ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Kunal Biswas]

Their are plenty of things yet to happen, One have to wait and watch ..

 

[Twinblade]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

LRDE has called out tender for liquid cooling system for AESA Project L-273 (Uttam). Last known the array was undergoing ground tests and the processors were incorporated on the flying testbed "Hack" and undergoing testing with the existing mechanical array.

LRDE is developing Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) based fire control radar for LCA Mk1 and Mk2 platform under project Uttam. The AAAU is mounted on aircraft's bulkhead with an interface frame and will be protected by radome. Additional Radar LRUs are housed in front fuselage of the aircraft behind the AAAU between station 1 and station 3 as shown in figure 1 & 2. The mounting frame has three decks of which middle and bottom deck are allotted for the radar LRUs.

AAAU dissipates 2650 watts of heat during operation and needs to be cooled with a suitable cooling system. Considering the various options available , availale space, geometry constraints, available cooling medium etc, it has been decided to go for "Liquid Cooling System" to dissipate the heat. This cooling system consists of cooling pump & flow circuits and liquid to air heat exchanger. But ADA has a qualified heat exchanger that meets the cooling requirement of AAAU that can be integrated in the aircraft. In view of the above it has been decided to develop "Liquid Circulation System(LCS)" utilising the existing heat exchanger (3.0 KW).

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

GOOD NEWS ................ Final Operational Clearance for Tejas in June 2015
Final operational clearance for LCA in June 2015 | idrw.org

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Final operational clearance for LCA in June 2015 | Business Standard News

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Parrikar's Priority - The New Indian Express

Parrikar's Priority

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has three things going for him. First, he has prime minister Narendra Modi's confidence. Two, he is an IIT engineer and able to digest the technical aspects and imperatives of national security better than the generalist civil servants in the ministry of defence (MoD). And three, he may have an instinctive understanding of national security considering he was chief minister of a small coastal state with big naval presence (which, after mining and tourism, perhaps, pumps in the most money into Goa's economy).

There are many issues he will have to deal with on an urgent basis. But nothing is more important than for this country to produce the weapons it needs. Self-sufficiency in arms has to date been mostly political rhetoric and indigenisation is reduced to passing off licence manufacture of foreign weapons systems by defence public sector units (DPSUs) as a great leap in self-reliance. Instead of the government insisting that the military assist the Indian defence industry to obtain its requirements at home, it has left it to individual services to decide whether to participate in indigenous design, development, and production schemes. Navy showed its earnest long ago with a warship and submarine design directorate.

The air force and army are way behind, with the former displaying distrust in extremis of home-made aircraft even after the Marut HF-24 showed it could be done 50 years back, and the Tejas light combat aircraft is a beautiful fighter plane. According to Pushpindar Singh, agent for Dornier, the German aviation sector was so impressed it offered to jointly develop the latter aircraft. With the lack of foresight the Indian government is known for the MoD, of course, declined just as it had done the offer by Bonn in the Sixties to co-develop the Marut! The import option has proved a bonanza for foreign defence suppliers, providing foreign countries the handle to influence Indian foreign and military policies by manipulating, especially during crises, the supply of spares.

Parrikar's predecessor, Arun Jaitley, decided boldly on the indigenous manufacture of the Project 75i conventional submarine, rejecting MoD's attempt to take the private sector major, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), out of the running by suggesting it move its main production base to Hazira—a techno-economic decision it was incompetent to make, had no business to try imposing on L&T, and was plainly designed to favour the low-productivity DPSU Mazgaon Dockyard Ltd (MDL), which has huffed and puffed and run up huge cost and time over-runs in assembling the French Scorpene submarine. It is hardly to be wondered that the ideologically blinkered Congress defence minister, A K Antony, didn't see the logic of entrusting L&T producing the technically challenging Arihant-class nuclear-powered nuclear ballistic missile-firing submarine (SSBN) with the manufacture of the far simpler diesel submarine!

In any case, Jaitley's decision to have DPSUs compete with L&T and Pipavav Shipyard, and give the winning bidder the full contract for six submarines and the freedom to choose a foreign partner (because the navy's diffident submarine design needs hand-holding) can be the model for Parrikar deciding to produce the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) at home and give a fillip to India's aircraft industry. Such an industry has been prevented from emerging by the IAF preferring imported fighter planes and, another DPSU, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, like MDL, specialising in screwdriver technology, manufacturing them under licence.

Parrikar will, however, have to first terminate the negotiations for Rafale. It is a buyer's market and Paris can ill-afford anger and damage the prospects of French firms losing out on potential partnerships with Indian companies to produce weapons systems in toto in India. Such a decision will oxygenate the Tejas light combat aircraft programme, particularly if it is combined with the speedy approval of the upscaled Tejas Mk-II design—the Advanced MMRCA (AMMRCA) project, which has been finalised by the Aircraft Development Agency (ADA).

As in the case of the 75i submarine, it is the more efficient and capable private sector who should be lead contractor and prime integrator on the AMMRCA with ADA design and production technologies transferred to it, so that the 15-year timeline for induction is met. Indeed, the country is farther ahead in the realm of combat plane production than of diesel submarines, considering the technology is indigenous and ingested, the design is ready as are the tooling and manufacturing processes for the Tejas series. To ensure success, however, Parrikar will have to make the IAF responsible for the success of the project and bringing the AMMRCA in on time and within cost. This is a larger, truly 5th generation, warplane with the fully composite fuselage and leading edges, higher ordnance-carrying capacity, and more advanced avionics compared to the Rafale straddling the 3rd and 4th generations of fighter aircraft dating to the 1980s.

That India even shortlisted Rafale, a day-before-yesterday's plane for tomorrow's needs, and has made ready to spend in excess of $30 billion over the next 30 years when a home-grown alternative is available, shows how skewed the procurement system has become and which Parrikar will have to right on a war footing. He can show India's resolve to be self-sufficient in arms and invest such vast sums, in line with Modi's "Make in India" policy, with a design-to-delivery AMMRCA product and thus power the Indian aviation sector with private companies permitted to utilise the under-used wherewithal of the DPSUs. Or, Parrikar can funnel the `1,80,000 crore into helping Paris recover its investment in the prohibitively expensive Rafale programme that has found no other buyers and keeping the French company, Dassault, financially afloat. What makes more sense doing?

Parrikar should not be intimidated by IAF's media orchestrated squawking about depleted combat aircraft strength, especially when there's a ready solution the IAF is loath to pursue to meet short-term needs, namely, buying more Su-30s, MiG-29Ms, and sprucing up their spares situation. The AMMRCA at the top end and the Avro 748 medium transport replacement and the army's requirement for 197 light helicopters in its train will help consolidate a strong aerospace sector that India has waited too long for.

The author is professor at the Centre for Policy Research and blogs at Security Wise | Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

 

[ash2win]

Ofcourse that will be a great configuration,but for some strange reason to this day IAF never expressed any desire for the fully developed GE-414-EPE version for this bird. Why is one of the great mystery to me. because if IAF strongly expressed it's desire for the EPE version then the tejas mk-2 with the alterations suggested by you will become a world class fighter.Because the 120 kn EPE will support this loadout with ease still giving kick ass thrust to weight ratio , while simultaneously exploiting it's fantastic low wing loading.It will simultaneously allow tejas to have higher range and weaponload and sparing more power for it's much bigger swashplate asea radar in front and ew suit almost making it as the most sophisticated 4.5th gen fighter made in Asia.

The trade-off with upgrading the engine to produce 26,400lb-thrust is a considerable hike in maintenance costs. Running the F414 EDE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h, Caplan says. This is just one-third of the current 6,000h interval.

The upgrade itself mainly targets three of the six modules inside the engine – the fan, the high-pressure compressor and the high-pressure turbine.However, the dramatic thrust improvement is made possible by Boeing's original design of the air inlet.USN study revives GE's hopes for major F414 upgrade - 4/28/2014 - Flight Global

 

[abingdonboy]

Parrikar's Priority - The New Indian Express

Parrikar's Priority

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has three things going for him. First, he has prime minister Narendra Modi's confidence. Two, he is an IIT engineer and able to digest the technical aspects and imperatives of national security better than the generalist civil servants in the ministry of defence (MoD). And three, he may have an instinctive understanding of national security considering he was chief minister of a small coastal state with big naval presence (which, after mining and tourism, perhaps, pumps in the most money into Goa's economy).

There are many issues he will have to deal with on an urgent basis. But nothing is more important than for this country to produce the weapons it needs. Self-sufficiency in arms has to date been mostly political rhetoric and indigenisation is reduced to passing off licence manufacture of foreign weapons systems by defence public sector units (DPSUs) as a great leap in self-reliance. Instead of the government insisting that the military assist the Indian defence industry to obtain its requirements at home, it has left it to individual services to decide whether to participate in indigenous design, development, and production schemes. Navy showed its earnest long ago with a warship and submarine design directorate.

The air force and army are way behind, with the former displaying distrust in extremis of home-made aircraft even after the Marut HF-24 showed it could be done 50 years back, and the Tejas light combat aircraft is a beautiful fighter plane. According to Pushpindar Singh, agent for Dornier, the German aviation sector was so impressed it offered to jointly develop the latter aircraft. With the lack of foresight the Indian government is known for the MoD, of course, declined just as it had done the offer by Bonn in the Sixties to co-develop the Marut! The import option has proved a bonanza for foreign defence suppliers, providing foreign countries the handle to influence Indian foreign and military policies by manipulating, especially during crises, the supply of spares.

Parrikar's predecessor, Arun Jaitley, decided boldly on the indigenous manufacture of the Project 75i conventional submarine, rejecting MoD's attempt to take the private sector major, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), out of the running by suggesting it move its main production base to Hazira—a techno-economic decision it was incompetent to make, had no business to try imposing on L&T, and was plainly designed to favour the low-productivity DPSU Mazgaon Dockyard Ltd (MDL), which has huffed and puffed and run up huge cost and time over-runs in assembling the French Scorpene submarine. It is hardly to be wondered that the ideologically blinkered Congress defence minister, A K Antony, didn't see the logic of entrusting L&T producing the technically challenging Arihant-class nuclear-powered nuclear ballistic missile-firing submarine (SSBN) with the manufacture of the far simpler diesel submarine!

In any case, Jaitley's decision to have DPSUs compete with L&T and Pipavav Shipyard, and give the winning bidder the full contract for six submarines and the freedom to choose a foreign partner (because the navy's diffident submarine design needs hand-holding) can be the model for Parrikar deciding to produce the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) at home and give a fillip to India's aircraft industry. Such an industry has been prevented from emerging by the IAF preferring imported fighter planes and, another DPSU, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, like MDL, specialising in screwdriver technology, manufacturing them under licence.

Parrikar will, however, have to first terminate the negotiations for Rafale. It is a buyer's market and Paris can ill-afford anger and damage the prospects of French firms losing out on potential partnerships with Indian companies to produce weapons systems in toto in India. Such a decision will oxygenate the Tejas light combat aircraft programme, particularly if it is combined with the speedy approval of the upscaled Tejas Mk-II design—the Advanced MMRCA (AMMRCA) project, which has been finalised by the Aircraft Development Agency (ADA).

