ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[trackwhack]

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

My foot, show me your calculations if you are such a genius. Show me under what conditions, the F 35 has a TW better that the LCA.

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.

Dont make claims you can, just do it if you can. I am interested to learn. But from facts, not because you can type long pages of dribble.

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.

WHAT??



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.

An aircraft with lower wing loading can take off and land on shorter runways, carry more load, climb faster and turn faster at ANY altitude. The only advantage that higher wing loading brings is the reduced drag at high speed - which in this case is inconsequential as the LCA is a faster aircraft that the F 35 at any altitude.

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


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.

Please stop with your silly examples of boats and whatever. I understand enough about drag not to need an internet patzer to explain to me. My question to you was if you had data showing that the advantage the F35 has through internal weapons bays is so overwhelming that it compensates for the differential in TW performance. It is your opinion that it does compensate enough. You dont have data to support it. In fact such parameters can be deduced through other parameters like rate of climb, acceleration from cruise speeds etc. When you have data about all that, show me and I will be convinced. That kind of data is so freakin complex it will take you decades to even analyze it. Because drag varies by speed, altitude, ariframe, wing loading and many other parameters. You have to come up with metrics like unit drag at the speed and altitude for both aircrafts, for hundreds of permutations to even compare.

So .... no, the F 35's internal weapons bays may or may not be enough to compensate for the lack of thrust at higher speeds.

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.

I dont know how you deduced that. In all flight parameters, the LCA is better that the F 35, including wing loading. So the F 35 cannot be a better performer at low altitudes.

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.

ok

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

So by your own rationale, the amount of fuel used will be lower for the F 35. Hence the drop in weight through fuel consumption will be faster for the LCA and hence the TW ratio's will only get better. Seems like you are confused. please think about this for sometime.

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

You are welcome. And like I said three times already. My post has to do with the fact that the parameters you defend for one plane is the same as the ones you diss for another plane. Your line of thought that they are meant for different roles is moot. The LCA from the beginning was meant to execute strike roles. In fact from a weapons testing perspective, ADA has spent more time on LGB's than on A2A with the LCA. So they are not dissimilar planes when it comes to objective. The difference is the size characteristics. Both are multirole and have their limitations. The trade off's for one are different from the trade offs in the other but that always happens when you are developing a multirole fighter.

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.

Again, low wing loading results in faster turning performance, not worse. So your entire para is factually incorrect. One of us does not understand wing loading. I hope thats not me. LCA wingloading is about 250 kg/m2 and F 35 is twice that. Sure it is going to turn easier.

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.

Ok, so it is ok for you to compare the LCA to the Rafale? It is obvious that the Rafale, a 4.5 gen aircraft, will be superior to the LCA, a 4th gen aircraft. And unlike the F 35, the Rafale actually has data showing why its flight parameters are better, so why would you be surprised that the IN or IAF prefers that to LCA?

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

Please, don't condescend me. I deal with enough jokers at work, whose ego's I bruise day in and day out when they walk into a meeting with me thinking they can go one up on a brown kid.

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.

ok, this para is too hilarious to even respond to. for starters, I dont think you understand the economics of war. If money was not a criteria, China would have 2000 J-20, we would have 2000 FGFA's. But in the real world, thats not the case. The J-20 will be the top plane in the PLAAF when inducted. That wont mean that they will bury their flanker rip-offs. It would be stupid of IAF to send in a squadron of LCA to take on 5th gen aiurcraft (irrespective of the fact that it is chinese).

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.

Well, please name the fighter that India mass produced in those 50 years. None? Well, thats why we must do it now.

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.

No one asked for hundreds of LCA's. Even 6 to 7 squadrons are a significant number.

 

[p2prada]

My foot, show me your calculations if you are such a genius. Show me under what conditions, the F 35 has a TW better that the LCA.

Haha! The problem is you think T/W is the end all of everything. But you won't understand T/W is not everything.

Dont make claims you can, just do it if you can. I am interested to learn. But from facts, not because you can type long pages of dribble.

No you are not. It is dribble because you don't understand.

Empty weight. Calculate exact fuel required for a mission with 20% spare and for take off-landing. Calculate time for bingo. Calculate exact weapons load. Too bad I don't have calculations for weight of cannon ammo. Exact thrust in tons, divide KN by 9.8(easy to do). Calculate exact weapons loads and number of weapons. Weight of pilot and assorted avionics carried. These are meant for mission profiles. Profiles where you are carrying dumb bombs, LGBs, EW pods, targeting pods etc. Aerodynamics and other aspects come later. Too much work to do, but if you have the time, get started anytime. Even approx figures are fine.

An aircraft with lower wing loading can take off and land on shorter runways, carry more load, climb faster and turn faster at ANY altitude.

There is no such thing as something being good in all altitudes.

Anyway the physics for aircraft taking off and landing is different from flight behaviour. Too much air is bad for low wing loading aircraft.

