Well recently TOI published an article "Navy rejects Tejas, says 'overweight' fighter does not meet its - Times of India" and thanks to the superb journalism and so deep study by TOI ( being sarcastic) now there is another misconception floating about Tejas ( for god's sake seriously).
Now I see like thousands of people on internet from India and neighbouring countries( u know from which countries ) claiming that TEJAS IS REJECTED AND HOW IT FAILED (-_-) and funny part they just like TOI writers don't know half things, so I decided to clear some things out.
Well as it is true that IN has said that Tejas at current is overweight and not suitable for Carrier Operation but what TOI failed to acknowledge is that it is with current TEJAS MK1 & MK1A variant and navy has not rejected TEJAS.
Navy since the beginning has asked for Tejas mk2 which will house a bigger engine, will be longer and lighter (just plane weight) and will be able carry more weight and have more range. HAL at current offered Navy Mk1a but as Navy wants a mk2 so IT REJECTED MK1 AND MK1A saying it's overweight and doesn't fulfill Navy's requirement and bam next day we see an article on TOI which says "Navy rejects Tejas, says 'overweight' fighter does not meet its - Times of India" and then this news spread and misconception was born.
At current development of Tejas naval is being done and trials are being done using the MK1 naval prototype using which hal even did land based trials for carrier operations ( by creating a carrier type ramp on land and trying takeoff ) and Tejas mk1a was successful in trials but still navy has a requirement of more load carrying capacity and range ( which mk2 has to fulfill).
So TEJAS NAVAL IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND YES IT IS NOT REJECTED BY NAVY ( MK1 and mk1a will not be used ).
SO I HOPE I HAVE CLEARED THE MISCONCEPTION ABOUT NAVAL VERSION OF TEJAS.
There are several other misconception which I have already covered in my post
"MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT TEJAS LCA"
Also do follow to stay updated ( blue button on Rhs)
Yeah we already know about our stupid media & navy wasn't interested in mark-1 or mark-1A rather they were looking for 46 mark-2 from start. But now Parrikar has said "Naval LCA is to be developed only for technology demonstration" when we haven't tried mark-2 yet.
ReplyDeleteActually by naval Tejas he too meant MK1 and mk1a and thanks to same media they made Tejas naval sound like dead project. Actually work is being done on mk1a finalization and they r waiting for the engine offset from that Rafale deal ( read Rafale article) and from that engine we will choose if that's good enough for naval variant or else we will go for GE FE-414 engine as decided earlier ....
DeleteNaval lca is years away ATM and I think we will see it in future maybe on Vikrant or on Vishal.
Nope Hitesh : the navy wants have been published : dual engines, already in service on aircraft carriers.
DeleteNeither Tejas or Gripen have dual engines, even Gripen-E have never flew, Sea-Gripen exists only on paper.
Are left : Mig-29K, Super-Hornet and Rafale-M.
With a disastrous availability, Mig-29K = non bis repetita, IN wanted Rafale-M even before buying these was decided. I don't think any SH ever used a ski-jump, moreover, it's more expensive and less efficient than Rafale-M and you need the even more expensive Growler teaming to do the ECM job for SH.
Every navy with CVs will thrive the hardest they can in order to avoid single engine carrier-borne aircraft. Look at how US-Navy is doing everything to to torpedo the F-35C.
There will have some structural mods to be done to Tejas Mk1 to adapt Rafale's M88-9 and, even if not publicly said, the goal is to become high level strategic partners, not to do some stupid TOT thus scrapping near the end technologies while next gen is about to be fielded (do some research : Saab-BAe are already teaming with Mitsubishi and KAI. LM or Boeing only need local partners as Trojan Horses to enter a market and then eat it). You don't buy defence, you build it. Even now that Rafale is gaining the serious export success it deserved from the start, face reality, developping modern jet fighters alone (again) has became a serious millstone for France alone and the need is a partner that has similar needs (aircraft carrier, etc). The interest of the partnership goes much further than getting a market for French products and for India buying some TOT that the time you field it, will already be outdated, look, Safran is already working on combos between turbofans and scramjets for the next generation.
