What's new

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

z9MJ9HM.png


@gslv mk3
 
. . .
I had to join here because of this thread. I work as ground crew at IGI and have had quite a lot of conversations with people involved in aviation both military and civil. The highlight of Tejas related talk I had was with one Mr Vikas who is one of the several people working on Tejas.

Thanks to newspapers I was aware of the JF17 at that time and while talking to him I asked if he really thinks that a Tejas Mark 1 and Mark 1A take on the JF17 Block 2/3 and if it was developed with similar aircrafts in view.

His replay to my question was rather abrasive but informative non the less. According to him the Tejas in terms of design and composition is more comparative to the J10 than the JF17. I quickly reiterated what was written in the newspaper/mag that the JF17 Block 3 will have better avionics among other things but he in turn had an answer for the same "CFC materials". According to him the fact that LCA uses so much composite materials makes it more akin to J10 than any possible JF17 Block X.

I had asked him why they wanted to use f414 and not something else in the F series like the 101 he just said we want to keep the redesign to the minimum. Seemed like a weak response and more along the lines of stop bothering me.

So there you have it j10 is seen akin to LCA but only by its makers, I don't think they can go against each other J10 being so much more heavier and powerful engine wise. But then again LCA weight reductions along with f414 might give a overall boost to Gripen levels.
 
.
White Elephant said:
His replay to my question was rather abrasive but informative non the less. According to him the Tejas in terms of design and composition is more comparative to the J10 than the JF17. I quickly reiterated what was written in the newspaper/mag that the JF17 Block 3 will have better avionics among other things but he in turn had an answer for the same "CFC materials". According to him the fact that LCA uses so much composite materials makes it more akin to J10 than any possible JF17 Block X.
Click to expand...
What a stupid remarks... Use of composite has three impacts...
1. Weight reduction to improve thrust to weight ration
2. Strength but that can also be achieved through steel
3 radar absorbant. Not all conposites are radar absorbant... And only composite has little impact on radar signals ... It is more woth design and coating... How jf17 has overcome these...

1. Jf17 thrust to weight ratio is 1.09 as told in paris air show and verified by vertical take offs.. This is humunous for light weight fighter which has interceptor or defense role..
2.Strength of jf17 is enough as it can take heave bombs and missiles such as cm400akg and
3. Radar cross section of jf17 is already too low as a design feature... Inclusion of dsi...

Jf17 is not using composites to reduce but it has countered all disadvantages of not using composites... Furthermore go and compare specs of j10 ... It is comparative to f16 or in some case even higher ... Tejas is no way near to that ... Even role of j10 is somewhat near air superiority whereas of tejas and jf17 are of interceptor or defence... So wo th idiot on earth can compare tejas with j10... Use of composite material doesnot means that an air craft is very advance ... There are lot of other factors that effect the performance of air craft...
 
.
White Elephant said:
I had to join here because of this thread. I work as ground crew at IGI and have had quite a lot of conversations with people involved in aviation both military and civil. The highlight of Tejas related talk I had was with one Mr Vikas who is one of the several people working on Tejas.

Thanks to newspapers I was aware of the JF17 at that time and while talking to him I asked if he really thinks that a Tejas Mark 1 and Mark 1A take on the JF17 Block 2/3 and if it was developed with similar aircrafts in view.

His replay to my question was rather abrasive but informative non the less. According to him the Tejas in terms of design and composition is more comparative to the J10 than the JF17. I quickly reiterated what was written in the newspaper/mag that the JF17 Block 3 will have better avionics among other things but he in turn had an answer for the same "CFC materials". According to him the fact that LCA uses so much composite materials makes it more akin to J10 than any possible JF17 Block X.

I had asked him why they wanted to use f414 and not something else in the F series like the 101 he just said we want to keep the redesign to the minimum. Seemed like a weak response and more along the lines of stop bothering me.

So there you have it j10 is seen akin to LCA but only by its makers, I don't think they can go against each other J10 being so much more heavier and powerful engine wise. But then again LCA weight reductions along with f414 might give a overall boost to Gripen levels.
Click to expand...

well come.
 
.
Defender@@ said:
What a stupid remarks... Use of composite has three impacts...
1. Weight reduction to improve thrust to weight ration
2. Strength but that can also be achieved through steel
3 radar absorbant. Not all conposites are radar absorbant... And only composite has little impact on radar signals ... It is more woth design and coating... How jf17 has overcome these...

1. Jf17 thrust to weight ratio is 1.09 as told in paris air show and verified by vertical take offs.. This is humunous for light weight fighter which has interceptor or defense role..
2.Strength of jf17 is enough as it can take heave bombs and missiles such as cm400akg and
3. Radar cross section of jf17 is already too low as a design feature... Inclusion of dsi...

