ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

p2prada says

originally posted by twinblade
(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.

will you now accept that the nose cone has solved the problem , as i accepted that it was caliberated air speeds.

And tejas has no drag issues?

 

[ersakthivel]

RESPECTED P2 PRADA,
THESE ARE TESIMONIALS TO YOUR AERONAUTICS GENIUS AND INTEGRITY IN THIS FORUM.

DO YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT YOU STAND ALL BY THESE STATEMENTS?

P2 PRADA POST NO 1062 10/1/11 9:34
-Not the IOC jets. At Max G force of 6 the Mig-21 will be spinning circles around the LCA, not to mention it will get shot down by BVR anyway. The Bisons have a capable EW as well as BVR.

NO MANUFACTURER MAKES VERSIONS OF DIFFERENT JETS FOR PRE IOC IOC AND FOC AND STANDARD PRODUCTION MODEL.
THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF YOU RUNNING DOWN THE LCA KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT IT'S DESIGN SPECS ARE MORE THAN 6G AND IT WILL INCRESE POST FOC .

AFTER THAT MIG-21 CAN CIRCLE THE LCA IN TARMAC ONLY. ANY REBUTTALS.

YOU ARE MAINTAINING THAT YOU NEVER ACCUSED LCA OF UNDER PERFORMANCE USING IT'S LOWER SPECS DUE TO NOBN OPENING OF FLIGHT ENVELOPE.

I will agree with the older Migs. But the Bisons are more 4th gen than the Mk1. Not to mention the older Mig-21s are actually being replaced by MKIs and later MRCA in the future.

CARE TO EXPLAIN TO FORUMITES HOW 40 YEAR OLD BY BISONS SUDDENLY BECAME 4TH GEN.
BY THE SAME ANALOGY WILL LCA BE 5TH GEN AFTER 40 YEARS.
WHAT IS THE STR OF BISON?
WHAT IS THE MTOW OF BISON?
WHAT IS THE EW SUIT OF BISON?
WHAT IS THE WEAPON WEIGHT OF BISON?
PLEASE ENLIGHTEN THE MEMEBERS.

I am not talking about the failure of the program. The program has delivered lesser than expected and the ACM is pointing out exactly that. LCA is not yet a 4th gen aircraft. The LCA Mk2 may very well be 4.5th gen or higher, but that's not the point either. The point is the ACMs words are being criticized for being out of line when he is the one in charge of protecting our country. When he speaks the truth, the messenger as well as the message is criticized simply because nobody wants to hear it. This is the same story as the Arjun. Calling for induction a product that is well below required standards and then criticizing the people who rejected the product and comparing them to our political schemers.

HOW DOES LCA BECOME 4 TH GEN BEFORE EVEN OPENING ITS FLIGHT ENVELOPE? THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT
THEN AS PER THE ARGUMENT PV-5 IS 2 ND GEN.
PV-6 IS 3RD GEN

LSP-7 IS 4TH GEN.IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT READERS TO BELIEVE?

AN AIRCRAFT IS DESIGNED AS 4TH GEN.
AN AIRCRAFT IS NOT BORN INTO THIS WORLD AS 1ST GEN AND GROWS TO BECOME 4TH GEN.
IF AN AIRCRAFT HAS NO 4TH GEN DESIGN FUTURES THEN IT WILL NEVER BECOME 4TH GEN

RAHUL SINGH COUNTERED YOU WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT.
POST NO 1077 10/1/11
The day was not without controversy. IAF Chief was misunderstood as saying that it was not a Fourth Generation aircraft. Air Chief Marshal PV Naik later clarified that it was a fourth generation aircraft. He said that some systems and maneuvers have to be finalized leading to the FOC.


Shaka COUNTERS YOU WITH
Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
Originally Posted by p2prada
IAF is not interested in LCA Mk1. That is very clear from ACM's statements in the past as well as today.
Sources please. this is clear from today's statement that it will get everything before FOC.

Exactly the point. You just made it. IAF is getting high end jets, state of the art. But in the end IAF will lose 20 pilots now and another 20 pilots later to the Mk1 with standards WAAAY below what the MRCA is providing.
Stop writing crap will you. How is LCA waay below MRCA standard because some brochure says so. Clarify it.

Losing 40 pilots in 3 years is no joke, not to mention a base or 2.
What rubbish

Not the IOC jets. At Max G force of 6 the Mig-21 will be spinning circles around the LCA, not to mention it will get shot down by BVR anyway. The Bisons have a capable EW as well as BVR.
Do you even know that every jet in the world goes through IOC/FOC process. Weapons get certified and it takes time for that.

I will agree with the older Migs. But the Bisons are more 4th gen than the Mk1. Not to mention the older Mig-21s are actually being replaced by MKIs and later MRCA in the future.
Do you even know that every jet in the world goes through IOC/FOC process. Weapons get certified and it takes time for that.

I hardly doubt the specifications even match what the Mirage-2000 will be getting. What we have is not Elta's radar. We have our own MMR that uses Israel's radar processors. Our very first radar matching the RC-400 series, I don't think so.
Can you back up your silly statements.

R-73 yes. R-77 not yet. That's for FOC.
So.....?

The MKI upgrade plan is much more comprehensive than the LCAs. MKI will have everything required even before the FOC LCA hits the production line. So, cannot compare.
Backup your statements please......

Also, the Mayawi suite is still not ready and will not be until after 2012.
Backup your statements please......

Nope. I want a Gripen for a R&D budget that is perfectly adequate for our needs.
Do you even know what our needs are ?

The point is the ACMs words are being criticized for being out of line when he is the one in charge of protecting our country. When he speaks the truth, the messenger as well as the message is criticized simply because nobody wants to hear it.
point taken

This is the same story as the Arjun. Calling for induction a product that is well below required standards and then criticizing the people who rejected the product and comparing them to our political schemers.

P2 PRADA SAYS

POST NO 1158 11/1/11
Barely. IAF has asked for Pass marks. LCA cannot even perform to the standards of M2000 while Gripen can beat every single MRCA fighter including the F-15 in a dog fight. So, while LCA scored 35% Gripen scored 90% doing the same

HOW ARE YOU SO SURE THAT LCA WONT BEAT MIRAGE AND GRIPPEN CAN BEAT F-15?
FRIENDS AT LM WILL BE LIVID.

P 2 PRADA
Wrong. Jaguars are very important for us. We currently don't have a major replacement plan or manufacturing capability to replace everything we have. We have to upgrade our older birds for having decent preparedness in case some one attacks tomorrow. The Mk1 is still an untested platform and I would rather have 20 Jaguars than 5 MKIs. So, the IAF is making the best decisions. This is the same as the T-72 upgrades. Some criticize it because of Arjun. But the fact is we cannot replace the T-72 because of the infrastructure and training that is already in place. Replacing those is impossible with a $32Billion budget.

JAGUARS ARE 6TH GEN PERHAPS?
WE CAN FOREVER PAY OUR POOR OLD TAXPAYER MONEY AND MAKE JAGUAR 6TH GEN.
HOW MANY OF THE 20 JAGUARS WILL RETURN FROM DPSA?
TWR OF JAGUAR?
EW SUIT OF JAGUAR?
CAAN IT ALSO BEAT PAF F-16 AND CHINESE J-10 AND COMPLETE DPS AND COME BACK HOME?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Fact is I can take Jaguar into enemy territory while the Mk1 cannot even fight off SAMs.

I MUST ASK HOWARD TO GIVE A DOCTORATE FOR THIS STATEMENT ALONE.

IT IS THE BIGGEST AERONAUTICAL TRUTH OF THE DECADE.
YOU CAN TAKE JAGUARS. BUT YOU WONT BRING THEM BACK AGAINST F-16S

FOR THAT TO HAPPEN POOR IAF ESCORTS ALL HAVE TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIFE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

P2 PRAD SAYS
POST NO 1176 DT-------------12/1/11
IAF has clearly asked for a decrease in unnecessary weight in the Mk1 and then increase the empty weight by 1 more ton on the Mk2. This will need obvious design changes. These changes will be exactly like the Gripen NG.
Then it will fall woefully short of any MMRCA fighter in contention. A fighter doing 24deg AOA will not beat anything in a turning match.

HOW DO YOU DECREASE THE UNNECCASSARY EMPTY WEIGHT AND ADD 1 TON WEIGHT?
NOW YOU ARE MAINTAINING THAT IAF NEVER CHANGED THEIR ASR.

IT NEVER GETS INTO YOUR WOODEN HEAD THAT DELTAS DO CLIMBING FIGHTS.

SO A HIGHER TWR RATIO WITH LOWER AOA WILL RESULT IN EQUALLY TIGHTER CIRCLE OF LOWER TWR OF MIRAGE WITH HIGHER AOA

You are kidding right. We had 6 Jaguars taking out an American aircraft carrier in the Malabar exercises, that's no joke. Jaguars are proven platforms. LCA is not. It is not the point of obsolescence, it is point of operational preparedness.
Ok. You caught one aircraft. Sure Gripen cannot beat a TVC equipped Mig-35. But Gripen can beat non TVC F-15, Su-30, Rafale, EF-2000, F-18 and SH any day of the week. Gripen's agility has no match. If LCA was similar I would have been happy.

TEHN WE DONT NEED ANY SUKHOI AND PAKFAS. WITH ABOUT 200 JAGS WE CAN KILL ALL THE CARRIERS IN THE WORLD
HOW DOES YOUR FRIEND IN LM FEELS?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LCA Mk1 and Mk2 are not even ready to be deployed for combat. Until they get the 100% Go orders from high command, they are useless pieces of trash. The PAKFA is the same as is the J-20. The F-22 with its long hours of maintenance and expenses, all that technology is just a wisp of smoke. The only thing that's allowing the F-22s existence is because of their endless funding which we do not have the luxury of.

BUT SUBSEQUENTLY YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR TONE AND STARTED SINGING THAT WITH GROWING ECONOMY WE CAN AFFORD ALL HEAVY FIGHTERS AND 5TH GEN FIGHTERS

If we were not a small budget armed forces and did not have 2 nuclear powered neighbours around us then I would have been supporting Mk1 inductions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P2 PRADA SAYS POST NO 1232--------------------12/1/11.

No. Landing gears are overweight by 500kg and that's what they are trying to reduce by FOC. After that Air force wants an extra 1 ton on the empty weight. So, right now efforts are on to reduce the LCA Mk1 to 5 tons from the current 5.5 tons. Then LCA Mk2 will be increased by 1 tons by redesigning nose, wing, inlets and changes for F414. It will be significant

tHAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY SAAYING THAT IAF REVISED THEIR ASR AND ASKED FOR HIGHER EIGHT HIGHER THRUST PAR TEJAS, WHICH YOU COMPLETELY DENIED LATTER.

.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCA is primarily a point defence fighter. All it has to do is point defence and minor air interdiction. If it is a replacement for Mig-21 then it will do the role of a Mig-21, that is shoot intruding enemy aircraft with BVR, WVR missiles or engage using guns. For all that the LCA needs to be able to get into turning games.
That's why its called a Mig-21++ by ACM. It is a Mig-21 Bison with strike capability.

[QUOTEONCE AGAIN GET THIS INTO YOUR WOODEN HEAD THAT DELTAS ENGAGE IN CLIMBING FIGHTS AND EVEN IN TURNING FIGHTS THEY CAN KILL OTHERS USING THA COMBINATION OF HIGHER ITR AND HIGHER NOSE AUTHORIY AND HMDS][/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem isn't the plans of the objectives. The problem is results. Your plans are great. But what if by 2014, ADA suddenly announces, LCA Mk1 failed due to design limitations and LCA Mk2 cannot be done by 2020 and that AMCA will be shelved for a newer platform. What then? It's great if we succeed. But what if we fail? Then where will the replacement come from?

ADA has never had any experience building an aircraft. Why would the IAF take such massive risks chasing behind dreams? Once ADA has successfully made LCA and gets AMCA flying, then I don't see a reason why IAF will not place its cards on ADA orHAL. The IAF instead places its cards on Russia or Europe imply because they are more successful.

It's exactly like the difference between joining IIMs for MBA or some start up college for MBA. It's a huge difference. The Future is completely uncertain if you join a start up while the future is assured if you join IIM. IAF will place its bet on Sukhoi any day over ADA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still reliability is very important. Jaguars have a very reliable strike capability and we have some really good pilots on the Jaguar, why retrain those pilots, instead give them better Jaguars. New Jaguars are a stop gap anyway until AMCA comes into the picture.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if LCA ends up fighting a PAF F-16 or J-10? LCA is not just a supportive workhorse. It is a point defence and an air interdiction fighter. Gripen is a simple, cheap and easily acquirable fighter. We can even work with Saab and get the Kaveri on it once it's out. Gripen cannot replace the heavier contemporaries in certain roles, but it can handle LCA's role many times better.


You undermine the success of the A-10. It has less to do with deserts and Afghanistan and more to do with its ability to kill ground troops and tanks. You could say it was under used simply because the enemy was already annihilated.

But it comes with the guarantee that it will work. Granted imported jets are more expensive, but so is an IIM MBA degree compared to a start up. So, will you base the future 40 years of your life on a cheaper budget college

 

[ersakthivel]

The problem isn't the plans of the objectives. The problem is results. Your plans are great. But what if by 2014, ADA suddenly announces, LCA Mk1 failed due to design limitations and LCA Mk2 cannot be done by 2020 and that AMCA will be shelved for a newer platform. What then? It's great if we succeed. But what if we fail? Then where will the replacement come from?

SO YOU ARE PREPARING CHAMPAGNE BOTTLES FOR THIS EVENT.NEVER WORRY ADA WILL SAVE YOU THE MONEY
HOW INTELLIGENT OF YOU TO EXPECT A FIGHTER TO FAIL AFTER IOC?

ADA has never had any experience building an aircraft. Why would the IAF take such massive risks chasing behind dreams? Once ADA has successfully made LCA and gets AMCA flying, then I don't see a reason why IAF will not place its cards on ADA orHAL. The IAF instead places its cards on Russia or Europe imply because they are more successful.

IT IS ONLY WITH THIS MOTIVE YOU ARE DENIGRATING LCA.YOU WANT FORIEN STUFF. YOU WILL PRAISE JAGUARS, MIRAGES ,A-10S MIG-21 BISONS , AND CLAIM ALL OF THEM ARE TOP NOTCH FIGHTERS AND HAVE HIGHER TWR, HIGHER PAYLOAD,LOWER RCS AND LOWER WING LOADING.

AND YOU ARE HOPING AGAINST YOUR HOPE THAT LCA WILL FAIL.SPEC FOR SPEC ALL THESE AIRCRAFRTS ARE MUSEUM PIECES COMPARED TO LCA AND YOU STILL CLAIM TO BE A AERONAUTICAL GENIUS AND THAT LCA ALONE IS OBSOLETE. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE MY FRIEND?
WHAT DO YOU GAIN BY IAF DUMPING THE LXA AND POOR INDIAN TAXPAYERS SUBSIDISING FORIEN COMPANIES FOREVER, KEEP ON SPENDING MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL PRICE OF EACH OF THESE MUSEUM PIECES FOR EVER?
WHY YOU WANT THE PILOT OF ALL THESE ABOVE CERTAINLY NOT STTE OF ART AIRCRAFT TO DIE?
WHY DO YOU WANT YOUNG INDIAN IAF PILOT NEVE EVER SET THEIR FOOT IN THE COCK PIT OF AN LCA, WHOSE EVERY SINGLE TEST PILOT SAYS IT HANDLE S BETTER THAN MIRAGES?.

It's exactly like the difference between joining IIMs for MBA or some start up college for MBA. It's a huge difference. The Future is completely uncertain if you join a start up while the future is assured if you join IIM. IAF will place its bet on Sukhoi any day over ADA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still reliability is very important. Jaguars have a very reliable strike capability and we have some really good pilots on the Jaguar, why retrain those pilots, instead give them better Jaguars. New Jaguars are a stop gap anyway until AMCA comes into the picture.

YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED INDIAN GOV FROM ORDERING RAFAELS ,WITH THESE 0.61 TWR THRUST TO WEIGHT FIGHTERS WE CAN KILL FUTURE PAF F-16S AND J-10S AND TAKE OUT EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER OF THE CHINESE NAVY, SINCEE JAGS CAN TAKE OUT A US CARRIER,WHY AREE FOOLS IN IAF WASTING THE MONEY ON RAFAEL?

WITH ITS POWERFULL EW SUITS AND 6 AIM 120 DS THEY CAN SUPRESS ALL ENEMY FIGHTERS ,GROUND AIR DEFENCES AND KILL PAF F-16 S ANG DO DPS UNTILL AMCA COMES IN AT 2040. HELL WITH LCA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if LCA ends up fighting a PAF F-16 or J-10? LCA is not just a supportive workhorse. It is a point defence and an air interdiction fighter. Gripen is a simple, cheap and easily acquirable fighter. We can even work with Saab and get the Kaveri on it once it's out. Gripen cannot replace the heavier contemporaries in certain roles, but it can handle LCA's role many times better.

WITH BETTER TWR ,LOWER RCS,LOWER WINGLOADING AND HIGH ITR ,LONGE RANGE BVRS AND DERBY MISSILES AN LCA PILOT CAN FIGHT THE F-16 AND J-10 BUT NOT YOUR ENDLESS FLAMING

You undermine the success of the A-10. It has less to do with deserts and Afghanistan and more to do with its ability to kill ground troops and tanks. You could say it was under used simply because the enemy was already annihilated.

A-10S ARE 10TH GEN PERHAPS?CARE TO REVEAL THEIR FOC DATE?

But it comes with the guarantee that it will work. Granted imported jets are more expensive, but so is an IIM MBA degree compared to a start up. So, will you base the future 40 years of your life on a cheaper budget college

FIRST PROPERLY FINISH YOUR UG AND THEN LETS TALK ABOUT MBA

 

[asianobserve]

Ok. You caught one aircraft. Sure Gripen cannot beat a TVC equipped Mig-35. But Gripen can beat non TVC F-15, Su-30, Rafale, EF-2000, F-18 and SH any day of the week. Gripen's agility has no match. If LCA was similar I would have been happy.

You're going to fight the last war. I think this time there's truly no more need to maneuver (the real F-4 moment) with this mature technologies....Helmet-mounted display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (you just have to look at your adversary)? High-off-boresight missiles? Lock-on-after lunch capabilities? TVC-equipped A2A missile?

 

[LurkerBaba]

ersakthivel


Please use the multiquote/reply button when replying.Otherwise it's very difficult to follow your arguments

 

[asianobserve]

This obsessive emphasis on agility is ill-placed in modern air combat. The more important capabilities that fighters should have are its sensors, sensors fusion, networking ability, quick data processing and easy presentation to pilot, and advanced missiles. We have entered the truly first-look-first-kill World.

 

[p2prada]

Ersakthivel,

You are mostly an idiot, so there is very little I can do to change that. But what I can change, in a limited way, is your perception of LCA as some super duper fighter when it is in fact the complete opposite.

If you have problems with my old posts, then ask what you want to know and I will tell you the reason why I posted that way. Don't generalize and give sweeping comments without knowing anything. Some of the posts were made when we knew lesser about LCA than what we know now. So, somethings may not be applicable in today's world. For eg: During IOC-1 nobody knew the empty weight of LCA was 6.5 tons. ADA released a new spec after the function which proved some people right and some people wrong.

Btw, that CEMILAC report about LCA's drag was only a suggestion and the conclusion only pointed out the paper suggestion could be correct. It is in no way an indicator that ADA used this report to fix the LCA exactly as it says.

It is simple, ask questions we will answer. Don't stick your annoying comments in between.

The rest of your posts are mostly nonsense as usual. I don't know how you manage to post so much nonsense with so much pride. So, I skimmed through or skipped most of it.

 

[ersakthivel]

e: Ada tejas (lca) - iii
asianobserve says

originally posted by ersakthivel
ok. You caught one aircraft. Sure gripen cannot beat a tvc equipped mig-35. But gripen can beat non tvc f-15, su-30, rafale, ef-2000, f-18 and sh any day of the week. Gripen's agility has no match. If lca was similar i would have been happy.

You're going to fight the last war. I think this time there's truly no more need to maneuver (the real f-4 moment) with this mature technologies....helmet-mounted display - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (you just have to look at your adversary)? High-off-boresight missiles? Lock-on-after lunch capabilities? Tvc-equipped a2a missile?

sorry asianobserve these are not my qoute these are p2 prada's quote and they were rebutted by me.no grippen can beat ef or rafael su-30

 

[ersakthivel]

ersakthivel,

you are mostly an idiot, so there is very little i can do to change that. But what i can change, in a limited way, is your perception of lca as some super duper fighter when it is in fact the complete opposite.

If you have problems with my old posts, then ask what you want to know and i will tell you the reason why i posted that way. Don't generalize and give sweeping comments without knowing anything. Some of the posts were made when we knew lesser about lca than what we know now. So, somethings may not be applicable in today's world. For eg: During ioc-1 nobody knew the empty weight of lca was 6.5 tons. Ada released a new spec after the function which proved some people right and some people wrong.

Btw, that cemilac report about lca's drag was only a suggestion and the conclusion only pointed out the paper suggestion could be correct. It is in no way an indicator that ada used this report to fix the lca exactly as it says.

It is simple, ask questions we will answer. Don't stick your annoying comments in between.

The rest of your posts are mostly nonsense as usual. I don't know how you manage to post so much nonsense with so much pride. So, i skimmed through or skipped most of it.

thats what i want every forum members to do with your posts.

Rest assured your best of the pearls collection is yet to come to a theater near you.

Forum members can have the delight of reading them.

 

[Twinblade]

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 was on page 7 on the link I shared. Gripen E/F percentage hasn't been announced yet but a significant increase in the net percentage has been confirmed in several reports.

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

Oh I can tell you that, Gripen, Rafale or EF without canards would be stealthier than their current configuration. I can also tell you that a Tejas without canard is stealthier than Tejas with canard. What I cannot do is to compare two totally different configurations and tell you for sure that Tejas has a lower or higher RCS than Gripen for there are dozens of factors needed to come to that conclusion. Sure, given everything else is equal, it would be easier to come to that conclusion but there is no evidence to there of. At this moment there is only a reasonable probability that Tejas' rcs might be lower, but we are not comparing VLO platforms here, we are comparing platforms that carry external stores. The Swedish MoD report claims Gripen A's frontal aspect RCS to be equal to 0.1 sq meter in clean configuration. Go ahead and bring forth documentation citing Tejas' rcs and I shall consider the issue closed.

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..

will you now accept that the nose cone has solved the problem , as i accepted that it was caliberated air speeds.

And tejas has no drag issues?

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.

The report is dated 2009 Tejas has not seen any change in dimensions in LSP-4, LSP-5 and LSP-7 which came out post 2009 The increase in length has been marked for Tejas Mk2 and has been widely reported in media. The report never claims that Tejas cannot go supersonic at sea level but struggles to do so, neither does the report claim that the corrections have been carried out. This is the actual quote from that report :-

A possible solution proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a Plug. The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation plan is being worked out.

So if you claim that the nose plug is already integrated then either time travel exists or Tejas Mk2 is already flying

Furthermore, pray tell me how does the 6G limitation come in during linear acceleration of the aircraft in a level flight, the G limit is always defined for the forces playing out in the direction vertical to that of thrust. Either that or you are a lying ignorant fanboy.

I HOPE YOU ALL THUOGHT I WILL RUNAWAY FROM THIS FORUM WITH YOUR SUPPOSED COUP.

I really hoped you would learn to use the forum quote feature properly and be more concise in your replies. Please do not post in all caps as it is the internet speak for shouting and gives me a headache. Stop playing the victim card, this is the internets, no body gives a damn. In the past several pages you have made several claims without giving the necessary back up links or actual quotes with the necessary context. Your knowledge wrt to the Tejas program was tested over and again, your claims refuted and it was done with reasonable amount of politeness. Furthermore you have shown remarkably low levels of comprehension from the links that were provided and have chosen them to fit your own ill conceived notions. Should you decide to play the victim card once again, I would request the mods to really victimize you.

