ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Godless-Kafir]

These are artistic impressions of Tejas Mark-2 ducts, it was done by me on photoshop!

With Box duct.

With elongated box duct.

Both inspired from the Hornet and Super Hornet Duct evolution.

 

[gogbot]

That's the wrong way of thinking. If we are to match their forces with lesser numbers then our aircraft should be much more capable. Our budget can handle 800 twin seat twin engine fighters, maybe a 1000 after 10 years from now. Maintenance on high end aircraft is not a pain, it's only a requirement.

A qualitative edge is requirement for i do not disagree.
But we also have a quantitative requirement. MKI , MRCA and FGFA are not cost-effective enough to be fielded in numbers we are satisfied with. This is why we have a LCA requirement in the first place. To produce the large number of quantitative low end aircraft.

LCA isn't where we can send it across the border for air superiority missions. So, the spending on MKI, MRCA, FGFA is justified and cannot be compared to LCA.

LCA alone is not enough , MKI , MRCA And FGFA are necessary , more than the LCA even. However LCA is necessary complement. To offset the costs of our qualitative edge with a quantitative low end.

Mk1 isn't. Mk2 is.

They both are a necessity success of the Mk2 relies on experience gained from the MK1.

Modern air warfare is less to do with a single product and more to do with technology. It isn't like 1971 when Gnats could kill Sabres. Earlier the kill ration used to be 2:1 or 3:1 against inferior platforms. But in the 21st century if you go in with inferior platforms then the kill ratio could end up being 10:1 or 20:1. This is the same as the Arab-Israeli wars. We cannot use LCA against much more capable aircraft unless the aerodynamics of LCA are superior even if inferior in technology to enemy aircraft.

LCA Mk1 has room for improvement. But even after FOC it would only be a Mirage-2000 with a bit more modern avionics. It's just obsolescence being packaged into something new. Pretty much like Americans trying to sell a Block 20 F-16 with AESA radar.

Hey it wasn't too long ago IAF wanted Mirage-2000 for its MMRCA.
Heck its not the most difficult choice made for the sake of indigenous growth and development

Look at it this way , if IAF bought more 2 squadrons of Mirage-2000's as a stop gap measure.
Would you be going around saying what a obsolete plaform it is.
Sure Mirage is an alredy establsied And operation platform and in the force
While the Tejas is new platform , but it supporting indeiginous development.

Both platforms are more or less the same. JF-17 will be aided by AWACS and that poses the problem. Even if LCA gets AWACS support, its advantage is severely reduced against enemy AWACS without having stand off platforms like MKI.

Well what kind of missile integration does the JF-17 have ?
I think we have the Edge with regards to Astra and R-73.

It would be better to use the Tejas for Point defence and focus more capable IAF squadrons on air-superiority and Air-domiance missions over PAkiastan.

Don't underestimate them. The J-10 and J-20 are substantially superior to LCA in airframe. They may have established inferiority only for now. But what about 10 years down the line? Analysts predict the Chinese will come out with really state of the art equipment after 2020.

I don't underestimte them , i was only highlighting their development cycle , they inducted and then imroved , and now today has quantity and improvement in qulaity. it can work for us as well. our 40 Mk1's are hardly a waste but important experience and development
China has not been shy with regards to its indefinous products , the J-10 has evolved over the last decade into the J-10B

We don't have to wait for the say DRDO can make the Rafale or the F-22 , Induction and evolution works. even in the 21st century.

PLAAF did not go for an obsolete development. They managed to induct the J-10 in 2003. I don't normally talk about specs. The Gripen is a superior aircraft to the J-10 in that standards, including aerodynamics. The same time as we are talking about a MK2, they are already flying their J-10B. They are playing catch up with the west and are far ahead.

How is tejas obsolete and J-10 state of the art.

Most importantly, they are under severe sanctions from all countries except Russia and CIS. All of their developments are lacking in technology while we do not have such restrictions. Had the Chinese not had sanctions placed on them they would have placed even larger MMRCA orders compared to us. They are running many parallel developments at the same time. Their aerospace industry also has major competition unlike in India. So, they may not be there just yet, but they will eventually reach before us. The only way for us to maintain parity or superiority now as well as in the future is to buy from outside until our indigenous development catches up with the west. I don't see that happening until 2025-30 period.

They dumped all their resources into indeginous development , combine that with the fact that their economy is also larger than ours , it's only natural that it happened like that.

We can bridge the gap easier through combination of indeginous and foreign equipment , on indeginous platforms
As we are doing , pouring more resources into these projects , which includes induction and fielding will only help us get their quicker.

Look at our own navy they have achived much , by pouring resources into indeginous development since at least the 80's.
We would have cought up if we can get the AMCA out by 2020 , because we would have made a 5th gen platform just as Airforces make the shift from 4th gen to 5th gen systems.

China has the ability to dump huge amounts of money for R&D and buy Russian in the meantime to close the gaps with whatever they couldn't do on their own. It is a big deal for a country like ours whose indigenous industry is a decade behind China's.

AS our econmy is set to double in the next 5 years , so will our military budget.
As long as the branched maintain the commitment and are willing to make the difficult decision to support domestic platforms we can get there as well.

China was once behind us in Indeginous capability , our own negelect and constant support of imports , has led to us falling behind.
WE have to maintian a stern and important commitment to indeginous platforms , while at the same time we should not negelct our capabilty , the difficult decisions that face the Air force and Army is finding the middle ground between the two.

Navy has aleardy done so , they import what they need , build what they can. The new DPP restricting navy imports is only asa result of their commitment to indeginous developments.

They made their LCA Mk1 in 1998. They made their LCA Mk2 in 2008. They are flight testing their fifth gen in 2011. When we are flight testing our AMCA, they will already be inducting theirs. It's another point playing catchup with the west and a completely different point playing catchup with a country that is trying to catch up with the west.

This should highlight more than anything that our commitment to domestic R&D should be increased.
Focusing on imports alone is only stalling.

Edit: The Chinese indigenous development is a big threat to India. But at the same time, their current development is not a threat to the US. But the US is wary of the Russian Su-30MKK Flankers in their possession and that forms a potent threat to the US and her allies in the region who have inferior aircraft.

We already signed many deals and will sign deals that will put in possession on many US and Russian systems.
We should also focus on our own sector at the same time.

Our private sector is coming up. Only recently we had a US style compettion between Tata and Mahindra for development of Light tactical Vehicle.
I mean look 10 years down the line after the MMRCA offset one of many offsets , Tejas Mk1 and MK2 , Akash MK2 , Astra MK2etc. We would have come a long way In both the Public and private sector.

 

[gogbot]

gogbot,

i appreciate lot of fine points you have made in this thread. i urge you to go thro' B HARRY's compilation on LCA which is the best source one can get -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf

Gripen infact in one of the ACM limited it's alpha limiter to 17degress AOA. here is the link -

That was only the case for target.
It was just a simulated scenario , Real AoA on Gripen is far higher.
All the Euro Canards are designed with High AoA's.

unfortunately that ACM turned fatal for one of the aircraft though pilot ejected safely.

That seemed more the case of pilot error then design flaw. Aircrafts flew too close to one another

LCA mark 1 design parameter is MACH 1.8(2200+km/h while Gripen is MACH 2(2400+km/h). now this is fuction of what load you are carrying too.

There is a lot of ambiguity on the LCA's Speed and acceleration.
The Official design parameters are no longer valid due to the fact that the engine is underpowered and the Tejas is heavier Real speed must be anywhere between mach 1.3 and 1.8

not much to chose from. pretty similar.

I think that is more assumption on our parts than anything.
I would really to have a proper avionics comparison.

sensor fusion is again a 'hyped' marketing gimmick. what does it mean?? you have primary sensors like Radar and secondary sensors like LDP, IRST/FLIR (LCA's LIGHTENING pod has FLIR) - whose inputs have to be fused thro' different channels via the the databus - on to the cockpit display for a better situational awareness for the pilot.

Sensor fusion is hardly "hyped" gimmick , it is must have in 21st century warfare , where everything is netwroked and everybody has a clear picture of the BAttlefield. F-INSAS net-centrric upgrades , are essentially sensor fusion. Where a command station does all the fusion and transmits the info to the Soilders.

Sensor Fusion , Takes all the raw data from the radar , other sensors , IFF tags , Data link info , process it all into information the pilot needs and displays it all on one interface for the pilot as one entire battlefield picture.
It's all about good software and its something soilders all over the world want. Its hardly a gimmick.

Frankly speaking good sensor fusion is as important as well written and coded FBW laws/controls.

this sensor fusion is already done in both LCA and the Gripen.

I have never heard of sensor fusion on the Tejas.

don't know much about Gripen EW. LCA's 'mayawi' is supposedly superior to even ELTA 8222 according to many people - which is likely because IIRC israel was involved in that.. since the nature and capabilities of EW is rarely spelt out, one can't say much.

Could i get a link on Mayawi being superior to ELTA 8222

LCA mark 1 will have higher loiter time due to it's higher internal volume of fuel.

That's may not necessarily be the case. It is just an assumption to make that conclusion

If the gripen can travel faster on the same engine , despite being faster.
It would make sense it can make more efficient use of the engine and power plant.

Its not a foregone conclusion that the Tejas has a higher loiter time.

most of the modern pulse doppler radars like RDY 2, EL 2032, ZHUK ME, PS-05A are quite capable and comparable. LCA mark 1 is a hybrid of EL 2032 with israeli processor. i guess it would be similar to EL 2032. equal is what i would say.

here is the link for EL 2032 - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6bGbBA&usg=AFQjCNFwIULSFjaO1-CyMRCdp3kT0AG6aA

I am unhappy with assumption being made , comparing it to be Similar to Elta 2032
the MMR's Israeli contribution are in its Air-to-Ground mode and its Israeli processor.
I am more specifically interested in its Air-To-Air engagement capabilities.
Without a more in-depth comparison

 

[ppgj]

It was the target aircraft that was limited during the exercise, it says nothing about limitations on the attacking aircraft.

Here's the reason on why the accident occured.

no need to take it the wrong way my friend. i have posted the link after going thro' it which you are reproducing.

i was just answering gogbot a point wrt AOA and it's 'significance' as part of the flying regime and gave that example - since he was asking a comparison between the LCA and the Gripen. neither was i making any negative point wrt the AOA of the Gripen nor was saying Gripen's AOA is only 17degress.

anyway, can you tell us what is the AOA limit on the Gripen "which is sustained"???

our man here of the 21st century talks of 100degress AOA which has been limited to 50degress on the Gripen!!!

TIA.

LCA IOC achieved 22deg AoA. Final FOC figure is 24deg.

my mistake. will edit my post. thanks.

LCA does not have sensor fusion. It was never a requirement from IAF but may be a requirement in LCA Mk2. Even MKI does not have sensor fusion. Mirage-2000 does not have sensor fusion and neither will we be getting sensor fusion in the Mirage upgrade program.

requirement or not, modern aircrafts are distinguished by it. "sensor fusion" is not some out of the world stuff. with systems going all digital and controlled by computers, it has only become easier.

Sensor Fusion isn't just randomly showing the data generated as in regular avionics. Sensor Fusion isn't just showing everything on one screen either. The data that the RWR, Radar and IRST picks up is categorized into useful information and noise automatically. Then each target picked up uses all 3 devices to help identify the target using a computer. This information is relayed onto the pilot's screen and this is called sensor fusion.

what do you think the central mutifunction display for?? it is not just for radar/LDP-FLIR but also RWR/target data/DMM. even the smaller SSDU to the right is associated with Tarang RWR and the EW. LCA uses DASH HMDS. the radars and the sensors are slaved to it. the info you get on the MFD and HUD is replicated on the HMDS with such critical info as missile LOS/status/head pointing for necessary action as the pilot deems necessaray.

on the LCA 'open architecture computer' (OAC) handles sensor fusion collating info from the sensors and displaying it on to the cockpit display post processing. even the SMS of the LCA is interfaced to the cockpit via the OAC - meaning you not only have the situational awareness via the displays and HMDS, but the pilot can also assign the weapons to the threats accordingly.

The very reason for the MMRCA program was Technology that IAF wants, something they are not going to get from LCA.

hillarious. sensor fusion has nothing to do with MMRCA or the LCA. in the digital times SF is not something which is beyond but something which is normal.

one possible technology required via MMRCA would be AESA.

MKI will be getting capable sensor fusion only during MLU. The only Russian aircraft with sensor fusion today are Mig-35 and Su-35. The LCA Mk1 is just an average plane with good avionics that will come up to the Mirage-2000-5 Mark 2 technological standards in 2012, but with a weak engine.

LCA mark 1 - even if it is equal to Mirage 2000-5 standard is not a small thing when Mirages themselves are going to get to that standard which would make them as potent as the F-16Block 50/52!!!

i would be surprised if MKIs do not have sensor fusion. i would agree wrt 'Mirages as they are now' but this will change post the upgrade.

Our man is in the 80s. No point explaining all that.

instead of taking pot shots get some facts.

PS : when i was speaking of the carbon composites wrt RCS, you were *shaking your head*. let's see what ADA has to say -

Laminated composites with carbon or aramid fibers in polymer matrices are used extensively in LCA airframe, consisting of 45% by weight.

Co-cured co-bonded technology for Fuselage components, Fin, Rudder, Elevons, Airbrake and Landing gear doors. Wing is made of carbon fiber composite & Radome is made of Kevlar.

Advantages of composites as compared to metallic materials are lower weight, part count and radar signature.

http://www.ada.gov.in/composite materials.htm

 

[p2prada]

A qualitative edge is requirement for i do not disagree.
But we also have a quantitative requirement. MKI , MRCA and FGFA are not cost-effective enough to be fielded in numbers we are satisfied with. This is why we have a LCA requirement in the first place. To produce the large number of quantitative low end aircraft.

The LCA Mk1 currently costs $40Million. The MKI production standard as of today is $45Million. The upgraded MKIs with AESA and new jammers would be $80Million+. Upgraded LCA Mk2 with AESA etc would be similar if not the same. It's a rip off.

Low end aircraft at the same price as high end aircraft is insane.

LCA alone is not enough , MKI , MRCA And FGFA are necessary , more than the LCA even. However LCA is necessary complement. To offset the costs of our qualitative edge with a quantitative low end.

The quantitative low end aircraft will be lesser in numbers to the qualitative.

123 LCA Mk2, 200 MRCA, 270 MKI, 250FGFA, 200AMCA.

Hey it wasn't too long ago IAF wanted Mirage-2000 for its MMRCA.
Heck its not the most difficult choice made for the sake of indigenous growth and development

Yes. IAF re invited MMRCA deal in 2007 because of GOI's acceptance of allowing high end aircraft.

Look at it this way , if IAF bought more 2 squadrons of Mirage-2000's as a stop gap measure.
Would you be going around saying what a obsolete plaform it is.
Sure Mirage is an alredy establsied And operation platform and in the force
While the Tejas is new platform , but it supporting indeiginous development.

IAF will only operate 2 squadrons of Mirage-2000 until 2025. If LCA Mk1 and Mk2 will be operated till then, there is no point inducting them in the first place.

Well what kind of missile integration does the JF-17 have ?
I think we have the Edge with regards to Astra and R-73.

They have a long way to go. But LCA does not have a major advantage against JF-17. They will soon have operating ODLs to connect to the Swedish AWACS. They are one step ahead.

We don't have to wait for the say DRDO can make the Rafale or the F-22 , Induction and evolution works. even in the 21st century.

But if the enemy comes at you with their F-22s and Rafales and all you have are LCAs, then what will you do?

You still don't understand how the domestic industry works. If something does not fit requirements it is not inducted. There is no difference between India and the US in that regard. The LCA Mk1 is an obsolete airframe design. DRDO does not have to make a F-22 equivalent. DRDO has to make an aircraft superior to F-22 in most parameters.
F-22 is an 80s design and can be considered obsolete in many parameters. After the PAKFA flew for the first time, American experts suggested the same. That leaves the LCA Mk1 nowhere.

How is tejas obsolete and J-10 state of the art.

J-10 was inducted a decade before Tejas. The Tejas Mk2 which is supposed to fly in 2014, J-10B has already done that. Time lines are important. Tejas is too little too late. The J-10s engines are not underpowered either.

If you want to stay in the game, adhere to the time line because saying you lost the war because your adversary had superior weapons is not the enemy's fault.

We can bridge the gap easier through combination of indeginous and foreign equipment , on indeginous platforms
As we are doing , pouring more resources into these projects , which includes induction and fielding will only help us get their quicker.

Only Mk2 fits the bill.

Look at our own navy they have achived much , by pouring resources into indeginous development since at least the 80's.

More media hocus pocus. Navy's achievements aren't that great. They will be great only after 2020, the same time as IAF or IA. Ship building is a lot easier than aircraft or tank development. The Ship displacements are so high that you can do anything you want with them, not so with IAF or IA.

China was once behind us in Indeginous capability , our own negelect and constant support of imports , has led to us falling behind.

We are better than China today in terms of technology only because we have been importing. China can match Taiwan and Japan in firepower only because they have been importing from Russia.

It has nothing to do with neglect or imports. It has everything to do with overly optimistic technological and schedule goals.

WE have to maintian a stern and important commitment to indeginous platforms , while at the same time we should not negelct our capabilty , the difficult decisions that face the Air force and Army is finding the middle ground between the two.

But why should IAF pay for it?

Navy has aleardy done so , they import what they need , build what they can. The new DPP restricting navy imports is only asa result of their commitment to indeginous developments.

They don't have to win wars and that's the most important reason why they are lax in modernization. They have a highly superior capability against PN and a decent advantage against PLAN. PLAN cannot operate in IOR either. So, they have no bigger issues than piracy.

This should highlight more than anything that our commitment to domestic R&D should be increased.
Focusing on imports alone is only stalling.

IAF has never focussed on imports alone. They have multiple platforms only in order to help the domestic industry catch up. It's just that IAF's primary requirements cannot be filled by domestic manufacturers.

 

[p2prada]

what do you think the central mutifunction display for?? it is not just for radar/LDP-FLIR but also RWR/target data/DMM. even the smaller SSDU to the right is associated with Tarang RWR and the EW. LCA uses DASH HMDS. the radars and the sensors are slaved to it. the info you get on the MFD and HUD is replicated on the HMDS with such critical info as missile LOS/status/head pointing for necessary action as the pilot deems necessaray.

All of that's on the Mirage-2000-5 as well. None of it is sensor fusion. The Gripen's APU powers all its displays and datalink. The Gripen can "see" what other Gripen's and AWACS in the air can see while on the tarmac. What the LCA has isn't sensor fusion.

LCA mark 1 - even if it is equal to Mirage 2000-5 standard is not a small thing when Mirages themselves are going to get to that standard which would make them as potent as the F-16Block 50/52!!!

The Mirage-2000-5 are already obsolete and so are the Block 52s. The M2000s are all being phased out of different air forces. Even our Mirage-2000 will be phased out by 2025.

If LCA Mk1 is equivalent to a 1997 M-2000 Mk2 in 2012, then that's uber fail.

i would be surprised if MKIs do not have sensor fusion. i would agree wrt 'Mirages as they are now' but this will change post the upgrade.

None of them have sensor fusion, even upgraded Mirage-2000.

instead of taking pot shots get some facts.

PS : when i was speaking of the carbon composites wrt RCS, you were *shaking your head*. let's see what ADA has to say -

http://www.ada.gov.in/composite materials.htm

I was talking in relation to your failed post with the target's AoA test limitations.
You are still living in the 80s when it comes to AoA.

 

[ppgj]

That was only the case for target.
It was just a simulated scenario , Real AoA on Gripen is far higher.
All the Euro Canards are designed with High AoA's.

i did not say Gripen AOA is limited to 17d. i was only explaining to you 'how inspite of having a higher AOA, in reality aircrafts do not use high AOA' for the reasons i enumerated in my last post.

Rafale's sustained AOA does not exceed 21d - as quoted by satish - for a reason!!! a delta by design has limitation wrt high AOA because of the drag factor and bleed of energy. infact the whole wing acts like an airbrake in AOA maneure!!!

That seemed more the case of pilot error then design flaw. Aircrafts flew too close to one another

it was not a pilot error.

the accident happened because the attacking aircraft got into the 'wake' of the target - where the aircraft gets into turbulent vortices and FCS needs to handle that.

why our ACM was quoting "wake penetration" as one of the criteria LCA needs to pass?? this is going to happen in the near future. it is a must before it becomes 'combat ready'.

There is a lot of ambiguity on the LCA's Speed and acceleration.
The Official design parameters are no longer valid due to the fact that the engine is underpowered and the Tejas is heavier Real speed must be anywhere between mach 1.3 and 1.8

even though the engine is underpowered, it still has higher thrust than Gripen C. besides LCA mark 1 is lighter by 300kg.

LCA has already crossed mach 1.6 @15km altitude. speed again is a function of altitude. at lower altitudes the speeds for all aircrafts is less.

I think that is more assumption on our parts than anything.
I would really to have a proper avionics comparison.

can you be specific?? you can check yourself.

Sensor fusion is hardly "hyped" gimmick , it is must have in 21st century warfare , where everything is netwroked and everybody has a clear picture of the BAttlefield. F-INSAS net-centrric upgrades , are essentially sensor fusion. Where a command station does all the fusion and transmits the info to the Soilders.

Sensor Fusion , Takes all the raw data from the radar , other sensors , IFF tags , Data link info , process it all into information the pilot needs and displays it all on one interface for the pilot as one entire battlefield picture.
It's all about good software and its something soilders all over the world want. Its hardly a gimmick.

Frankly speaking good sensor fusion is as important as well written and coded FBW laws/controls.

hope you read B Harry's article i gave a link to. all that is answered there. he has taken most of his data from the ADA site and wherever needed has expertly explained the significance of the systems on board the LCA.

I have never heard of sensor fusion on the Tejas.

read the B HARRY article.

sensor fusion today is not something special anymore with systems controlled digitally with a dedicated computer on board compared to analog of the 80s. it is normal and seen in most modern aircrafts. if you still beleive that is not the case, you are free to beleive so.

Could i get a link on Mayawi being superior to ELTA 8222

unfortunately no. besides you never get info regarding the same in open source for obvious reasons. infact the fact that Israel wanted to use it on their F35(?) says a lot about it. it is integrted internally so you save one hard point unlike EL 8222SPJ.

That's may not necessarily be the case. It is just an assumption to make that conclusion

it is not an assumption. both Gripen C and LCA mark 1 have the same GE 404 engines albeit LCA mark 1 has higher thrust. LCA mark 1 internal fuel is 2486kg vs 2400kg for Gripen C. hence a slightly higher loiter time for LCA mark 1.

If the gripen can travel faster on the same engine , despite being faster.
It would make sense it can make more efficient use of the engine and power plant.

Its not a foregone conclusion that the Tejas has a higher loiter time.

the power plant is same for both. loiter time explained above.

I am unhappy with assumption being made , comparing it to be Similar to Elta 2032
the MMR's Israeli contribution are in its Air-to-Ground mode and its Israeli processor.
I am more specifically interested in its Air-To-Air engagement capabilities.
Without a more in-depth comparison

LCA mark 1's radar specs are not known as it has not been made public. since it is a hybrid of EL 2032 i imply it would be similar. i am happy to be corrected.

 

[ppgj]

All of that's on the Mirage-2000-5 as well. None of it is sensor fusion. The Gripen's APU powers all its displays and datalink. The Gripen can "see" what other Gripen's and AWACS in the air can see while on the tarmac. What the LCA has isn't sensor fusion.

datalink will be on LCA too. for that to be operational IAF's IACCS needs to be operational. presently it is not. they are still in the process of networking the assets - both ground and airborne.

The Mirage-2000-5 are already obsolete and so are the Block 52s. The M2000s are all being phased out of different air forces. Even our Mirage-2000 will be phased out by 2025.

tell that the ACM. IAF's original choice fr MMRCA was Mirage 2000.

If LCA Mk1 is equivalent to a 1997 M-2000 Mk2 in 2012, then that's uber fail.

LCA mark 1 does one up on the Mirage 2000s by way of a smaller RCS besides sporting HMDS whereas Mirages will only get them post upgrade.

your "uber fail" is predictable and people are used to it.

None of them have sensor fusion, even upgraded Mirage-2000.

as for the present Mirages i agree. i doubt the SU 30MKIs because they act as mini awacs.

I was talking in relation to your failed post with the target's AoA test limitations.You are still living in the 80s when it comes to AoA.

i was also talking about your '100d AOA - now limited to 50d AOA for Gripen'. you are yet to back up my query regarding the 'sustained high AOA' for the Gripen C.

my info wrt to the carbon composites was in response to our earlier debate which is why i put it under 'PS'.

 

[p2prada]

datalink will be on LCA too. for that to be operational IAF's IACCS needs to be operational. presently it is not. they are still in the process of networking the assets - both ground and airborne.

Nothing like Gripen. Only Gripen can access information from flying aircraft while still on the ground.

LCA still does not have sensor fusion, no matter how much you shout and cry.

tell that the ACM. IAF's original choice fr MMRCA was Mirage 2000.

Yes. They wanted reliable jets quickly. It was GoI which enlarged the MRCA order. IAF is not complaining. At that time, we were still under sanctions and were unsure about who would answer a 4.5th gen MRCA in such short notice.

LCA mark 1 does one up on the Mirage 2000s by way of a smaller RCS besides sporting HMDS whereas Mirages will only get them post upgrade.

It can do a 1 up on M-2000 on avionics but not in flight regime. The M-2000 is still superior to the LCA in aerodynamics, hence a Fail.

as for the present Mirages i agree. i doubt the SU 30MKIs because they act as mini awacs.

Has nothing to do with sensor fusion. Also without active datalinks, MKI will act as Mini-AWACS only after 2012. MKI has no sensor fusion as well.

i was also talking about your '100d AOA - now limited to 50d AOA for Gripen'. you are yet to back up my query regarding the 'sustained high AOA' for the Gripen C.

Rafale and Gripen have both achieved 100deg AoA. The Rafale did it at a negative ~70Kmph, all sustained. Gripen could not sustain 100 deg for long and has since been limited.

Super Hornet has no AoA limiters on them.

Rafale-M doing a greater than 40deg AoA to avoid hitting water.

Mig-29 has an AoA of 45 deg.

You are completely stubborn even with facts on the table.
LCA Mk1 is obsolete. The Gripen will beat LCA in every single flight regime out there and not just AoA. We can fit a better radar on it, but that's about it. Even Arjun has better specs compared to LCA.

 

[slenke]

no need to take it the wrong way my friend. i have posted the link after going thro' it which you are reproducing.

i was just answering gogbot a point wrt AOA and it's 'significance' as part of the flying regime and gave that example - since he was asking a comparison between the LCA and the Gripen. neither was i making any negative point wrt the AOA of the Gripen nor was saying Gripen's AOA is only 17degress.

anyway, can you tell us what is the AOA limit on the Gripen "which is sustained"???

our man here of the 21st century talks of 100degress AOA which has been limited to 50degress on the Gripen!!!

I see, my bad. I seem to have missunderstod you.

Getting these figures is not easy since the SwAF likes to keep certain information to themselves. Also, the SwAF does not publish results from exercises like Red Flag, they don't like to brag (unlike certain others). The pilots are also ordered not to brag about their achievments. So when you read or hear an interview with a Gripen pilot, you really have to "read between the lines".

I have read and heard from multiple sources that the Gripen have achieved 100 degrees AoA, but that it is set to a little less than 50 degrees in peacetime. What the wartime setting is set to I do not know. I also don't know what the sustained limit is.

 

[p2prada]

The AoA with the alpha limiter on Gripen is unknown(at least to me).

The 100deg and 50 deg limit info is from Janes. Same for Rafale. All sources are service pilots.

Rafale does 9-10G maneuvers with 290deg/sec roll rates and AoA of 32deg with Air to air loadout, all at high corner speeds and FBW limitations. The max achievable is 12G, AoA of 100deg and Roll rates of over 300deg/sec with a structural limitation of 15G. Insane.

Gripen is quite similar. EF-2000 is sightly lesser in AoA at 70deg, but pretty good in other parameters, especially TWR and structural integrity.

High AoA is completely useless in the operational sense. But, High AoA gives clues to the capability of the aircraft in other flight regimes like Roll, Pitch and Yaw rates. It shows aerodynamic superiority. The Mig-29 and Su-27 performing Cobra maneuvers at 100deg in the 90s in an example of aerodynamic superiority.

I saw a picture of a EF-2000 development concept a couple of years ago without canards. It looks exactly like LCA with its cranked wings. It was not considered because the design was obsolete in the 80s.

Got it:

 

[ppgj]

Nothing like Gripen. Only Gripen can access information from flying aircraft while still on the ground.

when net centricity is achieved it does not matter whether you are on the ground or airborne. the datalink will still communicate 'if' active. what is specail about this?? IAF is yet to operationalise it's IACCS while the AFNET grid is on. when IACCS is up and operational in the near future, and when the aircrafts have the ODL for the 2 way communication same would be the case with IAF aircrafts including the LCA.

LCA still does not have sensor fusion, no matter how much you shout and cry.

i don't know what is your definition of 'sensor fusion' and nobody is shouting and crying.

Yes. They wanted reliable jets quickly. It was GoI which enlarged the MRCA order. IAF is not complaining. At that time, we were still under sanctions and were unsure about who would answer a 4.5th gen MRCA in such short notice.

they could have acquired more Mig 29s. they did not. sanctions were not the case with either the french or the russians.

point is IAF was very impressed with the Mirages in Kargill and they have been very reliable in IAF. besides the infra was available which made economic sense.

It can do a 1 up on M-2000 on avionics but not in flight regime. The M-2000 is still superior to the LCA in aerodynamics, hence a Fail.

sir, LCA is still to clear FOC. you are jumping the gun and your point is moot. LCA's effectiveness will only be known over a period of time. no doubt Mirages are reliable and effective. they are one of my all time favourites.

Has nothing to do with sensor fusion. Also without active datalinks, MKI will act as Mini-AWACS only after 2012. MKI has no sensor fusion as well.

as to SF, as i said - i would be surprised.

MKI acts as mini awacs because of it's datalink and the radar. one MKI can track the targets while it can pass the target vectors to the other MKI (4 totally IIRC) which can keep their radars switched off. however the present datalink on the MKIs are not good enough and will see a change. post 2012, MKIs will be able to communicate with other aircrfats too when IACCS becomes active.

Rafale and Gripen have both achieved 100deg AoA. The Rafale did it at a negative ~70Kmph, all sustained. Gripen could not sustain 100 deg for long and has since been limited.

Super Hornet has no AoA limiters on them.

Rafale-M doing a greater than 40deg AoA to avoid hitting water.

Mig-29 has an AoA of 45 deg.

as to the bolded part i would be happy to read a link if you could provide.

i am pretty sure these are 'not' sustained. they are momentary - which is not what i am speaking of.

in an air battle the foremost importance is of saving your energy either to battle or even to make your way out. a delta wing aircraft (particularly) or any aircraft (generally) can't sustain an AOA which is beyond it's 'stall'. even if a delta aircraft has 45d AOA, it won't sustain it in an airbattle. this is nothing do with my persistence. it is something to do with physics.

momentarily most aircrafts would do like this rafale in an almost crash like video -


check out between 0.18-0.22. he starts off level and then you see the pitch up happening at 0.19 and reaches it's highest at about 0.20 (you see it doing more than 45d) and 'he levels immediately' at 0.22. it all happens in 3 seconds!!! it is a momentary high AOA where the drag factor and the bleed factor is not an issue.

this sort of momentary high AOA is good for aero shows and impressing the audience and you are not fighting any enemy!!

in an airbattle, sustaing that sort of AOA in an STR will burn your fuel in no time where as your aim is to conserve the energy and fight!!! which is why i have been saying all along "AOA sustained" is way way less than these momentary AOA situations.

a non delta wing aircraft will do better in STR regime because it does not bleed like a delta wing.

You are completely stubborn even with facts on the table.
LCA Mk1 is obsolete. The Gripen will beat LCA in every single flight regime out there and not just AoA. We can fit a better radar on it, but that's about it. Even Arjun has better specs compared to LCA.

i don't like repeating again and again. you beleive what you want to.

PS : i don't want to keep circling again and again on the same points. we look at things differently. i leave it at that.

..............

I see, my bad. I seem to have missunderstod you.

Getting these figures is not easy since the SwAF likes to keep certain information to themselves. Also, the SwAF does not publish results from exercises like Red Flag, they don't like to brag (unlike certain others). The pilots are also ordered not to brag about their achievments. So when you read or hear an interview with a Gripen pilot, you really have to "read between the lines".

no problem Slenke. i understand your point.

I have read and heard from multiple sources that the Gripen have achieved 100 degrees AoA, but that it is set to a little less than 50 degrees in peacetime. What the wartime setting is set to I do not know. I also don't know what the sustained limit is.

explained above in another reply.

 

[p2prada]

when net centricity is achieved it does not matter whether you are on the ground or airborne. the datalink will still communicate 'if' active. what is specail about this?? IAF is yet to operationalise it's IACCS while the AFNET grid is on. when IACCS is up and operational in the near future, and when the aircrafts have the ODL for the 2 way communication same would be the case with IAF aircrafts including the LCA.

The only aircraft in the world to continue receiving AWACS info while on the ground is Gripen, not even F-22. Heck, F-22 don't even have datalinks.

they could have acquired more Mig 29s. they did not. sanctions were not the case with either the french or the russians.

The serviceability on Mig-29 is very poor.

as to the bolded part i would be happy to read a link if you could provide.

this sort of momentary high AOA is good for aero shows and impressing the audience and you are not fighting any enemy!!

With very little information being provided to us AoA is the best bet to quantify the capability of an aircraft in aerodynamics.

You are confusing sustained STR with sustained AoA. The video you posted was a completely sustained flight regime. The aircraft did not stall.

J-10


F-22


Su-30MKI


Super Hornet


See all videos they are small.

Then we have this;
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html

Mai made a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points. Having rapidly gained confidence in the system he was able to enter the extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up attitude and power idle. The system then worked as described - without any pilot action.

One more important point. I believe the right term you are looking for is not "Sustained" AoA but "Continuous" AoA like we see in the Super Hornet video. But there is NO USE whatsoever of a "Continuous" AoA except to look pretty. High AoA is primarily used for very short durations to give a massive advantage against an enemy like how the F-22 just shoots up from a Horizontal Flight Path to an almost vertical flight. Using it's Thrust Vector the F-22 can stop at that angle and drop down behind the chase aircraft in case it was being tailed in the first place using the Herbst maneuver in the process.

kulbit and Herbst maneuver are High AoA maneuvers achieved by Thrust vectoring. Then we have high Speed YoYo and Rollaway that uses a combination of high AoA and Roll speed. Low speed YoYo requires an AoA greater than 30deg.

None of these require continuous AoA, only momentary AoA. If High AoA is not used in air combat maneuvers then our MKIs with Thrust vectors are entirely useless. Loss of energy during combat can also be used as an advantage. If the enemy is chasing you and overshoots because you used High AoA maneuver, then you have achieved your immediate goal. Your loss in energy is temporary and lasts only a few seconds by which time the enemy will either try to escape or try something else to his advantage. This saves your behind and puts the enemy at a disadvantage.

LCA Mk1 will have an AoA that only fits the 80s time period. Even F-16 and Mirage-2000 are restricted at 25deg and 26deg, respectively. But the F-16, despite being a delta, has awesomely high sustained turn rates while Mirage-2000 has awesomely good diving capability. The LCA Mk1 with its awesomely underpowered engine does not even stand a chance against these 2 aircraft let alone the more modern ones like Rafale, Gripen and EF-2000. The aircraft is a fail and we are inducting them for satisfying hungry egos rather than giving the IAF something to look forward to.

 

[gogbot]

The only aircraft in the world to continue receiving AWACS info while on the ground is Gripen, not even F-22.

Sarcastic: And that is useful because ?

Pilots get briefed before they get in their aircraft.
Any other info can be transferred onto the plane by the time they are in the air

In an emergency combat situation , pilots don't usually stay on the tarmac analyzing the battlefield , they focus on getting their plane in the air as fast as possible.

Honestly , data links while still on ground , is as useful as a speedometer before the engine starts.

F-22 don't even have datalinks.

I would not believe that if someone put a gun to my head.

 

[gogbot]

The LCA Mk1 currently costs $40Million.

Small scale orders , result in the high price and LCA costs under 40 mil not 40 mill.
Kalam once said Tejas can be made for 25mil , adjust for inflation. It will only cost us a little over 30 mil.

Larger scale order economy of Scale will apply

The MKI production standard as of today is $45Million.

that figure has not even been adjusted for inflation.
That price tag is meaningless.

The upgraded MKIs with AESA and new jammers would be $80Million+.

No , that's what the Russians are charging us for the standard MKI , MLU upgrades cost extra.
There are charging us 102 million for each of the 42 MKI's ordered.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_aircraft-deals-with-friend-russia-costing-dear_1424437

Upgraded LCA Mk2 with AESA etc would be similar if not the same. It's a rip off.

Find me a link or statement from anyone to support that.
Your own conclusions are not facts.

Low end aircraft at the same price as high end aircraft is insane.

They aren't you are mis-informed

The quantitative low end aircraft will be lesser in numbers to the qualitative.
123 LCA Mk2, 200 MRCA, 270 MKI, 250FGFA, 200AMCA.

Yhea that's why a lot of people are annoyed.
IAF seems to be little concerned with its quantitative requirement

Yes. IAF re invited MMRCA deal in 2007 because of GOI's acceptance of allowing high end aircraft.

But only 3 years ago was IAF ready or not ready to induct more Aircraft with the same caabilites as Mirage

IAF will only operate 2 squadrons of Mirage-2000 until 2025. If LCA Mk1 and Mk2 will be operated till then, there is no point inducting them in the first place.

there is a point as long as , it they were ready to induct more mirage aircraft then they should be able to manage with the Tejas as well.

If there was a sense in inducting more Mirage , you can also Still induct LCA mk1.
Beyond the aircraft itself , the support of LCA program and development work will be very beneficial.
The MK1 has room for growth you said it yourself. Lets take this aircraft to its natural end , do -8 years all we can with it before moving on , lets lets not waste time for the next 6

They have a long way to go. But LCA does not have a major advantage against JF-17. They will soon have operating ODLs to connect to the Swedish AWACS. They are one step ahead.

Tejas has far greater growth potential , it is the primary in house development for the next 10 years.
Jf-17 is Chinese side project , that can't even meet PAF requirements , who's more advanced aircraft is the Block 52.
If PAF was ever capable of investing some serious cash into the project then maybe

But if the enemy comes at you with their F-22s and Rafales and all you have are LCAs, then what will you do?

Your question has no point.

For starters , our enemy's have neither the F-22 nor the Rafale , nor do they have an equivalent . We have the established qualitative edge and are in no danger of losing it anytime soon. For a matter of fact We might be the one with the Rafale and FGFA should ensure we maintain the qualitative edge well through to 2030.

There is nothing wrong or fool hardly about investing remaining resources in the LCA for the quantitative edge , or at the very least reduce our enemy's own quantitative edge.

No one is asking IAF to compromise it's high end , nor will it have to. Its question of finding balance , and i think the LCA project could use a little more weight.

You still don't understand how the domestic industry works. If something does not fit requirements it is not inducted. There is no difference between India and the US in that regard. The LCA Mk1 is an obsolete airframe design. DRDO does not have to make a F-22 equivalent. DRDO has to make an aircraft superior to F-22 in most parameters.

Your understanding is accurate , but it does not account for all scenario's ,
And there is a massive difference between the US and India , The US can scrap projects like the F-22 and carry on.

We scrap something like the AMCA , the damage is irreparable. We have a nascent Aerospace sector , we have to be supportive or early efforts. Making something like the Tejas from a zero base in 20 years is something that should not be under looked.

You expect aircraft superior to the F-22 but there is absolutely no interest in supporting the evolutionary process of Aircraft design.

Who is going to make it where is DRDO going to get the Expertise to do this , you think they can just hire people out of college put them to work and expect delivery in any meaningful time frame.
What Tejas gave us was expertise. But we need more and Tejas Can still offer a lot more expertise from actual fielding by the end user.

How many upgrades have we done for the IAF fleet using technology gained form the LCA project.

I stick by the FONA statements , his branch has actually followed through this policy and are reaping the rewards today.

F-22 is an 80s design and can be considered obsolete in many parameters. After the PAKFA flew for the first time, American experts suggested the same. That leaves the LCA Mk1 nowhere.

F-22 can still pwn our entire fleet.
You really have to understand the context of the word obsolete.

F-22 is obsolete in context to what , non operational aircraft like the PAK-FA . That's BS .
F-22 is going to be in USAF service well into the late 2020's , how can an aircraft still have at least 2 decades of service life left in the world largest more advanced and to be frank the best air force and still be considered obsolete

Everything is obsolete for you , honestly

We are not the Americans or the Russians , we have different threat perceptions and different needs.

\

You should take your own advise before
Branding everything that does not compare to contemporaries as obsolete and a waste of your.

It's impossible to expect India to have a 5th gen fighter by 2010.

Exactly , but we have the Tejas now lets use .
WE are wasting time and development opportunity if we fail to jump on this

That's why there are 40 Tejas on order.

J-10 was inducted a decade before Tejas. The Tejas Mk2 which is supposed to fly in 2014, J-10B has already done that. Time lines are important. Tejas is too little too late. The J-10s engines are not underpowered either.

well they had a 10 year head start clearly , regardless of that.
My point is despite having far more capable flankers China still invested heavily the J-10. They are only reaping the rewards today.

If you want to stay in the game, adhere to the time line because saying you lost the war because your adversary had superior weapons is not the enemy's fault.

China had similar delays in making the J-10 a reality.

Only Mk2 fits the bill.

I agree , but lets not waste 6-8 years to field an actual platform but having 40 tejas platforms now .
We gain invaluable field experience , that will only increase the quality of future systems.

More media hocus pocus. Navy's achievements aren't that great. They will be great only after 2020, the same time as IAF or IA. Ship building is a lot easier than aircraft or tank development. The Ship displacements are so high that you can do anything you want with them, not so with IAF or IA.

That's just an excuse really ,
IN today has domestically designed and built , Stealth destroyers , cruisers and frigates.
They are building their own aircraft carrier
they are making SSBN's pretty much the most sophisticated naval technology.
They will have their won Naval fighter aircraft in the LCA-N

How is any of that media hocus pocus , they are modernizing faster , their level of indeginisation is decades ahead.
At the same time They import what they need in AIP-Sub's , P8I's , American Engines for most of their ships.

Heck Having L&T design both the Arihant hull and a new Off shore patrol vessel is a level of Private level participation not even existent in the other branches

They are no crazy for indeginisation either they rejected the Dhurv due to its weak ASW capabilities

I am not a media person , i try to draw my own picture as much as possible.

What is seen in the navy is a model or example.
Indeginisation going hand in hand with modernization. A balance that may not be perfect , but at least one that works.

Just like i listened to the ACR , you should also listen to the FONA .

We are better than China today in terms of technology only because we have been importing.

For how much longer, when China match's its Russian or US counterparts and our domestic sector is decades behind we are stuffed.
Its still not too late we are less than a decade behind them , success in the AMCA will have ensured we would have caught up.
The battle will then shift to who have the edge , by the time we get on to 6th gen systems , we will be right there with them.

China can match Taiwan and Japan in firepower only because they have been importing from Russia.

Well Taiwan and Japan just got F***** because j-20.

I guess Japan at least has a chance with the ATD-X , taiwan needs the F-35.

It has nothing to do with neglect or imports. It has everything to do with overly optimistic technological and schedule goals.

But why should IAF pay for it?

You invest and you reap the rewards.

Despite examples of this all around the globe , even in our own navy. You are un-willing to consider it.

They don't have to win wars and that's the most important reason why they are lax in modernization.

They have not been lax ,
Give me an example of how they were lax ?

They have a highly superior capability against PN and a decent advantage against PLAN. PLAN cannot operate in IOR either. So, they have no bigger issues than piracy.

On one hand you say they are lax on the other hand , you acknowledge they have the edge in the region , which they do despite having an indeginous force would you believe that.

They spent decades on the process i keep talking about and look at where it got them

IAF has never focussed on imports alone. They have multiple platforms only in order to help the domestic industry catch up. It's just that IAF's primary requirements cannot be filled by domestic manufacturers.

I agree , IAF has made a commitment but it needs to be stronger.
It can be stronger , 40 MK1's is a good decision , one that will pay off for them.
I am not asking for more Mk'1 , just saying they can echo the FONA more .

 

[slenke]

Sarcastic: And that is useful because ?

Pilots get briefed before they get in their aircraft.
Any other info can be transferred onto the plane by the time they are in the air

In an emergency combat situation , pilots don't usually stay on the tarmac analyzing the battlefield , they focus on getting their plane in the air as fast as possible.

Honestly , data links while still on ground , is as useful as a speedometer before the engine starts.

It's brilliant actually. It allows the pilot to know where his buddies and the enemy are while getting re-fueled and re-armed (which only takes 10 min).

The Gripen is fitted with the "Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS)", which gives the fighter four high-bandwidth, two-way datalinks with a range of about 500 kilometers (310 miles) and very high resistance to jamming. The datalinks allow the Gripen to engage in combat using another aircraft's sensors or from targeting data provided by other defense systems. Data acquired from remote sources is fused and displayed on the fighter's main MFD. The link is fully operational when the aircraft is on the ground, allowing a pilot on standby to have high situational awareness of the battle environment.

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allow one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allow multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. In addition, TIDLS gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avgripen.html

This coupled with the AESA swashplate mounted radar, the new improved EW/ECM suite and the Meteor missile will make the Gripen NG a dangerous opponent indeed.

 

[p2prada]

Sarcastic: And that is useful because ?

Pilots get briefed before they get in their aircraft.
Any other info can be transferred onto the plane by the time they are in the air

In an emergency combat situation , pilots don't usually stay on the tarmac analyzing the battlefield , they focus on getting their plane in the air as fast as possible.

Honestly , data links while still on ground , is as useful as a speedometer before the engine starts.

Slenke's already answered your point.
Gripen's Sensor Fusion is better than the F-22 by a long shot. Pilots need constant awareness of the surrounding, especially in point defence aircraft, where the enemy could be right over your head.

I would not believe that if someone put a gun to my head.

The F-22 cannot communicate with AWACS and other aircraft. It will be introduced only by 2015. The F-22s can only communicate between each other.

 

[Parthy]

DRDO AND FRENCH MAJOR SNECMA TO FINALIZE ENGINE PRICE FOR LCA

State–owned Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) will soon be finalizing the price of the joint venture with French major Snecma for the development of the engine to power India's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

The joint venture will be between DRDO's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) and Snecma to create better gas turbine engines to power the LCA.

French firm Snecma is expected to bring technology for the hot engine core and GTRE will work on the cold sections. GTRE will have half of the technology work-share and Snecma will have the other half, according to DRDO sources. GTRE will obtain technical know-how and intellectual property rights for the engine.

Once the cabinet committee on security approval is obtained, work will be initiated and the Snecma-Kaveri engine will be designed and built in four years.

GTRE has spent nearly two decades in the development of the indigenous Kaveri engine and it is still overweight by around 150 kilograms and cannot provide sufficient thrust from its core engine, required to power the LCA. A jet engine has a cold and a hot part and the latter forms the core of the engine where combustion and the thermodynamics of the engine take place.

The LCA requires an engine with more than 90 KN thrust, while the Kaveri has thrust of only 65 KN thrust. Even the GE-404 that is powering the LCA has a lesser thrust. Hence, the new Snecma-GTRE venture aims at creating a more powerful engine for the LCA.

As of now, the LCA Mk-1 with India is flying with the GE-404 IN20 despite the fact that it does not meet original requirement specifications for levels of thrust for the LCA.

DRDO has selected the more powerful GE-414 as the alternative engine for LCA Mk-II. However, it has been suggested that when the first 40 GE 404 engines in the initial two squadrons of the LCA for the Indian Air Force (IAF) get phased out, they should be replaced by the Kaveri-Snecma, in future. Not only does DRDO plan to replace the GE engines on the LCA Mk-I with the Snecma-GTRE engine, it intends to include it in the proposed advanced medium combat aircraft and unmanned combat air vehicle.

Earlier, the Kaveri-Snecma joint venture was criticised by the IAF on grounds that Snecma, which is a derivative of the M-88 engine developed for the Rafale aircraft, has a similar core like that of the Kaveri engine and the joint venture involves GTRE building the peripheral of the core, which would not solve the purpose of having the joint venture since it will turn out to be a license production of Snecma.

By the inclusion of Snecma, the purpose of indigenisation is defeated by the GTRE. However, GTRE feels that in the co-development with Snecma, the research and development of GTRE for decades on the Kaveri engine will also be absorbed. Besides, Snecma will bring in the core called "Eco" for the new engine, and integrate it with systems developed for Kaveri and is not hesitant on sharing technology with India.



http://indiadefenceonline.com/2464/drdo-and-french-major-snecma-to-finalize-engine-price-for-lca/

 

[p2prada]

Small scale orders , result in the high price and LCA costs under 40 mil not 40 mill.
Kalam once said Tejas can be made for 25mil , adjust for inflation. It will only cost us a little over 30 mil.

Larger scale order economy of Scale will apply

Fly away costs are Rs 180 to 200 Crores. Not any lesser.

No , that's what the Russians are charging us for the standard MKI , MLU upgrades cost extra.
There are charging us 102 million for each of the 42 MKI's ordered.

We don't know if they included weapons and additional equipment for the SFC.

Find me a link or statement from anyone to support that.
Your own conclusions are not facts.

AESA costs $10 to $15million. That itself adds to the costs big time.

Yhea that's why a lot of people are annoyed.
IAF seems to be little concerned with its quantitative requirement

That's over 1000 aircraft by 2030. What makes you think 1000+ aircraft is not enough. That's 55 squadrons if you take 18 per squadron.

With 270 MKI, 250 FGFA(initial projection), 200 MRCA and 200 AMCA(initial projection), there is very little room for LCA with just 123.

But only 3 years ago was IAF ready or not ready to induct more Aircraft with the same caabilites as Mirage

IAF was desperate and GoI was pressuring them on the LCA purchase. Once the Kaveri failed, IAF announced RFI. GOI intervened and told IAF they would get a bigger budget. So, a new bid was introduced in 2007. The IAF happily jumped on the offer of getting even more advanced aircraft.

The MK1 has room for growth you said it yourself. Lets take this aircraft to its natural end , do -8 years all we can with it before moving on , lets lets not waste time for the next 6

LCA mk1 has nothing that can bring it to current MRCA standards. Only Mk2. I don't mind ADA taking Mk1 to its logical conclusion. But why make IAF do it?

F-22 can still pwn our entire fleet.
You really have to understand the context of the word obsolete.

The internal payload capacity were due to structural imitations on aircraft which was cleared in PAKFA and perhaps J-20. The F-35 is also obsolete in that same standard. Less payload affects operational capability. You can refuel in mid air, but you cannot re-arm in mid air. In strict operational sense the PAKFA has improved on F-22s design and that makes F-22 obsolete. It's an entirely different point that F-22 can wipe out IAF in a day.

Everything is obsolete for you , honestly

That's how the military is. It gets obsolete the very next day, just like your computer. Certain level of obsolescence is acceptable, say 30%. But Mk1 is antique.

The very reason why F-22A will be made to F-22C. In 5 years F-22A will be obsolete and replaced by F-22C with newer avionics and perhaps an even higher thrust engine. Compare F-22 with T-50 and J-20, not Rafale or EF-2000.

well they had a 10 year head start clearly , regardless of that.
My point is despite having far more capable flankers China still invested heavily the J-10. They are only reaping the rewards today.

The Chinese have invested more heavily on the Flankers.

China had similar delays in making the J-10 a reality.

The potential for growth in J-10 is greater. First off, they don't have an underpowered engine like Mk1. That itself is enough to tell you the Mk1 is obsolete.

I agree , but lets not waste 6-8 years to field an actual platform but having 40 tejas platforms now .
We gain invaluable field experience , that will only increase the quality of future systems.

20 was enough.

That's just an excuse really ,
IN today has domestically designed and built , Stealth destroyers , cruisers and frigates.
They are building their own aircraft carrier

Most are coming from their experience with Russia. Aircraft Carrier is an Italian design. The Navy's real effectiveness starts only after 2020, when we really need them. That's why they have the smallest budget even if they are heavily capital intensive. Watch their budget grow after 2020.

How is any of that media hocus pocus , they are modernizing faster , their level of indeginisation is decades ahead.
At the same time They import what they need in AIP-Sub's , P8I's , American Engines for most of their ships.

They make all the low end stuff and import all the high end stuff. The Air force only needs high end stuff.

Well Taiwan and Japan just got F***** because j-20.

I guess Japan at least has a chance with the ATD-X , taiwan needs the F-35.

Pretty much, Yes. They need more modern aircraft from US. Preferably the F-22As would suffice once the Americans finish the F-22Cs. Perhaps by then Congress will allow export.

They have not been lax ,
Give me an example of how they were lax ?

Tell me what is the Biggest threat the Navy faces? Compare that to Army and Air force and you have your answer.

They spent decades on the process i keep talking about and look at where it got them

They got where? The best subs(Scorpenes, Akula II), the best ships(Shivalik) and the best aircraft(Mig-29k) are imported. Only their average stuff is designed and made in India but with foreign components. You are comparing apples and oranges.

It's like comparing IJT to MKI. What makes the Delhi class of destroyers impressive is the foreign weapons, engine and radar. The Navy has nothing and ship building is a lot easier than aircraft production. Only our Hulls are indigenous. Making technological breakthroughs and then making them compact enough to fit into an aircraft or a tank is hard work. The Navy actually has it easier. Our greatest engineering accomplishment isn't Arihant, it is LCA Mk1.

I agree , IAF has made a commitment but it needs to be stronger.
It can be stronger , 40 MK1's is a good decision , one that will pay off for them.
I am not asking for more Mk'1 , just saying they can echo the FONA more .

Think about it logically. By the time we get an obsolete design and mature it to the point where it matches Mirage-2000-5 in electronics, the foreign OEMs have already dumped Mirage-2000 and gone for better platforms. If we make LCA Mk2 and get it to match a Rafale or Gripen NG, they would have already moved on to even better systems like stealth Gripens or UCAVs. What the Europeans did 15 years ago, we are doing it today. What the US did 25 years ago, we are achieving that today. The IAF cannot wait for all that with Nuclear power enemies like China and Pakistan at our sides. We need a MAJOR OVERKILL against such enemies.

The LCA's test flight final exam is starting only now. This is when we will know what the LCA is worth once the LSP-6 starts off with high AoA tests. Until today they have been handling the aircraft like a baby duck. The IOC to FOC tests are pretty much the most crucial aspect of tests where the aircraft will be flown less like an airliner and more like a fighter jet. It still has a long way to go. So, IAF cannot keep waiting for DRDO to deliver. By the time LCA matures, the Chinese will be inducting their fifth gen prototypes.

Even the Chinese are no longer replacing their older aircraft like J-7s and Q-5s with LCA type aircraft. They are replacing their old fleet directly with the F-16 class J-10s and HCA class aircraft like J-11B now and J-20 and perhaps J-16 in the future. IAF is going for the same thing too. We are busy replacing our less advanced models with MKI and MRCA now, FGFA and AMCA after 10 years with a UCAV complement. Two types for all missions. The LCA no longer has a place in IAF.

When IAF is going for fifth gen aircraft and UCAVs, why would they go for anything lesser. They no longer have to worry about the numbers game. By the time LCA Mk2 starts flying and gets FOC by 2018 with one squadron, the IAF would already have started FGFA inductions for IOC and would be a decent way through MRCA inductions. Even with 20 aircraft a year, we would have 83 LCA Mk2 only by 2021-22 and that is by being very, very optimistic at ADA's schedule adherence.

 

[ppgj]

The only aircraft in the world to continue receiving AWACS info while on the ground is Gripen, not even F-22. Heck, F-22 don't even have datalinks.

you are repeating the same. when the net centicity is achieved and the aircrafts have ODL, they will communicate. it does not matter whether you are on the ground or air.

F22 does not have datalinks?? hillarious. F 22 does not have 'conventional datalinks' but have stealth qualified IFDL which is incompatible with others. it can only communiacte with other F22s.

For example, intelligence and situational picture generated by F-22 Raptors cannot be transferred to F-15s, F-16 or AWACS even if both units are participating in the same operation. As stealth aircraft, F-22s are not equipped with conventional datalinks such as Link-16 which can be easily spotted by enemy SIGINT. Instead, they use a unique stealth-qualified, narrow-beam Intra-Flight Data-Link (IFDL) designed to relay data and synchronize a situational picture only among the Raptors. As this stealth datalink is incompatible with all other communications devices, Raptors cannot communicate with any friendly aircraft.

http://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/F22_datalink_gateway.htm

The serviceability on Mig-29 is very poor.

agreed but the point was about sanctions and Mirage 2000s.

With very little information being provided to us AoA is the best bet to quantify the capability of an aircraft in aerodynamics.

AOA is one of the parameter not the only parameter to decide aerodynamics. besides LCA is still to secure FOC and here you are comparing it to practically every aircraft under the sun. AOA is a risky business and a new fighter opens to that slowly. check the link you gave for the EF. it talks of 20d and 25d AOA on 2 occasions.

You are confusing sustained STR with sustained AoA. The video you posted was a completely sustained flight regime. The aircraft did not stall.

who is confused?? on the one hand you say 'You are confusing sustained STR with sustained AoA' and on the other 'The aircraft did not stall' - implying AOA!!! shows your understanding.

FYI, STR and AOA are intrinsically entwined!! go thro' this and check how it is important to keep 'corner velocity' in a sustained turn and how AOA affects that and hence STR.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/PDF/air_097print.pdf

J-10


F-22

does the J 10 video look natural to you?? doesn't it look speeded up?? seems to me atleast. consider this - climb rate is a function of t/w ratio. while J10 has 0.84 at loaded weight F22 has 1.08 at loaded weight and 50% fuel. even with no load on both F22 wins hands down.

so tell me how a J10 can have a better climb rate than an F22?? don't look at an individual video in clean config (may be tampered) and start passing your judgement.

Su-30MKI

SU 30MKI is an exceptionally maneurable aircraft. again this is a momentary exercise and not something which is sustained like in an STR. in an airbattle, i doubt if they have that time. besides that is not my point anyway.

Super Hornet


See all videos they are small.

it is impressive but again i repeat you wont see this sort of stuff in an air battle.

Then we have this;
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html

Mai made a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points. Having rapidly gained confidence in the system he was able to enter the

extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up attitude and power idle. The system then worked as described - without any pilot action.

if you read your own link it is for 'auto low spead recovery system' test and 'not' AOA.

In late October 2004 the aircraft's Automatic Low-Speed Recovery system (ALSR) was tested in the air for the first time at Manching. EADS test pilot Karl-Heinz Mai, who was flying German production aircraft GS002, said: "It worked tremendously well – ALSR is a real confidence-maker in the low-speed area of the carefree handling envelope. I'm convinced this is one of the most impressive features of this aircraft !"

Mai made a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points. Having rapidly gained confidence in the system he was able to enter the extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up attitude and power idle. The system then worked as described - without any pilot action.

infact the AOA spoken about by the article is 20d and 25d on 2 different occasions.

DA2, although only flying with an "interim" flight control system, attained a maximum level speed of 1050 km/hr IAS, and Mach 1.5 at 9700m. It also manoeuvered at up to 5.8g and angles of attack of up to 20 degrees, and reached an altitude of over 10900m.

DA5 (98+30) made the 500th Eurofighter development flight at Manching on October 31st 1997. Milestones reached by this stage, according to DASA, were a maximum speed of Mach 1.87, an altitude of over 12175m, angles of attack of 25° amd turns of up to 7g.

One more important point. I believe the right term you are looking for is not "Sustained" AoA but "Continuous" AoA like we see in the Super Hornet video. But there is NO USE whatsoever of a "Continuous" AoA except to look pretty. High AoA is primarily used for very short durations to give a massive advantage against an enemy like how the F-22 just shoots up from a Horizontal Flight Path to an almost vertical flight. Using it's Thrust Vector the F-22 can stop at that angle and drop down behind the chase aircraft in case it was being tailed in the first place using the Herbst maneuver in the process.

whether you call it continuos AOA or i call it sustained AOA 'does not change' the point i am making.

i look at the bolded part and i see now you are saying something i have been saying all along. there is huge difference between a momentary and a sustained AOA in combat. i do not rule out the momentary AOA being exercised to gain advantage in combat. i have been speaking of sustaining a high AOA in STR and how Physics comes into the picture.

kulbit and Herbst maneuver are High AoA maneuvers achieved by Thrust vectoring. Then we have high Speed YoYo and Rollaway that uses a combination of high AoA and Roll speed. Low speed YoYo requires an AoA greater than 30deg.
None of these require continuous AoA, only momentary AoA. If High AoA is not used in air combat maneuvers then our MKIs with Thrust vectors are entirely useless. Loss of energy during combat can also be used as an advantage. If the enemy is chasing you and overshoots because you used High AoA maneuver, then you have achieved your immediate goal. Your loss in energy is temporary and lasts only a few seconds by which time the enemy will either try to escape or try something else to his advantage. This saves your behind and puts the enemy at a disadvantage.

in air combat pilots will use every tactic they can employ to get the better of the opponent. if it means employing momentary high AOA there is nothing to object to because the factors like bleed, drag are not an issue while in a sustained AOA all of them are part of the picture - while one's aim is to sustain the fight by conserving energy and remain engaged and defeat the enemy!!

LCA Mk1 will have an AoA that only fits the 80s time period.

lol. AOA is not period specific but physics specific. AOA then and now are the same. why Mig 29s of the 80s has good AOA?? or even F 16??

Even F-16 and Mirage-2000 are restricted at 25deg and 26deg, respectively.

now does that affect the maneurability of the Mirages?? take a look at this video -


don't sell your prejudiced POV here.

But the F-16, despite being a delta, has awesomely high sustained turn rates while Mirage-2000 has awesomely good diving capability.

F16 is cropped delta while Mirage 2000 is compound delta. just look at the wings. Mirage will burn and bleed more energy in an STR. that explains the whole thing. Mirage or an LCA will not go into STR with F16 for the reason i have explained before.

The LCA Mk1 with its awesomely underpowered engine does not even stand a chance against these 2 aircraft let alone the more modern ones like Rafale, Gripen and EF-2000. The aircraft is a fail and we are inducting them for satisfying hungry egos rather than giving the IAF something to look forward to.

let's do some math at common loaded weight for Mirage 2000 and LCA mark 1.

Mirage 2000---7500+3978+100+910=12488 and @ 95.1kn gives a T/W ratio of 0.78

LCA mark 1----6500+2486+100+910=9996 and at 85kn gives a T/W ratio of 0.87

there goes your 'underpower' hypothesis.

if Mirage can stay as frontline aircraft at much less thrust how can't LCA mark 1 at higher thrust??

besides i gave the same math wrt Gripen C where again LCA mark 1 scores!!! if thai/czekh/south african AFs think like you they would have never inducted Gripen. there are whole lot of considerations other than T/W.

do the same with Mig 21 Bisons and check what happens.

so don't keep repeating your predictable lines. you only lose your credibility.