IAF to keep MiG-21 until 2019

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
Small correction.. MKIs Emergency is 13300KGF.

BTW, the unupgraded IAF MiG-29Bs dont have it. Only the RD-33 Series 3 version in the UPG has this feature.

Would be awesome to see MiG-29K loaded up to its full, kicking its Emergency and frying the carrier behind it. : D Also see it turn and burn with it during a Airshow. ;} If wishes were horses.

But the undisputed king of Emergency thurst is and will always be the MiG-21Bis/Bison. A massive 2800KGF difference. No fighter in the world has that. Lets see the LCA beat that one in Thurst to Weight Ratio. A few seconds of this boost is all it needs to get on LCA's ass and pump it full of lead. :p
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
With *Emergency thrust kicking in, this is where it gets interesting -
9900/7824 = 1.27 MiG
9165/9018 = 1.02 LCA
It should get even better because fuel loads will be relatively more empty by the time Mig-21 gets into a fight.

When MRCA was announced, people thought that choosing Gripen NG will kill the LCA program. Most people forget that the LCA program would have died had the Russian interest in selling the Mig-21 line to India worked out back in the 90s. NG wasn't even a minor threat to the LCA program.
 

rvjpheonix

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
a note on Tumansky r25 from wiki:
The Tumansky R-25 was designed as a replacement for Tumansky R-13 in MiG-21 fighters. R-25 is a two-spool axial-flow turbojet featuring a new compressor with increased overall pressure ratio and airflow, variable two-stage afterburner, and greater use of titanium.
The R-25 jet engine's specialty was the addition of a second fuel pump in the afterburning stage. Activating the ЦР(чрезвычайный режим - emergency mode) booster feature allows the engine to develop 96.8 kilonewtons (21,800 lbf) of thrust under 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) of altitude. The limit of operation is 1 minute for dogfight practice and 3 minutes for an actual wartime emergency, as further use causes the engine to overheat and potentially explode. Use of CSR requires engine take-out inspection upon landing and every minute of its use counts as one full hour of engine runtime on the logbook.
This further shortens the already limited cycle time of Soviet made engines between industrial-level overhauls and adds great cost, but the extreme thrust of CSR allowed the MiG-21bis to reach a better than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio for dogfight and outclimb the F-16. Yet, the older generation plane did not possess the advanced electronics suite and missiles of its rivals and its only success was a Syrian MiG-21bis damaging an F-15A Eagle during the 1982 war.
The R-25 engine was used on the MiG-21bis and the Sukhoi Su-15bis. A total of 3,200 R-25 were built between 1971 and 1975. The engine was also built under license by HAL in India for its fleet of MiG-21bis.
Specifications (R-25-300)[edit]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbojet
Length: 4,615 mm (181.7 in)
Diameter: 1,191 mm (46.9 in)
Dry weight: 1,212 kg (2,670 lb)
Components
Compressor: Two-spool axial compressor
Performance
Maximum thrust:
55 kilonewtons (12,000 lbf) [1] military power
68.5 kilonewtons (15,400 lbf) with afterburner
96.8 kilonewtons (21,800 lbf) for 3 minutes with boosted afterburner (CSR mode, altitude < 4,000 metres (13,000 ft))
Overall pressure ratio: 9.5:1
Turbine inlet temperature: 1,040 °C (1,904 °F)
Specific fuel consumption:
93 kg/(h·kN) (0.91 lb/(h·lbf)) at idle
98 kg/(h·kN) (0.96 lb/(h·lbf)) at maximum military power
229 kg/(h·kN) (2.25 lb/(h·lbf)) with afterburner
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 56.5 N/kg (5.8:1), 79.9 N/kg (8.1:1) with boosted afterburner
Thanks fulcrum. Had no idea about r 25's capabilities.
 

rvjpheonix

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
It should get even better because fuel loads will be relatively more empty by the time Mig-21 gets into a fight.

When MRCA was announced, people thought that choosing Gripen NG will kill the LCA program. Most people forget that the LCA program would have died had the Russian interest in selling the Mig-21 line to India worked out back in the 90s. NG wasn't even a minor threat to the LCA program.
I dont think so. I am sure the emergency thrust uses a lot of fuel and if its relatively empty chances are that the pilot wont use it.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
We all learn. No one knows everything. : )



I agree. Like I said, that was just simplifying a complex answer. Indeed, delta-canards and cranked deltas solves this issue because you dont have to increase your Angel of attack too much to turn more, which inturn means you save energy. However it has a draw back. Canards and crank-Deltas creates massive drag in the high supersonic flight regimes. The reason why these planes don't reach the speed of a MiG-29, Su-27 or a F-15{2.3, 2.3 and 2.5 respectively}. The reason why the Su-30MKI has a poor max-speed of only 1.9. Bad for scramble missions and Intercept missions where speed is crucial. They don't even reach a single engined F-16s speed of Mach 2.1. Lets see if levcons are the solution to this problem. Too early to tell although the signs are they are the solution.

Su-30s are generically low wing loading planes, not high{although compared to the Su-27 they are high wing loaded because of their increased empty weight, but they fall in the low wing loading category.}. They just have a poor thrust to weight ratio compared to the MiG-29, the reason why their STR is poorer than the fulcrums.


They wont come deep where their logistics wont be able to sustain them. But they can still occupy a significant amount of our land to humiliate us.


Exactly. Su-30 has fuel pumps from Russia{or does it? I think HAL has got more ToT on the Su-30s than they did with the MiG-21s, so probably they are manufactured in-house} while MiG-21 got their fuel pumps from non-Russian ex-soviet states. Russia just stopped their production.

Yup. Just replace IAF with HAL. They indeed are incompetant to even reverse engineer a fuel pump. Even now we buy critical spares which HAL cannot manufacture from other non-russian ex-soviet states.

Losing stability is an exaggeration. The Center of Gravity changes on Low fuel and the pilot has to compensate for that. This is subject to several aircraft, not just the MiG-21. Since MiG-21 is generally a unforgiving plane, this means the pilot now has to be extra cautious and compensate for that too. Losing stability means MiG-21 is dangerous to fly when its fuel is 2/3rds, which is rubbish. Most of the MiG-21s will crash that way because I suspect most landing are with less than 2/3rds fuel anyway.

In tonnage, and range yea, the Tejas has an advantage. We are talking about a plane of more than 60 years ago. If Tejas cant even do that then the engineers working on the Tejas should be shot. What's troublesome is, the MiG-21 a plane which first flew in the 1950's still beats Tejas in Thrust to weight ratio, Angle of Attack{forgot to mention it earlier}, climb rate, G tolerance and Max Speed. Ideally it shouldn't be superior in these parameters{if not all atleast a few}, but it is superior, which is a shame on us.

MiG-21 Bison's Kopyo-M has a range of 80km for 5m2 Target. Not 50kms. LCA doesnt even have a fully integrated radar as of now. It just flew with it. The integration is still ongoing. Ofcourse it as no guns, and no short range missiles{slaved to its radar} and never fired a long range missile as of today.


MiG-21Bis
Empty Weight + full fuel = 5460 + 2364 = 7824kgs
R-25-300 - 7100KGF After Burner, 9900KGF Emergency Thurst

Tejas
Empty Weight + full fuel = 6560 + 2458 = 9018Kgs
F404-GE-IN20 - 8665kgf After Burner, 9165kgf Emergency Thrust

Thrust to weight with full fuel and afterburner

7100/7824 = 0.91 MiG
8665/9018 = 0.96 LCA

Just a 0.05 difference which is negligible in practical terms.

With *Emergency thrust kicking in, this is where it gets interesting -
9900/7824 = 1.27 MiG
9165/9018 = 1.02 LCA

Too lazy to add missile weight. But I increased the fuel weight to full instead of calculating with half.


*Emergency Thrust is a little known thrust. I prefer to call it a Superburner. But unlike an Afterburner, it cannot be used continuously for longer periods. It's like nitro for cars. Good to give the needed boost for a couple of minutes then shut it off. MiG-21 has a massive "nitro boost" or a "superburner" for scramble missions to climb up faster to meet its opponent, and ofcourse even for dogfights.

Some known Emergency Thrusts.
Fighter - Afterburner - Emergency {all in kgf}
MiG-29K - 9000 - 10500
MiG-29UPG - 8300 - 8700
Su-30MKI - 12500 - 12700

That's the thrust of each engine BTW. MiG-29K uses that to take-off from its ramp. So the massive difference.


FGFA which and f-22 both of which are some sort of cranked or compound deltas that have the highest top speeds at present.

So no drags for compound deltas. The crank or Levcons or LREX create flow energizing vortex based air flows on the upper surface of deltas giving them high lift to drag ratio that nullifies all the dis advantages of old plain deltas.

I am surprised to find that for intercept missions Mig-29 flies at top speeds all the time. truth is if a MIG-29 flies at its top speeds of Mach 2 plus it will empty its fuel in a few minutes and fall out of the sky before reching interception point. Other than F-22 which flies at cruise speed of mach 1.6 no other fighter is designed to fly at its top sped for 100s of kms.

Mirage-2000 has higher top speeds but RAFALE has lower top speeds despite having higher TWR.Both are deltas.Mirage-2000 has far better top speed than RAFALE despite both being deltas

Why?

Not due to drags on deltas planes are designed that way.

Straight line higher top speeds are irrelevant nowadays as they can never be used to out run a missile or in close combat or reaching a point in sky faster.

So fighters are nowadays designed with lower top speeds and higher agility in close combat thats all.

In the hot skies of Goa Tejas reached the sea level top speed of 1350 Km per hour (during a powerless dive from 4 Km in flutter test) which is the same as Mig-29 and Su-30 MKI in indian conditions. So no drag issues for deltas when it comes to top speeds. In fact the opposite is true .look at the CONCORDE.

deltas are always most efficient in super sonic flight regime .

