HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2]

[Ind4Ever]

@sancho @Abingdonboy @Ind4Ever GORKHALI kurup
what they have done to NLCA?
View attachment 193121

Looks like we have repositioned Landing gear On the N-LCA Mk2 they will change the position of the landing gear and brought it more towards the wing/fuselage joint. As Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program said The landing gear will then retract into a fairing for that. That will also free up space in the fuselage for additional fuel .

The air intake also to be enlarged by 10mm for MK2 more over due to larger furl intake arrangements for F414-GE-INS6 these changes can be seen ...


Nice Picture . But only thing I was disappointed when I came to know that range won't be increased much when compared to MK1

Due to increase in diameter of engine the centerline has to be stretched a bit .But wing span is same .

And its not Conformal tank . I think

 

[Abingdonboy]

Looks like Navy showing great interest over Tejas-N than IAF . Some statement like let them get Rafale then let them ask for changes they will know how hard it is .... Then another point like IN opted for F414-GE-INS6 but IAF was satisfied with F404 . But now they also want to have F414 for the AF variants ...

This show the lack interest shown by IAF towards home grown fighters . No wonder we had IAF chief like Mr. Brown who are in big mess for corruption deals .

I think these are the wrong conclusions to draw from what he said. The IAF may have been happy/happier with the F404 (don't know how true this is ) but the IN wanting the more powerful F414 because inherently the thrust requirements of the IN are far greater given they will be operating from carriers. As for the comment about the Rafale, the same can be said for the IN's mainstay fighter the MiG-29K, neither force is in a position to adopt the LCA as their mainstay fighter given the high requirements and the threats India faces.

I'll agree that the IN's project management is far, FAR superior to the IAF's and this has proven to be the case in many projects.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Don't know if this has been posted here:

Scribd


HAL LCA Aero India 2015 brochure, well worth going through.

 

[sancho]

Looks like Navy showing great interest over Tejas-N than IAF . Some statement like let them get Rafale then let them ask for changes they will know how hard it is ....

=>

LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."

LIVEFIST: "LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA

The navy is only happy about the fact that they can use N-LCA as a tech demonstrator to create an own side of indigenous carrier fighter know how in the industry and the fact that they can modify the fighter as they need it. But that doesn't mean the fighter will be capable enough for the tasks that lies ahead of them. They might not be able to modify a Rafale or even the Mig 29K as much as N-LCA, but there is hardly any doubt about which fighter they will prefer in war times.

The downside of this side development however is, that it made the LCA project as a whole far more complicated and caused additional delays.

 

[Abingdonboy]

=>



LIVEFIST: "LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA

The navy is only happy about the fact that they can use N-LCA as a tech demonstrator to create an own side of indigenous carrier fighter know how in the industry and the fact that they can modify the fighter as they need it. But that doesn't mean the fighter will be capable enough for the tasks that lies ahead of them. They might not be able to modify a Rafale or even the Mig 29K as much as N-LCA, but there is hardly any doubt about which fighter they will prefer in war times.

The downside of this side development however is, that it made the LCA project as a whole far more complicated and caused additional delays.

True but knowledge is never wasted, the know how the IN test team and the ADA/NFTC are gaining in developing and testing a carrier fighter cannot be understated. Few nations have this kind of capability (one could argue not even China) and this is something to be proud of for sure.

 

[sancho]

what they have done to NLCA?
View attachment 193121

Nice find, what's the original source? The change of the fuselage to integrate the modified gear and not have these bumbs that we can see on the NP1 and 2 was reported before, but it's interesting to see that they seem to widen it below the wings. Can't wait to see the final look.
Also interesting that I guess wrt fuel and fuel tanks seems to fit too. Addintial internal fuel + centerline fuel tank, now we only need to see how much fuel they can carry in this config and what effect the increased weight will have on that.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

it made the LCA project as a whole far more complicated and caused additional delays.

The IAF LCA has not been held up or delayed by the NLCA
They are both parallel efforts

On the other hand the NAVY was first to ask for GE 414
The IAF latched on to it and MK 2 was conceptualised

 

[sancho]

True but knowledge is never wasted, the know how the IN test team and the ADA/NFTC are gaining in developing and testing a carrier fighter cannot be understated. Few nations have this kind of capability (one could argue not even China) and this is something to be proud of for sure.

Of course not, but to gain knowledge, all we need is the NP1 and NP2, but no complete newly developed N-LCA MK2, with most of the LCA MK2 upgrades being dependent on IN requirements.

Take LCA MK1 FOC, add an AESA, the with a 90kN RD93MK or EJ200 + TVC for IAF and when the first prototype of this modified version is available, start the N-LCA tech demo program!
The result would had been...

...a faster MK2 developed with less changes compared to the MK1
...a more capable IAF version with less weight and more flight performance
...a tech demo program, that is not distracting the main LCA development and still give us all the knowledge we need in the naval field

It's just poor project management and that even for the same reason you brought up, to say that we have achieve something that only a few nations have, not to develop something actually capable.

 

[Abingdonboy]

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Abingdonboy

By NEXT Valentine day ; we will be TOTALLY in love with the LCA

 

[kurup]

Nice find, what's the original source? The change of the fuselage to integrate the modified gear and not have these bumbs that we can see on the NP1 and 2 was reported before, but it's interesting to see that they seem to widen it below the wings. Can't wait to see the final look.
Also interesting that I guess wrt fuel and fuel tanks seems to fit too. Addintial internal fuel + centerline fuel tank, now we only need to see how much fuel they can carry in this config and what effect the increased weight will have on that.

Source is the brochure for Tejas from Aero India 2015 .

LCA Tejas brochure ,

LIVEFIST: LCA Tejas: The Official 2015 Update For #AeroIndia


LCA Navy brochure ,

LIVEFIST: LCA Navy: The Official 2015 Update For #AeroIndia

 

[Abingdonboy]

 

[sancho]

A more colorful IOC brochure, not much new right?

 

[kurup]

Why is that Mk1 is limited to 8g ??

 

[Abingdonboy]