ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
I got banned from that page for criticising hal for slow production lol FOE
Lol! Though, they were right in low production rate. Low orders means low production. Quite reasonable.


Tejas is not going anywhere. govt has invested in Tejas ....we have sister project s too ..uttam aesa
and kaveri ....

from 1947 still now we are buying weapons. ... fighter jets , helicopters....if we will not change ,if we will not take risk. . . then we will buy till the end



.....so we should produce more and more Tejas ......
Bharat Karnad was criticising Rafale canard as being maintenance intensive:
Rafale canards are a problem, and will escalate total lifetime programme costs by billions of Euros
I don't think Tejas MK2 will have canards. Canards were deliberately given up. It is like Mirage 2000 design. No need for canards
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Looks like you did not read the last line of my previous reply,
I did and replied to it as well =>
Btw LCA can fly low as well, but the point is, it doesn't need to in modern warfare, because it's the weapon that travels to the targets, since that increases the survivability. An A10 (or LCA) that launches an LGB from 14Km distance at high altitude, is more survivable against manpads and AA guns, than an A10 that has to fly close to the target to attack it with dumb bombs.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Our friend Sancho is asking a question. I'd rather he made a statement.
Actually I replied to a statement of another member, but since you don't read properly, you didn't understood the context either and jumped into conclusions again, just as u did with your own document appatently.

Was the question wrong? Or you don't have an explanation?
Yes it was as explained and it's quite telling that you can't respond to it and have to remain to 1 liners now.
But you can't deny the official US definition of CAS of course, that is simply not defined by low altitude attacks as you "believe" and if you understand the definition, you also understand why your claims about LCA or delta wing fighters in general are wrong, because you don't need to have a specific design anymore, since the weapons are the key today.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
IAFs Kargil experience and nearly all kind of NATO wars after that.

Kargil showed us how inefficient dumb bomb attacks are, especially in difficult terrain, because dumb bombs can't be used as precise as guided bombs can. You therefore need far more bombs and sorites, do take out a target, when a single guided bomb can be used.

Modern warfare is also linked, where ground forces or UAVs can provided laser guidance for an LGB. That makes especially CAS more efficient and less risky for ground forces, than dropping dumb bombs or making gun attacks on an area, where the pilot thinks the enemies are (I read somewhere that the A10 has the highest friendly fire kills, must look that up once more).

And if you look at NATO wars, the need for guided bombs is even more obvious, because low collateral damage is a key requirement today. French Air Force uses AASM guidance kits, but replace the warhead with concrete, to have a high precision, low collateral damage weapon, because they don't want to use a 500lb warhead for a light target like a jeep, or the targets are in urban areas, with a lot of civilians around.

For LCA being able to drop dumb bombs and train pilots for dive attacks is a back up, but the priority lies in guided strike capability, as a lesson learned from past experience. The only sad thing is, that we don't have indigenous LGBs or ATGMs yet.

Btw LCA can fly low as well, but the point is, it doesn't need to in modern warfare, because it's the weapon that travels to the targets, since that increases the survivability. An A10 (or LCA) that launches an LGB from 14Km distance at high altitude, is more survivable against manpads and AA guns, than an A10 that has to fly close to the target to attack it with dumb bombs.
In addition to what I said earlier =>

USAF Eyes New Era Of Close Air Support

...The Technology

Pilots of various platforms agree that the A-10 is purpose-built for CAS. It is designed to provide the pilot a good field of view of the ground; it is optimized to fly low and slow and can carry plenty of precision-guided munitions and cannon rounds. But the rhetoric that “only the A-10 guys can do CAS is mostly bar talk,” says one A-10 pilot. Air Force officials say a variety of weapons are employed in CAS scenarios—from strafing rounds to the 5,000-lb. bunker-buster, and they are dropped from a variety of aircraft

However, the advent of precision-guided munitions has dramatically enhanced CAS accuracy and allowed the mission to be carried out from aircraft flying higher and faster. Most recently, the new 250-lb. Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB) has been employed from the F-15E. Designed as a long-distance glide bomb, it was not optimized for direct attack. However, F-15E pilots developed tactics to alter altitude for the drop, and manufacturer Boeing came up with a fix to reduce glide time when needed.

In some cases, A-10s have been called in to take over air support when fighters are either unavailable or insufficient for the job. In other cases, however, fighters have onboard systems that allow them to fly low, dipping under weather in valleys, to execute a CAS mission...
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

Operational costs and munitions used in CAS:
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
I did and replied to it as well =>
:facepalm:
Does not answer the "bad weather conditions" part. Bhaiya Laser illumination jab dikhega hi nahi toh bomb lagega kidhar? LGB = Dumb Bomb here.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
:facepalm:
Does not answer the "bad weather conditions" part. Bhaiya Laser illumination jab dikhega hi nahi toh bomb lagega kidhar? LGB = Dumb Bomb here.
It did, because your point was not on illuminating the target in bad weather conditions, but how LCA would fly in that conditions to do a strike:

But consider, what would happen if you were asked to mount a bombing mission in adverse weather conditions? You would have to fly low and tactics you thought were outdated would become the only possibleoption.
That's why I answered that it doesn't have to fly low, since the weapon is the key that travels to the target. When you can't guide LGBs with the LDP from the air and no ground illumination is possible either, you uses GPS guidance instead. Most modern LGBs or PGMs offer both, while ATGMs have Mmw guidance seekers too.

So again, no there is no need for LCA to fly low, nor to use dumb bombs if it has the right guided weapons.
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
It did, because your point was not on illuminating the target in bad weather conditions, but how LCA would fly in that conditions to do a strike:



That's why I answered that it doesn't have to fly low, since the weapon is the key that travels to the target. When you can't guide LGBs with the LDP from the air and no ground illumination is possible either, you uses GPS guidance instead. Most modern LGBs or PGMs offer both, while ATGMs have Mmw guidance seekers too.

So again, no there is no need for LCA to fly low, nor to use dumb bombs if it has the right guided weapons.
Fair enough. But add bad weather conditions and EW. No illumination, no GPS/Glonass/Navic
Ab kya karoge Bakshy babu?:laugh:
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Fair enough. But add bad weather conditions and EW. No illumination, no GPS/Glonass/Navic
Ab kya karoge Bakshy babu?:laugh:
Lol, then we wouldn't use Tejas, but more capable fighters with suitable guided weapons.

Btw, english or a translation please. :biggrin2:
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
Lol, then we wouldn't use Tejas, but more capable fighters with suitable guided weapons.

Btw, english or a translation please. :biggrin2:
Lets agree to disagree on this, as far as I know, low level bombing runs are no longer the norm but are not obsolete either. A situation may arise when these tactics might be your only option. If war was so predictable, there would have been no need to fight it!
"What will you do now Mr Bakshy?"
Taken from a movie "Detective Byomkesh Bakshy"
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
A situation may arise when these tactics might be your only option.
Of course and that's why IAF integrates dumb bombs on LCA and trains their pilots for dive attacks, but as I said before, that's the back up choice, while the prime focus is on guided weapons now.
It simply offers too many advantages and since we don't have the luxury to operate in air superiority and against low threat enemies, the chances for dumb bomb attacks get even lower, since we can't afford to take risks and lose fighters, when our numbers are low already. That's why linger distance attacks are important today and the prime way to increase survivability.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Yes it was as explained and it's quite telling that you can't respond to it and have to remain to 1 liners now.
But you can't deny the official US definition of CAS of course, that is simply not defined by low altitude attacks as you "believe" and if you understand the definition,
500 ft is the lower limit as defined in the document. That is low altitude as far as I am concerned.

I started off with paragraphs. Now it is one-liners. In future, I will consider one-worders, like "nope." :)
you also understand why your claims about LCA or delta wing fighters in general are wrong, because you don't need to have a specific design anymore, since the weapons are the key today.
What are my claims about LCA?

Are you going to quote me verbatim or are you going to paraphrase me? Figure that out first.
 

kamaal

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
521
Likes
1,985
Country flag
Lol! Though, they were right in low production rate. Low orders means low production. Quite reasonable.


Bharat Karnad was criticising Rafale canard as being maintenance intensive:
Rafale canards are a problem, and will escalate total lifetime programme costs by billions of Euros
I don't think Tejas MK2 will have canards. Canards were deliberately given up. It is like Mirage 2000 design. No need for canards
The person who uses fake accent to look more intellectual should be avoided, Bharat Karnad just reads some news article from "Actual" defense journalist and reports back with fake accent of his own.

Plz avoid him.

Canards are used to give more lift to jets and they are mostly made up of Aluminium alloy, they are lighter and they hardly cost much, but they have very significant effect on aero data. I always missed Canards on LCA.

Mirage too have small Canards on air-intake.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
The person who uses fake accent to look more intellectual should be avoided, Bharat Karnad just reads some news article from "Actual" defense journalist and reports back with fake accent of his own.

Plz avoid him.

Canards are used to give more lift to jets and they are mostly made up of Aluminium alloy, they are lighter and they hardly cost much, but they have very significant effect on aero data. I always missed Canards on LCA.

Mirage too have small Canards on air-intake.
Mirage had no meaningful canards. The canards are actually small strakes. LCA has cranks instead of strakes and also anhedral delta both of which are lift generators.

Gripen:


Tejas:


As seen above:
1) Canards result in wings being shortened and hence lower wing area compares to length of aircraft which reduces lift. The canards also generate lift to compensate this
2) Canards breaks the airflow in front of the wings, thereby reducing the overall wing's lift.
3) The crank of the Tejas provides lift as well as concentrates vortex under the wing without reducing the wing area. This also doesn't break airflow into the wings nor scatter the wind blowing under the wing.

Canards have a net penalty in terms of lift compared to cranks due to a part of the airflow being scattered away by canards. Cranks are a real jugad way of doing things. There is really no need for canards.

By the way, Naval LCA has LEVCON (etension of wing that acts like canard) to provide additional drag for short landing.
 

binayak95

New Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,526
Likes
8,790
Country flag
A couple of points. Broadly agree with your points about canards causing disruption in the laminar flow of air, thus reducing lift- but that is a problem that is very evident only for smaller fighters.

Moreover, a plane that has massive power to weight ratio - like a Rafale or a Su-30MKI can make do with canards, the advantage of achieving high AoAs, and beyond superb instantaneous turn rate makes it more than worthwhile to have canards.

Which is why Su-30MKIs are overkill (as far as manoeuvrability is concerned at any rate). Matlab, excellent power to weight ratio, good energy retention, forward canards, good wing design AND TVC!!!!


Mirage had no meaningful canards. The canards are actually small strakes. LCA has cranks instead of strakes and also anhedral delta both of which are lift generators.

Gripen:


Tejas:


As seen above:
1) Canards result in wings being shortened and hence lower wing area compares to length of aircraft which reduces lift. The canards also generate lift to compensate this
2) Canards breaks the airflow in front of the wings, thereby reducing the overall wing's lift.
3) The crank of the Tejas provides lift as well as concentrates vortex under the wing without reducing the wing area. This also doesn't break airflow into the wings nor scatter the wind blowing under the wing.

Canards have a net penalty in terms of lift compared to cranks due to a part of the airflow being scattered away by canards. Cranks are a real jugad way of doing things. There is really no need for canards.

By the way, Naval LCA has LEVCON (etension of wing that acts like canard) to provide additional drag for short landing.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
A couple of points. Broadly agree with your points about canards causing disruption in the laminar flow of air, thus reducing lift- but that is a problem that is very evident only for smaller fighters.

Moreover, a plane that has massive power to weight ratio - like a Rafale or a Su-30MKI can make do with canards, the advantage of achieving high AoAs, and beyond superb instantaneous turn rate makes it more than worthwhile to have canards.

Which is why Su-30MKIs are overkill (as far as manoeuvrability is concerned at any rate). Matlab, excellent power to weight ratio, good energy retention, forward canards, good wing design AND TVC!!!!
Yes, for bigger planes, you are correct. For heavier plane, canards, TVC are recommended.

But, if TVC is added to Tejas, it will become overweight and canard has the problems I mentioned above.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,417
Country flag
Yes, for bigger planes, you are correct. For heavier plane, canards, TVC are recommended.

But, if TVC is added to Tejas, it will become overweight and canard has the problems I mentioned above.
Great news, J10B flew 3rd time with WS10A and 3D TVC

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Great news, J10B flew 3rd time with WS10A and 3D TVC

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
J10B has empty weight of 8.9ton, MToW of 19.2 ton for an engine of 80/125kN engine.

Tejas MK2 has empty weight of 6.8 ton, MToW of 15.5 ton, 5ton payload with 100kN engine.

The MToW increase of 4 ton and empty weight increase of over 2 tons compared to tejas Mk2 is bad , isn't it? J10 is also made of composites to some extent unlike F16 which has 80% aluminum and 10% steel. F16 has empty weight of 8.6 tons and MToW of 19.2 ton for a 80/125kN engine.

The reason why J10 fares poorly in empty weight is because of TVC. Carbon composites have density of 1.8g/cm3 whereas Aluminium has 2.7g/cm3. So, the airframe of J10 should have been lighter by 10% compared to F16 even if 30% composite is used. But, in reality, J10 ends up being heavier than F16. This is the reason
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top