HAL Tejas Jet Fighter

Re: Hal tejas

Red Moon said:

I think you are right in this, because the US is not likely to pull the plug on Indian projects, and anyway, India has a lot of insurance against this. If the US says no, there are plenty who would step in and take their place: Russia or France, for example. In fact, if India were to become estranged from the US, maybe even China would offer such help!

Click to expand...

China probably wouldn't help until the territorial dispute with India in Southern Tibet is fully resolved (that plus China's close relations with Pakistan). Besides the Chinese engine is still very problematic at this stage and I don't think we'll be able to produce world-class engines in the near future.

Re: Hal tejas

The problem with India buying the WS-10 or WS-13 is that it will only muddle the logistics of the IAF even further, which already challenging enough thanks to sourcing fighter aircraft from three foreign countries already.

Re: Hal tejas

Skywatcher said:

The problem with India buying the WS-10 or WS-13 is that it will only muddle the logistics of the IAF even further, which already challenging enough thanks to sourcing fighter aircraft from three foreign countries already.

Click to expand...

If chinese president goes to india and starts criticing Pakistan infront of indian media. The prez could sell them, a two legged chair for millions of dollars.

When deciding on what to purchase, India tends to use them to influence foreign policy of other countries . Hence Cameron cleverly laid into pakistan, assuring future orders on top of 750 million dollar order of Hawks. Interestingly India before visit were complaining that BAE had failed to honor contract.

Just look at indian purchases in the past.

Today you will see the vast number of suppliers from different nations. Indian military dont care for simplification, just look at tank fleet, 125mm smoothbore equiped tanks fielded alongside 120mm rifled tanks.

Re: Hal tejas

bingo said:

Ok. Forget J-10 crashes (whatever the reason) --- I read somewhere that engine was the probably reason. It AL31N is the reason, I have no issues accepting that.

The point is that aircraft engine development is a difficult job.

Hal Tejas should not be damned just because Kaveri engine is still going to take some more years to develop ..... or that Tejas has to make do with a GE engine, for now.

Atleast, initial J-10 planes also used a foreign engine.

JF-17 still uses a foreign engine.

Even, Sweden can't make an aircraft engine. Gripen also uses foreign engine.

So, what's wrong if HAL Tejas uses it.

China also faced issues with WS10A (or maybe some issues are still being addressed).
It's a bigger engine is also understood (so, possibly more difficult). But it's also not custom built (it's reverse engineered from AL31FN ---- so, it was known pre-hand that WS10A design will eventually work out). Kaveri engine has no working copy to look at.

Click to expand...

First of all Sweden is a close allies of USA and unlikely to have any political clashes in near future. Therefore, engine supply can be gurantee. Also, its export customer most likely to be richer nation or allies of American. By using American engines, even the raise in over cost will still be acceptable.

India LCA which is using American engine trying to find hard get customer as its not cheaper nor far better than Gripen.

Its not abt using foreign engine. Its abt choosing the wrong choices. Plus even the customer is interested. For example, Venezula is interested but do you think USA will approve re export of its F404 engines to her?

Swapping engine will take long time, if American ban their engines sales to India, most likely its other sources of Eurojet and Scenma will follow the suit due to the same political reason.

Re: Hal tejas

bingo, the Kaveri is NOT the heir-apparent to the GE-404, it is simply in contention along with a couple other choices, such as the GE-414. In fact, it's pretty unlikely that the Kaveri in its current form will ever be used because it simply doesn't meet the requirements of the IAF.

Re: Hal tejas

dingyibvs said:

bingo, the Kaveri is NOT the heir-apparent to the GE-404, it is simply in contention along with a couple other choices, such as the GE-414. In fact, it's pretty unlikely that the Kaveri in its current form will ever be used because it simply doesn't meet the requirements of the IAF.

Click to expand...

India AF requirement is too high for India industries to support. IAF shall lower their standard in the first place.

What turn out to be a low cost light weight fighter in the 80s is now set to be a counterpart of Euro fighter and Rafale..

LCA small airframe is very stretch to its end to meet the target. Small airframe meaning limited range and limitation of avionices be fitted in..

Re: Hal tejas

GE414 or other possibilities will be used on Tejas Mk-2.
Gripen has also moved from GE404 initially to GE414, now.

Kaveri will be flight tested on the current Tejas Mk-1, by 2012 or 2013 (I guess). But it's quite a few years from maturing into a mainstay.

Yes, all the Tejas inducted in the next 5-8 years will be on foreign engines.

Tejas remains small is size but overtime it's become quite densely packed due to increased number for features. Hence larger engines have become necessary.

Re: Hal tejas

Lion said:

India AF requirement is too high for India industries to support. IAF shall lower their standard in the first place.

What turn out to be a low cost light weight fighter in the 80s is now set to be a counterpart of Euro fighter and Rafale..

LCA small airframe is very stretch to its end to meet the target. Small airframe meaning limited range and limitation of avionices be fitted in..

Click to expand...

Yes, but small size give two advantages also - (1) Lower radar cross-section, and (2) Smaller size means lower costs too (low material costs).

There is a larger plane AMCA in conceptual stage. When developed AMCA could become a front-line aircraft for the IAF (as Su30MKI is today).

Re: Hal tejas

The Tejas seems to have a large wing area for its size, larger than the Mirage, and even more larger if you measure them proportionally. Generally speaking, doesn't a large wing area aircraft mean less maneuverability when compared to similar sized aircraft with less wing area? If that's the case, then with a wing area of only 24.4 msq compared with the Tejas's 38.4 msq, the FC-1/JF-17 should be able to run circles around the Tejas if they were ever to face each other in the future.

Re: Hal tejas

Curious George said:

The Tejas seems to have a large wing area for its size, larger than the Mirage, and even more larger if you measure them proportionally. Generally speaking, doesn't a large wing area aircraft mean less maneuverability when compared to similar sized aircraft with less wing area? If that's the case, then with a wing area of only 24.4 msq compared with the Tejas's 38.4 msq, the FC-1/JF-17 should be able to run circles around the Tejas if they were ever to face each other in the future.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's the other way round. Wing Loading is the important design parameter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing."

"The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability."

"Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All this from the link:


Now, here is the comparison table:

-------------Weight----Length----Wing Area----Wing Loading
Eurofighter--16000-----15.96-------51.2------------313
J-10----------18500-----15.50-------39.0------------474
Hal Tejas-----9500-----13.20-------38.4------------247
Gripen---------8500-----14.10-------30.0-----------283
JF-17----------9100-----14.00--------24.4-----------373

Tejas and Gripen have the lowest wing-loading. J-10 actually has a rather high value.


But these are very fine comparisons. The designers are well aware of this maths ... and different designers chose different wing loadings to trade-off between advantages and disadvantages.

Fine comparisons will prove that one aircraft is better than the other on feature. At the same time the other aircraft maybe better on other feature.

Engineering designs can be different .... keeping different priorities for each aircraft.