HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[IND151]

Tejas fighter jet to officially replace MiG-21 FL | idrw.org

 

[kingdurgaking]

First of all, even with an AESA, LCA will not even be close the Rafale in terms of capability. That's just a dream, since the AESA puts it only technically in the same generation that a Rafale is (also with similar avionics and EW capabilities), but it doesn't make it equal in flight performance, weapon carrying, range...
Secondly, we don't need CAD designs of the fighter to develop a weapon pod, that will be added on an external hardpoint.
And at last you didn't understand what the problem with LCA is in this regard:

As you can see, the Silent Eagle has attached the weapon pods to the side of the airframe, next to the air intakes. That is not possible with the LCA, since the gears and gear bays are extracting to the sides. Similarly, since the gears are housed directly next to the centerline station, there are lenght and width restrictions, once reason the centerline fuel tank is smaller than those at the wings. These size restrictions makes it not possible it add a weapon pod similar to the Silent Hornet, that could house any useful weaponload internally. So to add a weapon pod alone, we would have to re-model the gears, gear bays and fuselage, which at least could increase the width but still will limit the lenght.
LCA is simply designed to be very small and light and not to offer a lot of space in and around the airframe, that's why it's future potential for such RCS reductions is very limited, unlike with bigger medium or heavy class fighters. We even have difficulties to add more avionics and systems to the small airframe for the MK2, to make it 4.5th gen ready, so no matter what software we might have, it's no use when the platform don't offer the size and potential for such upgrades.
ADA/DRDO might aim on shaping the airframe a bit, but that only brings the clean RCS down and not the loaded / operational one, so no matter what they claim, that hardly will have an effect and has nothing to do with stealth at all.

This is because the DRDO and ADA officially can work on Tejas, we dont have IP rights to change MKI or Rafale without informing them. simple as it is.. and we dont have source code of there software program to change for the modification of opening and closing bay.. This may be possible in MKI but not in Rafale.. they will show the fingers to us... putting stealth on MKI also needs russia approval like the super MKI

 

[bloo]

India's Tejas Begins Milestone Clearance Week


BANGALORE: I was in Bangalore in January 2011 when the Indian Air Force grudgingly accepted a milestone in the indigenous LCA Tejas programme. What was supposed to have been initial operational clearance (IOC), had to be staggered, with an agonising three-year wait before the platform would achieve IOC-2 (test points the platform failed to achieve by IOC-1 in Jan 2011), completing the protracted IOC exercise. The ceremony, as reported here on Livefist before, will be on December 20.
I happen to be back in Bangalore now, but on holiday. If I can tear myself away from family (and I can't), I'll attend the short preview event for the Tejas here in the city on December 19, where the Tejas test team and others will be present -- more details should be available there about what test points the team is postponing to the FOC regime. What we do know is that there are certain performance requirements that will be shifted to the FOC schedule. I will be leaving Bangalore on the day of the IOC-2 ceremony on December 20, but will bring you preview material here over the next one week. Nervous time for the team and the air force. Let's hope it isn't a re-run of January 2011. The Tejas deserves better.

Livefist: India's Tejas Begins Milestone Clearance Week

 

[Novice09]

Hope no more delays occurs

 

[Dillinger]

This is because the DRDO and ADA officially can work on Tejas, we dont have IP rights to change MKI or Rafale without informing them. simple as it is.. and we dont have source code of there software program to change for the modification of opening and closing bay.. This may be possible in MKI but not in Rafale.. they will show the fingers to us... putting stealth on MKI also needs russia approval like the super MKI

You didn't get the gist of what @sancho is saying, there just isn't adequate real-estate on the Tejas to accommodate any such design changes and/or plug ins while larger aircraft (which can compensate for increased drag, weight, fuel consumption) like the MKI can accommodate such alterations (it is irrelevant whether we have the freedom to do so or not, the point being made is that such platforms are capable of coping with the radical upgrade process unlike the Tejas).

 

[kingdurgaking]

You didn't get the gist of what @sancho is saying, there just isn't adequate real-estate on the Tejas to accommodate any such design changes and/or plug ins while larger aircraft (which can compensate for increased drag, weight, fuel consumption) like the MKI can accommodate such alterations (it is irrelevant whether we have the freedom to do so or not, the point being made is that such platforms are capable of coping with the radical upgrade process unlike the Tejas).

Sancho didnt get what is happening in the world.. the components gets merged and becomes smaller and smaller.. see the laptops and chips, earlier the work of 10 chips is done by a single chips now.. real estate is a problem, but in course of time things will work out... that is where R&D comes out

 

[Dillinger]

Sancho didnt get what is happening in the world.. the components gets merged and becomes smaller and smaller.. see the laptops and chips, earlier the work of 10 chips is done by a single chips now.. real estate is a problem, but in course of time things will work out... that is where R&D comes out

Its not some LRU or rotable that needs upgrading to realize what your hinting at, it will require an intensive restructuring from the ground up to ensure that the Tejas can even hope to assimilate the structural properties of a 5th gen or 4.5+ gen fighter. Suffice to say that the Tejas will never mount CFTs or weapons pods.

 

[sathya]

At least we get another meter length extra in mk 2 , that ll give some space for few gizmos..

 

[kingdurgaking]

Its not some LRU or rotable that needs upgrading to realize what your hinting at, it will require an intensive restructuring from the ground up to ensure that the Tejas can even hope to assimilate the structural properties of a 5th gen or 4.5+ gen fighter. Suffice to say that the Tejas will never mount CFTs or weapons pods.