Most of todays 4th grn fighters have 3 sq meter RCS in air to air interception mode and 5 sq meter for 80 Km range of Mig-21 does not apply here.

we don't know that whether any nitro boost is there in GE-404 IN 20 . but this nitro boost will run out so short on MIG-21 and all its fules will be depleted in no time .

If you add missile weight the nitro boost is nothing

No one has to shoot tejas designers!!!!!!!!

at mk-1 it is equal to grippen C/D

and mk-2 it is equal to Grippen NG and has a bigger radar almost equal to RAFALE!!111

Why shoot the poor guys who accepted every single change proposed by IAF for the past two decades.
 
Last edited:

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
It should get even better because fuel loads will be relatively more empty by the time Mig-21 gets into a fight.

When MRCA was announced, people thought that choosing Gripen NG will kill the LCA program. Most people forget that the LCA program would have died had the Russian interest in selling the Mig-21 line to India worked out back in the 90s. NG wasn't even a minor threat to the LCA program.
Exactly.
They offered the production line to India for dirt cheap prices. But IAF got hoodwinken by ADA HAL combo that they can deliver a product comparable to the Mirage-2000, the plane which they like. So that production line proposal was shot down. I bet even now IAF is cursing itself for taking that decision.

FGFA which and f-22 both of which are some sort of cranked or compound deltas that have the highest top speeds at present.
A cranked Delta creates more drag than a Pure delta. It's Basic Aerodynamics of wing aspect ratio. If those planes have a higher top speed then it could be due to a variety of other reason to counterweight the drag. Superior Engine thrust for example.


I am surprised to find that for intercept missions Mig-29 flies at top speeds all the time. truth is if a MIG-29 flies at its top speeds of Mach 2 plus it will empty its fuel in a few minutes and fall out of the sky before reching interception point. Other than F-22 which flies at cruise speed of mach 1.6 no other fighter is designed to fly at its top sped for 100s of kms.
Not all the time. Traveling faster at top speed for even half the distance means you reach the place in maybe half the time it would take on full military thrust. Intercept missions also happen close to base, or close to a vital installation which is already being patrolled by CAPs. A MiG-29B can afetrburner for 8 to 9 minutes in internal fuel. An F-15 can do 13 to 14 Minutes in comparison. Sukhois can burn for a lot longer duration, dunno their duration. They wont fall out of the sky.. that's silly. Interception in full afterburner has been carried out since so many decades. Its only the recent fad about super cruise which lets newbies assume using afterburner means fuel gets over soon and they will fall out of the sky.

So no drags for compound deltas. The crank or Levcons or LREX create flow energizing vortex based air flows on the upper surface of deltas giving them high lift to drag ratio that nullifies all the dis advantages of old plain deltas.
Mirage-2000 has higher top speeds but RAFALE has lower top speeds despite having higher TWR.Both are deltas.Mirage-2000 has far better top speed than RAFALE despite both being deltas

Why?

Not due to drags on deltas planes are designed that way.


In the hot skies of Goa Tejas reached the sea level top speed of 1350 Km per hour (during a powerless dive from 4 Km in flutter test) which is the same as Mig-29 and Su-30 MKI in indian conditions. So no drag issues for deltas when it comes to top speeds. In fact the opposite is true .look at the CONCORDE.

deltas are always most efficient in super sonic flight regime .
I said that with canards. :/

Straight line higher top speeds are irrelevant nowadays as they can never be used to out run a missile or in close combat or reaching a point in sky faster.
So fighters are nowadays designed with lower top speeds and higher agility in close combat thats all.
Tell that to the f-22 and Pak-fa designers, and numerous pilots across the world who regularly train on scramble intercept missions. ://


Most of todays 4th grn fighters have 3 sq meter RCS in air to air interception mode and 5 sq meter for 80 Km range of Mig-21 does not apply here.
That's the standard Russian cross section for radars other than AESA. That doesn't mean MiG-21 wont be able to track a 3m2 target. For 3m2 its MiG-21 Radar range is 70Kms if we invoke the radar range equation.

we don't know that whether any nitro boost is there in GE-404 IN 20 . but this nitro boost will run out so short on MIG-21 and all its fules will be depleted in no time .
There is a super burner for the IN 20 I gave it before.
Again, fuel depleted and dropping out of the sky, line. :/ A few seconds of extra needed thrust means the difference between life and death in a dogfight.

If you add missile weight the nitro boost is nothing
o_O This means either you don't know what 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s weigh{or 4 R-77s for that matter}, or you didnt go though my post, or both.

No one has to shoot tejas designers!!!!!!!!

at mk-1 it is equal to grippen C/D

and mk-2 it is equal to Grippen NG and has a bigger radar almost equal to RAFALE!!111

Why shoot the poor guys who accepted every single change proposed by IAF for the past two decades.
:laugh: maybe.. but I wont shed a tear if they do get shot though.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Exactly.
They offered the production line to India for dirt cheap prices. But IAF got hoodwinken by ADA HAL combo that they can deliver a product comparable to the Mirage-2000, the plane which they like. So that production line proposal was shot down. I bet even now IAF is cursing itself for taking that decision.


A cranked Delta creates more drag than a Pure delta. It's Basic Aerodynamics of wing aspect ratio. If those planes have a higher top speed then it could be due to a variety of other reason to counterweight the drag. Superior Engine thrust for example.



Not all the time. Traveling faster at top speed for even half the distance means you reach the place in maybe half the time it would take on full military thrust. Intercept missions also happen close to base, or close to a vital installation which is already being patrolled by CAPs. A MiG-29B can afetrburner for 8 to 9 minutes in internal fuel. An F-15 can do 13 to 14 Minutes in comparison. Sukhois can burn for a lot longer duration, dunno their duration. They wont fall out of the sky.. that's silly. Interception in full afterburner has been carried out since so many decades. Its only the recent fad about super cruise which lets newbies assume using afterburner means fuel gets over soon and they will fall out of the sky.


I said that with canards. :/


Tell that to the f-22 and Pak-fa designers, and numerous pilots across the world who regularly train on scramble intercept missions. ://



That's the standard Russian cross section for radars other than AESA. That doesn't mean MiG-21 wont be able to track a 3m2 target. For 3m2 its MiG-21 Radar range is 70Kms if we invoke the radar range equation.


There is a super burner for the IN 20 I gave it before.
Again, fuel depleted and dropping out of the sky, line. :/ A few seconds of extra needed thrust means the difference between life and death in a dogfight.


o_O This means either you don't know what 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s weigh{or 4 R-77s for that matter}, or you didnt go though my post, or both.


:laugh: maybe.. but I wont shed a tear if they do get shot though.
Mig-21s are a stupid piece of junk compared to tejas. I am just tired of repeating it time and again.

Mig-21s were made to intercept the huge bomber fleets of USA. It has no range worth mentioning and useless dog fight endurance.

it is good that ADA hood winked GOI into not putting more of this flying junks into service. Sure it did save many pilot lives and is giving a fighter to IAf which is close to Grippen C/D in Tejas mk-1 and grippen NG in tejas mk-2 .

If you have any proof --"A cranked Delta creates more drag than a Pure delta. It's Basic Aerodynamics of wing aspect ratio. If those planes have a higher top speed then it could be due to a variety of other reason to counterweight the drag. Superior Engine thrust for example."------please give . Sure you don't know more than the designers of F-16 XL Harry J. Hillaker to write about that.

This is the standard spiel unwound by countless times in this forum.

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.
Sure you have no idea about the flow energizing vortices giving a better lift to drag ratios to cranked deltas or canard deltas to compensate the excess drag.

And superior engine thrust is nothing to do with range calculation of cranked deltas as all fighters fly at a far lesser specific engine thrust for better SFC through out their flight regime before entering into combat.

So superior engine thust is never used to combat the so called "excess drag "of cranked delta!!!!!!!

So it is pretty clear that you don't know much about cranked delta or plain deltas.

If a fighter flies at its top speeds at full wet thrust it will be flying with such inferior SFC, that it will lose all its fuel within 20 percent of it's specified range is a common aerodynamic fact. SO where is truth in the statement that it can reach half the distance with top speeds. it won't even reach 10 percent of it's range if it did so.

tracking a 3 sq meter target at 70 Km is pretty much useless in these days of 120 Km range BVR misslies.In this age of stealth compliant external weapon bay equipped 4.5th gens giving a less than 1 sq meter RCS , the Mig-21 can do well even without this radar as it was originally produced in the first place. because it will atleast add some range.

If you know how many minutes will the so called NITRO BOOST last on Mig-21 with "2 R-77s and 2 R-73s weigh{or 4 R-77s for that matter}" , please inform us all.

The F-22s and PAKFAs do super sonic speeds with normal dry thrust in super cruise mode for extended time . Comparing that to the peanut range Mig-21's few minutes nitro boost with full wet thrust expecting a big net below the fuselage to drop in is of no use in this discussion!!!!!!!!

Without your tears tejas will do well in IAF.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Exactly.

:laugh: maybe.. but I wont shed a tear if they do get shot though.
Read @Archer post in the above link before shooting down ADA personnel.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-168.html#post510998

Full text of it given below,

No, thats as wrong as it gets.

