ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Rahul92]

Atleast we know the truth

 

[ersakthivel]

You are just referring to wrong figures. The published figures with 4 missiles would give you a T/W weight of 0.91. It is very very well known that LCA has a figure of less than 1 and was announced by IAF and ADA too.

Only idiots buy every claim a manufacturer makes.

You are just referring to wrong figures. The published figures with 4 missiles would give you a T/W weight of 0.91. It is very very well known that LCA has a figure of less than 1 and was announced by IAF and ADA too.

Only idiots buy every claim a manufacturer makes.

The thrust to weight ratio is given as per international norms .Not from some one's imagination.When people give TWR for fighters they follow international norms.So the LCA twr figures follow the same international figures as f-16 norms.

 

[ersakthivel]

Give me one authenti source for your claim that LCA has a TWR of 0.91 .I gave a source wikipedia.The figures were put out ADA in 2011 bagaloree airshow.Dont pretend that I havent given a source. Meanwhile go and revise all your posts in thhis or any other forum.Have you ever quuoted any single authentic source to rebut my claim,You are simply speaking like Einsteen.You dont give a shit for high ITR even in a low altittude. In the same forum where you claim mirage pilots quoted that F-16s are faster, They also explained that how using the mica missile mirage can out wit F-16 even in turning fight. so let me post the relevant link with authentic quotes from GREEK AIRFORCE chief.

Wildcat
Posted: Jan 25, 2005 - 03:08 AM
Senior member



Joined: Nov 11, 2003 - 12:49 PM
Posts: 289

Status: Offline
Well, the figures are not REALLY false, but they are clearly biased:
The mirage 2000 is a very slick (and beautiful, to me) fighter, primarily designed for scramble interception against MiG-25s, and it is true that a Mirage 2000 can (logically) fly faster and higher than a Viper.

Nevertheless, the Mirage 2000 is fairly less powerful than the Viper, so that this advantage in speed and acceleration is negated as soon as you try to fit a decent bomb load on the Mirage 2000.

It is also true that the instantaneous turn rate of the Mirage 2000 is slightly better, but the sustained turn rate of the Viper is better, which is probably better in a dogfight, all in all. Dassault doesn't seem to talk about that too much...

Then, the consumption grid is nearly a lie: the Mirage 2000 really burns less fuel than a Viper, but the Viper can carry more fuel and its engine produces greater thrust (its thrust/consumption ratio is better), so that the Viper actually has a better range and a better combat time than the Mirage 2000.

The air-to-ground mission grid is even worse: with eight Mk-82 bombs and two tanks, a Mirage 2000 can only carry two short-range IR missiles to protect itself, whereas a Viper with eight bombs and one tank can carry four AMRAAMs. If you want the Mirage 2000 to be loaded with four MICAs as well, only four Mk-82 bombs can be loaded then... and, as it is explained under the grid, if you try to load bigger bombs than Mk-82s on the Mirage 2000, it can no longer carry the two big wing tanks, and its range becomes pretty shorter than the range of a similarly-equipped Viper.

To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight. However, in air-to-ground missions the Viper is clearly better, as it can carry a much heavier load on a longer range. I really love the Mirage 2000, but it was designed as a small interceptor, not a multirole fighter.

This is from where you are quoting F-16's excellence

In the same forum let me put following quotes

CheckSix
Posted: Jan 26, 2005 - 03:15 PM
Active Member



Joined: Nov 29, 2004 - 11:49 PM
Posts: 102

Status: Offline
Some greeks said, it is superiour to F-16 in dogfight, they must know it, they operate them both.

F-16 has a better thrust weight ratio, but loses more speed in tight turns due its higher wingloading, they said. Surely F-16 is a bit compromised at high altitude, matches agains MiG-29 showed the same.

I can't find the link, I'll post it later.


In Air to ground the F-16 might be more advanced. But how would that be in a high-threat scenario, wher you can't patrol at 20k with 300kts?

CheckSix
Posted: Feb 01, 2005 - 12:44 PM
Active Member



Joined: Nov 29, 2004 - 11:49 PM
Posts: 102

Status: Offline
M2k loadout has been broadly discussed, but what is a combat payload of F-16. Mostly their A2G weapons are 2 small bombs or 2 harms.

If these numbers are correct:
Flight data

Dassault has done their job extremely well. Look at the acceleration tables!
Despite its weaker engine, M2k accelerates significantly faster than F-16.

polloFS
Posted: Mar 07, 2005 - 04:37 PM
Newbie



Joined: Mar 01, 2005 - 10:12 AM
Posts: 9

Status: Offline
The -5 is an exceptional aircraft in every way, and in the hands of the right customer, it can play havoc with Vipers. In the case of the ROCAF, their electronic suites, RDY radar and BVR capability will be very well employed against PLAAF J-10s/J-11s.

In the case of the HAF and especially its pilots, I believe that the TuAF Block 30/40/50 fleet amred with mostly AIM-120As and Bs, and very few of them at that, will have a very hard time against the Dassault squadrons.

In the case of equally skilled HAF M2000-5 Vs F-16C Blk 52+ pilots, I think we'd be in for a very close match. The -5s would operate better at higher alts and optimize their RDY and probably superior ICMS2K suites to full effect against the 52+s long-stick AIM-120C5s. In short, the BVR arena is likely to be won by the -5s, due to kinematic advantages, more powerful EW systems, better AA radar and shorter ranged, but more lethal AA missiles. This would definately not be a consinstent thing though-the +52 will very much hold its own in BVR as well.

Approaching the merge, the JHMCS/IRIS-T combination should kill anything that flies. Period.

Generally, maneuvering wise, the M2Ks operate better at high altitude and have a sharper and faster instantenous turn rate which can be exploited for a quick shot. Mirage-2000Cs have definately made of that + the Mica's off boresight capability to good effect.

I think the latest offerings from both Dassault + Lockheed are very equally matched, each with its own strong points.

lamoey
Posted: Apr 05, 2005 - 07:01 PM
Forum Veteran



Joined: Apr 25, 2004 - 06:44 PM
Posts: 609

Status: Offline
Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:

"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."

He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:

"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."

He ends by saying:

"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."

To me this captures it in a nutshell.

 

[ersakthivel]

from thesame F-16.net

kovamaniac
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 08:17 PM
Newbie



Joined: May 15, 2005 - 12:52 AM
Posts: 5
Location: Patras-Thiva,Greece
Status: Offline
As far as the M2000 vs F-16 comparison is concerned, I should add something totally practical which comes from daily usage of both types in HAF. What I want to say is generally that when a HAF M2000 wants to engage a Viper, it leads the Viper at low altitude where the M2000 connot be beaten in any way.I haven't seen yet any aircraft-apart from Su-27 family,which is, for me, the best aircraft ever built-that can achieve "Kill Hour" on a M2000 below 6-7,000 ft no matter the aspect between them. Ok? I have nothing else to add,as Fantasma337 -ask him about F-4E, I think no one else knows more about this aircraft- and the other Greek friends covered me and gave you a very clear picture about the M2000.

PS: I should mention that this is not a thread talking about HAF and TuAF or Greeks' and Turks' politics.

duplex
Posted: Mar 21, 2006 - 07:06 PM
Senior member



Joined: Apr 14, 2005 - 05:30 PM
Posts: 340

Status: Offline
Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?


<<To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. >>

This true.

>>With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight>>

This is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.

The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).

A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.

As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.
Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?

Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.

HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.

The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system

So try to come to terms with the idea that there is a reason for dassault to build a mirage with low wing loading and HIgh instataneous turn fighter. You just cannot sindg peons for some pilot quote .If F-16 is so superior why all fighters after it are more or less delta?
Havent you noticed that Eurofighter and rafael and F-22 are deltas. Havent you noticed that PAKFA is huge flying wing with acres and acres of wing area? Where is the cropped delta shape of the F-16 repeated in new fighters? Not even in american F-22 which is a diamond shaped delta.

Do you getthe point. In the long run only winning designs are repeated.

 

[SATISH]

Rule 1 of combat when flying a delta is to never fight a turning fight as the larger wing area bleeds more energy....and energy is life in a combat. So it is always better to fight in the vertical for the delta-winged fighter where you climb up fast and shoot down the enemy and if u miss you close in and do slashing attacks.

 

[ersakthivel]

exec
Posted: Aug 20, 2010 - 03:06 PM
Active Member



Joined: Nov 24, 2009 - 11:39 AM
Posts: 216
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
shep1978 wrote:
Yeah its pretty interesting and straightforward. I did wonder how the Rafale which to my (untrained) eyes is similar to the M2000 compares, do you think it suffers from the same shortcomings or is it different / improved enough to remove that problem the 2000 suffers from?

Rafale is much, much better than the Mirage 2000. It has much higher T/W ratio and has forward control surfaces. Canards create vortexes that help to sustain high AoA without losing lift and reduce drag at high AoA. Better T/W is means that Rafale shouldn't have poor STR like the Mirage 2000 had. I'm pretty sure that Rafale is considerably better dogfighter than the F-16.

So know that ultimately the combination of delta wing and high thrust to weight ratio is what a modern fighter is all about.The deltas will naturally fly high.The vipers wont hope to meet the deltas at that height. Because its low wing loading due to lesser wing area will mahe it a sitting duck in high altittude.It's sustainer turn rate is not equal to tke delta at athat altittude. So it will naturally fly at a lower altitude. So when both launch bvr missiles The delta's misile have significantly more kinetic energy as it is comming down on the wiper and F-16's missile will have less kinetic energy because it has to climb up,

Also the LCA like deltas dive from high altittude on the viper for a dog fight . So the will have more energy and speeds. How can viper win hands down?
It will be a test of pilot skills and numerous other factors . So dont be a fool to write off LCA so soon.

From Military Heat

Because of the negative static stability and the fly-by-wire control system, the Mirage 2000 is a very agile aircraft, overcoming the delta wing configuration shortcomings such as low speed control problems. The delta wing offers low drag, low RCS ( Radar Cross Section), high speed, internal volume, simplicity in design and manufacturing technologies. The SNECMA M53-P2 low-bypass ratio turbofan engine provides 64 kN of thrust and 95 kN with afterburner ( about 21,400 lbf ).

IMportant point is the thrust to weight ratio of mirage is only 0.89

 

[ersakthivel]

I am posting again from wikipedia the LCA specifics

Specifications (HAL Tejas Mk.1)

Data from tejas.gov.in[82][83] DRDO Techfocus,[84] Aero India 2011,[85]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,560 kg (14,460 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[86] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[86][87] (19,100 lbf)
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
External fuel capacity: 2 x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1 x 725-litre drop tank under fuselage
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[83][88] (1,920 km/h, 1,195 mph) at high altitude
Range: 850 km[83] (530 mi) without refueling
Ferry range: 3,000 km[88] (1,840 mi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m[89] (50,000 ft[83])
Wing loading: 247 kg/m² (50.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07[83]
g-limits: +9/−3.5 g[90]

When a mirage -2000 with athrust to weight ratio of 0.89 can hold on to its own against F-16, Why cant LCA with the TWRof 1.09 and even lower wing loading.

 

[ersakthivel]

See from the abve post that LCA'a empty weight is 6560 Kgs. It's loaded weight is 9500 kg .So for a thrust of 85 kn you tourself can calculate the TWR for half payload weight(universal practice same for F-16 or SUKHOI ) of 8000 kgs. Tou dont even need a calculator it exceeeds 1. So dont bluff that its TWRis 0.6 or 0.8

 

[p2prada]

The thrust to weight ratio is given as per international norms .Not from some one's imagination.When people give TWR for fighters they follow international norms.So the LCA twr figures follow the same international figures as f-16 norms.

The T/W isn't from an authentic source. It is manually calculated and Wikipedia is not one bit official. It is an editable library. I can edit it right now and say it has a T/W of 0.7 and wiki will agree with it.

Thrust divided by Empty weight+ fuel+ payload+pilot load gives T/W. Very simple.

I can divide Thrust by MTOW and even that T/W is acceptable.

from thesame F-16.net

So try to come to terms with the idea that there is a reason for dassault to build a mirage with low wing loading and HIgh instataneous turn fighter. You just cannot sindg peons for some pilot quote .If F-16 is so superior why all fighters after it are more or less delta?
Havent you noticed that Eurofighter and rafael and F-22 are deltas. Havent you noticed that PAKFA is huge flying wing with acres and acres of wing area? Where is the cropped delta shape of the F-16 repeated in new fighters? Not even in american F-22 which is a diamond shaped delta.

Do you getthe point. In the long run only winning designs are repeated.

All of what you posted goes directly to Trackwhack who claimed a Mirage-2000 will sustain a turn better than a F-16, while I said the exact opposite. The same that you are trying to tell me. There is not a single thing I don't agree with, everything is pretty much a fact and this is something I have been trying to tell Trackwhack since a long time.

The only thing you claimed is that LCA and Mirage-2000 will climb faster than the F-16 for which I said it won't and I gave you relevant quotes and you are, repeating exactly what I have been saying since days. How about going back to the beginning and start reading again!!!

I also said the amount of thrust F-16 gives is enough for it to go vertical faster than Mirage-2000 and these guys you quoted say exactly the same where they mention the F-16 is more powerful.

Low wing design is excellent, but at high altitudes, that's about it. The fact about dog fighting skills and missiles are completely different and isn't even part of the discussion. If a Mirage-2000 does not get a kill within the first minute against a F-16 or a Flanker, he is pretty much dead meat. It is the same with LCA. In a gun fight against the F-16, the LCA is dead because when using cannons only sustained turns matter.

JF-17 is a cropped Delta, Gripen is a cropped Delta, Rafale is a cropped Delta, EF-2000 is a cropped Delta, Flanker is a cropped Delta.

See from the abve post that LCA'a empty weight is 6560 Kgs. It's loaded weight is 9500 kg .So for a thrust of 85 kn you tourself can calculate the TWR for half payload weight(universal practice same for F-16 or SUKHOI ) of 8000 kgs. Tou dont even need a calculator it exceeeds 1. So dont bluff that its TWRis 0.6 or 0.8

He calls wikipedia official even after I give him a gov.in site.

Ersakthival, there is no point in humouring a you. This is my last post ever. What a hopeless waste of my time!!!

 

[shiphone]

9500-6560=2940 kgs...but it doesn't mean all this is the internal fuel capacity...the empty weight doesn't include the hydraulic oil,lubricating oil , the ammo of the guns. the weight of pilot and all other weapons ...

and loaded weight doesn't include the weapons and drop tanks (of course this doesn't account for the combat T/W )

so i'm afraid the 8000 kgs is not the right number for a T/W calculation

------------------------------

and wiki? almost anyone could edit it...so just leave it .

 

[p2prada]

9500-6560=2940 kgs...but it doesn't mean all this is the internal fuel capacity...the empty weight doesn't include the hydraulic oil,lubricating oil , the ammo of the guns. the weight of pilot and all other weapons ...

and loaded weight doesn't include the weapons and drop tanks (of course this doesn't account for the combat T/W )

so i'm afraid the 8000 kgs is not the right number for a T/W calculation

Not just that. He did not consider fuel at all. He added 3 tons to empty weight to bring it to 9.5 tons and removed 1.5 tons for payload, especially when the govt website claims the aircraft is clean. He completely rejected fuel of 2.5 tons from his calculation.

So, with no fuel in the aircraft and with half payload, the T/W is above 1.

