ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kunal Biswas]

Tejas can do aerial refueling?

Yes, It can ..

Though there will be test on it..

 

[sayareakd]

Yes, It can ..

Though there will be test on it..

 

[Zebra]

 

[ersakthivel]

Originally Posted by ersakthivel;[563779

Rather LCA mk1s will be flying in Sulur, at least 2000 to 3000Km away from the border. It will be the original spec Mk2s which will see border positions.

Does tha also mean any other fighter that is based in sulur before is also not battle worthy?.Come on grow up once it acieves FOC it can be positioned anywhere.It's AESA solutoin is still being worked outOnce small glitches are iorned out it can be placed anywhere..?

The J-10 mind you is just an F-16 with a canard and Russian engine. just note that during high altitude trials at LEH F-16(latest version) and F-18 couldnot take off with full load.

It does not apply. The F-18E/F and F-16E/F are much heavier than J-10A. The problem was identified more due to fuel lines design rather than aerodynamics or thrust deficiencies. It had nothing to do with T/W ratio. If that was the case then Rafale with lesser T/W than the new F-16 with a 14.5 ton engine would have been much worser.

How come topline aircaft makers sent planes with faulty fuel lines for high altitude evaluation. Chinese know fully well that their J-10 cant take off with full loads in high himalayas and they are putting their sukhoi variants in tibet for the job.The F-16 barely manouvers at high altitude with full load.So there is no wonder in its difficulty to take off with full load in LEH,because it is the forefather of j-10

so keep in mind that while GRIPPENS and F-16s are not made for india's varied conditions,but LCA is.many blogs also mention that J-10 cannot take off with full loads and give hundred percent in high himalayan conditions. The slow speed of LCA now will be a thing of history when high powered engine is put into it.It is not due to faulty aerodynamics as people say here.
LCA's payload decreases by 500Kg when taking off from Brangalore's air strip. From Leh it will be significantly lower even though the transient temperature is lower than Bangalore. So, LCA won't take off at full loads from Leh either. This will apply to aircraft like FGFA and MKI too.

the canards are just extra control surfaces they are not meant for higher speeds.the lca has more wing area so it can generate a higher lift and it will assist in gripping the air in tighter manouvers.

Hmm, if you are explaining to the readers on how Canards work, then it is fine. But if you claim I said it, then it is wrong. Canards do not increase speed, it increases lift. For Gripen it would mean extra lift at low altitudes and extra turning capability, an advantage even MKI has.

LCA isn't meant for dog fights, it will have poor low speeds at low altitudes. It can manage dog fights at high altitudes, maybe even better than Gripen or MKI. At least the Mk2 will.

Hmmm once again you are confusing the issue.If canards are so lift increasing can u explain its absence in SU-35 terminator? and F-22? The twisted wing root with cranked deltain LCA does the same job as canards in GRIPPEN and J-10.Besides canards are the worst RCS enhancing parameter.

The LCA will pick up GRIPPEN and J-10 much earlier due to the canards.So in the first few minutes of BVR fight LCA wil have clear advantage over these old delta canards, Notice the absence of canards in F-22 and PAKFA. Only old designs like EUROFIGHTER,RAFALE ,J-10,GRIPPEN have canards. Even in RAFALE canards advertised as better handling aids only .The LCA can out climb GRIPPEN ,J-10 ,F-16 due to low wing loading and cranked composite delta wing design.

.If you have any doubt you can go to F-16 XL developmental flight pages and see for yourself.I am not pedddling any pet physics theory here.The cranked delta F-16 can carry 40% extra payload with 20% extra range with much better flight chrecteristics through out th flyin envelope. I will post the authentic link seperatelty

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 superiorhigh altitude performance where more wing area is needed to grip the air.

The LCA's problem comes from it's higher weight and lower thrust. That's why the Mk2 was mooted.

Due to it's small size and original light weight specs, the canards were not needed. However, LCA will be 14.5m long now while being 7 tons. So, small size(13.5m and 5.5 tons) is no longer an excuse. Still, LCA's specs do not ask for Gripen like performance with AoA at 40o. So, Gripen needed Canards. LCA does not match Gripen's low speed characteristics due to design either.

SAF asked for good low speed performance and excellent high speed performance. IAF asked for even higher high speed performance. So, the requirements were different where Gripen is like MKI in design while LCA is like Su-35. Top speed above mach 2 depends on other factors too like design of the inlet. While the Mig-21 does Mach 2.2 compared to LCA's planned Mach 1.8 the high speed performance of the LCA will still exceed Mig-21 even though T/W of Mig-21 is lower compared to final spec LCA.

Good low speed performance is taken care of in LCA by low wing loading and wingroot twist with cranked delta design.All fighter planes will have to meet in the same skies.The inlet design change is not a very major one .The IAF first blundered by asking for Mig-21 load of 2 tons and after the advent of long range heavy missiles from Russians they asked for increased payload and it resulted in increased strengthening of the wing and weight increase.which further resulted in Mk-2 development.

Fact- in a network centic era of tommorrow an LCA with long range modern missiles will defenitely defeat j-10 and j-20. The J-20's stealth will be picked up modern day UCAVs with their IRST and relayrd ot LCA.So dont worry much about stealth.

Fact is NCW is overrated to the point where people believe the AWACS will handle everything. The problem here is we don't have
enough AWACS. Even if we did, superiority against enemy fighters isn't guaranteed because of terrain, physics and fighter capability. Secondly, the J-20 would be at "God" level against 4th gen aircraft, no matter how good, including Super MKI and Rafale.

Without PAKFA, J-20 would eat us alive regardless of how many AWACS and 4th gen fighters we have. Meaning every single J-20 mission would mean a kill is guaranteed. Rather if IAF flies, it dies. PAKFA evens the odds as it can fly without being detected too.

Against J-10, LCA's capability would be equivalent and will be based on how good the pilots and missiles are rather than the machines.

Let's not forget the Chinese stuff will be on par with us by the end of the decade, if not better. I am not one of those people who believes the Chinese are blatant copycats. They have a lot of their own designs which can even surpass the best American and Russian designs given enough time. At least they are spending more than the Russians or French are.

Let me again state once for all finally no aircraft fihter aircraft in the world will ever have enough EW capacity to defy AWACS. Indian AWACS orde is currently for 12 .No J-20 ,no F-22 can escape awacs .Dont be fooled by stealth crap One aura UcAV with a state of the art future IRST will pinpoint F-22 and and J-10.The advantage always lie with the deefender.The power spit out by AWACS will send any counter measures packing.