Programs run on funds. If funding is not available, and policies are restrictive - eg austerity measures mean less recruitment, programs suffer. Experienced people leave for better opportunities when there is no career growth in terms of better pay as well. Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: CLAW-ING AHEAD: Tejas clan who overcame tech denials turns 20
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: World-Beaters: The fly-by-wire FCS will take India to new heights (Part-III-B)

Further, programs like the LCA require extensive investment in infrastructure, including quick processing of alternates if the original supplier cites laws and regulations eg MTCR, ITAR and refuses to supply. In India, forget sanction busting, even regular import of basic items goes through kms of red tape and then has to be hit by audit scrutiny. In other words, if you import two of an item from different vendors to cover your bases, CAG will slam you for infructuous expenditure. This sort of red tape rubbish, keeping track of the pennies and losing the pounds entirely (time delay mean imports) is very common.

In India, running your own fiefdom means national goals go for a toss. There has been clearly a serious dearth of vision at the national level.

Take HAL for an example. The company only started investing at any proper level in its own R&D in the 90's. The proposal to develop a FBW system as a tech generation project either using a Jaguar or a Marut airframe went nowhere. Babus at MOD shot down the proposal claiming that since HAL was a manufacturing company, it had no business asking to do such things. Ultimately, by the time the LCA project came along, HAL was in no position to implement it, or even wanted to get into it. So ADA was created. HALs design staff had been virtually eliminated with only a handful of people left, and even juniors in short supply

This is a perfect example of how the babucracy plus short sighted political view stagnated defence.

In this years defence budget, DRDO has got ~70% of their asked for requirement. Saraswat has gone on record stating that the constant underfunding, glib statements about defence preparedness apart, mean that some programs have to be prioritized over others. This means that timelines for some programs extend - in order to reaccomodate timelines to compensate for lack of resources, manpower and hardware (ranging from both design hardware/software to manufacturing systems, to even components required for prototyping).

The level of underfunding of the Indian defence sector can be judged from the fact that many establishments have been implementing PLM software only in recent years, well nigh a decade plus after this stuff became common abroad.

Basically, India has a bunch of generalists - politicians and babus - running roughshod over two groups of domain experts - technology developers and manufacturers, and the users (the services). If they had done an excellent job of coordination, at least this babucracy could be supported. But there is very little overall prioritization at the MOD level which is a bizarre state of affairs.

Take the HAL-LCA case. AM Rajkumar, points out succintly that at least one HAL CEO refused to support the LCA program for whatever reason. Later on, more reports emerged of HAL being more interested in supporting the IJT over the LCA. Finally, there is the case of LCA related projects constantly being sidelined or just treated as "it exists, let it go on". AKM himself ex-HAL notes:
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: The Iron Bird Team: A Tejas story never told before!

And the first flight happened, the nation applauded it, but nobody hailed Iron Bird team. Dr. B Subba Reddy was transferred to other division for administrative reasons and the program suffered another setback as he was also the deputy director of National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas. Some temporary arrangements were done from HAL side to fill the void left by Dr. Reddy, but to no avail. However the core Iron Bird team with the support of ADA was strong enough to deliver the products (the software versions with updates) in time. The HAL saw the Iron Bird team as an unproductive group of people since they were not directly contributing to the production targets of HAL and the approach continues till today. ADA celebrated the milestones of Tejas project with its scientists and between these two approaches, the Iron Bird team was left out unacknowledged at every occasion. The question still remains unanswered: "Whose baby is this Iron Bird, anyway?"
With the project directors of Tejas raising their voices at various forums, the Iron Bird team was finally augmented with HAL manpower in the year 2007 and currently boasts of 18 engineers of various domains. The team is headed by one Mr Sanjay Sharma, who has been associated with Iron Bird testing from the early days. It was his initiative that Iron Bird team still remains capable and efficient despite various setbacks. He also guides a team of 7 highly skilled engineers deputed to National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas at NAL. A big section of HAL higher management still remains unaware of the facts, potential, pains and achievements of the team.
This is the sort of thing where somebody at the MOD level needed to have called up HAL, keeping the IAF in the loop, and pointing out that progressing the LCA - even at the cost of the IJT - was a first priority. Importing IJTs - a lower tech aircraft - can be afforded by India. Developing a LCA class aircraft is not an opportunity that can be missed.

Point is this sort of vision is totally missing at the MOD level. The user is not even aware of the fact that it needs to get into program management in a big way to replicate the success of advanced MICs - the MOD wont ask for this either, and in fact may push back. The MOD wont lead overall programs and resource, support them optimally, leading it to the individual agencies to navigate the labyrinthe of the PSU-mix, without having any powers to hold the PSUs accountable either - take the recent BEML case and the way in which its embattled CEO has been going after the exArmy chief despite the number of enquiries against his own self. Then think of what happens when these individuals are asked to pull together for a national program - its ego which rules the day for a few, if not even some gentlemen. And even those few, can cause tremendous damage. A couple of years delay in a program translates to a huge opportunity cost and sours the user as well.

Here is an example of the sort of technology development that is required.


See this clip. The first is a clean room assembling the intricate RLG-INS, a huge achievement for India. It takes years of research plus very expensive equipment that can often turn out to be only of limited use (then you have to build custom jigs and assemblies). Only when you are into the 2nd or 3rd product iteration, that do you start making near-optimal decisions. The C-C panel shown in the second part of the clip comes after almost two and a half decades of working on C-C tech. India initially even custom built its own filament machines for the Agni TDS when that was denied by sanctions.

Point is timely funding, overall political support and clear lines of authority, delegation of powers for responsible acquisition (with accountability) are essential not "good to have" for such programs.

The US approach is exactly this, but they lost accountability in their overarching desire for high tech. Incremental innovations are often ignored by them, with every new class often a completely disruptive jump from previous designs - take a look at the Zumwalt class for instance. The costs are ever ballooning and huge, and delays common.

Point is though, for India, this is exactly the same predicament for all of its first programs, since ALL of these programs are often disruptive in nature and do NOT have an existing base to build on. Today HAL is building LAH/WSI-ALH based on the ALH platform, but it had to pay its hidden cost in terms of delays and huge challenges for the ALH itself.

This is basically the thing with Indian programs, because of which the babus and netas have to be 10x more responsive than those in foreign nations where the MIC is already well established. In India, since we are starting from a low industrial base and within the space of two decades wanted to go from near 100% imports to somewhere around 30%, the MIC would have to make its first products on par with the Gen 4 products achieved by other countries and available for export to India.

The challenges involved in such an endeavour completely passed them by. There was no overarching mission or vision. The nuke program for instance was run as a haphazard project with it taking the NDA govt to make the call on tests. They had to do so ASAP befor anyone got wind of it. Which meant the LCA team got stuck abroad with their 1-2 protos of the DFCC in the US, which were promptly confiscated and the team sent back to India. Add a delay of another 2 years. Nobody clearly at the national level kept Kalam etc in the loop about when what needed to occur, before NDA got into power and when this decision would have to be taken & the need to keep a backup in India with everything covered. Basically add a few months to the program ahead, but then avoid taking a hit at the critical path of the project. Way back during PVNR time itself.. the teams should have been told to start backing up such critical programs, even if more funding was required. But such was not done.

Similarly, the actuators were from Moog. The LCA team pulled off an incredible feat by keeping the TDs flying by rotating actuators between the test rigs and the aircraft. This is one of the reasons why so few aircraft were available at the beginning of the program, and shows how it has been run on a shoestring. No other country has done this - - per a test expert from another nation - with whom I crosschecked at a public event. In fact the folks who thought sanctions would kill the LCA as a good lesson for the 1998 tests, were shocked that India managed to develop its own DFCC, and with limited hardware (only a handful of actuator sets and instrumented engines) kept the program running.

Ideally, they should have had excess actuators to spare, and also enough funding to develop a parallel program with a completely independent source like Russia. We never did.

Such penny pinching, at all levels, may result in a "cost effective aircraft", but it causes huge issues at every level of the program - reducing development time and risk, take a backseat. There is no vision about developing such strategic projects and hence letting funding flow!
In contrast, imports at 3x the cost, citing operational urgency are common.

While babus and politicians can point to the state of the economy as a reason for some of these things, in many others - they squarely take the blame for not fostering a properly resourced and enabled program. When Kargil happened VK Malik was asked by a MOD babu - as to why he wanted more weapons, didn;t the Army have enough rifles already? Malik replied that the Army ran on more weapons than just rifles.

If this is the knowledge level amongst many of our bureaucrats, that says it all.

The NSG head in Black Thunder pointed out he received a message from another such gent, saying - why the delay, just go in and sort them out no, take a few casualties, its ok.. this is the attitude which leads to fiascos like the no of CRPF folks killed in Operation Green Hunt etc.

Theres a lot our babus and politicians could do better
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Exactly.


:laugh: maybe.. but I wont shed a tear if they do get shot though.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...or-transformation-air-chief-2.html#post280913

@Archer 's post


more here as well,

LCA's ASR was done in 1985 and first flight happened in 2002. That's 17 years later. FOC is yet to be achieved even after 11 years of flight testing. Plenty of excuses available.
Yeah, you were there, our Nobel prize winner to get us actuators, flight calibrated equipments, develop the FBW, build us a RLGINS..no excuses then.

When LCA's ASR was drawn, ADA said they will have first flight in 1996 and induction by 1999. Fat chance. They did not want IAF to replace the Mig-21s with imports. Fvking liars.
Which estimate they based on then funding & what their consultants told them..as regarding fvcking liars..interesting words ...is it ADA or somebody who misquotes the ACM deliberately..

Before 1991, the JF-17 existed as a number of different aircraft. Even though there was work going on, it was a half hearted effort as the Chinese had the more successful J-10 program going on. It was after 1998 to 2001 that JF-17 really kicked off. They had a flying prototype by 2003 and IOC by 2007. That's 17 years and even though it is not fully developed, it is well ahead of the LCA.
"existed as a number of different aircraft"...heh, yeah sure. Go read up on the MiG-33 offer by MiG to India & the Super Saber. If India got a functional design as a hand me down yeah, then we could also claim to have a flying design...

The aircraft weren't grounded due to funds. The reason is available for all. The aircraft had structural deficiencies and did not have a working FBW system. The engine was available as well and also an analog FCS from Dassault. ADA's big ego prevented them from using Dassault's FCS.
Each post of your climbs further on the humor scale. The engine was unavailable post 1999. For your information, ADA had barely enough flight qualified Ge404s to do the test program, same with actuators. Dassault's FCS was rejected because Dassault was not willing to share adequate details with the Indian test team. Go refer to NAL's records on the matter. As regards structural deficiencies, they were sorted out a long back. Underfunding has always been an issue with the LCA, and reason why many key programs were taken up late.

I have never heard of this in India as well. Out of all our air force projects, only ADA has failed. HAL has done really well and this includes development of the MKI in India.
What bunk you write but this takes the cake! HAL has done "really well" and including "development of MKI in India" - LOL, HAls contribution to the MKI has been providing TACAN/ILS and the radio for the MKI. For the rest all they did was have the Russians come over and train them on how to assemble it from SKD and then CKD and only now are they even attempting to manufacture it. "Out of all our air force projects only ADA has failed" - ROTFL. When there have been literally no AF projects bar the LCA, and which is from a ground up, develop from scratch type. In latest news, IAF wants to take over "successful HAL which has done really well"'s leadership because they feel its not upto spec.

P2Prada, you really take the cake in terms of making really bizarre, silly claims.

FYI, if you weren't so bloody ignorant HAL was asked to take up the LCA. They took one look at IAF requirements and funding available and skedaddled. Next, Rajiv Gandhi asked the industry greats including Bajaj, Tata et al to do so. They also refused. ADA was created because all these august organizations thought it was too great a challenge.

ADA's "failure" has meant the MiG-27 and DARIN-2 and now DARIN-3 upgrades because they all use LCA tech and systems integration expertise. All this Indian on the MKI, and value added comes from the LCA. The IJT used all the team which cut its team on the LCA.

Not even half as close. It isn't seen from orders to IOC, it is seen from ASR to delivery. It's been 26 years since ASR was issued or 21 years since aircraft was given prototype development funds.
Yeah, its ADA's fault that GOI released funds for actual FSED in the 90's...I guess ADA is also responsible for the five odd years its taken for the Mirage upgrade, the delays in who knows what program...bizarre..

All other aircraft had their own problems apart from funding. The JF had no avionics, the Gripen had engine problems, the F-16 was a radical new design which may or may not have worked. Technically the Gripen program was cheaper than the LCA program even with a much larger order. The entire program for 130 Gripens costs $13.5 Billion as compared to $11Billion for 40 LCA ordered till date including all teh avionics we see on C/D. Even though the IAF had little interest in LCA, it is the GoI which funded the project. IAF never had interest in LCA and all for the right reasons.
Ignorance running rampant again...go educate yourself. The Gripen comes in cheap because the Swedes outsourced a lot of the avionics development to the US, sourced many components from European manufacturers and made full use of industry expertise from prior programs...care to inform us the parallels in India..

JAS 39 Gripen - an overview: Industrial partners

The foreign content of Gripen is high, 60% by value comes from NATO member countries, 70% from EU members (including Sweden), so upwards 30% is US content, contributed by more than 25 companies. (These figures may have changed slightly since South African companies became involved.)

Suppliers of some of the systems include:

Presentation and recording systems, genaral and weapons computers, flight control actuators and air data sensors: Ericsson Saab Avionics
Radar (PS-05/A) and system computers (SDS 801): Ericsson Microwave Systems
Turn around, servicing, maintenance and testing equipment: Celsius Aerotech
Engine: Volvo Aero Corporation in cooperation with General Electric
Radome: Nobel Plastics
Flight control system: Lockheed Martin, USA
APU: Sundstrand, USA
Landing Gear: BAE Systems, UK
Main landing gear, wing attachment assembly of complete centre fuselages: BAE Systems, Brough, UK
Main Landing Gear Unit (actually a large, major lower central section of the fuselage with lots of associated systems): Denel Aviation, South Africa. (from late 2001 for all Gripens)
Fuel system: Intertechnique, France
INS: Honeywell, USA
ECM dispensers: CelsiusTech; Ericsson Saab Avionics is responsible for the EWS 39 system
HUD: Kaiser, USA
Radio: Rockwell, USA
Audio management system: Grintek, South Africa. The one for the export version based on their GUS 1000
Hydraulics: Abex, Germany and Dowty, UK
Generator: Sundstrand, USA
Air and cooling: BAE Systems, UK
Escape system: Martin Baker, UK
Stores pylons for the export version: Denel Aviation, South Africa
Airbrake and scoop actuators: Jihlavan a.s., The Czech Republic
Parts of the tailcone: PZL, Poland
Fuselage components: Danube Aerospace, Hungary
This apart from the extensive work done by GEC Ferranti on the PS/05 radar.

Heh, for India, even the MK1 comes in at ~70% local by LRU, with key imported systems being the actuators on the wing, the engine, the HMDS and the ejection seat. Even the MMR uses the DRDO hardware, with only a few processors from Elta running its s/w. The insistence on local development is stark.

Clearly, posturing apart, you know next to nothing about these programs, whether it be the LCA or others. Do go back to waving your "patriotic flag" and "kissing azz" or whatever. At least we won't have to read such rubbish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
Mig-21s are a stupid piece of junk compared to tejas. I am just tired of repeating it time and again.

Mig-21s were made to intercept the huge bomber fleets of USA. It has no range worth mentioning and useless dog fight endurance.

it is good that ADA hood winked GOI into not putting more of this flying junks into service. Sure it did save many pilot lives and is giving a fighter to IAf which is close to Grippen C/D in Tejas mk-1 and grippen NG in tejas mk-2 .
Ok. :-/

If you have any proof --"A cranked Delta creates more drag than a Pure delta. It's Basic Aerodynamics of wing aspect ratio. If those planes have a higher top speed then it could be due to a variety of other reason to counterweight the drag. Superior Engine thrust for example."------please give . Sure you don't know more than the designers of F-16 XL Harry J. Hillaker to write about that.

This is the standard spiel unwound by countless times in this forum.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...1183f16xl.aspx
Read about the basics of Wing sweep and Wing aspect Ratio. Why high sweep wings create less drag than straight or a low sweep wing. And why a high swept wing has a greater top speed with a similar engine thrust. See the lower sweep of the cranked delta, compared to a pure delta and rub your cells together.

A designer will talk about his creation favorably. All or any developer across every stream from computer programmers to rocket scientists will say their shit works. Where is the assesment and specs of the USAF?

Sure you have no idea about the flow energizing vortices giving a better lift to drag ratios to cranked deltas or canard deltas to compensate the excess drag.

And superior engine thrust is nothing to do with range calculation of cranked deltas as all fighters fly at a far lesser specific engine thrust for better SFC through out their flight regime before entering into combat.

So superior engine thust is never used to combat the so called "excess drag "of cranked delta!!!!!!!

So it is pretty clear that you don't know much about cranked delta or plain deltas.
First understand the basics of argument, and the points which are conveyed. It's obvious you just go through my post in haste and bang some words from your keyboard replying to my sentences, fully out of context. I dont even know where to begin since the flow of argument has changed. You take some words and make a new argument which i never brought up. I know you are froathing at your mouth that I'm pissing on your fav plane here(most of your posts on the forum sing praises for the fighter which can pull only 6Gs), and you cant think calmly, but atleast try to maintain a proper flow.

If a fighter flies at its top speeds at full wet thrust it will be flying with such inferior SFC, that it will lose all its fuel within 20 percent of it's specified range is a common aerodynamic fact. SO where is truth in the statement that it can reach half the distance with top speeds. it won't even reach 10 percent of it's range if it did so.
Sigh.. again.

tracking a 3 sq meter target at 70 Km is pretty much useless in these days of 120 Km range BVR misslies.In this age of stealth compliant external weapon bay equipped 4.5th gens giving a less than 1 sq meter RCS , the Mig-21 can do well even without this radar as it was originally produced in the first place. because it will atleast add some range.
120km BVR missile. Nice.. what is the hit probabily of this missile outside the no-escape zone?

In this "age of stealth compliant external weapon bay". lol I seem to be in some form of a time warp since I have never seen IAF, PAF or PLAAF with these mythical bays in this "age of stealth compliant external weapon bay".

:-/ MiG-21 always came with a radar range finder.

If you know how many minutes will the so called NITRO BOOST last on Mig-21 with "2 R-77s and 2 R-73s weigh{or 4 R-77s for that matter}" , please inform us all.
4 R-77s = 700kgs.
Emergency Thrust 2100Kgf(whcih was given before).
Equating minutes with missiles was again a tangent. :-/

The F-22s and PAKFAs do super sonic speeds with normal dry thrust in super cruise mode for extended time . Comparing that to the peanut range Mig-21's few minutes nitro boost with full wet thrust expecting a big net below the fuselage to drop in is of no use in this discussion!!!!!!!!
Again a tangent.

Read @Archer post in the above link before shooting down ADA personnel.

ADA Tejas (LCA) - III

Full text of it given below,

No, thats as wrong as it gets.

Programs run on funds. If funding is not available, and policies are restrictive - eg austerity measures mean less recruitment, programs suffer. Experienced people leave for better opportunities when there is no career growth in terms of better pay as well. Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: CLAW-ING AHEAD: Tejas clan who overcame tech denials turns 20
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: World-Beaters: The fly-by-wire FCS will take India to new heights (Part-III-B)

Further, programs like the LCA require extensive investment in infrastructure, including quick processing of alternates if the original supplier cites laws and regulations eg MTCR, ITAR and refuses to supply. In India, forget sanction busting, even regular import of basic items goes through kms of red tape and then has to be hit by audit scrutiny. In other words, if you import two of an item from different vendors to cover your bases, CAG will slam you for infructuous expenditure. This sort of red tape rubbish, keeping track of the pennies and losing the pounds entirely (time delay mean imports) is very common.