 

[Daredevil]

ersakthivel,

Most of your posts are a copy/paste from wiki or from articles without proper links. And most of your posts doesn't have proper quoting of other posts as a result I cannot make head and tail of your posts. I get an headache when I come to this thread due to your posts which are unintelligible and incoherent and pretty much making me lose interest in this thread. I would suggest you as a fellow member to first learn proper posting etiquettes before posting here. If you want to make a point, don't copy paste reams and reams of long posts, just post the specific part to emphasise your point otherwise people will lose interest like I do now. Use reply and multi-quote feature as suggested by LurkerBaba to make your replies readable without having to scratch our heads or use more grey cells to differentiate your reply from the post that you are replying to.

I'm sure an engineering student like you should be able to figure out how to use quote tags.

[noparse][/noparse]

 

[ersakthivel]

POST NO 1384 BY P2PRADA
LCA cannot beat PLAAF or even PAF. The MKIs and MRCA can.

IF I ASK YOU FOR THE SPECS OF J-10S AND PAF F-16(WHICH FALIED HIGH ALTITUDE TESTS IN LEH) YOU WILL MAINTAIN RADIO SILENCE LIKE AN F-22 FIGHTER PILOT. WITH A MASSIVELY INFERIOR WING LOADING THESE TWO FIGHTERS ARE LIKE VRS HOLDING RETIREES AGAINST THE SUPREMELY LOWER WING LOADED TEJAS,WHICH AT HIGHER ALTITUDES FLYING WITH LOWER RCS WILL FIRE VOLLEY OF BVRS BEFORE EVEN THEIR RADAR SEES LCA. ALL THEY WILL DO IS TO DROP THEIR PAYLOAD AND GO BACK HOME.

KOTA HARINARAYANA HIMSELF SAYS WITH A LCA FCS F-16 HANDLES BETTER AERODYNAMICALLY, AND ALL TEST PILOTS ARE SAYING THAT LCA HANDLES BETTER THAN MIRAGE.

LCA HAS MUCH BETTER TWR THAN J-10. AND AT HIGH ALTITUDE F-16 WONT DO VERTICAL MANOUVARS LIKE A CRANKED DELTA LCA DOES.

IF IT GETS A GTRE SNECMA UPGRADE THEN BOTH THE FIGHTERS WILL BE FINISHED. AS PER THE SPEC. bUT YOU WILL CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY.

SINCE YOU ARE A FIGHTER ACE WHO SAYS JAGS ARE BETTER THAN LCA AND MIG 21 BISONS AR 4TH GEN ,WE CAN EXPECT THAT FROM YOU.

All big powers make top rate stuff. If there was something better available, they would grab it with both hands.

tHEY MAKE .PERIOD THAT'S WHAT MAKE THEM BIG. IF WE FOLLOW YOUR ADVOCACY AND KEEP UPGRADING MUSEUM PIECES AND CLAIM ALL OF THEM IS SUPERIOR THE REMAINING ADA SCIENTISTS WILL QUIT THEIR POSTS AND WE WILL FOREVERE BE THIRD WORLD

Sure. Our elders always say Dream big.
LCA Mk1 does not fullfill requirements in thrust and payload. The shifting of goal posts is done by every single capable air force in the world. Requirements change by every passing day. This happened to F-22 too and is continuously happening to the F-35 too.

JAGUARS ,MIG 21 BISONS ALL FULLFILL IT , I HOPE. IN YOUR POSTS YOU ARE REPEATEDLY ARGUING THAT IAF WANTED EXTRA ONE TON WEIGHT AND PAY LOAD AND THE ADA ACHIEVED IT . BUT YOU ARE STILL ARGUING THAT LCA DOESNOT FULLFILL THE "ORIGINAL" ASR

There is no project in the world which has seen more requirements changes than the F-35 in the last 100 years of flying.

Yes. And they are right. LCA cannot yet handle Air superiority missions. Both IOC and FOC jets will have less than required sustained turn rates.

Its ROAR is a MEOW. Only Mk2 fits requirements. It is the only platform that can power the radar, avionics and EW at the required levels

LCA IS BUILT AS POINT DEFENCE FIGHTER THEN WHAT ROLE IT WILL HANDLE?YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THAT SMALL AGILE FIGHTERS WITH LOW RCS AND LONG RANGE MISSILES IN A EW GROUP ALONG WITH AWACS AND SUKHOI CAN BE A KILLER COMBINATION RESULTING IN THE EXPONENTIALY INCRESED AIRPOWER.

AWACS SUPPLY ENEMY FIGHTER DIRECTION AND POSITION SAFELY FAR BEHIND.
SUKHOIS GIVE BVR LOCK TO LOW RCS LCA FLYING INFRONT.

ENEMY FIGHTERS SEE ONLY THE SUKHOI AND BUT THEY CANNOT ATTACK IT WITH THEIR BVR AS THE SUKHOI SCANS 300 KM .

ENEMY DOESNOT SEE LOW FLYING LCA HIDING MISSILE RADAR REFLECTIONS UNDER WING.

HOW THAT MAKES LCA OBSOLETE?
HOW DOES IT'S ROAR BECOMES MEOW?

ONLY THE ENEMY FIGHTERS MEOW AND DROP THEIR WEAPONS TO INITIATE HIGH G MANOUVARS TO ESCAPE?

THAT'S WHY LCA IS OBSOLETE?

WHEN I ARGUED IN THIS FASHION FOR 20 PAGES YOU KEPT ON INSISTING THAT SUKHOI CANT TRANSMIT AND GUIDE LCA'S MISSILE.

AND WHEN THE DISCUSSION STARTED ABOUT F-22S. YOU SUDDENLY SANG LIKE A PARROT THAT ONE F-22 CAN FIRE THE MISSILE AND ANOTHER CAN GUIDE IT?
THEN WHY ONE LCA CANT FIRE THE MISSILE AND ANOTHER SUKHOI CANT GUIDE IT?

.

Mk1 is just a prototype(including FOC) which is being inducted in squadron numbers.

MK 1 BETTERS THE SPECS OF MORE THAN 400 MIG-21S AND JAGS IN SERVICE.DO YOU KNOW THAT?

WITH A GUARENTEED SNECMA-GTRE K-10 IT CAN EXCEED GRIPPEN

POST 1385--------------------15/1/11
China has a more capable R&D industry along with manufacturing capability than India. They don't have a choice with indigenous since that's their only option.

IF CHINESE KEEPS PROTOTYPES AND KEPT ON JUNKING THEM WITHOUT GAINIING ANY OPERATIOANL EXPERIENCE, WHERE WILL J-20 COME FROM? CHINESE REPEATEDLY ACCEPTED FIGHTERS WITH MUCH LOWER SPECS THAN LCAS AND KEPT THE PRODUCTION LINES RUNING, OPERATIONALISED,EVAUATED, AND VALIDATED THEIR TECH TO EMERGE WITH J-120.

BUT YOU ARE ARGUING THAT 400 IAF PILOTS SHOULD FLY ON JAGS AND MIGS AND GIVING 40 MK-1 S WILL DESTROY THEIR TRAINING.
HOW FAIR?

If India goes only indigenous, then any new war with China will be exact same copy of the 1962 war. We will lose again. LCAs cannot fight Chinese war birds.

WHICH BIRDS ,J-10S ,THEIR MIG-21 CLONES,IT CAN EVEN BE EFECTIVE AGAINST CHINESE SUKHOI CLONES IF USED IN GROUP WITH SUKHOIS AND EW PLATFORMS.

IT'S LOWER WINGLOADING AND HIGHER TWR,LOWER RCS WILL BE AN ASSET AGAINST ANY FIGHTER.

Originally Posted by p2prada
Satish ji, if you are talking about me then Gripen's AoA is over 50degrees. F-22 does 60degrees, SH at 45degrees, MKIs and Mig35s AoA is 180degrees.

REALLY NO OTHER AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD HAS A FCS LIMITATIONS TO 50 DEGREES AND 100 DEGREES.
ONCE FCS IS OFF THE AIRCRAFT IS BASICALLY FALLING AND THE ENERGIES OF PILOT WILL BE MOSTLY CONSUMED IN BRINGING IT BACK TO LEVEL FIGHT AND GAINING SPEED AGAIN.

BY THE TIME HE DOES THAT THE LCA WOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE FULL CIRCLE AND HAVE AN ADVANTAGE.
OTHER THAN THRUST VECTORED BIRDS NO FIGHTER CAN USE THESE AOAS IN ANY MEANING FULL MANNER. IF AMCA ENGINE COMES WITH THRUST VECTORING NOZZLES LCA MK-1 CAN GET IT AND HAVE EVEN BETTER AOA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1389 15/1/11
Severe, severe deficiencies. It is a real Mig-21++.


when EF was inducted it was called as treancahe 1 which was not able to field any BVR weapons or ground attack weapons,
When it was inducted it was one of the best in the world. When LCA was inducted it was equal to the JF-17, aka, one of the worst in the world.

eF IS STILL NOT OPTIMIZED FOR GROUND BOMBING.DO YOU EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF A FCS DELTA FIGHTER?ALL NATIONS TOOK AS MUCH OR MORE TIME THAN ADA.GRIPPEN CRASHED TWO PROTOTYPES. J-10S STILL KEEP CRASHING WITH UNKNOWN CAUSES. EVEN SUKHOI IS GROUNDED FOR A WHILE DUE TO THE FCS ISSUES.
YOU ARE BLITHLY SAYING IOC TEJAS IS THIS BAD,FOC TEJAS IS THAT BAD AS IF THESE IOCS AND FOCS ARE LIKE PAYING INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR EVER YEAR

When F 16 was inducted it was termed as "widow maker" but US air force stuck with that and improved over it despite having severe deficiencies persisted with it even in gulf war time. And now it is the one of the most successful fighter around the world. If only there forces could have acted as hard nosed customers and kept delaying the induction these machines could not have been called as successful project.
If you build a really good beast and then you have to work on it, then that is understandable. But if you work on something that is low tech and then say we need to work on it, its called a Failure.

THE LCA HAS NOT MADE ANY WIDOWS.THAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR ALL YOUR FURY AGAINST IT.I HOPE.WHY DIDNT YOU ADVICE YOURFRIENDS AT LM TO SCRAP THIS SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT WHEN BIG TWIN ENGINED BIRDS WERE AVAILABLE?

Yes. It was never strategic independence. Previously all European countries including Sweden made their own aircraft. France, Sweden, Germany, England etc had their own aircraft development.

They did not go for the F-15 because they believed in developing something better. Today, Rafale and EF-2000 are indeed better than the F-15s.

BUT YOU NEVER BELIEVE AFTER 30 YEARS INDIA CANNOT BUILD ANYTHING BETTER.TODAY RAFAEL AND EF ARE THERE BECAUSE THEY STEADFASTEDLY DEVELOPED AND FLOWN TORNADOS AND MIRAGES.IF YOU DENY THAT TO IAF AND ADA THERE WILL BE NO BIGGER BIRDS FROM ADA

But look at the LCA. Is it being built to be better than all the above aircraft? NO. It is just a replacement for Mig-21. Even that does not full fill requirements.
IAF cannot spare tankers simply because LCA does not have long legs. Using Force multipliers to hide deficiencies is being stupid. IAF has clearly mentioned they don't want less range or less payload for more power. They want the same range, same payload for more power.

BUT IAF CAN KEEP ON LEAKING BILLIONS FOR JAGUAR UPGRADES,BISON UPGRADES AND MIRAGE UPGRADES EVENTHOUGH THEY HAVE WORSE SPEC THAN MK-1

Cool. Spinoffs helped IAF make their teeth sharper. But here, we are not talking about bits and pieces. LCA's mission computer is used to power a beast. But as a system the LCA Mk1 is a little cat.
POST 1395

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF RATS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. AND THIS CAT HAS LOWER RCS ,HIGHER TWR AND LOWER WINGLOADING THAN SOME BIG CATS AROUND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

Except MKI and MRCA all are legacy fighters which will be retired by 2025 at most. At the time Mig-29, Mirage-2000, Mig-21Bison, Jaguar etc were purchased, they were the best of their time. It will take 2 or 3 years before all those "junks" are upgraded and they will still end up being better than LCA Mk1.

