- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,622
- Likes
- 590
you cant design a single aircraft for every role but you do design multi role aircraft...You can't design a single aircraft for every role.
[/QUOTE]
The bad outweigh the good.
And Rafale's avionics are better and battle proven.I was not comparing it with Rafale.... what i was saying no need for rafale as we are getting FGFA and AMCA soon...
bad use of composite do share....
Rafale also has this. Composites are both good and bad based on the use. The F-22 has a titanium structures. Titanium is better.
Composite structure with smaller size will lead to smaller radar cross section... correct?
that means before it will appear on enemy's radar it can shoot down enemy....
That's not a good advantage. Smaller size means smaller payload, lesser electronics and so on.
Rafale is also not easy to be detected by radar. But radar has improved so much that unless you are LO or VLO it is pointless.
LCA's maneuverability is from the '70s and '80s. Rafale is far more maneuverable in comparison. Simply said, Rafale beats LCA in every parameter for performance. Speed, climb, turn rates, everything.wasnot comparing these two aircrafts...
No. This one is completely false. Due to the massive weight increases, the growth potential of LCA is non-existent. According to ADA's own admission LCA is overweight by 1.3 tonnes. That's why LCA Mk2 program was launched. There is no chance for growth, at least for Mk1. For Mk2, it is yet to be seen because the engines available for the program does not have more than 4 or 5% growth potential. So, if LCA Mk2 also becomes overweight, then the entire program will fail. That's what ADA is trying to avoid this time.There is a option right....it can succeed.....
And before you bring in EPE, remember that the engine offered for LCA is not the same as EDE and EPE. And EPE is not a particularly good engine because it has a very low service life and is unacceptable to any air force today.
That's just one stage. There is one more longer stage before LCA flies.
And if you look at the first post of the LCA Mk2 thread. Here, I will post it.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/45058-ada-lca-tejas-mark-ii.html
So, what's the year today? 2014. And it is still in the design phase. Being in the aerofield how long do you think they will take to build the first prototype? Just to give you a clue, TD-1 construction started in 1993 and finished in 1998.
ADA lies about schedule, a lot. This much is known to all.
Cost overruns and timeline shifts are general...and its common...in countries having developed all this tech also fails to meet the deadlines.....take F35 as examle only... but blaming ADA is ok ....
You think I'm some kind of dumb kid. Personal vendetta? That's hilarious.
Maybe when I criticized the UPA govt, I have personal vendetta against UPA. When I criticized the sloppy work in Kargil, maybe I have a personal vendetta against the army too.When Indian team loses in the Olympics, maybe I have a personal vendetta against them too. Maybe I have a personal vendetta against everybody who I criticize.
Wake up to the fact that DRDO is not above criticism. It is another bungling govt organization like any other.
I am closest to the truth on this forum. The level of stupidity I see here is what makes me hawkish (according to you), but I am not really hawkish, I am very mild and gentle when criticizing LCA. I have heard worse from people who design stuff for their own company. Only on this forum I see nonsense like LCA Mk2 is as good as Rafale. Even the most hardcore Gripen fan won't say that when compared to Rafale. And Gripen is leagues ahead of LCA Mk2. There is a limit to making silly nationalistic claims.yes It is another bungling govt organization like any other.and our defense forces are also part of it only....
Figure out why there is a lack of defense pros on this forum.
IAF doesn't care about this as long as they get capability that LCA cannot offer. Rafale is a 4.5th gen aircraft and that's how much 4.5th gen aircraft of this level costs.
My, my. Pretty much all of this is stuff Mirage-2000 achieved 25 years ago.thats is quite sufficient ...good that now is compared to mirage .... how long are they gonna stay in force after upgrade which means Tejas will have a fews years extra than that....![]()
R-73 doesn't provide air superiority. Jaguar with ASRAAM will be more capable than LCA in this case. LCA is yet to be integrated with BVR missiles.
Litening pod was used on the Mirage-2000 during Kargil. Releasing a LGB and missile in 100 seconds is old stuff. Rafale can release 6 bombs and 4 missiles in 60 seconds.
You haven't gotten my point at all. Pretty much all the positives of LCA is worthless against China. It achieves some level of capability against PAF, but I want my air force to have overwhelming capability, not some. Even if LCA is good against JF-17, it will struggle against the F-16.
The only "real" and "relevant" positive point of LCA is that it has helped the Indian industry build an indigenous fighter. So, what I mean is other than a low end numbers filler there is no other positive point in LCA that helps IAF.
Hardly. What I have stated is the truth. It is a fact. Rafale is far better than Su-30 in strike. And because of the AESA advantage it is better in air superiority too. Until MKI gets AESA, it will not be as good as Rafale. MKI also lacks an internal EW suite at the same level as SPECTRA. All of this is being developed for the Super Sukhoi upgrade program.
That's a good thing. It means IAF is progressing really fast.you hav elready said that Rafale is better than SU which is laughable so I need not comment on this
Once FGFA is given permission to conduct the most important missions, then the previous generation aircraft will become secondary. FGFA will kick doors down then, while MKI and Rafale will come in later. AMCA is years away and we need good numbers today.IAF will not progress untill they mend there ways .......
It's fine. Look at the Russians, they developed the Su-35 and PAKFA together. Su-35 is being inducted today and PAKFA will be inducted from 2016, that's just a difference of 4 years. That's lesser than Rafale AMCA difference which is 10-15 years. All major air forces are doing the right thing, including the IAF.good numbers of AMCA today or what?If AMCA ok but if of A/C then its now again a anumber game then Tejas mk2 will be better option than rafale....
As for FGFA, it does not perform the same role as what Rafale is doing. Su-30 was inducted in 1998, FGFA will be inducted in 2022. That's a difference of 24 years. Su-27 was inducted in 1996, J-20 will possibly be inducted in 2018, so there is a difference of 22 years. F-15 was inducted in 1976 and F-22 in 2005, that's 29 years. The F-22 replacement called Miss February will be ready only after 2030-35, that's around 25-30 years. Each time there is a gap of 20-30 years which is roughly a generation even in human age. You have to compare heavy aircraft with heavy aircraft. Medium with medium and light with light, except that only IAF is inducting light aircraft.
So comparing Rafale and FGFA is silly. Ideally, IAF should have inducted Rafale along with the French, but that couldn't happen. Our bureaucratic process assisted in bringing about a 5 year delay. Else AMCA would have been inducted after 20 years rather than the 10-15 year difference we see today. But that's fine since Rafale is proven unlike brand new jets.
we are not Russia or china we dont have that liberty...
You don't have the facts for LCA Mk2. LCA Mk2 is not between AMCA and Mk1, LCA Mk2 is MK1 done right.where i have misquoted any of the facts about LCA?
MK2 will be evolved from mk1 and AMCA will be too advanced so it becomes
MK1<mk2<AMCA what did i say wrong?
LCA Mk2 is not an evolved Mk1. In 1985 IAF released ASR for LCA, LCA Mk2 will match that ASR because Mk1 failed to achieve it. The only changes are avionics which is obviously important. This was announced by ADA in 2011.
Replace all the original LCA Mk1 specs with LCA Mk2 and you get the same LCA as the one mentioned in IAF's ASR back in 1985. That's the plan. The one tonne increase in weight resulted in a requirement for a one tonne additional thrust to compensate. That's about it.
its okay then MK2 will meet the requirements hope when it does IAF will agree to it not start lingering again?