In India, running your own fiefdom means national goals go for a toss. There has been clearly a serious dearth of vision at the national level.

Take HAL for an example. The company only started investing at any proper level in its own R&D in the 90's. The proposal to develop a FBW system as a tech generation project either using a Jaguar or a Marut airframe went nowhere. Babus at MOD shot down the proposal claiming that since HAL was a manufacturing company, it had no business asking to do such things. Ultimately, by the time the LCA project came along, HAL was in no position to implement it, or even wanted to get into it. So ADA was created. HALs design staff had been virtually eliminated with only a handful of people left, and even juniors in short supply

This is a perfect example of how the babucracy plus short sighted political view stagnated defence.

In this years defence budget, DRDO has got ~70% of their asked for requirement. Saraswat has gone on record stating that the constant underfunding, glib statements about defence preparedness apart, mean that some programs have to be prioritized over others. This means that timelines for some programs extend - in order to reaccomodate timelines to compensate for lack of resources, manpower and hardware (ranging from both design hardware/software to manufacturing systems, to even components required for prototyping).

The level of underfunding of the Indian defence sector can be judged from the fact that many establishments have been implementing PLM software only in recent years, well nigh a decade plus after this stuff became common abroad.

Basically, India has a bunch of generalists - politicians and babus - running roughshod over two groups of domain experts - technology developers and manufacturers, and the users (the services). If they had done an excellent job of coordination, at least this babucracy could be supported. But there is very little overall prioritization at the MOD level which is a bizarre state of affairs.

Take the HAL-LCA case. AM Rajkumar, points out succintly that at least one HAL CEO refused to support the LCA program for whatever reason. Later on, more reports emerged of HAL being more interested in supporting the IJT over the LCA. Finally, there is the case of LCA related projects constantly being sidelined or just treated as "it exists, let it go on". AKM himself ex-HAL notes:
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: The Iron Bird Team: A Tejas story never told before!

And the first flight happened, the nation applauded it, but nobody hailed Iron Bird team. Dr. B Subba Reddy was transferred to other division for administrative reasons and the program suffered another setback as he was also the deputy director of National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas. Some temporary arrangements were done from HAL side to fill the void left by Dr. Reddy, but to no avail. However the core Iron Bird team with the support of ADA was strong enough to deliver the products (the software versions with updates) in time. The HAL saw the Iron Bird team as an unproductive group of people since they were not directly contributing to the production targets of HAL and the approach continues till today. ADA celebrated the milestones of Tejas project with its scientists and between these two approaches, the Iron Bird team was left out unacknowledged at every occasion. The question still remains unanswered: "Whose baby is this Iron Bird, anyway?"
With the project directors of Tejas raising their voices at various forums, the Iron Bird team was finally augmented with HAL manpower in the year 2007 and currently boasts of 18 engineers of various domains. The team is headed by one Mr Sanjay Sharma, who has been associated with Iron Bird testing from the early days. It was his initiative that Iron Bird team still remains capable and efficient despite various setbacks. He also guides a team of 7 highly skilled engineers deputed to National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas at NAL. A big section of HAL higher management still remains unaware of the facts, potential, pains and achievements of the team.
This is the sort of thing where somebody at the MOD level needed to have called up HAL, keeping the IAF in the loop, and pointing out that progressing the LCA - even at the cost of the IJT - was a first priority. Importing IJTs - a lower tech aircraft - can be afforded by India. Developing a LCA class aircraft is not an opportunity that can be missed.

Point is this sort of vision is totally missing at the MOD level. The user is not even aware of the fact that it needs to get into program management in a big way to replicate the success of advanced MICs - the MOD wont ask for this either, and in fact may push back. The MOD wont lead overall programs and resource, support them optimally, leading it to the individual agencies to navigate the labyrinthe of the PSU-mix, without having any powers to hold the PSUs accountable either - take the recent BEML case and the way in which its embattled CEO has been going after the exArmy chief despite the number of enquiries against his own self. Then think of what happens when these individuals are asked to pull together for a national program - its ego which rules the day for a few, if not even some gentlemen. And even those few, can cause tremendous damage. A couple of years delay in a program translates to a huge opportunity cost and sours the user as well.

Here is an example of the sort of technology development that is required.


See this clip. The first is a clean room assembling the intricate RLG-INS, a huge achievement for India. It takes years of research plus very expensive equipment that can often turn out to be only of limited use (then you have to build custom jigs and assemblies). Only when you are into the 2nd or 3rd product iteration, that do you start making near-optimal decisions. The C-C panel shown in the second part of the clip comes after almost two and a half decades of working on C-C tech. India initially even custom built its own filament machines for the Agni TDS when that was denied by sanctions.

Point is timely funding, overall political support and clear lines of authority, delegation of powers for responsible acquisition (with accountability) are essential not "good to have" for such programs.

The US approach is exactly this, but they lost accountability in their overarching desire for high tech. Incremental innovations are often ignored by them, with every new class often a completely disruptive jump from previous designs - take a look at the Zumwalt class for instance. The costs are ever ballooning and huge, and delays common.

Point is though, for India, this is exactly the same predicament for all of its first programs, since ALL of these programs are often disruptive in nature and do NOT have an existing base to build on. Today HAL is building LAH/WSI-ALH based on the ALH platform, but it had to pay its hidden cost in terms of delays and huge challenges for the ALH itself.

This is basically the thing with Indian programs, because of which the babus and netas have to be 10x more responsive than those in foreign nations where the MIC is already well established. In India, since we are starting from a low industrial base and within the space of two decades wanted to go from near 100% imports to somewhere around 30%, the MIC would have to make its first products on par with the Gen 4 products achieved by other countries and available for export to India.

The challenges involved in such an endeavour completely passed them by. There was no overarching mission or vision. The nuke program for instance was run as a haphazard project with it taking the NDA govt to make the call on tests. They had to do so ASAP befor anyone got wind of it. Which meant the LCA team got stuck abroad with their 1-2 protos of the DFCC in the US, which were promptly confiscated and the team sent back to India. Add a delay of another 2 years. Nobody clearly at the national level kept Kalam etc in the loop about when what needed to occur, before NDA got into power and when this decision would have to be taken & the need to keep a backup in India with everything covered. Basically add a few months to the program ahead, but then avoid taking a hit at the critical path of the project. Way back during PVNR time itself.. the teams should have been told to start backing up such critical programs, even if more funding was required. But such was not done.

Similarly, the actuators were from Moog. The LCA team pulled off an incredible feat by keeping the TDs flying by rotating actuators between the test rigs and the aircraft. This is one of the reasons why so few aircraft were available at the beginning of the program, and shows how it has been run on a shoestring. No other country has done this - - per a test expert from another nation - with whom I crosschecked at a public event. In fact the folks who thought sanctions would kill the LCA as a good lesson for the 1998 tests, were shocked that India managed to develop its own DFCC, and with limited hardware (only a handful of actuator sets and instrumented engines) kept the program running.

Ideally, they should have had excess actuators to spare, and also enough funding to develop a parallel program with a completely independent source like Russia. We never did.

Such penny pinching, at all levels, may result in a "cost effective aircraft", but it causes huge issues at every level of the program - reducing development time and risk, take a backseat. There is no vision about developing such strategic projects and hence letting funding flow!
In contrast, imports at 3x the cost, citing operational urgency are common.

While babus and politicians can point to the state of the economy as a reason for some of these things, in many others - they squarely take the blame for not fostering a properly resourced and enabled program. When Kargil happened VK Malik was asked by a MOD babu - as to why he wanted more weapons, didn;t the Army have enough rifles already? Malik replied that the Army ran on more weapons than just rifles.

If this is the knowledge level amongst many of our bureaucrats, that says it all.

The NSG head in Black Thunder pointed out he received a message from another such gent, saying - why the delay, just go in and sort them out no, take a few casualties, its ok.. this is the attitude which leads to fiascos like the no of CRPF folks killed in Operation Green Hunt etc.

Theres a lot our babus and politicians could do better
Ok.
 
Last edited:

happy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,370
Likes
1,454
Bro,
you obviously know your stufff - and reading your post - i was inclined to take a different view

but please in that case just enlighten us ( me ) on just one point

why in that case have the flying coffins been so strongly linked to the indian mig21's ?
why have we lost so many of our precious pilots
more than any nation on this earth
more ( if im not mistaken ) than we lost in all wars with pak combined ?
just because of this one model of plane
which you so strongly recommend ?
are all pilot error ? - we have such lousy pilots
whooo i have been mistaken all this while
i though we had among the best in the world !

( as a reference point, just to let you know ....in fact i tend to agree with
frenchman armand above - that structurally mig21 is past it's operational lifetime )

and please dont be too harsh in your answer
i hereby declare that im a military technology know nothing !
( i only mostly post on strategic and financial topics not specific technology )

besides being a woman ! :namaste:
Good to know that, I too am a novice when it concerns defence technology and my forte is intelligence. :thumb:
 

rvjpheonix

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
@fulcrum are you sure about the rate of climb of the mig being higher than lca's?? after all the lca has larger wings and better lift to drag ratio.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
I wouldn't go as far to say LCA has better lift to drag ratio, since we don't know that, but yup, LCA does have a lower wing loading which means it can have a good climb rate. But you are forgetting to include another parameter which is the Thrust to Weight ratio. A MiG-21Bis is a very very unique aircraft. It has extreme acceleration in emergency thrust mode, which is employed during scramble, interception missions, and also dogfights, but within a time limit. It basically shoots up like a rocket to be ready to face the enemy at a respectable altitude. With such extreme acceleration, Thrust to Weight ratio gains more importance than wing loading.

