ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

bs



bs

You are the first I heard where pilot experience doesn't matter.



bs

You won't elaborate on it because you can't elaborate on it.

We don't have multi ejector racks and the drag penalty will be too high anyway. Leave this circus to the Pakistanis. We don't need it.

Rafale is a different class of aircraft. Even Rafale's official tracking range is 100Km for a fighter sized target.

Gripen is somewhere else, beyond the Mirage-2000. We are trying to reach Mirage-2000 with the LCA Mk2. HUGE difference. So, no comparison.



Show me even one picture for LCA with this configuration,

So there are no drag penalties for grippen , I suppose that is the physics in holy hell
Since when did you finish your thesis in drag penalties? i will be very interested in reading a portion of it, please post.:taunt1:

Don't compare better aircraft with LCA, especially in something so obvious.

So in this forum a simple picture from flight global will establish that grippen has no drag penalties while flying with BVRs ,good.

What is obvious is ............... I won't elaborate.

Korean, FA-50. Count the number of hardpoints.

It's obvious you have comprehension issues.

Please explain how grippen proposes to use meteor and help me resolve my comprehension issues.

You don't need to keep repeating things I have already said, especially back at me.

That makes for a very sad reading perhaps. That is entirely your fault, not mine.

bs

Well, this ends the discussion.

End of mutual torture perhaps:thumb:

The only good knowledge you gained in this forum from being on it for 3 years(since it's inception I suppose!!!!!!!)
is writing the word bull shit .Thats sad.

So nice discussion to end. Please don't post your rehashed arguments again.

 

[p2prada]

Where is recce / laser pod ? without it those LGB are useless..

If there are plans to put a pod, something from there have to go..

No. The pod will come below the right inlet. It is not seen in the picture.

I cannot go on with some comment have no proof but just self assumed facts..

I gently asked for Proof, you were unable to provide, discussion over..

Of course, that's why I said I cannot discuss with you regarding this in order to prove obvious things.

If we are to talk about radars, basic knowledge is required before going to more complex aspects..

Discussion is indeed over.

The only good knowledge you gained in this forum from being on it for 3 years(since it's inception I suppose!!!!!!!)
is writing the word bull shit .Thats sad.

Without a space. Bullshit is one word, without a space.

One more thing that you learnt, congratulations.

 

[p2prada]

These are Gripen NG concepts from Saab.

 

[ersakthivel]

These are Gripen NG concepts from Saab.]

Also what is the total drag in the above contraption of grippen and how much more it will be if multiple launcher racks are used?
remove the IAF signs.

http://air-attack.com/page/46/F-15-Eagle.html

Air-to-ground stores can also be carried on the underfuselage centerline. A typical load consists of 18 500-pound bombs, carried 6 each on underwing and centerline ejector racks.

So multi ejector racks exist every where except holy hell.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Interesting concept, Now lets focus on LCA as this thread belong to LCA..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some Interesting stuff..

There are more will post them latter..

 

[p2prada]

Drag on Gripen will be a lot, bot with and without racks. That's why better air forces don't prefer such tiny fighters.
They eat up on IAF's squadron limit too. The example of the F-15 you gave is proof of it. MKI carries 32 500lbs bombs on racks.

Show me a picture of a multi-ejector rack on LCA. Yes, Holy Hell is the real world, no LCA racks here. You may have racks for LCA in lala land. I don't mind pictures from lala land either.

It's funny how whenever I asked for a single source from you, you have failed to provide it. If you did not notice I have only asked for sources from you on claims you made that are false. Do you get the point? So, whenever I ask for a source from you, you don't need to provide it. It doesn't exist. The best was your claim that LCA was actually designed with a payload of 2 tons.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Better Airforce backed by huge funds to roll on, India relies on Light fighters mainly reason is attrition..

In peace as well as war specially long once light fighter are preferred over heavy and medium..

-------------------------

In long wars / Peace patrols its expensive to maintain high number of sorties with heavy / Medium fighters..