The interest for Tejas is having Dassault 'rafalise' it, not just dropping a M88-9 with thrust vectoring in (which requires some mods anyway but much much much less than going F414 but do not think of a naval variant, look, the too much weight for MTOW ski-jump ops could have been compensated by JATOs ;)
Now, you may have noticed that a ski-jump is not great to operate something like the Hawkeye, right?
Look, this is 1961 Bréguet 941 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DAgzBIvqEs
8 tons payload, used to take-off in 185m and land in 120m! Now, just consider modern composites, I think the payload could surely rise to 12t -or more-, two engines could be put in a single pod with contra-rotative propellers while the exhausts of 2 could be funnelled along the wing to push against the full extended flaps. Wings could be made foldable for carrier use, maybe an Hawkeye-like tail or a foldable one to fit in hangars and well, you end with regrets to have bought CASA/EADS C-295 and maybe the expensive C-130J too(I'd have gone for A400M instead of C-130J+C-17!).
Reviving such a project could nonetheless be an effective small cargo for both IAF and IN (COD) but be an effective AEW platform with powerful AESA+L-band radars (L-band works against US-Chinese 'stealth') but there'd also be serious potential for ASM/Mar-Pat (and replace the Atlantique-2), ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT, JSTARS job, maybe even as tactical refueller and baby AC-130 gunship. STOL capabilities are so cool that one can even question the use of ill-fated and overexpensive V-22 Osprey.
Look, we have absolutely all technology needed to field anti-stealth efficient AEWs but at building this alone, it's much cheaper to get some Hawkeye and to, from time to time, lease a C-2 Greyhound for COD.
Thus, the Br.941 is surely forgotten by many but even by actual standards, WOW!
Note also for future Indian CATOBAR aircraft carriers : get info about the C14 catapult : it's better than EMALS for a fraction of price! New Siemens turbines have 60% efficiency => CVN deGaulle could run on a single K15 150MWt reactor now. There are now 21.5MW Mermaid pods (those on Mistral ships are 7MW) and the Mistral ships are modular. A 230m version was already proposed and considering a 245.5 or 261m one would be more than feasible with hangar as big as an US supercarrier. An island on is an outdated concept : put a FREMM frigate mast and fit electro-optics, so a large symmetric deck will be easy to fit with less troubles at equilibrating. As the well-dock would be scrapped for a CVN, installing the reactor on a rail for easy extraction purposes would make also ease maintenance. I think that going such way may allow to build a CVN for as cheap as €1.5-1.8bln with as much potential as an US CVN ;)
DeleteNote that it's French DCNS which designed the 2 Brit STOLV ships. Actually, France was supposed to build one too, but a CATOBAR with a single island, in fact, feeling that BAe would -again- do a dirty trick, they didn't received the definitive blue-prints. The double island with elevator in the middle is the stupidest thing ever seen on a CV : it spoils totally deck operations! Brits refused to give a -desserved- 3rd of workshare to DCNS, France pulled out. Now they end paying $5bln/ship while the definitive DCNS project would have cost €2.3bln/unit! Brits then understood that F-35B had too short legs, thus, BAe advised them that C14 catapults that were proposed to them were unproven (which is wrong! They worked well until a crooked admiral decided to torpedo the project on the behalf of the MIC! He even wrote it in his autobiography) and it'd cost +£1-1.5bln/ship to fit EMALS. Note that they're prime contractor but ALSO 2nd builder in... F-35! Moreover, Brit MoD would have surely scrappd F-35B/C for Rafale had there been catapults, thus, although it was already STOBAR capable ATM, M88-2 limited the payload to 5400kg. M88-9 with VT is likely to allow MTOW (anyway, JATOs exist, aren't they?). BAe already managed to push Dassault+France out of the Eurofighter consortium, result : they all have MBB TKF90 (original Typhoon name) which is a project of the same generation as Mirage-2000/4000 instead of more advanced Rafale. Typhoon is already about to fall into oblivion while Rafale is going the Mirage way and I wouldn't be surprised if a Gen.6 Rafale-II with scramjets appeared around 2030 ;)
Theres no misconception. HAL Tejas is a dud. Lemon fighter. useless..Are you ?
ReplyDeleteYou're act like a jilted lover, don't u piggy? 😂 Just live your own life the way you want, why poke your fat nose everywhere illogically 😝
DeleteHe is just another fan 😅😂
Delete