ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Bhadra]

DD this means that latest weapons trial were successful and IAF pilots who have flying LCA have loved it.

Subjective interpretation, the report says nothing like that !!

 

[p2prada]

I dont understand why you use different arguments when evaluating different aircraft meant to achieve similar objectives.

In that sense, you can't compare a 4th gen point defence and air superiority fighter against what is in effect a 5th gen attack aircraft. You need to compare F-35 with an aircraft like Jaguar or Su-34.

Anyway, for the sake of the discussion I will give my points too.

The F 35 is designed for 55 degree angle of attack but has so far flight tested successfully on a 16 degree angle of attack at sub Mach speeds.

I do not yet know the actual data, but I will believe you on this. While the F-35's design specs are poor compared to LCA. The F-35 has reached 16 deg while only a few days short of it's originally planned IOC of 2012. Comparatively LCA reached 16deg sometime in 2008, nearly 10 years after it's planned IOC date of 1999. Difference?

You also point out thrust to weight. Again the F 35 falls short. The LCA's TW ratio exceeds the F 35 with or without afterburners. With the 414, it will far exceed F 35 specs.

No it doesn't. T/W for a light fighter and medium-heavy fighter F-35 is different due to it's enormous fuel capability. If you want to give F-35s an LCA like capability of carrying 4 AAMs for 2 hours the F-35s T/W will far exceed LCA's.

I dont even want to get into wing loading as the LCA is twice as capable as the F 35.

Like I said, LCA is designed for high altitudes while F-35 is designed for low altitudes. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

For low altitudes wing loading should be very high. The opposite is true for high altitudes. In that effect LCA's comparison should actually be with the EF-2000 or the F-22.

And for an aircraft that weighs twice as much, it only manages 55% more payload. Combat radius is almost the same for both planes.

Then MKI manages only 8 tons. but can you count the number of hardpoints on both? F-35 has 10 hardpoints, MKI has 12 and LCA has a paltry 6 usable hardpoints out of which 2 are for drop tanks.

That brings us to the 'differentiators' - EW package, Stealth and BVR.

Assuming Mk-2 addresses EW and development and procurement addresses BVR, what really is the big advantage? Stealth? The RCS of the F35 is nothing to write home about and the LCA being half its size and with the percentage of composites used, I would not give as many point to the F 35's stealth.

F-35s stealth will make LCA look like a Gargantuan Godzilla. The same for Rafale/EF against F-35. F-35 is as stealthy as a bee in mathematical form. LCA Mk2 is as good as a truck regardless of the composites.

The F-35 is expected to be 8 times superior to the MKI in BVR combat while delivering a higher electrical power output using it's massive dual 75KVa power generators for EW where the electronics will use much lesser power consumed compared to MKI's old generation electronics. Think about it.

 

[p2prada]

So if LCA makes a high altitiude dash at an incomming fgihter backed by awacs and long range missiles ,all advantages held out by opposing fighter will be negated whether it is sukhoi or j-10 or rafale. Because they cannot jam an awacs and however hard they try they cannot evade long range future missiles.Even if they evade they have to drop all payload to survive.So practically without payload its mission is all but over.

You have this strange misconception that aircraft like MKI or Rafale cannot beat AWACS or that the they cannot evade missiles all the time.

The logic is very simple. If the MKI knows it is being targeted, it can take precautions against being targeted. It's higher EW capability allows it greater protection at higher ranges against AWACS. Secondly, the MKI can detect both the AWACS and the LCA at the same time as it itself is detected allowing the MKI to be able to target either LCA or the AWACS as it has the range to be able to chase AWACS. Thirdly, the enemy will have AWACS too, so this advantage belongs to the enemy too. So, in that sense AWACS is no longer an advantage.

So, what do you want in your force? An AWACS is common to both forces. So, the only deciding factor are the missiles and the platform firing it. Let's assume even the missiles are of the same capability. So, now the deciding factor is the platform. Now, which is the better platform, LCA or J-11. Of course the J-11. So, the advantage is where? China.

Why said advantage is with China? It is because no matter what the LCA carries, the J-11 can carry more of the same while already equipped with an EW kit superior to the LCA and at the same time it has greater endurance to use said advantages. As a matter of fact, the J-11 can target 4 LCAs at once using 8 missiles while the LCA can target only one MKI at a time with it's two BVR missiles.

Now increase the J-11 numbers in proportion to the number of LCAs? Guess who has the advantage? J-11s again. This is because the J-11 already carries enough missiles and allows only a few J-11s to take Point position while the other J-11s with equivalent number of missiles can outflank the LCAs and engage them from the sides or the rear where the pilot has poor visibility.

More importantly, heavy fighters like the J-11s can handle more punishment than a small fighter like LCA. So, while missile capability is similar the J-11 is better "armoured" and better capable in taking 20Kg explosives exploding within range as compared to LCA. Also, if the J-11 has one wing torn or engine busted, it can still make it bake to base, thereby increasing it's survivability a lot more.

So how can LCA is obsolete,while fighter like J-10 and grippen which flew even before LCA is designed become cuttuing edge .i am an engineer by profession and I want logical answers for logical questions.Not rants

According to both PLAAF and SAF, J-10 and Gripen are already obsolete and hence are looking at new designs for the future. The J-10B is more of a stop gap for PLAAF and allows for exports before they develop J-20 and J-xx while SAF is looking at Gripen NG because they cannot afford a 5th gen Gripen on their own funds. There is a chance Saab may join up with Turkey to develop a new 5th gen fighter and keep NG for immediate export or stop gap measures.

In that respect LCA is obsolete as well, even the Mk2. The only reason it will be inducted is because it is "Our Own Fighter." In other words there is no capability boost like FGFA/F-22/J-20. We are inducting LCA because we have to in order to keep squadrons shortfall.

So, I hope these answers are logical enough.

 

[drkrn]

I am a long time follower of this thread.Let me say that the level of debate carried out here by p2 Prada, so vehemently debunking the LCA does not seems to be based on complete facts.He seems to have such a high respect for GRIPPEN . But when it comes to TEJAS he is so dismisssive.
His arguments are broadly on the following lines.

1.Lca will never cross mach 1.6 due to poor airfrmae design because of drag.But grippen's superior design enables it to fly faster.

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.
Because the engine performance substantially degenerates due to hot atmosphere.so its cold air top speeds cannot be retained in india.

Also LCA uses significantly higher proportions of composite than GRIPPEN.it has a much ligter empty weight.then how could grippen outfly it in INDIAn condition? People should never forget the GRIPPEN is also SAAB's first attempt at aerodynamically unstable aircraft. And two prototypes of GRIPPENs crashed durin landings,and one test pilot took premature retirement.so much for the much vaunted SAAB's control laws. Upto 6 or more J-10s have also crashed due to bad fly by wire designs. Even a very senior airforce general died in one of those crashes. If somehting like this happensto LCA i dont know how vehement the critics will be.

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.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. 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.

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.

2.LCA project has been dragging on for very long time and eneded in producing a bad design.

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.
3.LCA cannot take on J_10 and J-20.

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.

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


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.

6.LCA's EW suit will never get enough power from a single engine.

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.

so according to your point in 3. a jf-17 too has fair chances of taking down an pakfa/f-22.
the ucav's still are under development phase only and even the present designs are not for aewac or air missions

point 5. & 6. seems 100% logical and am sure problems will be overcome in mark-2


the acceptance of an LCA-TEJAS by IAF into vayushakthi even when its under testing itself clears doubts about its performance.a moment to be appreciated. i hope this test is mainly to test its synchronization with other systems rather than performace
i am sure lca will pass out in flying colors:thumb:

 

[Apollyon]

p2p you said Su-30, LCA and Rafale (i just assumed) dont stand a chance and only PAK-FA can compete against J-20 (induction time 2020 ?) and i hope same will be true for J-10, J-11 against PAK-FA .
So why the fuk are we spending $20 Billion and $5 Billion on buying Rafale and upgrading MKI respectively, to match PAF's JF-17, F-16 MLU'd (newest one is 25 year old) and 18 F-16 B-52 ?

dafuq ?

 

[pankaj nema]

No matter what happens WE cannot go back to the old situation
ie pre LCA days where all we did was to assemble planes for 50 years

We need a domestic capability in all important weapon systems

No matter Whatever be the limitations of LCA mk 1 we have to go through the
entire process of testing and inducting at least two squadrons so that we are able to have the
necessary experience for LCA mk2

We are having Mig 21s and Mig 27s both of which are obsolete

LCA mk1 is better than both Mig 21 and Mig 27

The Future IAF will have Mig 29 upgraded ; Mirage 2000 upgraded ;
Su30 and Super Su 30 ; Rafale and PAK FA

The LCA does look to be out of place amongst all these big boys
BUT we have to carry on

 

[pankaj nema]

@ P2Prada

You are SO MUCH in awe of J 20

That alone shows your PERPETUAL BIAS against LCA
and infact anything DRDO does or makes

The Arjun thread is proof of it

And you have said that it will eat up Super Su 30 Mki and Rafale
That is just total BS

J 20 will be NOTHING till 2020 atleast . There is so much to be done on it

You have totally ignored that there are many articles and analyses available on J20's
so called capabilities and weaknesses

Just read this Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trackwhack]

@p2p

Sorry, but a point defence aircraft does not need fuel pods and guided bombs. The LCA is as much a ground attack and strike fighter as the F 35 is. only much smaller. The reason I pulled up the F 35 is to point out that you conveniently use the same parameters to diss one aircraft while defending another.

1) Regarding Angle of Attack : The Boeing X 32 and the Lockheed X 35 - the airframes that eventually led to the F 35, started design work in 1990. Achieving an angle of attack of 16 degrees at Mach .7 after 20 years with a design is nothing to write home about. It is equally pathetic to the LCA achieving its designed Angle of attack 30 years after initial design. Further, the F 35 is yet to demonstrate anywhere close to its 'designed' AoA of 55 degrees. You are complaining that the LCA cannot reach its design specification of 24?

2) TW ratio :

At max take off load for both planes - LCA TW is .909 lb/kg against the F 35 which is .88. With no external fuel and max payload.

Now assuming that payload is equal - 3.5 tonnes each. So LCA is still at MTOW while F 35 is not. TW without Afterburners for LCA is .909 and F 35 increases to .91. Equal. With afterburners LCA TW would be 1.436 versus F35 at 1.442. Bang on equal.

The rate of fuel loss as a percentage would not be different. The laws of physics apply to both aircraft. At half fuel load with the same 3.5 tonne payload the LCA without after burners has a TW of 1.01 against the F 35 which would have 1.06 and with afterburners, the LCA still beats the F 35 with 1.77 against 1.63.

So I dont know what you are talking about when you say TW will get better with reduced fuel. Of course it will but it applies to both aircraft

3) Wingloading : You dont fight WVR battles at sea level. If the assumption is that the F 35 will never need to be in a dogfight, there is no argument here. so ok apples to oranges.

4) Hardpoints : Sorry the LCA has 8 hardpoints of which two are for fuel. And without the F 35 drop tanks, it has a combat radius of 500 nmi. So much for a 5th gen air superiority fighter


5) Stealth : Yes, unless DRDO addresses this, there is no comparison. But you can be the size of a pinhead and the Phalcon will point you out before the F 35 BVR are within range of striking. So it will come down to who is developing the best and longest range BVR systems.

 

[pankaj nema]

China's BEST planes are Su 30 mkk and SU 27

J 11 is a copy of SU27 with a better radar than that originally on Su 27

J 10 is a single engined plane similar to LCA

The only advantage of J 10 is that it has a more powerful engine Al 31 that is all

But a SINGLE engined LCA with GE 414 is much more reliable than a single engine J 10

There is absolutely NO way that J 10 and J 11 can better than
IAF's SU 30mki ; Rafale ; Mig 29 UPG and Mirage 2000 UPG

 

[sayareakd]

There is absolutely NO way that J 10 and J 11 can better than
IAF's SU 30mki ; Rafale ; Mig 29 UPG and Mirage 2000 UPG

Greenland guys would say that their Junk fighter would take on MKI and J10/11 etc would take on F55 when ever they will build it.

I guess we cant take the pleasure of what they want to think and assume

 

[pankaj nema]

The way Pakistanis were DESPERATE for French avionics for JF 17
shows the REALITY of Chinese avionics

On the enemy forum there are a few sane people who say that
F16 BLOCK 52 is ANY DAY better than J 10

So much for the Chinese advances in technology

They are just buying AL 31 for ALL their planes ie J 10 ; J 11 and even the MIGHTY J 20

J20's EXTERNAL shape is quite attractive but what really matters is what lies INSIDE a plane

 

[sayareakd]

@PN do you think Chines would trust their JXX with Pakistani, since they know that any pakistani pilot on payroll with Uncle will take the entire plane and landed up with US.

 

[Daredevil]

Guys

Please stick to LCA. If you want to compare, compare it with LCA, don't bring in other comparisons.

 

[p2prada]

p2p you said Su-30, LCA and Rafale (i just assumed) dont stand a chance and only PAK-FA can compete against J-20 (induction time 2020 ?) and i hope same will be true for J-10, J-11 against PAK-FA .
So why the fuk are we spending $20 Billion and $5 Billion on buying Rafale and upgrading MKI respectively, to match PAF's JF-17, F-16 MLU'd (newest one is 25 year old) and 18 F-16 B-52 ?

dafuq ?

Yes. The same advantage for PAKFA.

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.

When i said the above, what I meant is even PAKFA can generate a kill with every sortie just like the J-20. When I said if IAF flies, it dies, I was talking about 4th gen against 5th gen, against the IAF without PAKFA.

Rafales are there in order to hit what's on the ground. Btw, Rafales will give us a few years of advantage while J-20 and J-xx mature. Same for FGFA which will be inducted in 2022. MKIs will be upgraded as all old aircraft are upgraded, irrespective of being technologically inferior. Meaning IAF will have a certain mix of proven but old systems, unproven brand new systems and relatively modern systems which are recently proven.

We need to worry about China too. Also, IAF and IA are not adversary specific. Rather they are building capability against any foe and US/UK can be included.

Since F-22 numbers are limited, USAF had decided that they are forced to incorporate F-15s in their battle plans for the future. So, while the F-15s act as mini AWACS and BVR trucks, the F-22s form the spearhead. Earlier there was no such plan as they expected at least 400 F-22s.

 

[p2prada]

Guys

Please stick to LCA. If you want to compare, compare it with LCA, don't bring in other comparisons.

DD, can you move Trackwhacks posts and my replies to him to the F-35 thread. We can continue our discussion there instead.

 

[Daredevil]

DD, can you move Trackwhacks posts and my replies to him to the F-35 thread. We can continue our discussion there instead.

Please continue here as it still pertains to LCA. I directed my message to those who are comparing MKI, Rafale, Mirages etc to Chinese planes.

 

[p2prada]

No matter what happens WE cannot go back to the old situation
ie pre LCA days where all we did was to assemble planes for 50 years

We aren't.

LCA mk1 is better than both Mig 21 and Mig 27

Not yet. Say 2013-14(FOC).

@ P2Prada

You are SO MUCH in awe of J 20

You are such a kid of course. Everybody is enthralled by J-20.

That alone shows your PERPETUAL BIAS against LCA

Praising F-35, J-20 etc are not the reasons for my criticism of LCA. To get a hint read the replies I gave to ersakthivel. There is no hint of J-20 there.

and infact anything DRDO does or makes

Can you please read this post:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-217.html#post563232

Now can you please tell me where have I criticized DRDO there even though Nag failed trials?

This post too;
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...neration-fighter-aircraft-146.html#post562988
I will quote the relevant passage.

We failed at Trishul, so we did not simply copy paste the Barak 1 on it, rather we signed a JV with Israel to make a significantly superior Barak 8 and even IAF will have its version of the Barak 8 as a LRSAM. The same with FGFA. We cannot make such a fighter at home, so a JV was initiated. But at the same time, we don't need this kind of assistance in tanks. We can simply conclude Arjun with a satisfactory result like Mk2 and follow it up with FMBT. The same thing happened with Agni, where the thin and long design of Agni II was overshadowed by the short and stubby design on the Agni III. Now the Agni V gives 3 times greater range while being 4m shorter than Agni II. ToT won't get such results.

Focus on the ones in bold. Where is the criticism on DRDO.

Instead of jumping to conclusions on your own let it be remembered that I will not criticize something without any real reason. If you have problems how about actually posting arguments against my points instead of posting BS like I am perpetually biased.

The reason is simple, all you want is some one praising Indian jets and criticizing foreign jets. If you really want that go join some kiddie barbie dolls forum where all the little girls like you can coexist.

Btw we have Defence Professionals like Ray and Lemontree who have criticized DRDO. We also have Sob who worked at DRDO for 8 years. How about asking for their opinions on DRDO. Ray sir was a Brigadier in the IA before retirement, so yeah, he will be privy to more than you do.

In one of our discussions when I actually supported DRDO and said they will one day make stuff that the forces will actually like. Ray sir shot back saying, "Not in my lifetime."

So, how about learning from people who actually know these things instead of living in a bubble?

And you have said that it will eat up Super Su 30 Mki and Rafale
That is just total BS

J 20 will be NOTHING till 2020 atleast . There is so much to be done on it

Is that your expert opinion? MKI has a 20% capability superiority over F-16. F-22 is claimed to have a 1500% capability superiority over F-16. F-35 claims 800% superiority over F-16. Both Sukhoi and Chengdu have claimed significantly superior capability against legacy aircraft like F-16. Now do your math.

EF pilots did not complain when they got their a**es handed against F-22s in BVR. It was a given.

You have totally ignored that there are many articles and analyses available on J20's
so called capabilities and weaknesses

Well, I don't believe those because those well informed people assumed things too quickly. While nobody expects the J-20 to be superior to the F-22 or maybe even the F-35, overwhelming superiority over Su-35, Rafale, EF-2000 and F-15 is expected.

Just read this Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kids give wiki links. It is kids like you who edit these wiki links. No, I don't check wiki for anything beyond specifications at the bottom.

Instead keep an eye on such links for future updates.
J-20 (Jianjiji-20 Fighter aircraft 20) / F-20

Top attack aircraft – T-50 to J20 - Airforce Technology

 

[p2prada]

@p2p

Sorry, but a point defence aircraft does not need fuel pods and guided bombs.

Guided bombs, no. Drop tanks, yes. Small aircraft have bad range. So, the need is there. Even Rafales will fly with drop tanks for CAP. They can be ejected when the need arises, so it is no problem.

The LCA is as much a ground attack and strike fighter as the F 35 is. only much smaller. The reason I pulled up the F 35 is to point out that you conveniently use the same parameters to diss one aircraft while defending another.

Like which one? As long as the roles are the same, then there is reason in comparing the two. If the roles are different like F-35 and LCA then there is no point.

Anyway, no LCA is nowhere as capable as the F-35. LCA won't be better than Jaguar in aerodynamics and flight profile either.

1) Regarding Angle of Attack : The Boeing X 32 and the Lockheed X 35 - the airframes that eventually led to the F 35, started design work in 1990. Achieving an angle of attack of 16 degrees at Mach .7 after 20 years with a design is nothing to write home about. It is equally pathetic to the LCA achieving its designed Angle of attack 30 years after initial design. Further, the F 35 is yet to demonstrate anywhere close to its 'designed' AoA of 55 degrees. You are complaining that the LCA cannot reach its design specification of 24?

F-35 has received it's fair share of criticism including firing of project directors.

LCA cannot reach it's design specification on the Mk1 and this was officially revealed by ADA during the farce IOC-I function for LCA Mk1. All design specs are to be achieved on the Mk2, hopefully. This is again officially mentioned by ADA and the Air Chief.

2) TW ratio :

At max take off load for both planes - LCA TW is .909 lb/kg against the F 35 which is .88. With no external fuel and max payload.

Now assuming that payload is equal - 3.5 tonnes each. So LCA is still at MTOW while F 35 is not. TW without Afterburners for LCA is .909 and F 35 increases to .91. Equal. With afterburners LCA TW would be 1.436 versus F35 at 1.442. Bang on equal.

The rate of fuel loss as a percentage would not be different. The laws of physics apply to both aircraft. At half fuel load with the same 3.5 tonne payload the LCA without after burners has a TW of 1.01 against the F 35 which would have 1.06 and with afterburners, the LCA still beats the F 35 with 1.77 against 1.63.

That's nice. Now that you got the math done. Add drag to it. The F-35's will never fly with external load, at least for a few years after IOC, according to USAF. So, while F-35 carries weapons internally, LCA will be forced to carry it externally. Bring drag in and there is significant loss in performance for any aircraft carrying it's weapons outside. As it stands today, the F-35 carrying 4 AAMs can beat a F-16 block 52 carrying a similar number of AAMs irrespective of the fact that the F-16 has a higher T/W at the time.

Also, fuel consumption on the F-35 is lesser than the F-414. So, while laws of physics applies, the aircraft physics is different for both aircraft. If you bring the LCA at a low altitude, where the F-35 fights, the LCA will be so terrible that even the F-16 would fly circles around the LCA.

So I dont know what you are talking about when you say TW will get better with reduced fuel. Of course it will but it applies to both aircraft

Heavy aircraft can adjust fuel loads in mission specific profiles. The mission profiles for MKI is also defined at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% fuel. The same does not exist for LCA type aircraft. Also, due to larger fuel consumption, the MKI/F-35 type aircraft gain a more rapid increase in T/W during dog fights.

That's why French Mirage-2000 pilots say the advantage should be seized in the first minute of the dog fight against MKI. Or else the superior T/W on heavy fighters and longer fuel endurance will eat them up if the fight prolongs. The same laws applies to LCA too.

3) Wingloading : You dont fight WVR battles at sea level. If the assumption is that the F 35 will never need to be in a dogfight, there is no argument here. so ok apples to oranges.

Wrong. Dog fights are done where the better pilots wants it to be done. If the LCA has the better pilot the dog fight will happen at a higher altitude or viceversa. Most dog fights happen at lower altitudes, most of the time.

4) Hardpoints : Sorry the LCA has 8 hardpoints of which two are for fuel. And without the F 35 drop tanks, it has a combat radius of 500 nmi. So much for a 5th gen air superiority fighter

There are 8 hardpoints. The one under the intake carries pods, no missiles. The centerline does not carry missiles either. So, there are 3 hardpoints for fuel and 4 hardpoints for missiles. Addition of missiles using multi-ejector racks would mean the LCA will have extremely high drag and is more of a BVR truck than an interceptor or point defence.

The F-35 has a 1000Km combat radius on internal and that is the same as any fighter in the role it performs.

5) Stealth : Yes, unless DRDO addresses this, there is no comparison. But you can be the size of a pinhead and the Phalcon will point you out before the F 35 BVR are within range of striking. So it will come down to who is developing the best and longest range BVR systems.

No, the Phalcons are not as effective against F-22/F-35 and maybe even PAKFA/J-20 as it is against legacy aircraft. There are range limitations based on the incoming aircraft's altitude. You can say a Super MKI at a height of 15000m will be able to see way more than the Phalcon. It is simple, earth is a sphere. There is such a thing as the horizon. The horizon increases the higher you fly. The best a Phalcon can do is 200-300Km against a low flying aircraft and that is only if the aircraft is not stealthy.

There is nothing DRDO can do to decrease LCA's RCS to such a small value.

Like I said, F-35 is not in the same class or role as the LCA. Comparison between the two is futile. LCA can only be compared to Su-35, F-15, EF, J-10, Mirage-2000. Rather F-35 can be compared to MKI, F-16 or Rafale type of aircraft.

 

[trackwhack]

My post if filled with numbers though many of the calculations are crude, they are not inaccurate. Your post is filled with opinions. I cannot debate with that.

It is your opinion that the LCA aerodynamics are inferior to Jag and other planes. You do not have wind tunnel test results to back your statement.

It is your opinion that the F 35 will experience less drag that the LCA with external weapons. You do not have any data backing that up either.

There is no equivalent to the mission profiles you stated for the MKI wrt the F 25. With max internal fuel, the F 35 is still very limited in range. So there is hardly a question of 25% fuel or 75% fuel. The F 35 maybe able to do a 5 minute sortie with 25% fuel.

The larger fuel consumption example is mathematically incorrect. Like I showed you in the example above, even when the planes are at 10% internal fuel, the LCA compares favourably in TW and that too for equal payload. If both are at MTOW, there is no scenario where the F 35 will have a higher TW.



Finally - The F 35 is not in the same class as the LCA. They are a generation apart. And the difference in EW and stealth. 4th Gen parameters like speed, ceiling, rate of climb, TW etc are very comparable indeed. Hence any comparison of the LCA to other 4th Gen fighters is a fair comparison.


Now, to the question of whether it makes sense to be still developing a 4 th Gen fighter. The answer is an overwhelming yes. We do not have the luxury to learn from our mistakes on the AMCA. The LCA's success and induction of the plane in large numbers is critical in assessing technological as well as production and after sales support related challenges, all of which needs to be sorted out before we start making the AMCA in numbers.

 

[p2prada]

My post if filled with numbers though many of the calculations are crude, they are not inaccurate. Your post is filled with opinions. I cannot debate with that.

Right, you post a bit about T/W and some weights and that becomes calculations. Heck, half these things I can do it mentally.

I can do the same based on mission profiles, but that is an utter waste of time because the missions both aircraft are expected to conduct will be significantly different.

It is your opinion that the LCA aerodynamics are inferior to Jag and other planes. You do not have wind tunnel test results to back your statement.

It is not my opinion, it is a fact. You don't need wind tunnel data. The higher the wing loading, the better is the flight performance at lower altitudes. Fact.

The lower the wing loading the more worse it is at low altitudes. For strike performance you need high wing loading. LCA does not have high wing loading. Jaguar does. So, even with a lower thrust engine and lower T/W ratio, it will perform better than LCA. The same applies to Mirage-2000 and Gripen too. Both aircraft will be inferior performance compared to Jaguar.

It is your opinion that the F 35 will experience less drag that the LCA with external weapons. You do not have any data backing that up either.

It is not opinion, it is a fact. The primary advantage of weapons bays is reduction in drag. That's why all heavy bombers were designed with weapons bays. It was much later that it was applied on aircraft to reduce stealth.

Haven't you heard about clean aircraft and aircraft with external loads? Even LM states the same during their briefings when comparing F-16 with F-35.

There is a reason why global security claims the same for F-22.
F-22 Weapons

The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range.

So, yeah it is my opinion and also the opinion of people from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi, Chengdu, ADA and numerous other aircraft design houses around the world. Someday you will share that opinion too. Hopefully, starting from today.

Smaller aircraft experience greater drag than larger aircraft when weapons are piled on it. That is because the size of the AMRAAM won't change depending on which aircraft it is equipped on. There is a reason why the MKI is said to have lesser drag than F-35 with 6 or even 8 BVR missiles outside. That again is physics because of the size of the aircraft. As a number or figure drag is greater on MKI than LCA. But in terms of performance the LCA suffers more because it is smaller and has a smaller thrust engine.

So, greater the aircraft the weapons provide lesser degree of drag. On the other hand aircraft like F-35 and F-22 completely eliminate that drag which is significant.

As a more visual example, if you are in a small boat in the sea compared to a larger boat like an aircraft carrier. The effect of the small boat is lesser on the water than the presence of a larger ship. So, when the tide is high, the rocking experienced on the small boat is significantly larger than on the carrier where you probably won't even feel anything. But at the same time the small boat is significantly more maneuverable. That's pretty much how drag works on aircraft. Aerodynamic forces on smaller aircraft is different compared to larger aircraft. That's why it used to be said earlier that a smaller aircraft is supposed to be more aerodynamic and maneuverable than a larger aircraft. Things have changed with 4th gen aircraft though due to higher thrust engines and better designs like the Flanker.

There is no equivalent to the mission profiles you stated for the MKI wrt the F 25. With max internal fuel, the F 35 is still very limited in range. So there is hardly a question of 25% fuel or 75% fuel. The F 35 maybe able to do a 5 minute sortie with 25% fuel.

The mission profiles are different and also the speeds at which the ranges are calculated. F-35 performs best at low speeds, but range calculations are at higher speeds. It is the opposite for LCA where mission profiles requires it to be fast while range calculations are performed at lower speeds.

The larger fuel consumption example is mathematically incorrect. Like I showed you in the example above, even when the planes are at 10% internal fuel, the LCA compares favourably in TW and that too for equal payload. If both are at MTOW, there is no scenario where the F 35 will have a higher TW.

But the F-35 is not of similar role as LCA. It's performance characteristics have more acceleration and less speed while LCA works differently. It is futile comparing F-35 to LCA.

Btw, F-135 has lower fuel consumption compared to F-414. It is physics. We just don't know by how much.

Finally - The F 35 is not in the same class as the LCA. They are a generation apart.

I think I said that 5 times already. Thank you for being supportive.

4th Gen parameters like speed, ceiling, rate of climb, TW etc are very comparable indeed. Hence any comparison of the LCA to other 4th Gen fighters is a fair comparison.

No. They are not comparable because what is important for strike aircraft does not have to be the same for air superiority aircraft. Earlier role specific aircraft were made due to technological limitations in electronics and onboard power. However even today while there are no differences in electronics, the airframe is still made role specific because physics hasn't changed over time. The inlet performance of F-35 and LCA will be vastly different even at same altitudes along with differences in engine performance. That is the reason why F-35 is able to match F-22's acceleration at low altitudes but not so at high altitudes. Similarly, the LCA's performance also changes depending on the altitude. So, even with better T/W there is no guarantee the LCA can beat the F-35 at low altitudes simply because the LCA will bleed a lot of speed during turns because of a low wing loading.

Now, to the question of whether it makes sense to be still developing a 4 th Gen fighter. The answer is an overwhelming yes. We do not have the luxury to learn from our mistakes on the AMCA.

You think LCA is not a mistake then. At least IAF does not think so and neither does IN. The IN Chief was very clear when he said they want Rafale over LCA but will induct LCA regardless.

The LCA's success and induction of the plane in large numbers is critical in assessing technological as well as production and after sales support related challenges, all of which needs to be sorted out before we start making the AMCA in numbers.

People still haven't learnt the difference between 4th gen and 5th gen.

I find it very surprising it is the case even though so much hard evidence is available that the USAF got it right all along.

Listen up. An aircraft like LCA will get our pilots killed in a real conflict. There is a reason why the LCA's home base is in Tamil Nadu. If they want to fly their aircraft they can do it there. If they want to get killed, then Assam is the place they need to go. Don't forget that the LCA's induction timeline is the same as the J-20. Both aircraft will be brand new and untested. Both aircraft will go through a similar criteria of modifications and testing. The only difference is the J-20 will have a 100:1 kill ratio over LCA in a fight.

All that crap about production, after sales etc was done during the last 50 years of license assembly. Quality is paramount and only that needs to be tested, but it needs to be done on next gen aircraft, not on old technologies because it does not make sense.

Btw, AMCA RFP was generated years ago and design phase has already started. So, even the IAF knows what is right and what is wrong. LCA is being brought to it's conclusion and the AMCA will be the primary target after a few squadrons of LCA are inducted.

I had explained earlier why there is no place for hundreds of aircraft in IAF inventory. Yes, there is a bit of math involved there. So, the numbers are limited to 6 or 7 squadrons of LCA, if ADA's luck permits it.