Where as same task is done at fraction of cost with light fighter to accomplish similar Role..

-------------------------

There is no point, Comparing Heavy with Light and then medium..

Every type have its role..

 

[p2prada]

Better Airforce backed by huge funds to roll on, India relies on Light fighters mainly reason is attrition..

Wrong. How many light fighters do we have compared to medium and heavy?

What is the planned procurement for the future and how many of them are medium or heavy?

Facts speak for themselves.

In peace as well as war specially long once light fighter are preferred over heavy and medium..

Wrong. It is the exact opposite. In peace time, light fighters are preferred because of lesser operation costs, during war the heavies are the best because of capability regardless of the operation costs.

The first aircraft to launch attacks inside Iraq were one F-117 (heavy) and 6 F-15Es.

In long wars / Peace patrols its expensive to maintain high number of sorties with heavy / Medium fighters..

Where as same task is done at fraction of cost with light fighter to accomplish similar Role..

You are confused. An aircraft like Rafale can stay in the air for 16 hours. MKI should do the same with drop tanks. Present MKIs have done 10.5 hour missions.

LCA cannot handle such long flight hours. A Mirage-2000 has more fuel and handles a 5.5 hour sortie after 3 mid air refuelings. Both MKI and Rafale need one mid air refueling for such a sortie. So, imagine the costs of the refueler for 3 such refueling missions.

Check the sorties of Rafale during Libya war. Minimum 4 hours.

There is no point, Comparing Heavy with Light and then medium..

Every type have its role..

Very vague point. Any aircraft can do any role, it depends on what you want the aircraft to do and how much you are willing to pay for it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Wrong. How many light fighters do we have compared to medium and heavy?

What is the planned procurement for the future and how many of them are medium or heavy?

Don't get on quick conclusions, Check again about the present..

What is planned is indeed different for IAF but not about the topic in hands..

Facts speak for themselves.

Yes, Assumptions dont..

Wrong. It is the exact opposite. In peace time, light fighters are preferred because of lesser operation costs, during war the heavies are the best because of capability regardless of the operation costs.

Read the post again, You will get the point..

You are confused. An aircraft like Rafale can stay in the air for 16 hours. MKI should do the same with drop tanks. Present MKIs have done 10.5 hour missions.

LCA cannot handle such long flight hours. A Mirage-2000 has more fuel and handles a 5.5 hour sortie after 3 mid air refuelings

What you are saying is nowhere related to ' War of attrition ' What i was mentioning there..

 

[p2prada]

Don't get on quick conclusions, Check again about the present..

What is planned is indeed different for IAF but not about the topic in hands..

Yes, Assumptions dont..

Really.

Let's list it out shall we and see who has the facts right.

New fighters
270 MKIs - heavy - check
126-200 Rafale - medium - check
123 LCA - light - check

396-470 Heavy/Medium vs 123 Light

All heavy and medium purchases after economic growth topped 7%.

Old fighters
~125 Mig-21- light - phase out by 2017
~80 Mig-27 - light - phase out by 2017

125 Jaguar - light - upgrade - phase out by next decade
51 Mirage-2000 - light - upgrade - phase out by next decade
63 Mig-29 - medium - upgrade - phase out by next decade

381 Light vs 63 Medium

All purchases made when economy was growing at 3%.

Future fighters
144-250 PAKFA - heavy
~250 AMCA - medium

Planned fleet = 400-500

So, that's around 800-1000 heavy/medium fighters and 123 planned light fighters for the future. Lopsided?

Read the post again, You will get the point..

Nice, your ego won't allow you to say you are wrong eh? Ok, let's avoid it.

What you are saying is nowhere related to ' War of attrition ' What i was mentioning there..

I know perfectly well what you are talking about.

If you are worried about losses and are poor, you need light fighters. Eg Pakistan, Korea, 1970s-80s India etc

If you are worried and rich, you need heavy/medium fighters. Eg: India/China/Russia/US.

If you are not worried and are are either poor or rich, you need heavy/medium fighters. Eg: Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.

