A LCA type aircraft is a requirement for "poor" air forces.
The capability boost medium and heavier aircraft bring is simply far too different.
When the F-16 and Mirage-2000 were thought of, and LCA, the idea was that a small and light fighter had a major advantage in dog fights. This is because of the technology of the time and engine technology limitations. Now that is no longer the case. A F-35 which is twice as heavy as a F-16 can out maneuver it while a F-22 while being 3 times heavier can out maneuver the same. This killed all the chances of light fighters because their only advantage to heavier fighters was lost due to superior airframe and engine designs.
Please quote the specs of F-35.This is what I quote.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 5] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 6] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[197] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[157][N 7][394] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 8] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[395][N 9] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[395][396] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[N 10]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[191] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)[301]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 584 nmi[397] (1,080 km) on internal fuel[398]
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[399] (18,288 m) (Tested to 43,000 ft)[400]
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²; 526 kg/m2 loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
g-Limits: 9 g[N 11]
THE F-35 RELIES ON IT'S STEALTH TO X-BAND RADAR ALONE IN COMBAT.IT'S ALL CRITICAL SPECS ARE NOT WORLD BEATING
,
twr-1.07,-SAME AS MK-1 MUCH INFERIOR TO LCA MK-II
WING LOADING -446(KG/SQ MET) COMPARED TO LCA's 247 (KG/SQ METER).SO HALF THE LIFT OF LCA TEJAS.
OTHER THAN STEALTH IT IS INFERIOR TO LCA NK-I IN ALL PARAMETERS.
Thats why it is being offered to india while F-22 won't be.That's why people call it a flying turkey once it's stealth cover is blown by tomorrow's EW tech.That's why there is so much criticism of it all over the net.
I don't know how F-35 will outmaneuver F-16 with those specs.
Now a 19 ton Su-35 will outfly anything in the sky, most probably even the F-22 which is probably the next best flyer out there.
If I provide figures and compare to that of LCA which is merely a Mirage-2000,
Rafale's Instantaneous Turn Rate is over 30deg/s at 1G and at Mach 0.5. Sustained Turn Rate is over 23deg/s at same speed and 50% fuel. Higher Gs reduces turn rates, but modern FCs and airframe does not limit it.
Comparatively Mirage-2000 is at 29 deg/s instantaneous and 19 deg/s sustained. So, while the ITR is similar, the STR is simply too wide a gap to bridge. Bring in T/W and the advantage significantly improves.
Looking at LCA's IOC spec of 17deg/s STR, it should be at the same level as the Mirage-2000 at FOC.
Another wrong assumption. STR of a LCA cannot be calculated from it's 2011 aershow clip because TEJAS flies at partial capability due to partially opened flight envelope limitations
STR of a fighter is arrived by the combinatio of thre factors,
1.AOA,
2.TWR,
3.WING LOADING.
1.The design AOA of LCA is around 26 degree for it's 80 kn engine design specs.It has achieved 22 degree upto now with it's partially opened Flight envelope limitations. not very far from mirages, For MK_II with more powerful engines it can go around 28 degree.
2.TEJAS has much higher TWR than MIRAGE.
3.TEJAS has far lower wingloading than mirage and F-16s
So the final STR of LCA mk-II will compare well with F-16,since F-16 has much worser wing loading than LCA.Even MK-Is with upgraded engine will come close to them.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING GLOSSED OVER HERE IS F-16 WILL FARE POORER THAN LCA IN VERTICAL AGILITY.IT MAY HAVE A HIGH VERTICAL CLIMB RATE IN A PERPENDICULAR STRAIGHT LINE.BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MANEUVERING IN VERTICAL PLANE THE HIGH WING LOADING OF FIGHTERS LIKE F-35,F-16,MIRAGES WILL MAKE ALL OF THEM INFERIOR TO LCA.
THAT'S WHY ALL LCA TEST PILOTS SAY THAT TAKE OFF IS BETTER IN LCA THAN MIRAGES AND LCA HANDLES SHARPER THAN MIRAGES EVEN WITHIN PARTIAL OPENED FLIGHT ENVELOPE.
And it will have much better ITR than any of the above fighters which is so important to evade missiles.
It is a fighter built with these objectives in mind from design itself. That's why they have full digital fCS ,cranked delta like F-16 XL,and massive elevons. Not some lowly MIG replacement.
Su-30MKI was reported to manage a 35deg/s instantaneous turn rate at similar specs. For the F-22 we are talking about STRs of 28deg/s at lower speeds if the youtube karnal is to be believed.
You see all of this depends on the amount of lifting surfaces present on aircraft. Rafale, MKI etc have more moving surfaces which provide lift compared to smaller aircraft like Mirage-2000 and LCA.
Another factually incorrect statement.Moving surfaces are there for controlling the aircraft.NOT FOR LIFT.LIFT comes from the wing area.TEJAS's lowest wing loading/weight betters all other fighters including F-22 in this regard.It is lighter ,it has the least wing loading(Means more lift for each KG load) Even sukhoi has higher wing loading.It managed those cobras at low speeds with the help of THRUST VECTORING only.While it nay help in low speeds it may not make much difference in high speed high altitude dogfights.
Another thing glossed over is these high number of all moving surfaces all add drag and weight penalties. That's why SU-35 dropped the canards and still has more agility than the euro canards.So the high number of all moving surfaces alone wont make the fighter agile,they also add substantial weight penalties ,drag penalties, and some (like canards before the wing subject the wing to canard wash and throws up issue like force coupling,decreased efficiency of the wing at some angles and FCs linitations
Therefore why aircraft like LCA are hopelessly outclassed in every way possible by heavier aircraft even when it comes to aspects like dog fights let alone the
massive sensor, avionics and capability disadvantages.
Thats why a well engineered LCA can hold it's own against any other crafts mentioned here.
As it stands LCA class aircraft are very cheap. Affordable to air forces which want larger numbers at small budgets, like PAF and the JF-17 or Sweden and Gripen. Both examples show the stark realities of how budgets are managed along with aircraft numbers meant for fighting superior forces. Countries like US, India, Russia and China have none of these limitations and can justify massive procurement budgets with little problems.
It is neither cheap, nor low tech.once anti stealth ew support matures in 2020 it cam take on any fighter in the world in point defence duties. Ofcourse it wont be effective in crossing 1000s of kms without refuelling support.But in point defence roles where enemy enters INDIA's own airspace it can take on anything with ew support as all invading fighters too will have to rely on their ew support it wont make much of a difference.
AMCA is the next logical step after PAKFA.
