HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[he-man]

Couldn't low thrust be compensated by better TWR?


Weren't they developing a third AESA other than Zhuk AE and FGFA AESA?

yes they are,,,its fga-29 and 35 which are modifications of zhuk ae only.

for ur convenience and other ppl who don't know jack and still malign me every single day

fga-35

Google Translate

 

[sancho]

Couldn't low thrust be compensated by better TWR?


Weren't they developing a third AESA other than Zhuk AE and FGFA AESA?

No and the TWR of LCA is not the problem, it already is pretty good in it's class, but it needs more power to handle the drag issues, as well as the added weight that the MK2 upgrades will bring.

There was an offer to upgrade BARS PESA to BARS AESA, but the manufacturer is also developing the FGFA AESA and suggest the more logical way of upgrading the PESA now, while adding AESA techs from the FGFA to later MKI upgrade stages, rather than developing a BARS AESA right now.

 

[he-man]

No and the TWR of LCA is not the problem, it already is pretty good in it's class, but it needs more power to handle the drag issues, as well as the added weight that the MK2 upgrades will bring.

There was an offer to upgrade BARS PESA to BARS AESA, but the manufacturer is also developing the FGFA AESA and suggest the more logical way of upgrading the PESA now, while adding AESA techs from the FGFA to later MKI upgrade stages, rather than developing a BARS AESA right now.

see the above post

 

[DacterSaab]

yes they are,,,its fga-29 and 35 which are modifications of zhuk ae only.
for ur convenience and other ppl who don't know jack and still malign me every single day
fga-35

Thanks for the info but I don't recall ever maligning you.

No and the TWR of LCA is not the problem, it already is pretty good in it's class, but it needs more power to handle the drag issues, as well as the added weight that the MK2 upgrades will bring.

I am not talking about the fighter, according to me as long as the dimensions are similar only thrust makes no difference but the engine with the best TWR should be chosen.

On a different note we know that current LCA fuel tanks are Trans-sonic and that Super-sonic tanks are under development could someone please confirm if we are looking into CFTs? And is the DRDO MMR a "pulse dopple" or PESA?

 

[he-man]

Thanks for the info but I don't recall ever maligning you.


I am not talking about the fighter, according to me as long as the dimensions are similar only thrust makes no difference but the engine with the best TWR should be chosen.

On a different note we know that current LCA fuel tanks are Trans-sonic and that Super-sonic tanks are under development could someone please confirm if we are looking into CFTs? And is the DRDO MMR a "pulse dopple" or PESA?

nai yaar,,u are all right

Thanks for the info but I don't recall ever maligning you.


I am not talking about the fighter, according to me as long as the dimensions are similar only thrust makes no difference but the engine with the best TWR should be chosen.

On a different note we know that current LCA fuel tanks are Trans-sonic and that Super-sonic tanks are under development could someone please confirm if we are looking into CFTs? And is the DRDO MMR a "pulse dopple" or PESA?

there is nothing called a drdo mmr.
its just off the shelf israeli el/m 2032,,don't let anyone fool u here

 

[sancho]

On a different note we know that current LCA fuel tanks are Trans-sonic and that Super-sonic tanks are under development could someone please confirm if we are looking into CFTs? And is the DRDO MMR a "pulse dopple" or PESA?

No CFTs, they increase the internal fuel capacity in the MK2, but nobody knows how much that increase will be and it's a puls doppler radar.

 

[GORKHALI]

No CFTs, they increase the internal fuel capacity in the MK2, but nobody knows how much that increase will be and it's a puls doppler radar.

As you said about Drag issue ? Is't Design fault or It comes up in Delta wing design only ?

 

[sancho]

As you said about Drag issue ? Is't Design fault or It comes up in Delta wing design only ?

Imo they made a mistake with the intention to create the smallest fighter, but at the same time use a delta wing design, which caused that the wing itself is very large compared to the airframe. The requirement of a large nose to house a quiet large radar might also be an issue for such a small fighter. But when you look at other Indian aircraft developments and see the same drag and overweight issues, it also shows a lack of experience in the design field in general.

 

[rockstarIN]

Imo they made a mistake with the intention to create the smallest fighter, but at the same time use a delta wing design, which caused that the wing itself is very large compared to the airframe. The requirement of a large nose to house a quiet large radar might also be an issue for such a small fighter. But when you look at other Indian aircraft developments and see the same drag and overweight issues, it also shows a lack of experience in the design field in general.

If we needed more power to adjust the drag issue, why did not we go for SNECMA M53-P2, which powers Mirage 2000 since France did not impose any sanctions after the nuke test. Instead we went got F404 which is less powered than SNECMA(though weight are different.)

 

[DacterSaab]

No CFTs, they increase the internal fuel capacity in the MK2, but nobody knows how much that increase will be and it's a puls doppler radar.

Well CFTs will add to drag issues btw is there any details available as to what sort of drag problems are being encountered and in which areas?

As you said about Drag issue ? Is't Design fault or It comes up in Delta wing design only ?

Imo they made a mistake with the intention to create the smallest fighter, but at the same time use a delta wing design, which caused that the wing itself is very large compared to the airframe. The requirement of a large nose to house a quiet large radar might also be an issue for such a small fighter. But when you look at other Indian aircraft developments and see the same drag and overweight issues, it also shows a lack of experience in the design field in general.

I don't think there's any relation b/w drag issues and delta-wings cause they are using cropped-delta design, which is supposed to reduce drag. Also during the time at which LCA design had started, the "delta-wing"-variations were the most efficient designs being employed in fighters being designed globally and since it was supposed to be a very small fighter Dassault suggested it have delta-wings in-order to increase efficiency of aircraft and we chose also cause they are comparatively easier and cheaper to manufacture at the same time they made the aircraft sturdier.
I think it's mostly designing inexperience coupled with poor quality execution of design by the manufacturer due to deficiency in the countries current industrial capabilities in the field.

If we needed more power to adjust the drag issue, why did not we go for SNECMA M53-P2, which powers Mirage 2000 since France did not impose any sanctions after the nuke test. Instead we went got F404 which is less powered than SNECMA(though weight are different.)

I think by the time we detected drag issues, it was already evident that F404 will be replaced (don't know if F414 was finalized at that time).

 

[rockstarIN]

Why Gripen does not have such issues which uses the same engine also a delta design?

 

[trident2010]

Why Gripen does not have such issues which uses the same engine also a delta design?

May be they had in the beginning and later they sort it out.

 

[sancho]

If we needed more power to adjust the drag issue, why did not we go for SNECMA M53-P2, which powers Mirage 2000 since France did not impose any sanctions after the nuke test. Instead we went got F404 which is less powered than SNECMA(though weight are different.)

It would had been a good choice at the begining, since we had that engine in the fleet and could had designed the LCA around it. But as a later addition to LCA MK2 and in comparison to EJ 200 and GE414, it simply doesn't hold up anymore, since size and weight would be issues, besides the fact that it's neither a modern nor a naval engine (sadly that had importance in the selection of the engine too).

Well CFTs will add to drag issues btw is there any details available as to what sort of drag problems are being encountered and in which areas?
I don't think there's any relation b/w drag issues and delta-wings cause they are using cropped-delta design, which is supposed to reduce drag...

It's not the delta wing design itself that is an issue, but the large size of the wing, compared to the small overall size of the fighter. It seems that it simply was planned too big for the fighter, just like the gears of the N-LCA were "over" designed for the requirements and maybe even the nose too.

Why Gripen does not have such issues which uses the same engine also a delta design?

Bigger size, but at the same time smaller wings, thanks to the delta canard design:

LCA
Length: 13.20 m
Wing area: 38.4 m²

Gripen
Length: 14.1 m
Wing area: 30.0 m²

Mirage 2000
Length: 14.36 m
Wing area: 41 m²

 

[sancho]

LCA with Rafale nose, radar, IRST and refuelling probe => MK1 FOC / MK2 changes + MICA / Maitri missile to replace R73. Add Topsight HMS, Thales IFF equipment (that Mig 29UPG and M2K UPG gets too) and you have maximum commonality with the fleet, faster integration and production for the MK2 upgrade, easier export potential and higher capability of the fighter itself!

 

[SRP]