FA-50, really comparable to Tejas?

[Italy]

I just read that South Korea made an order earlier this year for the FA-50, for about $30 million a pop. They will come with F404 engines and a Elta Systems EL/M-2032 radar (they wanted an AESA originally but the US said no).

This pretty much puts its primary equipment the same as the Tejas!!

by the time the FA-50s are being delivered, the Tejas will probably begin entering service (although FA-50 has an advantage in that its trainer version is already in service) at the same time. Wikipedia says Tejas will also cost around $30 making them very close competitors and perhaps competitors in the same market..

where to the advantages they each have over the other in sales?

[EagleSpirit]

I just read that South Korea made an order earlier this year for the FA-50, for about $30 million a pop. They will come with F404 engines and a Elta Systems EL/M-2032 radar (they wanted an AESA originally but the US said no).

This pretty much puts its primary equipment the same as the Tejas!!

by the time the FA-50s are being delivered, the Tejas will probably begin entering service (although FA-50 has an advantage in that its trainer version is already in service) at the same time. Wikipedia says Tejas will also cost around $30 making them very close competitors and perhaps competitors in the same market..

where to the advantages they each have over the other in sales?

The first thing that comes to mind is that they are both a cheap fighter thats kind of western but not quite. Other thing is that Tejas is single seat and the Mk-2 will be better. (But if we wanted we could pay KAI to continue with the
F-50)

F-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2

And it can have an AESA Radar like RACR/SABR or a Korean AESA from LIG Nex1 or Samsung Thales

So Tejas Mk-1 and FA-50 are comparable but Mk-2 will be made while F-50 will not (our airforce has no need)

[emile]

The TA-50 will or will not have a stronger airframe is the most uncertainty for assessment and certainly has less hardpoints than Tejas.
Before post please do some study.

[EagleSpirit]

The TA-50 will or will not have a stronger airframe is the most uncertainty for assessment and certainly has less hardpoints than Tejas.
Before post please do some study.

No one mentioned the TA-50 what are you talking about.

[emile]

Yes, what were we talking about was mirage :lol:

[MadRat]

Trainers are built for use in the tens of thousands of hours and far more touchdowns than a fighter.

[BlackArcher]

The first thing that comes to mind is that they are both a cheap fighter thats kind of western but not quite. Other thing is that Tejas is single seat and the Mk-2 will be better. (But if we wanted we could pay KAI to continue with the
F-50)

F-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2

And it can have an AESA Radar like RACR/SABR or a Korean AESA from LIG Nex1 or Samsung Thales

So Tejas Mk-1 and FA-50 are comparable but Mk-2 will be made while F-50 will not (our airforce has no need)

Tejas has a twin seater version already flying. The Tejas can carry 4 tons of payload on six wing pylons and 1 centerline plus 1 pylon for Litening LDP. It can carry 2400 kgs of internal fuel. What is the FA-50's internal fuel capacity?

The Tejas Mk2 is a stretched variant of the Mk1 and will have an AESA radar (which is already in development), that much is confirmed by the chief of the DRDO. And a more powerful F-414-INS6 engine that will allow for improved performance.

What is the future development plans for the FA-50? When will it have an AESA radar?

[Twinblade]

What is the future development plans for the FA-50? When will it have an AESA radar?

IIRC they have settled fro SABR.

[ananda]

F-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2

And it can have an AESA Radar like RACR/SABR or a Korean AESA from LIG Nex1 or Samsung Thales

So Tejas Mk-1 and FA-50 are comparable but Mk-2 will be made while F-50 will not (our airforce has no need)

Don't rule out F-50 yet. If KF-X programe did not move-on from drawing board, I do believe development of TA-50 as F-50 as envisions by KAI can be happen.

[Italy]

IIRC they have settled fro SABR.

I thought they couldn't get SABR?

[Italy]

Tejas has a twin seater version already flying. The Tejas can carry 4 tons of payload on six wing pylons and 1 centerline plus 1 pylon for Litening LDP. It can carry 2400 kgs of internal fuel. What is the FA-50's internal fuel capacity?