I am a novice.. but being an engineer i myself can see ways we can do it... like save real estate just by reducing the size of components, for (e.g.) FBL is a way you can save lot of space in reducing wires, new generation computers which can handle multiple things, increase radius of body by 10cm etc.. we can re position the landing gear in some new setup that can provide bays etc... Engineers can come up with more innovative ideas... if we believe we cant we cant... if we believe we can we can.. lets see what ADA is deciding.. they have a road map for this ....

 

[sancho]

This is because the DRDO and ADA officially can work on Tejas, we dont have IP rights to change MKI or Rafale without informing them. simple as it is..

First of all, adding a weapon pod don't require any change at the fighters, it's just another external payload, therefor don't require any IP rights like you think
Secondly, we already have made changes to foreign fighters without any issues. M2Ks were modified with Israeli, rumoredly even Russian payloads. The MKI has attached Astra missiles for test flights as well as the Litening LDP. We have Russian fighters with Israeli self protection pods, or as seen recently added the Topsight HMS to Mig 29UPG. All this is no issue and at least with French, or Russians as reliable partners and do you honestly believe the Russians would stop us funding and developing a weapon pod for MKI, that they might need in future for their Su 34s and 35s as well? They will operate these fighter for the next 3 decades and will be more than interested as well, possibly even offer a joint development, to save costs. But only because LCA is indigenous, doesn't mean it's a good platform for anykind of future developments. It's meant to be cheap and simple, that's also why it doesn't need most modern displays or so, only we "could" integrate it, although it wouldn't make it operationally more capable. Same reason why I'm saying that indigenous AESA and Kaveri developments should be aimed on Mig 29K upgrades and not on LCA MK2, because it only delays LCA development as a whole, while it's more important to increase the indigenous content in the Migs for the future.

 

[sancho]

At least we get another meter length extra in mk 2 , that ll give some space for few gizmos..

Yes, avionics, additional fuel tanks and a new engine, that is actually the reason why it was necessary to increase the size again and which proves kingdurgaking theory of everything getting smaller and that is enough to be wrong. Infact, it shows that ADA had made a major mistake in the design of LCA, because they designed it with the aim to make it the smallest light class fighter in mind, without taking the necessary internal space for future upgrades to account!

 

[Indischer]

Aircrafts are produced overhauled and decommissioned in batches, Not all Mig21FL's will be decommissioned immediately, the ones that are at tail end of flight hours will see decommissioning. Usually you do not want to decommision aircrafts from a sqdn without replacement, there are also other situations where certain sqdns low on numbers will train on with different air base and cross train...
So as LCA thejas Mk1 gains production numbers, you will see them replacing fishbed variants appropriately.

I think the articles made it clear that ALL Mig21FLs were being decommissioned. Only the Mig21 Bis and Mig21 Bisons will be retained for some more time. Or are you suggesting that although an official ceremony did take place, the FLs will still be flown for some more time?

 

[kingdurgaking]

First of all, adding a weapon pod don't require any change at the fighters, it's just another external payload, therefor don't require any IP rights like you think
Secondly, we already have made changes to foreign fighters without any issues. M2Ks were modified with Israeli, rumoredly even Russian payloads. The MKI has attached Astra missiles for test flights as well as the Litening LDP. We have Russian fighters with Israeli self protection pods, or as seen recently added the Topsight HMS to Mig 29UPG. All this is no issue and at least with French, or Russians as reliable partners and do you honestly believe the Russians would stop us funding and developing a weapon pod for MKI, that they might need in future for their Su 34s and 35s as well? They will operate these fighter for the next 3 decades and will be more than interested as well, possibly even offer a joint development, to save costs. But only because LCA is indigenous, doesn't mean it's a good platform for anykind of future developments. It's meant to be cheap and simple, that's also why it doesn't need most modern displays or so, only we "could" integrate it, although it wouldn't make it operationally more capable. Same reason why I'm saying that indigenous AESA and Kaveri developments should be aimed on Mig 29K upgrades and not on LCA MK2, because it only delays LCA development as a whole, while it's more important to increase the indigenous content in the Migs for the future.

Sancho, you got it wrong here.. you are talking about weapon integration which works on MIL standard provided the target also works on top of it... Israeli LGB works perfectly on standards thats why we are able to do that in Kargil easily but not on Mig - 29 or 21 , where as TOP HMS on MIG 29 is done by French who are working with Mig not with us a new standard architecture agreed between them.. we cant do it because we dont have access to Mig source code, they have standard agreement between them and they work out, ASTRA integration was made easy on MKI because it works on Indian software and we paid money to Russia to integrate the same as we had Open Architecture(Which is why other countries prefer indian version than Russian version of MKI) and thats why we are able to do the Brahmos without russia though we initially asked them to do and they charged heavy money for the sameIF that is the case why we are not able to do the R-77 on Tejas? we have the weapon in inventory... why we are opting for Python?

Similarly to , there are other softwares like FBW which controls the structure like gear bay etc, which we dont have source code to modify Which is the point i am making out.. to have a silent features like SE we need weapon bay to work along with weapon launching , which is a FBW change.. do you think we have the source code to the same? ... if we had source code we wouldnt have a struggled with LCA... we invented our own algo and maths laws..


Thirdly adding a weapon bay and CFT are surface impact which will affect the flight performance for which we need to have CFD to evaluate the aerodynamic features and fluid mechanics, which is a big impact as it attached to the surface the aircraft where as weapons are attached on hard points, which is a different ball game altogether, thats why super MKI is done in Russia not in our compound

 

[HariPrasad]

At least we get another meter length extra in mk 2 , that ll give some space for few gizmos..

Half meter not one meter

 

[trident2010]

Best of luck for LCA !!