Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Defcon 1]

ADA chief has said that in interview to AJAI SHUKLA(thin source according to your exalted self) that TEJAS mk-2 will have interfaces to carry METEOR. And as far as I know makers of METEOR are have not black listed HAL from their buyers list.Since every european defence majors are salivating at the prospect of Indian defence market they will sell meteor to HAl if asked is my my humble estimation.

I could go on and on you but obviously it will be useless. You just switch topics whenever you are asked to prove anything. You are still to prove how did you conclude that LCA Mk2 will detect F16 blk 60 before it is detected by the falcon. But obviously you can't prove it, cos you yourself don't know if it true or false, you just come here to satisfy your need of trolling.

The upgraded pak F16 A/B will match the new block 52? F16.net quotes that after mlu these aircraft would be closer to block 40 standard. And they have the best info as far as f16 is concerned. But anyway, my understanding was that Pak had the option of ordering another 18 b52s in addition to the ones purchased.

But as far as the J10 is concerned, you could be right. They have barely enough money to continue inducting the JF17s, and at the same time repair and/or replace the damaged SAAB AWAECs.

Well I am telling you what some connected people on PDF are telling. According to them F16 MLU will be much closer to blk 52. We should always discuss considering the worst possible case in my opinion.

About the option of more F16s, that deal is in rough waters as well. Pakistan was supposed to more F16s by December 2012 but we know nothing of the sort has happened. Even if the deal comes back on track, the F16s pakistan will be getting will be used blk 15 or blk 40. Not blk 52

 

[one]

You do dislike PDF? if Yes, then be warned, many PDFers may join DFI in coming days.

ON Topic> Comparing F-16Block to LCA Mk2 is wrong idea, as both belong to different class

F-16 is MWF while LCA is LWF.

If they both enter fight,one against one,chances are high that F-16 will kill the LCA.

But if they hunt each other in numbers, outcome will vary, depending upon factors like, pilot skills, AWACs help, number of fighters etc.

You are absolutely right. I indeed very much dislike PDF.

On topic: I feel the paki F16 would not come close to the LCA Mk 2 even on one-to-one.

 

[ersakthivel]

I could go on and on you but obviously it will be useless. You just switch topics whenever you are asked to prove anything. You are still to prove how did you conclude that LCA Mk2 will detect F16 blk 60 before it is detected by the falcon. But obviously you can't prove it, cos you yourself don't know if it true or false, you just come here to satisfy your need of trolling.

What I said was there more powerful radar on F-16 vs the lesser RCS of Tejas provides an even chance for both fighters.

If you are such a stickler for authenticity, then,

In the same way why are you not countering the posts that give a guarantee of first detection to F-16 because of the bigger Radar?

Who gave you the clinching evidence for

1. The cumulative RCS of Tejas with sleeker air to air missiles,

2. The detection range of F-16 blk 60's Radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

3. The cumulative RCS figure of F-16 with sleeker air to air missiles,

4. The detection range of Tejas mk-2 for that cumulative RCS figure,

So that you know the true picture,

So stop this disgusting troll calling technique .

Have you got sufficient proof for it?

Well I am telling you what some connected people on PDF are telling. According to them F16 MLU will be much closer to blk 52. We should always discuss considering the worst possible case in my opinion.

About the option of more F16s, that deal is in rough waters as well. Pakistan was supposed to more F16s by December 2012 but we know nothing of the sort has happened. Even if the deal comes back on track, the F16s pakistan will be getting will be used blk 15 or blk 40. Not blk 52

Also are you 100 percent sure about the power out put of both the Tejas mk-2's proposed ASEA radar and the existing F-16's ASEA Radar to make any reasonable conclusion?

The nose cone of Tejas is comparable to RAFALE, So it will have a decent radar. The nose cone of F-16 is bigger than tejas, So it will always have a much bigger radar was what I agreed very earlier on.

whatever be the block number the Tejas mk-2's chances of getting sophisticated ew suit and powerful asea radar are independent of the US- PAK deal.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Well I am telling you what some connected people on PDF are telling. According to them F16 MLU will be much closer to blk 52. We should always discuss considering the worst possible case in my opinion.

About the option of more F16s, that deal is in rough waters as well. Pakistan was supposed to more F16s by December 2012 but we know nothing of the sort has happened. Even if the deal comes back on track, the F16s pakistan will be getting will be used blk 15 or blk 40. Not blk 52

Ya, the PDF guys are indeed stating that the mlu for the vipers will be to level 52, but all other sources do say otherwise. In the absence of anything concrete either way, lets assume the worst for us i.e. 52s. This puts about 63 vipers as the spearhead of their AF.

Now bear in mind that with the recent series of revelations regarding failed tests of BMs, their only credible source of nuclear weapon delivery would be the f16 or the mirage. With the survivability of mirage being too low in indian territory, it would be logical to assume that atleast half a squadron of the vipers would be earmarked for delivery role. This again reduces the number of effective 4th gen. fighters available of CAPS tasking.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that lca was initially designed to replace the Mig21, and not be a match to the mirage or the f16. Two decades later, increased funds and resources will most certainly have improved the sensors, avionics suites, but its basic purpose remains same, to replace the migs. Its requirement is interceptor, with a limited CAS ability, and a possible strike ability should an opportunity arise. And by all accounts, it will meet those marks, and that is its definition of success, not beating th block 60

 

[ersakthivel]

So that means you agree that LCA is useless if we decide to send it on bombing missions inside enemy air space...Means I am Tiger but only in my house...If I go out I am a common man...to challenge LCA enemy will have to enter our air space which our Flankers, Rafales and air defenses will make very difficult for enemy and after that Tejas will jump if somehow enemy manages to come inside....means you agree that its out of the capacity of LCA to do the initial dirty operation on enemies and LCA is not qualified for this...BTW F-16 is good at doing dirty work in the beginning....

I don't know you are a die hard fan of WWF. You want each and every individual fighters of the opposing force to jump into the ring like in WWF one on one or like those duels in old western films?

A prithvi missile has a range of 300 km. Agni variants have ranges varying from 300 to 5000 km. SO you call prithvi useless?

Do you know how many forward air defence bases that the IAF has? And which fighter will be more suitable to be place d there?

Every plane will have to operate within it's range only.What is the point of contention in it?

How can you expect a 6 ton empty weight plane to go deep into enemy territory?

For your information a lot of precious enemy air defense assets and targets will be located within the Tejas range and tejas will be used against those assets in war . SO it will fly into combat theater.

In the same way longer range fighters will attack assets located deep within the enemy territory. So what is wrong in having TEJAS which can do the same job in forward areas as capably as those long range fighters?

A significant number of targets during war time will be well within the Tejas 's range and all heavies of opposing forces will have to take on Tejas if they come inside indian air space. So Tejas will ahve as much fighting to do as the imported stuff.

Where do you think moving columns of armor will be engaging in combat? On the border or deep inside the enemy territory?If they are on the border , tejas will be employed in ground strikes against them . And during those times it will have to face enemy air defences and enemy fighters as well.

LCA alone and that too against 1000s of PAF and PLAAF combined (with likes of Vipers, J-10,J-11s, MKKs) attack while our bigger fighters are out on bombing?? hmm very bad idea in my honest opinion.....we will need to keep some heavy fighters along with them for home defense....

You want India to go bust financially by buying 1000s of high end foreign fighters which incidentally will give the same capacity as the much cheaper LCA with in the borders of the country?

That is always appreciated....I have full respect for our scientists for what they have achieved...Nukes, Missiles, Space program....LCA is good effort but still its too early to comment on its capabilities against the things like F-16 especially 52 and plus versions....

you can take some time out to appreciate the decades long effort of indigenous capability that IAF will have with Tejas as well. And how tejas brings great flexibility to IAf allowing it to use those heavy imported fighters in the long range roles intended for them.

Chinese do not have a choice...they do not have access to top of the line western stuff and Russia many times supplied them down graded stuff...I never said they are equal to LM, Boeing....and we are certainly not even as good as Chengdu....

