Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Why India’s Tejas MK-2 might have Israel’s Lavi fate due American lobbying!

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by lca-fan, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. WhyCry

    WhyCry Reaper Love Developers -IT and R&D

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    369
    Country Flag:
    India
    CFT's act as aircraft structure and have far less penalty as compared to the drop tanks (both aerodynamically and hardpoint wise). The range that you mentioned is that of fully loaded F16 with 4- 1 ton bombs and air-to-air combat missiles. I don't want to use tejas as a whipping boy for argument so not mentioning in the comparison.
     
  2. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    I fear you are wrong and we will get stuck with only F404 instead, with 91KN thrust.
     
  3. zebra7

    zebra7 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Country Flag:
    India
    How many GE F404 IN20 engine have been ordered so far.
     
  4. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    We have 40. So we don't have to order anything right away.
     
  5. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,497
    Likes Received:
    14,939
    Country Flag:
    India
    You guys have forgotten that Kaveri will be flat rated to ISA+25*C. this means 13% additional thrust. Ge F414 in ISA+25*C condition will produce just about 85.17Kn of max thrust. So whichengine comes out more powerful at ISA+25*C condition? Kaveri with 91KN or F414 with 85KN?
     
    surya kiran likes this.
  6. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    I know Kaveri is better. But in the urgency to deliver, HAL may stick to F404 in order to not bring in more delays to the program.

    So the second squadron will be coming with F404 anyway, even if the airframe is Mk1A. What's coming from 3rd squadron onwards is the question.
     
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3,163
    Those figures are complete fantasy! MK1A is based on the same airframe of the MK1, so no additional internal fuel, no increased thrust without at least re-design of the intakes and even the figures for the B70 are wrong.
     
  8. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,497
    Likes Received:
    14,939
    Country Flag:
    India
    Can you please post the correct figures. Ilifted the data from the official pages of the manufacturers of F-16 & Gripen NG while the data about MK1A is lifted from what ADA has claimed. The present fuel capacity of MK1 is 2500 kgs and will go up to 2700kgs after the internals are sorted out in MK1A.
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3,163
    And that's why your figures are bogus, because you include your own estimates and speculations. Again there is no official source that would claim higher fuel capacity until the redesigned MK2 airframe would be available, just as a higher thrust engine will only come with the necessary redesigns and we have discussed the weight issue before and keep ignoring, that weight reductions were achieved mainly for NLCA, while adding new radar and EW to MK1A will even increase the weight a bit.

    For the baseline F16:
    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25c65536d64d859111e69718a4097090

    But we know that for India the fixed CFTs will ne added to have refuelling capability, that further adds weight and we don't know what optional systems would be added (IRST, EW sensors, the Block 60 engine).
    Even for Gripen E we know only the current specs, it will be interesting to see what the final specs will be and if they will be able to get weight reductions as planned.

    What we do know however, is that the F16 and Gripen will have larger radar diameter, that we they will have the more advanced and integrated EWand IRST sensors, that they will be able to carry far superior weapon loads and reach higher speeds than LCA MK1 or 1A and that's why they are a class above. So comparing them doesn't make any sense and would be like comparing Mig 21 to Mirage 2000.
     
  10. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,497
    Likes Received:
    14,939
    Country Flag:
    India
    You need to do a bit of research. ADA stated that they can reduce nearly a ton from the airframe for MK1A, i am assuming only 700kgs. NLCA is over 7tons and it needs complete redesign of undercarriage.
    I pointed out to @randomradio that kaveri even with 90KN thrust with flat rating is superior to both F-16 & Gripen NG. Even if I keep the fuel figure of LCA as 2500kgs, its fuel fraction comes out more than that of F-16 & Gripen NG. Now please do not tell me that my data is wrong about F-16 & Gripen NG also. I told you the source of the data and you too can independently check it.
    Lastly, I do not make bogus posts like you. What I write here is always with proof and based on solid calculations.
    The data posted by you about F-16 is for blk52. Please educate yourself about Blk70.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  11. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3,163
    As said, that's why your data is wrong and no you haven't got official data, because even the F16 specs are wrong for engine thrust , empty weight...
    So when your base specs are wrong, you obviously can't get to correct calculations.

    Which you already contradicted yourself by admitting that you assume specs.
     
  12. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,497
    Likes Received:
    14,939
    Country Flag:
    India
    you are really funny, why don't you check out yourself or prove the data you posted was for blk-70? Posting from wiki
    upload_2017-10-12_17-56-52.png
     
  13. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    I think you have underestimated the empty weight of the B70. You are referring to B60.

    If you add all the new stuff IAF wants, IRST, fusion engine, towed decoy, new navigation, new terrain following radar, new cockpit etc, the weight will increase to 10.5 or even 11T. But there should be a corresponding increase in thrust also. But that reduces fuel fraction even more.

    The F-16 B60 and higher cannot do anything without CFTs. They will even have to dog fight with CFTs. Terrible range, terrible acceleration, terrible maneuverability, I don't know why we are even wasting time with this jet.
     
    vstol jockey likes this.
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3,163
    Because I already know where your mistake is, since you confuse block 60 and block 70 specs.
    Block 70 is an upgrade version for Block 52 customers, to add new radar, EW or avionics, but the engine remains the same as in the older versions. The Block 60 on the other side is a heavily upgraded version for the US with additional sensors, capabilities and an uprated engine. Block 60 was offered in MMRCA, but since LM wants to divert the production line, the Block 70 is now offered in the SE tender.

    So you even got that wrong, besides making up LCAs emptyweight, fuel capacity and thrust specs.
     
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,497
    Likes Received:
    14,939
    Country Flag:
    India
    My frnd, B70 is going to be of higher empty weight. do you read and understand English? B70 will have higher thrust engine and more avionics which will make it even heavier than B60. Now stop posting wrong figures and also pls stop making vague comments.
     
    surya kiran likes this.

Share This Page