LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[LX1111]

And thats supposed to be a problem?

F-35 has max 1.6 mach
Rafale is mach 1.8 at high altitudes and 1.1 on low altitudes
JF-17 has 1.6 mach max
Hurjet has 1.4 mach max
F/A-50 has 1.5 mach max

I think Tejas will be fine with that max speed.

Most jet with outer ordnance hardly cross Mach 1.6. Some like F-35, despite IWB, have their top speed capped at the same 1.6 Mach.

The maximum speed is not a problem for LCA. Mach 1.3-1.4 is the most it needs. Top speed is not operationally employable from the locations they are expected to operate from, like 50-150 km from the frontline. So dash speed is meaningless. Plus it's more important for the aircraft to conserve fuel for dogfights.

The distance involved is so small that the enemy cannot make use of their own top speed, or they will risk overshooting. Not to mention the fact that LCA will exclusively operate under the cover of bigger ASFs and SAMs, so the aircraft that's overshot will get attacked.

It seems that most Indians do not understand what I mean, the Tejas is a tailless delta-wing aircraFt, this aircraFt itselF has poor subsonic perFormance, Its main advantage is supersonic, so the Mirage 2000 has a maximum speed oF Mach 2.2, The F 106 has a maximum oF Mach 2.3, why is the Tejas only Mach 1.6, I think it was a sharp drop in the eFFiciency oF his inlet at supersonic speeds, a sharp drop in the thrust oF his engine, The decrease in engine thrust directly leads to a decrease in maneuverability at supersonic speeds

 

[LX1111]

And thats supposed to be a problem?

F-35 has max 1.6 mach
Rafale is mach 1.8 at high altitudes and 1.1 on low altitudes
JF-17 has 1.6 mach max
Hurjet has 1.4 mach max
F/A-50 has 1.5 mach max

I think Tejas will be fine with that max speed.

The planes you mentioned are all trapezoidal-wing fighters, and they don't focus on supersonic performance, unlike the Tejas, He uses a tailless delta wing configuration with maximum subsonic induced drag and minimum supersonic shock drag,
The only reason the Tejas achieved very little speed during the supersonic phase of least resistance was the lack of engine thrust, The only reason for the lack of thrust is the sharp drop in inlet efficiency at supersonic speeds

 

[Rajput Lion]

It seems that most Indians do not understand what I mean, the Tejas is a tailless delta-wing aircraFt, this aircraFt itselF has poor subsonic perFormance, Its main advantage is supersonic, so the Mirage 2000 has a maximum speed oF Mach 2.2, The F 106 has a maximum oF Mach 2.3, why is the Tejas only Mach 1.6, I think it was a sharp drop in the eFFiciency oF his inlet at supersonic speeds, a sharp drop in the thrust oF his engine, the Tejas in his original advantage, The supersonic range is also poor

No one claimed that Tejas is aerodynamically perfect! Did they? It's our first(second if Marut is counted) effort towards designing a world class fighter. We shall refine its aerodynamics somewhat in the MK1A version and further in MK2 variant.

Till then, Mach 1.6 top speed is good enough for us. We've Mig-29, MKI and Rafale as high-end twin emgined jets that can fly high and fast to launch BVRs with extra kinematics. Tejas is perfect for our doctrine. That's all what matter. 'Nuff said.

 

[LX1111]

No one claimed that Tejas is aerodynamically perfect! Did they? It's our first(second if Marut is counted) effort towards designing a world class fighter. We shall refine its aerodynamics somewhat in the MK1A version and further in MK2 variant.

Till then, Mach 1.6 top speed is good enough for us. We've Mig-29, MKI and Rafale as high-end twin emgined jets that can fly high and fast to launch BVRs with extra kinematics. Tejas is perfect for our doctrine. That's all what matter. 'Nuff said.

You still don't know what I mean, maximum speed is not a problem, the problem is that the engine's thrust drops at supersonic speeds, The Tejas have so much resistance in the subsonic phase that it is impossible to perForm WVR with the JF-17 and F-16 in the subsonic phase. And the supersonic phase is Faced with a drop in thrust

You are free to believe what you want, but, even if that's the case, the LCA Mk1 has an RCS 3 times smaller than the M2000, which is already <1m2.

This is official data from the Swedish AF from early 2000s.

1. Gripen's acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
2. Gripen's instant turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
3. Gripenss sustained turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
4. The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen's FCS is 50 degrees now.
5. Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.
6. Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
7. While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
   
   • JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
   • M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
   • F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
   • F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
8. Maintenance of GRIPEN:
   
   • The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF's frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
   • The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
   • The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.

F/A-18 is 2 m2, F-16C is 1.2 m2, M2000 is 0.8 m2.

2/5 = 1.2/3 = 0.8/2 = 0.4 m2

LCA is 3 times smaller than M2000. So 0.8/3 = 0.267 m2.

95% of the LCA's surface area is composites. Although it wasn't designed for stealth, its still quite a small aircraft. So the combination of small size and composites has significantly reduced RCS compared to the all-metal Mirage. The LCA Mk1A will see further improvements in RCS.

We are being modest by saying LCA's RCS is 0.5 m2, but we know for sure it's better than Gripen C's 0.4 m2.

Aircraft like LCA, Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet and Gripen are called "reduced observable." Meaning, these are aircraft with RCS below 1m2.

The Koreans seem to have invented the term for the KF-21.

View attachment 32877

The Koreans have 4 categories.
MIN = Minimum Treatment. This is aircraft like the F-16C/E, J-10C, J-16, JF-17 B3, F-15EX, Su-35S, Su-30MKI, Mig-29M etc.
RO = 0.1 m2 class. Rafale, Typhoon, LCA, Gripen C/E, B-1B, Super Hornet etc. You can see some of these names in the image.
LO = 0.01m2 class. F-117.
VLO = 0.001m2 class.

I don't know where you got this data, but my data came from a speech by the PLAAF, yes, Is the Indian ridicule of Thailand JAS-39 beat China speech, which mentioned JAS 39 RCS at 1.5-2

95% of the LCA's surface area is composites. Although it wasn't designed for stealth, its still quite a small aircraft. So the combination of small size and composites has significantly reduced RCS compared to the all-metal Mirage. The LCA Mk1A will see further improvements in RCS

Non-metallic materials and metallic materials on the emission efficiency of electromagnetic waves is not as large as you think, if you want to achieve the 70% reduction you said, Need to use transmitting materials and absorbing coatings

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Your picture is probably just a toy, maybe your IQ can only understand the toy, you can see the real X-32 fighter
View attachment 32900
And F 16 with DSI inlet
View attachment 32901

Come back when you actually design your own design and not rip off Lavi and Mig 1.44.

 

[LX1111]

Come back when you actually design your own design and not rip off Lavi and Mig 1.44.

I think I'm qualified to comment on a bad replica of a Mirage 2000

 

[Ankit Kumar]

I think I'm qualified to comment on a bad replica of a Mirage 2000

The wing positions Chad?

You aren't qualified enough. Now go and try again lol.

 

[LX1111]

The wing positions Chad?

You aren't qualified enough. Now go and try again lol.

If you want to refute me, then please come up with your own evidence, you so vilify the Chinese aircraft is not going to change the tejas design failure

 

[Ankit Kumar]

If you want to refute me, then please come up with your own evidence, you so vilify the Chinese aircraft is not going to change the tejas design failure

Design failure or not will be decided by a future conflict with the Xerox nation. For now the inductions will happen.

And I am not saying the Chinese J10 or J20 are bad. I am saying that you are running a Xerox shop with little space for risk & innovation.

J10 (Lavi) and J20 (Mig1.44) holds real threats to India to which currently we do not have a working solution.

 

[LX1111]

Design failure or not will be decided by a future conflict with the Xerox nation. For now the inductions will happen.

And I am not saying the Chinese J10 or J20 are bad. I am saying that you are running a Xerox shop with little space for risk & innovation.

J10 (Lavi) and J20 (Mig1.44) holds real threats to India to which currently we do not have a working solution.

I don't mean to contradict your stereotype, I'm just saying that the design of the Tejas has never been a side effect of innovation, The enemy of the Tejas is not the JF 17, but India's backward aviation industry

 

[Innominate]

And thats supposed to be a problem?

F-35 has max 1.6 mach
Rafale is mach 1.8 at high altitudes and 1.1 on low altitudes
JF-17 has 1.6 mach max
Hurjet has 1.4 mach max
F/A-50 has 1.5 mach max

I think Tejas will be fine with that max speed.

Not to nitpick but that mach 1.6 on the F-35 is with a full internal war load of two 2000lbs JDAMS and two aim-120's. The rest of the fighters are in clean configuration. Just saying... (cough!)

 

[Rajput Lion]

I don't mean to contradict your stereotype, I'm just saying that the design of the Tejas has never been a side effect of innovation, The enemy of the Tejas is not the JF 17, but India's backward aviation industry

Enough of your CCP propaganda. Tejas is far better than your Junk Fighter-17 in every single aspect. In fact, MK1A would prove a worthy foe to even J-10C. Your propaganda posts have no semblance of reality in them. So just stop it before you make a fool out of yourself.

 

[Sathya]

I am only a noob, but from what all i ve read,
Tejas got the best radar, sensors, until Rafale got inducted.

Tejas performance in bombing the best .

Tejas got the future programs laid out.. And evolving at an astonishing speed.

It's a crancked Delta which found it's performance NOT significantly different with canard... ( atleast during those days) .

Recent accident, damn it flew down without pilot.

Last, there is no way IAF would induct another 97 if it's performance is lacking.

It's STR, ITR is not bad I guess..

 

[Rajput Lion]

I am only a noob, but from what all i ve read,
Tejas got the best radar, sensors, until Rafale got inducted.

Tejas performance in bombing the best .

Tejas got the future programs laid out.. And evolving at an astonishing speed.

It's a crancked Delta which found it's performance NOT significantly different with canard... ( atleast during those days) .

Recent accident, damn it flew down without pilot.

Last, there is no way IAF would induct another 97 if it's performance is lacking.

It's STR, ITR is not bad I guess..

No sir, you're not a noob but a great patriot. And yes, Tejas is an awesome and perfect fighter for us to rebuild/regain our lost Squadron numbers. Thankfully, now IAF is in full-sync of this notion

 

[Saaho]

Not to nitpick but that mach 1.6 on the F-35 is with a full internal war load of two 2000lbs JDAMS and two aim-120's. The rest of the fighters are in clean configuration. Just saying... (cough!)

So strike out F-35 from that list. The point is still stands that 1.6 mach is not a limitation. Just saying... (cough!)

 

[LX1111]

Enough of your CCP propaganda. Tejas is far better than your Junk Fighter-17 in every single aspect. In fact, MK1A would prove a worthy foe to even J-10C. Your propaganda posts have no semblance of reality in them. So just stop it before you make a fool out of yourself.

I am only a noob, but from what all i ve read,
Tejas got the best radar, sensors, until Rafale got inducted.

Tejas performance in bombing the best .

Tejas got the future programs laid out.. And evolving at an astonishing speed.

It's a crancked Delta which found it's performance NOT significantly different with canard... ( atleast during those days) .

Recent accident, damn it flew down without pilot.

Last, there is no way IAF would induct another 97 if it's performance is lacking.

It's STR, ITR is not bad I guess..

No sir, you're not a noob but a great patriot. And yes, Tejas is an awesome and perfect fighter for us to rebuild/regain our lost Squadron numbers. Thankfully, now IAF is in full-sync of this notion

This is a kind of arrogance of war, war is ruthless, Indians always tell themselves that our aircraft can defeat the aircraft of Pakistan, And can compete with the Chinese aircraft, but the victory will not be because of your enthusiasm, the war is ruthless, and absolutely objective, Any technical backwardness will be made up with countless blood on the battlefield

 

[randomradio]

It seems that most Indians do not understand what I mean, the Tejas is a tailless delta-wing aircraFt, this aircraFt itselF has poor subsonic perFormance, Its main advantage is supersonic, so the Mirage 2000 has a maximum speed oF Mach 2.2, The F 106 has a maximum oF Mach 2.3, why is the Tejas only Mach 1.6, I think it was a sharp drop in the eFFiciency oF his inlet at supersonic speeds, a sharp drop in the thrust oF his engine, The decrease in engine thrust directly leads to a decrease in maneuverability at supersonic speeds
View attachment 32899

The LCA is a tailess delta with a twist in the wing root. It's been reported to have good subsonic and slow speed performance.

https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-unmatched-agility-lca-tejas-marks-22-years-since-first-flight-2937682/

The Mk1 demonstrated a low-speed pass of 110 knots at the Bahrain Air Show in 2016. The FCS has been upgraded to reduce the minimum speed at which automatic recovery is initiated to 100 knots.
The Mk1 displayed an instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of approximately 30 degrees per second and a sustained turn rate (STR) between 15 and 16 degrees per second in Bahrain. In addition, a minimum radius turn of 350 metres (m) was demonstrated.

 

[randomradio]

You still don't know what I mean, maximum speed is not a problem, the problem is that the engine's thrust drops at supersonic speeds, The Tejas have so much resistance in the subsonic phase that it is impossible to perForm WVR with the JF-17 and F-16 in the subsonic phase. And the supersonic phase is Faced with a drop in thrust

IAF pilots report the LCA Mk1 performs very close to the Mirage 2000. Neither the JF-17 nor the F-16 have an instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/sec, so that's enough for the LCA to get first shot.

I don't know where you got this data, but my data came from a speech by the PLAAF, yes, Is the Indian ridicule of Thailand JAS-39 beat China speech, which mentioned JAS 39 RCS at 1.5-2

What I posted is an official SWAF report.

It's not necessary what the PLAAF pilot said is false. You can give out different measure of RCS based on how it's calculated, by taking averages or certain aspects. RCS also depends on how well maintained the Gripens were or what the Thais paid for in terms of signature management. You can also expect the Gripens were downgraded specifically for the exercise. There are too many factors to consider for a third party to be an expert on a jet compared to the original user.

The PLAAF Colonel Li said J-11 is 25 m2 versus Gripen's 1.5-2 m2. But we know today the Su-30MKI's frontal RCS is 3-4 m2 while the average RCS is 20 m2. So he was not specifically talking about frontal RCS. If Gripen C's frontal RCS is 0.4 m2 and average RCS os 1.5-2 m2, then that makes sense.

VLO aircraft's average RCS is also pretty high. 0.5 m2 for Su-57. Which is supposed to be similar to the F-22 and F-35. Whereas frontal RCS is 0.0...1 m2.

Non-metallic materials and metallic materials on the emission efficiency of electromagnetic waves is not as large as you think, if you want to achieve the 70% reduction you said, Need to use transmitting materials and absorbing coatings

LCA was designed with the assistance of Dassault with the Mirage 2000 as a baseline. So, with the all-metal Mirage coming in at 0.8 m2, LCA's smaller size and non-metal airframe has dropped that by a few times without that being the goal.

 

[randomradio]

This is a kind of arrogance of war, war is ruthless, Indians always tell themselves that our aircraft can defeat the aircraft of Pakistan, And can compete with the Chinese aircraft, but the victory will not be because of your enthusiasm, the war is ruthless, and absolutely objective, Any technical backwardness will be made up with countless blood on the battlefield

The IAF wouldn't have inducted the LCA if it didn't meet the minimum requirements they desired out of it. While Mk1 falls short of some requirements, all the figures I posted in previous posts are for Mk1, the Mk1A is expected to improve on that.

One of the biggest advatanges of LCA is its low wingloading. People tend to forget that quite frequently.

You also forget that LCA can now operate out of a carrier.

It's also capable of automatic take-off and landing from a carrier.

Outside of some modern avionics, I've not seen anything out of the ordinary for the J-10C. High RCS, mostly metal, difficult to maintain, specs that are a mix of the F-16 and Mig-29. It's great for its time, but it completely lacks some of the advantages of the LCA that are important, like the composites and low RCS. LCA's range and payload are also similar to the J-10.

In the 2019 exercise, with J-10C, Colonel Li said the J-10C was still inferior to the Gripen C. That the J-10's only advantages were its AESA radar and BVR missile. How do you expect the same jet to perform against the LCA that's been designed to be quite similar in some ways and superior to the Gripen C in some ways, like avionics? Both are powered by the same engine, but the LCA's engine has more thrust. Granted LCA won't have all the same advantages due to the lack of canards, but it's more than enough to compete with the J-10.

Furthermore, he says Gripen E will be even more superior to the J-10C, and we are designing the LCA Mk2 to be even better than Gripen E. And unlike PLAAF, we have a lot of details on Gripen E via MMRCA.

I think you are underestimating the Indian aerospace industry quite a bit. And I don't believe the J-10C will have any real advantage in both BVR and WVR against LCA Mk1A. PLAAF needs a J-10D.

 

[Rajput Lion]

There are some reports talking about IAF wanting next 97 batch order of Tejas to have further upgrades over MK1A. So what could the upgrades be in MK1B? I think a pod mounted IRST and GaN based Uttam FCR are a real possibility along with few other. If we incorporate the pod based IRST then J-10C would lose only advantage currently it has against MK1A.