What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Payload is only a paper figure that doesn't tell you about the real carrying capability of a fighter, without including the number of hardpoints or the load limitations.

Typical strike config of Jaguar and LCA MK1 would be:

2 x fuel tanks (at the inner wing stations)
1 x LDP (at the centerline station for the Jags, at the pod station for the LCA)
2 x 1000lb LGBs (at the mid wing station, a 3rd one possible for LCA at the centerline)
2 x IR missiles for self defence (at the overwingstation for the Jags, or the external wingstation for the LCA)
So even if the Jag has more payload on paper, the standard strike config is the same, while the LCA even has space left for more weapons or fuel.

Lol at you for writing above highlighted childish stuff.

Maximum permissible take off weight is only on the paper?

Max take off weight is relative to aircraft's thrust, the higher the thrust, the more the take off weight.

Hard points or pylons are added to combat bird, considering its payload capacity...

Can the LCA have 10 hard points with half its engine thrust ?
No...
Pylons are added, which in turn exceeds the payload of the aircraft. And this is pre-configured, based on the thrust of an aircraft = reaction force = propelling aircraft forward..
 
.
F/W is the thrust to weight ratio and it is directly proportional to the acceleration of the aircraft. An aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio has high acceleration. For most flight conditions, an aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio will also have a high value of excess thrust. High excess thrust results in a high rate of climb

These are aerodynamic basis from NASA site.
 
.
Payload is only a paper figure that doesn't tell you about the real carrying capability of a fighter, without including the number of hardpoints or the load limitations.

Typical strike config of Jaguar and LCA MK1 would be:

2 x fuel tanks (at the inner wing stations)
1 x LDP (at the centerline station for the Jags, at the pod station for the LCA)
2 x 1000lb LGBs (at the mid wing station, a 3rd one possible for LCA at the centerline)
2 x IR missiles for self defence (at the overwingstation for the Jags, or the external wingstation for the LCA)


2fck4yia.jpg

kh342vph.jpg

uxlhsluq.jpg


So even if the Jag has more payload on paper, the standard strike config is the same, while the LCA even has space left for more weapons or fuel.
hi @sancho is it possible to use overwingstation in LCA
 
.
Maximum permissible take off weight is only on the paper?

Max take off weight is relative to aircraft's thrust, the higher the thrust, the more the take off weight.

Strange, who is diverting topic now? I thought you were talking about "payload":

Now you are changing the parameters...
The central point was "payload"
Now you are switching over to "Obsolete"
Stay on central point = "Payload.

:disagree: Are we using double standards here? Payload is related to the number of hardpoints and it's limitations, no matter if you like it or not. The Jag can't carry more LGBs loads than the LCA, that's a fact!


Can the LCA have 10 hard points with half its engine thrust ?

What has the number of hardpoints to do with the thrust? If they re-design the wings with added wingtip stations, LCA could have 10 hardpoints with the same thrust too, but it could only carry SR AAMs at that stations, because of the weight limits of the wingtips! Just as payload or thrust have no relation to the fact, that you can only carry SR missiles at the external wingstation, because the weight limit again is too low for heavier loads. Or the fact that it can't carry 1200l fuel tanks at the centerline station, because of the size limitations, while the weight limit is probably higher.
So there are a lot of factors that decides about the weapon or load config, but not the theoretical possible payload figure on paper, nor the maximum take off weight, which has even less to do with the weapon load, since you can have unlimited payload and MTOW, but it's no use if you have only 5 hardpoints for heavier loads and at least 2 of them are occupied by fuel tanks. In the case of the Jag and the shown load config, the centerline is even occupied by the LDP, while LCA has a dedicated station for it.

Btw, IAFs Mig 29 UPG, more hardpoints and weapons than before, same series -3 engines. Mirage 2000 UPG, will carry more missiles than before, same engine M53-P engines. MKI UPG will carry Brahmos, same AL 31 engines.[/quote]

hi @sancho is it possible to use overwingstation in LCA

I guess so, but with aerodynamic issues and no use since you can only carry rail launched missiles and as explained above, it wouldn't even free the external wing hadpoint for bigger loads, since the weight limit is just around 150Kg. The only way to use more useful weapon configs, are either smaller weapons on multi launchers, or freeing the inner wingstations by increasing internal fuel. We know that the MK2 will have more fuel, how much more is questionable though.
 
.
@sancho
Max take off weight is relative to aircraft's thrust, the higher the thrust, the more the take off weight.

Strange, who is diverting topic now? I thought you were talking about "payload":

Oye stupido...

Payload = weight!!!

I rest my case here.
You do not even know what is on the plate..
 
