What's new

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

I don't get it. Which part of the report seems like a bloat on the LCA?

Other than some opinions on the R&D agencies.

Its funny because these CPC stronk types dont even have an equivalent of CAG....so they do not know really what its function/history is in first place. So they rush to judgement assuming == with another system entirely.
 
Yes by most including myself ... but barely acknowledged by most within the Indian community. :whistle:

The report is about an incomplete aircraft. You can see it clearly saying in the tweets that it can only perform light strike and interdiction, which means it's referring to the IOC version. So I wouldn't worry much about it. The FOC version will have full combat capability.

Here's the fully weaponised version getting the production nod, which was processed only at the beginning of this month, so no way can it make it into a report with older data.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...version-of-lca-tejas/articleshow/67379924.cms

Even the F-35 has been on the receiving end based on incomplete reports.

Democracy at work here.

Out of interest, how proficient would you say the CAG office people are in aviation matters and terminology?

Do you have any references with previous CAG reports from before (and language used in them) concerning successfully implemented and operational projects in Indian military right now?

Except for a few passable mistakes, there's nothing wrong with the report. The only problem is it's the report that is obsolete, relying on information that's no longer relevant.
 
Its funny because these CPC stronk types dont even have an equivalent of CAG....so they do not know really what its function/history is in first place. So they rush to judgement assuming == with another system entirely.
China didn't need a CAG to fire incompetent state employees while the dead wood still floats in DRDO even with a CAG. See the irony of things? Talking is one thing, action is another thing.

As for weapons evaluation, we have a review committee reporting to the top brass. if LCA is a Chinese plane, I would still think it's an obsolete plane at most a gen 3+ plane as per your own Aur Marshal's words.
 
Hello guys, is this the correct thread to post something about LCA Tejas history?
please share the link if you know about a suitable thread...i will shift below post to that location.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCA tejas: History: Newspaper clippings

January 30, 2019

Hello guys, I will be showcasing here my old newspaper clipping of HAL LCA 'Tejas'.

1. Date: someday between 4 Jan 2001 and 6 June 2002
Newspaper: Unknown from India
Language: Marathi
Translation: (Title) Second test for light combat aircrafts soon


visit, https://www.chetansindiaspaceflight.com/2019/01/lca-tejas-history-newspaper-clippings.html
for more data and images...


View attachment 535883
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might have some clippings from the Strait Times (Singapore) in English about LCA first flight etc. Its in my parents place (I used them in a school project) so I will have to look when I am down there if I remember :P
 
12th series produced Tejas had the maiden flight today. Flying Daggers are growing in strength day by day..
Jai Hind..




Meh.
It's big news for any nation that has actually made a plane from scratch, ones who haven't won't know what that achievement feels like.

Well being nationalistic is one thing, but outright untruths are another. Not everything made in China is a copy.

If one suggests that the JF-17 or even the JL-10 are not made from scratch then that is something....

And try the Xian Y-20 for size sometime...which India will need another twenty years to create....:rolleyes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_Y-20

@Han Patriot @Deino :-)
 
Well being nationalistic is one thing, but outright untruths are another. Not everything made in China is a copy.

If one suggests that the JF-17 or even the JL-10 are not made from scratch then that is something....

Since I was clearly referring to pakistan wrt the JF-17, its chinese R&D process and American and Russian influence are well known, there is no "untruth" to that.

proxy-11.jpg


And try the Xian Y-20 for size sometime...which India will need another twenty years to create....:rolleyes:

Probably.
But what we can safely say is that India will eventually attempt and get a tactical &/or strategic airlifter at some point of time, some posters from other countries bent on scorning our progress otoh......
 
Since I was clearly referring to pakistan wrt the JF-17, its chinese R&D process and American and Russian influence are well known, there is no "untruth" to that.

View attachment 537543



Probably.
But what we can safely say is that India will eventually attempt and get a tactical &/or strategic airlifter at some point of time, some posters from other countries bent on scorning our progress otoh......

Well - even taking the FC-1 story with a grain of salt and admitting for arguments' sake that it is true (I have seen this 'Izdeliye 33' story from the MiG bureau repeated in multiple places with multiple flavors) - it is also well known that although the wings were well researched, wind-tunnel tested and in an advanced stage of concept development to counter the f-16 the fuselage was a different story. "The FC-1 is not a direct derivative of the Product 33 design, and while the wings may reflect Soviet aerodynamic data, the fuselage and air inlets represent an entirely rather different configuration."

I myself have been an avid observer of Chinese aviation industry in the last decade, with the evolutionary development of the economical F-7PG and BGI models (with double delta wings) and then JL-9 variants from the original early MiG-21 F13 model from the 60's.
iu


Then they updated the F-7BGI with double delta wings to improve slower speed and turning performance. Glass cockpit and PESA radar added.
2299532.jpg


And then into the radically changed JL-9 and its many slowly improved variants.
JL-9 (Jianlian 9): Initial PLAAF variant with splitter intakes moved to the sides to separate boundary layer as well as addition of indigenous radar.
iu



JL-9H: PLANAF carrier-trainer variant, DSI Intake a la JF-17, exhausts/wing area/tails/tailplanes all enlarged and refined with full complement addition of flappery/slattery, under fuselage strakes removed. I believe the wing planform re: AOA (angle of attack) was quite significantly changed as well.
c302ea51gy1fx7hsxd5prj20nv0l4n68-jpg.536927

c302ea51gy1fx7hsugtnaj226h1cqhdv-jpg.536928
c302ea51gy1fx7hsv0ojzj20vr0rchag-jpg.536929
c302ea51gy1fx7hsyz8xbj21jj12g7wi-jpg.536930


Now tell me how similar does this look like a MiG-21 F13 to you?
85BD0128A858495D84A0ED7AE3FF189AC158D234_w1920_h1080.jpg


So the upshot of all this is - the Chinese take a cost-effective and evolutionary approach to fighter development, equip their own Air Force and also make money by selling it to countries like Bangladesh, Nigeria, Peru, Ecuador etc..at a cost of $7 to $8 Million a copy. I believe the LCA costs around $20 million each?

There is no Indian equivalent. Only costly 'made from scratch' boast platforms, some of which see success, some don't. And incidentally, these platforms all made with majority foreign parts.

Accusing the Chinese of copy-pasting can apply salve to the wound of ineptitude, but should one be happy with this? Spending precious money from the state coffers with nary a concrete result to show.

Although Kurt Tank (of Messerchmitt fame) did develop the Marut fighter for India back in the 1950's - when Chinese aviation industry was even less developed than India. From that point onward most of India's developed fighters could have followed from that example, but solely remained "adopted foreign platforms" or outright purchases, but sadly with none of the evolutionary traits that Chinese aviation industry has shown and had adopted. Let's call a spade a spade, brother, the record could have been better.

@LKJ86 I used your images, @Deino, @Han Patriot your observations...

One more thing - I see the next step in the evolution of this plane to be an offensive platform. Kind of like how the T-50 turned into the FA-50 in Korea.

f654a26cf5e04723944f64d2318db171.jpeg

From left to right: FTC-2000G,JL-10,Yak-130,M-346,T-50,T-X

The JL-9 can climb at a rate of 260m per second. The maximum and cruise speed of the aircraft are 2,450 km per hour (Just under Mach 2) and 1,960 km per hour, respectively. The range is 2,500km and the service ceiling is 16,000m.
 
Last edited:
Well - even taking the FC-1 story with a grain of salt and admitting for arguments' sake that it is true (I have seen this 'Izdeliye 33' story from the MiG bureau repeated in multiple places with multiple flavors)

It really doesn't matter what "you have seen"; if it looks like a goat, bleats like a goat and acts like a goat, it's a goat.

Regardless of the not so radically different end result, JF-17's origin is undeniable, no matter how much one wants to deny it.

it is also well known that although the wings were well researched, wind-tunnel tested and in an advanced stage of concept development to counter the f-16 the fuselage was a different story. "The FC-1 is not a direct derivative of the Product 33 design, and while the wings may reflect Soviet aerodynamic data, the fuselage and air inlets represent an entirely rather different configuration."

I myself have been an avid observer of Chinese aviation industry in the last decade, with the evolutionary development of the economical F-7PG and BGI models (with double delta wings) and then JL-9 variants from the original early MiG-21 F13 model from the 60's.

Then they updated the F-7BGI with double delta wings to improve slower speed and turning performance. Glass cockpit and PESA radar added.

And then into the radically changed JL-9 and its many slowly improved variants.
JL-9 (Jianlian 9): Initial PLAAF variant with splitter intakes moved to the sides to separate boundary layer as well as addition of indigenous radar.


JL-9H: PLANAF carrier-trainer variant, DSI Intake a la JF-17, exhausts/wing area/tails/tailplanes all enlarged and refined with full complement addition of flappery/slattery, under fuselage strakes removed. I believe the wing planform re: AOA (angle of attack) was quite significantly changed as well.

Thanks for the schooling but all I heard was, without the MiG-21 & MiG-33 there would be no JL-9 & JF-17.

Now tell me how similar does this look like a MiG-21 F13 to you?

Except for the canted cockpit and inlet design, pretty much the same.