 

[ersakthivel]

to p2prada

Oh! Grow up. This is our first actual attempt at developing a fighter jet. There are a lot of issues still plaguing the aircraft. Look at the specifications released, -2 to 6G at IOC with 22 deg AOA and -3.5 to 8G for FOC with 24deg AOA. That Suks big time. The Mirage2k did 26deg at FOC and that was in the 80s.

The jet is indeed underpowered, overweight and the radar sucks. It does not have an EW equipment installed and I am 100% sure the aircraft is not even ready for "Mock" combat operations. The ACM is unhappy about being forced to induct the jet and it has nothing to do with politics. He is unhappy with the IOC version of LCA and is looking forward to the Mk2 version of the LCA. 2 Squadrons of DUD aircraft is damaging to the air force. I always thought something could be up when they ordered the second squadron, now it only looks like it is being shoved down the services throats.

When the ACM said the aircraft is not fourth gen, it is an understatement. Lack of a good radar, capable weapons systems installed and lack of EW means the aircraft is between a second gen and third gen prototype. It is almost exactly like the first Mig-21 we received.

My friend was right last year. Wow. We really su*k.
Oh! And I apologize for posting such a critical post because some of you cannot stomach facts even when they are staring right in the face. What a disappointment especially when the Chinese unveiled their first attempt at fifth gen aircraft? It's a wonder the ACM isn't already tearing his hair.

Still looking forward to MK2 though. I guess the only consolation is the JF-17 has worse problems.

First lets speak about bullshit ACM naik's comments. He would not have seen any IOC functions before in his lifetime. He wouldnt have seen his foot even in a long time that is at such a high angle of attack well below his j-20 sized tummy. Fly by wire aircrafts validate their software INCREMENTALLy bit by bit over every flight.

Because the software simply flies the plane not the pilot.The pilot instructs and software sends minute corrections every second to control surfaces . So this is called validating the flight envelope.You dont test a fly by wire craft like your diwali rocket or simple worldwar 2 fighters by pushin to the maximum and see what happens. why? because old crafts are engineered to naturally come back to their normal level i.e they are aerodynamically stable .

But in an aerdynamically unstable craft like LCA which is engineered for max manouverability in every corner of its flight envelope,If there is even a slightest error in fly by wire software one incremental push will result in aircrafts spinning out of control and getting lost. Note two of your darling grippen prototypes spun out of control ankd killed a pilot. Immediately the test pilot took a VRS and ran as far away as he could from the plane.

That doesnt mean grippen is a fail as you fondly give grades like a KG teacher.By the same way the LCA was tested only upfo 16 deg AOA and slower speeds to avoid an incident like this You are ignoring than even after full flight readiness the LCA was kept on runway for one full year checking and rechecking. That underlines the cautiousness of ADA.

It doesnot mean that the aircraft cannot go beyond 16 degree AOA and mach 1.6 due to its technological faults in IOC. ADA is not going to add much to make it fly at AOA of 24 degree and 1.9 mach between IOC and FOC. It is simply going to test it for further flying envelope between IOC and LOC thats all.They are not going to put additional two engines and two additional wings for the increase in AOA.

IOC is initial certificate of clearence releasing the fighter for safe flying within 16 degree software.First drill this fact into your stone head. You were simply flaming all over the forum without even knowing this basic truth. Issues like AOA and TWR are decided during design phase, not between IOC and FOC as you and your bee stung in the belly airmarshals think like stone agers. All fly by wire digital fully aerodynamically unstable aircrafts have took 17 or so years to develop .The 2182 crores were released to ADA on 1993 and the first flight was on 2004 or so I think. That's when they put technology into aircraft .

After that for 10 or so years they simply test the rigours of its software. From pv1 to LSP 8 they are not increasing the wing area or engine thrust or payload.that is par for the course

 

[shiphone]

Not just that. He did not consider fuel at all. He added 3 tons to empty weight to bring it to 9.5 tons and removed 1.5 tons for payload, especially when the govt website claims the aircraft is clean. He completely rejected fuel of 2.5 tons from his calculation.

