Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Fulcrum007]

1. Evidence suggests that LCA has a serious weight control problem, this despite extensive use of composites.

Could you elaborate? Most of the criticism I have seen about Tejas stems from the decade long CAG report which doesn't apply to Mk-1 FOC and Mk1A standards.

To the best of my knowledge, this "overweight" problem was actually faced by the N-LCA due to the reinforced undercarriage and heavy actuators-laden LEVCONS which led to an undesirable increase in the empty weight of the aircraft thus limiting what useful payload could be made of from the MTOW. So much so, that the strengthened landing gear would ‘sprawl’ under its airframe therefore preventing the carriage of EFTs or indeed any heavy stores on the inboard weapons stations of the NLCA Mk1’s wings.

Consequentially, only the centerline and mid-board stations could be used for any viable heavy stores, thereby limiting the payload flexibility of the design as I said already. Later on, an N-LCA Mk-2 came as well but was dropped for similar reasons.

Hence enter the TEDBF

 

[Fulcrum007]

Ok here is what I mean: LCA is more advanced than e.g. JF-17 because it makes extensive use of composites. But this is not actually a good thing as it has complicated India's ability to indigenise, refine and produce the aircraft.

The composites used in LCA are an in-house development by NAL which specialises in this domain along with other niches such as the wind tunnels, hydrodynamics, EM, etc plus critical technologies like carbon composites, fused silica radomes, frequency selective structures are developed by NAL itself only, but no one recognises them.

Much of the Indian development in composites comes from the NAL LCRA project which was basically a Rutan Long EZ kit but modified with said materials. It was a collab with ISRO in the 80s, practically when the LCRA flew.

<SPACING>

One overlooked advantage of carbon composites is that compared to metals, composite assemblies require less number of individual parts.

Look at this table for actuator fairing of the LCA (Attachment 2). When it used to be made of metal, it had 96 parts. When it was made of carbon composites, it was made of 8 parts. Look at the man hour savings. Composites result weight reduction of half a ton and also result in part reduction (Attachment 3 &4).

Most of the metal on the aircraft is in the rear to house the engine, since composites don't dissipate hear well hence why LCA has so many large ducts and vents.

 

[Abominable]

What are the differences between the Tejas variants? I know the MK2 apparently has the F414 engine, but how did the 1A improve from the original?

 

[siegecrossbow]

What are the differences between the Tejas variants? I know the MK2 apparently has the F414 engine, but how did the 1A improve from the original?

AESA radar and improved avionics.

Apparently MK2 will add canards, which is a pretty big change to the airframe.

 

[Stealthflanker]

I'm looking forward for Uttam Mk-2

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392927833844903939

Apparently it has 992 TRM's i'm curious tho on Uttam Mk1 Module count.

 

[Fulcrum007]

What are the differences between the Tejas variants? I know the MK2 apparently has the F414 engine, but how did the 1A improve from the original?

Besides visual differences and specs sheets. The following articles greatly explain the curve.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Lethe]

Could you elaborate? Most of the criticism I have seen about Tejas stems from the decade long CAG report which doesn't apply to Mk-1 FOC and Mk1A standards.

I am mostly going by Professor Prodyut Das' writings in Vayu and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

India deciding on Rafale would be ideal for China. With J-20 and J-35 becoming the main fighters for the PLAAF in the same timeframe, Chinese air superiority would be all but ensured for the next few decades. As Rafales would not be cheap, they can be expected to eat up most of their procurement funding, slowing development in other areas. Russia is reminded once again that India is unreliable and not a credible counterweight to China. If need be, China can gently balance India's arms build-up by selling equal amounts of J-10Cs to Pakistan again.

To be clear, what is being talked about here is an order of ~30 Rafales for IN (it will be either Rafale or Super Hornet) and perhaps a further ~30-50 for IAF (to put the endless MMRCA/MRFA saga to rest), added to the 36 Rafales that are now already in service with IAF. There is no prospect of turning Rafale into the new Su-30MKI. What alternative would you suggest? Su-57 is the only aircraft available that could be said to be superior to Rafale, but the design is immature. There is no carrier variant and even if there were it would not fit on the elevators. Also it is a heavy, Russian aircraft at a time when IAF is overburdened with heavy, Russian aircraft. I think a limited acquisition of mature Su-57 will eventually make sense for India but that time is not now.

 

[supersnoop]

Have they solved the problem with the Rafale-M being roughly 1m too wide for the Carrier elevators?

 

[Stryker]

Have they solved the problem with the Rafale-M being roughly 1m too wide for the Carrier elevators?

Ever heard of Sawed-off shotgun? Same principle applies.

 

[Chandragupt]

The Gripen uses the same engine. And it is a whole lot better than the Tejas. The KAI T-50 is a trainer first. Not the same thing.


Latest Russian Al-31 engine variants have similar thrust-to-weight ratio to what I would call 4.5th generation engines like the GE F414. The Tejas 1/1A still uses the GE F404 engine. What matters most for fighter engine performance metrics is turbine inlet temperature and related metrics like thrust-to-weight and fuel consumption. Engine lifetime is nice for economics if you assume you will go into conflict where you won't be losing a lot of aircraft. The Soviets typically designed engines with limited lifetime because modelling of full blown combat between Warsaw Pact and NATO showed most fighter aircraft would not last more than 48h. So they designed the engines to be as cheap to produce as possible. They use as little high performance materials, heck, as little materials period as possible.

Gripen has European radar and American engine , Tejas has indian UTTAM AESA radar and American engine and engine of tejas will get replaced by Indian engine in future but Gripen will continue to use American engine for it’s entire lifetime