I am with Ankush on this. It offers an option and that itself means a lot to tacticians/planners. The IAF will have close to 280 MKI spread out in a number of locations; until the IFR tanker fleet increases, this option will allow a degree of freedom/versatility. I’d like to see a few MKI plumbed for about 3 EFTs though – this’d make it that much more useful as a tanker – 15000-18000kg of fuel at MTOW.

USS.

Fair point, it does give an option.

that article is dated July 2008, more than a year ago. and anyway, its common to see aircraft being inducted while they still don’t meet the FINAL specs- thats what the Final Operational Clearance is there for. the Su-30MKI itself had a similar case, where the final Phase 3 Su-30MKI was the only one that met all the requirements and the previous ones had older software for the radar and other avionics. they hadn’t (in July 2008) yet flown the LCA at all its FOC-mandatory envelope points (max. AoA, max. Gs, etc.).

nope thats the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). the aircraft is designed to +9G/-3.5 G and I got this information first hand from a guy who worked in HAL on the Tejas at their loads department for more than 4 years. I’d even posted an image from an ADA brochure from Aero-India 2009, where it clearly says that the LCA design G-limits are 9G/-3Gs. you can search for it in one of the earlier LCA threads.

also, you can refer to this article The Radiance of the Tejas by B.Harry, one of the best articles on the Tejas. it gives many details on the LCA’s design and their purpose as well as mentioning the 9G/-3.5Gs sustained load factor.

in many ways composites can be, if used conservatively, nearly as heavy for certain parts as aluminium or titanium would be..and the LCA has wing spars that are all-composites as well, something you don’t even find on modern jetliners like the 787..on that program, they did try to change some ribs to composites, but initial estimates found that they weren’t quite as light as expected earlier considering that they’re primary structures.

however, if you look at the payload, fuel fraction (30% now due to increased empty weight of 6500 kgs instead of the original 45% fuel fraction when the empty weight was supposed to be 5500 kgs) and the empty weight of the LCA, its still pretty good. its range is as much as the Mirage-2000 ( as per Test Pilot Cmdr Mavlankar) thanks to a fuel efficient, lower SPFC engine and low drag. add to that, with a payload almost equal to a Gripen C/D, while the airframe itself is lighter than the Gripen C/D. of course, the Gripen could’ve been affected by its own Air Staff requirements that might have needed a heavier structure (such as higher sink rate than usual fighters, to achieve short landing on roads).

yes, now please go and tell that to Boeing as well. :rolleyes:they’re struggling with the weight on both the 787 and 747-8F and would love to be told that there is no use boasting of the 787 being a “Dream” liner built with composites when it cannot perform as it should. I get this feeling that you’re not involved with the aviation industry and do not actually grasp how complex some of these technologies actually are..the fact that India mastered it is in itself a praise-worthy achievement. its the same with the turbofan technology as well, which you seem to think is technology even a chump can master and produce to world-class performance specs.

oh and by the way where did he say it “structurally cannot perform what it should be” ? he said that they’ve tested it to 6Gs and 20 deg AoA and as more test points are covered, the envelope will open further. what will be given to the IAF at the time of IOC will be a Tejas with de-rated performance which the IAF has accepted, as do most Air Forces which act as launch customers- just look at the Eurofighter tranche based deliveries with varied capabilities. and he clearly said that ASRs will be met by the time FOC is achieved in 2012. that will mean more weight reduction efforts and more time and consultancy with EADS on how to go about getting the edge of the envelope explored and cleared.

and more than a year ago (July 2008) he said that 500 flights more would be required to cover 3000 test points for IOC. at that time they had completed 860 flights or so, and now its closer to 1300 flights. more test points covered per flight as sorties can be of longer duration due to drop tanks and they’ve finished that work, with the full envelope opened up for IOC this year in December at Dabolim, Goa.

Not really sure where to start.

You are proving the very point in some respects I was trying to make about the fact that it is not worth claiming you have X amounts of composites if the structure can not live up to the Job. Boeing are offering customers a traditional Aluminium fuselage should customers not wish to fly the composite one. But they will keep the Dreamliner monicker as this is marketing.

So what is the truth with regards to the G loadings? something you say you heard from a friend of yours and something B. Harry posted or something that is noted from the primary source? Does not matter if it is years old it is still the official word.

If the 8g’s is limited by the engines then maybe they would get over it by the Mk2 version.

However simple point is that it seems that they were so busy learning composites that they forgot to look at the performance side of things. As they say, “they could not see the wood for the trees”. Did they do a trade off between composite and metal? If composite won out and they had a detailed enough study should they not have realised that the GTRE and even the GE offerings would be underpowered and start looking at other engines or possibly re-designs of the LCA at that stage?

Why did they not have a second engine lined up? Poor project and risk management especially after the experience with the earlier Marut. Why did they wait so long?

And yes i did say it would not be difficult to manufacture a turbon fan for a UCAV or Missile type role. The simple fact is that it has been done and it is being done the world over.

definitely unseen pic..a Su-30MKI buddy refuelling a Mirage-2000TH. pics courtesy of BRF

and a higher resolution image from an IAF poster, just in case someone claims its a PS job.

higher resolution image

What is the range limited to in this mode or what is the reduction in payload an Su-30MKI can carry because of any extra fuel etc it may have to hold?

What would be the reason for turning one of your most destructive assets into a fuel carrier?

It is great they did it but what use is it?

Whether one likes it or not, many a/c manufacturers and observers are seeing the 787 closely to see whether Boeing’s attempt will work or not. If it doesnt, then the fact that a huge, rich OEM couldnt make it work will mean a plus for the naysayers and an incentive for many oem’s to stick to simpler tech. for the time being, thats the reality.

Its not as simple and as black and white as that. You would have to disect each every structure on the 787.

Yes people are looking at Boeing but they are not waiting around to see if it fails or not before they start.

What the observers do no one cares about.

when the first comercial jets failed due to the wrong aluminium the aerospace industry did not give up on aluminium and stay with wood and cloth!

Similarly with composites.

Does the LCA have a IRST? Just thinking if the DRDO is making an MKII it would be good to have the current Mig-35’s OLS on it with all the different fields of view etc. It would help make the LCA more survivable.