The right way to counter J-20 is not PAKFA.This is discussed thread bare in all forums.One steath Ucav with IRST 100 kms from infront of an LCA formation with long rakge dual seeker modern missiles will finish off any j-20 hunting pack.

Because heavy fighters like J-20 and F-22 cannot hide thier heat signature however hard their producers may lie.So an small UCAV with big IRST payload will give target information to LCAs which can shoot their long range missiles with impunity.It will be standard tactics for all airfoce with proliferation of UCAVS in future.Incidenly stealth planes have lower weapon loads for compared to non 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

Wrong take on what I said. My point was LCA was built as a point defence fighter meant to handle incoming enemy strike packages. Have you seen the movie Red Tails? Watch it. You will get the point I was making. The enemy interceptors would force the incoming fighter escorts to fight them while leaving the bomber squadrons undefended.

Now, if LCA is tasked to defend the airspace. The incoming enemy has a strike package with escort. What is LCA's priority? Get into dog fights with the escorts or take on the strike package? If LCA fights the escorts, the strike package will deliver their loads and high tail it out of there with the escorts right behind them, leaving the LCA pilots scratching their heads. If the strike package is engaged instead, the escorts can't do a lot while we may face a bit higher attrition. So, you need to understand the operational role of the jet rather than get into some meaningless Bollywood fist fight.

The role assigned for LCA the point defence fighter makes it to be nimble low weght and leader of their forces in shorter ranges. If numbers are equal it doesnt make any deference whether the opposing aircraft is strike or figter. If AWACS support or ground radar support is there the invading heavy fighter will be at a heavy disadvantage vis a vis LCA. Tons of arguments from your side wont make it wrong.in modern air theater all low weight high T/W fighetrs fare equaly well

5.LCA 's angle of atack can never cross 22 degrees because of poor dessign.

it's becaause of low powered engine.Once high poweed engines come into mark-2 It would be taken care of.This problem originated in the sudden extra payload requirement of IAF,not the fault of ADA.First it wa designed for MIG_21 loads.Then he requirement changed for higer loads.

Yeah right. Blame IAF again. ADA's design called for an empty weight of 5.5 tons, not 6.5 tons. This reduced actual payload of 4.5 tons to 3.5 tons. Funny how IAF is to be blamed. Currently the new payload value of 5 tons only reflects IAF's requirement for a 1m longer fuselage for new generation avionics and is only 0.5 tons higher than originally envisioned.

Had LCA been delivered in the 2001-04 timeframe with Mk1 specs of 3.5 tons and Kaveri the IAF would have bought it. You don't ask IAF to buy the LCA in 2013-14, a decade later with the same specs. Please learn the changes that are required with the changes that have happened today and not what was promised a decade ago

The F-404 on a 5.5 ton LCA would have fit the operational requirements. The increase to 6.5 tons spoiled a lot of other design parameters in the process. You can't blame weight gain on IAF. The IAF does not decide all the dimensions and weights, that is ADA's job. IAF only specifies things like I want my aircraft to have a T/W of greater than 1 while carrying 4 AAMs and full fuel load with an endurance of 2-3 hours. They don't say things like it should have this weight, this height, this much thrust etc.

Earlier ADA wanted a 5.5 tons design with a payload of 4.5 tons and a thrust of 8-8.5 tons. IAF has now agreed to a new spec of 7 tons, payload of 5 tons and thrust of 9.5 tons. So, IAF has actually decreased requirement a bit. Not IAF's fault..

Ihave already expalined that higher weight is the IAF's tunnel vision of not anticipating heavy long range air to air missiles angd giving mig-21 payloads to ADA.If tehy have given 4 tons as eapon weght the LCA would have been very different.

Even now the LCA can fire every long range missile that can be fired by SUKHO,.Which is not the case for RAFALEs and GRIPPENS.They dont have the euquivalent of Russian lethal long range misiles available to us.mind it,

If IAF gave initial 5 ton payload they would have got the fighter they deserved. no crying fowl now.They still got a fighter whose control laws are equivalent to the letahl F-16 Xl.

LCA uses far more composites than Gripen (50% more in weight) and still has an empty weight that equals the Mk1. So, the LCA's design is so bad that had they used metal, the increase of 17% in weight would have pushed it past Gripen C which reached IOC at the same time as TD-2 was made. Now do you understand a bit on why Gripen is a better design?

wrong argument once again.The Lca has larger wings and LOWER WING LOADING ,which you always ignore.In varied indian conditions this is a must.to compensate for the larger wing area for a superlative hig altitude performance to be encountered in himalayas The Lca is heavy

.So the composites are used to reduce weght.Unlike that GRIPPEn is just a bullet with delta wing and a canard to improve manouverbility. They havent even thougt about worse RCS of canards or cranked delta design of F-16 Xl,because it is an old aircraft

The power needs of EW suit will be calculated and factored in mark-2 The mark-1s can fly along with dedicated EW aircrafts.they dont need to be thrown in dustbin.The SNECMA -GTRE K-10 kavery can overcome all thee shortfalls of mark-1s inmidlife upgrades.
Yes. The Mk2 would handle it. I said the same. So, why all the hate mate?

My point was Mk1 cannot handle the new requirements for EW and will not carry an internal EW suite at the same level as the Mk2. That's all. Nowhere did I say we need to throw the Mk1s in the dustbin because of lack of EW capability.

The Kaveri may not be fitted on to either of the LCAs during MLUs. That's because we don't know the specs of the new Kaveri. Heck even GTRE does not know that. Their primary job is to build a new powerplant for AMCA and not for LCA's MLUs. The Mk2 has been extensively redesigned to handle F-414s. Maybe the new Kaveri will be used only on Mk2s and not Mk1s. But it is too early to speculate, so even you shouldn't say things like the new engines will take care of Mk1s problems with that much certainty.

The SNECMA _GTRE kavery specs will b,and it can be mated to LCA mk-1,because LCA mk-1 is built around that spec.And it will have spare power for futuree EW suit.e good enough for both LCA mk-1 and AMCA

 

[p2prada]

Dear p2prada
My contention is

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.

Dear ersakthivel,

This isn't a race. It is all about mission objectives achieved though mission loadouts. Simply moving fast isn't enough. You need to be able to move fast while carrying combat loads.

Flight control laws for aircraft define a lot more than simply moving in a straight line at top speeds. Place weapons and drop tanks on the LCA and all of LCA's top speed reduces to nothing.

In UAE the current specification of Rafale is highly underpowered, that's because of desert conditions and the higher transient temperatures. So, they have a need for a higher thrust engine. Dassault will deliver and Rafale will exceed performance expectations. That's how it works world over. Contractors make their aircraft suitable to the conditions they are required in.

PAF F-16s can fly past Mach 1.2 in desert condition with proper mission load outs in AB, it is a given, as compared to LCA Mk1s speed with clean airframe.

SAAB Gripen can do Mach 1.2 without afterburners, but in clean loads. So, performance at lower altitudes would be better than LCA. They have been tested in Indian conditions and the figures are not known. Meaning it is already far superior to both LCA and F-16. Gripen NG will surpass even that.

J-10 is unknown because we don't have any hard data on it. Once PAF gets J-10s we will know.

Also, you need to know that LCA actually did Mach 1.1 with clean load.

Except for Jaguar and Mig-27, which are low altitude strike fighter bombers, all fighter aircraft including Mig-21 in the Indian inventory have demonstrated greater than Mach 1 speeds with combat loads. LCA has achieved mach 1.1 with clean loads only. With combat load, low altitude speed is lesser than mach 1. In fact jaguar manages Mach 1.1 with a clean load, just like LCA.

The highest LCA has achieved till date is Mach 1.4 at high altitudes and Mach 1.1 at low altitudes, all with clean loads. The aircraft it needs to replace, Mig-21 can reach top speeds of mach 1.8 while carrying 2 Air to air missiles and 2 drop tanks. It can exceed mach 2 with 4 air to air missiles too. LCA is not designed to exceed Mig-21s supersonic performance in the first place. It was designed to exceed Mig-21s subsonic performance at low altitudes which was very poor on the Mig-21. But it is nothing great.

Btw, my analogy for F-35s subsonic speed in relation to F-22 was to show that what happens at lower altitudes do not translate to performance in higher altitude. While you claim a Mach 1.2 LCA will do Mach 1.8 at high altitudes, till date the LCA has not been able to cross Mach 1.4 at high altitude. The current goal is Mach 1.6 for FOC.

So, now get off this top speed nonsense. It has very little operational significance at low altitudes.

LCA is a high drag airframe compared to what they have planned for LCA Mk2. On top of that it has a massive wing which adds to the drag and is underpowered. As it stands today, the LCA Mk1 will be the most useless aircraft in IAF's inventory. Why else do you think IN has rejected placing orders for N-LCA Mk1 and have instead ordered N-LCA Mk2 along with the trainer version of N-LCA Mk2?

T/W is also not everything. The Sea Harrier weighs around 6 tons, carries less than 2 tons of fuel, but the engine delivers 98KN of thrust. At 10 tons of thrust, the Sea Harrier has a T/W ratio of 1.2 compared, but it's top speed around Mach 1. Meaning it was always designed as a subsonic strike fighter with small wings and a high wing loading. It's overpowered engine has nothing to do with it's low speed.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

]

Mirage 2000 not LCA ..

 

[ersakthivel]

The only point I want to know about is ,has the ADA erred in placing a larger wing? Defenitely there must be a reason for large wings and lower wing loading .I agree that top speed is not the be all and end all of fighter aircraft.The advent of modern missiles has made it a reduntant parameter.It doesnt matter whether an aircaft flies at mach 1.6 or mach 2,When it is in the kill box of a modern missile there is no difference.

as per all expert opinions low wing loading is aa very desirable factor .Deltas like mirages are good at climbing fights and F-16 s are good at turning fights.When an F-16 encounters LCA it will try to turn tighter.Its high wingloading and normal wing helps here.When an LCA gets chased by F-16 it will try climbing. Its low wing loading and cranked delta will help it.Thats all.It is already discussed in forums where the greek airforce has both F-16s and Mirages.

The npilot skills and tactics will alone decide the outcome.


The following is posted from wikipedia.Please rebut



Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition


F-16XL compared with a conventional F-16.
In 1980, the USAF signed on as a partner, providing the third and fifth production F-16 airframes. These two airframes became the only examples of the F-16XL.
In March 1981, the USAF announced the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program to procure a replacement for the F-111 Aardvark. The concept envisioned an aircraft capable of launching deep interdiction missions without requiring additional support in the form of fighter escort or jamming support. General Dynamics submitted the F-16XL, while McDonnell Douglas submitted a variant of the F-15 Eagle.
Though the two aircraft were competing for the same role, they were fairly different in design approach. The F-15E is basically an F-15D two-seat trainer with the back-seat station modified to support ground-attack instruments, while the F-16XL has major structural and aerodynamic differences from the original F-16. As such, the XL would have required much more effort, time and money to put into full production.


Additionally, the Strike Eagle has two engines, which gives it more thrust and capacity to carry more weapons and/or armor. Furthermore, engine redundancy can be very useful for an aircraft whose mission involves operating within the reach of anti-aircraft artillery (AA) and surface-to-air missiles (SAM), in addition to the standard threats of fighter aircraft and interceptors.
In February 1984, the USAF awarded the ETF contract to McDonnell Douglas. The two F-16XLs were returned to the Air Force and placed in storage.
[edit]Design


The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of 2 sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3°, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much smoother at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% further. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hardpoints:


16 wing stations of capacity 750 lb (340 kg) each
4 semi-recessed AIM-120 AMRAAM stations under fuselage
2 wingtip stations
1 centerline station
2 wing "heavy/wet" stations
2 chin LANTIRN stations
However, the "heavy/wet" stations interfered with up to 4 wing stations.


Importance of High Turn Rate


For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.


With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.


All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.


The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage. The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section. It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.


Proof is in the Flying


At the Air Force Flight Test Center, I was privileged to fly in the F-16XL with Experimental Test Pilot Jim McKinney of General Dynamics. Jim flew the maiden flight of the F-16XL on July 3, 1982. That was accomplished twenty months after GD, having received Air Force assurance of support, decided to turn their design concepts into a flying aircraft. Also, I was able to discuss with Jim and Harry Hillaker, who is now GD's Vice President and Deputy Program Director for the F-16XL, the derivative fighter evaluation program the aircraft has been undergoing for more than a year. For that purpose, we joined Lt. Col. Marty Bushnell, USAF, who commands the Combined Test Force (CTF) on the F-16XL evaluation, and Lt. Col. Joe Bill Dryden, USAF, the chief Tactical Air Command member on the CTF.


Under the derivative fighter evaluation program, 240 F-16XL flights were planned to be completed by May 15, 1983, by two aircraft: a single seater and a dual seater. In fact, within the time and funding provided, 369 test flights were accomplished. Colonel Bushnell said that the reliability and maintainability of the F-16XL appear to be the same as that of the operational F-16. These features should support XL sortie rates in service similar to those of the F-16. About thirty-six sorties per month were averaged in the basic test period through May 15. Among other results of the tests was validation of the predicted improved performance of the aircraft. An extended test plan called for an additional seventy-two flights, but more than that will be achieved by year's end, the CTF people believe.


Our flight was in aircraft 75-0747. It was the third F-16 full-scale development aircraft. Its sister ship is single-seater 75-0749, which was the fifth full-scale development aircraft. First, we discussed characteristics of the aircraft and specific plans for this flight. Jim McKinney explained that we would explore the four corners of the F-16XL's performance envelope: high altitude/low speed, high altitude/high speed, low altitude/low speed, and low altitude/high speed.


The aircraft was loaded with twelve Mk 82 50-pound general-purpose bombs, four dummy AMRAAM missiles, and two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Internal fuel was 10,200 pounds (full fuel for the prototype is 10,600 pounds). Allowing for fuel consumption for engine start and taxi, gross takeoff weight was 43,500 pounds. Jim estimated the takeoff roll at a bit more than 3,000 feet.


The aft cockpit of the F-16XL test aircraft is configured with the current avionics and sensors that are in production standard F-16C and D aircraft. Should the derivative fighter evaluation result in the F-16XL's becoming USAF's dual-role fighter, the avionics suite will be the same as that being developed under the Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MSIP) for the F-16C/D, which will start being delivered, with initial core systems, in 1984.


When fully implemented, MSIP will provide the desired night/under-weather, navigation/weapon-delivery and beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile capabilities. The back seat in the Dual-Role Fighter version would have the controls and displays, including a color-moving map, added to provide the independent or interactive task coordination required to fulfill the dual-role missions. If additional, or future, avionics are needed, the MILSTD-1553 avionics multiplex bus will be able to accommodate virtually anything by a simple reprogramming of its software.


Jim McKinney re-familiarized me with the rear cockpit controls and emergency procedures. Then we put on personal equipment and walked to the aircraft for preflight.


The F-16 design has always impressed me. It looked functional yet appealing, a design already in the classic category. Approaching the F-16XL with an F-16 alongside reinforced the appeal. Just parked on the ramp, the airplane looked efficient, and you wanted to get in and fly to see what it will do. The walk-around inspection reinforced the feeling, and verified features of the XL design discussed earlier.


Of particular interest were the control surfaces on the aft edge of the cranked-arrow wing. The F-16XL does not have a horizontal tail. Thus, the control surfaces for both pitch and roll are on the rear edge of the wing. The inboard surfaces are mainly for pitch control, while the out board surfaces take care of roll control. However, thanks to the automatic flight control system, when performance requires it, all four surfaces can act in either pitch or roll.


The drag chute s another difference noted on the walk-around. Except for the Norwegian configuration, standard F-16s do not have a drag chute. It was installed on the F-16XL for operational advantages. It enables the aircraft to recover at airfields whose runways have been shortened through enemy action, as is the threat in Europe. With the drag chute, the F-16XL can recover on runways shorter than 2,000 feet, and it can attain higher-gross-weight takeoffs for the short, critical field lengths of NATO runways. The drag chute allows aborts on a wet runway under hot day conditions at the maximum gross takeoff weight of 48,000 pounds.


Also on the walk-around, we could see close up how the designers mated external payload to the new wing. The method is called "semi-conformal mounting." The normal method uses a pylon protruding from the wing, with a bomb rack that contains multiple ejectors, and then the bombs. That approach imposes high drag and weight penalties.


With the F-16XL method, only the ejectors protrude from the wing and the bombs are thus snugged up close. Their arrangement conforms to the wing shape. Also, the wingspan is larger enough to permit staggered placement from centerline outboard, and n line from fore to aft. With one bomb behind the other (in line) the second bomb has half the drag of the first one and the third bomb has half the drag of the second one.


By staggering each row of bombs inboard to outboard, the interference drag is also reduced. Thus, the total drag of this innovative carriage concept is sixty percent lower than the conventional concept. The result is another performance bonus: supersonic flight with a full bomb load. While up to sixteen Mk 82 bombs can be hung from the F-16XL's big wing, twelve were on 75-0747 for our flight.


Supersonic in Seconds


Takeoff from Edwards AFB's Runway 22 with maximum power at gross weight of 43,500 pounds was achieved in les than 3,000 feet. Jim eased back the power to climb away from the Edwards traffic pattern and take up a northerly heading for the test airspace assigned to us.


Cleared to climb to 30,000 feet, Jim applied afterburner and back pressure. Our weight was diminished only by the fuel used for takeoff and the brief excursion out of the pattern. We climbed at more than 20,000 feet per minute, leaping from 4,000 to 27,000 feet in sixty-seven seconds. Jim eased the power back while turning into the supersonic corridor and getting cleared by Edwards Control to begin a supersonic run. Jim applied afterburner and the aircraft accelerated smoothly from Mach 0.95 through 1.0 and to 1.2 in seconds. Even with the heavy bomb load aboard, the aircraft went supersonic without a tremble. Handling characteristics at mach 1.2 with the heavy ordnance load were remarkably similar to those of the standard F-16 without bombs.


Jim pulled the throttle back to military power. The aircraft continued to coast supersonically for a long period before the mach meter showed that we were once again subsonic at 0.97.


Next, we maneuvered at slow flight speeds and high angles of attack, demonstrating the F-16XL's agile handling in that corner of the performance envelope. With airspeed below 150 knots, Jim invited me to try a roll to the left. Pressure on the side-stick controller resulted in a fast roll, with no sensation of lagging because of the heavy payload. Release of pressure stopped the roll immediately. I tended to "ratchet," and tried to end the roll with opposite pressure. That's unnecessary with the F-16XL's system, as Jim demonstrated. I tried it again, more smoothly this time.


We accelerated back to more than 400 knots and I tried more 360° rolls. Once I was accustomed to the correct control stick pressures, the roll rate was fast and the controls crisp. The same feelings were apparent at 500 knots – quick, sure response, with no feeling of carrying the heavy bomb load.


Next, Jim demonstrated the F110 engine's ability to accelerate from idle to max afterburner by slamming the throttle forward. Engine response was smooth with no coughing or stalling, thanks to General Electric's advanced electronic engine controls.


Then we descended to low level for penetration at high speed. Jim set up the aircraft at 600 knots indicated airspeed at 100 feet above ground level. The ride quality on a very hot day was smooth. The G-indicator on the head-up display (HUD) showed excursions of less than 0.2 above the below 1.0, but they were undetectable in the body. On similar flights with an F-4 as the chase aircraft, its G excursions were as high as 2.0, making for an uncomfortable ride and heavy concentration on flight controls.


In the loaded configuration, the F-16XL can penetrate at low level at airspeeds fifty-to-ninety knots faster than the basic F-6 when similarly configured. In fact, at every corner of the performance envelope, the aircraft has power in reserve, according to members of the Combined Test Force at Edwards.


Next, we conducted simulated weapons passes on a ground target, using the continuously computed impact point system (CCIP) displayed on the HUD. With this system, even this novice pilot, who has difficulty with a non-computing gun-sight, achieved on-target results. Attack maneuvers resulted in G forces ranging to +7.0. With the heavy bomb load aboard, the F-16XL is cleared for maneuvers up to +7.2 Gs, compared with 5.58 Gs in the F-16A. This demonstrates how the designers were able to increase the aircraft weight while maintaining structural integrity and mission performance.


We returned to Edwards to land on Runway 22. Touchdown speed was 170 knots. When Jim deployed the drag chute, its effect was instantaneous, slowing us to less than eighty knots in less than 1,000 feet.


With the F-16XL, the US Air Force has the option to gain markedly improved range, payload, and survivability performance over current fighters. According to its designers, the F-16XL in production would have a unit flyaway cost of about fifteen to twenty percent more than the F-16C and D.

 

[ersakthivel]

Please note that LCA control alwe has benn constructed on F-16 XL simulators.These links authentically state that the drag is lesser in F-16 Xl.And F-16 Xl has agile handling even in low speeds.It lost out because F-15 eagle is in a different league all together.So I dont see Grippen, F-16 ,and J-10 can outfly it.That is why I always wonder at the source of abolescence and inferioority of LCA that is often repeated again and again in this forum

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The only point I want to know about is ,has the ADA erred in placing a larger wing? Defenitely there must be a reason for large wings and lower wing loading

From Present config its Wing span is same as LCA MK1..

 

[p2prada]

Hi,

Fix your quotes. You don't need to quote what you say. You only need to quote the post you are replying too.

I am assuming all the blue text is yours.

Does tha also mean any other fighter that is based in sulur before is also not battle worthy?.Come on grow up once it acieves FOC it can be positioned anywhere.It's AESA solutoin is still being worked outOnce small glitches are iorned out it can be placed anywhere..[/COLOR]?

I did not say Mk1s cannot be positioned in other places. What I said is the Mk1 "won't" be placed on border regions. The point is it will be inferior to the enemy aircraft in those regions.

Also, my point about them being placed in Sulur is not just about it being battle worthy or not. My point is it won't leave Sulur for operational needs at all. We need aircraft for South India and we will see a MKI squadron somewhere here too. My point is Mk1s won't be seeing action on our borders unless we are desperate.

Patrolling South India, yes it can.

How come topline aircaft makers sent planes with faulty fuel lines for high altitude evaluation.

Those were not flaws, it is redesign. The requirements for MRCA far, far surpass that of LCAs requirements including it's take off needs.

Chinese know fully well that their J-10 cant take off with full loads in high himalayas and they are putting their sukhoi variants in tibet for the job.

J-10s are in Tibet too.

The F-16 barely manouvers at high altitude with full load.So there is no wonder in its difficulty to take off with full load in LEH,because it is the forefather of j-10

Hmmm once again you are confusing the issue.If canards are so lift increasing can u explain its absence in SU-35 terminator? and F-22? The twisted wing root with cranked deltain LCA does the same job as canards in GRIPPEN and J-10.Besides canards are the worst RCS enhancing parameter.

Canards being used in one platform does not mean it should automatically be used on another. Su-35/F-22 etc are different from Gripen/J-10 etc.

Notice the absence of canards in F-22 and PAKFA.

PAKFA has high lift generators called LEVCONS or movable LERX. Read up on that.

F-22 uses chines which act as lift generators at supersonic speeds. Read up on that.

J-20 uses Canards for the same. Read up on that.

Only old designs like EUROFIGHTER,RAFALE ,J-10,GRIPPEN have canards. Even in RAFALE canards advertised as better handling aids only .The LCA can out climb GRIPPEN ,J-10 ,F-16 due to low wing loading and cranked composite delta wing design.

LCA is even older than EF/Rafale. It is more in the Mirage-2000 category.

If you have any doubt you can go to F-16 XL developmental flight pages and see for yourself.I am not pedddling any pet physics theory here.The cranked delta F-16 can carry 40% extra payload with 20% extra range with much better flight chrecteristics through out th flyin envelope. I will post the authentic link seperatelty

What has this got to do with anything?

wrong argument once again.The Lca has larger wings and LOWER WING LOADING ,which you always ignore.

No I did not. If you notice my posts to Trackwhack, I repeatedly said the low wing loading and large wing area allows it it's best possible performance at high altitudes and not at low altitudes.

to compensate for the larger wing area for a superlative hig altitude performance to be encountered in himalayas

It is what I said. The only difference is the enemy won't allow you to use LCA's ""superlative" performance anyway. Notice that Americans have mentioned Gripen has superlative performance. But that did not mean it is better. Most top air forces rejected Gripen due to lack of capability. Even the controversy in Switzerland points to that.

The Lca is heavy .So the composites are used to reduce weght.

LCA was supposed to be the smallest and lightest fighter around. Don't try stomping on ADA's pride now. They wanted Mirage-2000 like performance while being 2 tons lighter. Now they are at Mig-21s level.

Unlike that GRIPPEn is just a bullet with delta wing and a canard to improve manouverbility. They havent even thougt about worse RCS of canards or cranked delta design of F-16 Xl,because it is an old aircraft

Good low speed performance is taken care of in LCA by low wing loading and wingroot twist with cranked delta design.

At low speeds it does that. At high speeds it acts as a vortex generator. Similar in aim as Canards, LERX or Chines.

All fighter planes will have to meet in the same skies.The inlet design change is not a very major one .The IAF first blundered by asking for Mig-21 load of 2 tons and after the advent of long range heavy missiles from Russians they asked for increased payload and it resulted in increased strengthening of the wing and weight increase.which further resulted in Mk-2 development.

ADA officially said
"LCA Mk1 sucks so we are making LCA Mk2."

Google it.

It is obvious from this nonsense that you haven't followed the LCA program at all.

LCA's payload was 4 tons. Long range heavy missiles from Russia have nothing to do with LCA because LCA will use western and Indian weapons only. Derby is the main BVR and will be replaced with Astra in the future. R-73 is the only Russian missile and it weighs around 100Kg.

Let me again state once for all finally no aircraft fihter aircraft in the world will ever have enough EW capacity to defy AWACS.

Forget AWACS, Growler is designed to beat ground based radars delivering power in the MW range. AWACS is like a small little thing in the sky compared to that.

Indian AWACS orde is currently for 12 .No J-20 ,no F-22 can escape awacs .

Wrong. F-22 and J-20 will run circles around AWACS and they won't know it. No radar in it's current form can beat these aircraft. Don't forget the Americans have had AWACS since the 70s. Phalcon is only an extension of the E-3. It is not a magic bullet.

Dont be fooled by stealth crap

One aura UcAV with a state of the art future IRST will pinpoint F-22 and and J-10.

Even the Russians say IRST is unreliable.

The advantage always lie with the deefender.The power spit out by AWACS will send any counter measures packing.

No it won't. The power spit out by AWACS can and will be used against it to find it and track it.

Ever heard of DRFM? Deceptive jamming? Seductive jamming? Band track breaking? None of these require high power.

The right way to counter J-20 is not PAKFA.This is discussed thread bare in all forums.One steath Ucav with IRST 100 kms from infront of an LCA formation with long rakge dual seeker modern missiles will finish off any j-20 hunting pack.

No. PAKFA is for deterrence. What the J-20 can do, so can PAKFA. So, it is equal.

The second sentence you wrote is terrible. IRST does not mean a 100% capability against stealth. An LCA formation will be eaten alive well before the J-20s are even detected.

Because heavy fighters like J-20 and F-22 cannot hide thier heat signature however hard their producers may lie.

So an small UCAV with big IRST payload will give target information to LCAs which can shoot their long range missiles with impunity.It will be standard tactics for all airfoce with proliferation of UCAVS in future.Incidenly stealth planes have lower weapon loads for compared to non stealth

IRST does not give enough targeting information, it only gives directional capability. Meaning it only provides information on which direction the J-20s are coming from, and even this is not 100%. Clouds and natural heat pockets in the sky will defeat it. You can take a chance and fire your missile at it, but the RF seeker on current generation BVR missiles will not lock on to the J-20 anyway. A passive IRST seeker will be limited by natural phenomenon and other disadvantages which can only be alleviated with a radar providing mid course updates. The seeker can see far, but there is no guarantee. By then the J-20 would have already taken out the LCAs using a combination of superior avionics, superior electronics, superior detection capability and superior stealth.

Also, don't assume that firing a missile means the target is down. Air combat does not work that way.

The role assigned for LCA the point defence fighter makes it to be nimble low weght and leader of their forces in shorter ranges. If numbers are equal it doesnt make any deference whether the opposing aircraft is strike or figter. If AWACS support or ground radar support is there the invading heavy fighter will be at a heavy disadvantage vis a vis LCA. Tons of arguments from your side wont make it wrong.in modern air theater all low weight high T/W fighetrs fare equaly well

That requirement is long dead. That's why both USAF and VVS discarded their light aircraft years ago. The Americans and the Russians did not even induct light fighters like the F-5 and the Mig-33.

If AWACS support is there, the heavy fighter is already engaging it and may have already destroyed it. If a ground radar is there, it is already gone. There is no combat value for LCA class aircraft and both Russia and the US proved it back in the 80s. France and Britain moved to medium class EF and Rafale. Even China has moved on to heavier fighters. Their new fifth gen fighters will be a heavy weight J-20 and a medium weight J-xx. There is no light weight category there.

Outside of small countries, all light aircraft around the world are being discarded.

The SNECMA _GTRE kavery specs will b,and it can be mated to LCA mk-1,because LCA mk-1 is built around that spec.And it will have spare power for futuree EW suit.e good enough for both LCA mk-1 and AMCA

Who said that? It is not known. Kaveri has been completely de-linked from the program. The current requirement is for F-414 engines while the LCA Mk1 will be powered by the F-404. Whether or not the GTRE-Snecma engine will be used on Mk1 and Mk2 is not known at all. There is nothing official that confirms or denies it. As a matter of fact, we don't even have a joint agreement in place, we are still negotiating.

You may know something about nanotechnology, but it is clear you know nothing about aircraft.

Everywhere with a faceplam on it, you are completely and hopelessly wrong.

 

[p2prada]

The only point I want to know about is ,has the ADA erred in placing a larger wing? Defenitely there must be a reason for large wings and lower wing loading .I agree that top speed is not the be all and end all of fighter aircraft.

No. The large wing is a good decision for a LCA type aircraft. It is a high altitude aircraft like the Mirage-2000. That's why it is mooted as a Mig-21 replacement.

A smaller wing would be in the JF-17/F-16 class where the wing loading is high and allows greater control at lower altitudes for strike and dog fights.

The advent of modern missiles has made it a reduntant parameter.It doesnt matter whether an aircaft flies at mach 1.6 or mach 2,When it is in the kill box of a modern missile there is no difference.

Missiles can do the turning. But there is such a thing called firing position. You need to achieve a satisfactory firing position in both dog fights and BVR fights. The enemy can deny this firing position to you if your aircraft is not agile enough to match the enemy.

The YF-23 was less agile and more stealthy than the YF-22. Hence was a primary cause for rejection for the new 5th gen program back in the 90s. The YF-23 was a better aircraft in many aspects except in agility. So, agility also matters.

Also, speed has less importance in BVR combat as long as you are not trying to run. BVR maneuvers are performed at low speeds because the missile will be forced to move at much higher Gs in order to match the slower target. There is a physical limitation.

BVR combat has everything to do with being able to shoot first before being identified. In case you know a BVR missile is headed your way, you can perform evasive maneuvers. BVR is not beatable. All pk figures you see for missiles are for target drones that fly a pre determined path.

as per all expert opinions low wing loading is aa very desirable factor .Deltas like mirages are good at climbing fights and F-16 s are good at turning fights.When an F-16 encounters LCA it will try to turn tighter.Its high wingloading and normal wing helps here.When an LCA gets chased by F-16 it will try climbing. Its low wing loading and cranked delta will help it.Thats all.It is already discussed in forums where the greek airforce has both F-16s and Mirages.

Please read all posts with my replies to Trackwhack. All of his posts are after your first post in this thread. Notice that you are repeating exactly what I did.

The npilot skills and tactics will alone decide the outcome.

Only if the aircraft are equal in capability.

The following is posted from wikipedia.Please rebut

You need to point out what I have to rebut. Considering what you posted about low wing loading is agreed by me, as demonstrated in my replies to Trackwhack, I don't see what you are trying to prove.

Please note that LCA control alwe has benn constructed on F-16 XL simulators.These links authentically state that the drag is lesser in F-16 Xl.And F-16 Xl has agile handling even in low speeds.It lost out because F-15 eagle is in a different league all together.So I dont see Grippen, F-16 ,and J-10 can outfly it.That is why I always wonder at the source of abolescence and inferioority of LCA that is often repeated again and again in this forum

Flight control laws for fly by wire are internal mechanisms of the aircraft. Performance will change based on the external aerodynamic design.

F-16XL isn't an air to air fighter. LCA is. So, the basic design of the airframe is different and hence even the flight control system will reflect those changes. The design itself is the exact opposite of what's required on LCA.

The F-16XL is also powered by much larger engines than the LCA.

Also, when I said the LCA airframe was draggy, I am not comparing it to other aircraft. I am saying the initial design specs called for lesser drag but was not achieved. There is nothing wrong with the LCA that's on paper, it is the flying LCA that is deficient on many levels. That's why the Mk2 was mooted. It is to get the actual LCA that's on paper. Comparatively the Gripen's drag characteristics are known to be among the lowest, so in effect there is lesser drag on Gripen than LCA. Therefore, a less powerful engine gives it greater performance than the LCA. It is not a comparison, it is more of an example to illustrate where LCA is still considered deficient.

 

[p2prada]

Expanding on LCA's armament where you mentioned LCA will have Long range Russian weapons and that with AWACS it can seek and destroy aircraft like J-20...

LCA cannot handle a 6m long, 800Kg K-100. It is not expected to carry the medium range, 110Km RVV-SD either. It will carry the Israeli Derby with a maximum range of 50Km and will be replaced by Astra Mk1 which has a maximum range of 70Km.

Comparatively the J-20s are expected to carry the PL-12C, with an estimated >150km range and the PL-12D(RAMJET - Meteor equivalent).

So, that's where LCA stands when it comes to BVR capability too.

 

[p2prada]

Also, speed has less importance in BVR combat as long as you are not trying to run. BVR maneuvers are performed at low speeds because the missile will be forced to move at much higher Gs in order to match the slower target. There is a physical limitation.

Small correction here, or rather to make it more clear, I am talking about evasive maneuvers when a missile is headed towards you.

BVR is not beatable.

I missed an "un" here... sorry for the mistake. BVR is not unbeatable.

 

[ersakthivel]

Forget AWACS, Growler is designed to beat ground based radars delivering power in the MW range. AWACS is like a small little thing in the sky compared to that.

These are all american crap thrown around.Their great stealth fighter f-111 night hawk was detected by a very old large wavelength radar over serbia and shot down by simple anti aircraft gun fire my friend.Still americans are lying to the world that thatt their stealth fitther will eat the AWACS for breakfast.Even DRDO has patented an ASEA radar with large wavelength antenas.So no one needs to be fooled

That's why PAKFA doesnot wholly relies on stealth and carries on with sukhoi level performance.The main criticism against F-35 is that once stealth is compromised It is a sitting duck.Because nothing can be hidden in this world frieng a 20 ton craft moving at mach-2 with massive heat emissions wont remain hidden forever.May be americans can use them against sudan libiya ,siriya. But not against other big powers.

If there is no need for a small single engine plane why are americans developing the F-35. The point about F-16 XL I posted is cranked arrow shaped delta leads to better performence through out the flying envelope.If F-16 XL has larger engines LCA too will get a midlife upgade with high power engines.

The IRST is at a developmental stage.Atmpospheric heat disturbances dont move at mach 1.6 speeds.So filtering them is easy also many ucavs scannig from different directions will pinpoint any so called stealths.(stealth to present widely used short wave lenght radars to be precise) like an elephant .Add to it the fact IRST is passive and no intruding fighter will even know it is being detected.The only way to defeat it is to carry massive amount of flares wich will exceed the aircraft's weight.The RAFALE already advocates this philosophy.

J-20 is a long range maritime bomber aimed at american aircraft carrier.It's canards and massive size with poor aerodynamics will defetitely preclude it from heavily defended air spaces

 

[ersakthivel]

Expanding on LCA's armament where you mentioned LCA will have Long range Russian weapons and that with AWACS it can seek and destroy aircraft like J-20...

LCA cannot handle a 6m long, 800Kg K-100. It is not expected to carry the medium range, 110Km RVV-SD either. It will carry the Israeli Derby with a maximum range of 50Km and will be replaced by Astra Mk1 which has a maximum range of 70Km.

Comparatively the J-20s are expected to carry the PL-12C, with an estimated >150km range and the PL-12D(RAMJET - Meteor equivalent).

So, that's where LCA stands when it comes to BVR capability too.

fans of all big BVR missiles beware.In modern combat no pilot even switches on his IFF,because it will betray the location and a swarm of well positioned enemy fighters will feed on you from advantageous positions.90 percent of engagements are in 40 kms range only. The moment the radar is switched on even once you are detected your chances of winning is close to nil in well defended environments.

SO they too will have to rely on the AWACS to survive,Wich you are dismissing with contempt .Once again for every jamming technique that is invented there will be counter techniques deployed.Higher power will always win .Haven't you seen developments that state that a sharply focused wave beam from AESA onboard americ's new AWACS can even fry the electronics of a fighter jets.

 

[ersakthivel]

Nothing precludes LCA from carrying 120 km range missiles. Derby is chosen now .But if future long range missiles are awailable there is no bar on putting it on LCA.

 

[ersakthivel]

Give me one authentic post that precludes LCA from carrying meteor range missiles

 

[p2prada]

If there is no need for a small single engine plane why are americans developing the F-35.

It is not a small engine. It delivers 191Kn of thrust. Will be uprated to 226KN, but this has not been decided yet. Comparatively F-16 delivers between 126KN and 142KN depending on version.

The point about F-16 XL I posted is cranked arrow shaped delta leads to better performence through out the flying envelope.If F-16 XL has larger engines LCA too will get a midlife upgade with high power engines.

No. The F-16 XL has very poor turning capability. It cannot even sustain a single turn at high speeds and low altitudes. The low wingloading design bleeds so much energy that it will need ABs to even sustain a single turn. Apart from that all specs for low altitudes is nowhere near the regular F-16C.

It's high sweep wing allows good high speed performance, quite like LCA. But at low altitudes it has the same drawbacks as any large delta wing and includes high drag and an unacceptable drop in energy at low altitudes. It's T/W ratio compared to a regular F-16 is very low, so it's vertical climb capability is not good.

The XL has a lot of fuel and a lot of hardpoints. So, it was designed to travel long distances quickly, drop payload and return to base as quickly. It's delta wing design did not make it a better performer than the high wingloading F-16 design at low altitudes while the F-15 surpassed a lot of other parameters, including surmounting F-16XLs other design and manufacturing related deficiencies.

The IRST is at a developmental stage.

No it is not. There are very advanced IRSTs in use in many countries. Both on ground and in the air.

Atmpospheric heat disturbances dont move at mach 1.6 speeds.So filtering them is easy also many ucavs scannig from different directions will pinpoint any so called stealths.(stealth to present widely used short wave lenght radars to be precise) like an elephant

Wrong. IRST does not track, it only monitors. It cannot measure speed and angle. It can only identify direction. If an atmospheric heat disturbance matches the MKIs heat signature then the IRST will determine it as a MKI.

The Russians use IRST as a precursor before using radar. It is the same way the F-22 uses RWR before using the radar. Once direction is determined, the radar makes a sweep of the area to detect and track the enemy. You can take a pot shot using a passive BVR missile, but the radar is still needed in order to provide mid course updates. Magic does not work.

.Add to it the fact IRST is passive and no intruding fighter will even know it is being detected.The only way to defeat it is to carry massive amount of flares wich will exceed the aircraft's weight.The RAFALE already advocates this philosophy.

IRST is passive and hence is dependent on the enemy to provide the required detection capability. Even if the enemy did, the problems I mentioned above creep in. Flares aren't used to beat an aircraft's IRST, it is used to beat a missiles passive seeker, primarily WVR missiles. All aircraft use flares and is not specific only to Rafale. Even helicopters carry flares.

J-20 is a long range maritime bomber aimed at american aircraft carrier.

Is that because Chengdu called you personally to tell you that? Nobody knows. In my opinion it is a multirole fighter, they did show a model with 6+2 AAMs in the weapons bay. So, no need to be so sure.

You can say it has a larger cross section than the PAKFA or F-22, but nothing to indicate it is only a bomber.

You can certainly say the LCA will be eaten alive though, bring AWACS in and we will lose our LCA as well as the AWACS in the same sortie.

It's canards and massive size with poor aerodynamics will defetitely preclude it from heavily defended air spaces

Right!!! A maritime strike bomber with no capability to breach heavily defended airspace but can bomb a Carrier Battle Group.

 

[ersakthivel]

Flight control laws for fly by wire are internal mechanisms of the aircraft. Performance will change based on the external aerodynamic design.

F-16XL isn't an air to air fighter. LCA is. So, the basic design of the airframe is different and hence even the flight control system will reflect those changes. The design itself is the exact opposite of what's required on LCA.

The F-16XL is also powered by much larger engines than the LCA.

Also, when I said the LCA airframe was draggy, I am not comparing it to other aircraft. I am saying the initial design specs called for lesser drag but was not achieved. There is nothing wrong with the LCA that's on paper, it is the flying LCA that is deficient on many levels. That's why the Mk2 was mooted. It is to get the actual LCA that's on paper. Comparatively the Gripen's drag characteristics are known to be among the lowest, so in effect there is lesser drag on Gripen than LCA. Therefore, a less powerful engine gives it greater performance than the LCA. It is not a comparison, it is more of an example to illustrate where LCA is still considered deficient.

What I pointed out with F_16 XL was that with higher weight than F-16, the twice wingspaced cranked delta F-16 XL has a better lift to drag performance.It can carry more load than F-16, fly farther.Ofcourse it needs a high powered engine

But even if you put a higer powered engine in a classic f-16 airfrmae you wont get an equivalent superio performance of F_16 XL

. But the LCA mk-1 too can get an upgraded engine in the form of GTRE_SNECMA or whatever development .We need not throw it in to the dustbin.

So there is nothing wrong in basic airframe configuration of LCA.It will be a good point defence fighter and a much needed close air support multirole bomber for the army.There is nothing obsolete with its high composite airframe,its quadreplex fly by wire technology,its low RCS cranked delta wing root twisted design.

The only problem is we need new american engine ,which the americans are glad to supply.And if a higher powered engine is pulled off by GTRE either alone or with collabaration,there is no problem for the LCA.Remember the GTRE needs to get ENGINeS right for AMCA .So serious effort will be put into it either through collabaration or alone

 

[p2prada]

90 percent of engagements are in 40 kms range only.

A lot of old engagements only and that is because both R-77 and Aim-120A/B and C-1 to 4 were restricted to a range of 70 Km. It was only after 2000 that we say the extended range C-5/7(110Km), C-8(160Km), RVV-SD/M(110Km), RVV-BD(200Km). Nowadays missiles have a no escape zone of 40Km. Forget engagement area. They are faster too. The C-5/7 are restricted to speeds of Mach 2.5 while C-8 can do Mach 3.5. Russian missiles are newer and data is unavailable.

That 40Km distance is no longer valid.

The moment the radar is switched on even once you are detected your chances of winning is close to nil in well defended environments.

That makes AWACS double edged swords. Modern warfare will include a mix of active and passive detection techniques like what's employed on the F-22.

SO they too will have to rely on the AWACS to survive,Wich you are dismissing with contempt .Once again for every jamming technique that is invented there will be counter techniques deployed.Higher power will always win .Haven't you seen developments that state that a sharply focused wave beam from AESA onboard americ's new AWACS can even fry the electronics of a fighter jets.

Yes. But only fighters will jam, not AWACS. If you bring LCA to the battle the larger J-20 will jam both the AWACS and your fighter before eating them both alive.

That little psyops myth about burning off electronics is in dreams. America has no new AWACS, only an export design Wedgetail.

High power Microwaves are not deployed, and that's for sure. If they do I am pretty sure we will see it. Currently, it is only in theory.

A HPM is also directional and needs to be very accurate. The HPM must be able to match the fighters movements too and will take a few minutes to burn through electronics.

Nothing precludes LCA from carrying 120 km range missiles. Derby is chosen now .But if future long range missiles are awailable there is no bar on putting it on LCA.

The aircraft simply isn't designed for large missiles. It is a small fighter. In the future, only Astra Mk1 is planned.

Give me one authentic post that precludes LCA from carrying meteor range missiles

Meteor is not a long range missile. It will be in the RVV-SD category. Nevertheless, the point is the J-20 will still carry better missiles while being a better platform by itself. So, there is no point taking cover behind fiction because the facts state otherwise.