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

[Srinivas]

1)The inlets of LCA are not big enough to give high thrusts
2) The frontal nose section is not big enough to accommodate powerful radar.

These two are essential for dogfights !

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
* To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
* Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
* Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
* Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
* I just hope the Tejas Mk-I does not end up going the BAC TSR.2 and CF-105 Avro Arrow way.
* We need some strong statements in support of the HAL Tejas. And the strongest statement would be an order for 4 more squadrons of Tejas MK-I

View attachment 215325NOT good for tejas????

 

[Manindra]

1)The inlets of LCA are not big enough to give high thrusts
2) The frontal nose section is not big enough to accommodate powerful radar.

These two are essential for dogfights !

Are you aeronautical Engineer ?
Do you see Nose cone of Gripen ?
LCA problem is not thrust but drag.

 

[mad_max]

Are you aeronautical Engineer ?
Do you see Nose cone of Gripen ?
LCA problem is not thrust but drag.

Apart from drag LCA has following major problems.
1) Poor Range.
2) Pathetic Radar.
3) Puny payload cap.

Address these before it can be of any use to any airforce in the world.

 

[rockstarIN]

Apart from drag LCA has following major problems.
1) Poor Range.
2) Pathetic Radar.
3) Puny payload cap.

Address these before it can be of any use to any airforce in the world.

Explain please?

Check the above posts for range of LCA
Radar - We, for the timing being using the same radar which IsAF wanted in their Sufas instead of Blk -52 V9 version.
Payload - Its a light fighter, not a medium of heavy fighter.

 

[mad_max]

Explain please?

Check the above posts for range of LCA
Radar - We, for the timing being using the same radar which IsAF wanted in their Sufas instead of Blk -52 V9 version.
Payload - Its a light fighter, not a medium of heavy fighter.

Extracts from article above.

100-300 km CR (seriously what operations would you perform with it ? )
45 Km Range radar (what use this will be ?)
1000-3000 kg (payload+extra fuel) WOW .

 

[rockstarIN]

Extracts from article above.

100-300 km CR (seriously what operations would you perform with it ? )
45 Km Range radar (what use this will be ?)
1000-3000 kg (payload+extra fuel) WOW .

CR mentioned only on internal fuel, x 2 if it use external tanks (same in all light fighters)
34km?, ELTA/2032 have 120+ range in A2A and 70+ in A2G mode.
It is a light fighter, for what is ti designed for!

 

[Pichkari]

1)The inlets of LCA are not big enough to give high thrusts
2) The frontal nose section is not big enough to accommodate powerful radar.

These two are essential for dogfights !

The inlets are fine.We have changed the engines and hence they need to be increades by 10 cm,not a problem.

Do you know how big the rafales nose cone section is?Space is not the problem here.

 

[Srinivas]

The inlets are fine.We have changed the engines and hence they need to be increades by 10 cm,not a problem.

Do you know how big the rafales nose cone section is?Space is not the problem here.

Basically the airframe is an old one, which was designed requirements of the past. The current requirements have changed significantly.

LCA has the smallest inlet changing it to wider requires many changes in the flight control laws as well.

The bigger the nose cone the more the number of T/R modules that will fit in the radar. The more powerful the radar is.

However LCA has its advantages.

 

[mad_max]

CR mentioned only on internal fuel, x 2 if it use external tanks (same in all light fighters)
34km?, ELTA/2032 have 120+ range in A2A and 70+ in A2G mode.
It is a light fighter, for what is ti designed for!

You should check your facts first before backing them radar range is 45 km , this is the reason for radome cone change to increase it to 80 km.
Even i was saying CR with internal fuel and it is pretty low.
(Compare it with Jf 17 / F-Ck-1 / KAI T-50 / F-2A )

33 yrs and you have this ?
Time to rethink.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

You should check your facts first before backing them radar range is 45 km , this is the reason for radome cone change to increase it to 80 km.
Even i was saying CR with internal fuel and it is pretty low.
(Compare it with Jf 17 / F-Ck-1 / KAI T-50 / F-2A )

33 yrs and you have this ?
Time to rethink.

You better check the F-16 range is just 500 km in H-L-H mission profile with 18,00KG weapons and it carry more fuel then then you JF-17 , Are your JF-17 range compare without any weapon load?

Is the range at Sea level of at 30,000 FT or at 15000 Ft? because ranges changes with Height... come with complete information .

 

[Pichkari]

You should check your facts first before backing them radar range is 45 km , this is the reason for radome cone change to increase it to 80 km.
Even i was saying CR with internal fuel and it is pretty low.
(Compare it with Jf 17 / F-Ck-1 / KAI T-50 / F-2A )

33 yrs and you have this ?
Time to rethink.

Yes we have this, we are proud of this and it is much better than what it is replacing ie mig21
The problem is not with the radome geometry or aerodynamics but the material.Instead of the composite one airforce wants quartz radome which effectively means more radar range.

The point here is that neither mig 21 nor mirage 2000 has a quartz radome.
IF only IAF owns up the aircraft instead of treating it as an outcast,it would have been inducted.
Even with composite radome it outperfoms mig21's ,the aircraft it is replacing.
If it continues to treat it like other foreign jets then god help the indian aviation industry.

Basically the airframe is an old one, which was designed requirements of the past. The current requirements have changed significantly.

LCA has the smallest inlet changing it to wider requires many changes in the flight control laws as well.

The bigger the nose cone the more the number of T/R modules that will fit in the radar. The more powerful the radar is.

However LCA has its advantages.

The inlet was fine till ge 404 was used.Now that ge414 will be used on mk2 the inlets need to increased.This is not that big a problem.
The very reason we are doing this is because of the high drag the aircraft has due to its large delta shaped wing area.
Good instantaneous turn rate sustained turn rate is not up to the mark but still better than mig21.

The demand for new engine was IN requirement and IAF jumped on it.

The radome space is enough. The changes are being made to the material of the radome and not the shape.

 

[Srinivas]

The inlet was fine till ge 404 was used.Now that ge414 will be used on mk2 the inlets need to increased.This is not that big a problem.
The very reason we are doing this is because of the high drag the aircraft has due to its large delta shaped wing area.
Good instantaneous turn rate sustained turn rate is not up to the mark but still better than mig21.

The demand for new engine was IN requirement and IAF jumped on it.

The radome space is enough. The changes are being made to the material of the radome and not the shape.

May be adding two canards will increase the manoeuvrability !

Tejas looks looks like a strike fighter, adding two canards will make it more manoeuvrable and makes it a good jet for dogfights.

Recently they have added two flaps at the front though.

 

[sathya]

May be adding two canards will increase the manoeuvrability !

Tejas looks looks like a strike fighter, adding two canards will make it more manoeuvrable and makes it a good jet for dogfights.

Recently they have added two flaps at the front though.

u mean levcons in naval version?

 

[Pichkari]

May be adding two canards will increase the manoeuvrability !

We have alreay tested tejas design with canards years a go.
Google is your friend.You can find pics of tejas designs with canards undergoing wind tunnel testing.
If it was not chosen then i doubt ada will go for canards now.

 

[Srinivas]

u mean levcons in naval version?

Yes !