Not to me. Any wrong information can be corrected. Any wrong information which the person does not want to correct and continues claiming even more outrageous,
Your thoughts are only based on one simple psychological trait, you want him to be right and me wrong. It does not matter if his claims defy physics or aerodynamic laws. Anything is fine as long as you keep believing his nonsense.
If that is so, then let us get some facts straight.
1) AWACS will provide BVR locks. False. The example I gave in Rahul Singh's post shows that. The AWACS could see the target but the F-16s had to struggle to find the Mig that was only 35 miles away. Mig as we know can be a -29, 27, 21 or 23. All 4 aircraft have a very large RCS even when clean let alone with weapons. LCA's radar = F-16s radar, fact. In a combat environment the airspace to be searched is very large, a small fighter's radar is useless when up against 5th generation aircraft. It does not matter what you put in that small radar, it is still a small radar. Physics laws cannot be defied.
Meteor - Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile (BVRAAM)
A single fighter, equipped with an operational load of BVRAAM missiles, has the potential to destroy even the most maneuvrable of fighters well before they reach combat range, and simultaneously engage bombers at long range. Targets are prioritised prior to launch, and the missiles are fired towards the predicted interception points. Meanwhile target information can be updated, via the data-link, throughout the initial flight - either from the launch aircraft or from a third party such as AWACs. Tactical information on the missile can also be received by the controlling aircraft. At the appropriate time, BVRAAM's active radar seeker autonomously searches for and locks onto the target. The missile is now fully autonomous, making its own decisions to home in on the target, despite any evasive manoeuvres, or decoys or sophisticated electronic countermeasures.
SO IT FINALLY NAILS YOUR STATEMENT THAT AWACS CANNOT PROVIDE BVR LOCKS TO MISSILE.THE SOURCE IS AS AUTHENTIC AS IT CAN GET.Not your funny flight global 2009 piece by AUSTIN from where most of your dubious specs on LCA comes.
Flying Magazine - Google Books
Read page 69, you will understand how difficult it is to get radar lock or even detection on large RCS aircraft like Migs, let alone small RCS aircraft like F-22.
2) LCA was designed as a fighter meant to be
between a Mig-21 and a Mirage-2000. A very very very very very proven fact. When the ACM said the LCA was a Mig-21++ aircraft, he wasn't joking. He was being serious. It was only in 2009 that LCA was elevated to air superiority status and a new Mirage-2000 equivalent ASR was handed over. This is for the LCA Mk2, not LCA Mk1. Indisputable fact.
That is as usual from your deep reading of AUSTIN's epic spurious article.A very very proven lieIThen why his geniuos self ACM naik did mumbo jumbo later and retracted his statement with a quote that once LCAA gets FOC it will be as good as any 4th gen?Any source for this new ASR? or as usual we all have to believe your words.
You once said iin this forum that one F-22 can fire the BVR and another F-22 can guide it. Now saying that only BVr firing LCA should guide it's missile.WHich of your two statements are true? The LCA even within the partial flight envelope exceeds mirages performance with just 83 kn engine.Just think about where it will be when it gets 92 kn engine for serial production MK-I and 100 kn fro MK-II
3) IRST that will provide locks for missiles. This is the most outrageous claim he made. This crosses Zaid Hamid's claim of landing on the moon. Why? Because I know the limitations of IRST.
Ok. Let me explain in such a way that a layman can understand. Take a human eye(which works like IRST but in the visual spectrum). Now tell me what you can determine using the eye. Can you accurately provide the distance between two objects down to the last cm? If there is a bird flying in the sky, can you tell me the exact altitude, angle and speed of the bird with respect to your position? Can you provide consistent vision even if the object is blocked by a wall or a cloud? Now, you see the limitations of IRST. Radar can do all the above, the human eye or IRST cannot.
Now do you find his claim outrageous?
can you please enlighten the forum about the seeker tech of IRST MICA missile on the mirage and RAFALE and can you also explain the rationale behind the term dual seeker missiles.Then why are the RUSSIANs mounting IRST payload on the PAKFA? So are you condradicting the STATEMENT OF DR CARLO KOPP when he says the IRST technology can provide depedable BVR locks in ALL WEATHER situations within 4o kms range and it will improve further with evolution.
Are you also saying that modern infra red imaging seekers caan store a cctv type of heat signature map of the target and no amount of flares are flying into the sun will help? and I suppose no one is going to build a great wall of china on the air.
4) UCAV will carry IRST to provide seeker capability to LCA. This crosses beyond Zaid Hamid's random claims. No one in their right mind will even do it. IRST on UCAVs are meant for only one thing. Finding targets on the ground for a good pounding, nothing else.
Then what will be the passive tracking technology of the stealth UCAVs of the future, can you post any decent quality link to substantiate your claim that no future stealth UCAVs will carry IRST payloads.If an IRST on UCAV which can detect a tank 15 km away will shut it eyes if it finds a jet blast of 5th gen fighter 60 km away?INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hell, I have even forgotten what claims he has made to date. It is beyond funny. So, I am only posting about the claims I remember he made.
5) LCA with low wing loading will beat any aircraft in the sky!
This is another point that goes beyond How can an aircraft that is only a Mirage-2000 equivalent beat aircraft which are claimed to be far superior to the Mirage-2000, namely Rafale, EF-2000, F-22, F-35, Su-30, Su-35, PAKFA and Gripen. This is considering I am talking about Mk2 and not Mk1.
Yeah, even F-35 is superior to the LCA. As an example we know that the F-16 has a very high T/W ratio and hence a lot of thrust. During exercises F-35 pilots could accelerate using dry thrust so fast that chase F-16s had to use After Burner in order to keep up. LCA is not expected to have a thrust capability that is even remotely close to the F-16.
So you are ultimately discrediting all the basic aeordynamic facts that the agility of an aircraft is a combination of it's
1.TWR
2.WING LOADING.
3.AOA.
I have already posted a detailed piece regarding this .I will post more in the future.So for a change you can learn something basic and useful from this forum instead of quoting spurious claims by AUSTIN of FLIGHT global,which I have shreddde into pieces in my previous posts. Of course your majesty wouldnt have read it and as usual maintain radio silence.
So, no chance. The heavier aircraft have far too many lifting surfaces for the LCA to match it let alone exceed it. He is hung up on only one point, that of wing loading forgetting that the FCS limited capabilities of the above aircraft far exceed the non-FCS limited capabilities of LCA. LCA Mk1 won't do beyond 30 or 35deg in AoA without FCS limitations while Rafale can reach 100 deg, 35 deg with FCS limitations. Beyond that the Rafale will have much superior corner speeds and vertical speed capability compared to LCA, even LCA Mk2. LCA in a dog fight with aircraft claimed to be 4.5th gen and above will be eaten alive.
At these fancy 100 degrees the RAFALE pilot will be grappling his controls to stop the aircraft from stalling and going into spin. AS usual you will never state it. For your info LCA will remain controlable even beyond 35 degree ,I will post links in the comming posts.The SU-35 is much more capable than canard sukhois.But you will never admit it.
6) Aircraft like MKI can provide targeting coordinates to LCA. While it is true that the MKI can do that with the right upgrade, which it currently does not have, it is also true that doing this will degrade the capability of the MKI. Pilots work as a team with other pilots flying similar aircraft. MKIs, or any other aircraft, fly in formations of 2, 4, 6 and 8. They practice these formations day in and day out with each other. During this, there is no LCA or Rafale involved, these actually come in DACT, which are much rarer. So, all the time spent flying is done with aircraft of a similar type, so all MKIs only. Now in a high threat scenario the squadron leader will need to lead his team with very high precision. If you bring in LCAs, an aircraft he is not familiar with along with the pilot, he is going to have problems deciding where to employ the LCA. Considering LCA's inferior endurance and missile load, it is obvious the MKI commander will use the aircraft under his command to do the needful, that is taking out enemy aircraft.
Once again you are posting your wishes here,PILOts TRAIN FOR YEARS HONIG GROUP OPERATIONS NOT TO DEGRADE THEIR ABILITY. tHE SUKHOI PILOT DOESNOT HAVE TO DIAL A LAND LINE TO LCA PILOT.The datalink will give this BVR lock to LCA even without the sukhoi pilot is aware of,of course you are asoftware dummy to not even realize this.
There is only one place where MKIs work in tandem with LCAs(or Mig-21s) and that's during escort. But the MKIs do not provide targeting information to LCAs during the time. What the MKIs do is play their own game while the LCAs are escorting strike aircraft like Mig-27s and Jags. When the opportunity presents itself the LCAs break formation, merge with enemy aircraft that are fighting MKIs and fire their BVRs using the missiles seeker to obtain radar locks at 10 odd Km. During CI-2004, this is how Mig-21s were used against F-15s.
A direct engagement with an aircraft like F-15 is near certain death for the LCA. Exercises don't count because they mostly come with scripts or inconvenient RoEs that inhibit the advantages of superior aircraft to level the playing field. Always happened.
In apoint defence role the bomb truck called F-15 with higer RCs will fly right into the BVr range of LCA group with ew and AWACs .It is not a james bond movie so that one man destroys the entire submarine at sea like die another day plot. You will never lear that you are parroting false scenarios,totally forgetting LCA 's primary purpose is point defence.BTW it will be the LCA with lesser RCs which will fire the BVr first. How will F-15 escape with it's full combat load.You know no bigger radar can detect an LCA before 120 kms.
7) LCA will carry long range AAMs. Well, for starters he does not know the difference between short, medium and long range missiles. While I claimed MKIs will take out AWACs using 300-400Km K-100s, he assumes LCA can also do the same while receiving targeting info from AWACS,(
), which was countered and killed. Beyond that, as I have repeated many times before, LCA will only carry missiles that it can use based on radar limitations. LCA can detect small aircraft at over 100Km nearing 150Km. Tracking while scan may happen at 70-100Km depending on the aircraft. Radar locks will happen at ranges of 40 or 50Km, which is why the LCA is designed to carry 70Km missile like Astra Mk1 or the 50Km Derby.
A pylon rate d for the weight of the missile will cary the BVr.NOT p2 prada or sakthivel flyikg along with LCA.Once again you will deny long rage BVrs to LCA.CAn you also claim that GRIPPEN with a smaller RADOM dia won't carry METEOR.BUT the SAAB says exactly the opposite.Who is right you are SAAB or AUTIN from flight global..
8) LCA has low RCS. This statement is a Zaid Hamid equivalent claim. LCA does not have "low" RCS, it merely has "lower" RCS than older aircraft. Give it weapons and RCS will increase by 10 to 100 times. So, a 0.3m[SUP]2[/SUP] figure would become 3m[SUP]2[/SUP] to 30m[SUP]2[/SUP] depending on what's carried, drop tanks, missiles, bombs, pods etc. I am being very modest, in reality the figures would be even larger. For a fighter aircraft, RCS figures with external weapons is anywhere between 10m[SUP]2[/SUP] and 100m[SUP]2[/SUP]. RCS figure for bombers, AWACS etc are 1000m[SUP]2[/SUP].
So, these are the 8 points I remember he claimed and all of them are wrong. So, remove AWACS, IRST, dog fight, long range AAM, MKI for seeking and low RCS as none of these are advantages for LCA.
So, what do we have left? Nothing. That's the point.