Jf17 is not using composites to reduce but it has countered all disadvantages of not using composites... Furthermore go and compare specs of j10 ... It is comparative to f16 or in some case even higher ... Tejas is no way near to that ... Even role of j10 is somewhat near air superiority whereas of tejas and jf17 are of interceptor or defence... So wo th idiot on earth can compare tejas with j10... Use of composite material doesnot means that an air craft is very advance ... There are lot of other factors that effect the performance of air craft...
Click to expand...

1. Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.95 "Search pac jf-17 org pk cant post links or maybe pac is wrong"
2. Same performance can be had with a composite lighter frame "Useful when the engine is weak"
3. His main point was RCS, LCA has had a LO side to its construction " Search drdo pub techfocus 2011 feb 202011%20 pdf cant post links"

LO is one of the main points for new gen fighter such as Gen5/6. Cant say how much better JF17 RCS signature will be using electronic pods but its estimated to be around 3-5 m2 and from what I had read Mig 21 is around 3 m2 also. Re-read what I wrote I don't think that a LCA can go against a J10 because its heavy and with a more powerful engine but both are multirole in nature. The T2W for J10 with WS-10B is said to be 1.16 and for LCA Mk1 its said to be 1.07 with f404. With weight shedding and an f414 the T2W will obviously increase.
 
Last edited:
.
.
White Elephant said:
1. Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.95 "Search pac jf-17 org pk cant post links or maybe pac is wrong"
2. Same performance can be had with a composite lighter frame "Useful when the engine is weak"
3. His main point was RCS, LCA has had a LO side to its construction " Search drdo pub techfocus 2011 feb 202011%20 pdf cant post links"

LO is one of the main points for new gen fighter such as Gen5/6. Cant say how much better JF17 RCS signature will be using electronic pods but its estimated to be around 3-5 m2 and from what I had read Mig 21 is around 3 m2 also. Re-read what I wrote I don't think that a LCA can go against a J10 because its heavy and with a more powerful engine but both are multirole in nature. The T2W for J10 with WS-10B is said to be 1.16 and for LCA Mk1 its said to be 1.07 with f404. With weight shedding and an f414 the T2W will obviously increase.
Click to expand...


Tejas currently cannot pull more than 4 g.....
Did your source not enlighten you on that??
 
.
White Elephant said:
LO is one of the main points for new gen fighter such as Gen5/6. Cant say how much better JF17 RCS signature will be using electronic pods but its estimated to be around 3-5 m2 and from what I had read Mig 21 is around 3 m2 also. Re-read what I wrote I don't think that a LCA can go against a J10 because its heavy and with a more powerful engine but both are multirole in nature. The T2W for J10 with WS-10B is said to be 1.16 and for LCA Mk1 its said to be 1.07 with f404. With weight shedding and an f414 the T2W will obviously increase.
Click to expand...


5 J 10 has fallen in 2015. Ut is unfit to mess against tejas. It may prove to a good bomber but it can not certainly mess with tejas. MK1A will see J10 much prior to J 10 can see it and fire a BVR.
 
.
As a design flaw no counter measures can be placed on tejas... true or false??
 
. . .
White Elephant said:
1. Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.95 "Search pac jf-17 org pk cant post links or maybe pac is wrong"
2. Same performance can be had with a composite lighter frame "Useful when the engine is weak"
3. His main point was RCS, LCA has had a LO side to its construction " Search drdo pub techfocus 2011 feb 202011%20 pdf cant post links"

LO is one of the main points for new gen fighter such as Gen5/6. Cant say how much better JF17 RCS signature will be using electronic pods but its estimated to be around 3-5 m2 and from what I had read Mig 21 is around 3 m2 also. Re-read what I wrote I don't think that a LCA can go against a J10 because its heavy and with a more powerful engine but both are multirole in nature. The T2W for J10 with WS-10B is said to be 1.16 and for LCA Mk1 its said to be 1.07 with f404. With weight shedding and an f414 the T2W will obviously increase.
Click to expand...

JF17 T/W ratio is 1.09... Source:

Composite has very little impact on RCS so your all points are baseless as you are stating Tejas to be superior based on use of composite material ...
 
.
Just wanted to know what happened to the two Technology Demonstrators? Are they still flying?
 
.

Similar threads

F
Setting the record straight on Tejas
2
Replies
18
Views
2K
SQ8
S
N
New Tejas Mk1A squadron to be deployed at IAF's forward airbase early next year
Replies
0
Views
832
NG Missile Vessels
N
N
Ramping up capacity, prepared to execute big orders: HAL chief
Replies
1
Views
535
NG Missile Vessels
N
N
Pedal to the metal: HAL to advance deliveries of IAF's 83 LCA Mk-1As by atleast a year
Replies
6
Views
1K
Archie
Archie
N
GE F414 engine deal to help overcome striking tech gap, says HAL chief
Replies
2
Views
593
nahtanbob
N

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom