Combat Aircraft technology and Evolution

[p2prada]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

However doesn't tejas have the same randome dia as the rafale?

That doesn't mean much of anything. If you are talking about Mk1, then size of the array matters not. If you are talking about Mk2, then we don't know anything yet to compare since we do not know what level of processing will be used on Mk2.

It won't be as effective as that of rafales radar due to less.thrust but if I.remember right the radar has a detection range of of 120 kms for.a 3 m^2 target.

Thrust has nothing to do with radar. The engine's electrical power output is important. Mk1 does not compare while we are yet to see what's on the Mk2.

That means all the targets other than stealth will be seen well before this range?

Not necessarily. Radars work on finding targets by looking for returns. So they work on looking for returns that matter. For eg: The MKI may be looking for a target that gives away anything above 0.1m2 even if it is from 50 Km away while LCA may be tasked to find targets above 1m2 at say 80Km. So there is a huge capability difference when it comes down to it. Stealth is simply a term. If the radar cannot reduce its threshold of detection to that of the target, then the target is stealthy. As of what we know today, LCA's radar returns won't be smaller than a cruise missile's, it is the same for other Eurocanards too. So, LCA is not a stealthy target when even 1980s Mig-31s could detect cruise missiles from long distances.

Apart from that the LCA has limited scanning capability, so it will have to position itself in front of the target if it has to catch anything. Then there are other parameters like whether your radar is looking down while the target is above you and so on. Then there is the question of EW. The target aircraft can saturate your small radar signals or even avoid your radar's targeting cone with maneuvers to beat your radar.

That's why while Rafale's radar is not at a particularly great advantage vis a vis LCA, Rafale's primary sensor is considered to be the Spectra, same as how it is on the F-22. The radar is meant for the final showdown.

Apart from that processing will take away most of LCA's advantages if it is not up to the mark of Rafale. So, we will have to wait and see this. If you consider LCA's avionics and Rafale's avionics are the same, even processing and sensor fusion, Rafale still has a lot of aerodynamic advantages and other design related advantages like more hardpoints, more range, better maneuverability, better acceleration etc. Adding weapons pods has nothing to do with 4.5th gen. We can add those on Mirage-IIIE also and it will still be a 3rd gen aircraft. Taking away the F-15E's EWP won't make it 4th gen either.

In your last post you haven't mentioned r77 or astra mk 2? Won't mk1 use these as it has the interface to fire 120 km range bvr?

R-77 won't be part of LCA. There is no official word on Astra Mk2 being used on LCA. Until things are official we can't speculate. As of today, Mk1 will fire Derby and there is only noise about Astra Mk1 being used on LCA. Nothing concrete until IAF orders it. Only go by what's official. There is no point debating "what if" scenarios when we run comparisons.

120 Km is simply a theoretical range anyway.

By the way why don't you think it possible to guide tejas to the target passively? Mig 31 could do so so qssume the mkis are capable of doing so too.

What do you mean by passively? If you are talking about sensor to shooter loop where one aircraft can turn on its radar and look for a target while the other turns off its radars and relies on datalink, then LCA can do that.

But if you are talking about MKI acting as the sensor while LCA does the shooter work, then that's pointless because then the sensor is severely restricted by the capabilities of the shooter. MKI can look into the air for up to 300 Km, and that's only today, and 300 Km is at best LCA's combat radius vs MKI's 1000+ Km radius. Overall, by making a LCA the shooter, you have severely restricted the capabilities of the sensor to just 300 Km. In case the shooter fails, then the sensor is put at risk along with the target aircraft's original objective.

And it is not just combat radius, but also on station time where the MKI has the time to maneuver itself to the target's disadvantage while LCA with its 40 min on station time is worthless in comparison. MKI cannot be expected to downgrade itself to LCA's restricted capabilities. Bring in another MKI and the sensor to shooter loop will work flawlessly. It gives enough time for the sensor to pick up targets and formulate strategies, including killing ground based SAMs that may interfere with the air based targets, because MKIs can switch to swing role when the situation calls for it. The large range of the MKI will deny the enemy's ability of protecting their "sensors."

In real fights, the sensor should be less capable than the shooter when it comes to making the kill. An AWACS is less capable than a fighter when it comes to making a kill. In the USAF, the sensor is the F-15E while the shooter is the F-22 as demonstrated in many exercises. So do you really expect the sensor to be the MKI while the shooter is LCA? Not a chance. You are only as fast as your weakest link.

 

[bhramos]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

You can pretty much say the same thing about Typhoon and RAFALE test piolts as they were fling their planes for a decade before introducing them to service.The first flight of TD-1 was only in 2001. So how come any pilot fly it for 28 years?

 

[p2prada]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

I wanted to point out one thing about the above post.

In the Flight data website, the Mirage-2000 and F-16 are carrying huge payloads of external fuel. For the Mirage-2000 it is 2000x2 + 1700x1, that's 5700 litres of fuel over the 4000 litres of internal fuel, that's a total of 9700 litres.

For the F-16, it is not clear which model and tanks, but you can say there's either 2200x2 + 1400x1 = 5800L + 4000L internal = 9800 L total or a bit lower with 1600x2 tanks, total = 8600L, but this won't make sense because the list mentions max capacity.

In comparison, LCA has 3000 L internal + carries 1200x2 + 725x1 = 6125L. So, around 30% difference in fuel capacity.

The latest F-16 B60 carries 11000L of fuel (internal+external+CFT) and falls short of the MKI's on station time by 30 - 45 minutes while carrying a decent payload.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

40 min on internal, 1 hour with external.



LCA does not have a particularly high fuel fraction. It is a light fighter after all.



It should be the same.

A later block F-16 barely does a little over an hour with 3.1 tonnes of fuel in its belly.



It should be available somewhere. I don't know it.



The Hindu : National : Tejas flight, with drop tanks, successful


Slightly reducing Mirage-2000 specs will give you an idea about LCA. These are Dassault's actual specs for M-2000.
Flight data

Fuel consumption for the aircraft are at max power too. That's full dry power. It should be a little better for LCA since full power is not being used on it and the engine itself is way better than the ones on Mirage-2000.

Thanks for the data. Though I think that they mean 1 hr extra with the fuel tanks and not just 1 hr. Still its a little perplexing since the mirage data shows 2&1/2 hours of loiter time. What is the fuel fraction of the mirage and the mki? Don't you think that the 38% ff on tejas is very good especially for a light fighter? The interesting thing about the data is the difference in itr. I expect the lca to have surpassed the mirage in close combat specs from what thevtest pilots say.

 

[aerokan]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

40 min on internal, 1 hour with external.

The Hindu : National : Tejas flight, with drop tanks, successful.

While the internal tanks allow the Tejas to perform a 40-minute sortie, the drop tanks will increase its endurance by almost an hour.

Doesn't the article mean 40 mins + nearly 1 hr endurance time rather than increasing the endurance to 1 hr ?

Pls clarify!!

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Thanks for the data. Though I think that they mean 1 hr extra with the fuel tanks and not just 1 hr. Still its a little perplexing since the mirage data shows 2&1/2 hours of loiter time. What is the fuel fraction of the mirage and the mki? Don't you think that the 38% ff on tejas is very good especially for a light fighter? The interesting thing about the data is the difference in itr. I expect the lca to have surpassed the mirage in close combat specs from what thevtest pilots say.

Dude how are you getting 38% of FF? for a tejas sans weapons FF will be 2458/9500=25% and at mtow it will be 2458/13100=18.76%. It seems that you are including drop tanks here.

Doing the same with mirage 2000, (5700+3978)*0.8/17000 gives us a FF of 45.5%

 

[rvjpheonix]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Dude how are you getting 38% of FF? for a tejas sans weapons FF will be 2458/9500=25% and at mtow it will be 2458/13100=18.76%. It seems that you are including drop tanks here.

Doing the same with mirage 2000, (5700+3978)*0.8/17000 gives us a FF of 45.5%

Oops I took the empty weight of 6500 kg instead of the gross weight of 9500 kg.My bad. How does tejas fuel fraction compare to other ac's? Wiki.syas 29 for f22. So I guess still good for a light fighter.

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Oops I took the empty weight of 6500 kg instead of the gross weight of 9500 kg.My bad. How does tejas fuel fraction compare to other ac's? Wiki.syas 29 for f22. So I guess still good for a light fighter.

Lets see, calculating internal FF at loaded weight with full internal fuel:

Tejas:25%
EFT: 31%
F22: 29%
JF17:20.2%
Gripen C:3000*0.8/8500=28.23
F16 C: 3175/12000=26.4
Rafale: 4700/14900=31.5%

Note: I haven't included mirage 2000 as I could not get the values of its loaded weight with a reliable source. If anyone gets that, please post here the same. As can be seen Tejas's fuel fraction is minimum here, except for JF17 of course. Wondering how then that plane has a phenomenal claimed range of 3000 km? maybe @Dazzler could throw some light on it.

But that is incomplete explanation for its limited endurance. To dig deeper I would encourage you to find the Specific fuel consumptions of engines of these aircraft at military thrust, multiply it by the engine thrust and then divide it by internal fuel capacity of the aircraft to get an idea of how fast the aircraft is burning its stores. multiply SFC by 2 in dual engined planes. Though it will only serve as an rough indicator since aircraft don't always fly at military thrust, it will be an indicator nonetheless.

maybe @Decklander sir could tell us more about the nature of relation between SFC and thrust.

 

[p2prada]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Thanks for the data. Though I think that they mean 1 hr extra with the fuel tanks and not just 1 hr. Still its a little perplexing since the mirage data shows 2&1/2 hours of loiter time. What is the fuel fraction of the mirage and the mki? Don't you think that the 38% ff on tejas is very good especially for a light fighter? The interesting thing about the data is the difference in itr. I expect the lca to have surpassed the mirage in close combat specs from what thevtest pilots say.

Doesn't the article mean 40 mins + nearly 1 hr endurance time rather than increasing the endurance to 1 hr ?

Pls clarify!!

This 40 min to 1 hour is not strictly the same in every regime. This must be the operational endurance in just one of the many scenarios available.

The article also says that LCA conducted a 1 hour 24 minute flight, but without external stores. The journo must have received info about just one of the many operational mission flight times for LCA. But this looks like what it was designed for, as Mig-21's replacement, but a little better that Mig-21's 30 mins to 45 mins.

So you can say, 50nm dash at supersonic, CAP patrol for 30 mins and back again giving a 150 Km combat radius on internal fuel. 300 Km while carrying external tanks.

Anyway, Tejas carries very less fuel, hence very less loiter time. It is not very different for Rafale either, just that it has much larger tanks and can carry 5 of them.

Mirage-2000 can run a CAP at 150 Km for 2.5 hours because it is carrying ~10000L of fuel vs LCA's max of 6120L. That's around 4000 L extra, more than what LCA can hold internally.

An approximate fuel fraction is easy to calculate.

Weight of fuel / (Empty weight + weight of fuel). Ignore the other variables since they all mostly weigh the same.
LCA internal FF = 27%
Mirage-2000 = 30%
MKI = 34%

I have taken them all at 100% internal fuel capacity. Also, note that every single percentage point matters quite a bit.

With max possible external fuel,
LCA = 40%
Mirage-2000 = 50%
MKI = 41% with 4 tons of external fuel. But this capability does not exist on the MKI. So this is theoretical.

Of course, you will need to take them all at their actual loaded weights with combat capability included.

except for JF17 of course. Wondering how then that plane has a phenomenal claimed range of 3000 km?

That's utter BS. :thumb:

It would mean the JF-17 B1 has completely exceeded the capability of the Flanker class while carrying less than half the fuel + carrying all that extra drag in tanks along with demonstrating lesser L ratio than Flanker. This is called Chinese physics. Most of JF-17's best capabilities can be utilized at low altitudes vs LCA's high altitudes, so that increases fuel consumption even more.

JF-17 has lesser internal fuel than LCA and has lesser external tank capacity. 1100x2 L tank and 800x1 L. To top it off, F-404 has better SFC compared to RD-93.

Anyway, I always laugh whenever LCA is compared to Mirage-2000 because no matter how good the LCA becomes it can never carry this type of a loadout.

3 tanks + 6 missiles. Proves that weight alone isn't a factor.

 

[shiphone]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

about FC-1/JF17...so called internal Fuel weight ratio

1 Weight of fuel / (Empty weight + weight of fuel): 2300kg/(6400+2300)=26.4%
2 Weight of fuel / normal take off rate: 2300kg / 9100kg= 25.2%

in China standard, we usually use the another concept: basic range with full internal fuel+basic armaments(2 SRAAM+Gun's Ammo in this case), JF17's Basic range is 1800km

and 3000Km is the ferry range with the max external tanks. the FC-1's long range ability is a proved one and the design and test flight team claimed that this little bird has longer ferry range than another product from the same team with the Delta wing--J10

you should know ferry range, do you? you guys should bring the LCA's ferry range here if you question the so called 3000Km...

--------------------
you are ignoring the disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight: the low Lift/drag ratio and not so good subsonic cruise ability , and the feature of LCA's aerodynamic layout: thick and short which brings more drages...

you'd better think about another right example : the F16's ferry range..F16 is another typical low internal Fuel weight ratio design

F16C/D's Maximum ferry range 2450 miles with maximum external fuel.
F16A/B's Maximum range 2400 miles

so wrong comparison herer again.
---------------------------------
so called Chinese physics? actually we could see more Indian style ignoring ...

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

I made a mistake in last post, FF for JF17 will be 25% as @shiphone said.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

about FC-1/JF17...so called internal Fuel weight ratio

1 Weight of fuel / (Empty weight + weight of fuel): 2300kg/(6400+2300)=26.4%
2 Weight of fuel / normal take off rate: 2300kg / 9100kg= 25.2%

in China standard, we usually use the another concept: basic range with full internal fuel+basic armaments(2 SRAAM+Gun's Ammo in this case), JF17's Basic range is 1800km

and 3000Km is the ferry range with the max external tanks. the FC-1's long range ability is a proved one and the design and test flight team claimed that this little bird has longer ferry range than another product from the same team with the Delta wing--J10

you should know ferry range, do you? you guys should bring the LCA's ferry range here if you question the so called 3000Km...

--------------------
you are ignoring the disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight: the low Lift/drag ratio and not so good subsonic cruise ability , and the feature of LCA's aerodynamic layout: thick and short which brings more drages...

you'd better think about another right example : the F16's ferry range..F16 is another typical low internal Fuel weight ratio design

F16C/D's Maximum ferry range 2450 miles with maximum external fuel.
F16A/B's Maximum range 2400 miles

so wrong comparison herer again.
---------------------------------
so called Chinese physics? actually we could see more Indian style ignoring ...

You can see F-16 Vs F-16 XL range comparison for the advantages of deltas for ranges.

A tail less delta has more drag than the JF-17 type conventional lay out fighters like JF-17. But they have much better LIFT for their drag. SO they have a preferable LIFT to DRAG ratio over F-17 type conventional lay out fighters like JF-17 is explained beautifully in the following link.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1983/November 1983/1183f16xl.aspx

For an air-to-surface mission, the F-16XL can carry twice the payload of the F-16A up to forty-four percent farther, and do it without external fuel tanks while carrying four AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles) and two Sidewinder AIM-9 infrared missiles.

With equal payload/weapons and external fuel, the mission radius can be nearly doubled. When configured for a pure air-to-air mission, an F-6XL with four AMRAAMs and two AIM-9s can go forty-five percent farther than an F-16A and can do so while conducting a combat action that is equal to thirty percent of its internal fuel.

As for penetration and survivability, the F-16XL can dash supersonically with a load of bombs at either high or low altitude. It can climb at high rates with the bombs aboard.

And it has a speed advantage of up to eighty-three knots over the F-16A at sea level at military power setting and 311 knots on afterburner at altitude while carrying a bomb load.

Two additional capabilities of the F-16XL contribute to survivability. First is improved instantaneous maneuver ability coupled with greatly expanded flight operating limits (with bombs), and second is reduced radar signature resulting from the configuration shaping.

Importance of High Turn Rate

For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.

With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.

All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.

The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage. The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section. It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.

Although the wing area is more than double that of the standard F-16 (633square feet vs. 300 square feet), the drag is actually reduced. The skin friction drag that is a function of the increased wetted (skin surface) area is increased, but the other components of drag (wave, interference, and trim) that are a function of the configuration shape and arrangement are lower so that the "clean airplane" drag is slightly lower during level flight, and forty percent lower when bombs and missiles are added. And although the thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is lower due to the increased weight, the excess thrust is greater because the drag is lower – and excess thrust is what counts.

The larger yet more efficient wing provides a larger area for external stores carriage. At the same time, the wing's internal volume and the lengthened fuselage enable the XL to carry more than eighty percent more fuel internally. That permits an advantageous tradeoff between weapons carried and external fuel tanks.

Tejas is also a cranked arrow tail less delta like F-16 XL.

In the photo below a normal F-16 flies along side the F-16 Xl.

tejas

If physics laws have no nationality What holds good for F-16 Xl over plain F-16 should also hold good for tejas and generally for all other tail less deltas universally on the atmosphere of the earth.


Please give any proof with credible source for ,"the disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight".

Even the fuselage plug recommended by CEMILAC for reducing drag by better adhering to smooth and gradual increase cross section from5 to 6 meters for tejas applies only in ,"super sonic flight" and it has no implication for subsonic loiter time.

There is no chinese physics or indian ignorance attached to ,"the disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight"

Then how come another tail less delta Mirage-2000 has such phenomenal range?

Tejas:25%
EFT: 31%
F22: 29%
JF17:20.2%
Gripen C:3000*0.8/8500=28.23
F16 C: 3175/12000=26.4
Rafale: 4700/14900=31.5%
Mirage-2000 = 30%

If these Fuel fractions are true then ranges then according to universal physics laws ,

with optimum weapon load the combat range will also strictly follow the same ratios for normally combat useful mission is generally accepted practice.

No matter which manufacturer lists what range for their fighters with full external load of fuels and full weapon load for their fighters ,

with optimum weapon load the combat range will also strictly follow the same Fuel Fraction ratios for normally combat useful mission

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

3 tanks + 6 missiles. Proves that weight alone isn't a factor.

This could be very well rectified in mk2 by increasing hardpoints. Also carrying an ecm/recce pod will take one of the hardpoints of mirage, Tejas has a separate point for that.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Lets see, calculating internal FF at loaded weight with full internal fuel:

Tejas:25%
EFT: 31%
F22: 29%
JF17:20.2%
Gripen C:3000*0.8/8500=28.23
F16 C: 3175/12000=26.4
Rafale: 4700/14900=31.5%

Note: I haven't included mirage 2000 as I could not get the values of its loaded weight with a reliable source. If anyone gets that, please post here the same. As can be seen Tejas's fuel fraction is minimum here, except for JF17 of course. Wondering how then that plane has a phenomenal claimed range of 3000 km? maybe @Dazzler could throw some light on it.

But that is incomplete explanation for its limited endurance. To dig deeper I would encourage you to find the Specific fuel consumptions of engines of these aircraft at military thrust, multiply it by the engine thrust and then divide it by internal fuel capacity of the aircraft to get an idea of how fast the aircraft is burning its stores. multiply SFC by 2 in dual engined planes. Though it will only serve as an rough indicator since aircraft don't always fly at military thrust, it will be an indicator nonetheless.

maybe @Decklander sir could tell us more about the nature of relation between SFC and thrust.

But that is incomplete explanation for its limited endurance. To dig deeper I would encourage you to find the Specific fuel consumptions of engines of these aircraft at military thrust, multiply it by the engine thrust and then divide it by internal fuel capacity of the aircraft to get an idea of how fast the aircraft is burning its stores. multiply SFC by 2 in dual engined planes. Though it will only serve as an rough indicator since aircraft don't always fly at military thrust, it will be an indicator nonetheless.

Any source for using calculations like this to arrive at normal combat range for optimum design weapon load for fighters,

 

[Defcon 1]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Any source for using calculations like this to arrive at normal combat range for optimum design weapon load for fighters,

Did it myself

 

[Decklander]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Lets see, calculating internal FF at loaded weight with full internal fuel:

maybe @Decklander sir could tell us more about the nature of relation between SFC and thrust.

The SFC is basically amount of fuel burnt in unit time to produce unit amount of thrust. the units can vary but the fuel burnt is always the mass and not the volume. Now SFC varies on many factors but you get best SFC figures for a jet engine when it is operating between 85% to 92% of its max thrust. Below & above this figure, the SFC becomes BAD i.e the thrust produced for unit fuel burn is lesser. It is always advisable to have an airframe and engine combination which allows an ac to be operated for most of its missions within these thrust limits. If the ac needs to be flown at higher than these figures, the fuel consumption will rise disproportionately resulting in much reduced range. LCA has this problem. Its higher Empty weight has created these problems which will be solved with 98Kn thrust F414INS6 engine which will also have 60Kn dry thrust.
The SFC of f404 & F414 is nearly same but bcoz of higher dry thrust of F414, the engine will burn less fuel to run itself and provide more thrust to LCA. To explain further, 90% of 50KN is 45Kn while 90% of 60Kn is 54%- You get 20% additional thrust for similar SFC. This is possible bcoz of higher mass flow to the engine due to better fan & compressor resulting in larger mass of air for bypass even though the bypass figures as a percentage are same for both the engines.

 

[Decklander]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

about FC-1/JF17...so called internal Fuel weight ratio

1 Weight of fuel / (Empty weight + weight of fuel): 2300kg/(6400+2300)=26.4%
2 Weight of fuel / normal take off rate: 2300kg / 9100kg= 25.2%

in China standard, we usually use the another concept: basic range with full internal fuel+basic armaments(2 SRAAM+Gun's Ammo in this case), JF17's Basic range is 1800km

and 3000Km is the ferry range with the max external tanks. the FC-1's long range ability is a proved one and the design and test flight team claimed that this little bird has longer ferry range than another product from the same team with the Delta wing--J10

you should know ferry range, do you? you guys should bring the LCA's ferry range here if you question the so called 3000Km...


--------------------
you are ignoring the disadvantage of tailless delta wing during the subsonic flight: the low Lift/drag ratio and not so good subsonic cruise ability , and the feature of LCA's aerodynamic layout: thick and short which brings more drages...

you'd better think about another right example : the F16's ferry range..F16 is another typical low internal Fuel weight ratio design

F16C/D's Maximum ferry range 2450 miles with maximum external fuel.
F16A/B's Maximum range 2400 miles

so wrong comparison herer again.
---------------------------------
so called Chinese physics? actually we could see more Indian style ignoring ...