Please stop with your silly examples of boats and whatever. I understand enough about drag not to need an internet patzer to explain to me. My question to you was if you had data showing that the advantage the F35 has through internal weapons bays is so overwhelming that it compensates for the differential in TW performance. It is your opinion that it does compensate enough. You dont have data to support it. In fact such parameters can be deduced through other parameters like rate of climb, acceleration from cruise speeds etc. When you have data about all that, show me and I will be convinced. That kind of data is so freakin complex it will take you decades to even analyze it. Because drag varies by speed, altitude, ariframe, wing loading and many other parameters. You have to come up with metrics like unit drag at the speed and altitude for both aircrafts, for hundreds of permutations to even compare.

There is no hard data released as the programs are still in development. But the effect on the aircraft is "extremely" significant. It is to the point where even range is affected by hundreds of Km.

Even RCS, an aircraft claimed to have sub 1m2 RCS expands by 10 to 100 times depending on what's on the external pylon. So the drag effect is also many times. There is a reason why the F-35 performs better than high T/W F-16.

For some math, I will give you crude calculations on F-16 and F-35.

F-16
Empty = 8920Kg
Weapons load = 2 AMRAAMs, 2 Aim-9x = 2x225 + 2x85 = 620 Kg
Fuel load = 100% = 3100Kg
Pilot = 70Kg

Total = 12710 Kg.

Thrust from PW F-100-229 = 13200 Kg.

T/W = 1.03 at full fuel load.

F-35
Empty = 13300Kg
Weapons Load = 620Kg
Pilot = 70Kg
Fuel Load(at 75%) = 6286.5Kg
Total = 20276.5 Kg

Thrust = 19.5 tons

T/W = 0.96 at 75% fuel load.

Who wins the dog fight? Ans = F-35 according to USAF.
Why? Ans = Design.
How? Ans = I don't know. Maybe somebody knows, but I don't.

So .... no, the F 35's internal weapons bays may or may not be enough to compensate for the lack of thrust at higher speeds.

I dont know how you deduced that. In all flight parameters, the LCA is better that the F 35, including wing loading. So the F 35 cannot be a better performer at low altitudes.

Hahahahaha!

So by your own rationale, the amount of fuel used will be lower for the F 35. Hence the drop in weight through fuel consumption will be faster for the LCA and hence the TW ratio's will only get better. Seems like you are confused. please think about this for sometime.

One word, Thrust. While fuel consumption will see a difference of at least 10%, the difference in thrust is 200%. A 19.4 ton engine will finish fuel faster than a 9.5 tons engine. Basic logic.

I did not even have to read the entire sentence to understand you have no clue on what I was talking about.

The LCA from the beginning was meant to execute strike roles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

In fact from a weapons testing perspective, ADA has spent more time on LGB's than on A2A with the LCA.

DOUBLE HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAH!

Whatever happened to our Mig-21 replacement.

So they are not dissimilar planes when it comes to objective. The difference is the size characteristics. Both are multirole and have their limitations. The trade off's for one are different from the trade offs in the other but that always happens when you are developing a multirole fighter.

I am still laughing. OMG. Is that why you have been comparing F-35 with LCA?

LCA wingloading is about 250 kg/m2 and F 35 is twice that. Sure it is going to turn easier.

At what altitudes? That's the question.

At lower altitudes the wing loading is very high.

The physics is correct when you say a lower wingloading equals greater turn, but at the same time the wing faces more drag. A delta wing or a large wing like that of the LCA or MKI bleeds energy rapidly. So, by the time it completes a turn the aircraft would have stalled already. Greater thrust compensates for the loss in speed and turn rate, but there is a physical limit to it. That's why the instantaneous turn rate of LCA will be greater than that of the F-35. So, as you go higher up in altitude, the air gets less denser. Thus the larger surface area of the LCA generates more lift due to it's larger wing. The advantage of the LCA is best at high altitudes.

At low altitudes, aircraft with small wings and higher wing loading traps less air. So, during the turn the effect of drag is lesser. This allows for a greater sustained turn rate during flight. Therefore the reason why F-16 has the best turn rates among all fighters while the Mirage-2000 has the best instantaneous turn rate. Logic?

Therefore, designers have to compensate for high wing loading, low wing loading or something in between like Rafale/MKI. This is the reason why the best dog fighters like F-16 have always had high wing loading compared to air superiority fighters like LCA and MKI.

Also, the addition of external weapons increase wing loading by many factors. Wing loading is given by the amount of weight/surface area of wing. Then there are aspects like the position of the weight on the wing and also the extra drag that is produced by the external weapon. The weapons bay removes all these constraints by many factors.

Ok, so it is ok for you to compare the LCA to the Rafale? It is obvious that the Rafale, a 4.5 gen aircraft, will be superior to the LCA, a 4th gen aircraft. And unlike the F 35, the Rafale actually has data showing why its flight parameters are better, so why would you be surprised that the IN or IAF prefers that to LCA?

LCA and Rafale are comparable, not in terms of technologies but in terms of capabilities that they will bring. If I am allowed 5 squadrons and I want to fill it up with aircraft, which one will I choose, money not being a problem? Rafale or LCA? Choose.

Don't say a mix of both. Because that is not how it always works. The navy will release a tender for MRCA where both Gripen and Rafale will take part. So, which do you want if we say Gripen is our home made aircraft and Rafale is foreign?"Think more about IN and less about our industry. This is because when the Chinese come with their Flankers and maybe even the J-20 on their carriers which aircraft do you prefer to fight with.

Please, don't condescend me. I deal with enough jokers at work, whose ego's I bruise day in and day out when they walk into a meeting with me thinking they can go one up on a brown kid.

I did not know you work with the dumbest people on the planet. Congrats on being better than them. Perhaps you learnt something useful in this post.

ok, this para is too hilarious to even respond to. for starters, I dont think you understand the economics of war. If money was not a criteria, China would have 2000 J-20, we would have 2000 FGFA's. But in the real world, thats not the case.

In the real world, the number of FGFAs and J-20s will be at least twice that of the number of LCAs(123) inducted.

The J-20 will be the top plane in the PLAAF when inducted. That wont mean that they will bury their flanker rip-offs. It would be stupid of IAF to send in a squadron of LCA to take on 5th gen aiurcraft (irrespective of the fact that it is chinese).

They won't lose their Flankers the same as we won't lose ours while the FGFA comes. But LCA as a backup aircraft is a waste of time and lives.

It would be stupid of IAF to send in LCAs, but the fact is there won't be a choice or the LCAs will be grounded throughout the war due to the fear of losing pilots and aircraft needlessly. PAF has done that. Do you want the IAF to do the same?

LCA can't choose it's opponent. The opponent will come and if it is anything better than a J-10, then it is a problem.

Well, please name the fighter that India mass produced in those 50 years. None? Well, thats why we must do it now.

HF-24 marut. 147 built. Our first fighter.

Mig-21. Over 950 built.
Gnat and Ajeet. Around 300 built.
Jaguar. 140 built.
Mig-27. Around 100 built.

MKI - Around 110 built.

So, yeah these are our numbers. We mass produced all these aircraft, serviced them, overhauled them and tested them in India itself. All under both HAL and IAF.

Please learn your history.

No one asked for hundreds of LCA's. Even 6 to 7 squadrons are a significant number.

Well. The current numbers seem to stand at 2 Mk1 squadrons and 4 Mk2(maybe 5) squadrons.

 

[trackwhack]

^^ This has been a colossal waste of my time. If you want to argue against basic established principles of aerodynamics and lift, I cannot help you.

High wing loading is better indeed!!

Cant turn, cant climb, cant run came out of thin air.

 

[Abhi9]

Hi everybody,

I am new to the forum and i have been a follower for a long time

I know this is off -topic .

Freedom of expression is one thing, but i have seen some members like to criticize day in and day out, the indigenous technology base that our scientist our trying to develop. The reply is what have you done lately.You guys undermine the efforts of those who give everything for the nation's( less salary, opportunities abroad). Research and development is continuous evolution. It takes time and money and given our research budget, i cant help but to praise the efforts who do it.

people LCA is this and LCA this that." it will get our pilots killed". Have you guys flown the aircraft and designed it. You think people in science labs are stupid when they develop a new product or you know better than them. learning few things on internet is different than research, development and design. I am a researcher and i can talk about my field only and not be critical of things in dont know. i know how much devotion it take.

LCA is fine aircraft for it purpose, I think the decision for it to be based at sulur, before deploying it at forward area's is to mature it, develop tactics for its use, make it a commendable platform.

We need a 4+ gen (fighter which it will become with time) because you cannot use a 5th gen fighter against a lesser adversary. f-22 raptor has not a flown a single mission over iraq and afghanistan.

We should be proud of what our nation has achieved with technology denials(which nations are read to offer now because they need our market and money)

 

[p2prada]

High wing loading is better indeed!!

Cant turn, cant climb, cant run came out of thin air.

Try F-16. Same specs as the F-35. Now, find out why it was first built as a dog fighter and even today is considered as the aircraft with the best sustained turn rates over most other fighters. F-16s wing loading is also in the region of 400s.

When they taught you about High wing loading and Low wing loading they must have completely missed the concept of drag on such aircraft when during high performance maneuvers? Don't bring civie aircraft physics in the discussion. Design utilizes the advantage and disadvantages of physics differently.

The concept of can't turn, can't climb and can't run came up as a myth perpetuated by analysts the world over without knowing much about the F-35. It is a myth and has been debunked when the USAF proved F-35s were running circles around the F-16.

About the F-15 and F-16. Both the aircraft's wing loading is high, ie near 400 and above 400 resply.
So, read something from actual pilots.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12405.html

bazdriver - Israeli Air Force F015 driver.
The F-16 and F-15 are the best sustained energy turning fighter of the 4th generation. No Su-27,30,or MKI or Mig-29 can compete in this category. To not talk about supersonic turn performances were the gap is even higher. Russian current fighters are largely overrated and their reputation has more to do with the glamorous sight of the low-speed but very,very rare dogfight than with actual (Liban, Gulf, Yougoslavia) combat, where overall weapons system and others assets improving SA make the differrence. Today the principle (speed is life) still applies. Even Boyd never argued for low speed dogfighter, but for energy fighter. The F-16 and F-15 were the best and the F-22 will just continue in the same way.

What I said is that those russians fighter are bleeding speed at very high rate with operationnal weight. They are much more draggy than the two american fighters in high speed(subsonic and transsonic) regime, and by the way most Su-27 and Mig-29 flying today are g-limited at speed higher than 450KCAS. I'm not saying they are no match, I said that in most combat situations the F-16 and F-15 enjoy an advantage over them.

Eglin F-35 initial cadre starts transition training - The DEW Line

When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16," Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth,"

gain, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."

And according to veteran test pilots,
VIDEO: F-35 test pilot defends JSF's dogfighting capability - The DEW Line

Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley, standing today beneath the wing of the first prototype F-35, explains the fighter's air-to-air capability relative to the F-16.

So, yeah. If the F-35 is as good as a clean F-16, then it is pretty much the best turning fighter after the F-22. That is until PAKFA or J-20s flight characteristics are known. So, if an F-16 equivalent F-35 can't turn, can't climb, or can't run, then the LCA will be bleeding dead in a ditch.

At least learn from the big boys.

Hi everybody,

I am new to the forum and i have been a follower for a long time

I know this is off -topic .

Freedom of expression is one thing, but i have seen some members like to criticize day in and day out, the indigenous technology base that our scientist our trying to develop. The reply is what have you done lately.You guys undermine the efforts of those who give everything for the nation's( less salary, opportunities abroad). Research and development is continuous evolution. It takes time and money and given our research budget, i cant help but to praise the efforts who do it.

people LCA is this and LCA this that." it will get our pilots killed". Have you guys flown the aircraft and designed it. You think people in science labs are stupid when they develop a new product or you know better than them. learning few things on internet is different than research, development and design. I am a researcher and i can talk about my field only and not be critical of things in dont know. i know how much devotion it take.

LCA is fine aircraft for it purpose, I think the decision for it to be based at sulur, before deploying it at forward area's is to mature it, develop tactics for its use, make it a commendable platform.

We need a 4+ gen (fighter which it will become with time) because you cannot use a 5th gen fighter against a lesser adversary. f-22 raptor has not a flown a single mission over iraq and afghanistan.

We should be proud of what our nation has achieved with technology denials(which nations are read to offer now because they need our market and money)

LCA is an obsolete aircraft for all purposes. It was supposed to have been flying in air force colors in 1999. Do you know the difference between obsolescence and state of the art?

You say you are a researcher? Researcher in which field? Let's say electronics. If you are a researcher in Intel, will you try to make equivalent or better chips than the i7 or will you regress back to Intel 8085? What's worse is LCA Mk1 does not even come up to 8085 standards and they are making Mk2 to achieve those standards.

LCA isn't even mature enough to be equivalent to the legacy aircraft like F-16/Mirage-2000 or even Gripen, all designs first contemplated and built in the 70s and 80s, 11 years after first flight and will only surpass them slightly in 2018. Heck, now SAF is talking about how Gripen NG(equivalent to mk2) is obsolete technology in 2012 while we are inducting a Gripen aircraft in 2018. Do you know what that means?

No, I haven't researched anything in my career. My objective was to get into the IAF, I couldn't because of medical reasons. After that I took the advise of friends, working in DPSUs, about joining DRDO and equivalent industries. They said, don't make that mistake ever. They even said they are gonna quit soon. So, they did. After that, I merely became an enthusiast. But I continued studying in the related field. No, I don't want to become a civilian researcher, because I have no interest in developing chips and ICs.

The reason TN was chosen as the home base is because of it's proximity to Bangalore, but at the same time don't forget that aircraft that are assigned to home base will never leave that base. MKI's home base was Pune. The same MKIs that were inducted in 2002 are still serving there. So, even after 20 years, the Mk1s will continue to fly in Sulur. It can fight pirates or maybe even the Sri Lankan air force, but it won't be used against PAF or PLAAF for extended durations.

F-22 has not flown a single mission over Iraq and Afghanistan because the war was over before it was inducted. There is no aircraft there that the USAF or USN could not handle since all major offensive operations were ended a few weeks into the war. So, there was no reason to show off the F-22s prowess against desert mules and in the process give away some of the F-22s secrets to rival countries including India.

Comparatively, even the enemy air force thinks the J-10 is nearing obsolescence while British and French aircraft manufacturers are thinking up ways to keep the EF and Rafale relevant beyond 2020, around the same time that an obsolete aircraft built around the tech base as used in already obsolete fighters will see full squadron induction at full specs. Earlier, when the F-22 came out, Dassault and EADS kept claiming EF/Rafale will come close in BVR combat due to the use of modern radars, EW and passive detection. When the actual mock combat happened, the result was exactly as LM had promised back in 1992. It was a complete disaster for legacy aircraft.

It is no wonder that people who are actually related to DRDO, actually know about DRDO laugh at DRDO while the only people who don't criticize DRDO actually have no idea what DRDO's about, civilians such as yourself fall in this second category. Read old posts by our defence professionals on this very forum. We have an ex-brigadier too and he thinks the same about DRDO as I do and as do so many other DRDO employees and users I have had contact with.

So, if you are one of those guys who thinks the 8085 is still relevant against a PC with i7 then go ahead and think the same. I can't change such minds. Btw, yes, the analogy is perfect. The technology base of the F-35 is that of the i7 built in the 2000s compared to the 70-80s level technology on the LCA. The difference in capability is also very similar.

So, when you ask what have I done lately, I am doing what every citizen should. That is to make sure our forces are using the equipment that best suits their needs and not some half-assed attempt at keeping an obsolete industry going at the expense of our strategic needs.

So, when you are conducting "research" how about asking your boss for a Windows 95 "upgrade" rather than XP or Windows 7 that you are using now?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Be civil to your fellow forum user. They'll respect you if you respect them.The first one to start using profanity or insults in an argument loses. If you can't win with intelligence and knowledge better stop posting..

 

[opesys]

Be civil to your fellow forum user. They'll respect you if you respect them.The first one to start using profanity or insults in an argument loses. If you can't win with intelligence and knowledge better stop posting..

I think it's alright. The replies are not that bad.
Seriously how else would you argue against Abhi9's post...
It's already been established, LCA is the best fighter aircraft India has ever made.
Just look at the bright side, a great learning experience for making LCA mk2, AMCA...
But definitely not a good idea to use in the north-east or north-west borders...may be north-west but definitely not against our eastern neighbour...

 

[Abhi9]

Try F-16. Same specs as the F-35. Now, find out why it was first built as a dog fighter and even today is considered as the aircraft with the best sustained turn rates over most other fighters. F-16s wing loading is also in the region of 400s.

When they taught you about High wing loading and Low wing loading they must have completely missed the concept of drag on such aircraft when during high performance maneuvers? Don't bring civie aircraft physics in the discussion. Design utilizes the advantage and disadvantages of physics differently.

The concept of can't turn, can't climb and can't run came up as a myth perpetuated by analysts the world over without knowing much about the F-35. It is a myth and has been debunked when the USAF proved F-35s were running circles around the F-16.

About the F-15 and F-16. Both the aircraft's wing loading is high, ie near 400 and above 400 resply.
So, read something from actual pilots.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12405.html


Eglin F-35 initial cadre starts transition training - The DEW Line


And according to veteran test pilots,
VIDEO: F-35 test pilot defends JSF's dogfighting capability - The DEW Line


So, yeah. If the F-35 is as good as a clean F-16, then it is pretty much the best turning fighter after the F-22. That is until PAKFA or J-20s flight characteristics are known. So, if an F-16 equivalent F-35 can't turn, can't climb, or can't run, then the LCA will be bleeding dead in a ditch.

At least learn from the big boys.



Kid, how old are you? 3 and a half, 4. Learn simple facts before BSing.

LCA is an obsolete aircraft for all purposes. It was supposed to have been flying in air force colors in 1999. Do you know the difference between obsolescence and state of the art?

You say you are a researcher? Researcher in which field? Let's say electronics. If you are a researcher in Intel, will you try to make equivalent or better chips than the i7 or will you regress back to Intel 8085? What's worse is LCA Mk1 does not even come up to 8085 standards and they are making Mk2 to achieve those standards.

LCA isn't even mature enough to be equivalent to the legacy aircraft like F-16/Mirage-2000 or even Gripen, all designs first contemplated and built in the 70s and 80s, 11 years after first flight and will only surpass them slightly in 2018. Heck, now SAF is talking about how Gripen NG(equivalent to mk2) is obsolete technology in 2012 while we are inducting a Gripen aircraft in 2018. Do you know what that means?

No, I haven't researched anything in my career. My objective was to get into the IAF, I couldn't because of medical reasons. After that I took the advise of friends, working in DPSUs, about joining DRDO and equivalent industries. They said, don't make that mistake ever. They even said they are gonna quit soon. So, they did. After that, I merely became an enthusiast. But I continued studying in the related field. No, I don't want to become a civilian researcher, because I have no interest in developing chips and ICs.

The reason TN was chosen as the home base is because of it's proximity to Bangalore, but at the same time don't forget that aircraft that are assigned to home base will never leave that base. MKI's home base was Pune. The same MKIs that were inducted in 2002 are still serving there. So, even after 20 years, the Mk1s will continue to fly in Sulur. It can fight pirates or maybe even the Sri Lankan air force, but it won't be used against PAF or PLAAF for extended durations.

F-22 has not flown a single mission over Iraq and Afghanistan because the war was over before it was inducted. There is no aircraft there that the USAF or USN could not handle since all major offensive operations were ended a few weeks into the war. So, there was no reason to show off the F-22s prowess against desert mules and in the process give away some of the F-22s secrets to rival countries including India.

Comparatively, even the enemy air force thinks the J-10 is nearing obsolescence while British and French aircraft manufacturers are thinking up ways to keep the EF and Rafale relevant beyond 2020, around the same time that an obsolete aircraft built around the tech base as used in already obsolete fighters will see full squadron induction at full specs. Earlier, when the F-22 came out, Dassault and EADS kept claiming EF/Rafale will come close in BVR combat due to the use of modern radars, EW and passive detection. When the actual mock combat happened, the result was exactly as LM had promised back in 1992. It was a complete disaster for legacy aircraft.

It is no wonder that people who are actually related to DRDO, actually know about DRDO laugh at DRDO while the only people who don't criticize DRDO actually have no idea what DRDO's about, civilians such as yourself fall in this second category. Read old posts by our defence professionals on this very forum. We have an ex-brigadier too and he thinks the same about DRDO as I do and as do so many other DRDO employees and users I have had contact with.

So, if you are one of those guys who thinks the 8085 is still relevant against a PC with i7 then go ahead and think the same. I can't change such minds. Btw, yes, the analogy is perfect. The technology base of the F-35 is that of the i7 built in the 2000s compared to the 70-80s level technology on the LCA. The difference in capability is also very similar.

So, when you ask what have I done lately, I am doing what every citizen should. That is to make sure our forces are using the equipment that best suits their needs and not some half-assed attempt at keeping an obsolete industry going at the expense of our strategic needs.

So, when you are conducting "research" how about asking your boss for a Windows 95 "upgrade" rather than XP or Windows 7 that you are using now?

petty judgement about me, no problems. Analyzing without rationale. yes i am working on nanoelectronics and nanofabrication encompassing graphene physics for device applications( NOT CMOS). i use high power computer cluster for design and simulation on daily basis.

 

[Abhi9]

I think it's alright. The replies are not that bad.
Seriously how else would you argue against Abhi9's post...
It's already been established, LCA is the best fighter aircraft India has ever made.
Just look at the bright side, a great learning experience for making LCA mk2, AMCA...
But definitely not a good idea to use in the north-east or north-west borders...may be north-west but definitely not against our eastern neighbour...

Opesys, Thats what i am trying to say, technology evolves. Nobody comes with best product on the first try. It takes time, diligent effort and rectification. So many crucial technologies have been developed for LCA MK1 which will find way into MK2 and AMCA.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I think it's alright.

It serves as a warning..

 

[Abhi9]

LCA composite % comparison with other planes

 

[p2prada]

I think it's alright. The replies are not that bad.
Seriously how else would you argue against Abhi9's post...
It's already been established, LCA is the best fighter aircraft India has ever made.
Just look at the bright side, a great learning experience for making LCA mk2, AMCA...
But definitely not a good idea to use in the north-east or north-west borders...may be north-west but definitely not against our eastern neighbour...

Exactly what I have been saying for over 2 years. I am glad one thinks the same way too.

petty judgement about me, no problems. Analyzing without rationale. yes i am working on nanoelectronics and nanofabrication encompassing graphene physics for device applications( NOT CMOS). i use high power computer cluster for design and simulation on daily basis.

You are the one who started first. I criticize the LCA program because I know about the program and I have been following it. No need to generalize and say I don't know anything.

The users(Indian armed forces) have been criticizing DRDO worse than I do. Even during conferences the forces personnel smirk at DRDO's announcements.

So, learn to look before you take the leap. Take some time and learn how long it took for LCA's development. Now go back and compare it to aircraft like Gripen, F-16 and Mirage-2000 which were developed 30-40 years ago and were state of the art at those time.

You say you use high power computer clusters. How about supporting India's achievements in computer technology and have your department buy some ancient Indian made computers for your department? I don't know the specs you guys need, if your requirements are supercomputer level, then there is always the Param series.

You can say I am analyzing without rationale. But a 6 year old will tell you the LCA will pretty much be the 2nd or 3rd most obsolete newly developed airframe flying in 2020. 2nd considering the JF will be behind the LCA, 3rd if J-10 is not good either. When you research something in order to develop a product, do you try and make something that is equal to the competition or better? Definitely not worse. LCA is definitely worse than the competition.

I am all for Mk2 inductions in order to develop our industry, especially if it helps development of AMCA. I have grudgingly accepted Mk1 inductions because if they don't even the Mk2 won't fly.

But what will happen if the LCA is up against top end Chinese aircraft. There are fools on this forum who will tell you Chinese stuff is crap, until last year even I was one of those fools. I no longer think the same. The Chinese have become really dangerous. The kind of noise they are making in the Civilian world, the noise is even louder in military circles. There is a reason why the Americans are setting up new bases in the Asia Pacific region starting with Australia and will also move 60% of the Navy in the region. So, ships that were originally in the Atlantic will be moved to the Japanese side of the Pacific. There has been a lot of force structuring in the Navy's decision to move 60% of their fleet towards China. It is No Fvking Joke. The Marine and Army strength are going to be increased in Japan and will setup a new ballistic missile defence system for Japan and S Korea. They are setting up a massive X band array too. A new base is being setup in Guam. This kind of reorganization wasn't seen since the 60s against the Soviet Union. I will say it again, the Chinese are No Fvking Joke. You want a powerful adversary, we have one right on our doorstep. While the Americans are moving their Navy to counter China, you want us to throw LCAs at them.

Considering the Chinese military budget is officially around $100Billion, the actual budget is claimed to be more, some say twice. Even if we say $150Billion, the actual PPP of the budget is around $300-400Billion, especially considering most of their capital purchases are not in Dollars like India, but in Yuan. This has been consistent over a decade now. In a few months, the Chinese GDP will be 30-50% more than that of Japan too.

China's GDP hits 47.2 trillion yuan in 2011 - People's Daily Online
47Trillion Yuan in Dollars is $7.5Trillion if you take today's market price at 6.3 yuan to a Dollar.

Guess what, let's take a look at their GDP in 2011.
BBC News - China overtakes Japan as world's second-biggest economy

So, yeah. Last year they were at 5.8Trillion Dollars and today they are at 7.3Trillion Dollars. A rise that is almost equal to the entire Indian GDP.
World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance - Google Public Data Explorer

And you actually think an LCA class aircraft will actually be a match for them?

The IAF will keep Mk1s in Sulur. The Mk2s, I don't know. But if up against the Chinese, we will only get dead pilots to bury. If LCA wasn't Indian, the IAF wouldn't even have looked at it.

 

[p2prada]

Boeing Super Hornet faces emerging anti-access challenges

Interesting read from CSBA.

The problem is most acute in the Pacific theatre, where the USN's aircraft carrier fleet would be the tip of the spear. The mainstay of the carrier decks is the F/A-18 fleet, but those aircraft might not be up to the task.

"They are not well-suited for AirSea battle-like operations against a highly capable enemy equipped with advanced anti-access/area denial systems," Gunzinger says. New surface-to-air weapons and emerging airborne threats pose a lethal threat to non-stealthy aircraft.

"This isn't just a navy issue of course, the same can be said about the air force's F-15 and F-16 fleet," Gunzinger says. "All three legacy fighter platforms would be outmatched in a fight against the [Chinese Chengdu] J-20 or [Russian Sukhoi] PAK-FA."

Also, this.
US Navy issues F/A-XX RfI - The DEW Line

The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad trade space, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft," the document reads.

The RfI sets a target initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2030

So, a new 5th or 6th gen combo aircraft is on the anvil.

 

[Drsomnath999]

I think it's alright. The replies are not that bad
Seriously how else would you argue against Abhi9's post..

1st of all hi opesys Gud to see u in our forum.
well abhi & everyone in this forum has right to express their views ,especially when it is in defence forum every national try to be jingoistic & fanboyic about their nation's
achievement irrespective of their nationality.
but some people are cynical or skeptical as they dont take everything for granted until they dont see that thing have been proved in real time .So they all are right on their own grounds ,u cant blame them .But unncessary fanboyic or skeptical is not right .

It's already been established, LCA is the best fighter aircraft India has ever made.
Just look at the bright side, a great learning experience for making LCA mk2, AMCA...

well 1st of all think why LCA is the best ever fighter findia has made till this date now meanwhile china which has also arms embargo placed much ahead than us still managed to produce a 5th gen fighter .??
why is that so ???
Is it for in competent DRDO officials or is it for poor industrial capabilty to produce such kind of planes or is it for our poor planning to produce & induct that plane in right time .
the answer cannot be a single one but it is a multiple one .
The fact is we never learn from our mistakes what we did with our 1st indigenious plane MARUT .in the end we are still struggling to induct & operationalize LCA till date now .& ofcourse if we dont learn from our mistakes i think LCA mark 2 & AMCA would face the same problems

But definitely not a good idea to use in the north-east or north-west borders... may be north-west but definitely not against our eastern neighbour..

well why even northwest then as we take paki airforce as lighter threat just for it's size or our inferiority complex .the irony is paki airforce may be smaller but they have much more real combat experience than the chinese airforces. Meanwhile the chinese have size & plane advantage to pakis but what about combat experience .

Well regarding LCA technology superiority or inferiority to our chinese counterpart ,the fact is LCA would be a secondary fighter to our main potent fighters which we are going to induct ,so it is meaningless to say that it is wise to deploy it only in western sector not in eastern sector as in western sector
also they have F16 with experinced paki pilots


REGARDS

 

[opesys]

1st of all hi opesys Gud to see u in our forum.
well abhi & everyone in this forum has right to express their views ,especially when it is in defence forum every national try to be jingoistic & fanboyic about their nation's
achievement irrespective of their nationality.
but some people are cynical or skeptical as they dont take everything for granted until they dont see that thing have been proved in real time .So they all are right on their own grounds ,u cant blame them .But unncessary fanboyic or skeptical is not right .

Thanks buddy.
Never will I say or even think that somebody should not express their views. Just that this is a defense forum
so let's not get all senti and emotional...

well 1st of all think why LCA is the best ever fighter findia has made till this date now meanwhile china which has also arms embargo placed much ahead than us still managed to produce a 5th gen fighter .??
why is that so ???
Is it for in competent DRDO officials or is it for poor industrial capabilty to produce such kind of planes or is it for our poor planning to produce & induct that plane in right time .
the answer cannot be a single one but it is a multiple one .
The fact is we never learn from our mistakes what we did with our 1st indigenious plane MARUT .in the end we are still struggling to induct & operationalize LCA till date now .& ofcourse if we dont learn from our mistakes i think LCA mark 2 & AMCA would face the same problems

A friend of mine used to work for ADA and he quit couple of years ago and joined a private company.
It seems the amount of seriousness that they(ADA) have picked up in the last four to five years if they had started with the same
seriousness in the 80s and 90s then most probably LCA would have been inducted by now. I am talking about seriousness and
not previous ADA experience or industry base in India for making fighter aircrafts.

P.S. my friend (and it seems most other ex-DRDOites ) miss the top notch technological work after quitting ADA. This has been
his biggest regret. It seems there is nothing like work satisfaction in life.

well why even northwest then as we take paki airforce as lighter threat just for it's size or our inferiority complex .the irony is paki airforce may be smaller but they have much more real combat experience than the chinese airforces. Meanwhile the chinese have size & plane advantage to pakis but what about combat experience .

Well regarding LCA technology superiority or inferiority to our chinese counterpart ,the fact is LCA would be a secondary fighter to our main potent fighters which we are going to induct ,so it is meaningless to say that it is wise to deploy it only in western sector not in eastern sector as in western sector
also they have F16 with experinced paki pilots

i wasn't serious when I said that... Remember General Jacob's bluff in 1971 war...haha... I am sure Pakistanis will fall for bluffs again

 

[trackwhack]

So, when you are conducting "research" how about asking your boss for a Windows 95 "upgrade" rather than XP or Windows 7 that you are using now?

This statement pretty much sums up your understanding (or rather lack of) of technology. And please for the third time. Dont try to teach others principles of physics that you cant wrap around your head. Apologies everyone else for the bad blood if any. Not sure if Kunal's message was for me, but I dont remember posting profanity.

 

[p2prada]

This statement pretty much sums up your understanding (or rather lack of) of technology. And please for the third time. Dont try to teach others principles of physics that you cant wrap around your head.

Read post 1195. I have a F-15 pilot, a F-16 to F-35 transition pilot and a F-35 test pilot claiming exactly as I did. Post mails out to these guys saying they are all wrong. Btw, the Flanker and Fulcrum have lower wing loading than the F-15/16 combo.

Yes. The use of LCA in front of MKI/FGFA and Rafale is akin to downgrading to Windows 95 from 7.

Your understanding of anything related to military technology is nothing but hopeless. Your understanding of physics is even worse.

Edit: At least try to remember strike capability on LCA was never intended. It is and was always a high altitude point defence fighter like the Mig-21. All the extra jazz they claim on strike and CAS is secondary and may not even be used in a real war.

 

[Kesang]

Tejas can do aerial refueling?

 

[agentperry]

the only thing coming in between is the atitude of mod and iaf. even in the presence of vast resources these units are thinking in 70s and 80s manner that is to fight in the limited resource scenario. come on every country to have good pistol made in the resp country instead of fancy automatic rifle imported from supporter of enemy.
lca even bought now will give iaf one thing that would be the liberty to have upgrade. initial batches might have extensive upgradation and end up having smaller lifetime but the later one will be good and better as compared to the recent ones.

improvement only happens when things come on ground and become reality. on papers nothing will ever happen

 

[ersakthivel]

Dear p2prada
My contention is

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.

I did not talk about subsonic speeds. I AM POINTING OUT SUPERSONIC TOP SPEEDS. Don't mislead the debate. In high altitude lower speed means stalling because of the fact that there is not enough air to grip.

Inversely at high altitudes lower air pressure means lower drag and higher speed for the same thrust and payload. Design of the engine is not discussed here.For a given thrust an aircraft that achieves a particular top speed in lower atmosphere can achieve a corresponding higher speeds at high atmosphere.

If the jags and migs built here can't go past LCA top speed of 1.2 mac h in GOA condition sea level trials then the LCA can go past their top speeds in high altitude .period .that's all. No special physics in needed here.

Also you have hot replied to my quieries regarding the topspeeds of F-16 ,GRIPPEN , J-10 in indian condition. They will be definitely lower I bet.