HAL Tejas

I was looking at the threads over here and found there was not a single thread which was dedicated to HAL Tejas.

So all the specifications, news and discussions about HAL Tejas can be done on this thread.

Specification

General Characteristics

* Crew: One
* Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
* Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
* Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
* Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
* Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
* Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: >12,500 kg (>27,558 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 turbofan, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf); or 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan, 83.2 kN (18,700 lbf); or 1× GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri turbofan, 89.9 kN (20,000 lbf)
* * Internal fuel capacity: 6,614 lb (3,000 kg)
* External fuel capacity: 5×800 liter tanks or 3×1,200 liter tanks, totaling 4,000/3,600 liters

en.wikipedia.org...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts or simple "I agree" posts when replying to threads. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites that supports the thread; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as it relates to the thread.


[edit on 2/10/2007 by Mirthful Me]

As of September 28, 2007 HAL Tejas has completed 753 Test flights successfully.

(TD1-223, TD2-258,PV1-141,PV2-52,PV3-68,LSP1-11)

Pics of LSP1













[edit on 2-10-2007 by asala]

I have been working on the comparison of HAL Tejas with J-10 and this is what I have found:

LCA VS J-10
Aircraft technical characteristics, its flight performance and tactical capabilities are primarily determined by a design concept which develops from specified aircraft roles, tasks and mission environment. One can see the similarity between the LCA and the J-10 here.
www.enemyforces.com...

The LCA evolved out of a requirement to replace India's large fleet of MiG-21 and MiG-27. It is a light fighter that primary mission is Air Defense with information delivered from ground based command and control centers. It also features the ability for Close Air Support and Air Interdiction, which was mission that the MiG-27 performed.

The J-10 evolved out of the Lavi fighter of Israel. Israel needed a light fighter to replace its F-4 and Mirage III/V fleets (contemporaries of the MiG-21). This airplane's primary requirement was that of Air Interdiction and CAS. However, China's requirement was somewhat more akin to that of India's. It had to replace its enormous fleets of J-7s and Q-5s. Hence, it would require an emphasis on Air Defense as well as Strike. Both the LCA and the J-10 were designed as theater aircraft, meaning that they are of the same class.

The comparison of these aircraft is largely theoritical because, these aircraft seldom move far away from the battlefield and rarely engage in deep penetration strike missions. However, there are a number of objective factors which can be used to compare these aircraft and rate their technological perfection: aircraft performances, and the characteristics of avionics and armament suites.
www.defencetalk.com...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


Continued in next post...

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Jbird]

...continued from previous post

The role of avionics in aircraft combat employment is ever growing. Let us look at the avionics subsystems of the aircraft under comparison. Both airplanes run on Mil 1553b standard buses.

The LCA radar is a lightweight pulse doppler that has the ability to tract 10 targets at ranges of over 100km and engage 4. The J-10's radar choice has not been determined yet. But its choices are the Elta 2035 radar (originally meant for the Lavi) that tracks 6 targets at ranges over 100km and engages 4 targets and the Phazotron N010 radar that equips the later versions of the Su-27 that can tract 6 targets at ranges up to 160km and engages 2 targets. Some sources suggest that there is a Chinese radar under development that is similar to the Phazotron N010 radar. The LCA radar more modern than the N010 aswell as the Elta 2035 radar in terms of tracking ability and jamming immunity. When operating against ground targets, all the afformentioned radars are similar in ability.

www.defencetalk.com...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Jbird]

Result

Both aircraft as as previously mentioned are theater aircraft and are typically used for air defense missions in the near zone or, possibly, against ground targets lacking air defense cover. Both are truly excellent aircraft and are superior to their main opponents - the F-16A fighters of Taiwan and Pakistan.

The trouble on Tejas is that design of air-intake just like which on Hornst not adapt to high speed maneuver.

Otherwie, I strongly worried that Tejas can't keep such light empty weight after it go into be product version.

An old LCA thread

Interesting point emile. I was unaware that the hornet-esque intakes reduced high speed manueverability.
We'll keep an eye on how the LCA progresses through its manueverability tests.

Originally posted by vedas
I have been working on the comparison of HAL Tejas with J-10 and this is what I have found:

You copied and pasted from a different site from 2004

www.defencetalk.com...


I knew I saw that post before.


All those figures are completely wrong, they were SPECULATED figures when there wont even any J-10 pictures release. Things have changed and things have become apprant


vedas,

The LCA figures you quote are for systems which have not even finished development

Your using to much paper figures not real performance with the actual equipment employed

- Has the MMR radar even finished development
- Has any weapons been integrated with the LCA
- The Kaveri isn't developed and on last note needed technical help from other countries


Your information is wrong with the J-10

Its a 20 ton fighter when loaded while the LCA is a 12 ton fighter. It can carry more than 4500 payload, it has that much internal fuel.




BTW: The J-10 has a completely indigenous avionics makeup. The Su-27 avionics were scrapped by china, why would they use them in the J-10?


I'll give you a clue about something, the 1st J-10 is not the same as the 97th. The avionics system would look very much like a FC-1



The LCA is probably more advanced then the J-10's in service but they are two different classes of aircraft



Daedalus3,

Did I tell you about the J-11B composites?

I didn't realise how much of the airframe they had changed until I saw that picture, possibly 70+% of the airframe is made from composite material. Very seriously thinking about future J-10 models,

Commendable cw..

I believe we're doing the same with the Su-30MKIs and MiG-29 upgrades here.
Very composite these Su-30 MKI Mk3s.

....Planned for incorporation into the Su-30MKI fuselage on a progressive basis from 2006 through to 2017 on 114 of the 140 HAL-built Su-30MKI Mk3s are all-composite structures like wing spars and wing boxes, air intakes, fairing skins, fairing blocks, co-cured co-bonded fin and centre-fuselage components, elevators, rudder and its all-composite torque shaft, ailerons, belly fairings, landing gear doors, ceramic thermal barrier linings, and ceramic brake-pads. Interestingly, several such structures are currently being incorporated into the IAF's MiG-29B airframes as well....
Source

The LCA was considerably composite right from the beginning though.

ChinaWhite boy... For once, Chinese J-10 avonics is not completely indigenous except for chinese languages install into them.

Emile is right, Teja's air intakes was designed to limited the airpseed due to its size. Its pretty too small which it already is smallest combat aircraft in the world for specific jet-powered aircrafts. But do not underestimate this kind of jet that have been develop for way too long with many budget cuts that led to halt of developments for pretty often since 1980's, if not in 1970's too. It is considered as 3.5 generation aircraft and it just finally got close to their final stages of development. The avonics is rumored to be very advanced and gave pilots more insight in the battlefields that MiGs doesn't.

Many have mocked Tejas, all I'm saying is that do not underestimated Indian Air Force pilots. They have establish themselves to be world class fighters. They flew fierce and gave American and Britons pilots' heart a hard beating. Indian pilots are very professional and well trained to become one of most difficult opponents for United States Air Force pilots to go up against. Show some respect for Indian pilots. They do know how to explore the unknown of Tejas and improve them throughout in future.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by OneMyrmidon]

Hey guys this thread is re: HAL Tejas..........lets stick to it.

I guess it was my fault starting the whole comparison thing.

What I wish to know is the positives and negatives of HAL Tejas in its role as an interceptor and for Air to Ground attacks

vedas,

You should really give credit for the person who wrote that instead of trying to pass it off as your own

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
ChinaWhite boy... For once, Chinese J-10 avonics is not completely indigenous except for chinese languages install into them.

Please point out the foreign component



[edit on 3-10-2007 by chinawhite]

The knobs were made in China... oh wait, the J-10 is Chinese, nevermind. However, at a certain point most modern fighter glass-cockpits are going to look very similar and be comprised of near-identical components. It comes down to what's in the box and not what's on the outside.

To me, the Tejas is a slightly larger F-5. I wonder why they didn't just repackage a proven airframe? Probably would do exactly what they need it to do and cheaper too.

It's a totally different story if HAL wants an indeginous fighter however. Why are they developing a technologically inferior airframe if HAL is developing airframes such as the MCA? Is it supposed to be like the F-5 and produce a cheap solution to a relatively simple, but important problem?

Am I misunderstanding to assume that the Tejas is a relatively new development?

Shattered OUT...

vedas,

You should really give credit for the person who wrote that instead of trying to pass it off as your own

Apologies

Originally posted by vedas
Hey guys this thread is re: HAL Tejas..........lets stick to it.
I guess it was my fault starting the whole comparison thing.
What I wish to know is the positives and negatives of HAL Tejas in its role as an interceptor and for Air to Ground attacks

What's point you want to know?
Since missile became main weapon to attack ground, amount and weight of payload is not so important than past, so the capability of attacking ground of Tejas is ok.
According to its wing load and TW rate, Tejas should has a good dogfight capability, but as my point out previously, the high speed maneuver made people who appreciate Tejas worry about very much.

The short of speed you taken means you won't have enough energy in air combat, which also means you don't have more sustaining superiority to counter-air. The rule has never been changing since aircraft was used for combat in sky.

Originally posted by emile
According to its wing load and TW rate, Tejas should has a good dogfight capability, but as my point out previously, the high speed maneuver made people who appreciate Tejas worry about very much.

I'd say you're completely right about the speed loss issue in dogfights.

The problem with it is that it's likely unable to keep up its speed while its turning in WVR. I mean, the wing on that thing is absolutely huge. The wing area, I think, is a little under 40 m^2. For comparison, the Gripen has about 25 m^2 of wing area. And the Tejas is even lighter. The problem here is that the massive wing will cause it to lose speed so fast that its T:W Ratio (which is right around 1) will not enable it to stay up. And it is so gravity-defyingly light that it just won't have the momentum to keep speed up with that either.

So this is going to be very interesting. Just how will this aircraft perform in WVR ACM?

[edit on 10/3/2007 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
To me, the Tejas is a slightly larger F-5. I wonder why they didn't just repackage a proven airframe? Probably would do exactly what they need it to do and cheaper too.

It's a totally different story if HAL wants an indeginous fighter however. Why are they developing a technologically inferior airframe if HAL is developing airframes such as the MCA? Is it supposed to be like the F-5 and produce a cheap solution to a relatively simple, but important problem?

Am I misunderstanding to assume that the Tejas is a relatively new development?

Shattered OUT...

That is not a technologically inferior airframe!
Are we generally challenging the abilities of delta wing designs here?!! Or is it just the LCA?

If so please tell me and I will bring out my 'Big-Fat-Book-on-Delta-Designs'
and explain the reasoning behind the LCA airframe.


And are your F-5 = LCA comparisions very direct or more metaphorical/philosophical?
Are there any contextual references of this comparision that you may have forgotten to share with us?