Yes I also think the foc is irrelevant. We should have kept the whole thing evolutionary. I’m sure a limited number of aircraft could have been approved after hot trials. We do know that a few squadrons will be based in south and central states with no exposure to cold climate
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Yes I also think the foc is irrelevant. We should have kept the whole thing evolutionary. I’m sure a limited number of aircraft could have been approved after hot trials. We do know that a few squadrons will be based in south and central states with no exposure to cold climate
Whoa peeps. FOC is relevant. We need FOC before the Mk1As start production.
About 180 Mig-21s will leave the force from next year and we will need an equal number of LCAs replacing them. Without FOC, that's only going to be a dream.
Of course, unlike before, FOC has become attainable and a reality now. No more missed deadlines. (hopefully)
About 180 Mig-21s will leave the force from next year and we will need an equal number of LCAs replacing them. Without FOC, that's only going to be a dream.
Of course, unlike before, FOC has become attainable and a reality now. No more missed deadlines. (hopefully)
- Active Electronic Scanned Array Radar (AESAR) Uttam has been integrated and subjected to extensive ground evaluation at LRDE and STIR, Bengaluru.
- System is ready for integration on LCA Tejas
The cost for 83 LCA MK1A is 53000 crores. This is in addition to the 2700 crores and 6000 cores for the first two batches of 20 MK1 and 20 Mk1A. Going by the cost, it appears as if huge amount has been allotted for development and infrastructure building for mass manufacturing
You know sometimes PSU employee tend to write such things to please govt and they think that it might get unnoticed by media or defense forums. So fingers crossed.
I am waiting for statements from HAL & IAF now. Lets hope DRDO has solved issues regarding heating and change of mode in Uttam.
It was ground test only. Flight tests have not been made. Also, whether UTTAM has only air to air mode or both air to air and SAR mode is to be seen.
Making a radar is not just about making T/R modules but algorithm. When scanning the air, it is easier to detect as there are very few obstacles. But when surveying the ground, trees, animals, water flow, rain, passenger vehicles and many other factors have to be accounted.
Making a radar is not just about making T/R modules but algorithm. When scanning the air, it is easier to detect as there are very few obstacles. But when surveying the ground, trees, animals, water flow, rain, passenger vehicles and many other factors have to be accounted.
Development infra is already in place. For production, sperate funds were allocated in IN,IAFand HAL partnership.
Tejas fighter finally achieves production target
Mk2 will be slightly bigger, but it won't be as good as Gripen E based on the current specs. The IN's Mk2 will be similar, but not the AF Mk2.
The AF Mk2 is in the same class as the Mk1A. It will only carry a bit more fuel to compensate for the additional thrust. A slightly bigger avionics bay is an extra advantage over Mk1A, but that's about it.
The Gripen E will have a much bigger fuel load and a much better weapons layout.
Gripen E fuel tank is 3.4tons or 4200 litres. Tejas MK2 will have 4000 litres (MK1 has 3000 litres). About weapons package, what is the benefit Gripen has over Mk2?
Can you give proper figures to justify belittling of Mk2 compared to Gripen or will you continue to just shoot and scoot?
The 4000+L figure is for the N-Mk2, not AF-Mk2. That's why it has a redesigned fuselage and wing. The AF Mk2's fuel load increase will only be enough to compensate for the additional thrust. HAL will deliver most of the AF-Mk2 specs with Mk1A itself.
As for weapons, the Gripen has more hardpoints. In air defence mode, it can carry 7 missiles and 2 drop tanks. The LCA can only carry 4 missiles with 2 drop tanks right now.
The difference becomes much more if you bring in A2G weapons.
Then why go thru all that pain and redesign the FA just for a marginal difference . Might as well go in for more Mk1a
Yes, this might happen.
The IAF has identified 53 shortfalls that they want fixed. The current FOC Mk1s have fixed 45. HAL has promised to fix 49 out of the 53 on Mk1A. ADA has promised to fix all 53 on Mk2. Both Mk1A and Mk2 development are going on in parallel. So it really depends on how big of a difference the remaining 4 shortfalls are in comparison to the cost for the the Mk2s to be ordered. If the IAF thinks the current capabilities of the Mk1A are sufficient, then they will not order Mk2s. If the cost difference is marginal, then why not?
What's more important is it is feasible to equip the Mk1A with the Kaveri engine while the Mk2 can currently only use the F414. If the Kaveri engine shows up on Mk1A, then Mk2 will become entirely irrelevant. A Kaveri equipped Mk1A can only be matched by a Kaveri equipped Mk2.
Gripen has 3 hardpoints on each wing and 1 hardpoint under fuselage which can be racked to carry 2 smaller payload. So, the number of harpoint is similar to Tejas Mk2. Tejas MK2 will cannon, LDP at the edge of fuselage and 1 hardpoint under uselage in addition to 3 hardpoints on each wings. If the canons and LDP is removed, the hardpont can be racked to carry 2 payloads just like Gripen.The 4000+L figure is for the N-Mk2, not AF-Mk2. That's why it has a redesigned fuselage and wing. The AF Mk2's fuel load increase will only be enough to compensate for the additional thrust. HAL will deliver most of the AF-Mk2 specs with Mk1A itself.
As for weapons, the Gripen has more hardpoints. In air defence mode, it can carry 7 missiles and 2 drop tanks. The LCA can only carry 4 missiles with 2 drop tanks right now.
The difference becomes much more if you bring in A2G weapons.
Why would the MK2 of Airforce not have the same fuselage as Navy? I don't see any reason to have different fuselage in Air Force and Naval one for no reason. The only difference I see is the presence of LEVCON in Naval MK2 and Cranks in AF Mk2.
Why would Kaveri engine not fit MK2? The way I see it is that Kaveri engine has thust of 65/100kN (without flat rating) which is similar to F414. The air intake of Kaveri is 78kg/s whereas that of F414 is 77.1kg/s. F404 has 69kg/s intake. So, if MK1A which runs on F404 at present can use Kaveri, then Mk2 can also use Kaveri engine. I am more concerned about MK1A engine requiring spare parts from GE even after Kaveri engine working properly
Show me an LCA with this configuration.
Look up the Mk2 models from previous air shows, the N-Mk2 looks completely different from the AF-Mk2. The fuselage and inlet designs are different. The N-Mk2 is a much bigger aircraft, similar in class to the Gripen.
There are two Kaveris. One will have mostly Indian tech, including the Kabini core. It's this engine that will power LCA Mk1A. We will hold 100% IPR on it. The second Kaveri is what we will need to power the Mk2. It will come with a foreign core, either British or French. We are yet to sign an agreement with either country for it.
You tell me which Kaveri is the better option to power LCA.
From which source did you learn that there will be 2 kaveri? Why will anyone with a sane mind make 2 engines, especially when one is an imported core? Don't complicate things by saying imported core. If the core is imported, it is same as engine being imported in terms of technology. Cost is irrelevant in defence as self reliance trumps cost. The concept of 2 Kaveri itself is crazy and most likely misinformation.Show me an LCA with this configuration.
Look up the Mk2 models from previous air shows, the N-Mk2 looks completely different from the AF-Mk2. The fuselage and inlet designs are different. The N-Mk2 is a much bigger aircraft, similar in class to the Gripen.
There are two Kaveris. One will have mostly Indian tech, including the Kabini core. It's this engine that will power LCA Mk1A. We will hold 100% IPR on it. The second Kaveri is what we will need to power the Mk2. It will come with a foreign core, either British or French. We are yet to sign an agreement with either country for it.
You tell me which Kaveri is the better option to power LCA.
The Tejas Mk1A can't run in the configuration of Gripen. But unlike what you said, it has 6+1 hardpoint. With enlarged fuselage in Tejas MK2, the hardpoint under fuselage can carry 2 missiles like the picture you showed.
Please show me the pictures of different LCA MK2 (not animated) for AF and Navy. Here too, it is extremely counter intuitive that someone would have a better plane and yet deliberately choose to have a worse one. As a matter if fact, one of the most important demand of IAF is higher internal fuel capacity. So, Tejas MK1A or any similar sized plane without additional fuel will not be acceptable to IAF. Parrikar himself told that the plane was too small but otherwise good. So, it is clear that intention is to get a bigger fuel tank and hence MK2 will be bigger. This is guaranteed