As in the case of the 75i submarine, it is the more efficient and capable private sector who should be lead contractor and prime integrator on the AMMRCA with ADA design and production technologies transferred to it, so that the 15-year timeline for induction is met. Indeed, the country is farther ahead in the realm of combat plane production than of diesel submarines, considering the technology is indigenous and ingested, the design is ready as are the tooling and manufacturing processes for the Tejas series. To ensure success, however, Parrikar will have to make the IAF responsible for the success of the project and bringing the AMMRCA in on time and within cost. This is a larger, truly 5th generation, warplane with the fully composite fuselage and leading edges, higher ordnance-carrying capacity, and more advanced avionics compared to the Rafale straddling the 3rd and 4th generations of fighter aircraft dating to the 1980s.

That India even shortlisted Rafale, a day-before-yesterday's plane for tomorrow's needs, and has made ready to spend in excess of $30 billion over the next 30 years when a home-grown alternative is available, shows how skewed the procurement system has become and which Parrikar will have to right on a war footing. He can show India's resolve to be self-sufficient in arms and invest such vast sums, in line with Modi's "Make in India" policy, with a design-to-delivery AMMRCA product and thus power the Indian aviation sector with private companies permitted to utilise the under-used wherewithal of the DPSUs. Or, Parrikar can funnel the `1,80,000 crore into helping Paris recover its investment in the prohibitively expensive Rafale programme that has found no other buyers and keeping the French company, Dassault, financially afloat. What makes more sense doing?

Parrikar should not be intimidated by IAF's media orchestrated squawking about depleted combat aircraft strength, especially when there's a ready solution the IAF is loath to pursue to meet short-term needs, namely, buying more Su-30s, MiG-29Ms, and sprucing up their spares situation. The AMMRCA at the top end and the Avro 748 medium transport replacement and the army's requirement for 197 light helicopters in its train will help consolidate a strong aerospace sector that India has waited too long for.

The author is professor at the Centre for Policy Research and blogs at Security Wise | Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

The Rafale deal won't be cancelled- dream on.

 

[Zebra]

The trade-off with upgrading the engine to produce 26,400lb-thrust is a considerable hike in maintenance costs. Running the F414 EDE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h, Caplan says. This is just one-third of the current 6,000h interval.

The upgrade itself mainly targets three of the six modules inside the engine – the fan, the high-pressure compressor and the high-pressure turbine.However, the dramatic thrust improvement is made possible by Boeing's original design of the air inlet.USN study revives GE's hopes for major F414 upgrade - 4/28/2014 - Flight Global

Sir, what is your point in this post.

Please, elaborate it.

Thanks, in advance.

 

[sgarg]

@abingdonboy, the MMRCA tender has run into major trouble. The GOI is finding itself in a very difficult position in this tender. It is not Rafale, it is the tender that can get killed. It may not happen immediately but GOI will have to take a call within 6-8 months.

There are too many forces working at counter-purposes in this tender.

 

[ash2win]

Sir, what is your point in this post.

Please, elaborate it.

Thanks, in advance.

I was just pointing out the possible reason for not selecting GE414EDE version.

 

[Zebra]

I was just pointing out the possible reason for not selecting GE414EDE version.

Sir, but he was talking about EPE engine.

Check this -->

Originally Posted by ersakthivel View Post

Ofcourse that will be a great configuration,but for some strange reason to this day IAF never expressed any desire for the fully developed GE-414-EPE version for this bird. Why is one of the great mystery to me. because if IAF strongly expressed it's desire for the EPE version then the tejas mk-2 with the alterations suggested by you will become a world class fighter.Because the 120 kn EPE will support this loadout with ease still giving kick ass thrust to weight ratio , while simultaneously exploiting it's fantastic low wing loading.It will simultaneously allow tejas to have higher range and weaponload and sparing more power for it's much bigger swashplate asea radar in front and ew suit almost making it as the most sophisticated 4.5th gen fighter made in Asia.

 

[ash2win]

Sir, but he was talking about EPE engine.

Check this -->

My bad, i guess EPE is just enhanced version of EDE.
So,tradeoffs can be same or greater. @p2prada

 

[abingdonboy]

@abingdonboy, the MMRCA tender has run into major trouble. The GOI is finding itself in a very difficult position in this tender. It is not Rafale, it is the tender that can get killed. It may not happen immediately but GOI will have to take a call within 6-8 months.

There are too many forces working at counter-purposes in this tender.

Pure unsubstantiated sensationalism.


The door is closed to everyone else, the ACM of the IAF has said as much.

 

[sgarg]

@abingdonboy, How long this contract has been in negotiation? It is a very good pointer to the state of affairs.

If ACM is so confident, then let ACM come out with a timetable?

 

[ersakthivel]

The Rafale deal won't be cancelled- dream on.

Tejas is more cost effective than rafale,




tejas has HMDS enabled high of bore WVR visually cued WVR missile R73 E as its main close combat weapon besides the python, astra , derby . Su-30 MKI too has the same R73 E as close combat missile.


IAF has asked Dassault to integrate the R73 E with visual cuing HMDS to rafale as well, which is not present on rafale right now,


Saurav jha has tweeted asking for comparison trials of upgraded mirage-2000 against tejas mk1.

All these Imported Airforce chair marshals were doing in round table vayu startpost is calling tejas mk1 les capable than mig-21 and it should be scrapped straight away to the amazement of naval admirals in the conference.

china is going to have more than 3000 jets close to 2000 of being 4 to 4.5 the gen flankers and j-10 s and other mig-29 clones.

The 126 rafales at 20 billion dollars which neither have a bigger radar than any one of the PLAF 2000 third gen planes nor has a stealth air frame is just a drop in the ocean, which is cleverly concealed by our chair marshals dumping on tejas in the conference.

Numbers are numbers. All chinese fighters will have a decent ASEA and 100 plus Km range BVR missiles in 2020. What is the advantage of 126 rafales against such a force.

Against china numbers are what counts , nothing else. recent AVM Arjun subramanium's article is another stupid example of this folly by IAF. He calls mirage-2000 along with Su-30 MKi willfor m the front line while tejas along with hawk will do some scavenging!!!,

tejas 1 and mk2 are by no means legacy platforms.The present CAS has said that tejas is a welcome addition to IAF's fighting capacity. I dont remember any airchief calling it a legacy platform. Even PV Naik said that once tejas finishes FOC it will be a true multi role 4.5th gen fighter in the gripen class .

Upgraded mirage-2000s will have a far lower range BVR missile than both tejas mk1 and mk2 along with 10 and 30 percent lower Thrust to weight ratio compared to tejas mk1 and mk2 respectively.

This HMDS enabled high off boresight visullay cued WVR missile facility can be exploited better with large area low wing loading Relaxed Static Stabilit Fly by wire platform of tejas.

Large wing area planes are called low wing loading planes.

Wing loading= wing area/ fighter weight.

The lower the wing loading higher is the Instantaneous turn rate and climb rate along with the ability to take off with higher loads from high Himalayan airfields.

Google the wing loading factor of

1. F-16 and F-22,

2. Viggen and gripen,

3.Tornado and typhoon,

4.Su-30 MKI and PAKFA.

The new gen planes all have far larger wing area(lower wing loading). SO every body is putting larger and larger air brake delta wings these days. Why?

Just read about F-16 Xl design philosophy to know why.

I have already explained it a hundred times here and you are lying for the hundred and first time.

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.

Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability. The same constraints apply to winged biological organisms.

Effect on performance

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed.

Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.

Effect on take-off and landing speeds

As a consequence, aircraft with the same CL at take-off under the same atmospheric conditions will have take off speeds proportional to . So if an aircraft's wing area is increased by 10% and nothing else changed, the take-off speed will fall by about 5%. Likewise, if an aircraft designed to take off at 150 mph grows in weight during development by 40%, its take-off speed increases to mph.

Effect on climb rate and cruise performance

Wing loading has an effect on an aircraft's climb rate. A lighter loaded wing will have a superior rate of climb compared to a heavier loaded wing as less airspeed is required to generate the additional lift to increase altitude.

A lightly loaded wing has a more efficient cruising performance because less thrust is required to maintain lift for level flight. However, a heavily loaded wing is more suited for higher speed flight because smaller wings offer less drag.

The wing loading is important in determining how rapidly the climb is established. If the pilot increases the speed to vc the aircraft will begin to rise with vertical acceleration ac because the lift force is now greater than the weight.

Effect on turning performance

To turn, an aircraft must roll in the direction of the turn, increasing the aircraft's bank angle. Turning flight lowers the wing's lift component against gravity and hence causes a descent. To compensate, the lift force must be increased by increasing the angle of attack by use of up elevator deflection which increases drag.

Turning can be described as 'climbing around a circle' (wing lift is diverted to turning the aircraft) so the increase in wing angle of attack creates even more drag. The tighter the turn radius attempted, the more drag induced, this requires that power (thrust) be added to overcome the drag. The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power: the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance.

As the bank angle increases so does the g-force applied to the aircraft, this has the effect of increasing the wing loading and also the stalling speed. This effect is also experienced during level pitching maneuvers.

Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited.

A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims[who?] that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth of that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes.

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at . That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, , where is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law,

Tidying up gives

The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.

Gliders designed to exploit thermals need a small turning circle in order to stay within the rising air column, and the same is true for soaring birds.

Other birds, for example those that catch insects on the wing also need high maneuverability. All need low wing loadings.

Effect on stability

Wing loading also affects gust response, the degree to which the aircraft is affected by turbulence and variations in air density. A small wing has less area on which a gust can act, both of which serve to smooth the ride. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable: aircraft with a low wing loading are often subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime.

Effect of development

A further complication with wing loading is that it is difficult to substantially alter the wing area of an existing aircraft design (although modest improvements are possible). As aircraft are developed they are prone to "weight growth" -- the addition of equipment and features that substantially increase the operating mass of the aircraft. An aircraft whose wing loading is moderate in its original design may end up with very high wing loading as new equipment is added. Although engines can be replaced or upgraded for additional thrust, the effects on turning and take-off performance resulting from higher wing loading are not so easily reconciled.

to sum it up

1.The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.

2. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable[/U]: aircraft with a low wing loading are often subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime.It is to compensate for this problem, the LCA has cranked delta which improves handling at low altitude.LEVCONS are planned to aid more in this regard..

3The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power, the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance

4. Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft

5. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed.

6.Wing loading has an effect on an aircraft's climb rate. A lighter loaded wing will have a superior rate of climb compared to a heavier loaded wing as less airspeed is required to generate the additional lift to increase altitude.

7. A lightly loaded wing has a more efficient cruising performance because less thrust is required to maintain lift for level flight. However, a heavily loaded wing is more suited for higher speed flight because smaller wings offer less drag.

That is why from mirage onwards to LCA,TYPHOON,RAFALE,GRIPPEN,F-22,F-35,PAKFA ARE ALL GOING FOR LOW WING LOADING DELAT DESIGN.THE LCA TEJAS HAS THE LOWEST WING LOADING OF ALL.IT IS NOT SOME INSIGNIFICAT STUFF.

LCA integerates the functionality of canards in the shape of the lesser swept angle crank in the wing itself.

The crank with twist at wingroot performs the same role of canards,i.e delaying theonset of flow seperation vortices to delay the wing stalling .

The pitch control can be done by the elevons in much better way,if they are big enough.

With no additional drag ,and avoiding a lot of minus points of the canards,

1.force coupling resulting in uncontrollable spin,

2.extra hydraulics weight ,

3.DRAG in supersonic flight,

4.complexities of managing two center of lifts in fbw(grippen prototype crashed especially on this issue and force coupling)

5.The lesser effeciveness of wing in certain modes of flight due to canard wash effect.

6.The placement of canards also present challenges to the whitcomb area rule,

infact a canarded model was put into wind tunnel testing for LCA and found to have no significant improvement in performance

It is not a herculean job to add a tail plane to the 1 or more meter proposed fuselage length increase for mk-2.the point is they are superfluous.

The levcons and cranked delta wing shape with lesser sweep and twist in the wing root in combination will perform the same job as that of canards, without subjecting wing to adverse canard wash in some critical flight envelopes there by limiting the fighters maneuverability in critical points.

the mirage has a long fuselage and much higher weighty plane than lca,the makers deemed there is no need for tailplanes or big canards.

Strakes near the nose and small cat mush like minute canards do the job and still it is contemproary.

And IAf preferrred 126 extra mirages even with the lower TWR ,over the option of mig-29s despite the mig-29 having all the bells and whistles in the form of tailplanes.

Lca has a much better TWR and much lower wing loading than mirage.

The sustained turn rate is the combination of

1.Thrust to wight ratio

2.low wing loading

2.Angle of attack.

It is not the function of tailplanes or canards..

The following explains the F-16 XL large delta wing low wing loading RSS fly by wire airframe,
=================================================================================================================
For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.

With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.

All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.

The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage.

The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section. It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.

Although the wing area is more than double that of the standard F-16 (633square feet vs. 300 square feet), the drag is actually reduced. The skin friction drag that is a function of the increased wetted (skin surface) area is increased,

but the other components of drag (wave, interference, and trim) that are a function of the configuration shape and arrangement are lower so that the "clean airplane" drag is slightly lower during level flight, and forty percent lower when bombs and missiles are added.

And although the thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is lower due to the increased weight, the excess thrust is greater because the drag is lower – and excess thrust is what counts.

The larger yet more efficient wing provides a larger area for external stores carriage. At the same time, the wing's internal volume and the lengthened fuselage enable the XL to carry more than eighty percent more fuel internally. That permits an advantageous tradeoff between weapons carried and external fuel tanks.

The aircraft was loaded with twelve Mk 82 50-pound general-purpose bombs, four dummy AMRAAM missiles, and two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Internal fuel was 10,200 pounds (full fuel for the prototype is 10,600 pounds). Allowing for fuel consumption for engine start and taxi, gross takeoff weight was 43,500 pounds. Jim estimated the takeoff roll at a bit more than 3,000 feet.

Of particular interest were the control surfaces on the aft edge of the cranked-arrow wing. The F-16XL does not have a horizontal tail. Thus, the control surfaces for both pitch and roll are on the rear edge of the wing. The inboard surfaces are mainly for pitch control, while the out board surfaces take care of roll control. However, thanks to the automatic flight control system, when performance requires it, all four surfaces can act in either pitch or roll.

Supersonic in Seconds

Takeoff from Edwards AFB's Runway 22 with maximum power at gross weight of 43,500 pounds was achieved in les than 3,000 feet. Jim eased back the power to climb away from the Edwards traffic pattern and take up a northerly heading for the test airspace assigned to us.

Even with the heavy bomb load aboard, the aircraft went supersonic without a tremble. Handling characteristics at mach 1.2 with the heavy ordnance load were remarkably similar to those of the standard F-16 without bombs.

Next, we maneuvered at slow flight speeds and high angles of attack, demonstrating the F-16XL's agile handling in that corner of the performance envelope. We accelerated back to more than 400 knots and I tried more 360° rolls. Once I was accustomed to the correct control stick pressures, the roll rate was fast and the controls crisp. The same feelings were apparent at 500 knots – quick, sure response, with no feeling of carrying the heavy bomb load.

Next, Jim demonstrated the F110 engine's ability to accelerate from idle to max afterburner by slamming the throttle forward. Engine response was smooth with no coughing or stalling, thanks to General Electric's advanced electronic engine controls.

Then we descended to low level for penetration at high speed. Jim set up the aircraft at 600 knots indicated airspeed at 100 feet above ground level. The ride quality on a very hot day was smooth. The G-indicator on the head-up display (HUD) showed excursions of less than 0.2 above the below 1.0, but they were undetectable in the body. On similar flights with an F-4 as the chase aircraft, its G excursions were as high as 2.0, making for an uncomfortable ride and heavy concentration on flight controls.

In the loaded configuration, the F-16XL can penetrate at low level at airspeeds fifty-to-ninety knots faster than the basic F-6 when similarly configured. In fact, at every corner of the performance envelope, the aircraft has power in reserve, according to members of the Combined Test Force at Edwards.

Attack maneuvers resulted in G forces ranging to +7.0. With the heavy bomb load aboard, the F-16XL is cleared for maneuvers up to +7.2 Gs, compared with 5.58 Gs in the F-16A. This demonstrates how the designers were able to increase the aircraft weight while maintaining structural integrity and mission performance.=
==========================================================================================================

Key figure in BVR combat is clean config RCS. tejas mk1 has the lowest sub 0.3 sq meter RCS figure which makes it as good as stealth for the entire PLAf and PAF planes from any distance greater than 50 Km in clean config.All other IAF planes can be tracked from 100 Km plus range , because they have a clean config RCS of plus 1 sq meter.
You may say that this clean config RCS is useless, because in actual combat tejas mk1 carries BVr missiles and external fuel tanks easily exceeding 2 sq meter RCS from the front. That is correct. But at the begining of BVR combat tejas mk1 will have higher RCS and trackable from 100 plus Km range.

So enemy fighters can launch their 100 Km range BVr on tejas mk1 .
Tejas mk1 too has an advanced EW suit with radar warning receivers and a radar capable of tracking figher sized targets at 100 plus Km range once quartz radome is fitted.Once tejas mk1 drops its external tanks and launch its BVR missiles its RCS becomes sub 0.3 sq meter. So enemy fighters can't give mid range course correction to their BVR missiles.But tejas still can track the enemy fighter and give mid course correction to its BVR missiles. That is the crucial factor which separates 4.5th gen composite airframe fighter from 4th all metal fighters.

 

[ersakthivel]

Pure unsubstantiated sensationalism.


The door is closed to everyone else, the ACM of the IAF has said as much.

Recent refusal of france to halt Mistral delivery to russia under EU pressure adds another dimension to the negotiations.
Namely lack of trust to honor the commitment.Not so insignificant when it comes to 20 billion dollar purchase.
If no settlement is reached on lower price and TOT obligations along with timely delivery guarantee between dassault and MOD, won't L2 enter into picture or the MMRC contract is going to be cancelled just because of the non settlement of the above mentioned issues?

CAn ACM alone resolve all the above issues to the satisfaction of indian tax payer?

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Tejas is more cost effective than rafale,




tejas has HMDS enabled high of bore WVR visually cued WVR missile R73 E as its main close combat weapon besides the python, astra , derby . Su-30 MKI too has the same R73 E as close combat missile.


IAF has asked Dassault to integrate the R73 E with visual cuing HMDS to rafale as well, which is not present on rafale right now,


Saurav jha has tweeted asking for comparison trials of upgraded mirage-2000 against tejas mk1.

All these Imported Airforce chair marshals were doing in round table vayu startpost is calling tejas mk1 les capable than mig-21 and it should be scrapped straight away to the amazement of naval admirals in the conference.

china is going to have more than 3000 jets close to 2000 of being 4 to 4.5 the gen flankers and j-10 s and other mig-29 clones.

The 126 rafales at 20 billion dollars which neither have a bigger radar than any one of the PLAF 2000 third gen planes nor has a stealth air frame is just a drop in the ocean, which is cleverly concealed by our chair marshals dumping on tejas in the conference.

Numbers are numbers. All chinese fighters will have a decent ASEA and 100 plus Km range BVR missiles in 2020. What is the advantage of 126 rafales against such a force.

Against china numbers are what counts , nothing else. recent AVM Arjun subramanium's article is another stupid example of this folly by IAF. He calls mirage-2000 along with Su-30 MKi willfor m the front line while tejas along with hawk will do some scavenging!!!,

tejas 1 and mk2 are by no means legacy platforms.The present CAS has said that tejas is a welcome addition to IAF's fighting capacity. I dont remember any airchief calling it a legacy platform. Even PV Naik said that once tejas finishes FOC it will be a true multi role 4.5th gen fighter in the gripen class .

Upgraded mirage-2000s will have a far lower range BVR missile than both tejas mk1 and mk2 along with 10 and 30 percent lower Thrust to weight ratio compared to tejas mk1 and mk2 respectively.

This HMDS enabled high off boresight visullay cued WVR missile facility can be exploited better with large area low wing loading Relaxed Static Stabilit Fly by wire platform of tejas.

Large wing area planes are called low wing loading planes.

Wing loading= wing area/ fighter weight.

The lower the wing loading higher is the Instantaneous turn rate and climb rate along with the ability to take off with higher loads from high Himalayan airfields.

Google the wing loading factor of

1. F-16 and F-22,

2. Viggen and gripen,

3.Tornado and typhoon,

4.Su-30 MKI and PAKFA.

The new gen planes all have far larger wing area(lower wing loading). SO every body is putting larger and larger air brake delta wings these days. Why?

Just read about F-16 Xl design philosophy to know why.

I have already explained it a hundred times here and you are lying for the hundred and first time.

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.

Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability. The same constraints apply to winged biological organisms.

Effect on performance

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed.

Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.

Effect on take-off and landing speeds

As a consequence, aircraft with the same CL at take-off under the same atmospheric conditions will have take off speeds proportional to . So if an aircraft's wing area is increased by 10% and nothing else changed, the take-off speed will fall by about 5%. Likewise, if an aircraft designed to take off at 150 mph grows in weight during development by 40%, its take-off speed increases to mph.

Effect on climb rate and cruise performance

Wing loading has an effect on an aircraft's climb rate. A lighter loaded wing will have a superior rate of climb compared to a heavier loaded wing as less airspeed is required to generate the additional lift to increase altitude.

A lightly loaded wing has a more efficient cruising performance because less thrust is required to maintain lift for level flight. However, a heavily loaded wing is more suited for higher speed flight because smaller wings offer less drag.

The wing loading is important in determining how rapidly the climb is established. If the pilot increases the speed to vc the aircraft will begin to rise with vertical acceleration ac because the lift force is now greater than the weight.

Effect on turning performance

To turn, an aircraft must roll in the direction of the turn, increasing the aircraft's bank angle. Turning flight lowers the wing's lift component against gravity and hence causes a descent. To compensate, the lift force must be increased by increasing the angle of attack by use of up elevator deflection which increases drag.

Turning can be described as 'climbing around a circle' (wing lift is diverted to turning the aircraft) so the increase in wing angle of attack creates even more drag. The tighter the turn radius attempted, the more drag induced, this requires that power (thrust) be added to overcome the drag. The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power: the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance.

As the bank angle increases so does the g-force applied to the aircraft, this has the effect of increasing the wing loading and also the stalling speed. This effect is also experienced during level pitching maneuvers.

Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited.

A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims[who?] that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth of that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes.

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at . That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, , where is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law,

Tidying up gives

The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.

Gliders designed to exploit thermals need a small turning circle in order to stay within the rising air column, and the same is true for soaring birds.

Other birds, for example those that catch insects on the wing also need high maneuverability. All need low wing loadings.

Effect on stability

Wing loading also affects gust response, the degree to which the aircraft is affected by turbulence and variations in air density. A small wing has less area on which a gust can act, both of which serve to smooth the ride. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable: aircraft with a low wing loading are often subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime.

Effect of development

A further complication with wing loading is that it is difficult to substantially alter the wing area of an existing aircraft design (although modest improvements are possible). As aircraft are developed they are prone to "weight growth" -- the addition of equipment and features that substantially increase the operating mass of the aircraft. An aircraft whose wing loading is moderate in its original design may end up with very high wing loading as new equipment is added. Although engines can be replaced or upgraded for additional thrust, the effects on turning and take-off performance resulting from higher wing loading are not so easily reconciled.

to sum it up

1.The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.

2. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable[/U]: aircraft with a low wing loading are often subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime.It is to compensate for this problem, the LCA has cranked delta which improves handling at low altitude.LEVCONS are planned to aid more in this regard..

3The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power, the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance

4. Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft

5. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed.

6.Wing loading has an effect on an aircraft's climb rate. A lighter loaded wing will have a superior rate of climb compared to a heavier loaded wing as less airspeed is required to generate the additional lift to increase altitude.

7. A lightly loaded wing has a more efficient cruising performance because less thrust is required to maintain lift for level flight. However, a heavily loaded wing is more suited for higher speed flight because smaller wings offer less drag.

That is why from mirage onwards to LCA,TYPHOON,RAFALE,GRIPPEN,F-22,F-35,PAKFA ARE ALL GOING FOR LOW WING LOADING DELAT DESIGN.THE LCA TEJAS HAS THE LOWEST WING LOADING OF ALL.IT IS NOT SOME INSIGNIFICAT STUFF.

LCA integerates the functionality of canards in the shape of the lesser swept angle crank in the wing itself.

The crank with twist at wingroot performs the same role of canards,i.e delaying theonset of flow seperation vortices to delay the wing stalling .

The pitch control can be done by the elevons in much better way,if they are big enough.

With no additional drag ,and avoiding a lot of minus points of the canards,

1.force coupling resulting in uncontrollable spin,

2.extra hydraulics weight ,

3.DRAG in supersonic flight,

4.complexities of managing two center of lifts in fbw(grippen prototype crashed especially on this issue and force coupling)

5.The lesser effeciveness of wing in certain modes of flight due to canard wash effect.

6.The placement of canards also present challenges to the whitcomb area rule,

infact a canarded model was put into wind tunnel testing for LCA and found to have no significant improvement in performance

It is not a herculean job to add a tail plane to the 1 or more meter proposed fuselage length increase for mk-2.the point is they are superfluous.

The levcons and cranked delta wing shape with lesser sweep and twist in the wing root in combination will perform the same job as that of canards, without subjecting wing to adverse canard wash in some critical flight envelopes there by limiting the fighters maneuverability in critical points.

the mirage has a long fuselage and much higher weighty plane than lca,the makers deemed there is no need for tailplanes or big canards.

Strakes near the nose and small cat mush like minute canards do the job and still it is contemproary.

And IAf preferrred 126 extra mirages even with the lower TWR ,over the option of mig-29s despite the mig-29 having all the bells and whistles in the form of tailplanes.

Lca has a much better TWR and much lower wing loading than mirage.

The sustained turn rate is the combination of

1.Thrust to wight ratio

2.low wing loading

2.Angle of attack.

It is not the function of tailplanes or canards..

The following explains the F-16 XL large delta wing low wing loading RSS fly by wire airframe,
=================================================================================================================
For a decade and a half, many fighter tacticians have stressed the paramount importance of being able to sustain a high turn rate at high Gs. The rationale was that with such a capability, enemy aircraft that cannot equal or better the sustained turn rate at high Gs could not get off a killing shot with guns or missiles.

With developments in missiles that can engage at all aspects, and as a result of having evaluated Israeli successes in combat, the tacticians are now leaning toward the driving need for quick, high-G turns to get a "first-shot, quick-kill" capability before the adversary is able to launch his missiles. This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That's half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.

All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.

The inspired design mates a "cranked-arrow" wing to a fifty-six inch longer fuselage.

