India's Interest in Lockheed F-35 Fighter

[p2prada]

REALLY, SO all contenders arrived at LEH not doing this slight adjustment.

Yes, they did not make changes. Changes are made in an extensive refit or during manufacturing. IAF did not consider it important enough to bring to the table.

You have once quoted LIVEFIST in AMCA thread , so you cannot say that is a source you don't know.

You can't understand the difference between speculation and fact.

It is quite understandable that you didn't want to comment on the LCA's performance in LEH as it will give away the game.

Because even with underpowered engine LCA managed that is the testimony to the fact that it was designed for indian conditions in mind.

You don't understand what the cold tests are about.

You can pull all day long on all control surfaces but you cannot maneuver in vertical plane like a low wing loading tejas ,
if you don't have large wing area to generate lift , and that is the meaning of the term low wing loading.

The MKI will climb faster than LCA... probably 300+m/s compared to LCA's ~250m/s. MKI has a higher wing loading.

I don't know from where people find shit to write about LCA like this.My God I am reading the thread for the first time. 3 or 4 mig-21s can wipeout an entire squadron of LCA. In reality a mig-21 pilot will never see an LCA in his radar before he sees a long range BVR from LCA.

Mig-21 has R-77. LCA will not have an operational missile until 2015. It is obvious which of these will win. Beyond that it is impossible to check because the LCA equivalent Mig-21 will be retired from service at pretty much the same time as when LCA gets BVR.

You know nothing about the Mig-21 Bison. The fact is as of today, it is superior in BVR to both IAF Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Bet, you did not know that.

But the most important thing at higher altitude LIFT comes from wing area not engine power or canards or control surface.

Hilarious. When asianobserve and I were talking about LIFT for LCA, you assumed we were talking about the physics aspect of lift when he and I were actually talking about LCA being used as a trainer.

Anyway, you are talking about things that have nothing to do with what I stated.

I will find it and post it here later.Since the discussion between you and me in ADA tejas thread was a bit long just about 100 pages and 500 posts,please excuse me for some delay as mountain of materials need to be sifted.

You are hopelessly wrong in everything. So, there is no need to get back to it.

Every senior member you have discussed with knows you know nothing. And this identified by 2 Indians, 1 Chinese and 1 Polish member. You transcend boundaries in those standards.

Anyway you brought in LCA in a discussion where my questions were related to MRCA. MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-21 and Mig-29 have cleared Leh cold trials with flying colours in the past, just like LCA. So, your point in this thread is hopelessly moot. So, keep your nonsense in the LCA thread and leave better aircraft, including Mig-21, in the other threads.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes, they did not make changes. Changes are made in an extensive refit or during manufacturing. IAF did not consider it important enough to bring to the table.

High altitude test are as important as any other parameters,They are not himalayan Picnic, and it is not the wish of IAF to

You can't understand the difference between speculation and fact.

Determining what is speculation and what is fact has come under yor authority ,it seems, You are the only one who says the high altitude tests are not important enough any source for this as you fondly asked for source for my statement regarding the failiure of MMRCA contenders at LEH?

You don't understand what the cold tests are about.

This is the only concrete source we can find in your post, Face palms like this,

The MKI will climb faster than LCA... probably 300+m/s compared to LCA's ~250m/s. MKI has a higher wing loading.

Faster climbing in a vertical straight line using the engine power is not what I meant .It is maneuvering in vertical by using the wings lift. And tighter knife edge performance using wing lift to achieve a sudden Instantaneous turn rate where low wing loading deltas are beter over high wing loading forms.

Mig-21 has R-77. LCA will not have an operational missile until 2015. It is obvious which of these will win. Beyond that it is impossible to check because the LCA equivalent Mig-21 will be retired from service at pretty much the same time as when LCA gets BVR.

LCA's 80 km range BVR is about to be testfired, You must be living in antartica to not to know it.I don't want to drag on for the deployment of long range BVrs on LCA as all of the matter is already in ADA LCA tejas thread.If grippen can deploy 150 km range METEOR BVR then TEJAS can do it. No amout of theorizing is going to change that.

You know nothing about the Mig-21 Bison. The fact is as of today, it is superior in BVR to both IAF Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Bet, you did not know that.

It is a fighter designed with faulty center of gravity issues , which becomes difficult to control after two thirds of fuel is used up, What is it's radar detection and tracking range?Weapon weight? Why the hell did IAF put out a press release saying that they won't train young pilots any more on mig-21s considering their dangerous aerodynamics and spurious engines?

Hilarious. When asianobserve and I were talking about LIFT for LCA, you assumed we were talking about the physics aspect of lift when he and I were actually talking about LCA being used as a trainer.

Pathetic. I know what asian observe meant.It is your diagnosis that I don't know he implied trainer role when he posted LIFT.
I literally meant lift and to point out the importance of the word put capital letters -LIFT that's all.

Even in my reply to asian observe I said with such high lift and low wing loading and considering the russian junks far outliving their service lifr and masquerading as fighters India cannot afford LCA as triner thats all.

Anyway, you are talking about things that have nothing to do with what I stated.



You are hopelessly wrong in everything. So, there is no need to get back to it.

Every senior member you have discussed with knows you know nothing. And this identified by 2 Indians, 1 Chinese and 1 Polish member. You transcend boundaries in those standards.

Mostly ranters masquerading as senior members.If you rant long enough you won't become an expert .

Anyway you brought in LCA in a discussion where my questions were related to MRCA. MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-21 and Mig-29 have cleared Leh cold trials with flying colours in the past, just like LCA. So, your point in this thread is hopelessly moot. So, keep your nonsense in the LCA thread and leave better aircraft, including Mig-21, in the other threads.

what were the TRIAL's FLYING COLURS? THE QUESTION IS CAN YOUR RUSSIAN DARLING MIG-21 TAKE OFF with 3 tons of load in LEH and perform the kind of instantaneous turns by the LCA at which altitude.

Your sea level TURNING SPECS LIKE STR count for nothing here in the rarefied high altitude himalayan airfields. What is the weapon load of the MIG-21 operating at LEH ( a couple of mig-21 can wipe out a squadron of LCA according to you in AJAI SHUKLA's WHERE IS THE LIGHT FIGHTER THREAD?)

aT THESE ALTITUDES THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE mig-21'S PILOT IS HIS OWN PLANE.mORE INDIAN PILOTS SARIFICED THEIR LIFE ON POORLY ENGINEERED MIG-21S THAN ON IND-PAK WAR.

So a fighter meant to scramble the world war 2 bombers has become the mightiest plane in the world.

Hereafter don't bring MIG-21s are the best to the thread .I will have to post even more damaging stuff
.

If you have prejudices on tejas start your own thread regarding why tejas is obsolete I will come there and let's discuss it. There is no need for you to drag tejas in other threads at the drop of the hat and reeling off your false stories all over the forum.

 

[pmaitra]

There are a few misconceptions, both in the video and the other critics, in how the F-35 is to be used.

In the air force, the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10. While I may not support the idea of F-35 replacing the A-10, but the USAF knows better along with known progression of current gen munitions compared to the A-10s strafing run with its massive cannons. Maybe they believe today's precision weapons like Brimstone/Hellfire 2 will be more effective with less risk involved. But at the same time, the Russians don't want to give it up and will be working on a Su-25 replacement.

As an F-16 replacement. The F-35 is a heavy fighter which flies as good or better than a clean F-16. That's saying a lot. Both aircraft have high wing loading. In terms of simple physics that we learn in school and college, a low wing loading is better and a high wing loading is bad. But, they don't mention anything about drag, or try to correlate it to the subject. They end up treating drag as an entirely different aspect. I remember explaining the same to you about oxygenated blood and de-oxygenated blood and how simple they make things at lower levels of education. The logic is simple here, low wing loading is very good, but if you want to get into a turning fight they you better utilize all your advantages in the first turn or you are dead. High wing loading does not turn as good, but your fighter does not lose energy rapidly and you can have a second chance instead of simply dropping like a brick after the first turn. Therefore, the difference between high and low wing loading. Here, the priority is to get something in between for a requirement that you have decided after 30-40 years of flying aircraft with similar qualities.

