@ kushalappa @Armand2REP @Decklander @Kunal Biswas @pmaitra,
@sayareakd @Ray Sir
Sir, I can guarantee that the LCA's specs were unilaterally upped by ADA. This was repeated by P Rajkumar also. He pointed out that the specs for LCA were very basic in the 1985 RFP equivalent to the early models of JF-17.
The RFP did not even have digital FBW, meaning IAF never asked for it.
@Austin - Do you have the quote for it? I don't.
Anyway, I was talking about LCA program, not the trainer program.
Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.
Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.
Anyway, you also need to consider the backdrop of events that transpired before the decision to import was taken. IAF is not adverse to accepting indigenous trainers. IAF was no fool when the decision to accept Deepak was taken. IAF was no fool when they gave the IJT contract to HAL either. We currently have no way of knowing what flaws are there on HAL's basic trainer designs or even inadequacies. The fact is IAF did create a PSQR and gave it to HAL. We don't know what was HAL's answer at the time of handing over the PSQR.
From the article,
IAF diluted al least 12 benchmarks for trainer aircraft | Business Standard
Whatever PSQR was handed over to HAL, the article itself claims it was unrealistic. If we consider the 12 relaxed benchmarks, then I can list three other trainers that match the requirements stated above, that's the Chinese JL-8, Turkish, (something) and Brazilian Super Tucano. These unrealistic requirements were achievable by these countries up to a certain extent. Why is it that these countries are able to achieve unrealistic benchmarks? Please note that there is not a single trainer in the world which has an 8 degree FoV for the rear seat. I think the highest is the Chinese JL-8 with 6 degree FoV.
Whatever happened between March 2009 and October 2009, only IAF and HAL know it.
The aircraft shortlisted in 2009 were the PC-7 Mk2, Korean KT-1 and American T-6C. The best among these is obviously the PC-7 Mk2. Wish the Chinese or the Turkish had participated, but alas we are stuck with PC-7. As for what happened between March and October, 2009, maybe IAF or HAL will reveal some info related to IAF's decision for importing.
Sir, I can guarantee that the LCA's specs were unilaterally upped by ADA. This was repeated by P Rajkumar also. He pointed out that the specs for LCA were very basic in the 1985 RFP equivalent to the early models of JF-17.
Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.
Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.
http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page02.html
Space constraints prevent any meaningful description of materials, technology, facilities, processes developed for execution of the project. Military aviation enthusiasts may read a monograph on Aeronautical Technology that has attained maturity through DRDO efforts; much of this technology finds application in the LCA project. The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced. The aircraft will be powered by a Kaveri engine (more information follows) and is to operate from the Indian Navy's Air Defence Ship, under construction. Launch speed over a 12 deg ramp is 100 kts; recovery speed during a no flare deck landing, using arrester gear, is 120 kts. Take off mass 13 tonne, recovery mass 10 tonne. Most stringent requirements are that the airframe will be modified: nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach; wing leading edge vortexes (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach and strengthened undercarriage. Nose wheel steering will be powered for deck maneuverability.
The above passage lists out the ambitious PSQR for tejas mk-1 by none other than the MSD WOOLLEN retired chief of HAL and an Airmarshal of IAF. Now compare the Instantaneous turn rate requirement and the Sustained turn rate requirement of LCA mk-1 in the initial PSQR above to the specs of F-16 C/ D below.
Note now with one ton extra empty weight with almost the same old engine thrust of 84 Kn LCA mk-1 has crossed Mach 1.6 opposed to Mach 1.5 in the initial ASR and the aim if Mach 1.6 for the FOC and MAch 2 for Tejas mk-2.
The following is the comparison of the F-16 C/D . You can see the initial ASR given to LCA closely matches this . SO do you call the F-16 C/D equivalent of an early model of JF-17?
You are posting dubious statements with no relation to truth forever in LCA thread. and repeating it religiously in every other thread in this forum.You are 100 percent wrong. It means like the stupid IAF chief who said that LCA was a simple MIg-21 ++ , who did not what is the specs of Mig-21 and what is the specs of LCA mk-1,
You don't know what is the specs of F-16 C/ D and JF-17 or LCA mk-1 either.
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 105.7kN P&W F100-PW-220
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.09 m
Wing Area: 27.90 m2
Empty Weight: 7387 kg
Max.Weight: 17010 kg
Max. Speed: Mach 2.05
Ceiling: 16750 m
Max. Range: 3900 km
Armament: 1*g 20 mm 9276 kg payload
Unit cost: 20 million USD
Type: F-16C/D Fighting Falcon
Country: USA
Export: Bahrain/Greece/Israel/Egypt/NZ/UAE/Singapore/South Korea/Oman/Chile
Function: Multirole Fighter
In Service date: 1979
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 x 131,6 kN (29590 lbs) General Electric F110
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Wing area: 27.88 m2
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.09
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.03 m
Empty Weight: 8581 kg
Internal Fuel Weight: 3105 kg
Max.Weight: 19187 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Ferry Range: 4215 km
Combat Radius: 900 km
Internal Armament: 1*g 20 mm
G-limits: 9/-3.5
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.26:1
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.1:1
---------------------------------------------------------------
17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.
1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.
So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.
Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .
In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.
Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.
LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.
But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.
Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.
So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse
Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.
Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.
So the above rules always apply to imported products only perhaps.
If a few local developed Arjun or LCA falls short of very ambitious and often contradictory PSQR set up by the forces they must be finished off as simple Tech demo projects, and we should float a 12 times watered down ASR for the international market to import stuff well below the local tech level like in the case of Pliatus or T-90.
Ofcourse it would be a sin to induct them at 90 percent of PSQR capacity and ask the developed to improve it in tranches.
I know how vehemently you argued through out the LCA tejas _IV and III threads that IAF should never compromise on it's standards and should not buy even the 40 tejas Mk1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!