The cranked-arrow design retains the advantages of delta wings for high-speed flight, but overcomes all of the disadvantages by having its aft portion less highly swept than the forward section. It thus retains excellent low-speed characteristics and minimizes the trim drag penalties of a tailless delta.

Although the wing area is more than double that of the standard F-16 (633square feet vs. 300 square feet), the drag is actually reduced. The skin friction drag that is a function of the increased wetted (skin surface) area is increased,

but the other components of drag (wave, interference, and trim) that are a function of the configuration shape and arrangement are lower so that the "clean airplane" drag is slightly lower during level flight, and forty percent lower when bombs and missiles are added.

And although the thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is lower due to the increased weight, the excess thrust is greater because the drag is lower – and excess thrust is what counts.

The larger yet more efficient wing provides a larger area for external stores carriage. At the same time, the wing's internal volume and the lengthened fuselage enable the XL to carry more than eighty percent more fuel internally. That permits an advantageous tradeoff between weapons carried and external fuel tanks.

The aircraft was loaded with twelve Mk 82 50-pound general-purpose bombs, four dummy AMRAAM missiles, and two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Internal fuel was 10,200 pounds (full fuel for the prototype is 10,600 pounds). Allowing for fuel consumption for engine start and taxi, gross takeoff weight was 43,500 pounds. Jim estimated the takeoff roll at a bit more than 3,000 feet.

Of particular interest were the control surfaces on the aft edge of the cranked-arrow wing. The F-16XL does not have a horizontal tail. Thus, the control surfaces for both pitch and roll are on the rear edge of the wing. The inboard surfaces are mainly for pitch control, while the out board surfaces take care of roll control. However, thanks to the automatic flight control system, when performance requires it, all four surfaces can act in either pitch or roll.

Supersonic in Seconds

Takeoff from Edwards AFB's Runway 22 with maximum power at gross weight of 43,500 pounds was achieved in les than 3,000 feet. Jim eased back the power to climb away from the Edwards traffic pattern and take up a northerly heading for the test airspace assigned to us.

Even with the heavy bomb load aboard, the aircraft went supersonic without a tremble. Handling characteristics at mach 1.2 with the heavy ordnance load were remarkably similar to those of the standard F-16 without bombs.

Next, we maneuvered at slow flight speeds and high angles of attack, demonstrating the F-16XL's agile handling in that corner of the performance envelope. We accelerated back to more than 400 knots and I tried more 360° rolls. Once I was accustomed to the correct control stick pressures, the roll rate was fast and the controls crisp. The same feelings were apparent at 500 knots – quick, sure response, with no feeling of carrying the heavy bomb load.

Next, Jim demonstrated the F110 engine's ability to accelerate from idle to max afterburner by slamming the throttle forward. Engine response was smooth with no coughing or stalling, thanks to General Electric's advanced electronic engine controls.

Then we descended to low level for penetration at high speed. Jim set up the aircraft at 600 knots indicated airspeed at 100 feet above ground level. The ride quality on a very hot day was smooth. The G-indicator on the head-up display (HUD) showed excursions of less than 0.2 above the below 1.0, but they were undetectable in the body. On similar flights with an F-4 as the chase aircraft, its G excursions were as high as 2.0, making for an uncomfortable ride and heavy concentration on flight controls.

In the loaded configuration, the F-16XL can penetrate at low level at airspeeds fifty-to-ninety knots faster than the basic F-6 when similarly configured. In fact, at every corner of the performance envelope, the aircraft has power in reserve, according to members of the Combined Test Force at Edwards.

Attack maneuvers resulted in G forces ranging to +7.0. With the heavy bomb load aboard, the F-16XL is cleared for maneuvers up to +7.2 Gs, compared with 5.58 Gs in the F-16A. This demonstrates how the designers were able to increase the aircraft weight while maintaining structural integrity and mission performance.=
==========================================================================================================

Key figure in BVR combat is clean config RCS. tejas mk1 has the lowest sub 0.3 sq meter RCS figure which makes it as good as stealth for the entire PLAf and PAF planes from any distance greater than 50 Km in clean config.All other IAF planes can be tracked from 100 Km plus range , because they have a clean config RCS of plus 1 sq meter.
You may say that this clean config RCS is useless, because in actual combat tejas mk1 carries BVr missiles and external fuel tanks easily exceeding 2 sq meter RCS from the front. That is correct. But at the begining of BVR combat tejas mk1 will have higher RCS and trackable from 100 plus Km range.

So enemy fighters can launch their 100 Km range BVr on tejas mk1 .
Tejas mk1 too has an advanced EW suit with radar warning receivers and a radar capable of tracking figher sized targets at 100 plus Km range once quartz radome is fitted.Once tejas mk1 drops its external tanks and launch its BVR missiles its RCS becomes sub 0.3 sq meter. So enemy fighters can't give mid range course correction to their BVR missiles.But tejas still can track the enemy fighter and give mid course correction to its BVR missiles. That is the crucial factor which separates 4.5th gen composite airframe fighter from 4th all metal fighters.

If u r confident with these data then u must write to defence ministry and IAF top brass .

 

[sgarg]

If u r confident with these data then u must write to defence ministry and IAF top brass .

Dont know about IAF, but MOD will sure take a call. My gut feeling is MOD has already received counter-view on Rafale.

 

[arnabmit]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

What the hell!!!

[tweet]536821381799755776[/tweet]

 

[sasi]

What the hell!!!

[tweet]536821381799755776[/tweet]

mysterious! same with ijt trainer pilot! i hope IB upto the mark!