So if people does not have choice like the chinese , they will build stealth fighters,

While great nation like India which has all the choices will be sucking up the foreign defence majors forever ,

even when there exists a technical capability to design a medium fighter like LCA Tejas that can do the job pretty favourably within the forward areas, where more than 50 percent of combat missions are going to be flown?

Please do not tell what M2K was not having initially....it flew in 70s and it was also a talk of the town in those days...current M2K flying with France, UAE have everything that requires in true 4th generation fighters...even our M2K will have those after upgrades....so it was the M2K then and it is the M2K today...thing is we decided to make fighter in the class of Mirage in 83 and today in 2013 we are yet to see it in the service so pleas stop comparing it with even M2K...

So if fighters age they will simply graduate to 4.5th gen as per your theory . AM I right? Are their airframes organic and evolve like human beings? Then why are you not ready to grant the same evolution for Tejas as well?

Only avionics and missiles can be upgraded, The upgraded Mirage still has the lower TWR than TEJAs and higher RCS than Tejas. Do you know that or not?

SO if IAF thought that these upgraded mirages are good enough so that they can buy 126 of them even in 2005, then why are people pouring scorn over mk-2 which will bring much higher combat capacity than Mirage in the form of lower RCs and higher TWR, within it's unrefuelled range?

I googled and just came to know it is yet pass FOC

You can goolge and also find out the exact number of planes in mk-1 and mk-2 versions that are ordered.

 

[ersakthivel]

Ya, the PDF guys are indeed stating that the mlu for the vipers will be to level 52, but all other sources do say otherwise. In the absence of anything concrete either way, lets assume the worst for us i.e. 52s. This puts about 63 vipers as the spearhead of their AF.

Now bear in mind that with the recent series of revelations regarding failed tests of BMs, their only credible source of nuclear weapon delivery would be the f16 or the mirage. With the survivability of mirage being too low in indian territory, it would be logical to assume that atleast half a squadron of the vipers would be earmarked for delivery role. This again reduces the number of effective 4th gen. fighters available of CAPS tasking.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that lca was initially designed to replace the Mig21, and not be a match to the mirage or the f16. Two decades later, increased funds and resources will most certainly have improved the sensors, avionics suites, but its basic purpose remains same, to replace the migs. Its requirement is interceptor, with a limited CAS ability, and a possible strike ability should an opportunity arise. And by all accounts, it will meet those marks, and that is its definition of success, not beating th block 60

The F-35 is replacing F-16. So both of them are equal according to the same analogy?

AMCA is meant to replace MIG-29s. Are both equals?

Mig-21 was built as a very short range interceptor against the enemy bombers in the russian fleet. The role assigned to LCA was very different from the inception itself.

See, the ASR set for LCA even at those times was for 4 tons pay load and mirage like dynamically unstable on all axis flight profile (meaning higher close combat maneuverability )with fully digital fly by wire tech and much higher TWR than Mirages and much lower wing loading than the mirages which don't even have the remotest possible relation to MIG-21s.

So in no way any spec of Tejas has any remote resemblance to MIG-21.It just occupies the space left behind by MIG-21, it was not designed with MIG-21 specs in mind. It was always aimed to be Mirage like.

World over Mirage-2000 are considered comparable to F-16s.

So by the same token If Tejas mk-2 exceeds Mirage specs in TWR,RCS , wing loading and asea radar , and long range BVRs in no way it can be a pushover for the F-16 any block within the forward air combat theater..


Of course ,it does not have the higher range and weapon load of the F-16. But within it's operating range it is quite capable of holding it's own is my guess.

Especially when larger number of Tejas are employed with AWACS support in India's western sector ,Tejas mk-2 has the capability to give a good account of itself, who wins is another matter.

 

[Defcon 1]

What I said was there more powerful radar on F-16 vs the lesser RCS of Tejas provides an even chance for both fighters.

Blatant lie.

In post #10 of this thread, you said

Tejas will detect and track F-16 first and can obtain a radar lock and firing solution well before F-16 does the same to tejas due to lower RCS of Tejas(even with external stores the cumulative RCs of Tejas will be less than that of F-16 ) and with the proposed ASEA radar.

Now when I asked you to prove it, you are changing your words. Shows how low you can fall to win an argument.

Ya, the PDF guys are indeed stating that the mlu for the vipers will be to level 52, but all other sources do say otherwise. In the absence of anything concrete either way, lets assume the worst for us i.e. 52s. This puts about 63 vipers as the spearhead of their AF.

Now bear in mind that with the recent series of revelations regarding failed tests of BMs, their only credible source of nuclear weapon delivery would be the f16 or the mirage. With the survivability of mirage being too low in indian territory, it would be logical to assume that atleast half a squadron of the vipers would be earmarked for delivery role. This again reduces the number of effective 4th gen. fighters available of CAPS tasking.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that lca was initially designed to replace the Mig21, and not be a match to the mirage or the f16. Two decades later, increased funds and resources will most certainly have improved the sensors, avionics suites, but its basic purpose remains same, to replace the migs. Its requirement is interceptor, with a limited CAS ability, and a possible strike ability should an opportunity arise. And by all accounts, it will meet those marks, and that is its definition of success, not beating th block 60

I disagree. The claims about failed tests of their missiles are only sketchy and it will be wrong to assume that this will compromise their whole BM program which has spanned decades. Missiles are still the primary nuke delivery systems for pakistan.

F16 can't be used for nuclear operations. Americans won't allow it. They still keep the pakistani F16s under strict surveillance of the US staff present on PAF bases. Also, pakistan isn't allowed do any modification on the falcon other than some routine maintenance. So all fourth gen fighters of PAF will be available for CAS

Mirage will be only airborne nuke option of pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear capable Ra'ad ALCM which has a range of 350 km so survivability of Mirage in Indian airspace is not an issue. It can fire Ra'ad without entering our airspace. But mirage will just remain as an option. Primary carrier will still be missiles.

Yes Tejas is not supposed to beat F16 blk 60. Our countrymen should be able appreciate it without feeling the need to compare it with others. Though comparison is not bad if it used for educational purposes.

 

[ersakthivel]

Blatant lie.

In post #10 of this thread, you said



Now when I asked you to prove it, you are changing your words. Shows how low you can fall to win an argument.



I disagree. The claims about failed tests of their missiles are only sketchy and it will be wrong to assume that this will compromise their whole BM program which has spanned decades. Missiles are still the primary nuke delivery systems for pakistan.

F16 can't be used for nuclear operations. Americans won't allow it. They still keep the pakistani F16s under strict surveillance of the US staff present on PAF bases. Also, pakistan isn't allowed do any modification on the falcon other than some routine maintenance. So all fourth gen fighters of PAF will be available for CAS

Mirage will be only airborne nuke option of pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear capable Ra'ad ALCM which has a range of 350 km so survivability of Mirage in Indian airspace is not an issue. It can fire Ra'ad without entering our airspace. But mirage will just remain as an option. Primary carrier will still be missiles.

Yes Tejas is not supposed to beat F16 blk 60. Our countrymen should be able appreciate it without feeling the need to compare it with others. Though comparison is not bad if it used for educational purposes.

No one needs to assume anything on tejas mk-2 without answering the following questions,
1. The cumulative RCS of Tejas with sleeker air to air missiles,

2. The detection range of F-16 blk 60's Radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

3. The cumulative RCS figure of F-16 with sleeker air to air missiles,

4. The detection range of Tejas mk-2's radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

Great discovery indeed!!!. what I typed was an immediate response highlighting the the role of lower RCS Tejas ,

That was my guess then and I still stand by it.

Lets see who is right when facts become known to public latter.

Meanwhile do you have any answers for the following questions to prove me wrong?



1. The cumulative RCS of Tejas with sleeker air to air missiles,

2. The detection range of F-16 blk 60's Radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

3. The cumulative RCS figure of F-16 with sleeker air to air missiles,

4. The detection range of Tejas mk-2's radar for that cumulative RCS figure,

I am 100 percent sure , you don't have them either.

Nobody needs to win any argument here. this is supposed to be a debate , where people are allowed to bring forth differing points of views leading to an animated discussion , that is the beauty of the forums in the net. What I posted was not a blatant lie as you made it out to be. It was my view considering the supposed to be lower RCS of Tejas(in line with the RCS of TYPHOON and RAFALE,).

No need to call the other guy a troll in a silly manner.

If you want no one to post views opposing yours you can start a website with the warning "my words here are the final holy grail of truth"

So I did post my views. If you have conclusive answers for the above questions you can prove me wrong and win all the arguments yourself.

 

[p2prada]

Well I am telling you what some connected people on PDF are telling. According to them F16 MLU will be much closer to blk 52.

In terms of weight, dimensions and engine power, the Block 52 is like the LCA Mk2 while Block 15/20 are like LCA Mk1.

Avionics may end up being similar, but performance won't.

Meaning there are big differences between a Block 1/5/10/15/20 aircraft and Block 30/40/50 aircraft, hence they have the F-16 A/B and F-16C/D designations resply.

A/B are 6.5 tonnes while empty while C/D are 8.5 tonnes while empty. A/B have small inlets and weaker thrust engines, so expecting avionics on the same level as the C/D won't be appropriate.

LCA Mk1 is at the level as the A/Bs while LCA Mk2 (speculated to be around 7 - 7.5 tonnes) is a little below F-16 B52. But the use of composites and the increased internal volume should make it very similar to a B52. Add AESA to the Mk2 and it will be a better aircraft than the B52. Nevertheless, B52 will most probably generate an extra tonne of thrust.

F-16 B60 is above 10 tonnes while empty. It is a whole difference class from there. No real specs comparison between the two if there is a difference of 3 tonnes.

Similarly, no point expecting the PAF MLUs to bring a B15/20 to a B52 level. Technically, it is not even a B30/32 level.

 

[ersakthivel]

there won't be any significant weight increase for MK-2 over MK-1 is what we infer from BR karthik's talk with authorities at aeroindia 2013,
SInce the 0.5 meter increase in fuselage won't have much weight implications. The naval version will definitely weigh more due to stiffened airframe and higher weight landing gear, But the airforce version has no reason to gain 1.5 ton weight simply for a 0.5 meter increase in length. even the range of MK-2 won't be significantly enhanced in naval version, the bit higher weight of fuel will compensate for the landing gear weight.For airforce version there won't be much weight gain.

The more the aircraft weighs lesser it's TWR. SO what is important is the TWR of each fighter and wingloading combined.
because a lightly loaded wing means larger wing with more weight.

Why it is intentionally chosen?

because the larger wing will give much better trans sonic acceleration and agility along with higher instantaneous turn rate which is vital in close combat or evading missiles.

So plain vanilla TWR figures based on higher empty weight and high thrust engine hides more than it rveals about the performance of a fighter.

If you have any doubts about this you can go to the following forum to se how lower TWR(0.97) Mirage -2000(low wing loading fighter) will fare against a higher TWR F-16(1 plus)(high wing loading fighter).

Incidentally even in mk-1 version the LCA mk-1 has much higher TWR(1.07) and even lower wing loading than mirage -2000 even after the costly upgrade. This point is conveniently glossed over by posters who consistently say LCA mk-1 is not equal to Mirage -2000.

higher weapon load and longer range won't aid you in close combat. In close combat the TWR along with Instantaneous turn rate resulting from lightly loaded wing is the critical factor whether you evede a missile of in dog fight.

This is explained many times in the above forum .none other than the greek airforce chief's interview is posted to butress the points.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872.html

 

[asianobserve]

versus

Since this is purely a fanboys club thread why don't we have a poll on which aircraft would be better (based on uninformed and biased opinions)... maybe the looks would be a good start?

 

[A chauhan]

...
versus

Since this is purely a fanboys club thread why don't we have a poll on which aircraft would be better (based on uninformed and biased opinions)... maybe the looks would be a good start?

That is not LCA mk II.

 

[asianobserve]

That is not LCA mk II.

