ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[pankaj nema]

Let us for a minute look at India's MISSILE technology

Where we were when Agni was FIRST tested in 1989

Since then we have come such a long way

SAME thing will happen with our Aircraft technology

Today it looks like we are proceeding very slowly but 10 years from
now ALL the hard being done at present by ADA / DRDO will pay off

 

[ersakthivel]

Let us for a minute look at India's MISSILE technology

Where we were when Agni was FIRST tested in 1989

Since then we have come such a long way

Seeker successfully flight-tested in Nag

source--------------http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article2707196.ece

The mmW seeker was developed by scientists of Research Centre Imarat

In a breakthrough in indigenous seeker technology for missiles, an RF (radio frequency) seeker was successfully flight-tested in anti-tank Nag missile in the Army ranges at Ahmednagar in Rajasthan on Sunday.

While the scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation had so far developed Imaging Infra-red (IIR) seeker, this was the first time that a millimetric Wave (mmW) seeker, having all-weather capability, was tried for a 2,000 metre range in a successful mission.

Chief Controller R& D, (Missiles and Strategic Systems), DRDO, Avinash Chander, told The Hindu: "this is a breakthrough for seeker capability in the country." This would provide solutions for applications in surface-to-air missiles, air-to-air missiles, anti-tank missiles and air-to-surface missiles. It would also provide the technology base for changing to dual-mode seeker in future.

The mmW seeker was designed and developed by scientists at Research Centre Imarat (RCI), one of the key laboratories of the DRDO's missile complex here.

IN ELITE CLUB

RCI Director S.K. Ray said very few countries possessed the technology to develop mmW seeker.

Nag Project Director S. S. Mishra said that in Sunday's flight, the seeker's capability to track the target in a 'Lock-on-Before-Launch' method, right from the missile's firing and throughout the trajectory, was successfully demonstrated. In future, the seeker would be used in a system in 'Lock-on-After-Launch' mode for extension of the range.

DELIVERABLE VERSION

The production of the third generation hit-to-kill Nag missile is expected to commence after the final user trials with deliverable version of missile carrier NAMICA are conducted next summer. Modifications and improvements have been carried out in NAMICA as per the Army's requirements.

The four-km range Nag missile has top-attack capability to nullify the explosive reactive armour of a modern battle tank.

Keywords: Indigenous seeker technology, radio frequency seeker, anti-tank missile, Nag, DRDO

SAME thing will happen with our Aircraft technology

Today it looks like we are proceeding very slowly but 10 years from
now ALL the hard being done at present by ADA / DRDO will pay off

Dont worry. we are progressing fast in this field. Mr.PANKAJ NEMA.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I think both of you are at extreme ends. while p2prada under estimates , ersakthivel over estimates..I believe truth is somewhere in between.
lca mk1 with it's current spec are not worth inducing in large numbers.
lca mk2 will be in the class of. current gripen but by the time lca mk2 comes through gripen would have moved ahead with more upgrades.
role of lca will be to defend Indian skys with the help of mki, awac or any other platforms.lca is platform we can mass produce, and it will defend our sky like how the ants defend their colony.

 

[charlyondfi]

Wow, I have been missing such a long fight when absent, isn't it...

AWACS won't carry jammers. Period.
Dedicated jammers are used for SEAD missions and not in air to air combat. It gives away too much targeting information.

That is when you are made the IAF chief. Dedicated Ew crafts are not radio mirchi FM stations broadcasting thier location.They will recieve and monitor the attacking aircraft's radar signals. And start jamming for the needed critical period from the criitcal distance where the attacking crafts are dangerous. And the vectored defending fighters move in for the kill. Then they will switch off their jamming . So dont bluff.

...AWACS is not the reason for it. AWACS are not always available and it's availability in a conflict is questionable... ... AWACS is a very defensive aircraft in many situations, especially in area where there are heavy aircraft... ...

That pretty much conclude the difference between you two, isn't it? It's about how you two are thinking (imagining? ) about air combat warfare. And all other arguments such as drag, carry weight, wing load does NOT matter that much...

... Also, fighters can maneuver to evade radar. Even AWACS's radar. A heavy fighter with a low RCS = good bye AWACS. Forget about AWACS detecting the PAKFA or J-20. These are new generation aircraft. They are expected to be many times superior to the LCA class aircraft. Heck Rafale and EF-2000 are expected to do the work of 3 LCAs. It will probably take 20 LCAs to do the work of one PAKFA...

I believe above are the key words, or core point you want to highlight, right, P2? but also what you fail to convince (rejected by) the other side.

To design a new generation fighter, you certainly want to bring some totally out-place previous one. And once the fight for air domination is over, remaining planes of the looser side will be only taking gurilla tactic - risking & betting on launching attack before the dominant side know, and running away before found. 5th generation intend to win that domination fight.

Nevertheless, one of the best in internet is you can always rest & stop, without admitting anything. Let's stop & rest.

 

[Defcon 1]

P2P, you once said that LCA will not ordered for INS Vishal as Vishal will be flat topped.

But I have read again and again that Navy has expressed firm requirement for 40 NLCA, probably the Mk2 version. I don't think we can deploy 40 planes anywhere other than the Vishal. How are you so sure that LCA can't be CATOBAR?? Vishal is still 8-9 years away. We have time.

