ADITYA MAYUKH
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 7
Lca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas
Please stop making stupid posts. Do you have sources saying tejas will be using R77 or meteor? BSLca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas
Here is a rough comparison of the two aircraft, with the aspects where one particular fighter has an advantage in boldLca is a good platfrom and with r 77,meator ,mica and other armnment it is a potent platfrom and against chinese it is enough for atleast j10 a in most areas
LCA and. J10A both have generally the same radar. Both radars are derivatives of the Israeli EL/M 2032.LCA's radar is of similar size as J-10 or EF-2000. It is bigger than Rafale's radar. Just that Rafale/EF will produce more power while J-10 cannot.
LCA's power pack generates 40 KVA. The MKIs powerpack should deliver 60 KVA. Any idea if J-10 uses the same 60 KVA powerpack or a smaller pack.LCA and. J10A both have generally the same radar. Both radars are derivatives of the Israeli EL/M 2032.
The advantage, WRT radar performance though lies with the J10A, mainly because J10A uses a much more powerful engine which translates to higher capacity power pack powering the aircraft's avionics and radar.
No doubt.PS. The Pulse-Doppler on Eurofighter is a great deal larger and more powerful than any 2032 derivative...
Tejas has comparable radome dia as that of RAFALE.The LCA is too slow and short-ranged to be an effective strike fighter for conflicts involving any nation not named Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh. Furthermore, its tiny nose cone hampers its ability to incorporate a large, long-range AESA radar, limiting its utility as a true air-superiority fighter in conditions when GCI or AWACS is not available (as might be the case in a true air-to-air slugfest with any opponent boasting post-Cold-War IADS and a competent air force.)
The J-10A has the ability to be a medium-range strike fighter that projects force through the First Island Chain, and especially against Taiwan, which is the operating scenario the J-10 was designed for. However, in a contest versus Japan or the United States over the Western Pacific, China will need to use IFR to get the J-10 where it needs to be, again limiting its utility, and its lack of stealthiness means the J-10 will be highly vulnerable during its ingress and egress from the combat zone--especially versus American F-22s that could theoretically intercept them at any point between the Nanjing MR's megabases and the Ryukyu Islands.
MK-2 will have the interface needed to use METEOR is the statement of ADA chief Subramanium. So no bullshit this.Please stop making stupid posts. Do you have sources saying tejas will be using R77 or meteor? BS
Makes no sense all the above mentioned Junks are soon to be retired and has no way connected with Tejas induction.Those stealthy big birds too will be detected in the future.Got it. That makes sense. Your point about turnaround rates is an especially oft-overlooked benefit of smaller, non-stealthy aircraft. Big birds with stealthy internal weapons bays like the F-22 are far harder on the ground crew in active combat situations than simpler aircraft.
Not lower than crashing J-10s with fly by wire faults compared to 2059 incident free text book flight trials across 10 platforms, with fly by wire tech exported to Boeing Airbus civilian planes.Initial Operational Certificate? And stage ONE?
Don't you think your standard is a little bit low?
In English language "interface to use meteor" and "will be using meteor" are different terms.MK-2 will have the interface needed to use METEOR is the statement of ADA chief Subramanium. So no bullshit this.
Considering the monetary value of the Indian Meteor (both Rafale and Tejas put together)contract the makers will sell it to india , regardless of whichever language we discuss it.In English language "interface to use meteor" and "will be using meteor" are different terms.
I honestly have no idea, but J10A and MKI use almost exactly the same engine. Differences beingLCA's power pack generates 40 KVA. The MKIs powerpack should deliver 60 KVA. Any idea if J-10 uses the same 60 KVA powerpack or a smaller pack.
J10A's engine is almost exactly the same engine that powers the IAF's Su30 MKI. These engines provide excellent acceleration and thrust performance, certainly exceeding the performance of the F404's powering LCA Mk1.The J-10s engine takes too long to reach top acceleration, . A dangerous prospect in the enemy skies while carrying out evasive maneuvers.
Maneuvering, yes, but BVR missiles are not evaded at transonic speeds, and quite frankly today's active radar guided BRAAM's, with their very large no escape zones are much harder to evade than the BVRAAM's that defined BVR air warfare of the 80's and 90's.Most of the fighting maneuvers are carried out at trans sonic speeds . At top speeds the fighters are not very much maneuverable , so that does not help evading BVR missiles.
I thought we were discussing LCA Mk1 and J10A. If you factor in LCA Mk2 wouldn't it be a better comparison with J10B, which is a much lighter fighter, with a higher engine thrust and TWR than J10A?So agility in trans sonic speed with low wing loading is the spec to look for.here Tejas mk-2 will have a way higher TWr than the J-10 another important spec.
And why would an LCA detect and attain lock on a J10A, which has a higher power radar, electronic warfare, and avionics suite first?When the heavier bigger J-10 comes across himalayas , to face LCA Tejas which will track first, lock first and shoot first? RCS wise compare it.
It is not about logistics and commonality won't affect it. My question is more due to size constraints than anything else. I am asking whether the Russians gave you the same one as on Flankers since the Flanker power packs are pretty large or did you make your own. I guess it would be difficult to get that answer anyway.I honestly have no idea, but J10A and MKI use almost exactly the same engine.
I don't see why they would sacrifice this key advantage over light weight fighters and lose the logistical commonality advantage with the over 100 J11A's they usually operate with by using a lower capacity power pack, but I wouldn't want to speculate any further.
The similarly sized F16 carries a 60KVA main generator, a 10KVA back-up generator and another 5KVA generator on-board, so size constraints really shouldn't be a problem. But as I said, all speculation. I'm more intrigued as to the max capacity of the J10B's main generator linked to the more powerful WS10A.It is not about logistics and commonality won't affect it. My question is more due to size constraints than anything else. I am asking whether the Russians gave you the same one as on Flankers since the Flanker power packs are pretty large or did you make your own. I guess it would be difficult to get that answer anyway.
LCA uses 30-40KVA power packs which is supposedly our own. But the F-404 also comes with a 50KVA powerpack which is not on LCA Mk1.
the reason is difference in RCS. LCA will definitely have lessser RCS.J10A's engine is almost exactly the same engine that powers the IAF's Su30 MKI. These engines provide excellent acceleration and thrust performance, certainly exceeding the performance of the F404's powering LCA Mk1.
Maneuvering, yes, but BVR missiles are not evaded at transonic speeds, and quite frankly today's active radar guided BRAAM's, with their very large no escape zones are much harder to evade than the BVRAAM's that defined BVR air warfare of the 80's and 90's.
Higher top speeds actually mean more kinetic energy imparted to BVRAAM's, meaning much longer range for active radar guided PL12's launched by J10's flying at mach 2 than derby's fired by LCA Mk1's flying at mach 1.7.At their top speeds a fighter is least maneuverable.So no fighter is going to evade a BVR by having 0.3 mach more top speed. Case in point is RAFALE (top speed 1.8 mach) preferred over much higher top speed TYPHOON in indian MMRCA contract.which was . Evasive maneuvers for what ever their worth are carried out at speeds where the fighters are more maneuverable, not at speeds where fighter is not maneuverable is my guess.
At their top speeds no fighter will pull enough Gs to out run a much higher G capable ,much more top speed capable BVR.
for 50g capable mach 4 plus BVRMs the differece of 0.3 mach doesn't really matter.
I thought we were discussing LCA Mk1 and J10A. If you factor in LCA Mk2 wouldn't it be a better comparison with J10B, which is a much lighter fighter, with a higher engine thrust and TWR than J10A?
And why would an LCA detect and attain lock on a J10A, which has a higher power radar, electronic warfare, and avionics suite first?
Not to mention that a combat loaded LCA Mk 1, with not the most advanced EW suite around, flying at high altitude, isn't going to be a "stealthy" target to begin with...
The power produced will be divided among ew suit radar and most importantly for the much bigger hydraulics of bigger J-10. So you don't have to assume all the power generated will be given directly to Radar and Ew suit. A lot of it should also be given to much bigger power hungry hydraulic actutaors.The similarly sized F16 carries a 60KVA main generator, a 10KVA back-up generator and another 5KVA generator on-board, so size constraints really shouldn't be a problem. But as I said, all speculation. I'm more intrigued as to the max capacity of the J10B's main generator linked to the more powerful WS10A.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
LCA Tejas: Photos & Footages (no text other than headings) | Military Multimedia | 86 | ||
LCA TEJAS and what makes it stand out | Knowledge Repository | 8 | ||
LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion | Indian Air Force | 18020 | ||
W | Rise of LCA Tejas Multi Role Fighter Aircraft | Indian Air Force | 23 |