ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

Gripen is at 376 Kg/m2

J-10 is at 410Kg/m2.

JF-17 is at 450 Kg/m2.

Mirage-2000 is at 307 Kg/m2.

Only Mirage III and Mirage-2000 are at LCA's level. With LCA being the lowest. All other "modern" aircraft far surpass Mirage-2000/LCA level aerodynamics in every known parameter regardless of wing loading.

You can keep that TVC to yourself.

 

[Vikramaditya]

Can we made Tejas twin engine......If not then why ?

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen is at 376 Kg/m2

J-10 is at 410Kg/m2.

JF-17 is at 450 Kg/m2.

Mirage-2000 is at 307 Kg/m2.

Only Mirage III and Mirage-2000 are at LCA's level. With LCA being the lowest. All other "modern" aircraft far surpass Mirage-2000/LCA level aerodynamics in every known parameter regardless of wing loading.

You can keep that TVC to yourself.

Can you explain what is the purpose of thrust vectoring,in case you don't agree with my point that high wing loading SU-35's superior specs is due to thrust vectoring

grippen's wing area is 30 square meter(I don't know if they included canard area or not).
Tejas wing area is 38.4 square meter.So clearly a difference of 5 percent or so only.

wiki put's a wingloading figure of 283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²) for grippen.

The following link
Gripen vs Tejas

------------------------------------- ---------- grippen------------- tejas

Minimal wing-loading in kg/m2-------------- 260 -------------- 202

Normal wing-loading in kg/m2--------------- 341 --------------- 247

Maximal wing-loading in kg/m2------------- 548 ---------------- 400


Gripen - F-16 Fighting Falcon Comparisons

The Gripen's thrust to weight ratio is just under 1.00, while the F-16's is about 1.1, meaning that per unit of weight the F-16 has more energy available to drive the airframe forward. This means the F-16 generally has advantages in acceleration and climb rate.

Of course, the F-16 needs this additional thrust when one of the key factors in fighter maneuverability is considered - wing loading. In general, aircraft with lower wing loading factors can perform tighter turns with less of an energy loss than aircraft with high wing loading.

The wing loading factor is in the high 60lb/ft^2 range in the Gripen - F-16 wing loading by comparison is about 88lb/ft^2. What this means is that while the Gripen's engine is less powerful relative to its size than the F-16, in a pure turning contest it needs less power to restore its airspeed speed after making a turn.

The performance characteristics of the Gripen mean that, in general, its a lighter, smaller, and more agile fighter than the F-16. Gripens can out-turn Vipers and carry a fighting load further.

Since lower wing loading grippen turns tighter than the higher wing loading F-16(eventhough the F-16 has superior TWR than the gripen!!!!!!),Tejas should do much better than grippen in this area,not worse.If grippen has canards, tejas has lesser sweep angled cranked delta wing and twist at the wing root for the same purpose.

Don't post wierd stuff and confuse the forum members.



recommend you read the above link which clearly explains what is the significance of grippen's lower wing loading and how it helps it to turn tighter.

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas has to operate consistently from high altitude himalayan airfields,So the lowest wing loading is there for a purpose.it is not as if ADA guys were fond of big kite flying in their school days ,so that they put a huge wing.

In IAF vs PLAF comparision also you encounter the following sentence consistently.

The PLAF is at a disadvantage compared to IAF ,because the PLAF planes operate from high altitude tibetian airfields, from where they cannot carry their full combat load and take off from high altitude.

If you have to lift meaningful combat load from high himalayan airfields you should have lower wing loading.that is the general idea,since the lower the wing loading higher the lift.The role of drag is significantly reduced in high himalayan heights.

 

[Mad Indian]

can we have a thread which compares LCA with its rivals, Jf 17 , J 10, F 16, Mirage 2k 5. etc. I mean in VS format? It Will be interesting to read that instead of a monotonous info on various aspects of LCA.???

 

[p2prada]

Try reading what I posted again, then try to "comprehend" what I am talking about.

I clearly said full fuel and 2 tons of payload. Which part didn't you get?

Also don't get TVC into the picture. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to convey.

For what you posted,

In general, aircraft with lower wing loading factors can perform tighter turns with less of an energy loss than aircraft with high wing loading.

Good. Now explain why F-35 with much higher wing loading than F-16 can make tighter turns than the F-16. Both aircraft don't have TVC.

Also, explain why low wing loading Mirage III cannot out turn the high wing loading F-16. If you get the answer to these questions then you will be better educated.

Also, notice the words used in that post. The first two words were "in general." Don't try to look at high school physics for answers. As Damian said already, there are no simple answers.

 

[p2prada]

Can we made Tejas twin engine......If not then why ?

It depends on what you are looking at. If you are looking at a twin engine LCA, but still being a light aircraft then you only need to look at twin engine Jaguar and also the twin engine F-CK-1.

F-CK-1

If you want the aircraft to be powered by two F-414 class engines, then you need not look further away than AMCA. But that does not make it light anymore. Of course there is a different in role along with generation differences.

If you are looking at something like a Mirage-4000,

then IAF won't like it very much.

 

[ersakthivel]

Try reading what I posted again, then try to "comprehend" what I am talking about.

I clearly said full fuel and 2 tons of payload. Which part didn't you get?

What I have posted with respect to grippen is it is closer to TEJAS in empty wing loading figure than F-16 and still can out turn a F-16.That was my point.Not trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, that's all.

Also don't get TVC into the picture. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to convey.

Your excellency must understand that Thrust vectoring adds up to r the instantaneous turn rate, lift and agility in vertical plane, in high wing loading fighter like sukhoi.

Thrust vectoring greatly aids the sukhoi in low speed close combat dogfights.Without it can sukhoi be as agile as it is?

If it is so then what is the purpose of thrust vectoring in sukhoi?Asking it to be left aside is not a fair debating option.

If thrust vectoring has any other role than what I pointed out,please write.

The sukhoi is a lifting body design,So it is misleading to judge sukhoi by simply wing area alone.Where ever lift is produced, drag will accompany it.That's all.Every one knows sukhoi's highly wing fuselage blending itself is lift inducing.You yourself have written that 5th gens like F-22 produce lift by chin.

You are carefully avoiding this point and misleading people by clubbing F-16 and Sukhoi as two similar high wing loading fighters. ANd you are implying that sukhoi's super agility is the result of High wingloading and superior design only and thrust vectoring and lifting body design plays no role in it.

For what you posted,


Good. Now explain why F-35 with much higher wing loading than F-16 can make tighter turns than the F-16. Both aircraft don't have TVC.

F-35 has massive 180 kn light weight engine light years ahead of F-16 engine.

Also, explain why low wing loading Mirage III cannot out turn the high wing loading F-16. If you get the answer to these questions then you will be better educated.

Low wing loading mirage-III is much older and has way lower Thrust engine than F-16.As tighter turn is a combination of 3 factors,
1.Angle of attack,
2.Wing loding,
3.Thrust to weight ratio.

Also, notice the words used in that post. The first two words were "in general." Don't try to look at high school physics for answers. As Damian said already, there are no simple answers.

Just stop this nonsense about high school physics, university physics, DFI LCA thread physics ,nonsense.No one teaches aerodynamics and lift to drag ratio in high school.SO if you have posted any doctrate university thesis in this area different from what is said here please give reference.

In general people who keep on saying deltas bleed energy in tight turns due to drag , should also accept flight performance is not just a function of lift alone or drag alone.

On the contrary it is a function of Lift to drag ratio clearly explained in the F-16 XL vs plain vanila F-16 material ,I posted for which you gave no reaction.

If a delta produces more lift the drag can be counter acted in tight turn and that's why we are having low wing loading fighters like grippen,Tejas,raeale,typhoon and F-22 populate the sky.

If there is no lift from benefits from low wing loading and only drag penalties to pay then people will always design high wingloading fighters like F-16 only.

 

[ersakthivel]

Lower stall speed, tighter turns (in general). Usually wings will stall at the same angle of attack however planes with low wingloading will reach this angle of attack at a lower speed.SO their stall speeds are lower than high wing loading fighters.It is very important to have lower stall speeds in high Angle of attack.That's why low wing loading fighters like TEJAS have this design.Low wing loading delats are associated with high altitude, high alpha charecter that is so important in modern fighters.

Think of wingloading as the whole weight of the aircraft dived by the area of the total wing(s).

This tells you that if you have huge wing and a low weight aircraft you will get a very very low stallspeed for example and probably a pretty good turner. BUT, there wil be big drag as well.Lift=drag.So what is important in low wing loading dltas is the all important Lift to drag ratio,matching TWR ratio.as they have natural high AOA charecteristics, the combination of these 3 is vital in design

SO an a/c will a small wing will be very fast but poor turners(fw190, p47, p51 etc) and a/c with big wings will usually be slow and good turners(any biplane, spitfire etc etc) in close combat with high ITR, and better nose pointing authority vital in high off boresight WVR missile combat.As no high wing loading fighter can out turn the 60 G turning WVR missiles and get another chance to fight against a low wing loading fighter, good pilots in low wing loading fighters finish the issue then and there.

Nowadays compound deltas and delata canards make a third of the wing behave like a high wingloading wing and narrows the fight further.

For example the canards delay the on set of stall ,by producing energising vortices that cling to the upper surface of wing delaying stall in high AOA ,high STR turn.

Similarly the cranked delta amd compound delta in E-16 xl and tejas has different lower sweep angles mimicking the high wingloading fighter's wing charecteristicts over a third of the wing area by delaying the flow separation and postponing the onset of stall over a third of their wing surface area.

In general, aircraft with higher wing loadings tend to be faster but less manoeuvrable. Since speed is life, this has historically been a desired design . However, once top speeds become supersonic manoeuvrablity is not poaaible due to operational, aerodynamic and thermodynamic issues associated with supersonic flight.

As a result of this, current fighters are no faster than 1960s fighters, but generally have lower wing loadings, since if you can't go faster the next best thing is to turn harder (apart from which, low wing loadings are necessary for high supersonic L/D and therefore help towards supercruise). As such, wingloadings are likely to stay roughly constant or possibly even decrease in future designs until such time as the upward trend in speed reasserts itself.

You can also take off easier with higher bombloads from high altitude airfields.You can also take off easier with higher bombloads.
low wing loading fighters need less trimming because the needed lift can be generated with small AoA changes.

The lower your wingloading, the less AOA you have to pull to get the same lift vector.

The lower the wingloading, the lower the angle of attack you have to pull to carry out the same manoeuvre (other things being equal).If you have less wing area then you need more AOA or speed to regain the lost lift.

It is your lift vector that turns the plane as well as allows it to climb and fly.

For turning ,it is better to have a wing that needs less AOA than one the one that needs more AOA for the same same amount of turn.As higher AOA for the same turn changes the DIRECTION of airflow over the wing radically and brings the aircraft nearer to stall ,reducing the flying efficiency further.

 

[p2prada]

That's the problem, you are simplifying it too much. This is college level physics.

Once aircraft design comes into the picture, there are far too many things happening that go beyond the simple things you have explained. While you claim a low wing loading aircraft will turn better, have you tried wondering what additional lift generating devices will do?

While making a turn, what does the aileron do? What does the elevator do? What does the tail rudder do? You see, you don't have the answers for these. This is what the FBW controls during flight. One of the functions of these generators is also to control the CoG and CoP of the aircraft. When you make a turn, a badly designed aircraft like the LCA will become far too stable because the CoG moved too much to the front as compared to another similar aircraft like Gripen since it's a better design. LCA's internal estate was very poor, they took a year changing the entire plumbing of the aircraft so it drains fuel more efficiently. The new design would mean there is a better distribution of weight while maneuvering.

Power has little to do with your first turn. It is after you make your turn that power comes into play. So, your answer has nothing to do with your simple explanation for the questions I asked. An aircraft like the Su-27 will have extremely poor control at low speeds, but at the same time the F-16 is extremely agile at low speeds, in turn the Mig-29 starts to buffet at low speeds. Physics. So, low wing loading isn't always the best. It all depends on requirements and the design goals. At higher speeds all three aircraft display different characteristics because wing loading is not the only parameter.

So, if LCA is good at something, better designed aircraft will be better at a lot more things than what LCA is good at. For eg: LCA should manage an ITR of 29deg/s, very similar to Gripen. But at the same time, Gripen is designed for mach 2.2 speed and can manage an AoA of 50 degrees with FCS limitations and 100 degrees without FCS limitations. Comparatively LCA cannot manage such high AoAs, plus lack of a vortex controller. It won't even cross 40 degrees without limitations. Forget about LCA's speed reaching Gripen, it is impossible. It is not designed for any speed above Mach 1.6.

An aircraft like Su-27(which is 2-3 tons lighter) should be able to outclass the MKI without the TVC. TVC isn't always used during dog fights, it is a highly specialized field of flying. However TVC is also connected to the FBW controls. So, there is lesser wastage of fuel and greater control during maneuvers without the pilot having to control the nozzles manually. Yeah, this is all automatic and does not need pilot input.

This is your post,

Your excellency must understand that Thrust vectoring adds up to r the instantaneous turn rate, lift and agility in vertical plane, in high wing loading fighter like sukhoi.

Thrust vectoring greatly aids the sukhoi in low speed close combat dogfights.Without it can sukhoi be as agile as it is?

If it is so then what is the purpose of thrust vectoring in sukhoi?Asking it to be left aside is not a fair debating option.

Let me rephrase it,

Your excellency must understand that canards adds up to r the instantaneous turn rate, lift and agility in vertical plane, in high wing loading fighter like sukhoi.

Canards greatly aids the sukhoi in low speed close combat dogfights.Without it can sukhoi be as agile as it is?

If it is so then what is the purpose of canards in sukhoi?Asking it to be left aside is not a fair debating option.

I changed TVC in your post to canards. Now, do you now see how simple your explanation is?

You are simplifying aerodynamics and air combat far too much. So much that it ends up being nonsense rather than actual debating points.

 

[ersakthivel]

That's the problem, you are simplifying it too much. This is college level physics.

Once aircraft design comes into the picture, there are far too many things happening that go beyond the simple things you have explained. While you claim a low wing loading aircraft will turn better, have you tried wondering what additional lift generating devices will do?

While making a turn, what does the aileron do? What does the elevator do? What does the tail rudder do? You see, you don't have the answers for these. This is what the FBW controls during flight. One of the functions of these generators is also to control the CoG and CoP of the aircraft. When you make a turn, a badly designed aircraft like the LCA will become far too stable because the CoG moved too much to the front as compared to another similar aircraft like Gripen since it's a better design. LCA's internal estate was very poor, they took a year changing the entire plumbing of the aircraft so it drains fuel more efficiently. The new design would mean there is a better distribution of weight while maneuvering.

Well LCA too has elevons that will combines the job of elevators and ailerons.It has 4 large separate pieces of these control surfaces for this job.Tail rudder is there in the lca too.
This is the same as 4 elevons and tail rudders on the F-16 XL too,The F-16 XL has 25 percent bettter lift to drag ratio which improves the performance of F-16 in every corner of the flight envelope over the F-16.

The F-16 XL was the evolution of F-16, not the other way around.F-16 XL has way lower wing loading than F-16 and better than F-16 in every aspect.Reason low wing loading deltas.Not all moving control surfaces as you imply.

You are cleverly side stepping this issue and keep on beating the old drum.But these tail rudders and ailerons ,and elevators only turn and twist the air craft.They don't produce lift which is produced by low wing loading high lift to drag ratio wing.They use this lift to turn and twist the craft in vertical plane and high STR fight.
So control surfaces cannot produce lift to better aircraft's performance.FBW operates the control surfaces to twist and turn the aircraft.No FBW can produce any lift from tiny control surfaces like elevators,ailerons,tail rudder.It is a laughable proposition to point that way.

Power has little to do with your first turn. It is after you make your turn that power comes into play. So, your answer has nothing to do with your simple explanation for the questions I asked. An aircraft like the Su-27 will have extremely poor control at low speeds, but at the same time the F-16 is extremely agile at low speeds, in turn the Mig-29 starts to buffet at low speeds. Physics. So, low wing loading isn't always the best. It all depends on requirements and the design goals. At higher speeds all three aircraft display different characteristics because wing loading is not the only parameter.

Compare the aircraft's charecteristics not models.

So, if LCA is good at something, better designed aircraft will be better at a lot more things than what LCA is good at. For eg: LCA should manage an ITR of 29deg/s, very similar to Gripen. But at the same time, Gripen is designed for mach 2.2 speed and can manage an AoA of 50 degrees with FCS limitations and 100 degrees without FCS limitations. Comparatively LCA cannot manage such high AoAs, plus lack of a vortex controller. It won't even cross 40 degrees without limitations. Forget about LCA's speed reaching Gripen, it is impossible. It is not designed for any speed above Mach 1.6.

This is once again total bullshit.mk-1 is closer to grippen c/d in engine thrust, which won't do mach 2.2.tejas mk-2 will go past mach 2 with higher cieling once it gets a more powerfull engine in the ge-414- form as does the NG.

I have told thousand times LCA's wing tip pylon' s load rating was increased to 800 kgs during design phase and that is the reason for the excess weight and LCA is operating within the limited flight envelope of 85 percent of it's very under powered ge-404 engine which has 5 kn less dry thrust than the one on grippen C/D.

the reson lca mk-I has bit lesser top speeds, and lower serveice cieling is further lower wingloading and bigger wing weight.but this will turn into an advantage in other corner of the envelope.This will be overcome in mk-2.

The 1.6 mach is with 80 kn LCA PV series Ge-404 engine operating within 85 percent of the flight envelope.
the SP version of mk-1 itself will have 90 kn engine so all you are talking will become history by then.

Also grippen's specs will degrade significantly in hot climates of india.So instead of explaining why F-16 which has way higher wing loading than grippen fails to beat grippen in turning fight you are atarting your flame war agianst LCA a usual.

No aircraft including sukhoi can use more than 28 degree of AOA for combat flying.All excess AOA will help the pilot's struggle in escaping from stall and most of the aerodynamic efficinecy of the wing won't be there in these fancy AOA.For your info LCA too remains in control around 50 degrees in wind tunnel testing.

At 100 deg AOA grippen falls like a brick from sky,and pilot can some how try to wrest back control of the craft.It wont do combat flting .So stop this bullshit.All military aircrafts have usable AOA of around 28 deg only.All claims to contrary are total bull shit.

An aircraft like Su-27(which is 2-3 tons lighter) should be able to outclass the MKI without the TVC. TVC isn't always used during dog fights, it is a highly specialized field of flying. However TVC is also connected to the FBW controls. So, there is lesser wastage of fuel and greater control during maneuvers without the pilot having to control the nozzles manually. Yeah, this is all automatic and does not need pilot input.

So you are once again lying on Thrust vectoring usage.Does SUKHOI uses Thrust vectoring in cobra and close combat or not?

This is your post,


Let me rephrase it,


I changed TVC in your post to canards. Now, do you now see how simple your explanation is?

You are simplifying aerodynamics and air combat far too much. So much that it ends up being nonsense rather than actual debating points.

Well I know you can never give any link and keep on twisting and turning other guy's words in your arguments endlessly.

 

[ersakthivel]

That's the problem, you are simplifying it too much. This is college level physics.

Once aircraft design comes into the picture, there are far too many things happening that go beyond the simple things you have explained. While you claim a low wing loading aircraft will turn better, have you tried wondering what additional lift generating devices will do?

While making a turn, what does the aileron do? What does the elevator do? What does the tail rudder do? You see, you don't have the answers for these. This is what the FBW controls during flight. One of the functions of these generators is also to control the CoG and CoP of the aircraft. When you make a turn, a badly designed aircraft like the LCA will become far too stable because the CoG moved too much to the front as compared to another similar aircraft like Gripen since it's a better design. LCA's internal estate was very poor, they took a year changing the entire plumbing of the aircraft so it drains fuel more efficiently. The new design would mean there is a better distribution of weight while maneuvering.

Power has little to do with your first turn. It is after you make your turn that power comes into play. So, your answer has nothing to do with your simple explanation for the questions I asked. An aircraft like the Su-27 will have extremely poor control at low speeds, but at the same time the F-16 is extremely agile at low speeds, in turn the Mig-29 starts to buffet at low speeds. Physics. So, low wing loading isn't always the best. It all depends on requirements and the design goals. At higher speeds all three aircraft display different characteristics because wing loading is not the only parameter.

So, if LCA is good at something, better designed aircraft will be better at a lot more things than what LCA is good at. For eg: LCA should manage an ITR of 29deg/s, very similar to Gripen. But at the same time, Gripen is designed for mach 2.2 speed and can manage an AoA of 50 degrees with FCS limitations and 100 degrees without FCS limitations. Comparatively LCA cannot manage such high AoAs, plus lack of a vortex controller. It won't even cross 40 degrees without limitations. Forget about LCA's speed reaching Gripen, it is impossible. It is not designed for any speed above Mach 1.6.

An aircraft like Su-27(which is 2-3 tons lighter) should be able to outclass the MKI without the TVC. TVC isn't always used during dog fights, it is a highly specialized field of flying. However TVC is also connected to the FBW controls. So, there is lesser wastage of fuel and greater control during maneuvers without the pilot having to control the nozzles manually. Yeah, this is all automatic and does not need pilot input.

This is your post,


Let me rephrase it,


I changed TVC in your post to canards. Now, do you now see how simple your explanation is?

Once again let me remind you that wing root twist with cranked delta does the same job in LCA.
It improves low speed handling.Delays the onset of stall, and makes energising wind vortices to cling on to the wing surface longer in high AOA.
And they don't have any negatives of canards and weight penalties of having hydraulica and and canard surface situated at the extreme of the craft and the resultant force coupling issues, not to speak of the drag produced by canards them selves.

You are simplifying aerodynamics and air combat far too much. So much that it ends up being nonsense rather than actual debating points.

So ther is no new points in your post.

 

[ersakthivel]

If a twin engined mig-29 can fly in IAF there is no bar on stealth twin engined mk-III tejas with internal bomb bays and stealth optimization as done on PAKFA to fly in IAF.It is a more sensible and economical option than going in for all new AMCA with yet to be designed 130 kn each engines.

Any sensible airforce will subscribe to this.As IAF already has a PAKFA which is a heavy 5th gen stealth to cater to it's needs, it is a sensible option to expand on the proven flight test data of TEJAS program, to complete it within target time frame.

The DRDO is proposing this tejas mk-III with two 90 kn engine as there will be no unforeseen delays . BUT IAF is strangely silent on this and insisting upon much more stringent AMCA specs( more stringent than the PAKFA , which is designed by super-duper SUKHOI design team to fly in FGFA configuration in squadron service in 2020 only).

The risks of developing tejas with new kaveri engine is once again proposed to be undertaken on AMCA program.Hope they get it right. But there should be a fall back program in the shape of MK-III tejas, which is sensible approach.

There is no harm in designing more stringent AMCA as a separate program from mk-III tejas with 50 percent funding from IAF ofcourse.
If IAF is forced to cough up funds from it's own budget and asked to be in the design team from day one, they would rephaps realize the folly of building another new 130 kn engine which doesn't exist and the risks of basing AMCA design on this fancy new engine.

Then they would know the intricacies of project management and pragmatic approach that will give finished products in time rather than going on flight of fancy with unrealistic specs which are based upon non existing new engine tech.

This speaks volumes about the pragmatic attitude of IAF.Setting goals higher than PAKFA like 100 percent stealth for ADA,
and accepting PAKFA ( spending 20 billion dollars!!!!!!!)whose underbelly looks like a staircase fitted with steps, with no concern to RCS reflections!!!!!!, and whose compressor face hiding is done by radar blockers applied on FA_18 as 5th gen tech.

No serpentine air intake and smooth under belly fuselage design , which was done even by the chinese J-20 team , yet no murmur on IAF's behalf, I don't know what magic spell russians employed on IAF.

 

[ersakthivel]

If people want serious book on low wing loading vs high TW fighter it is here,

Even in this book only high TWR vs low wing loading fighter tactics are explained.

These will hold true in mirage vs F-16 as mirage (TWR of 0.97)is low wing loading, low thrust to weight ratio , and F-16 is high Thrust to weight ratio, high wing loading fighter.

And all the stuff in the book is for pure gunfighters only. If you consider the use of WVR 60 G turning missiles high wing loading fighter is a dead duck against even a low wing loading low thrust to weight ratio fighter like MIRAGE.The following link will illustrate this scenario as well.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872-start-45.html
And the quote by lamoey in the following link.

Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html

But due to composite use and high powered GE engines the tejas with mk-1(TWR of 1.07) and mk-2(Twr of more than 1.2) versions is a high twr fighter as well as being low wing loading fighter

Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering - Robert Lawson Shaw - Google Books

 

[p2prada]

You are still hung up on LCA. According to you, LCA has the lowest wing loading and hence will be the best dog fighter of all time. According to you, it will beat every aircraft flying today, including F-22, PAKFA, Su-27/30, Mig-29, F-15, F-16, EF, Rafale, Gripen, J-10, JF-17 and Mirage-2000 simply because it has lower wing loading. Common sense is lot on you.

 

[ersakthivel]

I am not hung up on LCA.
I never said LCA will beat all aircrafts hands down.
In the same manner I will never accept that all other aircrafts will beat LCA hands down.

Only BVR missiles fired with suitable EW suppression and support will win tomorrow's air battle.Not individual fighters. This is what is called REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS.And Network centric warfare.


As a program LCA has certain objectives in mind.
It floundered when GTRE k-9 was stuck up on 70 kn thrust.However the path breaking diplomacy initiated by former US president GEOGRE BUSH Jr changed everything.

This INDO-US nuclear deal pioneered by GEORGE BUSH delivered india from diplomatic dog house called NPT and sanctions on dual use tech.

All dual use tech transfer sanctions were lifted,Now C-17, P-81,Apache (if we say yes then possibly F-35) are lining up on india's door step.
Down the line stands GE-414-EPE or EDE or whatever, which you never seem to realize.

Once this GE-414 engine deal is signed LCA has been resurrected.That's all.
So it is more than capable of performing the role it was intended. No right thinking IAF commander will place his frontline assets like SUKHOI-35 and PAKFA in forward airfields.

These forward airfields will be manned by point defence fighters like LCA.Armed long range BVRs and EW assistance in the form of AWACS and EW aircrafts flying along LCA will make a mince meat of any chinese or pak plane in service. There are no arguments against it.

Any 5th gen stealth is bull shit as in a decade's time there will be more than enough range of so called X band stealth detection techs will be operationalised.So no 5th gen stealth can eat any 4th gen for breakfast.As he too will be as easily shoot downable target like 4th gen in a decade's time.

By the same way with equal or superior EW support the PAK and CHinese crafts can give a good fight to LCA and SUKHOI.

 

[ersakthivel]

You are still hung up on LCA. According to you, LCA has the lowest wing loading and hence will be the best dog fighter of all time. According to you, it will beat every aircraft flying today, including F-22, PAKFA, Su-27/30, Mig-29, F-15, F-16, EF, Rafale, Gripen, J-10, JF-17 and Mirage-2000 simply because it has lower wing loading. Common sense is lot on you.

And what is the role of Thrust vectoring in sukhoi's so called specialized flight envelope?You haven't answered that either.
Is thrust vectoring is simply like "shake your bon bon " advocated by RICKY MARTIN and immortalized by JENIFFER LOPEZ in their various songs?
Is it simply for this purpose or what?

I thought thrust vectoring improves the performance of the fighter in close combat . You don't seem to agree on this basic point. ANd still hung up on specialized flight envelope.Is this specialized flight envelope includes close combat dog fight or simply sitting in the hanger?

Who is hung up on what?


I am not hung up on LCA.Lca's wing loading has a purpose .That's all.I never implied that with this wing loading it will kill anything in the sky.It is you who are saying that 5th gens will kill everything and all that.
I never said LCA will beat all aircrafts hands down.
In the same manner I will never accept that all other aircrafts will beat LCA hands down.

Only BVR missiles fired with suitable EW suppression and support will win tomorrow's air battle.Not individual fighters. This is what is called REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS.And Network centric warfare.


As a program LCA has certain objectives in mind.It's wing loading was a result of that. It has been vlalidted by all subsequent low wing loading fighters lining up in all modern airforces around the world.

take the case of MMRCA competition
Competitors-GRIPPEN, MIG-35,RAFALE,EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON,F-16,F-18.

Grippen doesn't offer very much than LCA no matter how much it's backers claim. It is a low wing loading fighter as well using the same Ge engine.So it was never destined to win.

The losers in the short list-----FA-18, F-16,MIG-35------All low altitude high wing loading kinematic kings in your language.

The ones who made the short list--RAFALE,TYPHOON--Both low wing loading deltas like LCA. WHY?

Don't drag canards or twin engine here. LCA has cranked delta like F-16 Xl(You never bothered to reply on this point in the debate) to do the job of canards. And LCA MK_2 if suited with GE-414 higher thrust version will have closer TWR to both.
SO you yourself can see what IAF preferred and what IAF rejected. Then what is the point of these long and winding arguments?

The typhoon and rafale started out just before LCA with same design philosophy of low wing loading deltas.

It floundered when GTRE k-9 was stuck up on 70 kn thrust.there are no airframe issue in it. It is simply a matter of engine tech failiure.And lack of advancement in metallurgy.

.However the path breaking diplomacy initiated by former US president GEOGRE BUSH Jr changed everything.

This INDO-US nuclear deal pioneered by GEORGE BUSH delivered india from diplomatic dog house called NPT and sanctions on dual use tech.

All dual use tech transfer sanctions were lifted,Now C-17, P-81,Apache (if we say yes then possibly F-35) are lining up on india's door step.
Down the line stands GE-414-EPE or EDE or whatever, which you never seem to realize.

Once this GE-414 engine deal is signed LCA has been resurrected.That's all.
So it is more than capable of performing the role it was intended. No right thinking IAF commander will place his frontline assets like SUKHOI-35 and PAKFA in forward airfields.

These forward airfields will be manned by point defence fighters like LCA.Armed long range BVRs and EW assistance in the form of AWACS and EW aircrafts flying along LCA will make a mince meat of any chinese or pak plane in service. There are no arguments against it.

Any 5th gen stealth is bull shit as in a decade's time there will be more than enough range of so called X band stealth detection techs will be operationalised.So no 5th gen stealth can eat any 4th gen for breakfast.As he too will be as easily shoot downable target like 4th gen in a decade's time.

By the same way with equal or superior EW support the PAK and CHinese crafts can give a good fight to LCA and SUKHOI.

So in air battles numbers too will mean a lot in the first day of the war.

 

[ersakthivel]

can we have a thread which compares LCA with its rivals, Jf 17 , J 10, F 16, Mirage 2k 5. etc. I mean in VS format? It Will be interesting to read that instead of a monotonous info on various aspects of LCA.???

you will get roasted here even if you put some general ideas behind LCA's design in this thread. Then if you venture out to say that LCA can beat even a glider then all hell will break loose.

 

[ersakthivel]

can we have a thread which compares LCA with its rivals, Jf 17 , J 10, F 16, Mirage 2k 5. etc. I mean in VS format? It Will be interesting to read that instead of a monotonous info on various aspects of LCA.???

you will get roasted here even if you put some general ideas behind LCA's design in this thread. Then if you venture out to say that LCA can beat even a glider then all hell will break loose.

People are saying here from time immemorial that 30 km radar tracking range, 1.5 ton weapon carrying , MIG-21 Bisons (upgraded!!!!!!!!!!!) is more 4th gen and will wipe out a squadron of tejas which has 150 km radar detection and tracking with 3 .5 ton weapon load.You can get a fair idea of level of debate in this thread yourself.

 

[p2prada]

The GE F-414 EPE does not exist. It will be developed only after some country, like India or Brazil, buys the Block 3 Super Hornet. As of today only the EDE will be made for the USN. LCA will have a similar engine, not the EPE. EPE won't come for $700Million, the deal we have currently signed. It is supposed to be a 5th gen engine and will cost $2-3Billion because they need someone else to fund the development program where everything on the engine will be changed.

Rafale and EF were not chosen for having low wing loading. There are various other parameters in the play here.

The basis of your discussion has been that the LCA with low wingloading will not only survive other fighters, which is subjective but can be agreed upon, but will take the fight to the point where even $100Million+ fighters like J-20/PAKFa and F-22 will be entirely obsolete against LCA. So, you see what I have a problem with?

The core of your discussion was centered around how IAF can induct 400-500 LCAs to beat 400+ J-11s and J-20s simply because of AWACS support. When I pointed out every single factor is against LCA even with AWACS and tanker support, you still stubbornly believe that the LCA's "low wingloading" will beat the J-20 and J-11 every time. Check back on your previous posts.

This is a software simulation of a fight between 24 Su-35s and 24 Super Hornets+ 2 AWACS+ 6 tankers over Taiwan. A US vs China simulation.

Go through the entire video and you will get how things are done. Notice no specialized EW aircraft are used in any simulation (there are other videos with F-35s and F-22s also) because such a situation does not exist.


Overall, only 4 Su-35s were killed against the loss of every American fighter and support aircraft. When it came to Su-35 vs F-22, it was the exact opposite with 4 F-22s lost, along with 2 AWACS and 4 tankers against 24 Su-35 losses. But in both simulations the Su-35s always took out the AWACS and tankers like they were nothing, even though the second simulation had an overwhelming F-22 presence.

So, expecting a far more advanced force of J-20s defeating all 400-500 LCAs with AWACS and tanker support is a 100% given, no questions asked.

This simulation was done by a company which sells this same simulator to various defence agencies like,
Used by Defense Specialists

Used by Defense Specialists
H3 MilSim is already in use by defense specialists.
Northrop Grumman (Maritime Surveillance Division)
Australian DOD
USN NUWC
USN NAVSEA
ADM Sir John Woodward RN (RET)
Major European aircraft manufacturer
Canadian DND
Mexican War College
Sweden
Thales (Australia)
Although AGSI has EAR99 export clearance for all of our products, we retain the right to refuse sale and export of our product to some parties.

So, there is a huge difference in what you believe, and what IAF believes. LCA is obsolete, there is no doubt about it. The numbers coming down from 500-600 in 1999 to 123 in 2009 is an obvious indication of that.

Anyway, tell me, what do you know about BVR and EW? You obviously have major misconceptions about this, just like the AWACS misconception.