 

[ersakthivel]

Wow, I have been missing such a long fight when absent, isn't it...



That pretty much conclude the difference between you two, isn't it? It's about how you two are thinking (imagining? ) about air combat warfare. And all other arguments such as drag, carry weight, wing load does NOT matter that much...


I believe above are the key words, or core point you want to highlight, right, P2? but also what you fail to convince (rejected by) the other side.

To design a new generation fighter, you certainly want to bring some totally out-place previous one. And once the fight for air domination is over, remaining planes of the looser side will be only taking gurilla tactic - risking & betting on launching attack before the dominant side know, and running away before found. 5th generation intend to win that domination fight.

Nevertheless, one of the best in internet is you can always rest & stop, without admitting anything. Let's stop & rest.

Avionics : The PAK-FA has several features of particular interest here. In the nose there is likely to be active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) as per F-22. This may actually have additional mechanical steering, although that would add weight. What's virtually unique to the PAK-FA however is rear-facing radar in the tail. This too may be AESA and could simply be an additional array for the nose-mounted radar, or possibly a completely separate set. (refer to second picture)

The PAK-FA therefore has true 360 degree coverage. Additionally the PAK-FA is thought to have L-Band radars mounted in the wing leading edges. These would have both passive and active emitting roles and may be the key to 'seeing' stealth aircraft such as the F-22. Alternatively these may be located in the wing LERX sides – the exact location is subject to some speculation.

So what will happen next is that L-band radar detection will be perfected and used against stealth aircraft in future. Upto now there is no need because fighters used X-band radar only. Can anyone give a detailed explanation for this. IF L-band radars comr into vogue there is nothing really invincible about Fifth gen . Also no amount mixing cold air with exhaust from engine smoke will guarentee IRST stealth. It can at the best reduce its detection range. There is noway you can escape detection when your exhaust from 300 kn thrust engine reavhes the atmosphere at thousands of degree centigrade. It is against the law of thermodynamics.

Stealth aircrafts are just stealth for particular type of x-band radar. Not real world stealth.

So LCA wont be obsolete with it's service type if it has the support of suitable EW,IRST AWCA in L-band and X-band support. That's what I was pointing out all the time.

The F-22's stealth is generally optimized against X-band radars as that is what fighters generally use – L-Band is a much longer wavelength and can more easily detect stealth aircraft but is also less accurate -hence X-band radars are still used for routine intercept and virtually all fighters use X-Band.

 

[ersakthivel]

This is from as reliable source you can claim any thing on the net.The russians are already developing 2 meter VHF band radars to defeat the stealth.
Raleigh scattering regime physics support the Russian view.

The Impact of Russian High Technology Weapons: Transforming the Strategic Balance in Asia

Countering US stealth capabilities has been a high priority for Russian manufacturers. The symmetric response has been the development of a range of radar absorbent coatings and laminates for use on legacy aircraft. Russian sources claim the absorbent coating used in the Su-35BM Flanker will reduce engine inlet tunnel signatures thirty-fold in the X-band. We have yet to see the new PAK-FA stealth fighter, so assessment of Russian progress in airframe shaping techniques is not yet feasible.

The asymmetric aspect of Russia's counter stealth effort is far more visible. It is centred on the use of two metre or VHF band radar technology, and the networking and integration of other sensors, including passive emitter locating systems.

Most recent Russian effort in the development of early warning and surveillance radars has been in the two metre band. All of these new radars, and upgrade packages for legacy Soviet era radars, are digital and mostly solid state designs. Many include sophisticated adaptive processing techniques for rejection of ground clutter and jamming, a technology to date seen mostly in recent US radar designs.

The focus on the two metre radio band, used primarily for TV broadcasting, is that it largely defeats stealth airframe shaping techniques designed for the decimetre and centimetre band radar. The Russians are adamant that US stealthy fighter aircraft will appear as beachball sized radar targets in the VHF band, rather than marble sized targets. Raleigh scattering regime physics support the Russian view.

A key development is the emergence of new technology VHF designs, built for high mobility to support mobile SAM batteries. The NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVU is the first ever VHF band Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA), and is accurate enough to provide midcourse guidance for a missile. Russian thinking on counter-stealth technique is to fly the missile close enough for its seeker to lock on despite the stealthiness of the target, using datalinking from a stealth defeating sensor. This radar can be deployed and stowed in 45 minutes. The new ByeloRussian KBR Vostok E wins the mobility game with an 8 minute deploy and stow time, using a hydraulically folded and elevated antenna. This new VHF radar is also fully digital, solid state, and employs an innovative "Kharchenko" square ring antenna element design. Defeat of US stealth is a primary claim by its designers, who state the ability to track an F-117A at 190 nautical mile range.

The effort in VHF radar is paralleled by developments in Emitter Locating Systems, specifically the networked 85V6 Orion/Vega and Topaz Kolchuga systems. Users of the earlier Tamara / Trash Can system claimed the ability to track the position of US aircraft with emitting JTIDS/Link-16 terminals. Other counter-stealth technology includes a VHF band multistatic radar being developed by NNIIRT.

Other important developments include the 20 kiloWatt class N-035 Irbis E hybrid phased array radar for the Su-35BM, which outperforms all US legacy fighter radars, the APG-79 in the Super Hornet, and APG-81 in the F-35. Russia's first AESA radar, the Zhuk AE, is being scaled up for the Flanker, and promises performance in the class of the latest US APG-77(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 AESAs.

SO the new AWACS with L-band VHF radars will defeat any stated superiority of F-22 like fighter to kill awacs undetected. Not to mention the new IRST detection technique. So with in the service life of LCA no one will mop the floor of a LCA fighter group in point defence, with proper L-band and X-band radar support and IRST payload carying stealth Ucavs

 

[p2prada]

That pretty much conclude the difference between you two, isn't it? It's about how you two are thinking (imagining? ) about air combat warfare. And all other arguments such as drag, carry weight, wing load does NOT matter that much...

He does not understand how AWACS are used. He does not understand how EW is used. He does not understand that LCA with 800Kg missiles will make it subsonic. He does not understand how electricity is generated on aircraft. He does not understand that ADA is taking so much time because they are scared of opening the full flight envelope of the LCA. Heck they even admitted the same in front of the media. There is no LSP-6 to open the full flight envelope for IOC, let alone the production models for FOC. He does not understand that getting from naught to IOC is easier than getting from IOC to FOC. He does not understand that the F-35 is beset with the same problems in opening the flight envelope and LM has been pushing IOC from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. He does not understand that the IAF has relaxed specifications by a vast degree on Mk1. He does not understand that LCA has only undergone around 2000 test flights instead of the 4000 it should have finished by now.

He does not understand anything even after it is spelt out. Blame some of it on his comprehension ability too.

I have the patience to correct an ignorant kid. I tried already. I don't have the patience to correct an obstinate, egoistical, vexatious and hopelessly ignorant kid. There is only so much leeway I can give.

To design a new generation fighter, you certainly want to bring some totally out-place previous one. And once the fight for air domination is over, remaining planes of the looser side will be only taking gurilla tactic - risking & betting on launching attack before the dominant side know, and running away before found. 5th generation intend to win that domination fight.

What you are talking about is Air Denial.

Airwarfare is divided into 4 states or conditions:

Air Denial:
The state where the friendly forces have air superiority, but there are chances for the enemy aircraft to hit back in unexpected areas. Guerrilla tactics as you said. Swedish Air force and now Pakistan air force are implementing such strategies like using light aircraft and motorways as airstrips.

Air Superiority:
The state where the allies have gained a decent foothold over a particular area of the conflict where enemy aircraft cannot interfere.

Air Supremacy:
The state where large areas of the battlefield have air superiority conditions. In other words the enemy is incapable of interfering in areas where you don't want them to.

Air Dominance:
The state where you completely dominate the battlefield area. To the point where you can say, "He Flies. He Dies."

So, in these 4 states, among 4th generation aircraft the state where the MKI falls under is Air Dominance, meaning the aircraft was designed for dominating the air. The most effective condition to be in.
The state where LCA falls under is Air Denial, like Gripen. The least effective state where an Air force is only expecting to be able to fly when needed. That's why the small size, low costs and quick turn around times compared to MKI's higher turn around time and longer time on station.

He is also wrong is assuming that heavy aircraft are only used in countries with large air spaces like the US and Russia. But forgets that countries like Israel and Singapore also use F-15s while countries like Ethiopia, Venezuela and Vietnam use Flankers. It is all about time on station.

Among 5th generation aircraft. The state where aircraft like F-22/J-20/PAKFA can fly in is Air Dominance. The generation gap is so wide that the MKI is pushed into the Air Denial state in such conditions or will most probably won't even take to the air for the duration of the conflict. So, one can only imagine the state for LCA's operational effectiveness.

The 1971 Indo-Pak war on the eastern front was a state of Air Dominance. Regardless of the fact that the PAF had some aircraft in the theatre of operations, after the first few days of the war there were no air missions conducted. He Flies. He Dies.

Nevertheless, one of the best in internet is you can always rest & stop, without admitting anything. Let's stop & rest.

Without understanding such concepts as the above there is no hope in expecting to teach someone about how air warfare is conducted especially when he is not willing to learn.

His tripe on AWACS is the worst. But it is also a misconception that most people have regards to AWACS. People have this opinion that with AWACS all you need to do is fly and simply fire a BVR at the enemies direction and the AWACS will handle the rest. This is not even close to the truth.

There are various reasons for why the AWACS won't do what people think it will do. To get into it, I have to explain the concept of EMR bands, Beamwidth, antenna size, range and target characteristics like RCS along with radar functions. To cut things short, AWACS cannot accomplish BVR locks. AWACS are only present to provide the bigger picture. The fighter sees this bigger picture, moves to an advantageous position, TURNS ON its radar, carries out a BVR lock and fires the missile. So, you see the AWACS does nothing except battlespace management. If you want to kill an aircraft you will have to use your own radar regardless of the AWACS presence. Therein lies the difference between the MKIs more capable radar and the LCAs less capable radar. Most Air Forces are happy with an average AEW&C like the Erieye or even the Israeli Eitam AEW. But nobody compromises on the fighter's radar. In fact the Americans are almost always constrained in providing the right configuration due to Congressional objections in handing over technology, especially to non allies like India and Malaysia.

Due to ignorance, half knowledge and misconceptions there are silly myths and superstitions born and this reflects in all his posts.

If you look at post #2938, you will notice this statement I made,

I am willing to bet my left ball sac that this guy is a Tamilian.

In a country of 1.2 Billion people and with as many languages as there are countries in the world, I could easily identify his roots based on his character for reasons I don't want to get into due to communal sensibilities. He even confirms it and assumes he is the only engineer here. Silly kid.

 

[p2prada]

P2P, you once said that LCA will not ordered for INS Vishal as Vishal will be flat topped.

But I have read again and again that Navy has expressed firm requirement for 40 NLCA, probably the Mk2 version. I don't think we can deploy 40 planes anywhere other than the Vishal. How are you so sure that LCA can't be CATOBAR?? Vishal is still 8-9 years away. We have time.

LCA will see service on Gorky and IAC-1 and it will be the Mk2.

LCA STOBAR is 7 years away. If they need a CATOBAR version then they will have to start developing it right now in order to get it in 8-9 years.

ADA will primarily focus on getting the STOBAR version right before starting on a CATOBAR version. CATOBAR versions are too complex in engine and undercarriage modifications.

IN will be releasing a tender for 80 MRCA aircraft pretty soon, dunno how many extra options beyond that. This was mentioned by Anthony too. Rafale, Super Hornet and F-35 are expected to take part. MiG, EADS and Saab will most probably be backing out because they only have plans for STOBAR versions.

 

[ersakthivel]

P2P, you once said that LCA will not ordered for INS Vishal as Vishal will be flat topped.

But I have read again and again that Navy has expressed firm requirement for 40 NLCA, probably the Mk2 version. I don't think we can deploy 40 planes anywhere other than the Vishal. How are you so sure that LCA can't be CATOBAR?? Vishal is still 8-9 years away. We have time.

The navy has already commited 400 cr from it's money for LCA. It knows that with 4 or 5 carriers in the sea the LCA is a must for them future. They know about all stealth counter meassures and even though the naval LCA will carry lesser weapon weight than Airforce they are voluntarily investing their own money

The difference between NAVY on the one hand and ARMY and AIRFORCE on the other hand is that Navy has a commited team of doctorate holding naval architects specializing in ship building field. That's why we have INS arihant. and so much indigenous development.

But the airforce will ask for a 5.5 ton empty weight fighter carrying 4 ton loads ,single engined,bettering the mirages performance in 1985. Where in reality even in 2012 there is no such fighter available.

The army will ask for an FMBT with 55 ton weight, with all modern concepts, totally forgetting the heavy armour is needed to protect the tank, and all western MBTs are more than 60 tons in weight.

Do you know the reason why? The T-90 weighs 50 tons. They just take it as gold standard for the future , Have they any doctare holders in tank design in the GSQR team. How can they define the weight with what facts?

If tomorrow chinese built an FMBT with 60 tons exceeding the INDIAN army's GSQR specs and deliver it to pakistan what will they do? suck their thumb? The reality is army has not built up a support structure for the T-90 killing ARJUN's 60 ton weight even after 30 yesrs. They never expect the CVRDE to deliver that's all.

The T-90 is not the MBT of RUSSIANs themselves. Indian ARMY is the largest purchaser of T-90 in the world, Infact more in number than the Russians.

The T-90's electronic jam's in desert heat of rajasthan. Now they are looking for suitable power plant to make it air conditioned.guess who will they turn to CVRDE. The problem is there is no place for power plant. The Arjun can shoot through T-90's armour. But even in poin blank range the T-90 can't get throuh Arjun. The ER tiles that save the T-90 from ARJUn's gun will get blown off after a few rounds, ANd the T-90 is dead.Did the army ever issue a GSQR to Russians ? How did they decided that T-90 is state of art? Did the russians fullfilled the Indian army GSQR?

The ground pressure exerted per square inch is the same for T-90 and ARJUN. ARJUN can ford the river underwater,

But if still army maintains the arjun is not suitable because of higher weight. But do you know who gave the arjun's armour strenght spec and engine spec resuting in this weight . They themselves. SHitting in their pants that the AMERICANS will deliver the 65 ton M!A! ABRAMS to pakis they rushed with equal protection specs.

But after all the trials and tribulations when the CVRDE finishes the product they are buying T-90s in thousands.

I relly dont want such a fate to fall on the LCA. That's why I have made 100 posts in the past 10 days. Not to ruffle the feathers of forum members.That's all.

 

[ersakthivel]

He does not understand how AWACS are used. He does not understand how EW is used. He does not understand that LCA with 800Kg missiles will make it subsonic. He does not understand how electricity is generated on aircraft. He does not understand that ADA is taking so much time because they are scared of opening the full flight envelope of the LCA. Heck they even admitted the same in front of the media. There is no LSP-6 to open the full flight envelope for IOC, let alone the production models for FOC. He does not understand that getting from naught to IOC is easier than getting from IOC to FOC. He does not understand that the F-35 is beset with the same problems in opening the flight envelope and LM has been pushing IOC from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. He does not understand that the IAF has relaxed specifications by a vast degree on Mk1. He does not understand that LCA has only undergone around 2000 test flights instead of the 4000 it should have finished by now.

Atleast now you understand that some flight envelope opening is happening. That is great news for me.

REALLY LCA subsonic with 800 kg payload? Will that make F-35 an unworkable aircraft to be junked ? Neither do you understand how power is generated in EW craft, AWACs and how powerfull they can simultaneously jam ?The question is what is achieved in these tests is in accordance with the design parameters . That's all. So do you want ADA to open the flight envelope faster and crash prototypes like grippen and J-10 ,and send test pilots scurrying into retirement. And send a section of INDIAN media that never intentionally quote the proper timeline , Design parameters,IOC parameters and FOC parametes and glorifying the all metal body grippen in it's place into wild celebrations?. No ADA chief will ever be that brave. From now on I will understand that how AWACS and EW crafts should not be used.

But you will never quote the first official specs specified for LCA by AIRFORCE, How it was missed by ADA and HOW ADA got a lesser or more demanding ASQR?whether they were changed or not? So all the test pilot testimonials that it handles like a drear a lie as far as you are concerned. LSP_7 and 8 wont open full flight envelope for ever,really?

So since LSP-6 is mysteriously not available the program will be scrapped. By the way can you shed some light on what happened to LSP-6 where it was lost? or something wrong with that. All I know is that with in it's 6G limit the LCA has achieved 22 degrees upto now from the stone age days when all were crowing it would never achieve more than 16 degree.ADA has explicitly said that LSP-6 is used for angle of attack testing. You are saying NO. what/ No source all you quote enlightment again?

To speed up the flight envelope testing ADA is hiring consultants from EADS. Untill today the aircraft has matched its design parameters in tests.

I am too tiered for this.

 

[ersakthivel]

P2 prada says

There are various reasons for why the AWACS won't do what people think it will do. To get into it, I have to explain the concept of EMR bands, Beamwidth, antenna size, range and target characteristics like RCS along with radar functions. To cut things short, AWACS cannot accomplish BVR locks. AWACS are only present to provide the bigger picture. The fighter sees this bigger picture, moves to an advantageous position, TURNS ON its radar, carries out a BVR lock and fires the missile. So, you see the AWACS does nothing except battlespace management. If you want to kill an aircraft you will have to use your own radar regardless of the AWACS presence. Therein lies the difference between the MKIs more capable radar and the LCAs less capable radar. Most Air Forces are happy with an average AEW&C like the Erieye or even the Israeli Eitam AEW. But nobody compromises on the fighter's radar. In fact the Americans are almost always constrained in providing the right configuration due to Congressional objections in handing over technology, especially to non allies like India and Malaysia.

What I am saying is in a mixed fighter group of three sukhois and 12 LCA fighters the bigger RADAR SUKHOI can use it's powerfull RADAR for target information and pass this information to LCA via a DATA LINK. It is happening all over the world man .

Here the smart LCA has earned the advantage of flying in front of the sukhoi with longer range BVR due to it lower RCS detection range,there by making SUKHOI the mini AWACS. YOU go to ANY SUKHOI thread the first thing that they will say is SUKHOI is MINI_AWACS ,( ANY thread name it) sheperding lesser RADAR small fighter's missiles by providing them with target co ordinates. The LCA need not even switch on it's RADAR man.. ANd if the enemy fires a longer range BVR on sukhoi it will have more time to bail out.

If LCA is used in this manner the enemy will never come with in the firing range of his BVR to kill sukhoi. The enemy will never see the world's smallest RCS LCA( among non stealths) hiding missile fin RCS emissions under it's skin , flying low . You can never refute this fact.

And you will keep on going that LCA can't carry 400 kg missile because it has lesser RADAR and LCA will never fky low.

LCA wont have to fly low forever. It can fly high just out of it's RCS(with missiles) detection range well before SUKHOI and once SUKHOI gives co ords it can dive low eliminating the RCS emissions from misssile fins and go near the enemy and just before it's RCS detection range release the missile and say good bye and turn back

The bigger awacs killing F-14 pilot has no way of countering that.

Even F-14 group AWCAS with however powerfull radar wont detect LCA before its RCS detection range. So no one detects LCA untill missile warning light blares in F-14. That's what mixed group fighter tactics in datalink supported netwok centric environment.

Since you are arguing so hard that flying fossil JAGUAR can go DPS with EEEESSSSSCCCCOOOOORRRRTTTTTSSSS why are you denying that SUKHOI mini AWACS to LCA?

When even an illiterate like me know how come an airwarfare genius like you not knowing.?

 

[ersakthivel]

P2 PRADA Says

Among 5th generation aircraft. The state where aircraft like F-22/J-20/PAKFA can fly in is Air Dominance. The generation gap is so wide that the MKI is pushed into the Air Denial state in such conditions or will most probably won't even take to the air for the duration of the conflict. So, one can only imagine the state for LCA's operational effectiveness.

If L band radar is used in VHF mode the F-22 will not be stealth and IRST carrying stealth UCAVS in the fighter group will make F-22 no more stealth. So even then SUKHOI LCA fighter group wont have any clear dis advantages I have already posted authentic source and as usual you will not reply[/QUOTE]

latest Typhoon fighter have figured out how to shoot down the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 in mock combat. The Germans' tactics, revealed in thelatest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.
In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.
The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. "We were evenly matched," Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft's Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 "¦ and stay there. "They didn't expect us to turn so aggressively."
Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, sophisticated radar and long-range AMRAAM missiles. But in a slower, close-range tangle — which pilots call a "merge" — the bigger and heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. "As soon as you get to the merge "¦ the Typhoon doesn't necessarily have to fear the F-22," Gruene said.


This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet "far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced" and predicted "it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation." And it's slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots.
Admittedly, advanced air forces plan to do most of their fighting at long range and avoid the risky, close-in tangle — something Gruene acknowledged in his comments to Combat Aircraft. But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking. That could bode poorly for the F-22"²s chances in a future conflict.
In a 2008 study , the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.
Despite the historical facts, there persists in Air Force circles "a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based, air-to-air combat," to quote air power skeptic Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the brute-simple F-16 and A-10 warplanes.
It remains to be seen whether the Raptor and its AMRAAM missiles can reverse these trends. If long-range tactics fail, the F-22 force could very well find itself fighting up close with the latest fighters from China, Russia and other rival nations. And if the Germans' experience is any indication, that's the kind of battle the vaunted F-22s just might lose.
Update, July 31: Some commenters claim the Red Flag exercise is not indicative of the way the F-22 would fight in the real world. In an actual shooting war, an F-22"²s opponent "won't make it to visual range," one reader asserted. The Raptor's stealth would allow it to sneak up high and fast and kill the enemy from long range using an AMRAAM missile, commenters insist.
But that's assuming two things. One, that the rules of engagement in a future conflict will allow to the Air Force to shoot down targets without visually identifying them — a risky assumption given the world's increasingly crowded airspace. Two, that the AMRAAM even works. Missile-maker Raytheon hasn't delivered a new AMRAAM in two years after it was found that the weapon's rocket motor doesn't work in a cold environment, which is exactly where the high-flying F-22 is most at home.
Even when the AMRAAM functions as designed, it's still not a reliable long-range killer. Since the AMRAAM entered front-line service in 1992, it has been used by Air Force F-15s and F-16s in at least nine aerial battles resulting in the destruction of nine Iraqi and Serbian aircraft. But that's pretty much all we know. Public data "does not include the number of shots taken or the engagement range," Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Higby wrote in a 2005 paper.
Higby, for his part, concluded that at least four of the AMRAAM kills occurred within visual range. In the balance, long-range missiles are not as effective as the Air Force has long hoped, Higby wrote. "Air-to-air combat has not transformed into a long-range slugfest of technology."

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/air-warfare/199859-how-defeat-f-22-a.html#ixzz25sSel2wL

With out mention ing the L band non stealth of F-22 this article says what experts all over are saying even in the absence of L-band RADARIf you dont believe my word this will suffics.

I am even tooo tierd.

 

[ersakthivel]

Detection

Theoretically there are a number of methods to detect stealth aircraft at long range.
[edit]Reflected waves
Passive (multistatic) radar, bistatic radar[19] and especially multistatic radar systems are believed to detect some stealth aircraft better than conventional monostatic radars, since first-generation stealth technology (such as the F117) reflects energy away from the transmitter's line of sight, effectively increasing the radar cross section (RCS) in other directions, which the passive radars monitor. Such a system typically uses either low frequency broadcast TV and FM radio signals (at which frequencies controlling the aircraft's signature is more difficult). Later stealth approaches do not rely on controlling the specular reflections of radar energy and so the geometrical benefits are unlikely to be significant.
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with support of DARPA, have shown that it is possible to build a synthetic aperture radar image of an aircraft target using passive multistatic radar, possibly detailed enough to enable automatic target recognition (ATR).
In December 2007, SAAB researchers also revealed details for a system called Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar (AASR) that would employ a large array of inexpensive and redundant transmitters and a few intelligent receivers to exploit forward scatter to detect low observable targets.[20] The system was originally designed to detect stealthy cruise missiles and should be just as effective against aircraft. The large array of inexpensive transmitters also provides a degree of protection against anti-radar (or anti-radiation) missiles or attacks.
[edit]Infrared (heat)
Some analysts claim Infra-red search and track systems (IRSTs) can be deployed against stealth aircraft, because any aircraft surface heats up due to air friction and with a two channel IRST is a CO2 (4.3 µm absorption maxima) detection possible, through difference comparing between the low and high channel.[21][22] These analysts also point to the resurgence in such systems in several Russian designs in the 1980s, such as those fitted to the MiG-29 and Su-27. The latest version of the MiG-29, the MiG-35, is equipped with a new Optical Locator System that includes even more advanced IRST capabilities.
In air combat, the optronic suite allows:
Detection of non-afterburning targets at 45-kilometre (28 mi) range and more;
Identification of those targets at 8-to-10-kilometre (5.0 to 6.2 mi) range; and
Estimates of aerial target range at up to 15 kilometres (9.3 mi).
For ground targets, the suite allows:
A tank-effective detection range up to 15 kilometres (9.3 mi), and aircraft carrier detection at 60 to 80 kilometres (37 to 50 mi);
Identification of the tank type on the 8-to-10-kilometre (5.0 to 6.2 mi) range, and of an aircraft carrier at 40 to 60 kilometres (25 to 37 mi); and
Estimates of ground target range of up to 20 kilometres (12 mi).
[edit]Longer Wavelength Radar
VHF radar systems have wavelengths comparable to aircraft feature sizes and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, allowing most stealth aircraft to be detected. This has prompted Nizhniy Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT) to develop VHF AESAs such as the NEBO SVU, which is capable of performing target acquisition for SAM batteries. Despite the advantages offered by VHF radar, their longer wavelengths result in poor resolution compared to comparably sized X-band radar array. As a result, these systems must be very large before they can have the necessary resolution for an engagement radar.
The Dutch company Thales Nederland, formerly known as Holland Signaal, have developed a naval phased-array radar called SMART-L, which also is operated at L-Band and is claimed to offer counter stealth benefits.
[edit]OTH radar (over-the-horizon radar)
Over-the-horizon radar is a design concept that increases radar's effective range over conventional radar. It is claimed that the Australian JORN Jindalee Operational Radar Network can overcome certain stealth characteristics.[23] It is claimed that the HF frequency used and the method of bouncing radar from ionosphere overcomes the stealth characteristics of the F-117A. In other words, stealth aircraft are optimized for defeating much higher-frequency radar from front-on rather than low-frequency radars from above.
[edit]Advancements in computational power
If the improvements predicted by Moore's law continue, the above techniques will become ever more practical and widespread and techniques that can currently only be used for general warning will in time become precise enough for targeting of stealth platforms. The stealth platforms themselves will be limited to the much slower rate of advances in materials technology and physical limits so that further advances in stealth become either impossible or unaffordable. This may force future stealth platforms to stand off from their targets and use active countermeasures and long range weaponry to strike their targets.[24]