The problem with wing loading is pilots want a low wing loading aircraft, but a sustained turn rate superior to the F-16, yeah right! They did not get that, but a high wing loading aircraft still delivered a STR superior to the F-16. If we go by what the youtube Karnal said about F-22 having a STR of 28deg/s and test pilots claiming a slightly lesser figure compared to the F-22, then the F-35 has a superior STR compared to Rafale and EF-2000 as of today.

Cross section relates to drag, well, you beat it with power. And F-35 has that power. The acceleration alone counts. The F-22 has a greater cross section compared to F-15 too, I don't see anybody complaining about it.

For the same reasons, USMC is set to replace the Harrier with the F-35, a far superior platform.

The biggest criticism for the F-35 comes from USN requirements for long legs and small payload. The F-35s combat radius with internal fuel is around 1000Km. Not enough for Navy requirements for long range strike. However when they criticized based on these points, they kept relating it to the Super Hornet. However the F-35C will be replacing the older F/A-18 Hornets and not the Super Hornets. Today we know that the actual aircraft to replace the SH will be the new 6th gen aircraft for which the USN has sent an RFI to Boeing this year. Similarly USAF will be working on the next generation bomber which is a strike aircraft capable of carrying up to 12 tons internally, 10000Km and an endurance of 50-100 hours with mid air refueling. They want nearly 200 of these.

Regardless the F-35 can carry 2-6 AMRAAMs internally and also has enough space to carry 2 1000Kg bombs. As much or superior to the F-16 depending on the role.

The RAND report about F-35 that can't turn, can't fight, can't run is pure BS. Turn rate has been taken care of above. Can't fight is also nonsense because the 800mm radar array is very big along with the fact that the BVR load is optimal for 5th gen situations. Need to combine that with difficult to beat missiles. Can't run, I don't know why they are comparing it to Flankers because even the F-16 cannot run in that respect.

Some of the criticism has to do with the fact that many countries are planning to use the F-35 as an air superiority platform against Flankers. Well, it is far, far superior to the F-16, so I don't get this point at all. Earlier most were using F-16s against Flanker nations which aren't many as a matter of fact.

So, these were really the most important points that the F-35 was criticized about. Stealth is the single greatest advantage here. Range, payload, maneuverability aren't an issue here. Take these factors out and the only valid criticism against F-35 is the delay and rising costs. Overall the F-35 is better than all legacy aircraft today.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, and I see what you are are seeing. Good response.

Both aircraft have high wing loading. In terms of simple physics that we learn in school and college, a low wing loading is better and a high wing loading is bad. But, they don't mention anything about drag, or try to correlate it to the subject. They end up treating drag as an entirely different aspect.

Yes, they do treat them as different aspects, because, they are different aspects.

Think of an axis aligned rectangle ABCD, with AB = CD = 2m and || to y-axis, and BC = DA = 4m and || to x-axis. If this plane moved along x-axis, drag would be less, compared to if it moved along y-axis.

The logic is simple here, low wing loading is very good, but if you want to get into a turning fight they you better utilize all your advantages in the first turn or you are dead. High wing loading does not turn as good, but your fighter does not lose energy rapidly and you can have a second chance instead of simply dropping like a brick after the first turn. Therefore, the difference between high and low wing loading.

What you are saying is exactly the opposite of what happens in reality.

For low wing loading, the aircraft can use two types of lift, normal aeroplane lift (Leonard Euler), and Krüger lift (Werner Krüger). For high wing loading, the pilot has to use his skills (or have some mechanism) to exploit the Krüger lift, because, aeroplane lift is minimal. Out of the two, the low wing loading has the greater chance of falling like a brick. Momentum is a function of mass. Acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass, but the fall is a function of acceleration due to gravity, various lifts, shape (and therefore drag, resistance, etc.), and other associated forces. The momentum you talked about, will help such an aircraft follow a downward trajectory, because, gravity will act, no matter what, and high wing loading will only make matters worse.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes, they did not make changes. Changes are made in an extensive refit or during manufacturing. IAF did not consider it important enough to bring to the table.



You can't understand the difference between speculation and fact.



You don't understand what the cold tests are about.