Further reading material....


Modern times

Perhaps the most dramatic WEP feature was found in the MiG-21bis fighter jet. This late variant of the standard Soviet light fighter plane was built as a stopgap measure to counter the newer and more powerful American F-16 and F/A-18 fighters until the next-generation MiG-29 could be introduced to service.

The MiG-21bis received the upgraded Tumanski R-25 engine, which retained the standard 42 / 65 kN normal and forsazh power settings of earlier R-13 powerplants, but added a new super-afterburning system. Use of this "diamond regime" provided a massive 97.4 kN of thrust for no more than 3 minutes in actual wartime use. Use of this temporary power gave the MiG-21bis slightly better than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio and a climbing rate of 254 meters/second, equalling the F-16's nominal capabilities in close-quarters dogfight.

In air combat practice with the MiG-21bis, use of WEP thrust was limited to 1 minute, to spare on the engines' 800 flight hours lifetime, since every second of super-afterburner use counted as several minutes of regular power run due to extreme thermal stress. When WEP was on, the MiG-21bis's R-25 engine produced a huge 5 meter long blowtorch exhaust - the six or seven brightly glowing rhomboid "shock diamonds" visible inside the flames gave the emergency-power setting its "diamond regime" name.

War emergency power
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
I wouldn't go as far to say LCA has better lift to drag ratio, since we don't know that, but yup, LCA does have a lower wing loading which means it can have a good climb rate. But you are forgetting to include another parameter which is the Thrust to Weight ratio. A MiG-21Bis is a very very unique aircraft. It has extreme acceleration in emergency thrust mode, which is employed during scramble, interception missions, and also dogfights, but within a time limit. It basically shoots up like a rocket to be ready to face the enemy at a respectable altitude. With such extreme acceleration, Thrust to Weight ratio gains more importance than wing loading.

Further reading material....


Modern times

Perhaps the most dramatic WEP feature was found in the MiG-21bis fighter jet. This late variant of the standard Soviet light fighter plane was built as a stopgap measure to counter the newer and more powerful American F-16 and F/A-18 fighters until the next-generation MiG-29 could be introduced to service.

The MiG-21bis received the upgraded Tumanski R-25 engine, which retained the standard 42 / 65 kN normal and forsazh power settings of earlier R-13 powerplants, but added a new super-afterburning system. Use of this "diamond regime" provided a massive 97.4 kN of thrust for no more than 3 minutes in actual wartime use. Use of this temporary power gave the MiG-21bis slightly better than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio and a climbing rate of 254 meters/second, equalling the F-16's nominal capabilities in close-quarters dogfight.

In air combat practice with the MiG-21bis, use of WEP thrust was limited to 1 minute, to spare on the engines' 800 flight hours lifetime, since every second of super-afterburner use counted as several minutes of regular power run due to extreme thermal stress. When WEP was on, the MiG-21bis's R-25 engine produced a huge 5 meter long blowtorch exhaust - the six or seven brightly glowing rhomboid "shock diamonds" visible inside the flames gave the emergency-power setting its "diamond regime" name.

War emergency power
The MiG-21 has a delta wing. The sweep angle on the leading edge is 57°.The angle of incidence is 0° while the dihedral angle is −2°.

The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability

, This is the basic truth about Mig-21(tejas is also a delta with sweep back angle of ). But all the while you are arguing deltas have more drag!!!!!!!!!


The specs of Mig-21 bisons,

Empty weight: 5,339 kg (11,770 lb)
Gross weight: 8,725 kg (19,235 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumanskiy R25-300, 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry, 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner each.

The specs of Tejas,

Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[93] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[94][95][96] (19,000 lbf)

For a gross weight of 8725 Kg Mig-21 bison has a thrust of 69 tons a TWR of 0.79 ,

For a gross weight of 9.5 tons it with 85 Kn engines tejas has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.89,

how much will the emergency bump thrust increase this low TWR with how much weapon weight for how long. Not worth comparing with Tejas mk-1,

So even with no bump thrust mode and even while carrying 1 ton more fuel than the MIG-21 bison tejas has a substantially higher TWR than Mig-21 bison,

All enegines have a emergency bump thrust mode, We don't know the values for Ge-404 IN 20 , but lower wing loading of Tejas will more than off set any advantage for Mig-21 Bisons in this area even without use of emergency bump thrust

And cranked delta is a marked improvement over ordinary tail less delta. SO there is no basis for your claim that cranked delta will have drag than the ordinary tailed delta of Mig-21!!!!!!!!!!

This is the first time I am coming across such a bizarre claim anywhere on the net!!!!!!!!!!

Got any source for it? or Is it just a knee jerk reaction?


SO even if Mig-21 bison effectively destroys its engine in a minute of emergency bump thrust , it will still have a far lower TWR than the Tejas mk-1

Add to that the tejas mk-1 's very low wing loading , half that of Mig-21 Bison ther is no way a Mig-21 bison is going to have any edge over tejas in any flight regime in close combat corner speeds.



Add to that,
The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability,

Originally intended to serve as an air superiority aircraft with a secondary "dumb bomb" ground-attack role, the flexibility of this design approach has permitted a variety of guided air-to-surface and anti-shipping weapons to be integrated for more well-rounded multirole and multimission capabilities

One of the most ambitious requirements for the LCA was the specification that it would have "relaxed static stability" (RSS).

Most aircraft are designed with "positive" static stability, which means they have a natural tendency to return to level and controlled flight in the absence of control inputs; however, this quality tends to oppose the pilot's efforts to manoeuver.

An aircraft with "negative" static stability (i.e., RSS), on the other hand, will quickly depart from level and controlled flight unless the pilot constantly works to keep it in trim; while this enhances manoeuvrability, it is very wearing on a pilot relying on a mechanical flight control system,



Composites in the LCA
The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (C-FC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs C-FC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.

The tailfin for the LCA is a monolithic honeycomb piece, an approach which reduced its manufacturing cost by 80% compared to the customary "subtractive" or "deductive" method, whereby the shaft is carved out of a block of titanium alloy by a computerised numerically controlled machine. No other manufacturer is known to have made fins out of a single piece.


The use of composites in the LCA resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts compared to using a metallic frame.

Furthermore, the number of fasteners has been reduced by half in the composite structure from the 10,000 that would have been required in a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings — is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.

I don't know why all the knaves with knife circle around tejas to taste it's blood?

but I don't mean to be uncharitable to an old war horse like Mig-21 , read more about it's exceptional abilities in the link below,

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/making-best-mig-21-a-10472/

But tejas will score over it in every department and Tejas mk-2 version is literally grippen NG equivalent.

So why should people who don't know anything on Tejas always run it down for no reason. It is pretty much a standard operating procedure across all threads here!!!!
 
Last edited:

rvjpheonix

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
I wouldn't go as far to say LCA has better lift to drag ratio, since we don't know that, but yup, LCA does have a lower wing loading which means it can have a good climb rate. But you are forgetting to include another parameter which is the Thrust to Weight ratio. A MiG-21Bis is a very very unique aircraft. It has extreme acceleration in emergency thrust mode, which is employed during scramble, interception missions, and also dogfights, but within a time limit. It basically shoots up like a rocket to be ready to face the enemy at a respectable altitude. With such extreme acceleration, Thrust to Weight ratio gains more importance than wing loading.

Further reading material....


Modern times

Perhaps the most dramatic WEP feature was found in the MiG-21bis fighter jet. This late variant of the standard Soviet light fighter plane was built as a stopgap measure to counter the newer and more powerful American F-16 and F/A-18 fighters until the next-generation MiG-29 could be introduced to service.

The MiG-21bis received the upgraded Tumanski R-25 engine, which retained the standard 42 / 65 kN normal and forsazh power settings of earlier R-13 powerplants, but added a new super-afterburning system. Use of this "diamond regime" provided a massive 97.4 kN of thrust for no more than 3 minutes in actual wartime use. Use of this temporary power gave the MiG-21bis slightly better than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio and a climbing rate of 254 meters/second, equalling the F-16's nominal capabilities in close-quarters dogfight.

In air combat practice with the MiG-21bis, use of WEP thrust was limited to 1 minute, to spare on the engines' 800 flight hours lifetime, since every second of super-afterburner use counted as several minutes of regular power run due to extreme thermal stress. When WEP was on, the MiG-21bis's R-25 engine produced a huge 5 meter long blowtorch exhaust - the six or seven brightly glowing rhomboid "shock diamonds" visible inside the flames gave the emergency-power setting its "diamond regime" name.

War emergency power
Why will thrust to weight ratio have more importance than wing loading at high acceleration? And maneuverability is not jsut a function of TWR. Tejas has almost half the wing loading of the mig 21 therefore more lift per kg. Also I am definite that a compound delta will have better lift to drag than a normal delta.. Plus tejas is a rss aircraft and tends to pitch upwards.So I think it will have a better climb rate. That does not take anything away from the fishbed. It is an excellent aircraft but now it is hopelessly outdated in terms of sensors and armament capabilities. Plus I read that the mig 21 has an ITR which is very less for deltas. The tejas will definitely have better ITR too is what i think so in a dogfight today with high boresight missiles ITR is better to have than STR. And what does slaved to its radar mean. I mean tejas has already fired r 73s. It would be great if you could post at normal timings because i wish to have a healthy discussion on the mig and its capabilities. These are my views and feel free to correct this newbie.:p @p2prada you had once mentioned why the tejas cant reach 9gs. you said it wasnt due to the airframe but some other reason. What is that reason?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rvjpheonix

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
251
Likes
171
Country flag
@fulcrum what is the internal fuel carried by the bison variant? Another interesting note. I read in wikipedia that the russians changed the 21 quite a bit and added the rd 33 engine to it. When simulated against an f 16 it won 4:1!. Is it true? If so why wasnt it pursued?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@p2prada you had once mentioned why the tejas cant reach 9gs. you said it wasnt due to the airframe but some other reason. What is that reason?
I said airframe design. The airframe itself generates cracks when pulling higher Gs. It is not that it can't reach 9Gs, it is only that if it did then the service life of the airframe will reduce considerably. That's among the reasons why it is currently restricted to 8.

