Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
ersakthivel, I dont think its the powerplant or avionics which is falling short for maintaining a sustainable turn rate as warranted by the IAF, plus no other modern comparable jets have a pure delta form, either they are tailed or got canards, and in the performance scale I would rate a pure delta just as a beauty in simplicity not as an engineering marvel. While we should strive for the later.
The mirage-2000-5 had no tail,
no canadrs,
and lower thrust to weight ratio(TWR) than LCA,
IAF wanted to order 126 of theses mirage-2000-5s after being impressed by them,
It had the twin engined more control surface mig-29s in it's fleet,
Still the IAF was very interested in buying 126 MIRAGE-2000-5.
the only reason they were not ordered was MOD wanted to avoid the single vendor contracts in the 1990s,
That's why it became the 126 MMRCA tender, which was won incidentally by another huge tail less delta, RAFALE.
That should say something about the effectiveness of tailless ,canardless,delta,with no control surface other the one attached to the wing.
The IAF didnot place any additional orders for MIG-29,which had tail planes,and even higher TWR
why?
But LCA integerates the functionality of canards in the shape of the lesser swept angle crank in the wing itself.
The crank with twist at wingroot performs the same role of canards,i.e delaying theonset of flow seperation vortices to delay the wing stalling .
The pitch control can be done by the elevons in much better way,if they are big enough.
With no additional drag ,and avoiding a lot of minus points of the canards,
1.force coupling resulting in uncontrollable spin,
2.extra hydraulics weight ,
3.DRAG in supersonic flight,
4.complexities of managing two center of lifts in fbw(grippen prototype crashed especially on this issue and force coupling)
5.The lesser effeciveness of wing in certain modes of flight due to canard wash effect.
6.The placement of canards also present challenges to the whitcomb area rule,
So it is not as if the canarrds are free of any negativities.
Even rafale has smaller canards only to stablize the fighter at lower altitudes,the same function performed by the cranked delta in LCA,
In big fighters with huge momentum it is essential even the sukhoi had canrds for the same purpose. Note the canards on the sukhoi are not movable.
The SU-35 terminator performs cobra without he canards.
In big single engined deltas
Tail planes are practically useless, because
It doesnot get much fresh air behind the huge wing to perform anything meaning full.
That's why they were not on mirages.
That is the reason grippen chose canards over tailplane,because behind it's huge wings, the tail planes wont perform that effectively.
Last but not the least the canards have huge RCS reflections issues,
Because they have to be mounted on different plane than the wing ,i.e at a different height than the wing, this will present sideways RCS reflection issues.
Also the greek airforce chief is reported to have said to an aviation journal,
eventhough the F-16 is a best overall package, the tail less delta, mirage(with much lower TWr than F-16) was unbeatable in the hands of an experienced pilots in it's times.
It won 2000 export orders in it's hayday against stiff competition from F-16 a tailed plane.
THE MYTH ABOUT HIGHER STR OF HIGH WINGLOADING FIGHTERS OVER THE LOWER WINGLOADING TAIL LESS,CANARD LESS DELTAS, IS BUSTED HERE, BY THE GREEK SQUADRON LEADER IN THE FOLLOWING QUOTE FROM
THE f-16.NET,
As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage(THAT TOO BECAUSE THE MIRAGE HAD A LOWER TWR ,THAN VIPER,certainly not the case with LCA).
SO THE SUPPOSED HIGHER SUSTAINED TURN RATE, OF NON DELTAS OVER TAILLESS DELTAS, APPLIES ONLY AT SEA LEVEL NOT AT ANY HIGHER ALTITUDES.
the greek airforce had both the F-16s and MIRAGES(tail less delta with no crank and twist in the wingroot like LCA and,with much lower TWR than LCA,with no LREx or canards)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html
Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:
"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."
He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:
"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."
He ends by saying:
"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."
To me this captures it in a nutshell.
The -5 is an exceptional aircraft in every way, and in the hands of the right customer, it can play havoc with Vipers. In the case of the ROCAF, their electronic suites, RDY radar and BVR capability will be very well employed against PLAAF J-10s/J-11s.
In the case of the HAF and especially its pilots, I believe that the TuAF Block 30/40/50 fleet amred with mostly AIM-120As and Bs, and very few of them at that, will have a very hard time against the Dassault squadrons.
In the case of equally skilled HAF M2000-5 Vs F-16C Blk 52+ pilots, I think we'd be in for a very close match. The -5s would operate better at higher alts and optimize their RDY and probably superior ICMS2K suites to full effect against the 52+s long-stick AIM-120C5s. In short, the BVR arena is likely to be won by the -5s, due to kinematic advantages, more powerful EW systems, better AA radar and shorter ranged, but more lethal AA missiles. This would definately not be a consinstent thing though-the +52 will very much hold its own in BVR as well.
Approaching the merge, the JHMCS/IRIS-T combination should kill anything that flies. Period.
Generally, maneuvering wise, the M2Ks operate better at high altitude and have a sharper and faster instantenous turn rate which can be exploited for a quick shot. Mirage-2000Cs have definately made of that + the Mica's off boresight capability to good effect.
I think the latest offerings from both Dassault + Lockheed are very equally matched, each with its own strong points.
In ROCAF, Mirage 2000 took over the missions F-104 used to do: high altitude/high speed intercept and they are deployed at the airfield closet to China on the Taiwan island. Also, ROCAF only purchased A2A and E-Int equipments for Mirage 2000. So it's pure A2A aircraft for ROCAF for sure.
F-16 is also the first line and more versatile to ROCAF, especially A2G and Reconn missions.
As far as the M2000 vs F-16 comparison is concerned, I should add something totally practical which comes from daily usage of both types in HAF. What I want to say is generally that when a HAF M2000 wants to engage a Viper, it leads the Viper at low altitude where the M2000 connot be beaten in any way.I haven't seen yet any aircraft-apart from Su-27 family,which is, for me, the best aircraft ever built-that can achieve "Kill Hour" on a M2000 below 6-7,000 ft no matter the aspect between them. Ok? I have nothing else to add,as Fantasma337 -ask him about F-4E, I think no one else knows more about this aircraft- and the other Greek friends covered me and gave you a very clear picture about the M2000.
PS: I should mention that this is not a thread talking about HAF and TuAF or Greeks' and Turks' politics.
Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?
<<To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. >>
This true.
>>With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight>>
This is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).
I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.
The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).
A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.
As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.
Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?
Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.
HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.
The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system
In numbers the two fighters seem to be equal.The mirage has a slight advantage in instanteneous turn rate,slighlty smaller turn radius,corner velocity and a better nose authority at low airspeeds.If the fight stays high altitude/slow the M2k has the advantage.M2k pilots seek for one circle fight to take advantage of theis small radius in a high aspect encounter to get a quick shot.The viper has a much better radar, better acceleration,sustained turn rate,better rate of climb and at low altitude it is very hard to deal with (the aircraft seems to be out of control due to AB thrust power).The magic missile is superior to the Aim-9l/m.In a high aspect fight the viper must maintain the airspeed high (300knots) and search for the two circle fight.In BVR the F16 is suprior n many ways (radar,Aim-120,rate of climb/acceleration)
All these fom the same site.
NOTE THE QUALITY OF DISCUSSION AND THE CIVILIZED MANNER IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE DISCUSSING AND ACCEPTING OPPOSITE VIEWPOINTS WITHOUT RANCOUR, AND COMPARE THAT TO THE DISCUSSIONS IN THIS SAME THREAD FOR THE PAST 80 PAGES.