The Tejas Mk2 is a stretched variant of the Mk1 and will have an AESA radar (which is already in development), that much is confirmed by the chief of the DRDO. And a more powerful F-414-INS6 engine that will allow for improved performance.

What is the future development plans for the FA-50? When will it have an AESA radar?

from the model of the Mk2 shown, the new tejas doesn't look that different from the current one? doesn't seem stretched.

ta-50 has 6 wing pylons (two on wing tips) and 1 centerline. well these are small planes, don't expect anything beyond that

this pic, there's two pylons not utilized.

[Sens]

Trainers are built for use in the tens of thousands of hours and far more touchdowns than a fighter.

.. but in much lesser weight and speed conditions doing that close to the home-base.

[Tigershark]

Watch your words, it never flies? If Indian air force don't want it, why Indian Navy want it to be navy version?

Indian navy fighter cannot be accepted. It needs to be fixed
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...eds-more-power

airforce version is the same, always under infinity fixing.

[Sens]

Indian navy fighter cannot be accepted. It needs to be fixed
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...eds-more-power

airforce version is the same, always under infinity fixing.

Brute force is not the smartest solution to counter drag. At least the IAF will have a capable fighter with the present Tejas from 2013.

[Spitfire9]

where to the advantages they each have over the other in sales?

Can anyone compare the sales prospects of Tejas and FA-50 in terms of each aircraft's qualities? Perhaps a theoretical debate if India has no interest in selling Tejas abroad...

[aditya]

T-50 series is much more comparable to the JF-17 or F-CK-1 rather than the LCA Tejas. In fact T-50 is the only 'western' fighter in the market comparable to the JF-17.

Will be interesting if these 2 were to ever face off in a competition.

[BlackArcher]

from the model of the Mk2 shown, the new tejas doesn't look that different from the current one? doesn't seem stretched.

ta-50 has 6 wing pylons (two on wing tips) and 1 centerline. well these are small planes, don't expect anything beyond that

this pic, there's two pylons not utilized.

it is stretched by 0.5 meters by adding a plug behind the cockpit. Some recent reports indicate that the stretch is actually 1 meter now.



this image from an ADA brochure gives the length as 13.7m, which is 0.5m more than the Tejas Mk1 at 13.2m.

New reports indicate that the length of the Tejas Mk2 will be 14.2m, a meter more than the Mk1.

[BlackArcher]

T-50 series is much more comparable to the JF-17 or F-CK-1 rather than the LCA Tejas. In fact T-50 is the only 'western' fighter in the market comparable to the JF-17.

Will be interesting if these 2 were to ever face off in a competition.

Aditya, out of curiosity, why can't the FA-50 be compared to the Tejas? Their empty weights, their loaded weights, dimensions, payload and engines are quite similar.

Both are light fighters although the Tejas has a clearer roadmap defined for the a slightly heavier and more powerful variant in the Tejas Mk2 whereas AFAIK, KAI has stated no requirement for a heavier, bigger and more powerful variant.

[Sign]

due to the different wing design one can say F18 style vs. Mirage style, i think F-50 could be a better flier subsonic and Tejas better in supersonic?
But i dont know this holds any water due to Tejas problems with drag and power.

[Sens]

due to the different wing design one can say F18 style vs. Mirage style, i think F-50 could be a better flier subsonic and Tejas better in supersonic?
But i dont know this holds any water due to Tejas problems with drag and power.

All fighter in loaded condition are subsonic or transonic at best. Prime mission is A2G when A2A is secondary for most examples.

[Italy]

it is stretched by 0.5 meters by adding a plug behind the cockpit. Some recent reports indicate that the stretch is actually 1 meter now.

this image from an ADA brochure gives the length as 13.7m, which is 0.5m more than the Tejas Mk1 at 13.2m.

New reports indicate that the length of the Tejas Mk2 will be 14.2m, a meter more than the Mk1.

at 14.2 it'll be the same length as the Taiwan Ching Kuo. the size the Tejas shouldve been to begin with, and a little longer than the FA-50 (I didn't realize it was that short). but still shorter than the FC-1/JF-17, which is pretty long, as most Chinese aircraft are.

[Twinblade]

Aditya, out of curiosity, why can't the FA-50 be compared to the Tejas? Their empty weights, their loaded weights, dimensions, payload and engines are quite similar.

X2. Not only that, the designers of both have opted for more or less similar subsystems.

Tejas: Ge-404, ESM Suite in JV with Elisra, radar hybrid with El-2032, a future variant of AN/AAR-60 MILDS, Litening LDP

Golden Eagle: Ge-404, Elisra ESM suite, El-2032 radar, AN/AAR-60 MILDS, Litening/Sniper LDP.

[Italy]

X2. Not only that, the designers of both have opted for more or less similar subsystems.

Tejas: Ge-404, ESM Suite in JV with Elisra, radar hybrid with El-2032, a future variant of AN/AAR-60 MILDS, Litening LDP

Golden Eagle: Ge-404, Elisra ESM suite, El-2032 radar, AN/AAR-60 MILDS, Litening/Sniper LDP.

indeed, they are quite similar so I dunno why the other poster said they are not comparable. The only major difference is that one went delta and the other went conventional.
whats odd is that you figure a delta air frame would be less draggy, yet the tejas has drag issues. Could it be the F-18E of light fighters?

[Spitfire9]

indeed, they are quite similar so I dunno why the other poster said they are not comparable. The only major difference is that one went delta and the other went conventional.
whats odd is that you figure a delta air frame would be less draggy, yet the tejas has drag issues. Could it be the F-18E of light fighters?

I know this thread is about Tejas and F-50. Lessons must have been learnt from Tejas Mk1 data. Does ADA have the design know how to exploit that data to significantly improve Tejas Mk2 drag characteristics?

[Twinblade]

I know this thread is about Tejas and F-50. Lessons must have been learnt from Tejas Mk1 data. Does ADA have the design know how to exploit that data to significantly improve Tejas Mk2 drag characteristics?

CEMILAC paper pertaining to the issue, pg 4 on wards.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...8TXALYihJiBMzg

[Twinblade]

indeed, they are quite similar so I dunno why the other poster said they are not comparable. The only major difference is that one went delta and the other went conventional.
whats odd is that you figure a delta air frame would be less draggy, yet the tejas has drag issues. Could it be the F-18E of light fighters?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a conventional wing design the de-facto choice for a trainer ?

[Spitfire9]

CEMILAC paper pertaining to the issue, pg 4 on wards.

Thank you for that.

[killerbean]

I know this thread is about Tejas and F-50. Lessons must have been learnt from Tejas Mk1 data. Does ADA have the design know how to exploit that data to significantly improve Tejas Mk2 drag characteristics?

Tejas Mk2 is supposed to have lower drag thanks to the nose plug.

Other modifications have already been implemented in Tejas Mk1 to reduce drag further. These are visible in LSP 7.

[killerbean]

F-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2

How much fuel was the F-50 expected to hold? AFAIK, Tejas Mk2 will hold 3000 ~ 3200 kgs of fuel. The mk1 carries ~2450 kgs.

Correct me if i am wrong, Gripen A-D models carry up to ~2200 kgs of fuel right? How much would the NG carry?

Just curious.

[Boom]

whats odd is that you figure a delta air frame would be less draggy, yet the tejas has drag issues. Could it be the F-18E of light fighters?

you need to think beyond the 1950's. this is the next century, people do not design fighters to be 'rockets with wings' anymore, where they minimise drag at the cost of everything else.

tejas has high drag because it has the *lowest* wing loading of all modern fighters (large wing area), which equals excellent maneuverability. the wing design is also not a plain jane delta but rather a complex one. get hold of BHarry's (one time mod at keypubs) excellent article to know more.

the other problem is a less than suitable L/D ratio, which would be fixed with the plug.