NOW YOU ARE CALLING MIG-29S,MIRAGES AND BISONS JUNK.AND YOU WILL STILL SPEND MILLIONS TO UPGRADE THESE JUNKS THAN GIVING A STATE OF THE ART MK-1S. THATS WHAT I SAY THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN POSTS AND END UP ACCEPTING OTHER GUY'S ARGUMENT.
HAPPY POSTINGS PRADA.

Tejas Mk1 cannot be upgraded without upgrading its engines. Both IAF and ADA have stated a new engine is required. That's why the Mk2 has been proposed.

SNECMA =GTRE K-10 WILL HAVE THE SAME OUTTER DIMENSIONS OF KAVERY AND WILL HAVE A MUCH BETTER THRUST WITH CHANGES TO THE CORE ONLY. THE K-10 WILL BE BUILT FOR AMCA.EVEN PRATT AND WHITNEY ENGINEERS WHO INSPECTED THE ENGINE SAY IT IS WORLD CLASS AND HAS GROWTH POTENTIAL. EVEN WITH 85 KN THRUST LCA IS ANYDAY BETTER THAN THE JUNKS YOU ARE MENTIONING. SINCE YOU YOURSELF HAVE CALLED THEM JUNKS WHY ARE YOU EXTOLLING THEIR VIRTUE IN PREVIOUS POSTS?

 

[ersakthivel]

ersakthivel,

Most of your posts are a copy/paste from wiki or from articles without proper links. And most of your posts doesn't have proper quoting of other posts as a result I cannot make head and tail of your posts. I get an headache when I come to this thread due to your posts which are unintelligible and incoherent and pretty much making me lose interest in this thread. I would suggest you as a fellow member to first learn proper posting etiquettes before posting here. If you want to make a point, don't copy paste reams and reams of long posts, just post the specific part to emphasise your point otherwise people will lose interest like I do now. Use reply and multi-quote feature as suggested by LurkerBaba to make your replies readable without having to scratch our heads or use more grey cells to differentiate your reply from the post that you are replying to.

I'm sure an engineering student like you should be able to figure out how to use quote tags.

[noparse][/noparse]

BARRING ONE POST THAT AMERICAN BROWNIE MISTOOK ,I THOUGHT ALL THE POSTS WERE PROPER. IWILL EMPHASISE POINTS AND WONT PASTE LONG ARTICLES FROM NOW ON. JUST MENTION THE LINK INSTEAD. alSO I WILL MAKE MY POSTS SHORTER AND CRISPER WITH MULTI QUOTES .

i had to paste some stuff just because other members steadfastedly refused to accept even some basic authentic arguments. since i made all my points i wont go overboard. thanks
in future
THANKS

 

[asianobserve]

sorry asianobserve these are not my qoute these are p2 prada's quote and they were rebutted by me.no grippen can beat ef or rafael su-30

Ok. So please use quote features properly since your post is too confusing.

 

[ersakthivel]

It was on page 7 on the link I shared. Gripen E/F percentage hasn't been announced yet but a significant increase in the net percentage has been confirmed in several reports.







Oh I can tell you that, Gripen, Rafale or EF without canards would be stealthier than their current configuration. I can also tell you that a Tejas without canard is stealthier than Tejas with canard. What I cannot do is to compare two totally different configurations and tell you for sure that Tejas has a lower or higher RCS than Gripen for there are dozens of factors needed to come to that conclusion. Sure, given everything else is equal, it would be easier to come to that conclusion but there is no evidence to there of. At this moment there is only a reasonable probability that Tejas' rcs might be lower, but we are not comparing VLO platforms here, we are comparing platforms that carry external stores. The Swedish MoD report claims Gripen A's frontal aspect RCS to be equal to 0.1 sq meter in clean configuration. Go ahead and bring forth documentation citing Tejas' rcs and I shall consider the issue closed.

The report is dated 2009 Tejas has not seen any change in dimensions in LSP-4, LSP-5 and LSP-7 which came out post 2009 The increase in length has been marked for Tejas Mk2 and has been widely reported in media. The report never claims that Tejas cannot go supersonic at sea level but struggles to do so, neither does the report claim that the corrections have been carried out. This is the actual quote from that report :-



So if you claim that the nose plug is already integrated then either time travel exists or Tejas Mk2 is already flying

Furthermore, pray tell me how does the 6G limitation come in during linear acceleration of the aircraft in a level flight, the G limit is always defined for the forces playing out in the direction vertical to that of thrust. Either that or you are a lying ignorant fanboy.


I really hoped you would learn to use the forum quote feature properly and be more concise in your replies. Please do not post in all caps as it is the internet speak for shouting and gives me a headache. Stop playing the victim card, this is the internets, no body gives a damn. In the past several pages you have made several claims without giving the necessary back up links or actual quotes with the necessary context. Your knowledge wrt to the Tejas program was tested over and again, your claims refuted and it was done with reasonable amount of politeness. Furthermore you have shown remarkably low levels of comprehension from the links that were provided and have chosen them to fit your own ill conceived notions. Should you decide to play the victim card once again, I would request the mods to really victimize you.

The sweedish airforce plans to upgrade 70 of it's grippens to NG standards. if grippen c/d can be upgraded to grippen ng with relocation of landing gear, bigger fuel tanks,more composites, then this nose plug cone can easily be applied to tejas. the report explicitly states that it is being done.And nothing forbids it to be done even later after the induction of mk-1. As grippen c/d s are going to be upgraded into the E/f standards.

And that was four years ago.So like I accept your RCS figures from grippen, you can also accept JEBAKUMAR's quote that it is being implemented and can happily agree to close the matter. so we can accept the matter as that it can be done and as far as I am concerned this matter is closed.

And since you have specified no amount of composites in grippen ,I wont argue further.I too would state that kota harinarayana specifically stated that that LCA is the smallest light weight fighter in the world with highest apercentage of composites. And I too would consider the matter as closed. I dont want to engage in quoting any source and arguing with you on that count.


since no manufacturer gives accurate figures with experimental results for RCS as it as a top secret figure , Iwont argue any further , I don't want to discuss the matter.

And I have no intention of playing any victim card as none of my post is refuted convincingly. So please don't get excited on that count.

I will post in smaller crisper and normal font and you can enjoy reading it.

Bye.

 

[ersakthivel]

And regarding theFCs limiting 6G detail I posted, All I wanted to say was not that it requires 6G to fly in a straight line at low altitude. All I wanted to state was that the flight envelope of tejas has not been opened completely,like the limitation of Gs ,there is a limitation on top speeds in FCS as well. That's what I meant.

The two crashes of grippen's prototype does not mean that the grippen's FCS is bad. Just that sab got consultancy from US to correct that.,and furthered it's flight envelope in subsequent steps.

KOTA HARINARAYANA says when LCA's FCS was tested in F_16,the american pilot reported that F-16 flies better with LCA's FCS, AND LCA was modelled on F-16 XL's excellent flight charecteristics. The stats about F-16 xl speaks for itself.It has much better aerody namics through out the flight envelope. And despite the increase in wing area the effect of drag on aircraft decreases.

Since I am accused of copy pasting you can google and find out why cranked arrrow on f-16 xl excelled.The tejas has wingroot twist in addition for further improvement in it's low speed handling.

ADA has tested a model with canards and rejected it as it offered no increase in aerodynamics considering the excess weight it imposed in the form of additional actuators for the canards and worse RCS implications.

So no one needs to doubt the LCA's design is flawed. ANy nose cone plug extensions are easily doable.

Also the AMCA engine program will certainly yield a high performance modern engine. So sensor fusion and all engine upgrades and better MFDs and longer range bvrs are all possible for tejas also.

 

[Twinblade]

The sweedish airforce plans to upgrade 70 of it's grippens to NG standards. if grippen c/d can be upgraded to grippen ng with relocation of landing gear, bigger fuel tanks,more composites, then this nose plug cone can easily be applied to tejas. the report explicitly states that it is being done.And nothing forbids it to be done even later after the induction of mk-1. As grippen c/d s are going to be upgraded into the E/f standards.

They are upgrading avionics from c/d standard to e/f standard. What you are talking about is adding a meter of length to existing airframe.

And that was four years ago.So like I accept your RCS figures from grippen, you can also accept JEBAKUMAR's quote that it is being implemented and can happily agree to close the matter. so we can accept the matter as that it can be done and as far as I am concerned this matter is closed.

No where did the cemilac paper said that the designs are being implemented in mk1. The design features are being implemented on newer variants, like mk2 (added length) and levcons (naval variant), something your pea sized brain cannot comprehend.

And since you have specified no amount of composites in grippen ,I wont argue further.I too would state that kota harinarayana specifically stated that that LCA is the smallest light weight fighter in the world with highest apercentage of composites. And I too would consider the matter as closed. I dont want to engage in quoting any source and arguing with you on that count.

What are you, a god damn sultan of an emirate that cannot open the link, go to the given page number and read a graph ? Its a graphical comparison , I can't copy and paste it from my cellphone.

And regarding theFCs limiting 6G detail I posted, All I wanted to say was not that it requires 6G to fly in a straight line at low altitude. All I wanted to state was that the flight envelope of tejas has not been opened completely,like the limitation of Gs ,there is a limitation on top speeds in FCS as well. That's what I meant.

Speed limits in FCS when they are trying to achieve the maximum speed limit ? What college do you attend ?

So no one needs to doubt the LCA's design is flawed. ANy nose cone plug extensions are easily doable.

Oh yes, its as easy as converting a regular sedan into limousine.

 

[ersakthivel]

ersakthivel


Please use the multiquote/reply button when replying.Otherwise it's very difficult to follow your arguments

Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
Originally Posted by ersakthivel
The sweedish airforce plans to upgrade 70 of it's grippens to NG standards. if grippen c/d can be upgraded to grippen ng with relocation of landing gear, bigger fuel tanks,more composites, then this nose plug cone can easily be applied to tejas. the report explicitly states that it is being done.And nothing forbids it to be done even later after the induction of mk-1. As grippen c/d s are going to be upgraded into the E/f standards.
They are upgrading avionics from c/d standard to e/f standard. What you are talking about is adding a meter of length to existing airframe.

And that was four years ago.So like I accept your RCS figures from grippen, you can also accept JEBAKUMAR's quote that it is being implemented and can happily agree to close the matter. so we can accept the matter as that it can be done and as far as I am concerned this matter is closed.
No where did the cemilac paper said that the designs are being implemented in mk1. The design features are being implemented on newer variants, like mk2 (added length) and levcons (naval variant), something your pea sized brain cannot comprehend.

And since you have specified no amount of composites in grippen ,I wont argue further.I too would state that kota harinarayana specifically stated that that LCA is the smallest light weight fighter in the world with highest apercentage of composites. And I too would consider the matter as closed. I dont want to engage in quoting any source and arguing with you on that count.
What are you, a god damn sultan of an emirate that cannot open the link, go to the given page number and read a graph ? Do you have assistants that wipe your bottom every morning when you take a dump ? Its a graphical comparison you twit, I can't copy and paste it from my cellphone.



Originally Posted by ersakthivel
And regarding theFCs limiting 6G detail I posted, All I wanted to say was not that it requires 6G to fly in a straight line at low altitude. All I wanted to state was that the flight envelope of tejas has not been opened completely,like the limitation of Gs ,there is a limitation on top speeds in FCS as well. That's what I meant.
Speed limits in FCS when they are trying to achieve the maximum speed limit ? What college do you attend, Gaanja college of 'High'-er education ?

So no one needs to doubt the LCA's design is flawed. ANy nose cone plug extensions are easily doable.
Oh yes, its as easy as converting a regular sedan into limousine.


Respected lurker baba ask hits gut twin blade from refrain from personal attacks.

posts like this reduce the forums standard to a bar were a bucnch of hooligans fight over a glass of beer.

 

[Sridhar]

Er sakthivel , take your time to format the posts. Henceforth, they will be deleted .

 

[ersakthivel]

Er sakthivel , take your time to format the posts. Henceforth, they will be deleted .

sorry

Twin blade is posting personal abuses.Is it acceptable in this forum?

he does not give the exact percentage of composites and keeps throwing personal abuses, Is this right?