The MKI will climb faster than LCA... probably 300+m/s compared to LCA's ~250m/s. MKI has a higher wing loading.



Mig-21 has R-77. LCA will not have an operational missile until 2015. It is obvious which of these will win. Beyond that it is impossible to check because the LCA equivalent Mig-21 will be retired from service at pretty much the same time as when LCA gets BVR.

You know nothing about the Mig-21 Bison. The fact is as of today, it is superior in BVR to both IAF Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Bet, you did not know that.



Hilarious. When asianobserve and I were talking about LIFT for LCA, you assumed we were talking about the physics aspect of lift when he and I were actually talking about LCA being used as a trainer.

Anyway, you are talking about things that have nothing to do with what I stated.



You are hopelessly wrong in everything. So, there is no need to get back to it.

Every senior member you have discussed with knows you know nothing. And this identified by 2 Indians, 1 Chinese and 1 Polish member. You transcend boundaries in those standards.

Anyway you brought in LCA in a discussion where my questions were related to MRCA. MKI, Mirage-2000, Mig-21 and Mig-29 have cleared Leh cold trials with flying colours in the past, just like LCA. So, your point in this thread is hopelessly moot. So, keep your nonsense in the LCA thread and leave better aircraft, including Mig-21, in the other threads.

Like many aircraft designed as interceptors, the MiG-21 had a short range. This was not helped by a design defect where the center of gravity shifted rearwards once two-thirds of the fuel had been used.


This had the effect of making the plane uncontrollable, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. The issue of the short endurance and low fuel capacity of the MiG-21F, PF, PFM, S/SM and M/MF variants—though each had a somewhat greater fuel capacity than its predecessor—led to the development of the MT and SMT variants.

These had a range increase of 250 km (155 mi) compared to the MiG-21SM, but at the cost of worsening all other performance figures (such as a lower service ceiling and slower time to altitude).

Avionics of MiG-21 Bison consists of Super Kopyo X-band pulse Doppler radar


Air-to-air operating mode

1. Detection range (Ddet), km:

- against free airspace:
head-on >50
in pursuit >30
- against surface background:
head-on >50
in pursuit >25

Single target detection and tracking range 0.75 Ddet .So the tracking range is mind numbing 35 kms, I suppose.

These pathetic ranges are for detection not for tracking I suppose.
Your highness can post the much lesser tracking range with ease since you are the only one(Along the guy who wrote the FLIGHT GLOBAL 2009 article on LCA ) who consistently claims it is 4th gen and much better than LCAA mk-1.

With these detection range it can never see an LCA tejas firing a 80 km ASTRA or any other long range missile.

With these specs only squadron of fighters your beloved MIg-21 can wipeout is IJT SITARA sqn.
What a pathetic guy you are?

This is the LCA mk-1's radar specs,

The coherent pulse-Doppler Multi-Mode Radar in development is designed to keep track of a maximum of 10 targets and allows simultaneous multiple-target engagement.

Jointly developed by the LRDE and HAL Hyderabad, the MMR is being designed to perform multi-target search, track-while-scan (TWS), and ground-mapping functions. It features look-up/look-down modes, low/medium/high pulse repetition frequencies (PRF), platform motion compensation, doppler beam-sharpening, moving target indication (MTI), Doppler filtering, constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection, range-Doppler ambiguity resolution, scan conversion, and online diagnostics to identify faulty processor modules.

While originally planned to be fitted on production aircraft, delays in the development of MMR prompted the DRDO to co-operate with Israel Aerospace Industries to integrate a Hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar for use with Tejas.]

The EL/M-2032 radar used in LSP-3 has a detection and tracking range of up to 150 km in air-to-air mode, the air-to-ground mode generates high resolution radar imagery of locations at up to 150 km, and air-to-sea mode can detect and classify naval targets at ranges of up to 300 km.Another track System is an infrared search and track system (IRST)

The mk-2 will have an AESA radar

The LCA sees the mig-21 bisons at 150 km and starts tracking.

At 80 km it will fire the astra-mk-1 that was proposed for it.(mk-2 has 120 km range).

The mig won't see the LCA even when the astra is 10 meters before the nose.

Then why are you bragging that a a few of migs can wipe out a squadron of LCA tejas?