.
@sancho In Mk2, where we get more powerful engine..can't we add rail launcher with two missiles in one station? provided the engine power addition will reduce drag hence more weight capability for wing stations?

Since in M2k upgrade, there is no plane structural change/air frame modificaion(no further strengthening the wings) but still add more station aka more load?
 
.
@sancho In Mk2, where we get more powerful engine..can't we add rail launcher with two missiles in one station? provided the engine power addition will reduce drag hence more weight capability for wing stations?

As explained, the number of hardpoints has nothing to do with thrust and as officials stated they wanted to make as little external changes as possible (although I find that questionable) therefor opted against the re design of the wings. For A2A missions that might not even be necessary, if the fuel increase can replace fuel tanks, the problem is the fact that we can't use heavier strike configs, fuel tanks and a full set of AAMs including BVR missiles. They might add twin pylons for 500lb LGBs and personally I would perfer a centerline SPICE 250 quad pack at the centerline, but at the end of the day LCA is a small light class fighter with limited space for hardpoints.

Since in M2k upgrade, there is no plane structural change/air frame modificaion(no further strengthening the wings) but still add more station aka more load?

The Mirage upgrade include MICA missiles, which now can be carried at the fuselage stations, that makes it abe to carry 5 to 6 x AAMs in every mission, while n Kargil the M2K could carry onl LGBs and 2 x SR missiles, with external self protection pod even only a single missile.
 
.
@sancho In Mk2, where we get more powerful engine..can't we add rail launcher with two missiles in one station? provided the engine power addition will reduce drag hence more weight capability for wing stations?

Since in M2k upgrade, there is no plane structural change/air frame modificaion(no further strengthening the wings) but still add more station aka more load?

Also m-53 is rated at 95 kn of thrust compared to 80-85 kn for ge-404
 
.
I agree here,,,,they are atleast better than mig-21's at any rate



I have personally sat in a static mig-21 bison at the jodhpur base.
They are damn too old to be considered in 2014........

**** the cockpit is just horrible

Tejus is at least equal to upgraded miraj, that what miraj pilot itself says. So dont think that tejus will be most inferior plane in IAf.

Bison are too old. Thats why we need to replace. Now do you think 40 mk1 and 89 mk2 order justify that they are replacemnt for bisons.

Originally mk2 requirment was came from IN, as they need bigger engine for carrier operatioms. So mk2 future in IAF in was never clear. They are just postponding the things.
 
Last edited:
.
Tejus is at least equal to upgraded miraj, that what miraj pilot itself says. So font think that tejus will be most inferior plane in IAf.

No its not...............not untill it gets the foc
 
.
Tejus is at least equal to upgraded miraj, that what miraj pilot itself says. So dont think that tejus will be most inferior plane in IAf.

Bison are too old. Thats why we need to replace. Now do you think 40 mk1 and 89 mk2 order justify that they are replacemnt for bisons.

Originally mk2 requirment was came from IN, as they need bigger engine for carrier operatioms. So mk2 future in IAF in was never clear. They are just postponding the things.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but no way Tejas is even in the same size class as Mirage.
 
.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no way Tejas is even in the same size class as Mirage.

Either 6t or 7tons, it falls in light weight category. BTW he was talking about tejus flight performance.

No its not...............not untill it gets the foc

It get IOC2 recently. FOC will be acheived by next june any lway. What I get in one artical was very interesting. It says that tejus induction was delayed because HAL was unable to produce tejus. The assembly line which was built for tejus by GoI fund was used to manufacturer the newer Jaguar. Another example of IAF's.........
 
Last edited:
.
http://***************/attachments/b1-jpg.1547/http://***************/attachments/b2-jpg.1548/http://***************/attachments/b3-jpg.1549/http://***************/attachments/b4-jpg.1550/http://***************/attachments/b5-jpg.1551/http://***************/attachments/b6-jpg.1552/http://***************/attachments/b7-jpg.1553/http://***************/attachments/b8-jpg.1554/http://***************/attachments/b9-jpg.1555/http://***************/attachments/b10-jpg.1556/
 
.
http://***************/attachments/b1-jpg.1547/http://***************/attachments/b2-jpg.1548/http://***************/attachments/b3-jpg.1549/http://***************/attachments/b4-jpg.1550/http://***************/attachments/b5-jpg.1551/http://***************/attachments/b6-jpg.1552/http://***************/attachments/b7-jpg.1553/http://***************/attachments/b8-jpg.1554/http://***************/attachments/b9-jpg.1555/http://***************/attachments/b10-jpg.1556/

All empty Jig...looks like an abandoned factory. Arre kitne saal aur delay karte rahoge bhai log. Kab karoge 1 squadron induct.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom