ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

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.

I have already explained that part in the previous post to gogbot. It does not have Gripen like sensor fusion though.

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.

All development flight tests. The 70deg nose up = AoA. There is nothing else you can imply from it. If the nose pitches up from horizontal to its max possible angle without completely being unrecoverable is the sustained AoA.

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.

Again. I am only taking "sustained" AoAs. You are talking about continuous AoA's

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

Do you have STR values of LCA. I doubt it. So, all we have are AoA to go about it.

Also the article is only comparing old aircraft. The Euro Canards are at a different plane of thought when it comes to AoA and other criterias.

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.

I did not post that to show off climb rates. Only AoA.

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.

This was a sustained AoA. The bleeding of energy is a completely different point.

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

You are detracting from the point I made in the first place. LCA Mk1 cannot even do half of what other aircraft can do.

Aircraft like F-16 don't need High Alpha AoA in a dog fight. But aircraft like LCA which relies on climbing and diving need high AoA with high TWR.

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!!

F-16 relies on STR.

F-15, Mig-29 Su-30, LCA Mk1, Mirage-2000, EF-2000, Rafale and other non TVC aircraft rely on diving and climbing manuevers.

Gripen relies on STR as well as diving and climbing. They have both advantages simply because it's a 21st century plane. The LCA, even after being a later design than Gripen cannot even do half the things Gripen does.

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

All low speed maneuvers.

don't sell your prejudiced POV here.

Check this video and compare with what you posted. All high speed maneuvers with better performance.


Somehow I am the prejudiced one.

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.

That's why Mirage-2000 and LCA Mk1 are dead designs. Without LERX or Canards, they are just obsolete designs.

LCA Mk2 model is being shown in Aero India 2011. You will hear it first here before any journo gets his hands on the first pic,

The LCA Mk2 Will have LERX.

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??

There you go with specs again. The Mirage-2000 was and LCA Mk1 could have been frontline aircraft in the 80s and 90s. But not any more. They are dead designs. Just watch the Gripen video and compare.

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.

Haha! You are comparing superior airframe design on Gripen with inferior airframe design on LCA. Both have the same engines.

If the Thai, Czech or South Africans were comparing Gripen and LCA(fully ready with similar avionics). They would definitely go for Gripen even if LCA gives higher thrust.

Will repeat, LCA Mk1 is a dead design. It no longer holds any place in modern air warfare. Only 40 aircraft and a grim but sarcastic ACM are proof of that. They will see early retirement and a decent burial.

It's the ACM who is glum, it's the ACM who is sarcastic on national TV and it is the ACM who says the LCA has a loooong way to go and somehow I am the prejudiced one. However I would rather be called Prejudiced than Gullible.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

People who cant think positive or see anything postive that came out of Tejas must really see how long it took for the Soviets to make an Aircraft that they eventually did not even induct!

Just imagine if these things happened to the LCA, know nothings would have yelled the program to its grave! They want a poor country like India to sprint even before we started to walk!!

 

[black eagle]

Tejas aerobatic display with smokewinders @Aero India..

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/02/tejas-aerobatic-display-with.html

 

[gogbot]

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

EoS always apply , the original estimates of 25 mil per aircraft by Kalam and company were for orders over a 100.
Adjust for inflation it would cost a little over 30.

It's not surprising the cost per aircraft is high given that the orders are only 40 aircraft.
if we only ordered 20 they would be even higher.

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

That's still a more than 100% increase in cost per unit.
But we do know they don't include the MLU upgrades.

What kind of weapons increase the cost so much.

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

Give me a link or statement from someone in the MoD .

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.

Does that give us the numbers to conduct offensive operations into China , in case of two front war , i think not.
We would loose the attrition battle very quickly.

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

4th gen platforms will be in use well into the 2030's , this is the case all around the world including the US-navy.
As long as we keep evolving the design and add 5th gen tech in the late 2020's , they can be use for at least 20 years.
Or replaced early by one our own platforms in the future ,

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.

They were still ready to accept the Mirage.

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?

IAF is the logical conclusion
The logical conclusion is few years of fielding , that we we can extract maximum development expertise from the aircraft

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.

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.

I think your meaning of obsolescence , I generally think of it as term meaning the aircraft no longer has any use in the current scenario. you seem to use it even when talking about , which aircraft has the edge or which does not.

This is alright most of the time , but when two aircraft are built for two different requirements you can't declare one obsolete based on a comparison.

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.

what does that make the JAguars , Mig-21 and 27.
They are still for for service for another 10 years with no hope or improvement , with jaguars set to serve at least 2025.

I say we can field the jaguars , we can field the MK-1's

The Chinese have invested more heavily on the Flankers.

they have also balanced that investment by making sure sufficient resources make it into the J-10 project ,
They have ordered hundreds of the aircraft.

Experience from The J-10 is going to be what makes the J-20 dangerous.

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.

They designed around a foreign engine form the start , a wise move , ADA should have echoed.
Betting it all on the KAveri was risk , if it worked well done , but we know from experience now what happens if it doesn't.

20 was enough.

Perhaps , but 40 is not much of change either.
But at the very least
This improves production line and techniques
Gives more field experience to ADA which is invaluable and invests money into the LCAMK-2
At the very least it puts pilots in the TEjas as opposed to he Mig-21's , which would in turn mean they would have to put in more flight hours per year.

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.

It's not as if they are waiting around doing nothing till 2020.
I am sure they will expand in size after 2020 , but they are already building blue water navy capability by 2015.

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

How can you call most of out surface fleet , our Nuclear submarines low end.
Your just making excuses to negate the NAvy's comment , Just like the FONA comment.

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.

My point being , they are dependent on the US to secure their own territory at this point , despite having a very high technological base in their countries , relying mostly on imports. They are at the Mercy of US decision to export the F-22.

If Japan for example spent less time trying to import the F-22 and sanction the ATD-X earlier , they would have been in a far better situation today.

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

That's because the NAvy is substantially superior to anything to PN and More than a match for PLAN..

But my question how have they been LAX at modernization as you so claim

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.

But its their designs , sub-systems are easier to replace than the whole system it self.
Gripen is Swedish its still packed with Foreign gear , specifically American make.

and how is the Shivalik foreign ?
It was our design and built here in India

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 , but the issue at hand is not the achievements , but the process. If IN has it easier it only means IAF has to do more , does it not.

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.

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.

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.

Bigger budget and parallel development , While the LCA mk1 is inducted and aims for FOC.
WE have projects running in parallel AURA , AMCA and LCA-MK2. They will build on everything the Tejas-mk1 was , is and will be.(note the tense)

When we started LCA we aimed to change the aerospace capabilities on the country , to build build and create the expertise needed to build every aspect of a state of the art fighter aircraft. It is an understatement to say we did not meet expectations , but it is foolhardy at the same time to ignore all that has been achieved and is still left to be achieved.

BY fielding the LCA today we can gain almost a decade of field experience from a deployed platform, before the MK2 is out. The feedback from actual IAF pilots alone who would fly the aircraft for at least 5 years is enough. you can't buy expertise like that , if we don't invest on this now , we won't be able to capitalize on expertise like this for maybe another 20 years.

By doing it now , what ever we take out of this can be put into MK-2 into the AMCA and AURA. it could be aerodynamic optimizations , Human engineering factors , what the pilots actually want from a platform like this. We already know what the IAF want's as a platform , we can also know what The IAF want's in this platform. Beyond the ASR. You can't buy field experience , you can replace it and you certainly can;t go without it. Denying ADA the opportunity is only slowing down the entire Effort.

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.

They are building these platforms on years of evolutionary experience and years of actually fielding their platforms in active operations.

We have the AURA and AMCA the least we can do is give then 10 years of field experience on the LCA-MK1.
Let them make the AURA and AMCA into all that they can be , 10 years down the line.

We have to Keep working on the Tejas because we have carry it to its natural conclusion.
Who's to say a few years down the line after AURA and AMCA Tejas MLU is does not make use of RCS reduction kits , or that Tejas UCAV is not an option.

What the Europeans did 15 years ago, we are doing it today. What the US did 25 years ago, we are achieving that today.

What do you expect , we are a 3rd world country playing the catch up game. obviously we will be behind , the more support out systems receive however the faster we catch up.

The more funds that are diverted for imports the slower the process , the key is finding the balance , in out current situation no one option is the overall solution

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.

And what will be do when China is fielding equipment superior to r similar to our own imports , that day is coming . You expect DRDO , ADA , HAL our private sector to just work in a corner , without inducting any of their systems. And just Expect that when that day comes they can somehow astoundingly meet their needs.

WE can never maintain the qualitative edge against CHina forever, we invest in our own sector today we will reap the rewards tomorrow.

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.

J-10 was built to a different requirement than the LCA , if IAF wanted an F-16 they could have asked for a requirement stating that.
But regardless IAF still has a LCA requirement and we have the Tejas , lets not delay.

we would have 83 LCA Mk2 only by 2021-22 and that is by being very, very optimistic at ADA's schedule adherence.

Well the first 2nd gen system we have the LCH , was somewhat on time. there is hope i suppose.4

---

To sum up the LCA MK induction of 40 platforms , while a difficult or even grudging decision by the IAF is not a waste of time.

And it fact
Due to my own pre-disposition.
i would say it holds more latent value than inducting the F-16.

 

[gogbot]

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).


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.

I did forget about Gripen quick re-arm and refuel time.
Well i have to say , credit where credits dew , it would not have been as useful on any other aircraft than the gripen .

 

[p2prada]

EoS always apply , the original estimates of 25 mil per aircraft by Kalam and company were for orders over a 100.
Adjust for inflation it would cost a little over 30.

It's not surprising the cost per aircraft is high given that the orders are only 40 aircraft.
if we only ordered 20 they would be even higher.

Those are for previous estimated orders of 250 aircraft. With just 40 aircraft, don't expect prices to come down.

That's still a more than 100% increase in cost per unit.
But we do know they don't include the MLU upgrades.

What kind of weapons increase the cost so much.

It's just regular cost escalation due to more expensive raw materials. Also, after the recent increase in pay, even that adds to the program.

Give me a link or statement from someone in the MoD .

Just google contemporary AESA radars, ours will cost similar. Since we will be importing our AESA, then the costs will be high.

Does that give us the numbers to conduct offensive operations into China , in case of two front war , i think not.
We would loose the attrition battle very quickly.

With LCA it will be even faster.

4th gen platforms will be in use well into the 2030's , this is the case all around the world including the US-navy.
As long as we keep evolving the design and add 5th gen tech in the late 2020's , they can be use for at least 20 years.
Or replaced early by one our own platforms in the future ,

Nothing to do with Mk1.

They were still ready to accept the Mirage.

Until the Dragon roared with the release of J-10. GoI had no choice but to upgrade IAF's choices.

I think your meaning of obsolescence , I generally think of it as term meaning the aircraft no longer has any use in the current scenario. you seem to use it even when talking about , which aircraft has the edge or which does not.

This is alright most of the time , but when two aircraft are built for two different requirements you can't declare one obsolete based on a comparison.

You can say that. My reason for obsolescence is primarily derived due to time considerations of coming out with an "effective" platform while our enemy is upgrading faster than us.

The LCA being a replacement for Mig-21 is no longer a point of consideration. The Migs are being replaced by MKI and MRCA. Had the LCA been a success before 2000, the MRCA deal wouldn't even have happened. We would have been showing off the AMCA today along with China and Russia.

what does that make the JAguars , Mig-21 and 27.
They are still for for service for another 10 years with no hope or improvement , with jaguars set to serve at least 2025.

They were great aircraft of their time and will be replaced by 4.5th(MRCA) and 5th gen aircraft(Mig-27 and Jag).

I say we can field the jaguars , we can field the MK-1's

The Jags have little life left in them. Just because they are old and still functioning does not mean we buy new but similar aircraft(in technology).

Experience from The J-10 is going to be what makes the J-20 dangerous.

The same reason, LCA Mk2 and AMCA will be dangerous too. The Mk1 is only a prototype that does not even fit requirements.

They designed around a foreign engine form the start , a wise move , ADA should have echoed.

In 1995, TD-1 was equipped with the F-404 from GE.

Betting it all on the KAveri was risk , if it worked well done , but we know from experience now what happens if it doesn't.

F-404 was always the fall back engine. This was thought of in 1987.

Perhaps , but 40 is not much of change either.
But at the very least
At the very least it puts pilots in the TEjas as opposed to he Mig-21's , which would in turn mean they would have to put in more flight hours per year.

From this article,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/01/352408/troubled-tejas-edges-toward-service.html

An executive involved in India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition is equally dubious. "If they had got the Tejas right, they wouldn't need to do the MMRCA," he says.

and

Despite its critics, who generally condemn Tejas as being behind schedule, overweight and inferior to similar light fighters produced elsewhere, the programme is arguably not so much about producing a world-beating light fighter aircraft, but building a foundation of learning for future projects. This suggests Tejas is just a single step on a decades-long journey to a globally competitive Indian defence aerospace industry.

When presented with this idea, one critic likens it to "making a virtue out of a necessity".

Another points to the sobering fact that, ultimately, combat aircraft are for fighting in wars. If the Tejas is, as many suspect, an inferior combat platform, the fact that the project has helped India's aircraft industry will be cold comfort to Tejas pilots.

This is what I have been saying. The Tejas has been a great thing for our industry. But when war comes and our Tejas fighters have to fight, how will they do that with inferior platforms?

Lastly,

One expert suggests that, in the event of war, the Indian air force would probably hold the Tejas back from high-threat situations and let aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Sepecat Jaguar, Dassault Mirage, and the eventual winner of India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest, deal with high-intensity combat.

How can you call most of out surface fleet , our Nuclear submarines low end.
Your just making excuses to negate the NAvy's comment , Just like the FONA comment.

No I am not. You are comparing operational ships and subs to development platforms. Let them be delivered first and within specifications. Then we will see. Our greatest achievement in the navy was the Delhi Class destroyers. Only the Hull was designed in India.

My point being , they are dependent on the US to secure their own territory at this point , despite having a very high technological base in their countries , relying mostly on imports. They are at the Mercy of US decision to export the F-22.

We are at the mercy of France and Russia. Even after LCA is inducted in 2012 then we will still be at the mercy of US.

If Japan for example spent less time trying to import the F-22 and sanction the ATD-X earlier , they would have been in a far better situation today.

The Japanese are realistic. They know they cannot build the fighter they want within the time frame they need it. Pushing for F-22 is the most logical step.

That's because the NAvy is substantially superior to anything to PN and More than a match for PLAN..

Our Admiral has come out on record to state IN cannot match PLAN in neither fire power nor capacity.

But my question how have they been LAX at modernization as you so claim

They are relegated a second class status in board meetings. Army and Air Force take first priority at modernization due to the threats they face. The Army takes the first, followed by AF and then Navy.

But its their designs , sub-systems are easier to replace than the whole system it self.
Gripen is Swedish its still packed with Foreign gear , specifically American make.

So is LCA.

and how is the Shivalik foreign ?
It was our design and built here in India

Sorry. I should have said Krivak or Talwar.

I agree , but the issue at hand is not the achievements , but the process. If IN has it easier it only means IAF has to do more , does it not.

How will IAF do more when their requirements are greater than Indian Industry can provide? They can only buy from outside and they are doing only that.

When we started LCA we aimed to change the aerospace capabilities on the country , to build build and create the expertise needed to build every aspect of a state of the art fighter aircraft. It is an understatement to say we did not meet expectations , but it is foolhardy at the same time to ignore all that has been achieved and is still left to be achieved.

Whatever is good in the Tejas, DRDO will reap the rewards. Whatever is bad in the Tejas, IAF will reap it. That's how it is.

By doing it now , what ever we take out of this can be put into MK-2 into the AMCA and AURA. it could be aerodynamic optimizations , Human engineering factors , what the pilots actually want from a platform like this. We already know what the IAF want's as a platform , we can also know what The IAF want's in this platform. Beyond the ASR. You can't buy field experience , you can replace it and you certainly can;t go without it. Denying ADA the opportunity is only slowing down the entire Effort.

To help our industry, we can send 40 pilots with re-engineered flying coffins. They may not crash on their own, but the enemy will help with that. ADA's achievements has nothing to do with IAF.

We have to Keep working on the Tejas because we have carry it to its natural conclusion.
Who's to say a few years down the line after AURA and AMCA Tejas MLU is does not make use of RCS reduction kits , or that Tejas UCAV is not an option.

Tejas Mk1 is grossly underpowered. Even jaguars have better power with their old engines. This has nothing to do with engine displacement or power. It has more to do with design of the aircraft.

What do you expect , we are a 3rd world country playing the catch up game. obviously we will be behind , the more support out systems receive however the faster we catch up.

But our air force is near first world.

And what will be do when China is fielding equipment superior to r similar to our own imports , that day is coming . You expect DRDO , ADA , HAL our private sector to just work in a corner , without inducting any of their systems. And just Expect that when that day comes they can somehow astoundingly meet their needs.

It does not justify forcing the LCA Mk1 down IAF throats.

But regardless IAF still has a LCA requirement and we have the Tejas , lets not delay.

There is no difference between LCA and MRCA in operational requirements. What the J-10 is for China, LCA and MRCA is for us.

 

[p2prada]

A wind tunnel model of LCA from NAL.

It is obviously not the final model. Image taken from BR.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

^^^This is not a future model for the Tejas, these where prototype wind tunnel models which they studied before finally settling for the current design of the Tejas with no Canards!

It still beats me why they did not go with this beauty and rather went with the current inflexible design. The current design is not bad either but i would have liked canards as an option instead of compound canards!

 

[warriorextreme]

A wind tunnel model of LCA from NAL.

It is obviously not the final model. Image taken from BR.

holy smoke this design is awesome

 

[p2prada]

^^^This is not a future model for the Tejas, these where prototype wind tunnel models which they studied before finally settling for the current design of the Tejas with no Canards!

It still beats me why they did not go with this beauty and rather went with the current inflexible design. The current design is not bad either but i would have liked canards as an option instead of compound canards!

Perhaps. After all this image is from Aero India 2009.

 

[Agantrope]

A wind tunnel model of LCA from NAL.

It is obviously not the final model. Image taken from BR.

But this image somewhat resembles the Rafale.

 

[gogbot]

Those are for previous estimated orders of 250 aircraft. With just 40 aircraft, don't expect prices to come down.

Well its still more cost effective than the MKI , 42 of those cost us 100 mill plus for each unit

It's just regular cost escalation due to more expensive raw materials. Also, after the recent increase in pay, even that adds to the program.

Same apply for the tejas.

But really , we are still talking 100% increase in the case of the MKI , imported platforms never cost effective compared to domestic options.

Just google contemporary AESA radars, ours will cost similar. Since we will be importing our AESA, then the costs will be high.

For starters , we are not importing the radar , its being built right here in India.
Same AESA technology on use on DRDO AWACS , is being modified for Fighter Aircraft.

However
LRDE is seeking a development partner for desgin help concerning

http://www.indian-military.org/news-archives/indian-air-force-news/437-aesa-programme-for-tejas-scans-for-development-partner.html

According to the bid invitation, India wants the development partner to be responsible for "detailed design, development and realisation" of (a) antenna panel constisting of main antenna, guard antenna and sidelobe cancellation antenna, (b) transmit/receive modules/groups, (c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface, (d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and (e) array calibration/BITE among other areas. The final requirement in the comprehensive list of ten requirements from the development partner is listed as "AAAU Integration on Tejas A/c", confirming that the radar is indeed for a future tranche of the Tejas, or possibly, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Second , you conclusion on price costs is speculation at best and not fact.
You have no idea of the LRDE AESA radar or unit cost or effect of EoS on cost.

80 mk2 is double 40.

With LCA it will be even faster.

Honestly man , we have AWACS and we have BVR missile's

This is beyond reason , Tejas can establish a one to one ratio at the very least

Until the Dragon roared with the release of J-10. GoI had no choice but to upgrade IAF's choices.

IF they could have made do with the Mirage they can live with the Tejas

You can say that. My reason for obsolescence is primarily derived due to time considerations of coming out with an "effective" platform while our enemy is upgrading faster than us.

you can say that as well , but by that logic whoever it is that is playing catch up on a more advanced foe , will only come out with obsolete platforms. You suggesting someone like China stop and try to import ?

The obvious answer would be know unless you participate in the evolutionary process of development , you will never catch up. that is cold hard fact.

Anyone will tell you that , coming out with the Gripen or the Rafale on the first go is what would have been near impossible. you can't have those kinds of expectations for 1st gen systems , history repeatedly tell us 1st gen systems are inducted an discarded , but experience gained from them is invaluable to all party's.

The LCA being a replacement for Mig-21 is no longer a point of consideration. The Migs are being replaced by MKI and MRCA.

Except the Role of the MKI and MRCA is greater than the MIG-21 , we are using them for deep penetration attacks , and as Standoff platforms .

the MIg-21's were used this extensively , if these aircraft replace the Mig-21 with their current fleet numbers and added roles , they can't do both the mig-21 role and their new role at the same time effectively.

We need a point defense , light strike and Escort aircraft , Tejas can do that.

Had the LCA been a success before 2000, the MRCA deal wouldn't even have happened. We would have been showing off the AMCA today along with China and Russia.

That is a physical impossibility , what was our GDP in 1993 when the project got funding, What was the budget and infrastructure back then.

What the Hell was the budget in 2000 , it took 17 years of engineering, design and many crores to come this far.

They were great aircraft of their time and will be replaced by 4.5th(MRCA) and 5th gen aircraft(Mig-27 and Jag).

Well by your logic they are obsolete now are they not.

The Jags have little life left in them. Just because they are old and still functioning does not mean we buy new but similar aircraft(in technology).

By you your logic you should describe the Jag as obsolete.

The same reason, LCA Mk2 and AMCA will be dangerous too. The Mk1 is only a prototype that does not even fit requirements.

Except for the Fact the Chinese fielded many squadrons of J-10's for nearly a decade.

Your unwilling to even accept 2 squadrons for fielding.

In 1995, TD-1 was equipped with the F-404 from GE.

F-404 was always the fall back engine. This was thought of in 1987.

The plane was always expecting the Kaveri Engine for production. The GE engine was only a fall back for testing beyond the prototype vehicles

This is what I have been saying. The Tejas has been a great thing for our industry. But when war comes and our Tejas fighters have to fight, how will they do that with inferior platforms?

Lastly,

Well ask those critics if they expect state of the art platforms with out actually fielding previous generations of platforms in active service. That is an insane expectation.

When it comes to 1st gen platforms you can't afford to look away. especially when it is the only platform.

look at whats happened in missile development and space exploration alone in the last 10 years , who's to say we can't expect the same in aerospace this decade.

No I am not. You are comparing operational ships and subs to development platforms. Let them be delivered first and within specifications. Then we will see. Our greatest achievement in the navy was the Delhi Class destroyers. Only the Hull was designed in India.

You said IN inducts low end indigenous items while they import high tech gear.
So if our indigenous Stealth destroyers , Frigates , Cruisers and Nuclear submarines are not low tech what did you mean by that.

only the Hull was designed in India.

Developer compromise to deliver capability rather than tech ,
Experience with Arjun and Tejas shows , it is far easier to develop sub-systems then it is the actual platform. Induct first with capability and then develop only way to indeignise in current environment.

The Japanese are realistic. They know they cannot build the fighter they want within the time frame they need it. Pushing for F-22 is the most logical step.

And look at where that logic got them.
They have lost the air war before it even began.

They went with the ATD-X earlier they could have at least matched China's deployment time frames for the J-20

Our Admiral has come out on record to state IN cannot match PLAN in neither fire power nor capacity.

He is just fishing for budget.

They are relegated a second class status in board meetings. Army and Air Force take first priority at modernization due to the threats they face. The Army takes the first, followed by AF and then Navy.

Why does army get first priority
1. Artillery is dismal sham after 20 years of failed procurement, everyone is blacklisted and only and FMS route has bought them much need new artillery , even if only in small numbers.
2. Infantry units in desperate need of modernization , after being almost static for over a decade. F-INSAS is only paper right now.
-night fighting upgrades needed
-new weapons needed
-new bulletproof jackets needed
-new modern camo's
-new new data link & communication equipment
-new new kevlar helmets wanted
-etc
3. Still using WW2 grenades
4. Army's data link and net centric systems already implemented later than the other two branches and also facing delays, it's entire network will only be ready 10 years after the Navy and 5 years after the IAF , in 2025
5. etc

these a few of the many issues plaguing our army's efforts to modernize

why IAF gets second priority
1.mig-21 flying coffin
2. Poor state of trainers
3. 50% obsolescence
4.requirement of force multipliers
5.IAF fleet levels falling , currently at 32.5 squadrons with a sanctioned strength of 39.5

Most of these problems are being fixed as we speak , but solution is decade away.

Why IN is spared for last.
1.need new Submarines to replace the aged fleet and shrinking numbers
Solution already implemented with srorpene subs and domestic nuclear subs available

Tell me why do you think IN priorities are look at last , considering it has the least issues and does not really warrant the fund's or attention.

Considering the problems with the IAF levels and the Cluster**** that is IA artillery procurement.

Sorry. I should have said Krivak or Talwar.

But those are not our best ships.
"Shivalik" is our most advanced vessel

Whatever is good in the Tejas, DRDO will reap the rewards. Whatever is bad in the Tejas, IAF will reap it. That's how it is.

Don't lie , you know as well as i do , technology from the Tejas has already made its way into upgrades for the Mig-27 , Jag's and MKI . IAF also has it share of benefits.

Not to mention the MK2 , And AMCA all of which are gained from the Tejas expertise and investment.

Whatever is good in tejas is good for the entire nation.

To help our industry, we can send 40 pilots with re-engineered flying coffins. They may not crash on their own

Well that's a hell of lot better than actual Mig-21 flying coffins that do crash on their own.

But honestly , how can you call it a flying coffin even without FoC or a year of service. Let then actually participate in a actual exercise , I am sure they can at least stay useful against the PAF.

Tejas Mk1 is grossly underpowered. Even jaguars have better power with their old engines. This has nothing to do with engine displacement or power. It has more to do with design of the aircraft.

Well i expect they be replaced the some time after the Jag's

And what will be do when China is fielding equipment superior to r similar to our own imports , that day is coming . You expect DRDO , ADA , HAL our private sector to just work in a corner , without inducting any of their systems. And just Expect that when that day comes they can somehow astoundingly meet their needs.

It does not justify forcing the LCA Mk1 down IAF throats.

Dude look at your circular logic

But our air force is near first world.

We are at the mercy of France and Russia. Even after LCA is inducted in 2012 then we will still be at the mercy of US.

How will IAF do more when their requirements are greater than Indian Industry can provide? They can only buy from outside and they are doing only that.

It means IAF has to invest in its own future by inducting and fielding the Lca MK1 ,
as the 1st gen system it is important that this system be taken to its natural , failing to do may only jeopardize future efforts with delays or defects that could have been avoided

Also
We are not a first world air force or any where near
while we literally have some may cold war and soviet era platforms.
We can never be one of those air forces , as long as we don't control more than 80% or all manufacturing of the fleet in question.
Capable of performing our own upgrades and or modifications and are capable or producing our own spare parts or entire spare aircraft's.

you keep talking about IAF 2020 but look at Tejas 2010 , its a double standard of conclusions.

There is no difference between LCA and MRCA in operational requirements. What the J-10 is for China, LCA and MRCA is for us.

right
Except for the fact that the J-10 and LCA are built to entirely different requirements .
you can't compare.

And MMRCA is a league ahead , most of them are designed with their respective requirements , most of them as air superiority fighters , some a strike aircraft and one as an aircraft designed to operate under enemy air superiority.

Just saying this is not a one size fits all collection.

 

[p2prada]

For starters , we are not importing the radar , its being built right here in India.
Same AESA technology on use on DRDO AWACS , is being modified for Fighter Aircraft.

AESA is the most expensive piece of equipment on an aircraft. It's cost exceeds $10Million. Indian or Foreign. We aren't that special to make it any cheaper.

IF they could have made do with the Mirage they can live with the Tejas

At the time Mirage-2000 was proposed, IAF had no idea J-10 was near operation. Once J-10 was released, IAF upgraded MRCA deal. There is nothing more to it.

Small, single engine aircraft without exceeding 21st century performance parameters are obsolete.

you can say that as well , but by that logic whoever it is that is playing catch up on a more advanced foe , will only come out with obsolete platforms. You suggesting someone like China stop and try to import ?

With J-20 and J-16, they will no longer need to.

Anyone will tell you that , coming out with the Gripen or the Rafale on the first go is what would have been near impossible. you can't have those kinds of expectations for 1st gen systems , history repeatedly tell us 1st gen systems are inducted an discarded , but experience gained from them is invaluable to all party's.

It is a very valuable learning experience to the industry that designed it. But it is of no use what so ever to the user.

We need a point defense , light strike and Escort aircraft , Tejas can do that.

MRCA can handle point defence any time better that LCA Mk1.

That is a physical impossibility , what was our GDP in 1993 when the project got funding, What was the budget and infrastructure back then.

Inductions don't happen immediately. Do you think India can afford 250 FGFA today. It's impossible. We cannot even handle 2 or 3 squadrons of FGFA today. But these procurement plans are made taking the future into consideration. In 10 years from now, our GDP would have quadrupled along with the defence budget. And that's when we need those planes.

It's the same with LCA. The plan was to have 250+ LCAs by 2005 with deliveries from 1996 and then discard them by 2025 for fifth gen platforms. All our current gen platforms excluding MKI are set for phasing out by 2025. Even today, if we induct LCA Mk1, they will be phased out in 10 or 15 years. They no longer have any value in the 21st century field. The Swedish Air force will also start replacing their older Gripens with NG within the next decade. IAF will do the same too.

What the Hell was the budget in 2000 , it took 17 years of engineering, design and many crores to come this far.

IAF budget could have handled 80-100 LCA by 2000. The Money was enough considering the LCA was supposed to cost $25million a piece.

By you your logic you should describe the Jag as obsolete.

Yes. They are obsolete. And that's why they will be phased out in 10 to 15 years.
Our current Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 are obsolete and hence are being upgraded to last till 2025.

The plane was always expecting the Kaveri Engine for production. The GE engine was only a fall back for testing beyond the prototype vehicles

A fighter development program always has a fall back engine. IAF gave up on LCA the moment Kaveri failed while ADA continued.

Well ask those critics if they expect state of the art platforms with out actually fielding previous generations of platforms in active service. That is an insane expectation.

The most advanced piece of hardware that can be acquired is acquired. Nothing less.

You said IN inducts low end indigenous items while they import high tech gear.
So if our indigenous Stealth destroyers , Frigates , Cruisers and Nuclear submarines are not low tech what did you mean by that.

None of them are ready yet. Same as LCA or Arjun. Give it at least another 10 to 20 years for truly state of the art indigenous products to come out.

Developer compromise to deliver capability rather than tech ,
Experience with Arjun and Tejas shows , it is far easier to develop sub-systems then it is the actual platform. Induct first with capability and then develop only way to indeignise in current environment.

LCA Mk1 does not even fit requirements. Everything else is moot.

And look at where that logic got them.
They have lost the air war before it even began.

They went with the ATD-X earlier they could have at least matched China's deployment time frames for the J-20

There is such a thing as affordability too.

He is just fishing for budget.

Hehe! Ok. Anything that makes you happy.

Why does army get first priority

why IAF gets second priority

Most of these problems are being fixed as we speak , but solution is decade away.

All these pressing problems have to be addressed first. But still MOD is wasting money on a product that does not fit requirements.

Why IN is spared for last.
1.need new Submarines to replace the aged fleet and shrinking numbers
Solution already implemented with srorpene subs and domestic nuclear subs available

Tell me why do you think IN priorities are look at last , considering it has the least issues and does not really warrant the fund's or attention.

Their subs cannot stop a Chinese invasion into Arunachal Pradesh.

Their ships cannot stop a Pakistani invasion into Punjab.

IN is nothing as of now. They real need will be after 2020 when India will need force projection for enhancing diplomacy.

Don't lie , you know as well as i do , technology from the Tejas has already made its way into upgrades for the Mig-27 , Jag's and MKI . IAF also has it share of benefits.

Offshoot programs benefits has nothing to do with LCA Mk1. Israel makes much much superior avionics and weapons systems even without having fielded an aircraft of their own.

Whatever is good in tejas is good for the entire nation.

except IAF.

Well that's a hell of lot better than actual Mig-21 flying coffins that do crash on their own.

That's why they are being replaced by MKI and MRCA.

But honestly , how can you call it a flying coffin even without FoC or a year of service. Let then actually participate in a actual exercise , I am sure they can at least stay useful against the PAF.

They will not do particularly well against superior adversaries. That's a given.

It means IAF has to invest in its own future by inducting and fielding the Lca MK1 ,
as the 1st gen system it is important that this system be taken to its natural , failing to do may only jeopardize future efforts with delays or defects that could have been avoided

Maybe IAF will induct another 40MK1. But that does not mean anything to the program as a whole. From 250+ to 140 and requirement is falling every year. 80Mk2 alone is enough to show the entire picture. If IAF was serious about LCA, the Mk2 requirements would have been over 150 or 200.

I supported the LCA program in the beginning and then became sceptical about it since last year. But after ACM's speech during IOC, where he stated simple facts, I have become a hard line critic. My criticism has nothing to do with the fact that it does not fit requirements or that it is only a Mig-21++. My criticism has a lot to do with the fact that LCA has no future in the IAF. They will induct it and then junk it. For a country like ours, we cannot afford to be complacent in such things. We aren't privileged to be so.

We are not a first world air force or any where near
while we literally have some may cold war and soviet era platforms.
We can never be one of those air forces , as long as we don't control more than 80% or all manufacturing of the fleet in question.
Capable of performing our own upgrades and or modifications and are capable or producing our own spare parts or entire spare aircraft's.

That point is moot again considering LCA's engine and many other avionics are still sourced from outside.

you keep talking about IAF 2020 but look at Tejas 2010 , its a double standard of conclusions.

Tejas 2010 wil only be fully developed by 2020. MRCA is more of a 2025 program while AMCA is more like 2035.

right
Except for the fact that the J-10 and LCA are built to entirely different requirements .
you can't compare.

What the LCA was designed for, the requirement no longer exists. IAF wants J-10 or MRCA like requirements now.

And MMRCA is a league ahead , most of them are designed with their respective requirements , most of them as air superiority fighters , some a strike aircraft and one as an aircraft designed to operate under enemy air superiority.

Just saying this is not a one size fits all collection.

MRCA is one size fits all. That's why they are called "Multirole." "Omnirole" to be more exact with Rafale. Had LCA succeeded MRCA would never have happened. It is a direct product of Kaveri failing in 2004.

Anyway, this is my last post regarding the topic. I have repeated the same points too many times and all you guys can come up with is "it helped industry" while I am saying "it has not helped IAF." Looks like I have only been hitting my head against the wall. Cheers.

 

[p2prada]

But this image somewhat resembles the Rafale.

It resembles the F-16 Block 60 more than anything else. Note it has only one engine.

 

[gogbot]

Anyway, this is my last post regarding the topic. I have repeated the same points too many times and all you guys can come up with is "it helped industry" while I am saying "it has not helped IAF." Looks like I have only been hitting my head against the wall. Cheers.

You will get no issue from me, all this circular logic by both PoV's and the time spent to write each post has drained my endurance.
let us call a break till new info arises. but i still maintain induction of Tejas is a must.

 

[ppgj]

I have already explained that part in the previous post to gogbot. It does not have Gripen like sensor fusion though.

how is any aircraft including the LCA is responsible for 'not having ODL' when the IAF's IACCS is not even operational?? ODL systems can only be operational post that.

you are clutching at strawmen.

All development flight tests. The 70deg nose up = AoA. There is nothing else you can imply from it. If the nose pitches up from horizontal to its max possible angle without completely being unrecoverable is the sustained AoA.

if an aircraft climbs verticlly or IOW perpendicular to the ground(horizontal). what would be the AOA in this case??

Again. I am only taking "sustained" AoAs. You are talking about continuous AoA's

what is the difference between 'sustained' and 'continuous' AOA?? clarify.

Do you have STR values of LCA. I doubt it. So, all we have are AoA to go about it.

what is there to doubt. LCA is yet to achieve FOC. only post FOC will the values be known because the parameters keep changing due to FCS upgrade till it achieves that.

LCA has achieved 22d AOA and LSP 6 will be flying specifically to validate and improve on that. so wait.

Also the article is only comparing old aircraft. The Euro Canards are at a different plane of thought when it comes to AoA and other criterias.

hillarious. 'as if' they defy physics. shows how hollow your claims are. as i said previously AOA is 'not' period specific but physics specific.

check this comparison of RAFALE & EF, their AOAs, turn rates & STRs at sea level. STRs and hence sustained AOA are directly related to mach speed and the G.

Turn Rate Diagram at Sea level with 50% internal fuel (2/2)

"¢ Rafale C main data for Turn performance at sea level are:

– Maximum Turn Rate (CAT-I AoA limit) 30.00 deg/s at M=0.50
– Maximum sustained Turn Rate (Ps=0) 23.9 deg/s at M=0.60

"¢ Typhoon main data for Turn performance at sea level are:

– Maximum Turn Rate (CAT-I AoA limit) 29.33 deg/s at M=0.50
– Maximum sustained Turn Rate (Ps=0) 23.4 deg/s at M=0.60

"¢ Very small, quite un-significant, advantage to the Rafale in turn performance in such configuration.

Turn Rate Diagram at Sea level with with 45' cruise (2/2)

"¢ Rafale C main data for Turn performance at sea level are:

– Maximum Turn Rate (CAT-I AoA limit) 32.10 deg/s at M=0.45 (R= 895 ft)
– Maximum sustained Turn Rate (Ps=0) 26.25 deg/s at M=0.55 (R=1,340 ft)

"¢ Typhoon main data for Turn performance at sea level are:

– Maximum Turn Rate (CAT-I AoA limit) 30.2 deg/s at M=0.50 (R=1,060 ft)
– Maximum sustained Turn Rate (Ps=0) 25.1 deg/s at M=0.60 (R=1,529 ft)

"¢ Better Turn rate (Maximum and sustained) at lower speed (so with lower Turn radius), give to the Rafale a significant advantage in horizontal evolution in
such configuration.

http://topolo.free.fr/Compare/Rafale vs Typhoon.pdf

does it make sense now??

I did not post that to show off climb rates. Only AoA

really?? can you tell me a rough estimate of the AOA there??

This was a sustained AoA. The bleeding of energy is a completely different point.

'sustained' in an airbattle amounts to minutes of STR and hence the inherent sustained AOA too. 'not' some seconds like in that cobra maneur.

You are detracting from the point I made in the first place. LCA Mk1 cannot even do half of what other aircraft can do.

are you flight testing LCA mark 1?? what is your datapoint?? quit rhetoric based on your imagination.

Aircraft like F-16 don't need High Alpha AoA in a dog fight. But aircraft like LCA which relies on climbing and diving need high AoA with high TWR.

funny. are you saying F-16 will not climb and dive?? these are the basics in any combat for any aircraft depending on the situation!!! same with AOA high or low.

F-16 relies on STR.

in comparison to a compound delta design, F 16 will do better in a STR for the factors i have explained previously.

F-15, Mig-29 Su-30, LCA Mk1, Mirage-2000, EF-2000, Rafale and other non TVC aircraft rely on diving and climbing manuevers.

Gripen relies on STR as well as diving and climbing. They have both advantages simply because it's a 21st century plane. The LCA, even after being a later

design than Gripen cannot even do half the things Gripen does.

lol. every aircraft will do everything. some do better in some regimes and others do better in other regimes because of design limitations. hence 'tactics' are designed and evolved around it.

simply repeating biased views which are only your fiction does not take you anywhere.

All low speed maneuvers.

are you even aware most maneurs happen at low speeds in dogfights??

Check this video and compare with what you posted. All high speed maneuvers with better performance.


Somehow I am the prejudiced one.

every aircraft does those. what is special about this?? if a well shot video is your basis for the performance then i have got nothing to say.

That's why Mirage-2000 and LCA Mk1 are dead designs. Without LERX or Canards, they are just obsolete designs.

dead designs?? oh, did ADA miss out taking you onboard for the design??

LCA Mk2 model is being shown in Aero India 2011. You will hear it first here before any journo gets his hands on the first pic,

The LCA Mk2 Will have LERX.

and are you the first one to declare it?? are you part of the design team??

ADA has been studying it 'which is known to all' and 'if' they feel it necessary - due to the changes that are going to happen in the LCA mark 2 - they will put it anyway.

what is 'first' being heard here means??

There you go with specs again. The Mirage-2000 was and LCA Mk1 could have been frontline aircraft in the 80s and 90s. But not any more. They are dead designs. Just watch the Gripen video and compare.

when your assertions are shot down with data, you say - 'There you go with specs again'. what is supposed to be taken for fact?? your imagination?? or your fiction??

Haha! You are comparing superior airframe design on Gripen with inferior airframe design on LCA. Both have the same engines.

simply saying superior design does not make it superior or does it take you anywhere. the same 'superior design' had 6 crashes!!!

If the Thai, Czech or South Africans were comparing Gripen and LCA(fully ready with similar avionics). They would definitely go for Gripen even if LCA gives higher thrust.

Will repeat, LCA Mk1 is a dead design. It no longer holds any place in modern air warfare. Only 40 aircraft and a grim but sarcastic ACM are proof of that.

They will see early retirement and a decent burial.

It's the ACM who is glum, it's the ACM who is sarcastic on national TV and it is the ACM who says the LCA has a loooong way to go and somehow I am the

prejudiced one. However I would rather be called Prejudiced than Gullible.

your hatred for LCA is getting the better of you. get hold of it first.

In the last 5 posts, I only said "Even Arjun specs are better than LCA." And in the entire page, only you mention T-90 and FMBT.

go check who brought in T-90/FMBT/ARJUN into the discussions and how many times it has been repeated in the posts - in this thread.

PS : if you are only resorting to rhetoric rather than facts - this is my last reply to you.

 

[p2prada]

how is any aircraft including the LCA is responsible for 'not having ODL' when the IAF's IACCS is not even operational?? ODL systems can only be operational post that.

you are clutching at strawmen.

This has nothing to do with what we started off with. Gripen has sensor fusion. LCA does not.

if an aircraft climbs verticlly or IOW perpendicular to the ground(horizontal). what would be the AOA in this case??

That's not AoA. AoA is the constant increase from 0 deg to x deg. Mirage-2000 nor LCA can go vertical from horizontal.

what is the difference between 'sustained' and 'continuous' AOA?? clarify.

Sustained is when an aircraft can achieve high AoA without being unrecoverable, ie, going into an uncontrollable spin. Continuous is what you are talking about, it's just to show off at air shows.

what is there to doubt. LCA is yet to achieve FOC. only post FOC will the values be known because the parameters keep changing due to FCS upgrade till it achieves that.

LCA has achieved 22d AOA and LSP 6 will be flying specifically to validate and improve on that. so wait.

No. And that's problem. LCA has only achieved 17 deg or so. 22 deg was IOC requirements and that failed. Required STR failed too. LCA has not yet achieved 22deg AoA.

check this comparison of RAFALE & EF, their AOAs, turn rates & STRs at sea level. STRs and hence sustained AOA are directly related to mach speed and the G.

All amazing specs. LCA and M-2000 are nothing like that.

are you flight testing LCA mark 1?? what is your datapoint?? quit rhetoric based on your imagination.

LCA has not even achieved basic IOC requirements. ACM is saying that. ADA is saying that too. MOD said that too.

funny. are you saying F-16 will not climb and dive?? these are the basics in any combat for any aircraft depending on the situation!!! same with AOA high or low.

ZZZ. I gave strong points of aircraft. F-16 has STR as its strong point while M-2000 has diving as its strong point.

in comparison to a compound delta design, F 16 will do better in a STR for the factors i have explained previously.

Gripen still does better than F-16.

are you even aware most maneurs happen at low speeds in dogfights??

No. The best aircraft are those that do advanced air combat maneuvers at the highest possible corner speeds.

every aircraft does those. what is special about this?? if a well shot video is your basis for the performance then i have got nothing to say.

Haha. Then what is? The Mirage-2000 video had a better cameraman. Flight performance is judged by watching the air displays or talking to pilots.

dead designs?? oh, did ADA miss out taking you onboard for the design??

Maybe. I was too young to join them.

Delta without LERX or Canards on fighters are dead designs. It is well recognized. Pure Deltas only provide high speed and that is no longer a design criteria in modern air warfare.

and are you the first one to declare it?? are you part of the design team??

I analyze. I know pure deltas are gone. The reason LCA Mk1 does not have Canards is only because ADA did not want to delay the program. They gave the reason as LCA is a small plane and hence does not need it. But, it did not stop Saab from putting Canards on Gripen. Dassault did not stop from putting canards on Mirage-3s as well.

ADA has been studying it 'which is known to all' and 'if' they feel it necessary - due to the changes that are going to happen in the LCA mark 2 - they will put it anyway.

And that's what IAF wants. A 100KN engine with highly refined aerodynamics. The LCA Mk1 is a fail and even ADA knows that.

when your assertions are shot down with data, you say - 'There you go with specs again'. what is supposed to be taken for fact?? your imagination?? or your fiction??

Ok. Let's go about it another way.
You gave specs of only weight for all your underpowered-overpowered "data." Even with all the awesome data you gave me you haven't considered anything in your so called calculations.

Now try calculating wing loading, wing form, air speed, lift coefficient, angle of attack, position of CG while pitching, yawing and rolling, weight, engine weight, engine power, engine displacement, fuel density, fuel coefficient, air density at inlet, air speed at inlet, air temperature at inlet, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature, atmospheric density, engine temperature etc and that will tell you if an aircraft is underpowered or not. Performance requirements, role played etc also come into the picture.

Weight is one of the last criteria. A Jaguar with its old Adour engines are less powered than the LCA. With low wing loading and an underpowered engine, the LCA Mk1 has always been a fail. The Jaguar with it's high wing loading and low power is perfect for its mission in low altitudes.

So, your logic of applying "data" into your argument is a complete FAIL. You don't know anything about aerodynamics or avionics and that has been established many times.

simply saying superior design does not make it superior or does it take you anywhere. the same 'superior design' had 6 crashes!!!

All aircraft crash. Aircraft crash statistics does not prove superiority or not. Even with no crashes in both LCA and JF-17 program it does not mean either is better than Gripen. Gripen is a far superior design to LCA. Period. They have achieved far superior performance parameters even with a slightly lower thrust engine.

your hatred for LCA is getting the better of you. get hold of it first.

Your blinded love for LCA is completely obscene. Lose your nationalistic nonsense and think more realistically if you want to sit and analyze things.

go check who brought in T-90/FMBT/ARJUN into the discussions and how many times it has been repeated in the posts - in this thread.

Funny. I stopped that a long time ago. It's you who are bringing it in to the discussion now. Your next reply to this same point will be in the region of childish for still pursuing the matter.

PS : if you are only resorting to rhetoric rather than facts - this is my last reply to you.

I killed you in all your posts. You just took points from my replies to Gogbot and Rahul to insinuate your super rhetoric. My last reply to your "actual" posts were finished a long time ago.

Take my posts as pointless rhetoric and never reply again. Cheers.

 

[ppgj]

Take my posts as pointless rhetoric and never reply again. Cheers.

that is exactly what i am going to do. cheers.

 

[Anshu Attri]

Five Tejas fighters to light up Aero India


http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/5-tejas-to-light-up-aero-india.html

India's home-built Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is poised to grab a large share of the limelight at the five-day Aero India 2011 air show in Bangalore on 9th Feb. For the first time ever, a formation of five Tejas fighters will roar past the spectators during the inaugural fly-past. And, jostling with the world's premier fighters, two Tejas prototypes will perform aerobatics displays that the pilots describe as, "well beyond anything that we have ever displayed before".

Besides the seven Tejas in the skies, a fully built fighter will also be displayed on the ground. This will be the latest Tejas, built to the specifications that won it last month a landmark Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for entering service with the Indian Air Force.

The growing momentum of the Tejas programme --- masked by the hype around India's US $10 billion procurement of 126 medium fighters from the global market --- is evident at the production line that is nearing completion in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore. This week, Business Standard was the first media house to visit the four massive hangars in which HAL will assemble the 40 Tejas fighters that the IAF has already ordered and the trainers that the Indian Navy could soon ask for. A subsequent order of the improved Tejas Mark 2, expected to number more than a hundred fighters, will also be built here.

After years of seemingly endless development delays, the speed at which the Tejas is now coming on stream has apparently wrong-footed the IAF. The Sulur Air Base, near Coimbatore, the planned location of the first operational Tejas squadron, will only be ready by 2013. Consequently, HAL and the Aeronautical Development Agency, the agency that oversees the Tejas programme, have agreed to house the first IAF squadron in Bangalore, allowing the IAF the use of a runway and one of the four new hangars.

"It will be good for all of us if the first IAF Tejas squadron operates from [Bangalore]", says PS Subramanyam, the chief of ADA. "We are here to deal with teething problems. By the time the IAF moves to Sulur, the IAF technicians will have gained the experience to maintain the Tejas, with some hand-holding from us."

HAL, which has spent the last two decades building 15 Tejas developmental prototypes, is now making the crucial transition to commercial production. Even as it builds the last two developmental aircraft, which will be given to the IAF for user evaluation, the first production fighter is already taking shape in HAL's older facilities. Over the next year and a half, the entire manufacture will shift to the new production line.

"By March 2012, the first four fighters from the Tejas production line will be handed over to the IAF", promises Ashok Nayak, Chairman and Managing Director of HAL. "And from then onwards we will step up production to 8 fighters per year."

This involves a radical change in the way that HAL builds aircraft. Benji Mammen, HAL's manager for the Tejas production line, explains that each developmental Tejas incorporated multiple improvements, which meant that each aircraft was significantly different from its predecessor. Now, having obtained operational clearance, HAL would build a standardised fighter, using automated assembly line processes that would speed up the process, as well as improve precision and build quality.

"Take the LCA wing, which is attached to a metal framework with rivets and bolts", explains Mammen. "So far we marked and drilled by hand the 3000-odd holes which are used to attach the wing. Now we will automate the whole process, perhaps through the use of robots."

With ADA having spent a little over Rs 6000 crores so far in developing the Tejas, it is expected that the Indian fighter will cost about Rs 180-200 crores apiece, with the naval version of the Tejas costing about Rs 10 crores more. Amortising the development cost over a production run of 200 fighters would raise the price by another Rs 30 crores apiece.

Says ADA chief, Subramanyam: "The Tejas could be 10-15% cheaper if a bulk order was placed by the services. This would be significantly cheaper than the Swedish Gripen fighter. And considering that this amount has also paid for an aeronautical development eco-system across the country --- design establishments, human resources, testing infrastructure, upgrading of facilities, etc --- it is money well spent."

 

[ace009]

I have this distinct feeling followint the LCA debate between p2prada and ppgj / gogbot that p2prada wants to climb the technology tree of fighter plane development (LCA) without involving IAF in the mix. Once that is done, IAF can come in. But being in technology development (civilian) myself, I can tell you, no technology is good enough for the customer, unless they are involved DIRECTLY in the development process. That is why apple launched their Iphone and used the consumers usage pattern to make it better in next generations (just a quick example). Conversely, microsoft waited for years to develop a touchscreen based phone O/S and did not involve the consumers with a early release - hence their system still sucks after 6 yrs of their opponents market dominance. I.E. it is better if the IAF flies the LCA mk1 and complains a lot the whole time than them NOT having a direct stake in the LCA for another 5-6 yrs, till the mk2 comes out.

I have already explained that part in the previous post to gogbot. It does not have Gripen like sensor fusion though.

All development flight tests. The 70deg nose up = AoA. There is nothing else you can imply from it. If the nose pitches up from horizontal to its max possible angle without completely being unrecoverable is the sustained AoA.

Again. I am only taking "sustained" AoAs. You are talking about continuous AoA's

Do you have STR values of LCA. I doubt it. So, all we have are AoA to go about it.

Also the article is only comparing old aircraft. The Euro Canards are at a different plane of thought when it comes to AoA and other criterias.

I did not post that to show off climb rates. Only AoA.

This was a sustained AoA. The bleeding of energy is a completely different point.

You are detracting from the point I made in the first place. LCA Mk1 cannot even do half of what other aircraft can do.

Aircraft like F-16 don't need High Alpha AoA in a dog fight. But aircraft like LCA which relies on climbing and diving need high AoA with high TWR.

F-16 relies on STR.

F-15, Mig-29 Su-30, LCA Mk1, Mirage-2000, EF-2000, Rafale and other non TVC aircraft rely on diving and climbing manuevers.

Gripen relies on STR as well as diving and climbing. They have both advantages simply because it's a 21st century plane. The LCA, even after being a later design than Gripen cannot even do half the things Gripen does.

All low speed maneuvers.

Check this video and compare with what you posted. All high speed maneuvers with better performance.


Somehow I am the prejudiced one.

That's why Mirage-2000 and LCA Mk1 are dead designs. Without LERX or Canards, they are just obsolete designs.

LCA Mk2 model is being shown in Aero India 2011. You will hear it first here before any journo gets his hands on the first pic,

The LCA Mk2 Will have LERX.

There you go with specs again. The Mirage-2000 was and LCA Mk1 could have been frontline aircraft in the 80s and 90s. But not any more. They are dead designs. Just watch the Gripen video and compare.

Haha! You are comparing superior airframe design on Gripen with inferior airframe design on LCA. Both have the same engines.

If the Thai, Czech or South Africans were comparing Gripen and LCA(fully ready with similar avionics). They would definitely go for Gripen even if LCA gives higher thrust.

Will repeat, LCA Mk1 is a dead design. It no longer holds any place in modern air warfare. Only 40 aircraft and a grim but sarcastic ACM are proof of that. They will see early retirement and a decent burial.

It's the ACM who is glum, it's the ACM who is sarcastic on national TV and it is the ACM who says the LCA has a loooong way to go and somehow I am the prejudiced one. However I would rather be called Prejudiced than Gullible.