSC members backing them to the hilt

If we would have not sanctioned Malaysia indirectly as there president spoke on Kashmir then Malaysia would have brought Tejas. But it was more important as now they and there neighbourhood will not dare to speak on it.. diverting our purchases of palm oil to Indonesia created so adverse effects on farmers of Malaysia that he had to resign. Forgot his name. Defence deals are not that easy.

 

[NutCracker]

If we would have not sanctioned Malaysia indirectly as there president spoke on Kashmir then Malaysia would have brought Tejas. But it was more important as now they and there neighbourhood will not dare to speak on it.. diverting our purchases of palm oil to Indonesia created so adverse effects on farmers of Malaysia that he had to resign. Forgot his name. Defence deals are not that easy.

Wrong. Even without Mahatir as president ,the Magaysian airforce won't have bought our product.
Their Airforce generals/chiefs know that Magaysia is 2/3rd mulla country and under one Govt or another they would've found themselves at odds with India. Hence India never had chance.

 

[Satish Sharma]

Wrong. Even without Mahatir as president ,the Magaysian airforce won't have bought our product.
Their Airforce generals/chiefs know that Magaysia is 2/3rd mulla country and under one Govt or another they would've found themselves at odds with India. Hence India never had chance.

But Tejas was better than that Korean trainer..
Was that maGAYsian intentionally. It was a mistake okay

 

[Azaad]

Wrong. Even without Mahatir as president ,the Magaysian airforce won't have bought our product.
Their Airforce generals/chiefs know that Magaysia is 2/3rd mulla country and under one Govt or another they would've found themselves at odds with India. Hence India never had chance.

More to do with deep links RoK defence industry has in Malaysia & the ties the 2 nations share which if you read between the lines means the former knows when where & how much to grease the wheels to set things into motion.

 

[Satish Sharma]

More to do with deep links RoK defence industry has in Malaysia & the ties the 2 nations share which if you read between the lines means the former knows when where & how much to grease the wheels to set things into motion.

Korean & Swedish industries are quite good at lobbying. Bofors artillery experience was not that good. May be they gave statement on Kashmir intentionally to help Korea win the tender.

 

[abingdonboy]

If we would have not sanctioned Malaysia indirectly as there president spoke on Kashmir then Malaysia would have brought Tejas. But it was more important as now they and there neighbourhood will not dare to speak on it.. diverting our purchases of palm oil to Indonesia created so adverse effects on farmers of Malaysia that he had to resign. Forgot his name. Defence deals are not that easy.

No evidence for that. The Koreans are very serious about mil exports and play the game very well. They were always the favourites especially as the RMAF were more interested in a combat capable LIFT than a full blown fighter

 

[kamaal]

Even if I am a secular Malaysia, I wouldn't risk buying a complex fighter jet from an Indian govt owned entity. Koreans learn selling defense products from western countries quickly and we always waste time on going solo and delaying every projects, nobody should trust India as a defense partner, unless we are in situation of Armenia, Malaysia has no such problem currently.

We have our potential buyers like Philippines, Vietnam, Armenia and some African countries, apart from that don't have high hopes from others. I can see Guyana emerging as a new partner in South America.

 

[Raj Malhotra]

in FY 23-24 it was expected that HAL will produce 11 Lca aircraft. 1 NLCA, 7 LCA twin seaters, 1Lca mk 2, 2 LCA MKIA as their annual capability is allegedly 16 aircraft per annum

actual production probability is only 3. That is 1NLCA and 2 trainers. Thereafter targets will be pushed back to FY 24-25.

All this export possibility nonsense is just to get foreign trips at the expense of tax payers and there is no prospect of any achievement. HAL has no capability to even meet the domestic demand for which orders have already been placed at least next five years. in spite of lot of propaganda, it seems that assembly line for 16 aircraft is not complete and the production capability is still only eight aircraft per annum. Even this capability is unlikely to be achieved at least in FY 23,24. Therefore the capability of 8 aircraft will be achieved only in 24,25, while 16 aircraft per annum is a distant dream

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Regards LCA MK2 and ADA, Funds of Rs 2500 cr were given to ADA in 2009 for 2 prototypes of LCA MK2. Rs 1800-2000 cr already spent and few GE 414 engines were also imported long back. Basically next tranch of Rs 6500 for another 4 prototypes was sanctioned in 2022 and that money also has started flowing in. There is no question of delay due to lack of funds nor lack of GE engines nor due to delay in signing TOT.
In theory HAL should be flying 2 LCA MK2 in 2024, another 2 in 2027, and last 2 by 2028. Order for first LSP run or first squadron might be given by 2025 after first flight itself, such that first production models roll out by 2029. But I feel that there will be delay of 3 to 5 yrs in the timelines

 

[Satish Sharma]

..

 

[Satish Sharma]

..

 

[MirageBlue]

No evidence for that. The Koreans are very serious about mil exports and play the game very well. They were always the favourites especially as the RMAF were more interested in a combat capable LIFT than a full blown fighter

What a lot of people including media who were looking at the RMAF competition didn't realize is that the T-50 offers a very good ground training component. It is a mature solution that is leagues ahead of where we are with a similar air and ground training set up for the Tejas LIFT.

The Tejas Mk1A is in turn leagues ahead of the FA-50 in terms of true combat capability. Even the twin seater Tejas retains full combat capability and in that sense is superior to the FA-50, but the RMAF was looking at a LIFT primarily followed by a secondary capability as a fighter. That is where the KAI product stood out as being more suitable for the RMAF, despite being costlier than the HAL Tejas offer.