HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[CONNAN]

Adding a 3D thrust vectoring to the LCA will allow it to undertake more violent turns when evading the incoming missile. This will only add to the effect that the aircraft was intending to do without thrust vectoring.

Also another interesting possibility that the USAF was experimenting with was using this to land at very short distances, usning thrust vectoring to maintain high AOA and landing, thereby using very short runway length.

Another immediate application might be higher weapon loads being able to be gotten airborne even if the runway is somewhat short - like in the middle of a war with a compromized runway.

 

[sudhir007]

so why they r developing it if the main customer doesn't want it ???

for amca ??

Yes you are right but if IAF want more lca aspected order around mk-2 is 100+49(u can see the rfp issue for engine 100+49) it mean total 150 lca-mk2 and 40 mk-1 if IAF happy with lca and want to make another verson mk-3 with internal weapon with stealth feature 5gen. F/A then may be it will use. but behind this if IAF want more order mk-2 at that time around 2020(I assume that if foc complete in 2014 next 6-7yr we have 150-mk2) it will be use lca-mk-3 and AMCA both

 

[flanker143]

lca mk3 not even proposed..... not even possible ..... 5 gen tech only for amca ...also due to cost factor !!!

 

[sam27]

I think they should call LCA Tejas not indigenous but an indi-generous aircraft with amount of time and money we are spending on it.

 

[KEETARP]

Adding a 3D thrust vectoring to the LCA will allow it to undertake more violent turns when evading the incoming missile. This will only add to the effect that the aircraft was intending to do without thrust vectoring.

Also another interesting possibility that the USAF was experimenting with was using this to land at very short distances, usning thrust vectoring to maintain high AOA and landing, thereby using very short runway length.

Another immediate application might be higher weapon loads being able to be gotten airborne even if the runway is somewhat short - like in the middle of a war with a compromized runway.

TVC for light -fighters is absolutely unnecessary .
I don't get the point of TVC ,
With modern WVR missile like R73/Python/Aim9x having TVC , high-off bore sight and pulling over high Gs , what is that thing Air-craft c an achieve but this missile can not .
If your missile is giving that additional TVC advantage what is point in putting on Jet

US tried TVC on its light-fighter F16 , conclusion drawn was
TVC is unnecessary for Light fighter , only possible for Heavy fighter .
TVC requires additional weight which is not worth for Light fighters , and for Tejas even more problematic ,
Better focus on Super-cruise.

MATV / multi-axis thrust vectoring problem in F16

In order to counterbalance the additional weight of the AVEN(Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN)), the weight of the spin chute and the hardware (which is quite heavy), 700 pounds of ballast were added on the inlet hardpoints to keep the center of gravity ahead of 38% chord in order to avoid the danger of deep stalls should the thrust vectoring system fail. As an additional safety measure, a spin-recovery parachute was installed high over the rear end of the aircraft to assist in recovery from deep stalls should they occur.

Finally TVC was dropped .

MATV Warfighter Technology -- Multi-axis thrust vectoring
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html

 

[gogbot]

TVC for light -fighters is absolutely unnecessary .
I don't get the point of TVC ,
With modern WVR missile like R73/Python/Aim9x having TVC , high-off bore sight and pulling over high Gs , what is that thing Air-craft c an achieve but this missile can not .
If your missile is giving that additional TVC advantage what is point in putting on Jet

US tried TVC on its light-fighter F16 , conclusion drawn was
TVC is unnecessary for Light fighter , only possible for Heavy fighter .
TVC requires additional weight which is not worth for Light fighters , and for Tejas even more problematic ,
Better focus on Super-cruise.

MATV / multi-axis thrust vectoring problem in F16

Finally TVC was dropped .

MATV Warfighter Technology -- Multi-axis thrust vectoring
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html

Just some points for TVC:

LCA has no canards , i would increase the control of the aircraft.
Also , take of and landing length can be reduced by a large margin.
Also there is 4-5% better fuel efficiency.

OF course there is the gravity defying agility.

But like you said , weight seems to be a issue , if the F-16 could not use it , it will be very difficult to get it to work on the Tejas.

WE can achieve superCruise with both engines. But only the EJ200 offers TVC.

 

[flanker143]

any body has some vids of lca doing high G maneuvers ???

plzz post them !!

 

[IndianArmy]

any body has some vids of lca doing high G maneuvers ???

plzz post them !!

Here You go, look at it in the 36th second and around 1 minute 45th second where it takes High G turn

 

[flanker143]

Here You go, look at it in the 36th second and a High G turn around 1 minute 45th second

thanks sir ......

i'm sorry if i hurt ur feelings during our last discussion on arjun .....

 

[IndianArmy]

thanks sir ......

i'm sorry if i hurt ur feelings during our last discussion on arjun .....

Oh Its ok dear, i dint prolong that Discussion For Purpose.... its ok...

 

[sancho]

Just some points for TVC:

LCA has no canards , i would increase the control of the aircraft.
Also , take of and landing length can be reduced by a large margin.
Also there is 4-5% better fuel efficiency.

OF course there is the gravity defying agility.

But like you said , weight seems to be a issue , if the F-16 could not use it , it will be very difficult to get it to work on the Tejas.

WE can achieve superCruise with both engines. But only the EJ200 offers TVC.

The point that the US didn't use it for F16s doesn't mean that they didn't think it's a useful tech, because they did further development on TVC too. Everybody knows the TVC on F22, but initial development for it came through the X-31 project:

Rockwell-MBB X-31 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It know how they (US and Germany, which was a partner then) gathered though this aircraft was used for F22 and the EF too. The German companies that teamed up then are now merged into EADS!
The short landing that you mean, was a project they had with this aircraft, because they tried to use an computerised, automatic landing for possible carrier operations. They even were successful, but I guess it was too early and too complicated for that time. Especially, if you keep in mind that fighters in operational service will carry fuel tanks, or weapons too, what could make such landings difficult.
But you are right, for short take off and increased manouverability TVC would be a very good addition for LCA!

Another interesting point on the addition of TVC is, the possibility to get rid of the tail fin. This would reduce weight and RCS of a fighter and the US tried this out with the X-31 and later with the X-36 too:

McDonnell Douglas X-36 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We all know the pic of an tailless MCA prototype, so the addition of TVC on LCA could lead to such a future project too.

What I often criticised at the LCA development, is that they didn't team up with foreign partners from the start and even now, when they search for partners in AESA, engine, or carrier fighter development, I simply can't find a logic behind their (ADA/HAL/MoD/IAF?/IN?) moves.
They wanted LM for carrier fighter development and now want EADS, altough both don't have the know how for it, unlike MIG, Dassault, or Boeing.
They rejected Snecmas co-development offer first, but now are interested again, but wouldn't it be more logical, to team up with one of the companies that offers an engine for LCA MK2? Eurojet for example is offerint ToT and advanced techs anyway, so why not get their engines and combine it with a co-development for Kaveri engine?

 

[Dash]

I think TVC will also add to better angle of attack (not sure though). Looking at the current AOA of LCA, which is limited. It might add an advantage too..

However without TVC if Gripen can take off and land at short runaways then I can say this objective can be achived by other means than adding TVC. TVC will be excellent for NAVAL LCA though I feel.

 

[sancho]

I think TVC will also add to better angle of attack (not sure though). Looking at the current AOA of LCA, which is limited. It might add an advantage too..

However without TVC if Gripen can take off and land at short runaways then I can say this objective can be achived by other means than adding TVC. TVC will be excellent for NAVAL LCA though I feel.

Gripen uses the advantage of canards for short take offs and landings too, LCA instead was designed without (maybe for lower RCS), but N-LCA will get the LEVCONS for similar reasons.
Btw, found some interesting size comparisons between LCA and Gripen, as well JF 17 and Gripen:

 

[Dash]

Btw, found some interesting size comparisons between LCA and Gripen, as well JF 17 and Gripen:

Then please share....these are fighters with similar sizes, lets see how are they different

 

[flanker143]

hey anyone knows the rcs of jf 17 ???

has it any rcs reduction features ???