Then there will a number of other reasons that we may not be privy to like unnecessary changes in CG, fuel flow, reduced cooling of electronics etc. The engines also do not develop full power so the aircraft will take longer to generate more power with lesser air flow. So even the inlet design may restrict pulling higher Gs.

I don't really know the exact reasons because it is not released yet or that I haven't bothered to check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
The MiG-21 has a delta wing. The sweep angle on the leading edge is 57°.The angle of incidence is 0° while the dihedral angle is −2°.

The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability

, This is the basic truth about Mig-21(tejas is also a delta with sweep back angle of ). But all the while you are arguing deltas have more drag!!!!!!!!!

And cranked delta is a marked improvement over ordinary tail less delta. SO there is no basis for your claim that cranked delta will have drag than the ordinary tailed delta of Mig-21!!!!!!!!!!

This is the first time I am coming across such a bizarre claim anywhere on the net!!!!!!!!!!

Got any source for it? or Is it just a knee jerk reaction?

SO even if Mig-21 bison effectively destroys its engine in a minute of emergency bump thrust , it will still have a far lower TWR than the Tejas mk-1

Add to that the tejas mk-1 's very low wing loading , half that of Mig-21 Bison ther is no way a Mig-21 bison is going to have any edge over tejas in any flight regime in close combat corner speeds.



Add to that,
The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability,

Originally intended to serve as an air superiority aircraft with a secondary "dumb bomb" ground-attack role, the flexibility of this design approach has permitted a variety of guided air-to-surface and anti-shipping weapons to be integrated for more well-rounded multirole and multimission capabilities

One of the most ambitious requirements for the LCA was the specification that it would have "relaxed static stability" (RSS).

Most aircraft are designed with "positive" static stability, which means they have a natural tendency to return to level and controlled flight in the absence of control inputs; however, this quality tends to oppose the pilot's efforts to manoeuver.

An aircraft with "negative" static stability (i.e., RSS), on the other hand, will quickly depart from level and controlled flight unless the pilot constantly works to keep it in trim; while this enhances manoeuvrability, it is very wearing on a pilot relying on a mechanical flight control system,



Composites in the LCA
The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (C-FC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs C-FC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.

The tailfin for the LCA is a monolithic honeycomb piece, an approach which reduced its manufacturing cost by 80% compared to the customary "subtractive" or "deductive" method, whereby the shaft is carved out of a block of titanium alloy by a computerised numerically controlled machine. No other manufacturer is known to have made fins out of a single piece.


The use of composites in the LCA resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts compared to using a metallic frame.

Furthermore, the number of fasteners has been reduced by half in the composite structure from the 10,000 that would have been required in a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings — is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.

I don't know why all the knaves with knife circle around tejas to taste it's blood?

but I don't mean to be uncharitable to an old war horse like Mig-21 , read more about it's exceptional abilities in the link below,

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ai...ig-21-a-10472/

But tejas will score over it in every department and Tejas mk-2 version is literally grippen NG equivalent.

So why should people who don't know anything on Tejas always run it down for no reason. It is pretty much a standard operating procedure across all threads here!!!!
Sigh.. Ok.. I just found out what the problem is.

You are confusing drag induced during turning in a dogfight, with drag induced at high supersonic speeds.
Cranked and canard delta - More drag at supersonic speeds, limiting its top speed. Less Drag while turning in a dogfight.

Pure tailess delta{with high sweep} and tailed delta{with high sweep} - More drag at turning during dogfights. Less Drag when going in a straight vector to reach top speeds during interception missions.

Drag is not a constant entity. it changes with Angle of attack{angle at which the plane or the wing meets the airflow}, speed, altitude and many other factors.

And I was saying since MiG-21 has a higher Thrust to weight ratio, the drag induced by it's tailed delta while TURNING, will be compensated by it. It would be interesting to see MiG-21 with a higher Thrust to weight ratio but a draggier turn performance, dogfight with Tejas which has a poor Thrust to weight ratio but a less draggier Airframe while turning. I place my bets on the Bison and LCA in a 60:40 ratio.

All this unstable Airframe, composites, big LCD screens on the cockpit and other such fancy stuff will only come after the BASIC parameters. What good is an unstable Airframe if the LCA can pull only 6Gs and has a not so impressive Thrust to Weight ratio{TWR}? They have promised to increase this 6 to 8Gs by the time of FOC, but lets see if they deliver. Take note that the F/A-18E/F the latest hornet can only pull 7.6Gs. So its not exactly easy to make a 9G fighter, which everyone takes for granted. LCA designers could very well fail. They brought down their earlier 9Gs assesment to 8 which shows their lack of experience in this field.

The specs of Mig-21 bisons,

Empty weight: 5,339 kg (11,770 lb)
Gross weight: 8,725 kg (19,235 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumanskiy R25-300, 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry, 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner each.

The specs of Tejas,

Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[93] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[94][95][96] (19,000 lbf)

For a gross weight of 8725 Kg Mig-21 bison has a thrust of 69 tons a TWR of 0.79 ,

For a gross weight of 9.5 tons it with 85 Kn engines tejas has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.89,

how much will the emergency bump thrust increase this low TWR with how much weapon weight for how long. Not worth comparing with Tejas mk-1,

So even with no bump thrust mode and even while carrying 1 ton more fuel than the MIG-21 bison tejas has a substantially higher TWR than Mig-21 bison,

All enegines have a emergency bump thrust mode, We don't know the values for Ge-404 IN 20 , but lower wing loading of Tejas will more than off set any advantage for Mig-21 Bisons in this area even without use of emergency bump thrust
That's pretty clever... Loading a smaller fighter with 3.3tonnes of fuel and ordinance, while loading only 3 tonnes on the LCA which weighs a tonne extra than the MiG-21. Why not load even more on the little MiG-21 and make it seem like it has even lesser TWR, if it makes you LCA fans happy.

And what part of 2100 Kgf didnt you see? Emergency Thrust produces 2.1 tonnes extra thrust compared to regular afterburner. Which employed under your BIASED Thrust to weight ratio calculation, it would still beat the Tejas in Thrust to Weight ratio.

The Emergency thurst of IN 20 engine was already given before my me.

Using emergency thrust doesnt mean the engine gets destroyed. "since every second of super-afterburner use counted as several minutes of regular power". The engine life gets reduced. But when you are facing a situation where the enemy is closing in on your tail, its either lose a couple of hours of engine life VS lose the entire plane and your life. Which is more practical?

Why will thrust to weight ratio have more importance than wing loading at high acceleration? And maneuverability is not jsut a function of TWR. Tejas has almost half the wing loading of the mig 21 therefore more lift per kg. Also I am definite that a compound delta will have better lift to drag than a normal delta.. Plus tejas is a rss aircraft and tends to pitch upwards.So I think it will have a better climb rate. That does not take anything away from the fishbed. It is an excellent aircraft but now it is hopelessly outdated in terms of sensors and armament capabilities. Plus I read that the mig 21 has an ITR which is very less for deltas. The tejas will definitely have better ITR too is what i think so in a dogfight today with high boresight missiles ITR is better to have than STR. And what does slaved to its radar mean. I mean tejas has already fired r 73s. It would be great if you could post at normal timings because i wish to have a healthy discussion on the mig and its capabilities. These are my views and feel free to correct this newbie. you had once mentioned why the tejas cant reach 9gs. you said it wasnt due to the airframe but some other reason. What is that reason?
High acceleration implies you have a huge force propelling you forward. Yes, if your wings could catch the air to climb, then it means you do climb faster. But to climb you need the brute force of the engine in the first place. So the question is at what engine thrust will the dis-advantage of having a high wing loading will be overcome. With the Emergency Thrust giving 2.1 tonnes of extra thrust, it is more than enough top overcome the disadvantage of having a small wing, since it can match the climb rate of the F-16. And I'm assuming LCA Tejas does not have a higher climb rate than the F-16, given the fact that LCA's climb rate is unknown.

In ITR, you are forgetting the G factor. While doing ITR you turn your plane violently at maximum G, close to corner velocity which inturn depends on Thurst to weight ratio and G. To point your nose quickly at the enemy. :-// yea, i know its confusing. To make it simpler, just imagine if the plane is turned violently to 90 degress and beyond when it is travelling at 700 to 800 kms per hour what would happen? If the LCA's maximum G is only 6, it is in a serious trouble matching the MiG's ITR, because it has to turn less wildly, because it can only manage 6Gs at present.

There are 2 ways to launch a Infrared missile. First is to use the infrared missile's seeker to lock onto the enemy and launch it. However this is not a very efficient method because the IR seeker is not very quick and will take a lot of time{many seconds more, which is an eternity in a fast paced dogfight} to lock onto the target, because there is only so much electronics you can cramp into a small missile.

The second most efficient method is, use your plane's radar to lock the enemy and input the co-ordinates into the missile, or in other words you slave your missile to the radar. The missile seeker will now know exactly where the target is and get a very fast and a very good lock on to the enemy. Then you launch the missile.