So, you see where the the heavy/medium fighters are positioned in. Which category does India fit in?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Really.

Let's list it out shall we and see who has the facts right.

Old fighters
~125 Mig-21 Bisons- light - phase out by 2017 + 220 Mig-21 bis
~80 Mig-27 - light - phase out by 2017
~51 Mirage-2000 - light - upgrade - phase out by next decade

Little errors, But more or less to the point..

Good job..

Nice, your ego won't allow you to say you are wrong eh? Ok, let's avoid it.

Can you read my post ? Read until you understand what is asked and what you need to answer..

I know perfectly well what you are talking about.

You dont understand then, If you would we were not talking about this at the moment..

 

[p2prada]

Little errors, But more or less to the point..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

An old Photo of LCA..

----------------

1. The Air-Air is french BVR and Magic 2 Missiles..

Super 530D BVR missile
Guidance is by the mono-pulse AD26 CW Doppler semi-active seeker, which has improved ECCM capability, and improved capability against low-flying targets. The missile's guidance unit is also fitted with digital micro-processing, which enables the seeker to be reprogrammed against new threats. The missile has a claimed maximum interception altitude of 80,000 feet (24,400 metres), with a snap-up capability of 40,000 feet (12,200 metres), and a snap-down capability to targets at 200 feet (60 metres). The missile has a range of 40 km and a maximum speed of Mach 5.

Magic II
The Magic-II is an improved version of the Magic-I missile. It entered development in the late 1970s and entered service in 1985. It has many improvements over the Magic-I, but principally it has an all-aspect engagement capability and it takes far less time to prepare the missiles for launch. The Magic-II missiles were designed to use the AIM-9 Sidewinder interfaces and can be carried on various aircraft including the Mirage 2000, Jaguar IS/IB/IM, Sea Harrier and also on MiG-21/23s, all of which are in service with the IAF and the Indian Navy. The missile has a range of 10 km and a maximum speed of Mach 2+

------------------

2. Anti-Ship is Russian KH-35 uran..

KH-35
The Kh-35 missile is a subsonic weapon featuring a normal aerodynamic configuration with cruciform wings and fins and a semisubmerged air duct intake. The propulsion unit is a turbofan engine. The missile is guided to its target at the final leg of the trajectory by commands fed from the active radar homing head and the radio altimeter, Range 130 km (70 nmi)

.

-----------------

3. LGB

Laser Guided Bomb Kit on a 1000lb bomb
A Paveway LGB kit on a 1000lb bomb. Nine of these bombs were used during the Kargil War.

 

[ersakthivel]

Drag on Gripen will be a lot, bot with and without racks. That's why better air forces don't prefer such tiny fighters.
They eat up on IAF's squadron limit too. The example of the F-15 you gave is proof of it. MKI carries 32 500lbs bombs on racks.

Show me a picture of a multi-ejector rack on LCA. Yes, Holy Hell is the real world, no LCA racks here. You may have racks for LCA in lala land. I don't mind pictures from lala land either.

It's funny how whenever I asked for a single source from you, you have failed to provide it. If you did not notice I have only asked for sources from you on claims you made that are false. Do you get the point? So, whenever I ask for a source from you, you don't need to provide it. It doesn't exist. The best was your claim that LCA was actually designed with a payload of 2 tons.

multi ejector racks are no fighter specific arrangement,just get that into your mind.
In air to air missionspoint defence mode , tejas has at least 6 pylons available for point defence without drop tanks.1 multi ejector rack will house medium range air to air missiles and other 5 pylons can be engaged with 5 long range BVRs if mission needed it.

If you have any level of integrity left please answer the question what will grippen do with meteor missile?before asking for any link.
Then I will consider you a honored and straightforward debater,

After much prodding you are now singing the right tune that MIG-21 bisons are inferior radar inferior fighter that are about to be retired, A nice development from your side.

 

[ersakthivel]

Wrong. How many light fighters do we have compared to medium and heavy?

What is the planned procurement for the future and how many of them are medium or heavy?

Facts speak for themselves.



Wrong. It is the exact opposite. In peace time, light fighters are preferred because of lesser operation costs, during war the heavies are the best because of capability regardless of the operation costs.

So thousands of F-16s in USAF are for peacetime deployment perhaps.....
Unlike USAF or russian airforce IAF's situation is very different, for air to air missions tejas just has to get off from it's air fields that's all, It need not fly 1000s of kilometers in search of enemy as china and pakistan are bordering states.

The first aircraft to launch attacks inside Iraq were one F-117 (heavy) and 6 F-15Es.



You are confused. An aircraft like Rafale can stay in the air for 16 hours. MKI should do the same with drop tanks. Present MKIs have done 10.5 hour missions.

LCA cannot handle such long flight hours. A Mirage-2000 has more fuel and handles a 5.5 hour sortie after 3 mid air refuelings. Both MKI and Rafale need one mid air refueling for such a sortie. So, imagine the costs of the refueler for 3 such refueling missions.

Check the sorties of Rafale during Libya war. Minimum 4 hours.



Very vague point. Any aircraft can do any role, it depends on what you want the aircraft to do and how much you are willing to pay for it.

So give your authetic source based claim for tejas's flight hours, without refuelling, with refuelling...etc.....

 

[ersakthivel]

Grippen has 3 under wing pylons, on each wing,

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7615/scan0002uer.jpg

tejas too have 3 under wing pylons for each wing.

grippen has two under fuselage pylons.Tejas has one.

Both have dedicated fixtures for placing other pods.

So what is the fuss all about?

 

[ersakthivel]

These are Gripen NG concepts from Saab.

If anyone watches closely this configuration ,under wing pylons of grippen have multiple ejector racks, exactly what I was saying earlier, So who bans then on teja other than you?

 

[ersakthivel]

The above picture will clear any doubt regarding whether multiejector racks are possible or not.

A pylon is a fixture simply rated for weight ,thats all. How user configures it is their choice.The two outer most under wing pylons of tejas aloneare configured to carry 800 kg of weight each.

The large space under the fuselage (besides 3 underwing pylons each and dedicated pod fixture) can be configured to carry another two pylons if the need arose.

It is no monumental design challenge , I suppose,

Also conformal fuel tank can easily be configured freeing up under wing pylons for carrying BVRs, No complex design problems in this area too.

When it is done there will be spare pylon capacity to make any kind of BVR configuration.

Since tejas has largest wing area for any light fighter all long and sleek BVRs will fit completely underneath the wing.
Combined with low wing loading this large wing area provides extra space for fitting all kind of multi ejector racks completely hidden under wing, another plus.

if you compare it with grippen NG picture posted by mr.p2prada, you can see for yourself how GRIPPEN NG's all weapon stores are jutting out in all directions giving all kind of RCS emissions in all directions,even in low level flight.

Also this larger wing area provides maximum flexibility and space in future for configuration of external weapon bays, a point often ignored by it's detractors saying tejas has more drag due to large wing area.

So if it flies low with no RCS emissions from the exposed missiles and their fins, giving it further reduced RCS emission profile compared to grippen or any other fighter.Further edge in air combat , it can stay undetected a little bit longer.Can move a bit more closer to the target for firing BVRs, excellent fit for seeker---shooter combination in which it will excel.


Along with DSI bump type stealth compliant redesign of air intake ,dropping splitter plates,and external stealth compliat weapon bays it will be more effective through out it's life time more than any other 4th gen fighter.

These stealth conformal external weapon bays will give much lesser RCS emissions and truly make it one of the best 4.5th gen light fighters ever.

If external weapon bays are implemented , Tejas can stay undetected a little bit longer.Can move a bit more closer to the target for firing BVRs, excellent fit for seeker---shooter combination in which it will excel.

People can count the number of weapon stations themselves.

 

[asianobserve]

What kind of bombs are those installed in the green multi-ejection rack? They're small.