LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Though i would take Anantha Krishna Tweet any day over Rajat Pandit
Will wait for the 4th!
If ALSR - Auto low speed recovery trial is done , then it is enough for FOC
Gun trials are just A Formality
If you run out of missiles you won't wait to
Fire your Gun , you will Run away
Gun trials are just A Formality
If you run out of missiles you won't wait to
Fire your Gun , you will Run away
The present NLG is very week as has been proven in STOBAR launches from SBTF. The speed at which its oleo extends downwards after ramp exit can make it fail. Meaning that the oleo may just fall off after breaking the restraining link. For CATOBAR we will need to further strengthen the nose wheel attachment, add CAT link in front and a restraining link at the rear and also possibly provide for Jump strut.
PKS on when to expect the FOC -
Another example is that of all bluster that oozes out on either TV or social media whenever the Tejas LCA is discussed. In reality, off-the-record almost all the retired AMs, ACMs & AVM will admit that while the Tejas Mk.1 LCA is a superb flying machine whenever anyone wants to take a joyride, it real-life combat the Mk.1 variant is terribly sub-optimal. They will also admit to 2 more conclusions: 1) it impossible now to integrate the GSH-23 twin-barrel cannon with the airframe, since this work should have been done at the same time as the Mk.1 airframe was being subjected to structural fatigue tests—as per global norms. 2) Despite all the hoo-haa that emanates from ADA, the reality is that both ADA & HAL are absolutely clueless about integrating the Tejas Mk.1A’s mission computer with A) the FADEC of the F404-GE-IN20 turbofan. B) the EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR. C) with the EL/L-8222 ASPJ pod. And this is the most critical developmental challenge because: 1) the mission computer controls the flight-control system & consequently the HOTAS. Consequently, unless the FADEC is communicating with the mission computer, HOTAS will remain non-functional & will have to rely on manual inputs from the pilot. 2) whenever the ASPJ pod is activated for jamming for limited periods, the on-board AESA-MMR will be reqd to be immediately & automatically shut down, lest the jammer jams one’s own AESA-MMR. So, all in all, there’s a lot more developmental work that’s pending & it remains to be seen how quickly IAI/ELTA will be able to sort out such challenges & in what kind of timeframe. For, let’s not forget that 4 years were spent on sorting out similar problems for the Jaguar IS/DARIN-3 project. Hence, I don’t foresee any FOC clearance being given to the Tejas Mk.1, while that for the fully integrated & weaponised Tejas Mk.1A won’t surface till 2024.
You may regurgitate that Black Dog you imbibed a few days ago, if you wish to @randomradio
Another example is that of all bluster that oozes out on either TV or social media whenever the Tejas LCA is discussed. In reality, off-the-record almost all the retired AMs, ACMs & AVM will admit that while the Tejas Mk.1 LCA is a superb flying machine whenever anyone wants to take a joyride, it real-life combat the Mk.1 variant is terribly sub-optimal. They will also admit to 2 more conclusions: 1) it impossible now to integrate the GSH-23 twin-barrel cannon with the airframe, since this work should have been done at the same time as the Mk.1 airframe was being subjected to structural fatigue tests—as per global norms. 2) Despite all the hoo-haa that emanates from ADA, the reality is that both ADA & HAL are absolutely clueless about integrating the Tejas Mk.1A’s mission computer with A) the FADEC of the F404-GE-IN20 turbofan. B) the EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR. C) with the EL/L-8222 ASPJ pod. And this is the most critical developmental challenge because: 1) the mission computer controls the flight-control system & consequently the HOTAS. Consequently, unless the FADEC is communicating with the mission computer, HOTAS will remain non-functional & will have to rely on manual inputs from the pilot. 2) whenever the ASPJ pod is activated for jamming for limited periods, the on-board AESA-MMR will be reqd to be immediately & automatically shut down, lest the jammer jams one’s own AESA-MMR. So, all in all, there’s a lot more developmental work that’s pending & it remains to be seen how quickly IAI/ELTA will be able to sort out such challenges & in what kind of timeframe. For, let’s not forget that 4 years were spent on sorting out similar problems for the Jaguar IS/DARIN-3 project. Hence, I don’t foresee any FOC clearance being given to the Tejas Mk.1, while that for the fully integrated & weaponised Tejas Mk.1A won’t surface till 2024.
You may regurgitate that Black Dog you imbibed a few days ago, if you wish to @randomradio
Anybody can say anything they want, there's no point refuting it because it's difficult to confirm it anyway. So he lives in the gaps of knowledge.
The only thing true is the beginning where he says the Mk1 is not up to the mark, which we have known for well over a decade anyway, that's why there's the Mk1A, which barely makes up for the Mk1's deficiencies. The ASPJ jamming the radar is downright ridiculous. We have integrated the same jammer on Russian aircraft like Mig-21 and MKI, and can use both the radar and jammer, no problem, or else there's no point in even carrying it. Considering both the radar, EW suite and jammer will come from Israel, don't you think the Israelis will know what they are doing? So it's obvious he knows jack-all.
Gun, no real problem. But work needs to be done and could take many months.
HOTAS-FADEC, face meets a**. Gripen, T-50 and LCA use the F404 with FADEC, and all three also have HOTAS.
Tejas Mk1A will be flying at the end of this year. First squadron delivery in 2021-22.
Lastly, mission computer (OAC) and FBW (DFCC) are unrelated. Both are separate. So Mr. Clueless all around.
Fly by Wire - Technology | Tejas - India's Light Combat Aircraft
Open Architecture Computer for Avionics - Technology | Tejas - India's Light Combat Aircraft
Take PKS with a bag of salt. He posts good pictures, probably well travelled or knows such people. All accompanied writing, best to ignore.
hehhe, who writes this bull shit,
1> Guns can be mounted by trunnion frame plate or a trunnion frame bracket on the designated airframe ring point or a wing root. The other option is a pod mounted solution.
Here is bracket mounted GSH30 in Wing root. Although LCA wont be able to install it in wingroot, but nothing stops it from mounting it underbelly.
Whether internal or pod mounted, it for sure as hell doesn't need fatigue testing for a gun mount.
Whats next fatigue testing of airframe for accepting a different ejection seat?
2> Hotas, means a a throttle lever and control stick with combat and flight control switches - It's an ergonomic system it has nothing to do with fadec or fly by wire, even there the writer is quite off. Fadec incompatibility is complete BS made up by someone, I have never heard of that even as a concern. If flyby wire was non functional on a LCA, an inherently unstable design wouldn't be flying. So the entire concern is rubbish by the writer.
Last edited:
Bravo!! A precise engineering rebuttal. I used to go thru stuff like this in trouble shooting reports by service & R&D personnel in repeat failures on newly commissioned Chiller Packages once upon a time. I doff my hat to you. Makes me nostalgic. Reminds me of what pure techno commercial sales used to be all about at the start of my career before manipulation , corruption & purely commercial terms set in.hehhe, who writes this bull shit,
1> Guns can be mounted by trunnion frame plate or a trunnion frame bracket on the designated airframe ring point or a wing root. The other option is a pod mounted solution.
Here is bracket mounted GSH30 in Wing root. Although LCA wont be able to install it in wingroot, but nothing stops it from mounting it underbelly.
Whether internal or pod mounted, it for sure as hell doesn't need fatigue testing for a gun mount.
Whats next fatigue testing of airframe for accepting a different ejection seat?
2> Hotas, means a a throttle lever and control stick with combat and flight control switches - It's an ergonomic system it has nothing to do with fadec or fly by wire, even there the writer is quite off. Fadec incompatibility is complete BS made up by someone, I have never heard of that even as a concern. If flyby wire was non functional on a LCA, an inherently unstable design wouldn't be flying. So the entire concern is rubbish by the writer.
PKS is Prasun Sengupta. I'm sure you've heard of him.
FOC approved! on jan 4 as said here by @randomradio
well - i have to accept i was absolutely not confident of this:
The Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) has given the green signal to start manufacturing of Tejas Mk1 under Final Operational Clearance (FOC) configuration, he said.
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67379924.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
well - i have to accept i was absolutely not confident of this:
The Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) has given the green signal to start manufacturing of Tejas Mk1 under Final Operational Clearance (FOC) configuration, he said.
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67379924.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Sirhehhe, who writes this bull shit,
1> Guns can be mounted by trunnion frame plate or a trunnion frame bracket on the designated airframe ring point or a wing root. The other option is a pod mounted solution.
Here is bracket mounted GSH30 in Wing root. Although LCA wont be able to install it in wingroot, but nothing stops it from mounting it underbelly.
Whether internal or pod mounted, it for sure as hell doesn't need fatigue testing for a gun mount.
Whats next fatigue testing of airframe for accepting a different ejection seat?
2> Hotas, means a a throttle lever and control stick with combat and flight control switches - It's an ergonomic system it has nothing to do with fadec or fly by wire, even there the writer is quite off. Fadec incompatibility is complete BS made up by someone, I have never heard of that even as a concern. If flyby wire was non functional on a LCA, an inherently unstable design wouldn't be flying. So the entire concern is rubbish by the writer.
What about ACM?
Source:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a129168.pdf
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3700&context=utk_gradthes
It looks like to me you need to change FADEC laws as Mission computer give command of ACM mode. One cant use normal FADEC laws to accommodate ACM. @vstol might be able to clear this thing.
Last edited:
About the PKS thing about gun, I think he meant if FADEC and radar are not transferring data back to the mission computer, the CCIP cannot be activated. And you have to go with manual mode.hehhe, who writes this bull shit,
1> Guns can be mounted by trunnion frame plate or a trunnion frame bracket on the designated airframe ring point or a wing root. The other option is a pod mounted solution.
Here is bracket mounted GSH30 in Wing root. Although LCA wont be able to install it in wingroot, but nothing stops it from mounting it underbelly.
Whether internal or pod mounted, it for sure as hell doesn't need fatigue testing for a gun mount.
Whats next fatigue testing of airframe for accepting a different ejection seat?
2> Hotas, means a a throttle lever and control stick with combat and flight control switches - It's an ergonomic system it has nothing to do with fadec or fly by wire, even there the writer is quite off. Fadec incompatibility is complete BS made up by someone, I have never heard of that even as a concern. If flyby wire was non functional on a LCA, an inherently unstable design wouldn't be flying. So the entire concern is rubbish by the writer.
Continously Computed Impact Point (CCIP)
And it require to optimize HOTAS sensitivity with FADEC during ACM mode.
Last edited: