ersakthivel;[563779 said:
FACT-Lca has already crossed mach 1.2 in sea level trials in GOA.No other Indian fighter built here has done that till todate including the license produced MIGs.At a higher altitude it translates to more thaan mach 1.8. This too with the so called under powered engine. if it gets higher power engine it can even fly faster.people reeling off top speed figures for GRIPPEN should specify whether it can fly faster than LCA in Indian heat condiotions.
No, I doubt Gripen C can fly faster than LCA at low altitudes. The engine on LCA is newer in design than the vanilla F-404/RM-12. The RM-12 currently gives 800Kg less thrust than the India specific F-404.
Btw, a particular speed at low altitude does not translate to a particular speed at higher altitude without having it physically tested. The F-35 matches F-22 in subsonic speeds at low altitudes. Subsonic speed at high altitudes, impossible.
If somehting like this happensto LCA i dont know how vehement the critics will be.
Trust me. I have said this before. I won't be one of those critics. Anyway, this thing about critics is just an excuse. Even if IAF criticizes, do you think the program will be canceled? The program has far too much at stake than simply building a Mig-21 replacement for IAF.
Funnily, the IAF Mig-21s will be replaced by MKIs instead of LCA, which was the original plan. The Mk2s first flight is said to be in 2014, IOC in 2016 and FOC in 2018. So, Mig-21s will already be phased out by then without seeing a proper LCA replacement.
Rather LCA mk1s will be flying in Sulur, at least 2000 to 3000Km away from the border. It will be the original spec Mk2s which will see border positions.
Anyone who can look at the pictures of old vixens by SAAB can see for themselves that its experience in the bygone era doesnt count much in the commposite, fly by wire era where LCA and GRIPPEN belongs.
I said the same. The infrastructure and experience built in previous programs for Saab won't automatically mean better chances for Gripen. It is their first proper 4th gen design, equivalent to ours.
The J-10 mind you is just an F-16 with a canard and Russian engine. just note that during high altitude trials at LEH F-16(latest version) and F-18 couldnot take off with full load.
It does not apply. The F-18E/F and F-16E/F are much heavier than J-10A. The problem was identified more due to fuel lines design rather than aerodynamics or thrust deficiencies. It had nothing to do with T/W ratio. If that was the case then Rafale with lesser T/W than the new F-16 with a 14.5 ton engine would have been much worser.
so keep in mind that while GRIPPENS and F-16s are not made for india's varied conditions,but LCA is.many blogs also mention that J-10 cannot take off with full loads and give hundred percent in high himalayan conditions. The slow speed of LCA now will be a thing of history when high powered engine is put into it.It is not due to faulty aerodynamics as people say here.
LCA's payload decreases by 500Kg when taking off from Brangalore's air strip. From Leh it will be significantly lower even though the transient temperature is lower than Bangalore. So, LCA won't take off at full loads from Leh either. This will apply to aircraft like FGFA and MKI too.
the canards are just extra control surfaces they are not meant for higher speeds.the lca has more wing area so it can generate a higher lift and it will assist in gripping the air in tighter manouvers.
Hmm, if you are explaining to the readers on how Canards work, then it is fine. But if you claim I said it, then it is wrong. Canards do not increase speed, it increases lift. For Gripen it would mean extra lift at low altitudes and extra turning capability, an advantage even MKI has.
LCA isn't meant for dog fights, it will have poor low speeds at low altitudes. It can manage dog fights at high altitudes, maybe even better than Gripen or MKI. At least the Mk2 will.
Fact-Full scale funding started only in 1990s .And the design is proven in wind tunnels .The cranked delta with root twist won over pure delta canards in wind tunnel testing during the LCA design time. its drag would have been studied throughly by that time .drag doesn't jump from heaven during flight trials.if more drag is there it should have been accepted for its assistance in higher instatataneous turn manouvers to defeat missiles, and for superior
high altitude performance where more wing area is needed to grip the air.
The LCA's problem comes from it's higher weight and lower thrust. That's why the Mk2 was mooted.
Due to it's small size and original light weight specs, the canards were not needed. However, LCA will be 14.5m long now while being 7 tons. So, small size(13.5m and 5.5 tons) is no longer an excuse. Still, LCA's specs do not ask for Gripen like performance with AoA at 40[SUP]o[/SUP]. So, Gripen needed Canards. LCA does not match Gripen's low speed characteristics due to design either.
SAF asked for good low speed performance and excellent high speed performance. IAF asked for even higher high speed performance. So, the requirements were different where Gripen is like MKI in design while LCA is like Su-35. Top speed above mach 2 depends on other factors too like design of the inlet. While the Mig-21 does Mach 2.2 compared to LCA's planned Mach 1.8 the high speed performance of the LCA will still exceed Mig-21 even though T/W of Mig-21 is lower compared to final spec LCA.
Fact- in a network centic era of tommorrow an LCA with long range modern missiles will defenitely defeat j-10 and j-20. The J-20's stealth will be picked up modern day UCAVs with their IRST and relayrd ot LCA.So dont worry much about stealth.
Fact is NCW is overrated to the point where people believe the AWACS will handle everything. The problem here is we don't have enough AWACS. Even if we did, superiority against enemy fighters isn't guaranteed because of terrain, physics and fighter capability. Secondly, the J-20 would be at "God" level against 4th gen aircraft, no matter how good, including Super MKI and Rafale.
Without PAKFA, J-20 would eat us alive regardless of how many AWACS and 4th gen fighters we have. Meaning every single J-20 mission would mean a kill is guaranteed. Rather if IAF flies, it dies. PAKFA evens the odds as it can fly without being detected too.
Against J-10, LCA's capability would be equivalent and will be based on how good the pilots and missiles are rather than the machines.
Let's not forget the Chinese stuff will be on par with us by the end of the decade, if not better. I am not one of those people who believes the Chinese are blatant copycats. They have a lot of their own designs which can even surpass the best American and Russian designs given enough time. At least they are spending more than the Russians or French are.
4.LCA can only fight against lumbering strike aircraft and not against modern day fighters.
same as above steaalth will be compromised by engine emissions and modern heat seeking missiles seek hte surface heat of fighters which cant be hidden
Wrong take on what I said. My point was LCA was built as a point defence fighter meant to handle incoming enemy strike packages. Have you seen the movie Red Tails? Watch it. You will get the point I was making. The enemy interceptors would force the incoming fighter escorts to fight them while leaving the bomber squadrons undefended.
Now, if LCA is tasked to defend the airspace. The incoming enemy has a strike package with escort. What is LCA's priority? Get into dog fights with the escorts or take on the strike package? If LCA fights the escorts, the strike package will deliver their loads and high tail it out of there with the escorts right behind them, leaving the LCA pilots scratching their heads. If the strike package is engaged instead, the escorts can't do a lot while we may face a bit higher attrition. So, you need to understand the operational role of the jet rather than get into some meaningless Bollywood fist fight.
5.LCA 's angle of atack can neer cross 22 degrees because of poor dessign.
it's becaause of low powered engine.Once high poweed engines come into mark-2 It would be taken care of.This problem originated in the sudden extra payload requirement of IAF,not the fault of ADA.First it wa designed for MIG_21 loads.Then he requirement changed for higer loads.
Yeah right. Blame IAF again. ADA's design called for an empty weight of 5.5 tons, not 6.5 tons. This reduced actual payload of 4.5 tons to 3.5 tons. Funny how IAF is to be blamed. Currently the new payload value of 5 tons only reflects IAF's requirement for a 1m longer fuselage for new generation avionics and is only 0.5 tons higher than originally envisioned. Had LCA been delivered in the 2001-04 timeframe with Mk1 specs of 3.5 tons and Kaveri the IAF would have bought it. You don't ask IAF to buy the LCA in 2013-14, a decade later with the same specs. Please learn the changes that are required with the changes that have happened today and not what was promised a decade ago.
The F-404 on a 5.5 ton LCA would have fit the operational requirements. The increase to 6.5 tons spoiled a lot of other design parameters in the process. You can't blame weight gain on IAF. The IAF does not decide all the dimensions and weights, that is ADA's job. IAF only specifies things like I want my aircraft to have a T/W of greater than 1 while carrying 4 AAMs and full fuel load with an endurance of 2-3 hours. They don't say things like it should have this weight, this height, this much thrust etc.
Earlier ADA wanted a 5.5 tons design with a payload of 4.5 tons and a thrust of 8-8.5 tons. IAF has now agreed to a new spec of 7 tons, payload of 5 tons and thrust of 9.5 tons. So, IAF has actually decreased requirement a bit. Not IAF's fault.
LCA uses far more composites than Gripen (50% more in weight) and still has an empty weight that equals the Mk1. So, the LCA's design is so bad that had they used metal, the increase of 17% in weight would have pushed it past Gripen C which reached IOC at the same time as TD-2 was made. Now do you understand a bit on why Gripen is a better design?
The power needs of EW suit will be calculated and factored in mark-2 The mark-1s can fly along with dedicated EW aircrafts.they dont need to be thrown in dustbin.The SNECMA -GTRE K-10 kavery can overcome all thee shortfalls of mark-1s inmidlife upgrades.
Yes. The Mk2 would handle it. I said the same. So, why all the hate mate?
My point was Mk1 cannot handle the new requirements for EW and will not carry an internal EW suite at the same level as the Mk2. That's all. Nowhere did I say we need to throw the Mk1s in the dustbin because of lack of EW capability.
The Kaveri may not be fitted on to either of the LCAs during MLUs. That's because we don't know the specs of the new Kaveri. Heck even GTRE does not know that. Their primary job is to build a new powerplant for AMCA and not for LCA's MLUs. The Mk2 has been extensively redesigned to handle F-414s. Maybe the new Kaveri will be used only on Mk2s and not Mk1s. But it is too early to speculate, so even you shouldn't say things like the new engines will take care of Mk1s problems with that much certainty.