So, with no fuel in the aircraft and with half payload, the T/W is above 1.

I thought his REAL understanding of Air Combat T/W calculation is :

84KN / (Normal Take off weight(LOAD WEIGHT) - Half internal fuel + 2*R73AAM）

-----------------------
and I thought this news from the GE press bring us the reliable Data of F404 in20

F404-GE-IN20 Powers Tejas Aircraft to Successful First Flight

Flight testing follows a rigorous series of evaluations, culminating in generation of more than 19,000 pounds (84 kN) uninstalled thrust and completion of 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing - the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation.

 

[ersakthivel]

p2 prada
The only thing you claimed is that LCA and Mirage-2000 will climb faster than the F-16 for which I said it won't and I gave you relevant quotes and you are, repeating exactly what I have been saying since days. How about going back to the beginning and start reading again!!!

I also said the amount of thrust F-16 gives is enough for it to go vertical faster than Mirage-2000 and these guys you quoted say exactly the same where they mention the F-16 is more powerful.

Once it reaches higher altitudes with that fantastic climb rate it will enter the realm of its worst performance envelope i.e its disasterous high altitude performance.

And let me drive it into your head that this this a VERTICAL STRAIGHT LINE CLIMBING RATE only due to its engine thrust.before it makes that transition from horizantal to vertical a faster lift generating( manouvering while climbing exactly like the turning flight in horizantal where the high wing loading of F-16 results in higher STR)delta can have the tail of the f-16 for shooting, due to lower wing loading resulting in higher nose pitching up performance .

It is the transitory flight that i am talking about.Even here the specs of LCa with TWR of 1.07(untill your nobel prize winning TWR calculations are out in NATURE magazine) compared to mirages 0.87 will eat f-16 for reakfast as per your language.that is why all it's 11 test pilots have certified it that LCA handles much better than mirages with its better nose authority and huge elevons. The wingroot twist and cranked delta are there exactly for this purpose.

 

[ersakthivel]

The lca mk-2 95 kn engine has an emergency mode of 120 KN, (which if used will shortern the engine lif)e if you can read authentic sources. So in combat when engine life is not the nuber one factor you can see the mind boggling possibilities ,I hope
Don't make up stuff on your own. There is no 120KN engine for F-414. If you wanna lie then make up some believable lie. Tell me your grandpa is ADA's chief or something and be done with it instead of spouting nonsense one after the other.

The only F-414 with 120KN is a paper tiger called EPE. It will be a whole new engine and IAF is not buying it.

So, with no fuel in the aircraft and with half payload, the T/W is above 1.

[/QUOTE]
Please give me source that the engine is a paper tiger

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

what is this cropped delta wing ?

if you can call flanker a cropped delta wing why not f 16 ? or every fighter out there can be called a cropped delta wing .

 

[ersakthivel]

P 2 PRADAA
Originally Posted by ersakthivel
well long range missile has odds of 1 to 10 man. Sorry mate all fighter pilots have to dogfight in future with short range missiles and cannons.Onle eleven percent hits can be guarenteed by long range missiles with today's counter measure standards.In future when your flying turkeys like J-20 and F-35 raise up it will be even lower.So If you have all stealth and no dogfighting airforcr you will have to surrrender after launching the first strike
These figures would mean the LCA will perform even worse because the missiles carried are even lesser.

The figures currently known are estimates based on older missiles like the Aim-7, Aim-120A/B and not the latest like C-7/D or RVV-SD.

once gain wrong there will be more number of LCAs for the same budget. And stealth crafts have abysmally lower weapon load which you are completely ignoring. You still havent backed up your claim that J-20 has 6m long weapon release door and can release 800 kg long range air to air missiles.

 

[p2prada]

I thought his REAL understanding of Air Combat T/W calculation is :

84KN / (Normal Take off weight(LOAD WEIGHT) - Half internal fuel + 2*R73AAM）

-----------------------
and I thought this news from the GE press bring us the reliable Data of F404 in20

F404-GE-IN20 Powers Tejas Aircraft to Successful First Flight

You need to consider a packed fuel tank for small aircraft in the IAF. The fuel lost during take off is not much and won't need half the tank to reach a certain point because they are not expected to fly beyond 300Km from their base for air to air T/W to be considered. Our Mig-21s always flew with drop tanks and 2 R-60/2 R-77. So, higher performance was expected compared to the Mig-21.

A larger than expected drag was noticed on the aircraft which affected range and speed. We don't even know if there are other problems there because there have been issues in opening up the flight envelop to handle higher Gs. The structural integrity was also compromised and the aircraft has been restricted to 8G.

The only blessing in disguise is the F-404 provides greater fuel efficiency than the previously planned Kaveri. The Americans were also able to deliver a first class engine really quickly.

Anyway the initial goal was to develop it with a 5.5 tons empty weight. At this weight, the F-404 was fine. The aerodynamic performance requirements were as high as the Mirage-2000, but not as high as the Gripen C.

So, what was supposed to be 80KN/8.5 tons(with Kaveri) became 85KN/9.5 tons today. Now the plan is to bring it to 98KN/10tons. It will be 1m longer too. So, the new empty weight is expected to be 7 tons. Internal fuel, we are yet to see to what extent. The internal estate will also be completely changed to better handle the centre of gravity. The fuselage will be thinner than before in order to minimize drag, as is speculated. But we will need to wait for the first prototype before making guesses. The fin will be bigger. The wing area will be greater to accommodate the extra length. The nose will be longer and the overall design will be more aerodynamic than the Mk1.The intakes will supposedly be enlarged by 0.5cm. All the extra space inside is for new avionics and extra fuel to compensate for greater thrust. Payload will be 5 tons, up from 3.5 tons on Mk1. So the changes are quite drastic, especially with a new and heavier engine being installed.

So, overall LCA Mk2 looks great on paper, the only problem is whether ADA will stick to the deadline or delay it again.

Livefist: AERO INDIA: Tejas Mk.2 High Rez
Mk2 models released during AI-2011.

 

[ersakthivel]

Originally Posted by ersakthivel
Also kindly enlighten us why F-35 the single engine craft is persisted with by US? Does the US economy not big enough to support all F-22 airforce?
Even the F-22 is a flying blind bat and it requires on your poor fourth gen siblings to do the targeting.Then why are you vehemently opposing LCA fro thee saamerole with fancy arguments?

P2 prada
F-22 carries, what is pretty much the best aircraft radar out there. You are the only bat here.

USAF is downsizing and hence "Gates" in all his glory thought USAF no longer needs F-22s. It is a mistake and the military chiefs have already explained that to the government. A call on F-22 will probably be made only after PAKFA and J-20 mature or if even 5th gen is made obsolete by then. The reason given is the Russians won't be able to induct enough PAKFAs before the F-35 reaches high numbers.

enlighten me how will they use these radars and remain stealth at the same time. All major air powers have single engined stealth and non stealth aircrafts on their drawing boards.You are pretending that they dont exist. The F-35 was a careless mistake by ONE man called GAATES,incredibile, in a country filled with congressional committeees and think tanks one man single handedly manufacture F-35

 

[ersakthivel]

A larger than expected drag was noticed on the aircraft which affected range and speed. We don't even know if there are other problems there because there have been issues in opening up the flight envelop to handle higher Gs. The structural integrity was also compromised and the aircraft has been restricted to 8G.

The only blessing in disguise is the F-404 provides greater fuel efficiency than the previously planned Kaveri. The Americans were also able to deliver a first class engine really quickly.

Anyway the initial goal was to develop it with a 5.5 tons empty weight. At this weight, the F-404 was fine. The aerodynamic performance requirements were as high as the Mirage-2000, but not as high as the Gripen C.

give me a source for larger than expected drag. You are mistaking only Ioc level relese to service certified performance as drag. Drag is found out in design phase man.Why are you confusing again and again. In wind tunnel test time they fix the drag not at flight testing.