ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Bleh]

J-10 is very capable, so much that when offered to Porks they denied it by saying it doesn't really offers much over JF-17. WS-10 can still fly in observation.

Pakis weren't offered it. I hate this habit in Indians!.. You shouldn't foul-mouth a genuinely good platform because it's Chinese. J-10 pilots regularly beat Chink flankers in dogfight (their fanboy community is divided 50:50 along both platforms).

Troubles with WS-10 aside (Indians talk like we didn't have our own Kaveri-saga ) J-10 is more capable platform than Mig-29 & F-16, possibly Mirage-2000 too... It's the highest T/W delta-canard in service, & now it's getting TVC!

No offence but I don’t know why people compare Desktop simulator (DCS, P3D etc) to real life performance.
Flight model data of even complex aircraft like F/A-18 in DCS just cost 100$. A real life flight model data cost Millions of dollars that needs to be licensed purchased by the manufacturer and then implemented on Fixed Base simulator (FTD) or Level D Simulator. Even then it’s not 100% accurate. I have been simulating for more than 10+ years and have used almost all simulators out there and find it totally funny when people compare them to real life.

I didn't compare it to real life performance, nor did I claim 100% accurate... I simply used it in that context, as an example of what the capability difference to go post-stall looks like. (Although multiple professional AF uses DCS to train & ex-pilots on YouTube has said it's better than their country's simulators... but what do they know, right?)

 

[Deadtrap]

Although multiple professional AF uses DCS to train & ex-pilots on YouTube has said it's better than their country's simulators... but what do they know, right?

Yes obviously. Graphics are better but what else? Flight model? Ever tried Level D Sim?
Desktop simulator are only good for learning avionics and flight computer systems if used for study purposes. That’s where its purpose ends.

 

[Trololo]

On a complete side note the number of Dhruv Rathees on this forum is quite surprising.

 

[Trololo]

Pakis weren't offered it. I hate this habit in Indians!.. You shouldn't foul-mouth a genuinely good platform because it's Chinese. J-10 pilots regularly beat Chink flankers in dogfight (their fanboy community is divided 50:50 along both platforms).

Troubles with WS-10 aside (Indians talk like we didn't have our own Kaveri-saga ) J-10 is more capable platform than Mig-29 & F-16, possibly Mirage-2000 too... It's the highest T/W delta-canard in service, & now it's getting TVC!


I didn't compare it to real life performance, nor did I claim 100% accurate... I simply used it in that context, as an example of what the capability difference to go post-stall looks like. (Although multiple professional AF uses DCS to train & ex-pilots on YouTube has said it's better than their country's simulators... but what do they know, right?)

A Victor Belenko is needed for China. Surely one can be tempted with a lot of money.

 

[Trololo]

I see you've been affected by the high-school dropout Muricans commenting on internet about energy fighting & post-stall maneuvering.
I'm not in a mood to write a 2000word explanation that would be required, but there's another way. Watch this, the difference between TVC & non-tvc jets in modern dogfight situations (note: J-10 has similar T/W ratio as Su-30 but much better high AoA lift due to being a delta. Would score a 3:0 win here):

I don't know why you assumed that IAF or PLAAF pilot's won't know what they're doing.

If you want to do a follow-up then watch J-10 aerial demonstrations before & after getting tvc.

Yes. Of course I must have. I totally have no knowledge of anything at all. You are right.

 

[Bleh]

A Victor Belenko is needed for China. Surely one can be tempted with a lot of money.

I don't know what that means.. Chinks now do it by hacking from US (or so Muricans accuse) & we haven't been able to get FC-1 data from Myanmar (probably).

 

[Trololo]

Lets get a few things straight here:

1> J-10 is a capable platform, having the genes of the Lavi and Su-27.
2> Its in mass production, the whole IP is Chinese, and that it is obvious the platform will keep improving with time. Numbers have a quality of their own.
3> A platform is useless if it doesn't have the weapons to go to war with. An armed Stuka dive bomber is a better bet than an unarmed F-22 in WW2 context. So we should focus on what kind of airborne weapons (and these days EW and datalink) the Chinese bring to the table with the J-10.
4> From sheer platform characteristics it is a very good and proven design.
5> Whether TVC is any useful in combat or not remains to be seen. Modern Western air forces have not used this technology, whereas it is a key design philosophy of Russian combat aircraft for that extra edge in A2A combat. It needs skilled hands and experience to control the TVC in combat. Application of TVC doesn't mean instant victory in a dogfight.
6> PLAAF is not an ass to field so many J-10s if all of them have teething maintenance issues. Its important to assume they have improved with time so that we do not turn complacent.
7> WRT PAF rejecting J-10 they must have their reason. Perhaps the difference in performance between the J-10 and Block 3 Bandar wasn't sufficient to convince them. IMO if not F-16 PAF is aiming for a twin engined bird. Time will tell.

From our PoV:
1> Country has done a commendable job with LCA program despite so many hurdles. Many critical technologies are now fully ours.
2> LCA has been benchmarked against the Mirage 2000 for good reason. IAF pilots are not idiots and are well versed with capabilities and limitations of Western and Eastern platforms.
3> It is imperative to roll out Mk1A at full speed and set the production process rolling. All integrations can happen along the way. Nothing is stopping us since the platform is ours.
4> Squadron service in large numbers will show how successful the product is.
5> Subsequent improvements are a given for the LCA.
6> Mk2 is an indication of the state of our aerospace industry. It is imperative to get this one right.
7> Finally, as important as the platform is the weapons and sensor package. Things look good on paper. Lets see how they come about. Good news is certain things like the NGARM, Astra, etc have been proven.

 

[Trololo]

I don't know what that means.. Chinks do it by hacking & we have been able to get FC-1 data from Myanmar (probably).

Victor Belenko was a Soviet MiG 25 pilot who landed his plane in Japan for the West to inspect it in detail. Munir Redfa did the same for Israel with his MiG 21.

 

[Vaibhavseafarer]

J-10 is very capable, so much that when offered to Porks they denied it by saying it doesn't really offers much over JF-17. WS-10 can still fly in observation.

You really think porks can afford new class of fighter?
They might have reject cause they really cant afford.

 

[Bleh]

Yes obviously. Graphics are better but what else? Flight model? Ever tried Level D Sim?
Desktop simulator are only good for learning avionics and flight computer systems if used for study purposes. That’s where its purpose ends.

Fair enough.. Let me reword my reply then.

"Because it's the closest we can get, it's readily available & it's enough for a rough example to make a point casually."

 

[Kuntal]

They tweak the models as per their needs, and train. Not to mention those servers are meant for offline use only.

 

[Bleh]

View attachment 90521View attachment 90522

That's what you chose to post yourself



Aight lads.. More progress update, featuring central DT & landing-gear setup (plz don't share outside DFI & BRF @MirageBlue )

 

[MonaLazy]

Why they have higher crashes ? , It isn't fully junk but older version are , chinese stick to platform and improve block by block , still older version are not in small quantity

They have high crash rates is not our problem. Our problem is that in an aerial war they will not send the older/junk versions but the newest ones with TVC. Our MWF will still be in the metal cutting, prototyping, certification tunnel until later part of this decade. Their TVC fighter is a reality today, by later part of this decade they may mount laser weapons, hypersonic missiles with higher power engines- then what to do?

 

[IndianHawk]

We are too optimistic and over confident, have paid price for that. MK2 doesn't exist whereas J-10 and J-20 have been inducted in PLAF. J-10 is matured platform, why would the chinese induct them large numbers if they are junk ? Where is our common sense ?

Common sense you say ? What else option is available to china other than j10 to fill numbers??

No one is selling them Rafale or gripen or even old f16.

They simply have to field j10 it's all they have. And it has the russian engine which is known for its troubles. Now they have chinese version too which by all accounts is even more unreliable and shittier so much so that even the porks prefer russian engine in jf17 over chinese.

Chinese themselves accept that there are severe availablity issues with single russian/ chinese engine. That's why russian Don't even build a single engine jets. That's common sense.

Chinese are forced to build j10 with russian engine because they have no option. If they had f414 or ej200 available they won't touch russian or chinese engine with a barge pole.

Now for numbers shitty availablity due to single unreliable engine means they need more jets to maintain same availablity as western jets.

If you need 100 lca to put 80 on battlefield chinese need 150 j10 to put 60 on battlefield.

Also they have far bigger enemies and 3 times more territory to defend. If we had enemies like Japan and usa our military requirements would be totally different too.

 

[MonaLazy]

View attachment 90523

Merely eye-balling the rotation of the canard as its leading edge tips up and trailing edge goes down- looks like it will foul with the double delta main wing of MWF where it joins the fuselage. But I am sure the super computers at ADA's disposal for modelling are much better than my armchair-ing it.

But if it is a problem, there is a solution:

 

[Bleh]

Merely eye-balling the rotation of the canard as its leading edge tips up and trailing edge goes down- looks like it will foul with the double delta main wing of MWF where it joins the fuselage. But I am sure the super computers at ADA's disposal for modelling are much better than my armchair-ing it.

But if it is a problem, there is a solution:
View attachment 90527

Our issue arises with gun positioning. Some said it'll be on the wing roots, but that's not possible. It'll hit the canards. I think we're going for a 30mm podded gun only.

 

[MonaLazy]

What else option

Su-35s for one. It is not too much of a stretch with the current bear-panda hug to imagine even Su-57 within their reach, if they want it.

shittier engines & availablity

Aircraft Avail = Total Aircraft IN-SERVICE (not on drawing board, TDs, PVs) * reliabilityFactor
.. in-service in bold and underline

Indian/Western thoughts on availability- we will have the most reliable engines, good mileage, lasts long, have high MTBO, cost is high

US sub-thoughts: we will have maximize both factors (numbers & reliability) in the availability equation, just sell to our global allies and recover our costs

Indian sub-thoughts: budget less overheads many so order only piecemeal/token quantity we will maximize reliability, lower numbers to control costs. In the battlefield rely on quality, superior pilot skill and Lord Ram to win the day for us.

Chinese thoughts- we will produce aircrafts like rabbits, because our industrial scale allows us to do so, reliability may be low but we will more than make up with numbers. Low MTBO no problem, we will replace it with new engine. Poor mileage no problem, we will sign multibillion dollar deal to import oil from Iran.

Both approaches are costly- the first by design, the second by requiring more spares over lifetime. But once you have numbers- even of shitty planes, the next generation of scientists will just work on improving reliability. In a few iterations they will have numbers and reliability!

Meanwhile IAF: We will not grant IOC to MWF because its rate of turn is 1 degree less than in ASQRs made up from Janes Defence Review/Airforce Technology of 10 years ago.

Also the US which is the epitome of quality today- has probably suffered more air craft crashes than anyone else. They learnt and moved on to arrive at where they are today. The Chinese will also.

 

[MonaLazy]

But if it is a problem, there is a solution:
View attachment 90527

The other solution is to move the axis of rotation from midway along the canard as above to being closer to its trailing edge.

 

[Deadtrap]

View attachment 90521View attachment 90522

They tweak the models as per their needs, and train. Not to mention those servers are meant for offline use only.

Even many Boeing, Airbus certified Level D simulators uses Microsoft ESP. The very same ESP on which Microsoft Flight Simulator X from year 2006 is developed. At the end Flight Model is what matters which again cost millions since it’s a derivative of real life test data.
Through Desktop simulator you might learn to configure 737/A320 to do an auto landing in real life but you will not learn to manually land the aircraft. That’s where the limitations is. Same goes with DCS.
There are many FAA certified Microsoft Flight Simulator X/ Prepar3D based fixed base simulators available. But the only eligible hours (flight log) that you can clock on those sims are for Instrument Rating.

Lockheed Martin sells Prepar3D Professional Plus license for $2500. You can use this version of P3D to make FAA certified flight Sims. US Airforce uses this very same software for F-35 FNPT training.

 

[IndianHawk]

Su-35s for one. It is not too much of a stretch with the current bear-panda hug to imagine even Su-57 within their reach, if they want it.



Aircraft Avail = Total Aircraft IN-SERVICE (not on drawing board, TDs, PVs) * reliabilityFactor
.. in-service in bold and underline

Indian/Western thoughts on availability- we will have the most reliable engines, good mileage, lasts long, have high MTBO, cost is high

US sub-thoughts: we will have maximize both factors (numbers & reliability) in the availability equation, just sell to our global allies and recover our costs

Indian sub-thoughts: budget less overheads many so order only piecemeal/token quantity we will maximize reliability, lower numbers to control costs. In the battlefield rely on quality, superior pilot skill and Lord Ram to win the day for us.

Chinese thoughts- we will produce aircrafts like rabbits, because our industrial scale allows us to do so, reliability may be low but we will more than make up with numbers. Low MTBO no problem, we will replace it with new engine. Poor mileage no problem, we will sign multibillion dollar deal to import oil from Iran.

Both approaches are costly- the first by design, the second by requiring more spares over lifetime. But once you have numbers- even of shitty planes, the next generation of scientists will just work on improving reliability. In a few iterations they will have numbers and reliability!

Meanwhile IAF: We will not grant IOC to MWF because its rate of turn is 1 degree less than in ASQRs made up from Janes Defence Review/Airforce Technology of 10 years ago.

Also the US which is the epitome of quality today- has probably suffered more air craft crashes than anyone else. They learnt and moved on to arrive at where they are today. The Chinese will also.

Su35 isn't a number filler budget plane and it's very heavy maintenance. Just like pakistan is forced to use jf17 as a cheap less costly number filler same way china went for j10.

Su35 is there top dog unless j20 matures .