What's new

Tejas(LCA)- Setting the record straight

. . .
LCA "COPY" SAAB-37

Nice Copy :cheers: but don't you think that canards are missing :woot:. Any way do you want India to built some thing like this in second attempt
ca5866d027250a1a31b941d2ad6d8877.jpg


If yes, then I'm sure you will say that it is a copy of a UFO's plane :rofl:
 
Last edited:
. . .
I think he means the basic outline of the figher
wrong!
LCA design was done hiring Dassault as consultant. The LCA is a small delta-winged machine with "relaxed static stability" (RSS) to enhance maneuverability performance. If there is any other aircraft that has resemblance then it is Mirage. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
. . .
one crucial difference

The American stealth fighters were all new technology.
That means huge amounts of R&D

The JF-17 is not cutting edge.
Its development did not require huge amounts of new technology
Its capabilities are tailored to be Pakistan's J-10.

You didn't develop a new engine
you went with an existing model.

In fact what major technology had to be newly developed specifically for the JF-17.
Most of its R&D was developing variant's of existing technology the Chinese already had.

Correct me if i am mistaken but, other than the avionics suit, was there any R&D for new tech.

Americans already had quite a bit of knowledge of stealth technology. They were already using F-117 and had gained lot of information from that project.

We never claimed JF-17 was a cutting edge technology. It is being claimed as poor man's F-16.

A new engine is under development and is presently being tested. To speed up the development Russian engine was selected. By the way you are still looking for an engine for the LCA Tejas, aren't you.

I shall only name one technology used in it and that is DSI. It was never before attempted in any of the fighters developed by China and therefore should qualify as cutting edge.

Again if you look at protiotype 1 and the later prototypes you should be able to find differences.
 
. .
Americans already had quite a bit of knowledge of stealth technology. They were already using F-117 and had gained lot of information from that project.

We never claimed JF-17 was a cutting edge technology. It is being claimed as poor man's F-16.

A new engine is under development and is presently being tested. To speed up the development Russian engine was selected. By the way you are still looking for an engine for the LCA Tejas, aren't you.

I shall only name one technology used in it and that is DSI. It was never before attempted in any of the fighters developed by China and therefore should qualify as cutting edge.

Again if you look at prototype 1 and the later prototypes you should be able to find differences.

A new engine is under development and is presently being tested. To speed up the development Russian engine was selected. By the way you are still looking for an engine for the LCA Tejas, aren't you.

OH How amusing i find it when people raise this absolutely absurd point.

The LCA has no engine ?, well actually it does.
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan

Wait that's the engine we will use in the Mk-1
the one that the IAF has said is Underpowered.
why is that. here are the specs.
* Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
* Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,800 lb (in fighter configuration))
* Max takeoff weight: 12,500 kg (27,600 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
o Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,100 lbf)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (2,376+ km/h at high altitude) at 15,000 m
* Range: 3000 km (1,840 mi (without refueling))
* Service ceiling: 16,500 m (54,000 ft (engine re-igniter safely capable))
* Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.02
* g limits : +8.5 g / 9g

Now this is the Specs for the LCA mk-1
The one the IAF said was not good enough and wants better.

so naturally everyone assumed, Oh that's its a failed project, its all over. well no actually because even at its weakest the LCA still outperforms its Pakistani counterpart.
Lets just have a look at The Specs of the JF-17, which has also yet to see service.

* Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,100 kg including 2× wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles(20,062 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg [92] (28,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan
o Dry thrust: 49.4 kN (11,106 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN (18,973 lbf)
* G-limit: +8.5 g

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,191 knots, 2,205 kph)
* Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
* Ferry range: 3,000 km (2,175 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,700 m (54,790 ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.99

In summary the TEJAS is
FASTER-Maximum speed( Mach 2.0 opposed to Mach 1.8)
and
MORE MANEUVERABLE-Thrust/weight ratio(1.02 as opposed to 0.99)

And i would like to high light that The Tejas is lighter than the JF-17
but even though the JF-17 which is heavier uses a even less powerful engine than the one used in the Tejas.

On that point yes, we are look for a new engine, that will have more power but to put it bluntly even with out that the TEJAS can in fact out perform the JF-17 already.

The first 40 TEJAS mk-1's despite being considered underpowered.
will still be marginally better in fact.

But why is it that The IAF see the LCA underpowered if the Plane can outperform its competition. Well the Tejas is India's Version of an Improved Mirage, thus it has to Out perform the Mirage and currently with the Current engine this is not the case.
Mirage specs
* Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,350 lb)
* Loaded weight: 13,800 kg (30,420 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 17,000 kg (37,500 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× SNECMA M53-P2 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 64.3 kN (14,500 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 95.1 kN (21,400 lbf)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (2,333+ km/h, 1,450+ mph) at altitude/ 1,110 km/hr (690 mph) at low altitude
* Range: 1,550 km (837 nmi, 963 mi) with drop tanks
* Ferry range: 3,335 km (1,800 nmi, 2,073 mi) with auxiliary fuel
* Service ceiling: 17,060 m (59,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: 285 m/s (56,000 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 337 kg/m² (69 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.91

The Limiting factor is Primarily the engine, that's why the IAF wants a more powerful engine. Other than that the plane is technologically a 4+ aircraft.


And if you still consider this a failed project, then our failure is in fact better than your success.

and no matter what you say can change that truth.
 
Last edited:
.
wrong!
LCA design was done hiring Dassault as consultant. The LCA is a small delta-winged machine with "relaxed static stability" (RSS) to enhance maneuverability performance. If there is any other aircraft that has resemblance then it is Mirage. :cheers:

As i have mentioned in my earlier posts.

The LCA is in fact an attempt to improve upon the Mirage aircraft.

Its not coincidence that it looks like the Mirage.
and its no coincidence that Dassault was hired to design it.
The IAF wanted a more a more advanced version of the Mirage.

Dassault came up with the Double engine Rafael
HAL came up with the Single engine TEJAS
 
. . .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom