ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

@Ersakthivel

I can no longer deal with your endless prattle.

BS can be countered. But too much BS cannot.

Congratulations! You brought me down to your level and killed me with your vast experience.

 

[ersakthivel]

p2 prada says,

Carlo Kopp says the F-22 will kill anything and everything even with it's eyes closed and hands tied. Read more of his works, you will begin to have an understanding(even if it is slight) about modern warfare.

[quoteEspecially the stealth payload of F-22 is limited .This is no way a certainity.

6 Aim-120Ds are a lot better than LCA's 2 Derby/Astra.[/QUOTE]

But it is the same carlo kopp who says that long range BVR fight is not the be all and end all of the modern air warfare.

One serbian SAM commander say's he has studied materials regarding STEALTH and tuned his old obsolete P-81 radar with "adjustment to it's electronics" and managed to give missile lock to SA-16 battery ,and shoot down the 5 th gen stealthy to x band radio wave F-117.After that all F-117 flights over sebia stopped and you are still claiming that NO modern EW and radar warning system can give LCA any missile lock against any stealth fighter.

You still maintain no modern stealth UCAV s with huge IRST payload can ever pick up the 300 kn engine blast from F-22 and supply a missile lock to LCA via data link.

ANd no modern heat seekers(they seek the entire surface area heat of the fighter and flares are of little use) fired in huge numbers over kill box wont kill the F-22s throughly exposing themselves with their missile guiding radars.

And no large bandwith awacs can even point out the direction of not stealth to L band F-22. They may not have to give accurate locks like in X band , but all they have to do is to point out the general direction of F-2 2 like stealth to Lca's long range bvr. modern dual seeking bvrs can be fired from lock on after launch mode from the LCA.

The LCA pilot knows his RCS radar deteaction range and will have to fly into combat with a bvr missile that is just longer ranged than his RCs.
AT 40 million dollars the LCA can fire 20 long range BVRs on F-22 while one 400 million F-22 can manage only 4 BVrs of the same range, with the help of l band awacs and ew crafts and stealth IRST payload carrying UCAV s I dont think that LCA is any more obsolete to J-20 or F-22.

Dont bluff LCA has only derby and astra. When grippen claims they can have 120 km range american bvrs and even probably METEORS than dont keep lying that LCA will have no long range missiles available to it.

I dont mean to run down and rule out that grippen is obsolete , F-22 is obsolete and J-20 is obsolete. Grippen can do the same thing that LCA can do in the same role. Lca has a slight edge with lower RCS when flying with missiles covered under the wings at alower altitude than the attacking fighter group's awacs .

ALL crafts are good. F-22 will everyone with their hands tied over airspace from angola to zimbabwae but not in heavily monitored ew saturated airspace filled with good 4.5 gen fighters since by sheer numbers there will be more BVR missile shots on costly few in numbers 5th gen fighter group .To survive these 5th gen too has to depend on their ew and awacs crafts for missile locks,that's all.They too have to be circumspect and cant tilt the odds in a battle themselves. Since %th gen fighter groups tracking radarss and ew crafts ar also vulnerable to attacks from the large number of LCA like 4th gen fighters infact there will be 10 LCAs for every single 5 th gen fighters.

These 5 th gen groups too will have to depend upon their large in numbers 4 th gen fighters for survival in this merge.

They can have specialized roles. But IAF too will have 5th gen pakfas and AMCAs for the job.

It never means that a 4.5 gen fighter like LCA tejas will be obsolete in it's service life.


When F-22 production lines are stopped. Hundreds of F-18 hornets and F-15 eagles will be produced.


When J-20 still in the testing phase china will produce hundreds of J-10s and sukhoi clones.

Russian will produce hundreds of SU-35 terminators while producing PAKFA.

RAFAels too will be produced when dassault concentrates on NURON.

So dont try to belittle the LCAA down with comparisions that are way unfair.

I dont want to drag this duel for ever P2 Prada.

So lets stop and let other members have the forum.

No hard feelings.

Bye

 

[Twinblade]

However nice you fuse your sensor ,it wont reduce your basics RCS figure that is a physical fact.

Take a look at this link from NAL (link)
As far as percentage of metal in the airframe and skin is concerned Gripen has the highest figures for the percentage of composites among all fighters when it came out in the late 80's and Gripen E/F is supposed to take it much further, but do not confuse the percentage of composites as the inherent criteria for RCS reduction. Sure, various composites do not reflect the energy but they allow the energy to pass through and bounce off the innards of the aircraft frame. Take Boeing F/A-18 E/F and Eurofighter Typhoon with massive difference in percentage of composites but nearly the same ballpark figures for RCS. There are only a handful of people on the planet who can eyeball an airframe and predict its ballpark figure of RCS, you are not one of them, so state you authoritative figures on Gripen's and Tejas' RCS if you even want to tread that line or shut up.

And none of this sensor fusion is SAb's. All it's avionics are from EADS and VIRIGULUS and other manufacturers. So LCA too can fuse all the sensors. However much they fuse sensors since both LCA and GRippen will rely on AWACA and EW crafts for most critical targetting and EW protection.Mind it.

Every manufacturee claims some thing so superior. The ADA is gov organization and it doesnot take out full page ads to fool [eople.

Use google before you post crap, seriously. Learn how a radar tracker works and how a sequence of plots is used to predict position, speed, trajectory and other data. Read a bit about multi radar tracking and how bearings from ESM, can be collated with Gripen's own radar data, radar data from aew&c, radar data from other fighters, and radar data from ground control stations. Not only that, Gripens hunting in a wolfpack can share processed information to further remove ambiguity. Furthermore, passive sensor data from one aircraft will only generate bearing of the target, but when passive data from multiple aircrafts is collated, it can also be used to triangulate the threat. All the algorithms that went into this multi-sensor fusion are SAAB's work. DRDO's work in the area of multi sensor fusion has been limited to ground based air defence roles till now, the first Indian aircraft that features multi sensor fusion algorithms is Emb-145 aew&c (link). Some idiots have updated the DRDO wiki page pointing R-118 system as the data fusion node for Indian fighter aircraft. In reality its just an RWR sensor operating in 1 to 18 Ghz. If you look at Cemilac's webpage which hasn't been updated in a very long time, R-118 was cleared for installation on Su-30Mki while the MSWS (multi sensor warning system) was just entering test phase on the Hack. So no, LCA does not feature sensor fusion, while Gripen does. Of course ADA doesn't take out full page advertisement, but being a government agency it has to release a number of reports on progress on various projects. If you are smart enough you will base your opinion on those reports and not wikipedia.

There is nothing revolutionary in grippens design.

Atleast LCA has the pedigree of F-16 Xl. What are the salient feature of grippens airframe?

Since i am asking nicely you can also reply nicely. Thanks.

If p2 prada too talks nicely I will reciprocate the same.

Salient features of Gripen's airframe ?
How about an airframe that can take 12G's (which can be invoked momentarily by disabling FBW) while Tejas' airframe was downgraded from 9G to 8 (check out the official website for Tejas maintained by ADA Tejas - Specifications - Leading Particulars and Performance), or how about being supersonic at all altitudes while Tejas struggles to break the sound barrier at sea level (from Cemilacs's report titled "Aircraft Performance Improvements-A Practical Approach" by S.K. Jebakumar)

One of the major out come of sea level trial of Tejas is that the drag of the aircraft is high such that the aircraft could not reach the supersonic Mach number at sea level. The components contributing for the maximum drag rise
has been identified and improvement methods were worked out. Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be minimized by following the Whitcomb's Area rule for the aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown in Fig 12. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden rise, the wave drag can be minimized.

This is one of the reasons why Tejas Mk2 features an increased length by inserting a plug extension behing cockpit, to make it more compliant with whitcomb's area rule.

In short, do not base your knowledge on wiki, you will continue to post crap like this. You can go to the defence forums of our neighbouring countries where they love to cycle jerk the way you are doing based on wiki, or you can post sensible questions and speculations based on current news articles and learn something new.

 

[p2prada]

(check out the official website for Tejas maintained by ADA

He thought the CAS mentioned there was "Close Air Support."

I think he has some 10 posts repeating that time and time again on how LCA will rip past above Mach 1 during CAS roles.

Better yet, he is supposed to have a Bachelors in Aeronautics, his claim, and is supposedly a research scientist in a Nanotech lab.

 

[p2prada]

Don't try too hard, you will get sucked into an unending vortex. This was my advice to Shiphone too.

 

[Twinblade]

He thought the CAS mentioned there was "Close Air Support."

I think he has some 10 posts repeating that time and time again on how LCA will rip past above Mach 1 during CAS roles.

It does actually rip past Mach 1 during close air support roles at 1350 kmph, but the last time it did it (Goa sea level trials in 2009 iirc) it took a dive from 4 km to 900 ft above sea level to do that, so technically he is correct, but getting a few facts correct doth not maketh him legit

 

[Twinblade]

He thought the CAS mentioned there was "Close Air Support."

I think he has some 10 posts repeating that time and time again on how LCA will rip past above Mach 1 during CAS roles.

It does actually rip past Mach 1 during close air support roles at 1350 kmph, but the last time it did it (Goa sea level trials in 2009 iirc) it took a dive from 4 km to 900 ft above sea level to do that, so technically he is correct, but getting a few facts correct doth not maketh him legit

 

[p2prada]

It does actually rip past Mach 1 during close air support roles at 1350 kmph, but the last time it did it (Goa sea level trials in 2009 iirc) it took a dive from 4 km to 900 ft above sea level to do that, so technically he is correct, but getting a few facts correct doth not maketh him legit

Diving for extra speed is such a big achievement?

Were ABs used?

Btw, CAS speeds are typically between 200-400Kmph. It is not possible to engage tanks and men on the ground at Mach 1. Identification becomes a problem too. ADA's indicating Calibrated Air speed. LCA at Mach 1 with LGBs and rocket pods, I don't think so.

As a matter of fact I don't think there is any fighter in the world that can drop bomb loads at supersonic speeds except for the F-22 and PAKFA later on.
Layer 8: Boeing, USAF show off supersonic bomb firing technology

It is like a new fad now. Supersonic release of weapons. Old generation fighters cannot and I don't think the F-35 can either.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
Originally Posted by p2prada
He thought the CAS mentioned there was "Close Air Support."

I think he has some 10 posts repeating that time and time again on how LCA will rip past above Mach 1 during CAS roles.
It does actually rip past Mach 1 during close air support roles at 1350 kmph, but the last time it did it (Goa sea level trials in 2009 iirc) it took a dive from 4 km to 900 ft above sea level to do that, so technically he is correct, but getting a few facts correct doth not maketh him legit .

The same ADA mentions this flight as a filght that further opens the flight envelope. AS p2 prada himself says that further 2000 flights will have to be completed before the full opening of flight envelope. And the air craft's FCS is restricted to 6 gs only.

So still there is a lot of its higher specs awaiting validation according to it's design.

I am glad to see that forum members are now discussing things actually related to LCA's step by step pre IOC , IOC then FOC flight envelope opening flights.
That is the reason that wiki mentions LCA's top speed as mach 1.9 and TWR as 1.07.

it does not pertain to any ASR. IT is the design specs of tejas mk-1 as per ADA's 2011 bangalore airshow release.

Lets carry this discusssion in a genle manly manner with out using foul words. Thanks.

 

[ersakthivel]

Take a look at this link from NAL (link)
As far as percentage of metal in the airframe and skin is concerned Gripen has the highest figures for the percentage of composites among all fighters when it came out in the late 80's and Gripen E/F is supposed to take it much further, but do not confuse the percentage of composites as the inherent criteria for RCS reduction. Sure, various composites do not reflect the energy but they allow the energy to pass through and bounce off the innards of the aircraft frame. Take Boeing F/A-18 E/F and Eurofighter Typhoon with massive difference in percentage of composites but nearly the same ballpark figures for RCS. There are only a handful of people on the planet who can eyeball an airframe and predict its ballpark figure of RCS, you are not one of them, so state you authoritative figures on Gripen's and Tejas' RCS if you even want to tread that line or shut up.

E.R.SAKTHIvel

Please tell me what is the percentage of composited in grippen, why I mentioned that was composites are used to reduce weight. I dont claim composite alone makes a craft stealthy. And composites are longer losting and increase the strength of and rigidity of airframe.THATS ALL. The reason for nearly same ballpark figures for RCS of F/A-18 E/F and Eurofighter Typhoon with massive difference in percentage of composites is due to their airframe design and composite alone wont do the job for you.


Do you claim GRIPPEN has lower RCS than LCA or not?

No one has to shut up and tear up anything here. plain arguments will do. Mind your language.

Use google before you post crap, seriously. Learn how a radar tracker works and how a sequence of plots is used to predict position, speed, trajectory and other data. Read a bit about multi radar tracking and how bearings from ESM, can be collated with Gripen's own radar data, radar data from aew&c, radar data from other fighters, and radar data from ground control stations. Not only that, Gripens hunting in a wolfpack can share processed information to further remove ambiguity. Furthermore, passive sensor data from one aircraft will only generate bearing of the target, but when passive data from multiple aircrafts is collated, it can also be used to triangulate the threat. All the algorithms that went into this multi-sensor fusion are SAAB's work. DRDO's work in the area of multi sensor fusion has been limited to ground based air defence roles till now, the first Indian aircraft that features multi sensor fusion algorithms is Emb-145 aew&c (link). Some idiots have updated the DRDO wiki page pointing R-118 system as the data fusion node for Indian fighter aircraft. In reality its just an RWR sensor operating in 1 to 18 Ghz. If you look at Cemilac's webpage which hasn't been updated in a very long time, R-118 was cleared for installation on Su-30Mki while the MSWS (multi sensor warning system) was just entering test phase on the Hack. So no, LCA does not feature sensor fusion, while Gripen does. Of course ADA doesn't take out full page advertisement, but being a government agency it has to release a number of reports on progress on various projects. If you are smart enough you will base your opinion on those reports and not wikipedia.

All these are irrelevant in facing birds with higher capacity ew capacity, so neither grippen nor LCA will reject the support of their respective group EW crafts and AWACS and instead use their sensors to operate in a saturated environment. That's what I meant

Salient features of Gripen's airframe ?
How about an airframe that can take 12G's (which can be invoked momentarily by disabling FBW) while Tejas' airframe was downgraded from 9G to 8 (check out the official website for Tejas maintained by ADA Tejas - Specifications - Leading Particulars and Performance), or how about being supersonic at all altitudes while Tejas struggles to break the sound barrier at sea level (from Cemilacs's report titled "Aircraft Performance Improvements-A Practical Approach" by S.K. Jebakumar)

Are you sure the struggle of tejas is due to the fact of its design limitation or not fully opened flight envelope

This is one of the reasons why Tejas Mk2 features an increased length by inserting a plug extension behing cockpit, to make it more compliant with whitcomb's area rule.

In short, do not base your knowledge on wiki, you will continue to post crap like this. You can go to the defence forums of our neighbouring countries where they love to cycle jerk the way you are doing based on wiki, or you can post sensible questions and speculations based on current news articles and learn something new.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Now DFI have dedicated F22 thread :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/1326-lockheed-martin-f-22-raptor-7.html


Discuss F22 there..

 

[ersakthivel]

Originally Posted by Twinblade
It does actually rip past Mach 1 during close air support roles at 1350 kmph, but the last time it did it (Goa sea level trials in 2009 iirc) it took a dive from 4 km to 900 ft above sea level to do that, so technically he is correct, but getting a few facts correct doth not maketh him legit
Diving f

P2 PRADA says


or extra speed is such a big achievement?

Were ABs used?

Btw, CAS speeds are typically between 200-400Kmph. It is not possible to engage tanks and men on the ground at Mach 1. Identification becomes a problem too. ADA's indicating Calibrated Air speed. LCA at Mach 1 with LGBs and rocket pods, I don't think so.

As a matter of fact I don't think there is any fighter in the world that can drop bomb loads at supersonic speeds except for the F-22 and PAKFA later on.
Layer 8: Boeing, USAF show off supersonic bomb firing technology

It is like a new fad now. Supersonic release of weapons. Old generation fighters cannot and I don't think the F-35 can either.

E.E.Sakthivel says,

i accept that I have understood that I have CAS as close air suppot speed. But what is the big deal is that The LCA achieved it with in its partially opened flight envelope with 6G FCS limitation.

it only indicates that its airframe is good enough to withstand that speed within it's partially opened envelope.


And it has yet to be opened higher topspeeds at the sea level with higher Gs permitting full flight envelope.


As I have stated patiently time and again that the flight envelope is yet to opened fully.


And it will be only done in a phased manner for the Mk-1. Ofcourse for the mk-2 it will be faster as the airframe is already tested for mk-1 so there is no worry.

So it is clearly a mistake on anybody's part to claim that LCA's top speed is limited to mach 1.4or mach 1.6 or it's G is limited to 6.


Thanks . I enjoy the intellectual manner of the debate. Please keep it going this way. it will give more information to all and enrich the forum.

thanks

 

[ersakthivel]

twin blade says

In short, do not base your knowledge on wiki, you will continue to post crap like this. You can go to the defence forums of our neighbouring countries where they love to cycle jerk the way you are doing based on wiki, or you can post sensible questions and speculations based on current news articles and learn something new.

[/QUOTE]

What, in your opinion, is the significance of the Tejas program? Why do you think it is important for the country?

This is what the legendar aircraft designer KOTA HARINARAYANA says about the aircraft

When we started the Tejas program, we had already built a first generation fighter, the HF24.
Tejas is a fourth plus generation fighter. We bridged the gap between first and fourth in one single project.

And more than 80% of the technology of the LCA was developed in the country. In the most difficult time when there were sanctions from USA, we developed the most crucial controllers, hardware, software, tested, validated and made it error proof and we flew the aircraft. The most important thing is that we developed a lot of technologies.


. And these technologies have been used not just in LCA but in IJT and Saras and many other projects. And the companies that worked for LCA, they started working for many other programs all over the country.


Today if you see engineering service industry in India, I think a large number of people manning the industry have worked on the LCA project. Because they worked on LCA, they got good work afterwards.
I think the biggest thing is that we created the ecosystem for aviation in India. Earlier there was no ecosystem for aviation in India. There was HAL and nobody else. Now it is HAL, 500 industries, 40-50 laboratories, 20 academic institutions and it is a big network. It is no longer one or two people working or one DRDO lab working or NAL working. It is a network.


I thought this ecosystem that we have created through LCA is a great thing and it has given extra-ordinary confidence to the people who have worked on the project and the people who felt that this cannot be done but now they feel that if they could do LCA, they can do many other things.

Today when I talk to anybody in the world, I can see that the respect for the country has increased by leaps and bounds. The point they make is that if you do a project like LCA which has the highest percentage of composites, which is the smallest fighter in the world, and was under such difficult conditions, it means that the country has inherent strength.


And that is what gives confidence today not only to the participants but to the customers also. They may crib but at the end of the day they feel that here is a group that can do the job. If I go to the private industry today with some detailed design work, they will do it. All the avionics equipment and the MMR, we developed ourselves and it has been done by small scale industry. Some 40-50 of them worked for us and today they are making components for the rest of the world.


Can you describe in detail what was going through your mind on January 4, 2001 when the Technology Demonstrator of the Tejas was flown for the first time?


Frankly I had zero doubt in my mind about our ability to make this aircraft. The day I took over I didn't see any reason to believe that it would not be a success. If somebody sitting in France, in UK or in Sweden can do it; then a country of one billion people with so much of talent can also do it.

We just needed to put our act together. Of course, we had to do a lot of learning and the infrastructure was not there but I had zero doubt in my mind. I always thought that this is a doable project. It was a tough project but it was doable. When we started this program, maybe one in hundred people would have believed in us. As we went on and we were ready to fly, maybe fifty out of hundred began believing in us.

Wing Commander Kothiyal was our test pilot. He was a very professionally competent person. I know that he had never flown a prototype in his life. That too an unstable aircraft. So, I thought about how to give confidence to him. We did two or three things. One was to work on the control laws.

We tested on a modified F16 aircraft in USA. One of the comments of the test pilot from the Pentagon was that the F16 flies better with LCA control laws. Even the aerodynamics of the aircraft was excellent. It gave a lot of confidence to our pilot. I never wanted to side step any testing


. I felt that you must test until you give confidence to the airworthiness team and to the pilots. So the whole testing process went on for a year. The main thing in my mind was that here is an aircraft where the aerodynamics are good and the control laws are good. We must make it reliable. Reliable enough for it to fly very well. Of course when the aircraft flew, it was an extra-ordinary feeling.


When the pilot came down, I asked him if there were any snags and he said 'zero'. That is an extra-ordinary statement. It means we really perfected the aircraft to a level where there were no problems. It is very difficult to explain the kind of feeling that you have. It is like having a child.


We were elated and happy that we could do this in spite of US sanctions and in spite of the report from one of the leading professional journals that said that India can never fly this aircraft because of US sanctions and lack of experience in making aircraft.And we were able to overcome such things.


But we had a wonderful Defence Minister in George Fernandes. Hes a great Swadeshi man. One day we were working very late at night around 11 'o clock, testing the ground run of the aircraft. And suddenly some five-six cars came. It was the Defence Minister. He said, 'As I was landing, I saw some activity going on. And I knew it must be your group.' Such a gesture on his part energized the team, the designers, the people who had built the aircraft and the people who were testing it.



Dr.Kalam was our boss for a long time. He was also an extra-ordinary person. Fortunately, I have had very good bosses. All of my bosses have supported us fully. We went through extra-ordinary problems. There used to be negative publicity about the project every alternate day. They used to say that we had crossed the time limits and the budget. It was tough but then our focus was not on those reports but on how to make it work. Fortunately, the team believed in themselves. Even if others didn't believe, it didn't matter. I think our big achievement was in making the team believe in themselves.


People who post dubious information regarding TEJAS should know that they are belittiling the Country's defence an research establishment which

launched its 100th space mission recently,

launched a nuclear submarine,

launched a nuclear capable ballistic missile underwater from a submarine,

once had one of the fastest supercomputers in the world,

perfected nuclear weapon technology,


exported heavy water to US nuclear reactor,


has launched an ICBM technology capable AGNI,


sent a probe to moon CHANDRYAN and discovered water in the moon,


that has successfully tested Anti ballistic missile defence 5 times or more,





So still there are people out there belittling it's capacity to produce a 4.5 gen aircraft?


The higher drag of LCA results from it's higher wing area than grippen.
The higher wing area is there for a purpose.
To give lower wingloading and give it the best possible handling through out the flight envelope.
The absence of canards is to reduce the RCS and reduce the weight penalty of extra actuaters and hydraulics.
The better low speed handling is achieved by cranked arrrow design.
The engine blades are hidden with Y duct inlet.

Still it has drag issues and will fly poorly than a 1990s fighter grippen?

And software is Indain forte. Once the flight tests are over there is nothing that stops the country which has the world's largest number of software engineers from giving the best of support to it's avionics

 

[Twinblade]

Please tell me what is the percentage of composited in grippen, why I mentioned that was composites are used to reduce weight.

I gave you the link with a very nice graph. Do yourself a favour and open it. Gripen managed to have a higher MTOW, comparable empty weight despite using less composites than Tejas along with higher hard point capacity.

I dont claim composite alone makes a craft stealthy

No, but you made other outrageous claims like these :-

It's not worth a shit ,since it is a legacy all Metal figter with worse RCS than LCA and can easily be picked up and fired upon by LCa well befrore LCA is picked up by grippen.

Even NG will have piss poor RCS compared to the present MK_1 of LCA.

.. and my personal favourite..

but grippen's worse cross section is due to it's canards and boxy inlets with no thought about stealth shaping.

without giving a shred of any form of scientific methodology.

Do you claim GRIPPEN has lower RCS than LCA or not?

No I do not. I am not qualified enough for the job and neither do I believe in speculations without any solid reasoning or associated modelling with well specified parameters. All claims regarding RCS outside of official publications are pure speculation and should be taken with a pinch of salt. All claims by internet posters, barring a few who have built their reputation over the years by displaying an understanding of the subject at hand, ought to be rejected right away without a second look. So once again, since you are making grand claims about the relative stealthiness of Tejas vis-a-vis Gripen and trying to pass it off as facts, I suggest you put up the necessary modelling or shut up and stop comparing platforms on issues where no public domain information is available.

Are you sure the struggle of tejas is due to the fact of its design limitation or not fully opened flight envelope

Yes. The G limit was restricted after last year's fuel system redesign when leaks were discovered, which was the major cause of delay of LSP-7 and NP-1. As far as the drag is concerned read the reports I have linked and then come back at me.

All these are irrelevant in facing birds with higher capacity ew capacity, so neither grippen nor LCA will reject the support of their respective group EW crafts and AWACS and instead use their sensors to operate in a saturated environment. That's what I meant

Either your english is really horrible or you just uttered pure nonsense. You asked which was a better aircraft and I gave my reasons for it. You gave an ignorant reply downplaying the capabilities that I explained by your assumptions of RCS in a hypothetical scenario and I gave my reasons on why your scenario was pure nonsense when comparing the current capabilities of Gripen and Tejas. You are just a fanboy with near zero knowledge of the platform you are supposed to be supporting, you are talking smack about aircraft you know nothing about, your understanding of modern military aviation is pedestrian at best and your arguments reek of nationalist bias.

Mind your language.

If you find my posting style rude, I suggest you report my posts to the mods. Also, check the factual accuracy of the stats you post, mind your grammar, spellings, capitalization and quoting of posts. Mankind invented them for a reason. A little part of me dies every time I read your posts.

 

[p2prada]

The same ADA mentions this flight as a filght that further opens the flight envelope. AS p2 prada himself says that further 2000 flights will have to be completed before the full opening of flight envelope. And the air craft's FCS is restricted to 6 gs only.

So still there is a lot of its higher specs awaiting validation according to it's design.

Firstly, there is not a single post on this forum where I have claimed the LCA won't open it's flight envelope. You only "assumed" that I don't know the flight envelope is to be opened.

As a real life example, let's say you are in 12th standard(LCA's IOC) and are claiming to finish Engineering(LCA's FOC) after 12th. But you failed 12th standard exams. During supplementary you fail again. Then you will fail again the next time. Followed by another time and then another. If you can't even pass 12th standard(LCA's IOC) then how then heck will you even get into Engineering let alone clear it. So, this is where LCA is right now. ADA has been trying to get to IOC since 1999 or more recently 2005. Since 2005, they have only been giving dates one after the other. LCA was supposed to have achieved IOC in 2009, then it changed to 2010, then 2011. In 2011 they lied to IAF. IAF got angry and hence you see why ACM Naik is so unhappy. ADA promised full IOC in 6 months, that passed, now it is supposed to be March 2013. So, ADA will probably take 5 years just to finish 12th std. After that comes Engineering... hence we laugh at ADA.

So, the question is when will LCA achieve IOC? LCA is 60s technology, nothing more. And ADA is still trying to get the technology to work 50 years later. Just because it is 2012 does not make it an advanced aircraft. New aircraft have come and are going also, but still we are waiting for LCA's IOC.

That is the reason that wiki mentions LCA's top speed as mach 1.9 and TWR as 1.07.

You are still unable to understand that LCA's specs on wiki are wrong. ADA's specs are what is being planned and that's why they put it there on their website. ADA or any other manufacturer always, always puts the best possible specs for the aircraft they are designing. Check F-35 on wiki and you will see specs that will be the final specs for the aircraft. Like LCA they are yet to achieve those specs and even they are 8 years away, except for the fact that they are working on the most advanced aircraft ever while we are doing the exact opposite.

If you are talking about Shiphone's claim about half fuel tank, then even that has been settled in the J-10 thread, where Shiphone agrees it is full fuel.

Read from post #43.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...hengdu-j-10-vigorous-dragon-3.html#post574608

Take LCA's full loaded weight from ADA website and using current engine power that you already know, then calculate T/W, you will get the proper figure.

So, 8.5 tons/9.5 tons = ~0.9. Here IAF was actually expecting 8.5 tons /8.5 tons = 1. Once ADA decided they cannot do it, IAF asked for a Mk2 with more modifications to bring it to Mirage-2000 level instead of being a little better than the Mig-21, or Mig-21++. So, ADA decided on the F-414, a new engine. IAF did not decide all of this.

When ASR is given, IAF never talks about empty weight, engine power etc. ASR will be something like this.

Payload = 4 tons
Speed = Mach 1.5 to Mach 1.8.
Altitude = 16Km
Radar = 100Km for 3m[SUP]2[/SUP]
Landing distance = 1200m
Take off distance = 800m
On station time = 30 minutes
T/W > 1

ADA then gives specifications like if the payload is 4 tons, then the empty weight will be 5.5 tons. So, if we consider fuel is 2.5 tons, then we will need 85KN engine because loaded weight will be 8.5 tons. Since speed is less, we will use fixed inlet design. Since IAF wants good high altitude performance we will go for a large delta wing. Similarly, LRDE will design a radar based on ASR.

Then IAF approves once the preliminary design(paper plane) is done. In case IAF does not like something, they will ask for modifications like they did on the PAKFA with 45 modifications from preliminary design including 360degree radar. Then comes design stage, where IAF will approve it and ask for more modifications depending on need and the technology of the time. Then comes Tech Demonstrator and prototype stage where design modifications are made by ADA, not IAF.

This is how it pretty much works. So, don't make assumptions on your own.

After FOC with another 1000 hours of flight testing, the final LCA specs will be with max speed of mach 1.5 to 1.6, payload of 3.5 tons, G limit of 8/-3.5, AoA of 24degrees and T/W of 0.9:1. This is the FOC for LCA Mk1 and will supposedly be achieved in 2015, only if IOC is achieved by 2013.

FOC for Mk2 will be something like this, Max speed = unknown(maybe Mach 1.8) most probably Mach 1.5 to 1.6, payload of 5 tons, AoA = unknown(mostly the same) and T/W of 1:1. This FOC will come only in 2018, that is only possible if first flight happens in 2014 and IOC in 2016. But this is only dependent on ADA's promise, something they haven't followed at all since 2 decades. So, 2018 is a very, very, very, very optimistic date.

Now don't sit and question all this. These are the facts as it stands today.

 

[p2prada]

When we started the Tejas program, we had already built a first generation fighter, the HF24.
Tejas is a fourth plus generation fighter. We bridged the gap between first and fourth in one single project.

HF-24 was second generation. LCA is currently only a 4th gen on paper. It will be a 4+ only if it gets AESA. AESA is still a decade away, especially considering LRDE is still looking for a partner to provide T/R modules.

And more than 80% of the technology of the LCA was developed in the country. In the most difficult time when there were sanctions from USA, we developed the most crucial controllers, hardware, software, tested, validated and made it error proof and we flew the aircraft. The most important thing is that we developed a lot of technologies.

The only good thing on LCA is the Fly by wire and carbon composites. Fly by wire was designed by Indian scientists in Britain and the US, not in India.

People who post dubious information regarding TEJAS should know that they are belittiling the Country's defence an research establishment which

launched its 100th space mission recently,

launched a nuclear submarine,

launched a nuclear capable ballistic missile underwater from a submarine,

once had one of the fastest supercomputers in the world,

perfected nuclear weapon technology,


exported heavy water to US nuclear reactor,


has launched an ICBM technology capable AGNI,


sent a probe to moon CHANDRYAN and discovered water in the moon,


that has successfully tested Anti ballistic missile defence 5 times or more,

None of these are ADA's work. I will be happy only if ADA and CVRDE are added to the list too.

So still there are people out there belittling it's capacity to produce a 4.5 gen aircraft?

We don't have this capability.

The higher drag of LCA results from it's higher wing area than grippen.
The higher wing area is there for a purpose.

Link? Because I am not aware of it(mostly because it is wrong).

MKI has a much larger wing area, it can probably carry LCA and still go supersonic(jk).

Don't assume things on your own or it will be discarded like the sentence above.

The absence of canards is to reduce the RCS and reduce the weight penalty of extra actuaters and hydraulics.

If that is the case, then why does the N-LCA prototypes have LEVCONS? These do the work of canards.

The absence of canards is only because canards were not needed for the role it was supposed to play, ie, an interceptor and point defence. It would have made the design unnecessarily complex too.

The better low speed handling is achieved by cranked arrrow design.

We will see how good LCA's low speed capability is once information is given on it.

Still it has drag issues and will fly poorly than a 1990s fighter grippen?

Lots. This is according to both ADA and IAF.

And software is Indain forte. Once the flight tests are over there is nothing that stops the country which has the world's largest number of software engineers from giving the best of support to it's avionics

Wrong. We just have a low paid workforce who mostly do testing and a little bit of development. The best software developers still belong in better countries.

Software is still the forte of big design houses like LM, Boeing, Dassault, Saab, Sukhoi etc. ADA is still a fledgling compared to these biggies. If someone wants to design a software code for ATMs, then they will look to us, not for aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Ersakthivel

Go through this thread. The OP has written a decent article which will help you get the basics of modern technology. It is easy to read too.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...3-beyond-visual-range-bvr-fighter-combat.html

 

[p2prada]

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

You want your drag issues answered, here you go...

 

[ersakthivel]

twin blade says,

Originally Posted by ersakthivel
Please tell me what is the percentage of composited in grippen, why I mentioned that was composites are used to reduce weight.

I gave you the link with a very nice graph. Do yourself a favour and open it. Gripen managed to have a higher MTOW, comparable empty weight despite using less composites than Tejas along with higher hard point capacity.

Please quote the same source and post the exact percentage of composites in grippen's boby ( both the existing C?D versions and proposed E/F versions)and and surface area. I always like an informed debate.
Since you gave us the link. I am certain that You would have read it.So please share your knowledge with us.


It is the designer of the aircraft KOTA HARINARAYANA who has categoricalyy stated that.Those are his words and not mine.

The basic purpose of ADA's tejas design is not to lug the highest possible MTOW. If that is the purpose they would have reduced the surface area of TEjas's wings and could have given it a a much higher MTOW like GRIPPEN.But from the outset the basic intention of ADA's TEJAS design is to ensure HIHGLY AGILE through out the flight envelope , air to air role for the TEJAS.

This objective has resulted in giving it higher wing area resulting in higher drag in sea level altitude. ANd lower MTOW.
But what it bestows on tejas is lower wing loading and bettter performance through out the flight envelope. Because lift generated from the higher wing surface area will give tejas superb ability to manouver in vertical plane, instead of just going up in the vertical plane like a rocket, With low wing loading tejas enjoys higher manouvering through out it's flight envelope.

The meaning is the larger wing area of tejas produces higher lift per kg than any other contemprorary 4 th gen fighter in the world purely from airframe point of you regardless of the engine thrust.

While grippen design team focussed on canards to do this job for agility in vertical plane, Tejas team focussed on low wing loading, And to compensate for the lack of canards LCA has huge surface area for elevons and other control surface.

So you have admitted that you cannot give an accurate answer for the RCS enhancing effect of CANARDS.

You can ask any aviation experts whether EUROFIGHTER and RAFAEL will have lersser rcs without canards or not? And PLEASE POST.

Every design team has priorities. The priority of grippen is to use the canards and reduce the wing area a bit to increase the MTOW.

because lower wing surface area will have lower drag at sea level and will result in higher MTOW. and make it much better multirole fighter.This shows the priority of GRIPPEN design team not the superiority of GRIPPEN team..And they were prepared to pay the penalty of higher RCS, since the grippen is not going to be the primary fighter of whole nato forces. It is a replacement of multi role F-16 s that were going to be retired.This is the aim of grippen.

But the tejas was built for more air to air roles and priority was not the maximum MTOW. MAximum wing area for the length of fusleage within the shockwave cone area around the fuselage is the top most priority for TEJAS team. Why? Because the maximum wing area gives more lift per kg in THE MOST IMPORTANT TRANS SONIC SPEED which is the speed most fighter fly most of the time. Given the same engines that both GRIPPEN and LCA carry you just cannot deny this fact.it is a phtsical reality ,not needind any detailed study in labs.

The penalty for Tejas is lower speeds at lower altitudes as a result of this high wing area. And a bit lesser multirole profile for TEJAS. Most critics argue this is a short comming of TEJAS blithly ignoring the fact that lugging maximum MTOW and having a tad higher speeds at lower altitudes is not the objective of the TEJAS team. This often results in childlike arguments that GRIPPEN is THE BEST and TEJAS is much worse, completely ignoring the design objective of tejas. The tejas team can easily reduce the wing area and have a have a canard in fron like grippen accepting the penalty of higher RCS.

But that was not the design philosophy.

The rest of your post regarding the WHITCOMB RULE is known to the TEJAs team or any other delta wing aircraft designers and this rule is observed in design phase itself.The TEJAS is designed and modeld in a highly evolved design software. So all disciplines regarding WHITCOMB rule have ben observed in design time. The nose plug just helps to improve the compliance with whitcombs rule

It is easy to reduce the wing area of any fighter andto reduce drag, and to reduce the weight of aircraft , to incresae MTOW, and give it higher straight line top speeds at lower alts and higher altitude.

This may make the aircraft to look superior . But most wont know that extra bit of top speeds in staight lineare useless in beating a missile that flies twice or more faster than the aircraft. And if one flies continuosly at these top speeds with disasterous drag alll fuel will be used up in a shorter span of time. And it is not desirable at all.

That's why even the famed SUKHOI has just mach 1.2 at sea level. Not that it's designers are so dumb to reduce it's wing area and get a higher speed at sea level. This will compromise the aircrafts agility through out the envelope in the all important with in visual range dogfights with Helmet mounted sights accurately pinpointing the enemy in the all important TRANS SONIC SPEEDS.

So thank you for letting the forum members updated with design purpose behind GRIPPEN and TEJAS.
Not that I want to turn it into a mine is better and your is worse debate

 

[ersakthivel]

p2 PRADA says

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/.../2-CEMILAC.pdf

You want your drag issues answered, here you go...

This nose cone plug is done and the improvements have been achieved. That's why ADA has highlighted that the TEJAS corrected this issue by announcing to press that the TEJAS has crossed it's ultimate speed of 1350 km/hr at sea level in goa. Now people are saying that this is done only in dive and not at level flight.They are totally concealing the fact that since TEJAS is operating within it's partial fly by wire control limited(FCS) limit of 6 gs and lower specs than it's actual specs this validation of cone plug can only be done in a dive and tom tomming that it is a design failure of TEJAS. ASTONISHING. For rest of the drag issues P 2 PRADA can kindly read my reply to twin blade on the same issue and can clear all his doubts regarding why TEJAS has a higher drag st sea level..

Every design team has priorities. The priority of grippen is to use the canards and reduce the wing area a bit to increase the MTOW.

because lower wing surface area will have lower drag at sea level and will result in higher MTOW. and make it much better multirole fighter.This shows the priority of GRIPPEN design team not the superiority of GRIPPEN team..And they were prepared to pay the penalty of higher RCS, since the grippen is not going to be the primary fighter of whole nato forces. It is a replacement of multi role F-16 s that were going to be retired.This is the aim of grippen.

But the tejas was built for more air to air roles and priority was not the maximum MTOW. MAximum wing area for the length of fusleage within the shockwave cone area around the fuselage is the top most priority for TEJAS team. Why? Because the maximum wing area gives more lift per kg in THE MOST IMPORTANT TRANS SONIC SPEED which is the speed most fighter fly most of the time. Given the same engines that both GRIPPEN and LCA carry you just cannot deny this fact.it is a phtsical reality ,not needind any detailed study in labs.

The penalty for Tejas is lower speeds at lower altitudes as a result of this high wing area. And a bit lesser multirole profile for TEJAS. Most critics argue this is a short comming of TEJAS blithly ignoring the fact that lugging maximum MTOW and having a tad higher speeds at lower altitudes is not the objective of the TEJAS team. This often results in childlike arguments that GRIPPEN is THE BEST and TEJAS is much worse, completely ignoring the design objective of tejas. The tejas team can easily reduce the wing area and have a have a canard in fron like grippen accepting the penalty of higher RCS.


It is astonishing how you are using a genuine design correction to achieve a desired spec of higher speed at lower altitude with as a total shortcoming of tejas.

Now since ADA acheived this and TEJAS has validated it ,what is the reply?

If you claim that ADA is inept for it, Then by the same token can you claim that GRIPPEN team is also inept because two protypes crashing and test pilots scurrying into retirement perhaps. As a matter af fact I dont belong to your school of total criticism disregarding the facts.

Grippen solved the problem with consultation from US firm on fly by wire and ADA solved the problem as per the recommendations of center for military airworthiness and certification. And S>K>Jebakumar's article is a testimonial to the fact.

It is openly posted in a forthrightly academical ,scholary attitude by DRDO, and now you guys use it as stick to beat DRDO for its open mindedness in acknowledging the problem AND THEN CORRECTING IT WITH THE HELP OF NOSEPLUG AND VALIDATING IT AT SEA LEVELFLIGHT IN GOA.

THE SAME ARTICLE ALSO STATES THAT ALL CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND RESULTS WERE ACHIEVED. hAVE A HONEST HEART AND POST IT IN THE FORUM TOO.

I'M REALLY ELATED P2PRADA THAT YOU ARE GIVING AUTHENTIC SOURCE.


tHESE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT ARTICLE

5. CONCLUSION
The important parameters governs the aircraft performance
are Lift, Drag, Weight and Thrust. The required performance
can be achieved by improving the aerodynamic configuration,
weight reduction and system upgradation (like engine, fuel
system etc.). This paper brought out the major design
changes/inventions demonstrated for the improvement of
a

BUT YOU CONCLUSION FROM THE ARTICLE IS EXTREMELY OPPOSITE.

YOUR ATTITUDE IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO DRDO ATTITUDE. AND THERE IN LIES THE DIFFERENCE.I HOPE YOU ALL THUOGHT I WILL RUNAWAY FROM THIS FORUM WITH YOUR SUPPOSED COUP.