All LCA can do AS OF NOW, is use the first method, because i doubt the radar is fully integrated with the plane. But eventually when the Radar is fully integrated, it can transfer the co-ordinates.

The first method is what our green neighbours to the west did during the 1971 war. They used Aim-9B on Chinese MiG-19s and used the missile's own seeker to scan, locate, and lock to the enemy, instead of using the MiG-19's radar, which was not compatible with the chinese manufactured Russian radar.
 

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
The MiG-21 has a delta wing. The sweep angle on the leading edge is 57°.The angle of incidence is 0° while the dihedral angle is −2°.

The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability

, This is the basic truth about Mig-21(tejas is also a delta with sweep back angle of ). But all the while you are arguing deltas have more drag!!!!!!!!!

And cranked delta is a marked improvement over ordinary tail less delta. SO there is no basis for your claim that cranked delta will have drag than the ordinary tailed delta of Mig-21!!!!!!!!!!

This is the first time I am coming across such a bizarre claim anywhere on the net!!!!!!!!!!

Got any source for it? or Is it just a knee jerk reaction?

SO even if Mig-21 bison effectively destroys its engine in a minute of emergency bump thrust , it will still have a far lower TWR than the Tejas mk-1

Add to that the tejas mk-1 's very low wing loading , half that of Mig-21 Bison ther is no way a Mig-21 bison is going to have any edge over tejas in any flight regime in close combat corner speeds.



Add to that,
The Tejas is single-engined multirole fighter which features a tailless, compound delta planform and is designed with "relaxed static stability" for enhanced manoeuvrability,

Originally intended to serve as an air superiority aircraft with a secondary "dumb bomb" ground-attack role, the flexibility of this design approach has permitted a variety of guided air-to-surface and anti-shipping weapons to be integrated for more well-rounded multirole and multimission capabilities

One of the most ambitious requirements for the LCA was the specification that it would have "relaxed static stability" (RSS).

Most aircraft are designed with "positive" static stability, which means they have a natural tendency to return to level and controlled flight in the absence of control inputs; however, this quality tends to oppose the pilot's efforts to manoeuver.

An aircraft with "negative" static stability (i.e., RSS), on the other hand, will quickly depart from level and controlled flight unless the pilot constantly works to keep it in trim; while this enhances manoeuvrability, it is very wearing on a pilot relying on a mechanical flight control system,



Composites in the LCA
The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (C-FC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs C-FC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of C-FCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.

The tailfin for the LCA is a monolithic honeycomb piece, an approach which reduced its manufacturing cost by 80% compared to the customary "subtractive" or "deductive" method, whereby the shaft is carved out of a block of titanium alloy by a computerised numerically controlled machine. No other manufacturer is known to have made fins out of a single piece.


The use of composites in the LCA resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts compared to using a metallic frame.

Furthermore, the number of fasteners has been reduced by half in the composite structure from the 10,000 that would have been required in a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings — is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.

I don't know why all the knaves with knife circle around tejas to taste it's blood?

but I don't mean to be uncharitable to an old war horse like Mig-21 , read more about it's exceptional abilities in the link below,

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ai...ig-21-a-10472/

But tejas will score over it in every department and Tejas mk-2 version is literally grippen NG equivalent.

So why should people who don't know anything on Tejas always run it down for no reason. It is pretty much a standard operating procedure across all threads here!!!!
Sigh.. Ok.. I just found out what the problem is.

You are confusing drag induced during turning in a dogfight, with drag induced at high supersonic speeds.


Cranked and canard delta - More drag at supersonic speeds, limiting its top speed. Less Drag while turning in a dogfight.

Pure tailess delta{with high sweep} and tailed delta{with high sweep} - More drag at turning during dogfights. Less Drag when going in a straight vector to reach top speeds during interception missions.

Drag is not a constant entity. it changes with Angle of attack{angle at which the plane or the wing meets the airflow}, speed, altitude and many other factors.

And I was saying since MiG-21 has a higher Thrust to weight ratio, the drag induced by it's tailed delta while TURNING, will be compensated by it. It would be interesting to see MiG-21 with a higher Thrust to weight ratio but a draggier turn performance, dogfight with Tejas which has a poor Thrust to weight ratio but a less draggier Airframe while turning. I place my bets on the Bison and LCA in a 60:40 ratio.

All this unstable Airframe, composites, big LCD screens on the cockpit and other such fancy stuff will only come after the BASIC parameters. What good is an unstable Airframe if the LCA can pull only 6Gs and has a not so impressive Thrust to Weight ratio{TWR}? They have promised to increase this 6 to 8Gs by the time of FOC, but lets see if they deliver. Take note that the F/A-18E/F the latest hornet can only pull 7.6Gs. So its not exactly easy to make a 9G fighter, which everyone takes for granted. LCA designers could very well fail. They brought down their earlier 9Gs assesment to 8 which shows their lack of experience in this field.

The specs of Mig-21 bisons,

Empty weight: 5,339 kg (11,770 lb)
Gross weight: 8,725 kg (19,235 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumanskiy R25-300, 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry, 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner each.

The specs of Tejas,

Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[93] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[94][95][96] (19,000 lbf)

For a gross weight of 8725 Kg Mig-21 bison has a thrust of 69 tons a TWR of 0.79 ,

For a gross weight of 9.5 tons it with 85 Kn engines tejas has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.89,

how much will the emergency bump thrust increase this low TWR with how much weapon weight for how long. Not worth comparing with Tejas mk-1,

So even with no bump thrust mode and even while carrying 1 ton more fuel than the MIG-21 bison tejas has a substantially higher TWR than Mig-21 bison,

All enegines have a emergency bump thrust mode, We don't know the values for Ge-404 IN 20 , but lower wing loading of Tejas will more than off set any advantage for Mig-21 Bisons in this area even without use of emergency bump thrust
That's pretty clever... Loading a smaller fighter with 3.3tonnes of fuel and ordinance, while loading only 3 tonnes on the LCA which weighs a tonne extra than the MiG-21. Why not load even more on the little MiG-21 and make it seem like it has even lesser TWR, if it makes you LCA fans happy.

And what part of 2100 Kgf didnt you see? Emergency Thrust produces 2.1 tonnes extra thrust compared to regular afterburner. Which employed under your BIASED Thrust to weight ratio calculation, it would still beat the Tejas in Thrust to Weight ratio.

The Emergency thurst of IN 20 engine was already given before my me.

Using emergency thrust doesnt mean the engine gets destroyed. "since every second of super-afterburner use counted as several minutes of regular power". The engine life gets reduced. But when you are facing a situation where the enemy is closing in on your tail, its either lose a couple of hours of engine life VS lose the entire plane and your life. Which is more practical?

Why will thrust to weight ratio have more importance than wing loading at high acceleration? And maneuverability is not jsut a function of TWR. Tejas has almost half the wing loading of the mig 21 therefore more lift per kg. Also I am definite that a compound delta will have better lift to drag than a normal delta.. Plus tejas is a rss aircraft and tends to pitch upwards.So I think it will have a better climb rate. That does not take anything away from the fishbed. It is an excellent aircraft but now it is hopelessly outdated in terms of sensors and armament capabilities. Plus I read that the mig 21 has an ITR which is very less for deltas. The tejas will definitely have better ITR too is what i think so in a dogfight today with high boresight missiles ITR is better to have than STR. And what does slaved to its radar mean. I mean tejas has already fired r 73s. It would be great if you could post at normal timings because i wish to have a healthy discussion on the mig and its capabilities. These are my views and feel free to correct this newbie. you had once mentioned why the tejas cant reach 9gs. you said it wasnt due to the airframe but some other reason. What is that reason?
High acceleration implies you have a huge force propelling you forward. Yes, if your wings could catch the air to climb, then it means you do climb faster. But to climb you need the brute force of the engine in the first place. So the question is at what engine thrust will the dis-advantage of having a high wing loading will be overcome. With the Emergency Thrust giving 2.1 tonnes of extra thrust, it is more than enough top overcome the disadvantage of having a small wing, since it can match the climb rate of the F-16. And I'm assuming LCA Tejas does not have a higher climb rate than the F-16, given the fact that LCA's climb rate is unknown.

In ITR, you are forgetting the G factor. While doing ITR you turn your plane violently at maximum G, close to corner velocity which inturn depends on Thurst to weight ratio and G, yo point your nose quickly at the enemy. yea, i know its confusing. To make it simpler, just imagine if a plane is turned violently to 90 degress and beyond when it is traveling at 700 to 800 kms per hour what would happen? If the LCA's maximum G is only 6, it is in a serious trouble matching the MiG's ITR, because it has to turn less wildly than the MiG, because it can only manage 6Gs at present.

There are 2 ways to launch a Infrared missile. First is to use the infrared missile's seeker to lock onto the enemy and launch it. However this is not a very efficient method because the IR seeker is not very quick and will take a lot of time{many more seconds, which is an eternity in a fast paced dogfight} to lock onto the target, because there is only so much electronics you can cram into a small missile.

The second most efficient method is, use your plane's radar to lock the enemy and input the co-ordinates into the missile, or in other words you slave your missile to the radar. The missile seeker will now know exactly where the target is and get a very fast and a very good lock on to the enemy. Then you launch the missile. Else the missile, has to scan, locate and lock all by itself, as opposed to just lock.

All LCA can do AS OF NOW, is use the first method, because i doubt the radar is fully integrated with the plane. But eventually when the Radar is fully integrated, it can transfer the co-ordinates.

The first method is what our green neighbours to the west did during the 1971 war. They used Aim-9B on Chinese F-6As and used the missile's own seeker to scan, locate, and lock to the enemy, instead of using the F-6A radar to get the launch co-ordinates, because the American missile could not communicate with the chinese manufactured Russian radar.
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top