 

[LurkerBaba]

ersakthivel

You can stress your point without using multiple colors and extra large text

 

[ersakthivel]

ersakthivel

You can stress your point without using multiple colors and extra large text

From now on , I will not use extra large letters and multiple colours .

I WILL NOT ALSO FOUL WORDS

THANKS

 

[ersakthivel]

in production. The xv-2004 is also operational, and features an isar, sar capability.
Long range tracking radar: The lrtr a 3d aesa was developed with assistance from elta of israel, and is similar to elta's proven greenpine long range active array radar. The drdo developed the signal processing and software for tracking high speed ballistic missile targets as well as introduced more ruggedization. The radar uses mostly indian designed and manufactured components such as its critical high power, l band transmit-receive modules plus the other enabling technologies necessary for active phased array radars.the lrtr can track 200 targets and had a range of above 600 kilometres (370 mi) and can detect intermediate range ballistic missiles, and that india now had the capability to manufacture these radars on its own.the lrtr would be amongst the key elements of the indian abm system; drdo would provide the technology to private and public manufacturers to make these high power systems.[9]
3d multi function control radar: A substan

the drdo has the technology for l-band radar antena

 

[Daredevil]

Stick to LCA. Do comparisons only if it involves LCA, otherwise use other threads. I'm going to deleted off-topic posts.

 

[ersakthivel]

Now, for the first time since that night six years ago, the former Serbian commander of an anti-aircraft missile battery has consented to speak publicly to Western media about the circumstances surrounding the unprecedented downing of a U.S. stealth plane.

The hit on the radar-evading plane on March 27, 1999, during the 78-day NATO campaign over Serbia, triggered doubts not only about the F-117s, but also about the entire concept of stealth technology on which the U.S. Air Force has based its newest generation of warplanes.

Military analysts debated how the planes would fare in a war against a militarily sophisticated opponent if an obsolescent air defense such as Serbia's could manage to track and destroy them.

In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.

"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.

The F-117 was developed in great secrecy in the 1970s. It entered service in 1983 but was not revealed officially until 1988. It saw its first combat in the 1989 invasion of Panama and was a star of the 1991 Gulf War.

"Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."

The F-117 was one of only two allied aircraft shot down in the war. The other was an F-16 fighter, which the U.S. Air Force said was also hit by an SA-3. Both pilots bailed out and were rescued by NATO helicopters.


The moment Russians put L band asea radar in sukhoi wings and IRST payloads in PAKFA the UA knew that maturing stealth technologies in future will make 400 million dollar a piece F-22 obsolete. That's why they stopped production of the aircraft.

If people argue that INDIAN ECONOMY CAN SUPPORT ALL TWIN ENGINE AIRFORCE WHY US CANT ECONOMY CANT AFFORD ALL STEALTH AIRCRAFT?

tHIS IS MY LAST POST ON THE TOPIC OF STEALTH. i WILL NOT POST ANY FURTHER SO PLEASE DONT DELETE.

 

[p2prada]

Ersakthivel

The problem with your post is the volume of the posts you make. You keep repeating the same point again and again with no end in sight. More importantly, most of what you have posted is WRONG. You have also assumed many things which I have not said and twisted it to suit what you say, which shows your lack of maturity in your posts. So, if I start quoting every single line you make and refute what you say it will never end. It is impossible to type so much.

Out of all the posts you have made there is only one good quality post that you have made in the entire time you were in the LCA thread, only one. That is the post where you explain about wing forms and shape along with aerodynamics. The remaining posts are low quality posts and bereft of any CORRECT information.

Let me explain somethings about aircraft, radars and stealth that you have a misconception about.

The LCA was designed in the 80s as a 5.5 ton aircraft, carrying 4 tons of payload which includes 2.5 tons of extra fuel in drop tanks. Don't forget that nearly 3 tons goes into drop tanks alone. Hence the aircraft will obviously be asked to carry more than 2 tons as your originally claimed. It was designed to have a carbon composite body, with a quadruplex redundant digital fly by wire system with a decent radar with multiple modes. It wasn't expected to be better than the Mirage-2000. It was designed as an aircraft that will be "very small" and will fill IAF's needs for a support aircraft that can back up technologically superior aircraft like the Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 which were given the "Air superiority" tag by IAF. Same like how the Mig-21 was and is used even today. Until 2009 this requirement had not changed. LCA was accorded "air superiority" status only in 2009 with a slightly modified requirement to bring it to a Mirage-2000 standard.

Coming to the RCS. Since the LCA is made of carbon composites, it had superior capability in absorbing radar waves incident on it as compared to an Aluminum or Titanium body. A RAM coating was expected to reduce RCS further. As of today what we know is the F-16 has a RCS of around 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] when using 1990s legacy radars systems like what has been designed for LCA today. Mirage-2000's RCS is very similar to F-16's. LCA was designed to have a lower RCS than these aircraft. One literature claimed the RCS was 3 times smaller than Mirage-2000 for LCA. However when you place weapons on external hardpoints, this RCS value shoots up "exponentially"(I hope you know what the term is). This exponential increase in RCS is "many times" the clean RCS. What I am saying is the LCA wasn't designed as a stealth aircraft. It was designed as a regular aircraft like the Mig-21 or Mirage-2000. Meaning 3rd and 4th generation design rules were used.

Comparatively Dassault claims the RCS of the Rafale is 10 times smaller than the Mirage-2000. So, it's RCS is significantly smaller than what's on LCA. Other than that, LM has made even more incredible claims for stealth aircraft. Now you will notice that the F-22 and F-35 are stealth aircraft for a reason. F-35 has been designed with a RCS that is 1000 times smaller than a F-16 while the F-22 is 10000 times smaller. Now you have an idea of what a stealth aircraft is and what is not.

In air exercises between F-15 and F-22. The F-15s radar(which is far superior to the LCA's) could not lock on to the F-22 even though the F-15 pilot could see the aircraft outside the canopy. That's stealth and is a real story. AWACS and other 4th generation legacy aircraft cannot even touch the F-22. Now if we consider J-20 or PAKFA are not as advanced and a F-15 can still lock on to these aircraft at small distances, how much would this distance be. And how effective would it be if you can detect and track a F-22/J-20/PAKFA at a distance of 10 or 20Km while the other 3 aircraft can see you from 400Km away. Also notice that we considered a F-15 and it's better radar, not the LCA's small and insignificant radar.

So, now you see the difference between an aircraft with a RCS 3 times smaller than a F-16 and an aircraft with a RCS 10000 times smaller than a F-16. That's why the LCA will light up like a truck and a J-20 would easily detect and track a LCA from any distance without any problems at all.

The difference between a F-22 and a LCA is the same as the difference between a marble and a lorry. This is the meaning of "New Generation."

In the scenario you drew up, with 12 LCAs and 3 MKIs. A small group of 4 J-20s(packed with 24 BVR missiles) would have taken out the 12 LCAs, 3 MKIs and the AWACS and they wouldn't even know about it.

Now let's get to your other point. I don't want to do a Gambit and explain how ineffective a L band or a VHF array can be against stealth targets. It will go over your head anyway. So, I will use another technique. You understand that the F-22 and F-35 are optimized for stealth in the X Band. So, the logic you use is in L band or VHF band(Nebo radar family) the aircraft can be detected. Ok that's great. Now let's assume you managed to detect a J-20 using these long wave radars. Now what will you do after that? You detected the aircraft, fine. Ok, let's say you even managed to track the aircraft for a few seconds. Then what after that? You obviously don't know that BVR locks are performed by radar waves in the X band. Meaning, even if you found the J-20 using an AWACS or a ground based radar, you still need to turn on your X band radar and try to shoot it down. But the J-20 is stealth optimized for the X band. So, how will you get your BVR lock on the J-20? Couple that with the LCA's inability to track the aircraft itself, what makes you think missiles will work against the J-20 in the first place. By then let's not forget the J-20 would have used its radar to track you from 400Km away and shoot you down at a distance of 50-100Km away using modern missiles available today, and not what can be available in 10 years from now.

That my friend is a NEXT GENERATION AIRCRAFT.

As for your post on Arjun and T-90 and what not. Go to this thread and start reading from the beginning.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology.html

It will answer all your questions on why the T-90 was chosen over the Arjun.

This thread too,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt.html

Keep all your questions in these threads. LCA thread is no place to discuss tanks. If you have questions you can directly ask Damian or Militarysta to answer them for you. They will tell you the difference between the two tanks. Heck you only need to copy paste what you wrote about tanks on the Arjun thread, that is if you are too lazy to read hundreds of posts on tanks.