I know but I can't get a photo of Mk2. In any case, I don't think there's much visual change between LCA Mk1 and Mk2.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In the same sense if compare to an Indian with an American is it an insult to an American ?

IF IF and IF....Let Tejas join service then we will talk... till then its an insult to VIPER for being compared with LCA...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A LCA MK2 can take on an F-16 BLOCK 60 without much issues..

Some Edges of LCA MK-2 :

0. Its a very small nimble fighter made of entirely composite which reflect very less RCS compare to those in metal form..
1. It use radar reflecting and absorbing Paint as already used on LCA MK1..
2. It use DASH helmet which is more or less same as Euro-fighter / JSF helmet and Pilot can shoot Missiles with just his look on the target..
3. R-73 missiles are better than AIM-9 class A2A missiles used on most F-16..
4. Built In ECM Suit..
5. Bigger frame-less HUD


Tejas are more about Stealth, And combination of R-73 and DASH HMD and bigger HUD makes it a very formidable fighter in WVR ( Within visual range ), In BVR also it will have Meteor and Astra so does Debry, AESA is common on both Aircraft so no need to bring that..

==================================

F-16 is yesterday design & technology just pimped up to meet today challenge, Tejas are not..

 

[asianobserve]

Okay if these fanboys brawl can't be stopped, then at least let's have some order. I think the best way to compare the two is against the following specifications:

1) thrust to weight ratio;
2) g-limits;
3) Max. take-off weight;
4) speed at sea level and altitude;
5) service ceiling;
6) rate of climb;
7) turning radius;
8) wing loading;
9) weapons;
10) avionics;
11) electronic warfare;
12) defensive suites;
13) passive detection systems;
14) systems integration; and,
15) land attack capabilities.

 

[ersakthivel]

versus

Since this is purely a fanboys club thread why don't we have a poll on which aircraft would be better (based on uninformed and biased opinions)... maybe the looks would be a good start?

If you post the photo of F-16 without weapon load it will also look the same as Tejas. So what is the fuss?

You are not the judge and jury combined all in one here to determine who is a fanboy and who is not.

When a thread is opened people are free to post their views, in the same way you are doing, no one needs to be upset over that.

 

[ersakthivel]

Okay if these fanboys brawl can't be stopped, then at least let's have some order. I think the best way to compare the two is against the following specifications:

1) thrust to weight ratio;
2) g-limits;
3) Max. take-off weight;
4) speed at sea level and altitude;
5) service ceiling;
6) rate of climb;
7) turning radius;
8) wing loading;
9) weapons;
10) avionics;
11) electronic warfare;
12) defensive suites;
13) passive detection systems;
14) systems integration; and,
15) land attack capabilities.

You have left RCS out of the list.

1.Since it is no rocket science to reduce the wing area(resulting in higher wingloading meaning lesser lift per KG) which will automatically lead to higher TWR(thrust to weight ratio),and higher STR(sustained turn rate)
Why are larger wing area low wing loading fighters like tejas, mirage and RAFALE built?

2.what is the role of Instantaneous turn rate in today's close combat,
and what is it's relationship with lower wing loading ,larger wing area(automatically lower TWR)?

3.MK-2 will have comparable service ceiling , Range is obviously less for Tejas as it is meant to be deployed in forward air fields on western front to be employed in border areas,

4.All high wing loading fighters have higher STRs and lowet ITRs,
All low wing loading fighters have lower STR and higher ITR, Why such different combinations are preferred?

Some interesting views are in the thread below.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872.html

5. glimits- Tejas is 9 G capable.Ew and passive detection will be added as it comes near final configuration

6. technically high wing loading fighters like F-16 perform better at sea level with higher STR, Low wing loading large area deltas like Tejas are much better at managing trans sonic drag and give a good account of them at higher altitudes, with much better Instantaneous turn rate.

If you have views to the contrary please post and bestow some enlightenment upon fanboys here.

 

[A chauhan]

Yup! the one which detects the opponent first has the 80% chances to win, I hope LCA mk II gets the best AESA of its class.

 

[vishwaprasad]

In the same sense if compare to an Indian with an American is it an insult to an American ?

Sorry for that language...I take my words back