I hope you know the difference between Radius of Action (ROA), Range and Ferry Range?
The range is given for internal fuel only from one point to another at optimum altitude cruise condition using LRC speeds.
ferry range is given for max fuel including drop tanks for cruise at optimum altitude at LRC speeds.
ROA is calculated based on flight profile for the mission based on fuel carried internally or supplemented by D/Ts for a particular weapon mix. The mission is flown at a specific speed for penetration and not at LRC, also based on profile, ROA also includes full military power settings over the target at sea level conditions for three minutes to cater for combat over the target with enemy fighters or for contigencies of escape manoeaver at fastest possible speed.
In Hunters, we used to fly at 200ft AGL at 480kts for weapon release and escape at full bore at 540kts+ speed at tree top level i.e fly at lowest possible altitude to the RV point for the strike to get together again and our fighter escorts used to wait for at this RV point to allow us a safe exit from enemy territory. The fighter escorts provide cover to the strike only upto IP from there on they move to post strike RV point, the strike has to go thru all on its own from IP to target to RV Point. The strike may face enemy SAMs/Fighters or AA Guns and they have to press on with the attack unmindfull of these threats. The survivors from the strike rejoin at post strike RV point. Any pursuing enemy fighter becomes the responsibility of the fighter escorts.

 

[shiphone]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

I hope you know the difference between Radius of Action (ROA), Range and Ferry Range?
The range is given for internal fuel only from one point to another at optimum altitude cruise condition using LRC speeds.
ferry range is given for max fuel including drop tanks for cruise at optimum altitude at LRC speeds.
ROA is calculated based on flight profile for the mission based on fuel carried internally or supplemented by D/Ts for a particular weapon mix. The mission is flown at a specific speed for penetration and not at LRC, also based on profile, ROA also includes full military power settings over the target at sea level conditions for three minutes to cater for combat over the target with enemy fighters or for contigencies of escape manoeaver at fastest possible speed.
In Hunters, we used to fly at 200ft AGL at 480kts for weapon release and escape at full bore at 540kts+ speed at tree top level i.e fly at lowest possible altitude to the RV point for the strike to get together again and our fighter escorts used to wait for at this RV point to allow us a safe exit from enemy territory. The fighter escorts provide cover to the strike only upto IP from there on they move to post strike RV point, the strike has to go thru all on its own from IP to target to RV Point. The strike may face enemy SAMs/Fighters or AA Guns and they have to press on with the attack unmindfull of these threats. The survivors from the strike rejoin at post strike RV point. Any pursuing enemy fighter becomes the responsibility of the fighter escorts.

quite strange...I really don't understand you would show off such basic concept here, I thought you needn't push such so called' popularization of science' to me...actually some other members might need your so 'profound' knowledge more ...

what I did were:
1. correct the FC-1/JF17 internal Fuel weight ratio.
2. clarify the so called JF17's "a phenomenal claimed range of 3000 km"---it's a ferry range data, and it's official and possible.
3. also give a concept in China Military Standard of Airplane design ---airplane's Basic range. ...JF17 is designed under China's standard and evaluation system, different country has different concept and standard, I thought it might be helpful to open your mind...use your "@" to them please...LOL

actualy this screenshot of the PPT just explained these three concepts

-------------------
to some member on my ignoring list(maybe on many other's list as well...LOL), I do beg you put me on your ignoring list as well and enjoy your own wonderland...

I accept some decent BR member's suggest , I carefully chose a word' ignoring' not 'ignorance', I thought there was much difference...LOL...sorry for my poor English expression

 

[Decklander]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

quite strange...I really don't understand you would show off such basic concept here, I thought you needn't push such so called' popularization of science' to me...actually some other members might need your so 'profound' knowledge more ...

what I did were:
1. correct the FC-1/JF17 internal Fuel weight ratio.
2. clarify the so called JF17's "a phenomenal claimed range of 3000 km"---it's a ferry range data, and it's official and possible.
3. also give a concept in China Military Standard of Airplane design ---airplane's Basic range. ...JF17 is designed under China's standard and evaluation system, different country has different concept and standard, I thought it might be helpful to open your mind...

-------------------
to some member on my ignoring list(maybe on many other's list as well...LOL), I do beg you put me on your ignoring list as well and enjoy your own wonderland...

I accept some decent BR member's suggest , I carefully chose a word' ignoring' not 'ignorance', I thought there is the difference...LOL...sorry for my poor English expression

I think I misunderstood your post. I got confused by the mission profile pictures which you posted while explaining about Range and Ferry range.