ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[rahulrds1]

 

[rvjpheonix]

there have been some nice discussions on BRF. Cross posting here as it will clear the confusion about lca's wing being a wrong design. This one is by maitya
Turn Rates are directly proportional to,
1) Load Factor,
2) Lift Co-eff
3) Air Density
4) but are inversely proportional to Wing Loading

i.e. a High Turn Rate requires Low Wing Loading, high Lift Co-eff and high Load Factor (and higher air density or lower altitude, but this can be taken to be a constant while comparing two diff aircrafts flying at similar altitude etc.)

So let's examine each of them one by one from LCA perspective:

1) First the Load Factor: Well Load Factor = L/W (L=Lift, W=Weight) - for a all-metal heavy wing (like that of most contemporary fighters) will have a lower load factor compared to lighter all-composite wing like that of a LCA. So heavier wing -> Lower Load Factor, for the same amount of lift -> impacting the turn-rate negatively.

Another way of looking at the load factor is to co-relate with the bank-angle of the turn - simply put cosine of the bank angle = 1/Load Factor. So, for a 60 degree banked turn a load factor of 2 (as Cos 60deg = 0.5), often called a "2 g" turn, is required while the load factor required for 45deg turn is 1.414. Conversely, if the platform is able to withstand a 9G turn, the bank angle achieved (theoretically) would be approx 84deg.

So, if you already have a heavy metallic wing, and add more weight to it by suspending ordances/fuel-tanks etc, your load factor will go down, allowing you to turn more slowly (lower bank angle). However with a lighter composite wing (with same external weight attached and exact same wing geometry allowing exact same Lift as in the metallic wing case), you reduction in load-factor would be lesser, allowing you to turn quicker (higher bank angle).

The LCA Wing material tech (CFC) wins here, as opposed to myriad of other platforms with metallic wing constructs.


2) Second is the Wind Loading: Wing Loading is nothing but weight of the wing divided by the wing area. Any delta wing (thus LCA as well) will traditionally have larger area thus wing loading will be lower - however a CFC based light wing as in LCA, provides further advantages towards lowering the wing loading.

Refer to a few pages back to ravi_g's post -
Clean-Wing loading:
LCA -------- J-10 ------- F-18 ------- F-16C
247kg/m² --- 381kg/m² --- 459kg/m² --- 431kg/m²

Thus low-wing-loading design like that in LCA, helps in higher turn-rate compared to even-other delta designs, again because of extensive use of composites.


3) Third is Lift co-eff: Now this is a bit difficult to explain and frankly, it needs to be examined along with the drag co-eff as well. One way is to look at the L-D diagrams where you have 2-D representation of the Lift Co-eff on main axis and the Drag Co-eff on the secondary axis against the angle-of-attack (other is to simply plot the ratio of lift:drag against the AoA or even plot all three together against AoA).
Image
Simply put for a normal rectangular wing plan-form, Lift Co-eff (and of course the Drag Co-eff as well) will increase, quite steeply, with increase in AoA - but upto a point (called Critical AoA), after which with any further increase in AoA the lift co-eff will start reducing (and suddenly, almost at that point, the drag co-eff would start increasing almost exponentially) - net effect the wing will stall.


3a) Diff Load Factors:Before we go further, let's consider another variable, the turn velocity, and two more limits viz. the Structural Load Factor and the Aerodynamic Load Factor ...

Again, simply put, the Aerodynamic Load Factor would limit the turn-rate (due to stall, so governed by Max Lift Coeff) irrespective of amount of structural load (aka Gs) you can still pull. This velocity is called the corner velocity and flight condition where this occurs is the corner point.
So irrespective of how strong the paltform is structurally, the max turn-rate you can achieve is limited (Aerodynamic Load Factor) by the Lift Co-eff which in turn is function of the planform geometry of the wing.


3b) Instantaneous and Sustained Turn Rates: The turn-rate you achieve at corner velocity is the Max Instantenous turn rate (and minm turn radius).
Now let's look at how Lift Coeff comes into play for different wing geometries.

For a rectangular wing planform, the lift co-eff has been explained above - wherein the lift co-eff increases steeply and monotonically with increasing AoA, until a point it stops and starts reducing. But, with a delta plan-form this dipping of Lift Co-eff beyond a certain AoA, doesn't happen at all ... aka, THEORETICALLY, the lift co-eff can continue to increase with increasing AoA.
Thus, again THEORETICALLY, the turn-rate will be higher than that of the normal wing planform design - and so, traditionally the Deltas will have higher Instantaneous turn rate than that of rectangular planform design.

But of course, there's a huge catch - pls wait a minute, and pause for the drag-bhaiya to play it's part as well. The drag co-eff, however will also continue to increase and eventually negate all lift.

So your turn-rates (and thus the Instantaneous turn rates) will be impacted as you would rapidly bleed energy (due to drag) and your turn velocity will start reducing quite dramatically. The only way to negate this drag is to use addn thrust and overcome it and thus maintain/sustain this turning velocity. This is called the sustaining turn rate which obviously is lesser than the pure lift-coeff-influenced-instantaneous turn rate.

Moreover, for a delta wing, because of relatively higher wing area, will have more drag compared to that of a normal wing design i.e. for a delta planform, because of a higher wing area (compared to that of a normal wing geometry) BOTH lift and drag would be higher than that of a normal wing design.

So for a delta planform, the limiting factor for higher turn-rates, is not the lift co-eff so much, but it's the amount of thrust available to overcome this drag that turns out to be the limiting factor - which would mean a higher Instantaneous turn rate (due to higher Lift Co-eff) but a lower Sustained turn rate (due to again higher Drag co-eff) for the deltas, when compared to a rectangular wing design.

But, unfortunately, that's not the end of the story.


3c) The Vortex influence on Lift: Now plane designers are constantly looking at ways and means of increasing lift co-eff while postponing, as much as possible, the corresponding and inevitable drag increase. An "artificial way" of getting this done is to have the flow on the upper surface of a wing rejuvenated/energised by vortex generated upstream.
The energised airflow on the top-surface of the wing provided greater "suction", increasing the lift, without corresponding exponential increase in drag.
This is called postpoing the wing-stall.

