ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Raj Malhotra]

If you try to combine the best features of a prince and princess then the results are not pretty

 

[ersakthivel]

So it is natural for ADA to propse a 96 KN engined tejas mk2, if such a stringent ASR was to be met.

However shortfalls in STR are no big handicap for mk1A which is loaded with goodies,


Because visually cued High Off bore WVR missiles like python & R73 E,

coupled with HMDS obviate the need for a figter to hv the highest STR in close combat.

Plus there are manoeuvres like barrel roll, vertical scisorss, in which low wing loading, high ITR fighters like tejas hv an upper hand over

High wingloading fighters like f16.

 

[ersakthivel]

So it is natural for ADA to propse a 96 KN engined tejas mk2, if such a stringent ASR was to be met.

However shortfalls in STR are no big handicap for mk1A which is loaded with goodies,


Because visually cued High Off bore WVR missiles like python & R73 E,

coupled with HMDS obviate the need for a figter to hv the highest STR in close combat.

Plus there are manoeuvres like barrel roll, vertical scisorss, in which low wing loading, high ITR fighters like tejas hv an upper hand over

High wingloading fighters like f16.

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Overemphasizes on maneuver ability meant that LCA is short stubby Aircraft with a huuuge wing. It's draggy and heavy.

No wonder we gave up this wing design in AMCA. But LCA should be produced and developed further as it's better and cheaper than any Similar imported aircraft

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Overemphasizes on maneuver ability meant that LCA is short stubby Aircraft with a huuuge wing. It's draggy and heavy.

No wonder we gave up this wing design in AMCA. But LCA should be produced and developed further as it's better and cheaper than any Similar imported aircraft

LCA is not stealth plane. It is based on Mirage 2000. Huge wing is not draggy but produces lift more efficiently. Dra comes when the control surface block the passage of air.

LCA has its uses as low cost aircraft with low build time, maneuverability and air to air combat ability.

 

[Flame Thrower]

LCA is not stealth plane. It is based on Mirage 2000. Huge wing is not draggy but produces lift more efficiently. Dra comes when the control surface block the passage of air.

LCA has its uses as low cost aircraft with low build time, maneuverability and air to air combat ability.

I am not an aero engineer, but while going through yf 23(black widow), documentary there is a some explanation on diamond wing structure. It has all the benefits of lift from delta wing with no drag penalities(from delta wing corners).

We're going for similar design in AMCA for same reason as well

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I am not an aero engineer, but while going through yf 23(black widow), documentary there is a some explanation on diamond wing structure. It has all the benefits of lift from delta wing with no drag penalities(from delta wing corners).

We're going for similar design in AMCA for same reason as well

AMCA is not delta wing. It has tail too. AMCA is meant to be a stealth plane with internal bays and speed. LCA is different. Delta wings have problem in flying slowly and need higher speed.

 

[Flame Thrower]

AMCA is not delta wing. It has tail too. AMCA is meant to be a stealth plane with internal bays and speed. LCA is different. Delta wings have problem in flying slowly and need higher speed.

I was only answering to the "drag in delta wing".

Diamond wing has advantages of delta wing like high lift and high wing area and low drag.

I felt "drag in delta wing" might be one of the reasons for ADA folks going for diamond wing.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ersakthivel The best use of Tejas is
With long range BVRAAMs and an AESA radar

That is purely as an interceptor
In this interceptor role we can also use drop tanks

The moment we load LGBs the combat radius and loiter time decreases

We will need a large number of BVR equipped fighters to shoot down the 250 odd JF 17s

And the 80 odd F 16s that the Pakis will throw at us to blunt the IAF offensive

For pakis victory lies in holding back the IAF
For Five days

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

@ersakthivel The best use of Tejas is
With long range BVRAAMs and an AESA radar

That is purely as an interceptor
In this interceptor role we can also use drop tanks

The moment we load LGBs the combat radius and loiter time decreases

We will need a large number of BVR equipped fighters to shoot down the 250 odd JF 17s

And the 80 odd F 16s that the Pakis will throw at us to blunt the IAF offensive

For pakis victory lies in holding back the IAF
For Five days

Even with LGB, Tejas can cover entire Pakistan. So, that is not an issue. Interception and strike are both important

 

[pankaj nema]

Even with LGB, Tejas can cover entire Pakistan. So, that is not an issue. Interception and strike are both important

Tejas MK 1 does not have the combat radius for deep strikes

At the most we can use it for close air support or for carrying stand off weapons like SAAW
And Glide bombs

The Best use of Tejas is to fire long range BVRAAMs at Paki JF 17s and F 16s which will make them break away ie take evasive action and then Sukhois can pursue them

And the Sukhois can then also strike at ground targets located deep inside

 

[pankaj nema]

So this proves,

you don't even know ,"what is wing loading " in a fighter plane,,,





ROFL



https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading&hl=en-IN

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/55928-comparison-of-aircraft-wing-loadings/


I am yet to see ,a person more effectively advertising his own foolishness, than you.

Keep it up kid, It's a rare trait,

You can make any circus clown , who taught you this art, proud about his student,

Low wing Loading is useful for WVR dog fights

The future wars will be won by the side who wins the BVR battle

Therefore this growing need and demand for AESA

What prevents the JF 17 to fire BVR shots at IAF fighters to make them abort their missions

The answer to one BVR missile is another BVR missile

Therefore we are going for Mica , Meteor Astra and Derby ER

 

[Enquirer]

Guys, Don't get fooled by faux-science peddled by charlatans. The guy posted a link to a discussion thread of (literally) drunks talking about wing loading of vintage era planes (because that was one irrelevant measure for vintage era planes!).

Here's another discussion forum of folks who know about aerodynamics (also acquired by random googling) and know how irrelevant wing-loading parameter is in today's fighter design

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15013

There's a big problem with folks who randomly stumble upon ONE aspect among a complex system of things and clamor about it as the biggest-bestest thing in the universe. That's exactly what happens in India with naked-baba, gold-baba, bijli-baba, sexy-maa etc etc!!

 

[pankaj nema]

What the Pakis are doing is to have a 250 to 300 strong JF 17 fleet each capable of 4 BVR AAM

They want to create a Wall to stop IAF fighters from breaching in

Hence the growing Importance of
Stand off Air to Ground munitions and
LRCMs like Brahmos and Shaurya and Nirbhay

And BVR Missiles and AESA radars And AWACS

Every mission may not be successful
You have to attack again and again

Therefore we saw The recent Surge operations by IAF during Gagan Shakti

Rafale will kick open the Door

The tip of the Spear will be Rafale
Spectra and Meteor will be needed for
Knocking down their AWACS escorted by
F 16s

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Tejas MK 1 does not have the combat radius for deep strikes

At the most we can use it for close air support or for carrying stand off weapons like SAAW
And Glide bombs

The Best use of Tejas is to fire long range BVRAAMs at Paki JF 17s and F 16s which will make them break away ie take evasive action and then Sukhois can pursue them

And the Sukhois can then also strike at ground targets located deep inside

Tejas can strike 500km deep. That much is enough for most missions. Also, these fighters are not for CAS roles. CAS takes cheaper fighters like Jaguar, MiG27 etc.

Yes, today's warfare dominance depends on air dominance. But that requires both air superiority as well as SEAD (strike on enemy air defences) to take out radars, SAMs and bases. Tejas is fit for both roles.

Meteor will not be available for Tejas. India will have to eventually contend with Astra, Astra Mk2 and SFDR

Guys, Don't get fooled by faux-science peddled by charlatans. The guy posted a link to a discussion thread of (literally) drunks talking about wing loading of vintage era planes (because that was one irrelevant measure for vintage era planes!).

Here's another discussion forum of folks who know about aerodynamics (also acquired by random googling) and know how irrelevant wing-loading parameter is in today's fighter design

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15013

There's a big problem with folks who randomly stumble upon ONE aspect among a complex system of things and clamor about it as the biggest-bestest thing in the universe. That's exactly what happens in India with naked-baba, gold-baba, bijli-baba, sexy-maa etc etc!!

In this point, @ersakthivel appears right. F35 wing loading is too high. The arguments on your link given are :

1. Dog fighting is unimportant as sneaking is more important and hence hig wing loading does not matter
2. Engine is very powerful and is capable of handling the thrust required for turn
3. Weapons are internal and hence less drag, thus lesser slowing down
4. Fuselage of F35 is developed to give lift and hence fuselage area must also be considered as wings

The problem with this is clear -

1. F35 does have a problem with maneuvering in dog fighting or even dodging an incoming BVRAAM missile.
2. The F35 with external stores is very vulnerable to additional drag and only limited strike bombs can be carried properly
3. Though engine is big, the total thrust is 120/180kN which is as good as EF Typhoon with twin engine. So, if the two are pitted, then EF Typhoon will have upper hand is stealth of F35 does not save it.

Wing loading is an important parameter and is crucial for taking off from a carrier. Tejas has one of the lowest wing loading and hence is the only delta wing plane that can take off from a carrier. Though, as of now, due to lower thrust, it can't take off with required load. But with Mk2, the take-off from carrier is a guarantee. Fuel efficiency is also higher for lower wing loading.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

What the Pakis are doing is to have a 250 to 300 strong JF 17 fleet each capable of 4 BVR AAM

They want to create a Wall to stop IAF fighters from breaching in

Hence the growing Importance of
Stand off Air to Ground munitions and
LRCMs like Brahmos and Shaurya and Nirbhay

And BVR Missiles and AESA radars And AWACS

Every mission may not be successful
You have to attack again and again

Therefore we saw The recent Surge operations by IAF during Gagan Shakti

Rafale will kick open the Door

The tip of the Spear will be Rafale
Spectra and Meteor will be needed for
Knocking down their AWACS escorted by
F 16s

Your 36-72 rafales are doing nothing. No kicking or kissing. Do not give the status of Batman for rafale

 

[pankaj nema]

Tejas can strike 500km deep. That much is enough for most missions. Also, these fighters are not for CAS roles. CAS takes cheaper fighters like Jaguar, MiG27 etc.

Yes, today's warfare dominance depends on air dominance. But that requires both air superiority as well as SEAD (strike on enemy air defences) to take out radars, SAMs and bases. Tejas is fit for both roles.

Meteor will not be available for Tejas. India will have to eventually contend with Astra, Astra Mk2 and SFDR

MK 1A combat radius is simply not sufficient for deep strikes

Therefore IAF is asking for AESA and BVR
So that it can take long range BVR shots

MK 2 will have the combat radius of Mirage 2000

Tejas MK 1 A will always play a supporting role
Because of its limited loiter time
Which is caused by limited internal fuel

By 2022 we will have 36 Rafales but how many Mk 1A will be available, nobody can say

 

[Enquirer]

In this point, @ersakthivel appears right. F35 wing loading is too high. The arguments on your link given are :

1. Dog fighting is unimportant as sneaking is more important and hence hig wing loading does not matter
2. Engine is very powerful and is capable of handling the thrust required for turn
3. Weapons are internal and hence less drag, thus lesser slowing down
4. Fuselage of F35 is developed to give lift and hence fuselage area must also be considered as wings

The problem with this is clear -

1. F35 does have a problem with maneuvering in dog fighting or even dodging an incoming BVRAAM missile.
2. The F35 with external stores is very vulnerable to additional drag and only limited strike bombs can be carried properly
3. Though engine is big, the total thrust is 120/180kN which is as good as EF Typhoon with twin engine. So, if the two are pitted, then EF Typhoon will have upper hand is stealth of F35 does not save it.

Wing loading is an important parameter and is crucial for taking off from a carrier. Tejas has one of the lowest wing loading and hence is the only delta wing plane that can take off from a carrier. Though, as of now, due to lower thrust, it can't take off with required load. But with Mk2, the take-off from carrier is a guarantee. Fuel efficiency is also higher for lower wing loading.

Using wing-loading as a defining parameter is essentially a FANCY way of saying BIGGER WINGS ARE BETTER!! If you don't understand the above statement then don't even bother reading further and debating further.

Everything in a successful design is OPTIMIZATION of ALL aspects of the aircraft: thrust, weight, drag, lift, flight control software, aerodynamic design etc. etc etc.

Tejas Mk1/Mk1A has 30% higher wing area than Gripen (38.4 m2 vs 30 m2), as such around 30% better 'wing loading'. Is Tejas 30% better in Turn rate, AoA etc compared to Gripen? If you can't prove that then I do hope you won't be like ersakthivel and continue drumming a trash can!! Merely speculating that it may have better turn rate is total BS! Also, you and ersakthivel must think that engineers at SAAB are schmucks who couldn't build a BIGGER wing for Gripen!!!
The reality is that Gripen has better performance than Tejas (yes, even in STR) due to BETTER aerodynamic DESIGN!
Tone deaf folks can continue to drum an empty trash can and believe they're making music - but its quite annoying to those who have any sense of pitch!!!

 

[pankaj nema]

Your 36-72 rafales are doing nothing. No kicking or kissing. Do not give the status of Batman for rafale

You can keep dreaming that Mk 1A will decimate PAF and all its Air bases on its own

But that is not going to happen

Without Rafales and Super Sukhois we cannot win future wars , that is why we need them

All acquisitions are made with regard to future scenarios

By the way SEAD means Suppression of Enemy Air Defences( not what you wrote )

Which is followed by DEAD ie Destruction
Of Enemy Air Defences

 

[pankaj nema]

Using wing-loading as a defining parameter is essentially a FANCY way of saying BIGGER WINGS ARE BETTER!! If you don't understand or agree with the above statement then don't even bother reading further and debating further.

Everything in a successful design is OPTIMIZATION of ALL aspects of the aircraft: thrust, weight, drag, lift, flight control software, aerodynamic design etc. etc etc.

Tejas Mk1/Mk1A has 30% higher wing area than Gripen (38.4 m2 vs 30 m2), as such around 30% better 'wing loading'. Is Tejas 30% better in Turn rate compared to Gripen? If you can't prove that then I do hope you won't be like ersakthivel and continue drumming a trash can!! Merely speculating that it may have better turn rate is total BS! Also, you and ersakthivel must think that engineers are SAAB are schmucks who couldn't build a BIGGER wing for Gripen!!!

Gripen C has the same engine as our M K 1
But much better combat radius

You can fight or bomb the enemy only if you are flying in the air

If you are out of fuel you have to turn back

This obsession with wing loading and
WVR is meaningless

Once you have secured a Lock on with an AESA and fired a BVR missile the enemy will be forced to break away and take evasive action

The FOC on MK 1 is held up because of BVR capability

Tejas has fired the R 73 WVR long back

All JF 17 s will get AESA and BVR AAMs