Comb09022019093749.jpg


So the upshot of all this is - the Chinese take a cost-effective and evolutionary approach to fighter development,

What I guage from the growth of the chinese aviation industry is, if you want to keep your fighter aircrafts numbers up while simultaneously looking to develop your Aerospace industry, have access to disgustingly large amounts of state money.

Chinese took the easier route, which allows them to induct fighters in numbers while learning some things slowly.
While this method keeps the deterrence up at regular levels and pumps more ACs into their airforce in the short term, it's costly over all, as they were properly able to develop something like a J-10 only after out spending on copies of Mig-21s, Flankers, Tu-16s, etc.

What India did cost IAF a few squadrons but is more cost effective and holistic as it attempted and succeeded in developing a platform to not just be self sufficient from the get go at fighter development but at making a competent fighter aircraft in numbers.
We hope to not pay large sums of money to the Russians to buy their designs to mass produce.
And likewise we have designed the AMCA on our own and this was made possible only because we chose to do the Tejas from the ground up.

equip their own Air Force and also make money by selling it to countries like Bangladesh, Nigeria, Peru, Ecuador etc...

Like the JF-17?
Clearly the PLAAF is inducting those in droves.

at a cost of $7 to $8 Million a copy
I believe the LCA costs around $20 million each?

Of course it is.
Tejas' subsystems are world class, chosen after a thorough competitive bidding between leaders of fighter aircraft tech.

Also, you comparing the cost of a primarily LIFT aircraft to that of a modern multirole fighter is both disingenuous and resorting to false equivalency.

There is no Indian equivalent.

Correct, there is no Indian equivalent as both Marut and Tejas are standalone platforms and not copies.

Only costly 'made from scratch' boast platforms, some of which see success, some don't.

Marut was inducted and so is Tejas, I don't know what quantifies as "success" if that doesn't.
As for being "costly", not true. Explained below.

And incidentally, these platforms all made with majority foreign parts.

True.
Which are being replaced every year with indigenous ones.

Accusing the Chinese of copy-pasting can apply salve to the wound of ineptitude, but should one be happy with this? Spending precious money from the state coffers with nary a concrete result to show.

Accusing?
Like you said, let's call a spade a spade.
A copy is a copy, is a copy.

As for precious monies.
I suggest you look at the total cost of the Tejas program, which comes to around north of a billion dollars, that is far-far-far less than most modern fighter aircrafts out there, in fact criminally less.
The chinese spent absurd amounts of money for the chinese analogues based on the tot they got from the Russians, we otoh spent time to make our own new aircraft.

While I understand the need for you to just brush past the Tejas development process to confirm your own bias, do realize that the Tejas is inducted with a completely normal fighter aircraft timeframe and if that ain't concrete who knows what is.
proxy-9.jpg


Although Kurt Tank (of Messerchmitt fame) did develop the Marut fighter for India back in the 1950's - when Chinese aviation industry was even less developed than India.

True.
However china also had & has more money than India which allowed it to engage in costlier practices.

From that point onward most of India's developed fighters could have followed from that example, but solely remained "adopted foreign platforms" or outright purchases,

We'd rather buy large numbers of competent fighters and develop only one fighter aircraft from the ground up and become independent later on than make several copied ones at inflated prices with nigh negligible difference between them and the original with very little scope of learning.

Also, I am sorry but most of chinese fighters are the "adopted foreign platforms", ALL Indian ACs otoh have been completely new, from the scratch systems.

but sadly with none of the evolutionary traits that Chinese aviation industry has shown and had adopted.

Evolutionary? Really?
They basically undertook small changes on already available platforms that were R&Ded beforehand by someone else.

Evolutionary would be a wholesome and cost effective approach through undertaking a completely new platform to develop an Aerospace industry and not just populating your air force.
Almost every country that has R&Ded a fourth generation fighter aircraft has done it like India has.

Let's call a spade a spade, brother, the record could have been better.

With the resources that were provided to the relevant agencies, it is but better, you not choosing to see it is not really an argument.
 
Last edited:
*Long Picture Post Warning*
Okay so two more to go(One each from Tejas Div SP16 and A/C Div SP 15) to fully equip "The Flying Daggers" with Fighters(Trainers numbering 04 will join later)
Unfortunately not been able to get the LA 5014 image yet, So I will update them at a later time if free.
Images courtesy Tejas FB page/Anantha Krishnan/Deb Rana/ADA
Squadron 45 "The Flying Daggers"
MdEQlLx.jpg

Motto: "Our Mission: Invincibility"
LA 5001
UR9zhSF.jpg

LA 5002
YXhaUQL.jpg

LA 5003
8Wu5keE.jpg

LA 5004
JeUgBLD.jpg
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom