HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[Shadow_Hunter]

Top speed of MK 2 may roughly be work out.

ADA says that 3% performance improvement will come from refine aerodynamic and new engine will generate at least 20% more power.

So It could be roughly

1.6*1.03*1.2= Mach 1.97 ~ mach 2 not bad.

Article says that it is tested for 24 degree AOA & shall be increased to 26 degree in Mk 1. So we may expect 28 to 30 degree for MK2.

MK2 will be able to carry 5.6 ton of load. That is very decent.

I do not agree that MK2 should not develop. I would rather say that we should keep developing new variant Like Sukhoi series such as Su 27,30,35,37 etc.

Did you account for increase in weight of Mk2, power consumption of AESA?

 

[Black Widow]

Top speed of MK 2 may roughly be work out.

ADA says that 3% performance improvement will come from refine aerodynamic and new engine will generate at least 20% more power.

So It could be roughly

1.6*1.03*1.2= Mach 1.97 ~ mach 2 not bad.

Article says that it is tested for 24 degree AOA & shall be increased to 26 degree in Mk 1. So we may expect 28 to 30 degree for MK2.

MK2 will be able to carry 5.6 ton of load. That is very decent.

I do not agree that MK2 should not develop. I would rather say that we should keep developing new variant Like Sukhoi series such as Su 27,30,35,37 etc.

I agree with your almost all point.. But u misread the the MK II part. The Author/analyst is not against MK II, rather he is advocating more number of LCA MK I in IAF (against proposed 2 Squadron). According to him MK-II will be
1. bulkier which will negate the extra power of new engine.
2. need more time ad it need major redesign (Refer design of F18 Hornet and Super hornet)

The Author only want more number of LCA MK-I (Till MK-II come into production)... Look what these Sex/money hungry general did with Arjuna MK-I, The Arjuna assembly line is free as there is no further request for Arjuna..

 

[sancho]

After two decades of development and the expenditure of some Rs 8,000 crore, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is nearing operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF)...

Another Ajay Shukla article about fighters, with a lot of mistakes. He really has no idea about it and still keeps talking.

LCA Mk2 will eventually match M2k-9 with one less hard point. IAF will be very happy once it is received by them in full configuration.

On paper it's just less, in reallity the difference is much bigger! An upgraded M2K for example can carry 5-6 x AAM's in any role, while LCA can only carry 4 in most missions. That's why the payload increase hardly is a benefit, if not more hardpoints can be used too. Technically, if AESA and IRST would be available, the MK2 must even surpass the M2K-9, but without all the IN requirements and by including EADS as a partner into LCA we could have got a far better fighter.

 

[indiatester]

Another Ajay Shukla article about fighters, with a lot of mistakes. He really has no idea about it and still keeps talking.



On paper it's just less, in reallity the difference is much bigger! An upgraded M2K for example can carry 5-6 x AAM's in any role, while LCA can only carry 4 in most missions. That's why the payload increase hardly is a benefit, if not more hardpoints can be used too. Technically, if AESA and IRST would be available, the MK2 must even surpass the M2K-9, but without all the IN requirements and by including EADS as a partner into LCA we could have got a far better fighter.

Are all the 5-6 AAM's LRAAM's? Because with LCA, we can carry 4 LRAAM's and 2 SRAAM's?

 

[vsdave2302]

Did you account for increase in weight of Mk2, power consumption of AESA?

Structural weight reduction and lesser weight radar shall be more than sufficient to compensate about 100 KG additional weight and some additional Power. New single chip processor shall be consuming much less power, much less and space and shall be light weight. e.g new HUD weighs only 8 KG in place of 18 KG. More composite materials shall go in making body part. Some LRUS shall be merge to make single LRU. Number of holes and bolts shall be reduced to 1/5 i.e 10000 to 2000 (Not from any authentic source) .

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Structural weight reduction and lesser weight radar shall be more than sufficient to compensate about 100 KG additional weight and some additional Power. New single chip processor shall be consuming much less power, much less and space and shall be light weight. e.g new HUD weighs only 8 KG in place of 18 KG. More composite materials shall go in making body part. Some LRUS shall be merge to make single LRU. Number of holes and bolts shall be reduced to 1/5 i.e 10000 to 2000 (Not from any authentic source) .

I am talking about larger size of Mk2, not parts per se. And isn't power consumption of AESA is close to 10 times of doppler radar

 

[shree835]

HAL will stick to the deadline on LCA and IJT: MoS Defence

Expressing confidence over the progress in Light Combat Aircraft and Intermediate Jet Trainer projects, Union Minister Jitendra Singh today said Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd would stick to its deadline.

“In last six months, lots of developments have happened, LCA has flown extensively and technical hiccups have been resolved; ….I can say HAL will stick to the deadline, IOCBSE 0.33 % (Initial Operation Clearance) for LCA is November and for IJT is December,” Jitendra Singh, the minister of State for Defence told reporters here.

“IOC for IJT is December but there may be one or two months delay. Some of the seepage is due to weather, as there have been rains in Karnataka, so we have not been able to test the aircraft,” he added.

Complimenting the IAF ( Indian Air force), HAL and ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency) for the work they have put in, he said “we will have a quality product.”

On the query whether the IAF is keen on having an indigenous trainer developed by HAL, the minister said, “It is not the matter of who is keen to do what, IAF wants best and quality product on time; operationally they want a product which has long life. Now it is for HAL to satisfy all these conditions laid down by IAF.”

Commenting on a controversy relating to safety in flying MIG fighter, he said it is not right for him to preempt and comment on it when IAF is investigating recent incidents and issues relating to the safety standards.

“IAF is investigating on the technical issues relating to the safety standard and also mechanical or training failure if any, so that such incidents don’t repeat. There is robust system in place,” he added.

On repeated incursions by Chinese army into the Indian territory, Singh said, “We want good relationship with all our neighbours; …..Any such incident is taken up at the highest level across the border.”

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/hal-will-stick-to-the-deadline-on-lca-and-ijt-mos-defence/articleshow/21276205.cms

 

[vsdave2302]

I am talking about larger size of Mk2, not parts per se. And isn't power consumption of AESA is close to 10 times of doppler radar

I am not talking about large size of MK2 (though it will give MK2 batter aerodynamic performance). I said wight reduction and aerodynamic improvements will compensate for higher power consumption by AESA radar which reduces the performance by consuming the power available for flight.

 

[rockstarIN]

Another Ajay Shukla article about fighters, with a lot of mistakes. He really has no idea about it and still keeps talking.



On paper it's just less, in reallity the difference is much bigger! An upgraded M2K for example can carry 5-6 x AAM's in any role, while LCA can only carry 4 in most missions. That's why the payload increase hardly is a benefit, if not more hardpoints can be used too. Technically, if AESA and IRST would be available, the MK2 must even surpass the M2K-9, but without all the IN requirements and by including EADS as a partner into LCA we could have got a far better fighter.

If that is the case, why would the air forces buy Gripen C/D which, exactly matches even LCA Mk-1(in number of hard points etc.)

What extra have Gripen is providing since it is a relatively new fighter than M2k? The air forces around the world should have simply buy M2k more (I know the production line is shut). I don't think back in 90's and early 2000 the price of each jets (m2k & Gripen) had much difference.

 

[sancho]

Are all the 5-6 AAM's LRAAM's? Because with LCA, we can carry 4 LRAAM's and 2 SRAAM's?

MICA in both varients are BVR missiles, so that itself is an advantage, but the Qatari M2K-5s for example use MICA EM at the 4 x fuselage stations, while the external stations would use WVR missiles.
LCA can carry 4 + 2 missiles only in interception roles with a centerline fuel tank, in CAP however in needs 2 x wingfuel tanks, which limits it to 2 + 2 missiles.

If that is the case, why would the air forces buy Gripen C/D which, exactly matches even LCA Mk-1(in number of hard points etc.)

Which airforce has bought Gripen, when it already had M2Ks? And just as our M2Ks, the early versions didn't had the extra hardpoints, only from 2k-5 onwards.

 

[Manindra]

Top speed of MK 2 may roughly be work out.

ADA says that 3% performance improvement will come from refine aerodynamic and new engine will generate at least 20% more power.

So It could be roughly

1.6*1.03*1.2= Mach 1.97 ~ mach 2 not bad.

Article says that it is tested for 24 degree AOA & shall be increased to 26 degree in Mk 1. So we may expect 28 to 30 degree for MK2.

MK2 will be able to carry 5.6 ton of load. That is very decent.

I do not agree that MK2 should not develop. I would rather say that we should keep developing new variant Like Sukhoi series such as Su 27,30,35,37 etc.

LCA MKII will be 5 ton payload not 5.6 ton.

 

[vsdave2302]

LCA MKII will be 5 ton payload not 5.6 ton.

I have seen a picture displaying 5.6 tones of payload carrying various Missiles and Bombs. Once fully developed, Mk 1 shall be carrying around 4.4 tons or even more. LCA MK1 maximum take off weight 13.3 tones. Now reduce 2.5 ton fuel and 5.8 tones of empty weight of plane. You will get an idea. Extrapolate the figure for 20% higher thrust engine i.e GE 414. Grippen NG carries 7.0 tons with same engine.

 

[Manindra]

I have seen a picture displaying 5.6 tones of payload carrying various Missiles and Bombs. Once fully developed, Mk 1 shall be carrying around 4.4 tons or even more. LCA MK1 maximum take off weight 13.3 tones. Now reduce 2.5 ton fuel and 5.8 tones of empty weight of plane. You will get an idea. Extrapolate the figure for 20% higher thrust engine i.e GE 414. Grippen NG carries 7.0 tons with same engine.

Grippen carries more payload because it has better aerodynamics same as Mirage-2000-5 which engine thrust is 95kn after burner. Payload capacity mostly depend on planes aerodynamics. Engine thrust is secondory cause to effect payload capacity.

As tejas official website shows maximum takeoff weight is 13.2 MT but HAL website shows MKI maximum take off weight is 13.5 MT & payload is 5.3 MT which is laughable.
LSP8 is production variant then how can you say that Tejas would carry 4.4 ton of payload after fully developed. Tejas empty weight is near about 6.5 ton not 5.8 ton. then simply its Payload would be 4 ton.

 

[rockstarIN]

MICA in both varients are BVR missiles, so that itself is an advantage, but the Qatari M2K-5s for example use MICA EM at the 4 x fuselage stations, while the external stations would use WVR missiles.
LCA can carry 4 + 2 missiles only in interception roles with a centerline fuel tank, in CAP however in needs 2 x wingfuel tanks, which limits it to 2 + 2 missiles.



Which airforce has bought Gripen, when it already had M2Ks? And just as our M2Ks, the early versions didn't had the extra hardpoints, only from 2k-5 onwards.

I'm saying about the price too. If any air force wants to replace their aging MiG-21s - or like swiz air force- can go for m2k instead of Gripen if the price is the same and the production line is open.

 

[vsdave2302]

Grippen carries more payload because it has better aerodynamics same as Mirage-2000-5 which engine thrust is 95kn after burner. Payload capacity mostly depend on planes aerodynamics. Engine thrust is secondory cause to effect payload capacity.

As tejas official website shows maximum takeoff weight is 13.2 MT but HAL website shows MKI maximum take off weight is 13.5 MT & payload is 5.3 MT which is laughable.
LSP8 is production variant then how can you say that Tejas would carry 4.4 ton of payload after fully developed. Tejas empty weight is near about 6.5 ton not 5.8 ton. then simply its Payload would be 4 ton.

Hey guy you have dated information. 6.5 ton is a very old figure. A lot of weight is slashed there after. I have seen members mentioning it 5.8 tons in PDF. One member wrote that LSP 8 is 300 kg heavier than planned. Means 5.8 tons. Weight carrying capacity is function of aerodynamic as well as engine not alone aerodynamic as primary factor . Mk 2 is going to have refined aerodynamic as well as higher thrush engine. A lots of aerodynamic changes are made in MK 1 itself. You can see this from its maneuverability. It is now able to match Grippen in vertical turn. STR has improved a lot. I read some member citing that it is now as per ASR. Air intakes are widened which were actually planned in MK2. FOC MK1 will have 24 or 26 degree AOA. This will further improve performance. FOC is planned for 10 g turn and 15 g structural strength. MK 2 is going to be a master piece. New nosecone is planned to reduce drag etc...