For a few guys continuously bluffing F-16 beats the yet to fly tejas mk-2, some home truths about the contorted development of F-16 and spate of accidents in its early days all attributable to ambitious spec creep with out even knowing for what F-16 was designed.
the following article posted by
@nitesh
gives an enlightening read , when rational debate was the norm ,
The guys who are bluffing that tejas mk-1 does not have this or that and tejas mk-2 will not haul 9 tons to 4500 Km
Enabling Technologies: Mig-21 & F-16 | Frontier India
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological trajectory of the F-16 called the Fighting Falcon reveals the problems that surfaced during its transition from the production floor to its induction into the air squadrons. Two manufacturers, Northrop and General Dynamics produced the prototypes that embodied the virtues of the combat-aircraft criteria of the 50s. The GD design got the approval"¦it weighed about 20,000 pounds and carried only a simple aerial cannon, Sidewinder missiles, and their fire-control systems.
Immediately after the series production clearance was accorded by the US Congress, the aircraft came under the purview of US Air Force's development and procurement bureaucracies. The full scale engineering production blueprint of USAF introduced various military specifications which added roughly two tons of new electronic equipment and other modifications. During prototype development some 25 air force personnel were involved"¦once production was cleared it had grown to over 200 and the contractor's team went from 150 to about 1,500. Gradually the aircraft mission got redefined"¦.instead of being a 100 per cent pure fighter, as originally envisaged, it got converted into a multi-mission aircraft to be used for attacking ground targets and for dropping nuclear bombs.
The structural and electronic packages justified by new missions raised the cost and degraded its performance as a fighter. Originally it was designed to withstand forces of 7.33g"¦..but the Configuration Control Committee increased it to 9g, which led to structural reinforcements and additional weight along with a gamut of avionics viz. Radar, ECM, etc all adding weight to the aircraft and cost to the Exchequer.
Installing a complex radar demanded more power and more cooling, which made the fuselage grow. End result"¦wings and tail had to be enlarged — the tail was not enlarged enough which reduced the aircraft stability in flight. It weighed 24,000 pounds instead of 20,000 pounds with a proportional reduction in acceleration, and was loaded heavily with hard-to-maintain electronic gadgets.
The first operational model was delivered to the Air Force in January 1979. It was the first fighter that cost 75 per cent more than the basic version when modified to deliver nuclear weapons. Baseline Lifetime expectancy was set at 8,000 hrs based on:
— 55.5 per cent air-to-air missions
— 20 per cent air-to-ground missions
— 24.5 per cent general flying.
In 1990, twelve years after induction, a news item appeared that reported more than 100 crashes of F-16: USAF—80; NATO—17; PAK—13. The aircraft was labeled the WIDOW MAKER. It was reported that hasty induction of the aircraft had led to use of certain wirings which did not conform to MIL-STD requirements (fly-by-wire going haywire?).
Later another report placed restrictions on F-16 from indulging in high 'g' maneuvers and low level missions. These restrictions prevailed during the Gulf War"¦.even after two decades of combat flying. It came to be referred to as a 'clear weather' aircraft which did not meet the assigned tasks during the Gulf War"¦its performance was officially criticized by the US General Accounting Office.
In May 1991, US Senate Armed Services Committee found the stealth fighter F-117 to be eight times more effective than F-16. Plans were on to terminate production of F-16 but the commercial implications of the multi-nation development venture involving the USA, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Israel and a host of customers gave the aircraft a fresh lease of combat life.
Jane's Defense Weekly (August 10, 1991) quoted Pentagon, stating that the aircraft had been assigned to 60 per cent air-to-ground missions (as against 20 per cent). It was presumed that sorties with vintage iron bombs fitted with Laser Guidance adapters offered undesirable drag loads. Carriage of non-conformal bombs on external pylons take a heavy toll of the airframes integrity and engine performance.
Around this period, INTERVIA, came up with the news that 3,240 (pre-block 50) F-16s, required structural modifications and repairs after cracks were detected due to metal fatigue. According to the manufacturer's spokesman, the operational aircraft was being 'flown more aggressively, more often, than originally specified'. The details of the proposed structural modifications were also listed in INTERVIA.
The presence of non-conformal (mostly vintage) bombs, loaded externally appeared to have, in the words of an aerospace expert ""¦"¦convert the fast, sleek, maneuverable aerodynamic aircraft into slow, sluggish, bomb trucks""¦.with attendant problems to airframes and engines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do people want to dump such preposterous stupid development pain on tejas?
tejas mk1 and mk-2 are designed to do what the specs demand not what F-16 block does like carrying 9 tons or flying 4500 Km .
Important figures to watch out for ,
1. TWR,
2. Low wing loading,
3. Hight ITR cranked delta,
4. HMDS enabled R-73 high off bore sight missile for dog fighting,
5. With higher powered engine STR and ITR are set to go up even further.
6, high fuel fraction .
7. ASEA radar,
8. Higher level of sensor fusion,
nothing else.
Incidentally this article was posted by Nitesh Ji on 14-11-2010. But a few guys who are claiming to be here for 7 years and experts on all things under the Sun does not seem to know that the kind of extra large --- weapon load, range load, fuel load will actually worsen the tejas mk-2 and not improve it.
If all of the F-16 specs are added to tejas mk-2 according to some screw driver TOT believers here,Tejas too will meet the same fate referred to in the article---"
Later another report placed restrictions on F-16 from indulging in high 'g' maneuvers and low level missions. These restrictions prevailed during the Gulf War"¦.even after two decades of combat flying. It came to be referred to as a 'clear weather' aircraft which did not meet the assigned tasks during the Gulf War"¦its performance was officially criticized by the US General Accounting Office.
"
So instead of juvenile monkey jumping on tejas mk-2 team with stupid claims like,
"Your aircraft is inferior to F-16 block 60 as it does not lift 9 tons and flies 4500 Km , your fighter carries a weapon load that is half of F-16's pay load, your fighter does not have canards, your fighter does not have LREX, your fighter does not have proper air intake,Why the heck are you building such an inferior fighter?",
without knowing an iota of truth about the process of Research & Development , and the purpose for which IAF wants tejas ,
a few arm chair experts here can keep their wise counsel to themselves and rest peacefully in the knowledge that of the 250 requests for action made by IAF after it joined the tejas effort all but 12 were cleared by ADA and these remaining 12 are to be cleared in tejas mk-2.
So please don't hurry up to save IAF from tejas with half baked useless brochure reading expertise without knowing a wit about what feasibility study, design and development means in real technical world.
Surely ADA is not a saloon where you go and ask your hairdresser a what ever hair cut you fancy. It is more like a brain surgery team. Will you ever go to your surgeon and instruct him to do this and that during surgery?
i hope this will calm the tempers , and people will resist the temptation to
"consider using words like dumbass and idiots and accuse others for the audacity of posting BS without grammer" on hapless guys who get in their way.
If people behave properly then there will be no need to beg the Mods here.It is an enjoyable forum. Don't turn into a cesspool of personal abuse.
I seen your Posts in Indian Air Force Thread ...!!
mg: 