Now leading edges of a delta are good vortex generators - for any delta wing, all along the leading edge, vortex are generated (until they are unaffected by a phenomena called vortex breakdown) and thus contribute to vortex lift which increases with increase in AoA.


3d) Vortex Burst Limitations: But then again, as with everything else, there's a catch ... vortex getting generated tend to "burst" or destroyed (due to adverse pressure gradients acting on them) resulting in a loss of most of the vortex lift - pls do note vortex bursting is not an issue as long as it can be postponed to a far-enough point downstream to a wing.

And there-in lies the problem ... for a slender delta-wing (aka with high-wing-sweep of say 65deg, found in most modern delta-winged aircraft like Mirage etc) this vortex busting phenomenon is observed to start from around 18deg AoA for a 0.85M flight regime. Increasing the AoA beyond that, the vortex bursting point moves upstream very quickly resulting in abrupt reduction of Lift etc - and about 24deg the wing starts to stall.


3e) The Canard Solution: The TFTA solution to counteract this phenomenon is of course to introduce the close-coupled canard surfaces located just above and forward of the main wing that'll direct airflow downward over the wing. At slow-speed and high AoA it generates vortex which attaches to the upper surface of the wing, stabilising and re-energising the airflow over the wing reducing drag and increasing lift.


3f) Non-Slender Delta planform Impact: But SDREs, being insufferable fools that they are, thought of something else ... how about a non-slender delta (aka with relatively low-wing-sweep of say ~50deg) wing. And like bumbling fools, they soon found out that vortex bursting would onset at a even smaller AoA for a non-slender wing.
But like a true SDRE, they kept their patience to soon found out a phenomenon called flow-reattachment which re-energises the airflow over the wing reducing drag and increasing lift.
Image
Plus as a bonus, they also found out that vortex breakdown is not a limiting phenomenon as far as the lift force is concerned for nonslender wings - on the contrary, flow reattachment is the key lift-enhancing contributor.


3g)The SDRE LCA Wing Planform: So, they decided to have best of both the worlds ... have a wing which will have both non-slender and slender delta planform. And viola, you got the compound delta LCA wing design, with it's both a low-wing-sweep (50deg, so non-slender delta) and high-wing-sweep (~63deg aka in the "slender delta" territory) as you move from inboard (wing root) to outboard of a wing.

Thus for the relatively lower part of the high-AoA flight regime (say from around 18deg to 22deg etc), the outboard slender delta part of the wing would dutifully contribute to the vortex lift while keeping the drag as low as possible. And with further increase of AoA, as that part of the wing starts to stall due to vortex bursting etc, the inboard non-slender-delta part of the wing will come into play with it's flow-reattachment aspects and keep on further enhancing the lift co-efficient (while still keeping the drag down as low as possible).

So where is the need of any additional control surface like a canard (and thus without the weight and complexity penalty of an additional control surface etc), hain jee?

Ofcourse, nothing is infinite, and there'll still be a stall angle when the non-slender part of the wing will also give up on flow-reattachment etc, and the whole wing will stall - but then FBW fly-control system will not allow that situation to arise anyway.

 

[Pulkit]

Tejas | Light Combat Aircraft | Inside Out [ total duration: 22:25 min]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IH5jQ_noaw

@Kunal Biswas and Rahul in the 17 th minute it is said that "almost 4th gen" .... is it an old one or wat?

 

[aero_sp]

there have been some nice discussions on BRF. Cross posting here as it will clear the confusion about lca's wing being a wrong design. This one is by maitya
Turn Rates are directly proportional to,
1) Load Factor,
2) Lift Co-eff
3) Air Density
4) but are inversely proportional to Wing Loading

i.e. a High Turn Rate requires Low Wing Loading, high Lift Co-eff and high Load Factor (and higher air density or lower altitude, but this can be taken to be a constant while comparing two diff aircrafts flying at similar altitude etc.)

So let's examine each of them one by one from LCA perspective:

1) First the Load Factor: Well Load Factor = L/W (L=Lift, W=Weight) - for a all-metal heavy wing (like that of most contemporary fighters) will have a lower load factor compared to lighter all-composite wing like that of a LCA. So heavier wing -> Lower Load Factor, for the same amount of lift -> impacting the turn-rate negatively.

Another way of looking at the load factor is to co-relate with the bank-angle of the turn - simply put cosine of the bank angle = 1/Load Factor. So, for a 60 degree banked turn a load factor of 2 (as Cos 60deg = 0.5), often called a "2 g" turn, is required while the load factor required for 45deg turn is 1.414. Conversely, if the platform is able to withstand a 9G turn, the bank angle achieved (theoretically) would be approx 84deg.

So, if you already have a heavy metallic wing, and add more weight to it by suspending ordances/fuel-tanks etc, your load factor will go down, allowing you to turn more slowly (lower bank angle). However with a lighter composite wing (with same external weight attached and exact same wing geometry allowing exact same Lift as in the metallic wing case), you reduction in load-factor would be lesser, allowing you to turn quicker (higher bank angle).

The LCA Wing material tech (CFC) wins here, as opposed to myriad of other platforms with metallic wing constructs.


2) Second is the Wind Loading: Wing Loading is nothing but weight of the wing divided by the wing area. Any delta wing (thus LCA as well) will traditionally have larger area thus wing loading will be lower - however a CFC based light wing as in LCA, provides further advantages towards lowering the wing loading.

Refer to a few pages back to ravi_g's post -
Clean-Wing loading:
LCA -------- J-10 ------- F-18 ------- F-16C
247kg/m² --- 381kg/m² --- 459kg/m² --- 431kg/m²

Thus low-wing-loading design like that in LCA, helps in higher turn-rate compared to even-other delta designs, again because of extensive use of composites.


3) Third is Lift co-eff: Now this is a bit difficult to explain and frankly, it needs to be examined along with the drag co-eff as well. One way is to look at the L-D diagrams where you have 2-D representation of the Lift Co-eff on main axis and the Drag Co-eff on the secondary axis against the angle-of-attack (other is to simply plot the ratio of lift:drag against the AoA or even plot all three together against AoA).
Image
Simply put for a normal rectangular wing plan-form, Lift Co-eff (and of course the Drag Co-eff as well) will increase, quite steeply, with increase in AoA - but upto a point (called Critical AoA), after which with any further increase in AoA the lift co-eff will start reducing (and suddenly, almost at that point, the drag co-eff would start increasing almost exponentially) - net effect the wing will stall.


3a) Diff Load Factors:Before we go further, let's consider another variable, the turn velocity, and two more limits viz. the Structural Load Factor and the Aerodynamic Load Factor ...

Again, simply put, the Aerodynamic Load Factor would limit the turn-rate (due to stall, so governed by Max Lift Coeff) irrespective of amount of structural load (aka Gs) you can still pull. This velocity is called the corner velocity and flight condition where this occurs is the corner point.
So irrespective of how strong the paltform is structurally, the max turn-rate you can achieve is limited (Aerodynamic Load Factor) by the Lift Co-eff which in turn is function of the planform geometry of the wing.


3b) Instantaneous and Sustained Turn Rates: The turn-rate you achieve at corner velocity is the Max Instantenous turn rate (and minm turn radius).
Now let's look at how Lift Coeff comes into play for different wing geometries.

For a rectangular wing planform, the lift co-eff has been explained above - wherein the lift co-eff increases steeply and monotonically with increasing AoA, until a point it stops and starts reducing. But, with a delta plan-form this dipping of Lift Co-eff beyond a certain AoA, doesn't happen at all ... aka, THEORETICALLY, the lift co-eff can continue to increase with increasing AoA.
Thus, again THEORETICALLY, the turn-rate will be higher than that of the normal wing planform design - and so, traditionally the Deltas will have higher Instantaneous turn rate than that of rectangular planform design.

But of course, there's a huge catch - pls wait a minute, and pause for the drag-bhaiya to play it's part as well. The drag co-eff, however will also continue to increase and eventually negate all lift.

So your turn-rates (and thus the Instantaneous turn rates) will be impacted as you would rapidly bleed energy (due to drag) and your turn velocity will start reducing quite dramatically. The only way to negate this drag is to use addn thrust and overcome it and thus maintain/sustain this turning velocity. This is called the sustaining turn rate which obviously is lesser than the pure lift-coeff-influenced-instantaneous turn rate.

Moreover, for a delta wing, because of relatively higher wing area, will have more drag compared to that of a normal wing design i.e. for a delta planform, because of a higher wing area (compared to that of a normal wing geometry) BOTH lift and drag would be higher than that of a normal wing design.

So for a delta planform, the limiting factor for higher turn-rates, is not the lift co-eff so much, but it's the amount of thrust available to overcome this drag that turns out to be the limiting factor - which would mean a higher Instantaneous turn rate (due to higher Lift Co-eff) but a lower Sustained turn rate (due to again higher Drag co-eff) for the deltas, when compared to a rectangular wing design.

But, unfortunately, that's not the end of the story.


3c) The Vortex influence on Lift: Now plane designers are constantly looking at ways and means of increasing lift co-eff while postponing, as much as possible, the corresponding and inevitable drag increase. An "artificial way" of getting this done is to have the flow on the upper surface of a wing rejuvenated/energised by vortex generated upstream.
The energised airflow on the top-surface of the wing provided greater "suction", increasing the lift, without corresponding exponential increase in drag.
This is called postpoing the wing-stall.

Now leading edges of a delta are good vortex generators - for any delta wing, all along the leading edge, vortex are generated (until they are unaffected by a phenomena called vortex breakdown) and thus contribute to vortex lift which increases with increase in AoA.


3d) Vortex Burst Limitations: But then again, as with everything else, there's a catch ... vortex getting generated tend to "burst" or destroyed (due to adverse pressure gradients acting on them) resulting in a loss of most of the vortex lift - pls do note vortex bursting is not an issue as long as it can be postponed to a far-enough point downstream to a wing.

And there-in lies the problem ... for a slender delta-wing (aka with high-wing-sweep of say 65deg, found in most modern delta-winged aircraft like Mirage etc) this vortex busting phenomenon is observed to start from around 18deg AoA for a 0.85M flight regime. Increasing the AoA beyond that, the vortex bursting point moves upstream very quickly resulting in abrupt reduction of Lift etc - and about 24deg the wing starts to stall.


3e) The Canard Solution: The TFTA solution to counteract this phenomenon is of course to introduce the close-coupled canard surfaces located just above and forward of the main wing that'll direct airflow downward over the wing. At slow-speed and high AoA it generates vortex which attaches to the upper surface of the wing, stabilising and re-energising the airflow over the wing reducing drag and increasing lift.


3f) Non-Slender Delta planform Impact: But SDREs, being insufferable fools that they are, thought of something else ... how about a non-slender delta (aka with relatively low-wing-sweep of say ~50deg) wing. And like bumbling fools, they soon found out that vortex bursting would onset at a even smaller AoA for a non-slender wing.
But like a true SDRE, they kept their patience to soon found out a phenomenon called flow-reattachment which re-energises the airflow over the wing reducing drag and increasing lift.
Image
Plus as a bonus, they also found out that vortex breakdown is not a limiting phenomenon as far as the lift force is concerned for nonslender wings - on the contrary, flow reattachment is the key lift-enhancing contributor.


3g)The SDRE LCA Wing Planform: So, they decided to have best of both the worlds ... have a wing which will have both non-slender and slender delta planform. And viola, you got the compound delta LCA wing design, with it's both a low-wing-sweep (50deg, so non-slender delta) and high-wing-sweep (~63deg aka in the "slender delta" territory) as you move from inboard (wing root) to outboard of a wing.

Thus for the relatively lower part of the high-AoA flight regime (say from around 18deg to 22deg etc), the outboard slender delta part of the wing would dutifully contribute to the vortex lift while keeping the drag as low as possible. And with further increase of AoA, as that part of the wing starts to stall due to vortex bursting etc, the inboard non-slender-delta part of the wing will come into play with it's flow-reattachment aspects and keep on further enhancing the lift co-efficient (while still keeping the drag down as low as possible).

So where is the need of any additional control surface like a canard (and thus without the weight and complexity penalty of an additional control surface etc), hain jee?

Ofcourse, nothing is infinite, and there'll still be a stall angle when the non-slender part of the wing will also give up on flow-reattachment etc, and the whole wing will stall - but then FBW fly-control system will not allow that situation to arise anyway.

This is an excellent post i read in along time. I just want to as for few things if any one can explain.
1. Few posts back, in summary of Saurbh Jha's article, it was said that LCA MK 1 is still short of fulfill its primary air staf requirements decided in 1995 regarding sustained turning rate and transonic acceleration which are critical parameters in close combat. I also read that SP-1 is demonstrating better aerodynamics performance than LSPs, approximately 5%, due ro its better finish & workmanship. So, now is it catching up with the requirements? Is ther any further evaluation going on in this direction?
2. I am not able to understand the thing that why abilitis of LCA MK II will be in any aspect lesser than Gripen NG as both the aircrafts will be using same engine, instead it should be superior to the later as it is being developed a decade later. In all respect.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The statement was based on Tejas,`s IOC-1 performance, IOC-2 and FOC standred are different senerio ..

@Kunal Biswas and Rahul in the 17 th minute it is said that "almost 4th gen" .... is it an old one or wat?

 

[rvjpheonix]

Now a good question was asked as to why SAAB who have long experience in designing fighters added canards to the viggen inspite of having the same compound delta design of tejas.

The following post is by indranilroy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what Maity ji has taught you till now is that lift is what gives you the ability to turn. The larger the lift you can generate, the faster you can turn. In the below picture Lift X sin(theta) = centripetal force. L X cos(theta) is what balances the weight of the aircraft.

As one increases the angle of attack of a wing, the lift and the drag increase almost monotonically (simplification) as shown by two parameters called coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag. But only to a limit (called the critical angle of a wing), at which the airflow separates (completely) from the top of the wing and wing stalls, i.e. lift falls drastically and drag increases exponentially. So there is a limit to how much lift one can generate and hence a limit to how fast a plane can turn.

Now when a fighter comes in to turn, it has a lot of initial speed, i.e. kinetic energy. So it can use its maximum lift capability to get into the tightest turn. But remember, drag also increases drastically. None of the fighters have enough thrust to overcome this level of thrust. So its energy bleeds off, i.e. its speeds falls down. This period of the turn is called the instantaneous turn and the turn rate is called instantaneous turn rate. But this can't continue forever (generally lasts a few seconds). If the speed of the aircraft continues to fall, then at some point it will go below its stall speed, i.e. it will fall to the ground like a stone. This can be overcome by losing potential energy of the plane, but in doing so you lose height i.e. become the cannon-fodder of your opponent. So to maintain a horizontal turn, the pilot has to lower the drag, i.e. decrease the lift aka lower his AoA. By how much? Till the point that the drag is balanced by the thrust of the engine. At this point, the rate of turn is decreased to the sustained rate of turn. So, the instantaneous turn rate is determined by the maximum lift generating ability of the aircraft and the propensity to reach this state as soon as possible. On the other hand, the sustained turn-rate is determined by the drag and the thrust.

The delta wing is excellent instantaneous turn-rates, because it generates large amounts of lift and naturally wants to reach higher AoA. This is because the leading edge of delta wings readily creates large vortices which add to the lift (called vortex lift). But obviously, this fast rate of turn also bleeds off the energy very fast. Beyond this point, the drag of the delta wing (at low altitudes) and slow hard turns is more than the classical wings. Therefore for maintaining the same rate of turn, a delta wing plane at low altitudes needs to have a better thrust to weight ratio.

So, we have learnt that various wings have various advantages and disadvantages. But aircraft designers have to take care of the whole flight envelop. So what should they do? They chose a design point, and make the plane excellent at that envelop around that design-point. Next they try to add things to mitigate the disadvantages at the off-design points. For example, most planes with conventional wings use LERXes with sharp edges and high sweep which generate vortices like the leading edge of a delta wing. The F-16 uses the slats and flaps as part of wings to increase its area (decrease wing-loading) etc. For delta wings, there are two primary methods:1) use a close coupled-canard and 2) use variable extended slats. A close-couple canard works by shedding a vortex which combines with the vortex of the leading edge of the delta-wing and energizes it (the exact aerodynamics is really long and winded to explain in a forum post like this). The variably-extended slats like in (Mirage 2000 and LCA) also work in the similar way. Going from the wing-root to the wing-tip, the vortices from the inner slat (at lower AoA) energizes the vortices from the outer slat (at higher AoA). I will not go into the details here because it depends on a lot of parameters like the sweep of the wing, the AoA, the sharpness of the edge etc.

In case of LCA, the wing and lift is not at all the problem. The co-efficient of lift increases monotonically till about 35 degrees of AoA. The same goes for Co-efficient of drag. The L/D ratio is one of best too by virtue of its very low wing loading. This gives it excellent ITR and roll rates. You now know that LCA would most probably be limited to 26 degree AoA, because at this AoA it generates enough lift to give it extremely good turn-rates. There is unconfirmed reports by Sjha, that it might even be taken to 28 degrees. The designers (as Maity sahab pointed out) went for a compound delta wing, where the outer part of the wing (with larger sweep) provides the capability for excellent ITR, whereas the inside of the wing helps with STR (kind of like 2-design points). The kink in the delta (can be imagined as the innermost slat with no extension) generates a vortex which energizes the vortex from the innermost actual slat, very similar to the what a fixed canard would have done. The question is how can we make the STR of LCA better. One way is to increase the thrust (brute-force), and the second way is to make it more efficient, i.e. increase the Lift-to-drag ratio. Designers of LCA Mk2 are going for both. The late Commodore says, the thrust could be increased on Mk1 (because intakes don't let the Mk1 obtained maximum thrust) and that in itself is enough.

Okay now, we come to your question. Why did Viggen have a canard in spite of having a compound a delta like Tejas. I have already answered part of that question, because it did not have independent slats like the Mirage 2000 and Tejas (though it tries to do something similar with a dogtooth). The other part of the answer lies in the plane. Remember, what I told you about the design-point. The design-point of that plane was for STOL performance. For that the plane needs to be able to turn its nose up at low speeds. But then the Viggen's elevons were attached to the end of its wings (aka with a short lever arm). So it needed secondary help (aka the canards which had flaps to provide positive lift). Another part of the answer was the Viggen's airframe itself. The Viggen was a pioneer being one of the first fighter planes to use a turbofan engine. However, given the technology of the engines then, the airframe had become very fat and bulky. If they had gone for a traditional wing, the plane would have become really fat, i.e. too much increased in wave-drag (which affects cruise-speed, range and top-speed). So, Viggen's designers (kind of) broke the wing into two wings. The smaller of the two doubles up as a canard. This kind of canard which shares the burden of generating lift along with the main wing is called a high-loaded canard. Of-course it produces other advantages (and also disadvantages).

