Two Derby on each underwing pylons,one R-73?rest unclear.

two Derbys and 2 Magic II’s on the outer of the dual rack pylons. the IAF thread has a clearer picture where its clear.

I found out on BRF. am very saddened because I shared some very interesting personal messages with him on this forum, which thankfully I’ve not yet deleted.

He truly was the most knowledgeable in matters related to Indian defence and like Arthur said, a balanced moderator here on Keypubs..I can hardly believe that he was only 23, considering how well he wrote articles for ACIG.org (almost all Indian defence related articles on that forum are his) and Vayu (the “Radiance of the Tejas”, treasure trove of information).

Rest in peace, Harry.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of these “NATO pylons”. They are not necessary for NATO compatibility. Romania currently operates ex-Soviet aircraft, modified for NATO compatibility & IIRC they have not needed modification to use any other pylons. Nor have the MiG-29s operated by a few NATO members.

but if you buy Gripen C/Ds then you need to get western weapons like the AMRAAM, Iris-T, AGM 65-Maverick and AIM-9. the ex-Soviet weapons won’t work on them. so you will need to get NATO pylons to get those Gripen C/Ds. the existing stockpile of Soviet weapons won’t work on the Gripen unless Romania pays for integration and that would be a lot more than purchasing NATO pylons..

the MiG-21 Lancer with the upgrade can still use whatever weapons it used before upgrade, so there was no need for NATO pylons- the same is true for other Eastern Euro nations that use MiG-29s modified to be NATO compatible.

Infact the IAF now probably wants to cancel the MMRCA and order the LCA instead.

We should be hearing news of the cancellation of the MMRCA any day now.

I’ll take it in another way–maybe the Su-30MKI is such a huge failure that instead of ordering more, they’re looking for the new type for the MRCA..my gosh, the Su-30MKI must be such a monumental waste of effort and money…oh my gosh !

now, in 2009, Adm Nadkarni’s article would be a GREAT embarrassment to the person himself, given how far off he was in his predictions and projections in 2001. if half of what se said came true you would surely have read his columns castigating LCA program in the intervening years. the very fact that his pen has been silent this last 8 years is ample proof that he was wrong.

what an incredibly nasty article that was..the fact is that the F-404 was meant to simply be an interim engine..even the Rafale first flew with the F-404 and only when the M-88 was ready was it integrated..that is normal for fighter development. the whole talk about carbon fiber wings from Alenia, FBW from LM, its all just ludicrous..this despite the fact that even LM’s officials said (on Flight international archives, there are articles on this) that India was testing out the FBW on the F-16 VISTA and after support was withdrawn, they developed the entire FBW on their own.

He coolly doesn’t even mention the sanctions, as if they never existed. and he cribs that if it enters service at all, the IAF will only get a fighter equivalent to first-generation F-16s..with all the avionics it has, to compare it to day-only F-16As it ridiculous and shows a shocking lack of understanding from the Admiral. and look at his grand claims for “stealth”..maybe he should go and hide somewhere considering that none of the MRCA candidates are designed for stealth and most are the products of the 1990s. almost all his arguments for dropping the LCA can be easily countered, such as how UK and France are collaborating for a fighter (shocking lack of common knowledge- maybe he forgot about the Rafale while spewing forth his bile) and was blissfully ignorant of how the Chinese took the Lavi design and made it into the J-10.

most of all, reading that article, it becomes clear that he’s not an aviator. I checked up on google and indeed, he wasn’t a naval aviator. I guess that it was during his successor’s taking over, that the IN fully starting supporting the N-LCA.

1G higher g limit does not add so much to the strengthening induced weight as the additional components on-board have added. That’s what people are trying to say IMHO.

thats not true. even 1G extra can make a big difference. for e.g. on a Boeing 747, cruise (1G) condition loads on panels can be 0.5 psi whereas at 2.0G, the pressure may jump to 2.0 psi. on a fighter, you need to size all your structures, whether primary or secondary, for the highest loads you estimate it will face during service..if the LCA had been designed to 8G instead of 9G, it would be lighter without an iota of doubt.

I have some doubts about the 8G specification of the ASR- the IAF had always wanted a 9G fighter, as it is now asking as mandatory for all the MRCA contenders as well. either they diluted their requirements to allow for faster induction or else there is something we don’t yet understand properly.

Another Sea-Harrier image. Still can’t identify the missile though. 🙁

Its from the youtube video of president’s visit. Check time-index 5:01 – 5:08
Link.

Regards,
Ashish.

PS: This is foolish. But can it be the R77 ??