Are you out of your mind?

http://tejas.gov.in/specifications/powerplant.html

These are tejas engine specs.

F404-GE-IN20
Dimensions: Diameter 890 mm, Length 3.9 m
Weights: Max Weight 1,035 kg (2,282 lb)
Engines Performance: Thrust 9,163 kg (20,200 lb)

These are the mIG-21 specs

Empty weight: 4,871 kg (10,738 lb)
Gross weight: 7,100 kg (15,650 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumansky R11F-300, 37.27 kN (8,380 lbf) thrust dry, 56.27 kN (12,650 lbf) with afterburner each.


So what kind of spare power MIG-21 will give to avionics and EW suite(is there any?).


At best MIG-21 is a target practice for LCA mk-1.

 

[ersakthivel]

The problem with high wing loading is that it will have a lesser instantaneous turn rate than the low wing loading deltas.
SO in this age of high off boresight within visual range missiles fired with the help of Helmet mounted display and sighting system it is virtually impossible for high wing loading fighters to escape the missiles with their better sustained rates.

Low wing loading deltas always have better instantaneous turn rate, i.e better and faster nose pointing authority .They use this to launch a couple of WVR missiles on the better sustained rate high wing loading fighters.There is no escape from this for the high wing loading fighter.Even if the missiles fail the low wing loading deltas have the option of converting the fight to the vertical plane ,where they hold the advantage.


This is explained in detail in

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-45.html

A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.

The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).

A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.

As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.

Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:

"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."

He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:

"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."

He ends by saying:

"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."

To me this captures it in a nutshell.

that is the problem F-35 is going to face in dog fight with low wing loading fighters.If it is sighted in a close combat it will face the same problem faced by the F-16 against Mirages with low wing loading.

the mirage is a plain delta and has lower thrust to weight ratio. But modern low wing loading deltas have either cranked delta(LCA) or delta canards(RAFALE,GRIPPEN,TYPHOON) and they have around 1.2 for TWR.So they won't fall out of stall so easily.
Because these arrangements postpone the onset of stall and give them very high AOA and high sustained turn rate as well.

That's why kinematics of F-35 is not very impressive because of it's high wing loading and low TWR.

So even in the turning fight only at sea level where the air is dense the high wing loading fighter gains the advantage with a better turn ,that too only in a no missile turning dog fights.
In all other altitudes practically there is no difference .

 

[p2prada]

What you are saying is exactly the opposite of what happens in reality.

Yes and No.

I am no punter in Aerodynamics. I was told this by people who actually designed aircraft for ADE and NAL.

It is not as simple as what either of us can claim.

There is a reason why a high wing loading aircraft like F-16/F-35 has such a high STR compared to low wing loading aircraft like Rafale or EF.

IMO, if you compare generation-wise, then F-16 has very high STR compared to Mirage-2000/LCA/J-10, but has lower STR as compared to low wing loading EF or Rafale. At the same time, F-35 has even higher wing loading than F-16, but has a higher STR compared to EF/Rafale, if we go by test pilot comments. So, among all the aircraft mentioned here, F-35 has the highest STR while F-16 has the lowest ITR. Two extremes and both are high wing loading aircraft.

F-35s ITR has not been commented upon as of today. If it turns out it has an ITR greater than 28 or 29deg/s, then all that "basic" low and high wing loading logic goes out of the window because we can say that it can be manipulated using other forces they may have devised.

There may be reason to believe the way the control surfaces act, nullify, to a certain extent, the effects of low/high wing loading completely. If you bring in Mirage-III, it has the lowest wing loading among all aircraft mentioned here (except for the LCA), but its ITR and STR is woefully low compared to all the FBW equipped aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Determining what is speculation and what is fact has come under yor authority ,it seems, You are the only one who says the high altitude tests are not important enough any source for this as you fondly asked for source for my statement regarding the failiure of MMRCA contenders at LEH?

It would seem your incomprehension ability has not waned in the slightest.

It is this same problem why you are unable to understand the overwhelming superiority of Mig-21 Bison over the older versions of Mig-29, Mirage-2000 and the current capabilities of the LCA.

I know about the stuff posted in the other forums, especially considering I was the one who posted it in the first place.

So, this is another source required from you, about MRCA specifically failing cold trials for the "reasons you stated."

Since the rest of what you posted is lost in useless ranting, there is reason to continue ignoring you.

 

[sathya]

New Chinese J-31 Stealth Fighter,Implications for India

China reportedly carried out its first flight of new Chinese Stealth fighter dubbed J-31 on 31 October 2012 at the SAC's facilities in the North Eastern Chinese city of Shenyang. This is Second Stealth aircraft coming from China, first been Chengdu developed J-20.

J-31 appeared to be a smaller version of the J-20 prototype that was tested last year in Chengdu. Test flight of J-20 might have surprised many in aviation circle but after carefully studying pictures of aircraft, it was declared has a " Strike aircraft" to take out airfields, warships and other ground targets and it was expected from then onwards that Chinese will develop a new stealth fighter for fighter-interceptor role based on J-20 .

Both planes feature stealth design features but their true capabilities in terms of sensors, radar-absorbing coatings and other factors remain unknown. It is not known when, or if, either plane will go into production.

India on other hand was supposed to develop a new variant of its own stealth fighter aircraft based on Russian T-50 aircraft, but recent media report suggests that Indian variant will only have its own custom avionics developed in India or sourced from European market and no major changes to structure of the aircraft.

India already cut its Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) order by one-third. India will now be inducting only 144 FGFA instead of the originally scheduled 214. Rumours in media is that it has been done to accommodate F-35 in Indian air force, since US has been pushing towards India and has have been vocally advocating F-35 sale to India.

The first prototype of the fighter jet is likely to be delivered to India in 2014, followed by additional planes in 2017 and 2019. Earlier, India expected to induct the jets into service sometime between 2017 and 2018. Recently Russia said the FGFA would not be delivered until 2020.

India's Own AMCA project should take best from FGFA project, Including avionics sourced for FGFA, India plans to have its first flight by 2020, but recently they has not been much media report about the time line for its development. Project officially has received Government grant and permission but Indian agencies are still working on ASR provided by IAF last year, and may submit their proposal by mid of next year to IAF for their approval.

Even though China seems to be a head in the race of Stealth aircrafts with India, Chinese are still heavily depended on Russian engines, and reliability of their Indigenous engines are far from satisfactory.

Conclusion

China seems to be head of India for now, but we need to decide and make some serious decisions regarding stealth aircrafts for IAF, AMCA should be fast tracked as soon as development of Tejas MK-II is completed and locally developed and sourced avionics and other systems for FGFA should also make its way into AMCA to avoid parallel development and to avoid wastage of resources, money and time. Tejas MK-III a light Stealth variant for Interception roles needs to be developed in parallel with AMCA to avoid any vacuum which might happen if there is any delay in production of FGFA and AMCA, India should aim to field 500 Stealth aircrafts by 2040.

http://idrw.org/?p=15542

 

[ersakthivel]

It would seem your incomprehension ability has not waned in the slightest.

It is this same problem why you are unable to understand the overwhelming superiority of Mig-21 Bison over the older versions of Mig-29, Mirage-2000 and the current capabilities of the LCA.

This had the effect of making the plane uncontrollable, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. The issue of the short endurance and low fuel capacity of the MiG-21F, PF, PFM, S/SM and M/MF variants—though each had a somewhat greater fuel capacity than its predecessor—led to the development of the MT and SMT variants.

These had a range increase of 250 km (155 mi) compared to the MiG-21SM, but at the cost of worsening all other performance figures (such as a lower service ceiling and slower time to altitude).

Avionics of MiG-21 Bison consists of Super Kopyo X-band pulse Doppler radar


Air-to-air operating mode

1. Detection range (Ddet), km:

- against free airspace:
head-on >50
in pursuit >30
- against surface background:
head-on >50
in pursuit >25

Single target detection and tracking range 0.75 Ddet .So the tracking range is mind numbing 35 kms, I suppose.

These pathetic ranges are for detection not for tracking I suppose.
Your highness can post the much lesser tracking range with ease since you are the only one(Along the guy who wrote the FLIGHT GLOBAL 2009 article on LCA ) who consistently claims it is 4th gen and much better than LCAA mk-1.

With these detection range it can never see an LCA tejas firing a 80 km ASTRA or any other long range missile.

With these specs only squadron of fighters your beloved MIg-21 can wipeout is IJT SITARA sqn.
What a pathetic guy you are?

This is the LCA mk-1's radar specs,

The coherent pulse-Doppler Multi-Mode Radar in development is designed to keep track of a maximum of 10 targets and allows simultaneous multiple-target engagement.

Jointly developed by the LRDE and HAL Hyderabad, the MMR is being designed to perform multi-target search, track-while-scan (TWS), and ground-mapping functions. It features look-up/look-down modes, low/medium/high pulse repetition frequencies (PRF), platform motion compensation, doppler beam-sharpening, moving target indication (MTI), Doppler filtering, constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection, range-Doppler ambiguity resolution, scan conversion, and online diagnostics to identify faulty processor modules.

While originally planned to be fitted on production aircraft, delays in the development of MMR prompted the DRDO to co-operate with Israel Aerospace Industries to integrate a Hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar for use with Tejas.]

The EL/M-2032 radar used in LSP-3 has a detection and tracking range of up to 150 km in air-to-air mode, the air-to-ground mode generates high resolution radar imagery of locations at up to 150 km, and air-to-sea mode can detect and classify naval targets at ranges of up to 300 km.Another track System is an infrared search and track system (IRST)

The mk-2 will have an AESA radar

The LCA sees the mig-21 bisons at 150 km and starts tracking.

At 80 km it will fire the astra-mk-1 that was proposed for it.(mk-2 has 120 km range).

The mig won't see the LCA even when the astra is 10 meters before the nose.

Then why are you bragging that a a few of migs can wipe out a squadron of LCA tejas?

Are you out of your mind?

I know about the stuff posted in the other forums, especially considering I was the one who posted it in the first place.

So, this is another source required from you, about MRCA specifically failing cold trials for the "reasons you stated."

Since the rest of what you posted is lost in useless ranting, there is reason to continue ignoring you.

At best mig-21 can be a target practice for tejas.

 

[ersakthivel]

Broadsword: New Chinese stealth fighter heightens dilemma for Indian Navy

Some interesting news from a thin source according to a senior member

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes and No.

I am no punter in Aerodynamics. I was told this by people who actually designed aircraft for ADE and NAL.

It is not as simple as what either of us can claim.

There is a reason why a high wing loading aircraft like F-16/F-35 has such a high STR compared to low wing loading aircraft like Rafale or EF.

IMO, if you compare generation-wise, then F-16 has very high STR compared to Mirage-2000/LCA/J-10, but has lower STR as compared to low wing loading EF or Rafale. At the same time, F-35 has even higher wing loading than F-16, but has a higher STR compared to EF/Rafale, if we go by test pilot comments. So, among all the aircraft mentioned here, F-35 has the highest STR while F-16 has the lowest ITR. Two extremes and both are high wing loading aircraft.

F-35s ITR has not been commented upon as of today. If it turns out it has an ITR greater than 28 or 29deg/s, then all that "basic" low and high wing loading logic goes out of the window because we can say that it can be manipulated using other forces they may have devised.

There may be reason to believe the way the control surfaces act, nullify, to a certain extent, the effects of low/high wing loading completely. If you bring in Mirage-III, it has the lowest wing loading among all aircraft mentioned here (except for the LCA), but its ITR and STR is woefully low compared to all the FBW equipped aircraft.

Generally high wing loading aircraft have higher STR and lower ITR than low wing loading deltas.

Low wing loading aircrafts have lower STR and ,higher ITR,


Another important thing is STR is a function of

1.Lower wing loading,
2.TWR,
3.AOA all combined.

The f-16 has better STR than the Mirage is natural as F-16 has higher wing loading.

But rafale has better STR than F_16 means ,along lower wing loading ,RAFALE has much higher TWR than mirage.So since STR is combination of all three factors RAFALE beats F-16,

F-35 has higher wing loading along with much better TWR than F-16,

SO naturally it should have much higher STR than F-16,whether it beats RAFALE or not is to be checked.Because rafale has lower wing loading as well as matching TWR.


The mirage -III should have way lower TWR than F-16, so naturally it is weak in both.

So all low wing loading crafts should have a lesser STR is not entirely right ,AOA and ,TWR are the two other deciding factors of STR.

 

[average american]

I think what most people fail to understand is the present day level of Russian Technology compared to the west.

Russian concepts of equipment quality already proceeds from a different mindset than American/European approaches. American or European items are frequently overdesigned. Russian equipment is frequently overbuilt. This makes it rugged, and often less expensive. If coupled with excellent fabrication and quality approaches, it could offer a compelling alternative in the international defense market. Unfortunately, Russian fabrication technologies, quality approaches, and accountability have often been poor, resulting in a mixed bag of good performers whose basic design overcomes these deficits, and poor performing equipment that cannot.

Fixing that kind of pervasive organizational/cultural problem would be a massive effort under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately for Russia, these are not the best of circumstances. Mere maintenance of its equipment base currently presents a challenge.

The complete defense budget collapses of the 1990s have left Russia a lasting legacy – one that serves as a canonical example of what happens when a country's military industrial and knowledge base is allowed to decay. Russian defense analyst Nikita Petrov explains, in a February 2008 RIA Novosti Op/Ed:

"...the Algerian experts are right when they talk about a drop in quality of Russian arms exports. This is openly admitted by top-ranking officials in charge of the Russian military-industrial sector"¦. At a recent Academy of Military Sciences conference, Putilin said that "although the enterprises of the military-industrial sector have increased their turnout by more than 14% (military production went up by 19.1%, and civilian by 7.6%), some of them are simply unable to fulfill state-awarded contracts. Moreover, they cannot even use the allocated funds"¦." ....Highly qualified personnel have come close to retirement age. Machines and technologies are becoming obsolescent – capital equipment in the defense industry is more than 30 years old. Major technologies have been lost, usual contacts severed, and the required raw materials and equipment are in short supply. The price of energy"¦ greatly exceeds the deflators fixed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Graduates of technical colleges are reluctant to work in the defense industry. Salaries are rather low, and career opportunities cannot compete with those in the oil and gas industry"¦. Before, young people were not drafted if they worked at a military plant called a mailbox. Now this benefit does not exist"¦. technical vocational schools no longer exist"¦."

This isn't the first time RIA Novosti has covered these issues. Nikita Petrov again, this time from a January 2007 RIA Novosti article:

"In the last few months, defense factories have expanded production by 14.1%, boosting military-equipment and civilian output by 19.1% and 7.6%, respectively. Nevertheless, some of them are simply unable to fulfil the state defense order and to effectively spend federal-budget allocations"¦. Only 36% of strategic defense enterprises are solvent, while another 23% are tottering on the verge of bankruptcy"¦. The lack of qualified personnel and up-to-date production equipment will inevitably impair product quality. In fact, India, Algeria and some other countries are beginning to file quality claims [emphasis DID's]..... Since 1992, not a single state defense order has been fulfilled completely and on time."

Russia's budget for 2009 is already shooting past prior year's projections for 2010. If energy prices remain high, it would not be surprising for the planned 2010 and 2011 figures to also find themselves overtaken by additional spending.

Even so, money alone won't instantly provide production lines with the required tools, some of which must be bought abroad. Or produce technically qualified graduates from thin air to operate them. Or fix the gap between real and official prices, including poorly-set energy cost adjustments. Or handle the property right issues and state interference that prevent the creation of efficient holding companies, and make it very difficult to restructure the assets and production of the holding companies that are created.

Recovery from that situation will take more than just cash. It may even take more than time.

Regardless of the formal system in place, Russia is a country where Vladimir Putin's desires are law, or will soon become so. Continued domestic defense spending is assured, therefore, and may eventually begin to restore Russia's defense industry to some semblance of health.

Restoration beyond that level will require both sound policy, and a strong system of accountability.

Failure on those fronts could leave Russia with a budget that's willing, but an industry that's weak. One hard pressed to keep pace with domestic demand, and too unreliable to offer strong competition on the international front outside of a few select niches.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

This is a very well written post.