Anyway, there are many ways of building a plane to do the same thing. Even within canards there are various ways. The canards that you see EF is a lightly-loaded canard aka a control canard, i.e. it does not produce any lift. The canard on Gripen and Rafale are mostly control canards, but can transition to a loaded canard when required (this is only possible with a FBW). For example, one can see Rafale's canards change roles while taking off from an aircraft carrier. It transitions from a control canard to a highly loaded canard soon after the plane leaves the flight deck. Also there is no silver bullet to building a plane which works exceptionally well across the entire (extremely wide) flight envelop of a modern fighter. Otherwise, all planes would have been the same. For example, three of the best designs from an aerodynamic perspective IMHO are the F-16, Mig-29 and the Rafale. These three have the cleanest airframes which use almost all the possible advantages that can be extracted out of airflows around an airplane. The Rafale is probably the best of the lot because it learned a lot from the other two. It uses the boundary layer over the wing (which the other two don't) and a complex interplay between the canard and the wing-body blend. It places its wing at the exact height where the leading edge can be extended with an extremely sharp LERX by the side of the air intake (not present in the initial prototypes). Anyways, none of these 3 look alike. Therefore, ex. AVM Matheswaran's comments can only be put down as bias. Tejas Mk1's short-comings are not a want of canard. Anybody who knows aerodynamics will tell you that easily, as has been evidenced by numerous studies. Believe it or not!

Did you know that for the F-16 the horizontal stabilizers come in the wake of the wing at greater than 25 degrees AoA, i.e become ineffective (like in the IJT). This is called a deep-stall (or super-stall) and is mostly unrecoverable. Therefore the F-16 is limited by its FBW to 25 degrees AoA. But if you pushed the FBW against many limiters, you might accidentally overshoot this boundary. In that case, there is large switch to override the FBW and try to regain control (if possible), otherwise eject. Also, did you know that it flew with too small a stabilizer (a life threatening shortcoming) for 2 years after entering production. Nobody, except Langley (I believe) caught this in the wind-tunnel testing and flight-testing. Because, you have taken ADA/HAL to the butchers fro LCA/IJT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LCA if i remember correctly can go upto 28 degrees(electronically limited) and the airframe will not stall till 35 degrees.

 

[rvjpheonix]

@aero_sp I hope the above post explains a bit of it.
I aint no aero guru but let me try to explain if you didnt get what is written above from a layman's POV.
AS the above post explains tejas was designed for optimal performance at a certain altitude and for certain desirable characteristics, in tejas case maybe good ITR performance. The designers gave more importance to that as the future combat would involve less long turning fights as compared to short fights where itr is more important due to high off boresight missiles which can handle strains off upto 40g.

Low wing loading on tejas along with the delta which inherently allows higher Angle of Attack(which is better in tejas due to compound delta) allows really high ITR. However as aircraft design has compromises, more lift also equals more drag. Thus to maintain a sustained turn of equal value a larger wing aircraft(delta wings) will need more thrust to weight ratio than a smaller wing aircraft(conventional wings).

Now coming to your questions.
1 The 1995 ASR gave an STR of 17 degrees. The Tejas should be able to do 15-16 degrees is what the poster above feels. I say a couple of degrees isn't too bad considering it is way better than mig 21's and should be around mirages performance. Especially when you consider that the tejas will have better ITR performance than even the mirage.( This what the test pilot of tejas was hinting at I guess when he said that the tejas is better than the mirage in critical parameters) The transonic acceleration issues will be rectified in mk 2. But then present aerial battles are below that speed I guess (not sure though).
2. Should be close if not equal or better. Some people just cant get over the phoren maal is better syndrome.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Some ITR figures of aircraft as a yardstick. The LCA will exceed the mirage.
At 30,000 –35000 ft and 5G the ITR is 10- 12°/second.

At 36,000 ft and Mach 2 the Mirage can maintain a 3G turn.

At an altitude of 40,000 ft and Mach 1.05 pulling the stick nearly full-aft produces 4.5G and an angle of attack(AoA) of 25°.

At 22,000 ft and Mach 0.9 the application of 8G produces an ITR of 20°/second. The AoA is then 27°.
The application of 9G increases the ITR to 24°/second and 28° AoA.
Manoeuvrability
Instantaneous turn rate @ 15,000 ft. (4,572m) - Two IR Missiles - 50% Int. Fuel

From the same site, some selective comparison flight data supplied by Dassault vs F-16 and F-18.


Mach 0.7 Mach 0.9 Mach 1.2 Mach 1.5
°/sec °/sec °/sec °/sec

Mirage 2000 22 17,5 13 10.5

F16 C 18 17.5 13 10.5

F18 C 18.5 14.5 11 8.5[H

 

[aero_sp]

@aero_sp I hope the above post explains a bit of it.
I aint no aero guru but let me try to explain if you didnt get what is written above from a layman's POV.
AS the above post explains tejas was designed for optimal performance at a certain altitude and for certain desirable characteristics, in tejas case maybe good ITR performance. The designers gave more importance to that as the future combat would involve less long turning fights as compared to short fights where itr is more important due to high off boresight missiles which can handle strains off upto 40g.

Low wing loading on tejas along with the delta which inherently allows higher Angle of Attack(which is better in tejas due to compound delta) allows really high ITR. However as aircraft design has compromises, more lift also equals more drag. Thus to maintain a sustained turn of equal value a larger wing aircraft(delta wings) will need more thrust to weight ratio than a smaller wing aircraft(conventional wings).

Now coming to your questions.
1 The 1995 ASR gave an STR of 17 degrees. The Tejas should be able to do 15-16 degrees is what the poster above feels. I say a couple of degrees isn't too bad considering it is way better than mig 21's and should be around mirages performance. Especially when you consider that the tejas will have better ITR performance than even the mirage.( This what the test pilot of tejas was hinting at I guess when he said that the tejas is better than the mirage in critical parameters) The transonic acceleration issues will be rectified in mk 2. But then present aerial battles are below that speed I guess (not sure though).
2. Should be close if not equal or better. Some people just cant get over the phoren maal is better syndrome.

Sir, i have no sindrom or any thing. My jenune question is iven though with 98KN engine why LCA MK 2 is not haveing 5 T of wepon load or 2 Mach maximum speed or 1000 Km combat radius. What is the latest news is it will be 1.8 M in dives. This is what i think facts. Obviously one can say that it is European cold air and indian hot weather conditions which make the difference but fact is fact. Is there any analysis pointing performances of both in same conditions.
As far as experiance is concerned i belive that indian scientiests are not less capable or knowledgeable of doing any thing that any country or establishment in the world can do. Today they are capable of producing 4+ generation of aircraft which sab have done after 75 years of experiane in the making is the proof of our capability.
Thanks for the replies and i hope such quality discussions only should happen in this forum.

 

[rvjpheonix]

There are no available comparisons between the two aircraft because one is still on the drawing board while gripen ng hasone demonstrator flying.What I am trying to say is take those figures quoted by SAAB with more than a pinch of salt. We do not know thae loadout for which the gripen will have a combat radius of 1000 kms. It definitely wont be with anything useful. Something like a couple of missiles with two drop tanks . If we do the same with tejas we will arrive at a similar figure. As for the load you tell me how far the gripen will fly with 5 tons of load. Maybe the tejas cannot lift that much or maybe it cant but the corresponding figures wont be accepted by the IAF. Also the tejas doesnt need to either. If you see recent wars, you will see that no aircraft flies with full combat load against an enemy with a capable defence. for heavy roles we have the mki.
As to the speed maybe it will reach mach 2 after the nose plug is added which will lead to less wave drag. 1.8 mach is assured. Let us hope for the best. Also no sir for me please.:thumb:.

 

[archie]

@Kunal Biswas and Rahul in the 17 th minute it is said that "almost 4th gen" .... is it an old one or wat?

On the Video 4.52 That image looks like AMCA??

 

[rahulrds1]

Second prototype of Light Combat Aircraft LCA naval variant NP2 (fighter) warms up in Bengaluru for maiden flight.
.
LCA -NP2 (fighter) completed a crucial wing test yesterday.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/552663198583623680

 

[aero_sp]

Make-in-India: Plan to develop 5th-generation fighter aircraft
Rajat Pandit,TNN |Jan 8, 2015, 04.21 AM IST
comments
Share More
AA
READ MORE Tejas|fifth-generation fighter aircraft|advanced medium combat aircraft

But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
RELATED
NEW DELHI: India plans to kick-off its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) development project this year to build on the expertise gained in the long developmental saga of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.
Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.
"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source.
The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. IAF is slated to get its first Tejas Mark-I in March this year, over 30 years after the LCA project was first approved in August 1983. But the Tejas Mark-II jets, with more powerful engines, will start to come only by 2021-2022, as was first reported by TOI.
"After Tejas-II, we have to move ahead to a fifth-generation-plus AMCA. Basic design work of AMCA as well as presentations by five to six global aero-engine manufacturers is over. Simulation modelling is also in the works," said the source.
India, of course, is also trying to sort out its differences with Russia over their proposed joint development of the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" based on the latter's under-development FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA.

India, in fact, had told Russia it cannot wait till 2024-2025 to begin inducting 127 of these single-seat fighters, which will entail an overall expenditure of around $25 billion. But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise (capability to achieve supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.
But the 20-year long development of the American F/A-22 "Raptor", the only fully-operational FGFA in the world today, has shown that such a project is an extremely complex and costly affair.
The US shut down the production of Raptors in 2012 after inducting 188 of them at an overall cost of $67 billion due to huge costs, technical glitches and time overruns. The US is now finally moving towards operationalizing a more advanced FGFA, the F-35 "Lightning-II" joint strike fighter. With the project yet to overcome all technical and software glitches, the overall cost for the planned induction of almost 2,500 such fighters stands at around $400 billion.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Ditching Rafale

Like an able pilot with his wits about him in an out-of-control warplane, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar may be preparing to ditch Rafale touted as the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) answer, which the Indian Air Force has set its heart on procuring at any cost, and going for the more economical and sensible Su-30 option instead.

It has been repeatedly emphasised by this analyst that the IAF misconceived the MMRCA requirement, disregarded the uncommonly high costs involved in procuring the chosen Rafale and France's past record of unmet transfer of technology promises, and the Su-30s/MiG-29M2s as sustainable alternative. I also warned that the massive expenditure on the Rafale would starve the indigenous programmes (Tejas and the advanced medium combat aircraft — AMCA) of funds, and stifle the Indian aviation industry trying to get back on its feet.

The reasons for the nose-diving deal are many, and they are serious. The unwillingness of Dassault Avions, the Rafale manufacturer, to guarantee the performance of this aircraft produced under licence at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd despite the original RFP (Request for Proposal) requiring bidders to transfer technology, including production wherewithal, procedures and protocols, to this public sector unit for the aircraft's local assembly, has been reported. There's, however, an untold back-story revealing France's intended duplicity.

Perceiving India as the perennial sucker, Dassault chose Reliance Aerospace Technologies Pvt Ltd (RATPL) as partner in the hope that the fabled Ambani reach and influence in Delhi would help it get around the HAL production obligation. Problems were not anticipated as evidenced by RATPL approaching the Andhra Pradesh government in 2013 for land around Hyderabad to set up a factory. But because RATPL has zero experience in producing anything remotely related to aviation, Dassault saw it as an opportunity to "double dip", meaning arrange it so India would pay it twice for the same aircraft! This was to be managed thus: Dassault would set up a production line under RATPL aegis importing every last screw and production jig and collect the money for the 108 Rafales it puts together here at the cost-plus-profit price HAL would charge IAF. In other words, Dassault would export the Rafale assembly kits and wherewithal virtually to itself and pocket the proceeds while paying a premium to RATPL.

But this double dipping ruse in the works merely whetted France's appetite for more. Capitalising on the IAF brass' penchant for newer French aircraft and the Indian government's tendency eventually to cave into the military's demands, Dassault proposed an enlarged Rafale deal with the cost revised upwards from the $30 billion level to a $45-$50 billion contract. For such enhanced sums, Dassault sought to replace the Rafale originally offered with the slightly better "F-3R" version, promised a mid-life upgrade involving retrofitment of the Thales RBE2 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, and suggested India's future fifth and sixth generation combat aircraft needs be met by the "F-4R" and "F-5R" configurations (or whatever designations they are given) now on the drawing board featuring crystal blade for jet turbines, "fly-by-light" technology, etc. Such contract extension suits the IAF fine because it plays on Vayu Bhavan's antipathy for Russian hardware (expressed in terms of "diversity of suppliers") as well as indigenous aircraft, and undermines both the multi-billion dollar project jointly to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft, Su-50 PAK/FA with Russia and the Indian AMCA with its design finalised.

But for Parrikar's welcome show of common sense this French plan would have rolled out nicely. Inconveniently for Dassault, he publicly disclosed that the far deadlier and more versatile Su-30 MKI costs `358 crores (roughly $60 million) each compared to the `700 crore price tag for the Rafale, meaning two Su-30s could be secured for the price of a single Rafale. Implicit is the reasonable conclusion that it made more sense to buy a much larger fleet of 4.5-plus generation Su-30s than to get stuck with a 4.5-minus generation Rafale sporting 5.5 generation aircraft prices. The cost comparison remains skewed even when the "super Sukhoi-30", costing `70 crores, is considered, when the added advantage of the plunging the Russian ruble kicks in, allowing India to extract far more bang for the buck from Moscow.

Looked at another way, the original allocation of $12 billion for the MMRCA could fetch IAF at current prices a whole new, augmented, and more capable fighter/bomber armada and raise the force strength to 50 frontline combat squadrons. This because the $12 billion can buy 20 Tejas Mk-Is (in addition to the 40 already ordered), 150 Tejas Mk-IIs, some 35 super Sukhoi-30s, and around 50 MiG-29Ks/M2s (with the M-2s nearly equal of the MiG-35 the Strategic Forces Command wanted for delivering nuclear bombs, but were denied). In short, a composite additional fleet of 255 aircraft can be acquired for the initial price of 126 Rafales, with "incalculable" savings in streamlined logistics, training, and maintenance but absent the cost-hikes, delays, and aggravation of setting up a new production line (as HAL already produces Su-30 MKIs).

Besides, France's extortionist attitude is offputting. In response to the IAF's request not too long ago for an immediate transfer of two Rafale squadrons from the French Air Force as a quick-fix, Paris agreed but demanded these would have to be paid for at the same rate as new aircraft and that these planes could carry only French sourced weapons. Worse still, France's reputation for fulfilling technology transfer provisions too is suspect as past experience reveals.

The IAF trusts Paris not to cutoff the supply of spares if India follows a foreign policy not to France's or even America's liking. Except, heeding Washington's directive, France recently stopped the delivery of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships Russia has paid for. What's the guarantee Paris won't sever supply links and leave HAL stranded mid-production and IAF frontline squadrons grounded in case India resumes nuclear testing, say?

The larger question is: How come France's record of defaulting on technology-related parts of contracts combined with the unaffordability of French aircraft generally using any metric, were not factored by IAF and Ministry of Defence when shortlisting Rafale?

Security Wise | Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

 

[ersakthivel]

Make-in-India: Plan to develop 5th-generation fighter aircraft
Rajat Pandit,TNN |Jan 8, 2015, 04.21 AM IST
comments
Share More
AA
READ MORE Tejas|fifth-generation fighter aircraft|advanced medium combat aircraft

But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
RELATED
NEW DELHI: India plans to kick-off its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) development project this year to build on the expertise gained in the long developmental saga of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.
Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.
"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source.
The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. IAF is slated to get its first Tejas Mark-I in March this year, over 30 years after the LCA project was first approved in August 1983. But the Tejas Mark-II jets, with more powerful engines, will start to come only by 2021-2022, as was first reported by TOI.
"After Tejas-II, we have to move ahead to a fifth-generation-plus AMCA. Basic design work of AMCA as well as presentations by five to six global aero-engine manufacturers is over. Simulation modelling is also in the works," said the source.
India, of course, is also trying to sort out its differences with Russia over their proposed joint development of the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" based on the latter's under-development FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA.

India, in fact, had told Russia it cannot wait till 2024-2025 to begin inducting 127 of these single-seat fighters, which will entail an overall expenditure of around $25 billion. But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise (capability to achieve supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.
But the 20-year long development of the American F/A-22 "Raptor", the only fully-operational FGFA in the world today, has shown that such a project is an extremely complex and costly affair.
The US shut down the production of Raptors in 2012 after inducting 188 of them at an overall cost of $67 billion due to huge costs, technical glitches and time overruns. The US is now finally moving towards operationalizing a more advanced FGFA, the F-35 "Lightning-II" joint strike fighter. With the project yet to overcome all technical and software glitches, the overall cost for the planned induction of almost 2,500 such fighters stands at around $400 billion.

In due time we will hear "informed opinions" like "we should not sanction 4000 crore and proceed on AMCA project ,before tejas mk2 is finished, " from about to retire Imported Air Force Chair marshals and "fake defnece analysts" , oblivious to the fact that china is flight testing two stealth fighters without finishing J-10 B.

Lets hope the current government (unlike the previous one which out AMCA on back burner citing delays in tejas mk1 FOC) has the head to see through the motivations of such voices. Increasing both financial and man power resources to both the projects is the solution. It is no movie Q to wait patiently awaiting the turn of AMCA after Tejas mk2 is done.

 

[ersakthivel]

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft

What actually happened between 1983 and 2000? First, let us take the promise of indigenous development. In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported.

What prompted the DRDO to conceive the LCA when Israel, technologically far more advanced than India, had abandoned its Lavi fighter project after spending more than $ 2 billion on it? Aircraft development costs had mounted so much by then that far richer-countries compared to India such as Britain, France and Germany had realised that unless they formed multinational consortia it would not be possible for them to develop sophisticated, modern aircraft. That is why beginning the late 1970s we have had Eurofighters and Eurocopters, where three or four countries share costs and buying commitments.

It can be said with certainty that the LCA will never become a frontline fighter with the Indian Air Force. The Mirage 2000s and the Mig-29s that the air force has been flying from the 1980s have superior capabilities to any LCA that might be inducted in 2015, 2020 or 2025. So the most prudent thing for the government would be to immediately terminate the LCA project. National and individual egos have been satisfied after the first flight.

The Rs 3,000 crores or so that have spent so far could be put down as the price of a valuable learning experience. We would have undoubtedly gained valuable knowledge in many areas of aircraft design and engineering. But of much greater value, we would have gained the understanding that defence R&D is not a make-believe game to be played by exploiting the fascination for techno-nationalism.

The LCA ranks alongside DRDO's other monumental failures such as the Arjun tank, the Trishul and the Akash missiles, and the Kaveri engine. The time and cost overruns on these projects have been enormous. The story of the Arjun is well known.

Does the author thinks since india did not have carbon fibre tech , engine tech and radar tech,,, the LCA should not be developed before developing them????

It's like saying since india did not manufacture guns, howitzers, tanks and TATRA trucks we should immediately disband our Army!!!!!!

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,, our retired defence personal guys have the most colourful views on tejas!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cobra commando]

[tweet]553913405526921216[/tweet]

Gen-next EW suite for Tejas

(Unedited release)

An advanced electronic warfare suite (EW suite) developed by Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), a DRDO laboratory specializing in avionics and electronic warfare systems for combat aircrafts, flew for the first time onboard the "Tejas-PV1 light combat aircraft" today i.e. 10th January 2015, at Bengaluru. In addition to the Radar Warner, the EW suite tested today is also equipped with Jammer. It gives to the pilot an additional capability of nullifying the effect of detected Radar threat by appropriate mode of jamming. Existing EW systems fitted on various combat aircrafts are basic EW equipment known as Radar Warner Receiver to provide warning to the aircraft pilot in case of detection of a Radar threat. After obtaining due flight clearances and certification, the first flight sortie of LCA PV1 with the EW equipment operational, took place today. The equipment was noted to be detecting Radar signals operating in and around the flight path. Dr Avinash Chander, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri, Secretary Deptt. of Def. R&D & DG DRDO congratulated the team on the achievement and said "This warfare suite adds an important capability to our LCA." Sh SS Sundaram, Distinguished Scientist and DG (ECS) called it a "New Generation Electronic Warfare Equipment Integrated on TEJAS Aircraft". Ms J Manjula, OS and Director DARE said "LCA is the first fighter aircraft of India fitted with a Radar Warner and Jammer equipment. It has capability for both Radar warning and jamming using a Unified EW Technology. Over the coming few months, ADA and DARE will be scheduling further sorties to evaluate the system in various signal scenarios".

 

[Pandora]

[tweet]553913405526921216[/tweet]

Gen-next EW suite for Tejas

(Unedited release)

An advanced electronic warfare suite (EW suite) developed by Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), a DRDO laboratory specializing in avionics and electronic warfare systems for combat aircrafts, flew for the first time onboard the "Tejas-PV1 light combat aircraft" today i.e. 10th January 2015, at Bengaluru. In addition to the Radar Warner, the EW suite tested today is also equipped with Jammer. It gives to the pilot an additional capability of nullifying the effect of detected Radar threat by appropriate mode of jamming. Existing EW systems fitted on various combat aircrafts are basic EW equipment known as Radar Warner Receiver to provide warning to the aircraft pilot in case of detection of a Radar threat. After obtaining due flight clearances and certification, the first flight sortie of LCA PV1 with the EW equipment operational, took place today. The equipment was noted to be detecting Radar signals operating in and around the flight path. Dr Avinash Chander, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri, Secretary Deptt. of Def. R&D & DG DRDO congratulated the team on the achievement and said "This warfare suite adds an important capability to our LCA." Sh SS Sundaram, Distinguished Scientist and DG (ECS) called it a "New Generation Electronic Warfare Equipment Integrated on TEJAS Aircraft". Ms J Manjula, OS and Director DARE said "LCA is the first fighter aircraft of India fitted with a Radar Warner and Jammer equipment. It has capability for both Radar warning and jamming using a Unified EW Technology. Over the coming few months, ADA and DARE will be scheduling further sorties to evaluate the system in various signal scenarios".

Really great news Indeed.... Am waiting for the pure FOC class tejas flying..

 

[Kharavela]

rediff.com: Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd) on the sad tale of the Light Combat Aircraft





Does the author thinks since india did not have carbon fibre tech , engine tech and radar tech,,, the LCA should not be developed before developing them????

It's like saying since india did not manufacture guns, howitzers, tanks and TATRA trucks we should immediately disband our Army!!!!!!

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,, our retired defence personal guys have the most colourful views on tejas!!!!!!!!!!

The author's views are simply ridiculous. Taking forward his logic, India should have scrapped "Chandrayan" project & shouldn't have even attempted "Mars Mission".

Luckily for Indian defence & self reliance, individuals with such opinions has been retired & not in active service to influence decisions.

 

[mattster]

You don't get to become the rank of an Admiral by being total idiot.

The Admiral was being brutally honest by saying that frontline fighter development is so expensive that only a few countries can afford to do it alone it anymore. More importantly, if you read between the lines - its not worth spending billions to get a product that is 2 generations behind the frontline state-of-the-art.

Maybe the Chinese have so much money to burn that they can allow their aircraft industry burns hundreds of billions to produce marginal/failed products, but India does not have that type of money.

"Mirage2000s and MIG-29 is more capable than any LCA in 2020" - that is brutal !!

The LCA is a valiant but outdated 3rd Gen aircraft and the FBW and composites, etc does not turn it into a 4th gen fighter. Maybe its the price of the learning curve. The Admiral just brutally called it the way he saw it. Most of DRDO major projects have been failures.

The Admiral's advice is very simple - Don't let techno-nationalism go to your head, and compromise your national security and spend billions of dollars on wasteful defense projects. Fighter development is not a critical requirement for India, unlike nuclear weapons and missiles.