Misraji, are you aware that the Indian Navy placed orders for the Derby from Israel for the Sea Harrier LUSH upgrade ? it was their first export order. and PS Subramanyam said that the IN has also specified “the Israeli missile” for the Naval Tejas. so its definitely the Derby, not R-77.

the only doubt is about the other missile that is further outboard- is it the Magic II or Python, can’t say for sure.

@21 Ankush: I have to retract original statement about boeing offering ali or glare type fuselage as option to airlines. Cant find open source. Maybe it was just a rumour mill thing.

couldn’t be rumour mill either because Boeing didn’t plan anything of this sort at any stage when the detailed design started. we all understand just how difficult and expensive it is to design the composite fuselage itself- trying to duplicate the effort and design and manufacture a conventional fuselage, with all the associated manpower and resources spent simultaneously, and with all its differences, find the suppliers, set up the different assemblies, the different assembly lines, the different configurations that would lead to, the differences it would cause to the interiors guys (composites allow more humidity than conventional fuselage, makes ride comfort better for passengers), oh my ming boggles at the very thought of such a stupid idea just because some customers would not be happy with a composite aircraft.

BTW, I was present at its first flight. a splendid aircraft, albeit overweight as of now. you must see its fuselage from up close, the lack of extensive riveting makes for a very unique sight.

Design load factor is +9g/-3g what is the ultimate? If the design is the ultimate than the ASR of 8 G’s is what the aircraft loading will be in all of the Tejas’s ops.

mane aa sentence samjan naa padi..fari thi samjaavje ?

Any way again you seem to have answered my questions the design is 9G which is all well and good but it has not been certified for 8g or 9g as yet. if it is certified for 9g with enough reserve factors to allow anomalies like gust loadings than that is great!

not yet certified for 8G or 9G maneuvers as yet because the aircraft hasn’t yet been tested to that. the airframe is certified for more than 9Gs when you take into account the built in factors of safety for ultimate loads as compared to limit loads.

You seem to take my words and take them down a rabit hole why?

When i say they i mean the people working on the LCA. I have no interest in FC-1. Please read through what i wrote!

I have no interest in the FC-1 either. but, the fact is that it is entering service in an enemy air arm and is a contemporary fighter for the LCA, so comparisons are drawn to give some perspective. anyway, I’m not interested in discussing the FC-1 on this thread, so I’ll let it be.

Who are the lead designers of the LCA? How much is it still overweight by? 500Kg’s? if the ADA is an organisation which has been established to design the LCA and bring it to fruitiion and is the lead (program management side included) than yes they did not see the wood for the trees!

mastery of composites technology for aircraft was one of the identified “key” technologies for the LCA. that was done before any work began on the detailed design.

and to be fair to them, they did manage to get a Tejas with same payload as originally required, to the same 9G/-3.5G design loads.

the mistake was in their original prediction of 5500 kg empty weight, which is really really low for a fighter that is supposed to carry 4000 kgs of payload and 2480 kgs of fuel when fully loaded. And mind you, that empty weight includes a 1000 kgs or slight more, of the engine as well..add the weight of the avionics, actuators, fuel tanks, wiring, systems brackets, etc. and you have very tight tolerances for weight of structures. that is any excess structural weight for the primary structures such as the center wing box, spars, ribs, bulkheads, longerons, stringers, etc..so they did as much as possible to reduce it – co-cured and co-bonded vertical fin, the entire assembly is one piece, which is quite a neat piece of engineering as it eliminates quite a few parts and their weight. fewer fasteners and a part count of ONLY 7000 parts for the entire aircraft. I can understand someone not associated with aircraft structural engineering not considering that to be any big deal, but I think it is quite a big deal.

you can see this NAL link to get some idea of the composite components used. Note that they mention that they’re in the process of setting up automatic tape-laying machines and autoclave for series production of Tejas components, instead of the hand-laid composite components for the Prototype Vehicles and Limited Series Production units. this is key for large scale production of composite components.

Even the Gripen doesn’t manage anywhere close to that empty weight (5500 kgs), despite its payload and fuel loads being similar. and using that empty weight to choose an engine of the F-404 or Kaveri class left them with very low margins for excess weight.

NAL is also workign helping ADA with the Flight testing for high angle of attack flight (see slide 9) where they’re working on LCA model validation using advanced parameter identification methods to carry out faster flight envelope expansion. New techniques are being developed or high angle of attack flight and this poses many scientific/technological challenges because the dynamics is highly non-linear. they also show a 6-degrees of freedom simulator for departure (departure from controlled flight) and spin studies.

I stand by my words on turbo fan manufacture of cruise missile type devices..

You like naming items from neighbours in the west, heard of BABUR?

so what if I’ve heard of it..pray, enlighten me on which “indigenous” Pakistani engine the Babur uses, since you seem to know so much about it.