LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Hydra3]

I can assure you that when we will put AESA in Tejas, with Astra mk2, Meteor or SFDR , it will eat Paki F 16 in breakfast in BVR fight. I do not know about latest F 16.

Mk2 is still under making, it does require testings, may not be required an extensive testings the way mk1 has undergone. SFDR, minimum 7-10 years from reality, and no meteor on non european radar. By the time all comes to a reality we may encountered with paf j31

 

[IndianHawk]

F16 has better engine so more thrust, lower drag , can climb faster and higher, turn faster.

F16 is also much heavier. Thrust alone means nothing.

 

[AbRaj]

F16 is also much heavier. Thrust alone means nothing.

Check TWR of both..............

Read my earlier post, I have mentioned that.

 

[IndianHawk]

Dassault and LM.
Paying to copy is called collaboration.
India too don’t have design capability, neither is able to copy complex technology (apart from some Rockets, some artillery guns and sum small arms). We should have done the same if only we had the expertise to copy/steal/hack.
USA did the same so is Russia/soviet union and various other countries

LMAO . Collaboration means they helped us in deciding with design drivers. Delta or swept wing ?
Canards or not? FBW feasible for us or not ? And many other decision where dassaults were consulted and helped based on there experience. Design is ours if it was dassault design it would be perfect from day one. We wouldn't need mk2 then lol.

Too complex for you to understand?

We are also taking help of safran in certifying kaveri now you will say we copied kaveri design from France. Lmao.

 

[IndianHawk]

Check TWR of both..............

Ok put out data for latest f16.
Also if twr decided air to air battle mig29 will win every single time against f16. But it doesn't work like that.

Lca if flown without drop thanks ( in interceptor role) will have much lower rcs than f16 . Lca will see first and shoot first. Even in dog fight it will have all advantage of Delta which will equal to advantage of f16 design as well. TWR then will be calculated at half the fuel load as both will have spent half the fuel already.

Vivek ahuja has gamed the scenario on his blog pretty well . Check that out. Lca could be just as deadly as f16.

 

[AbRaj]

LMAO . Collaboration means they helped us in deciding with design drivers. Delta or swept wing ?
Canards or not? FBW feasible for us or not ? And many other decision where dassaults were consulted and helped based on there experience. Design is ours if it was dassault design it would be perfect from day one. We wouldn't need mk2 then lol.

Too complex for you to understand?

We are also taking help of safran in certifying kaveri now you will say we copied kaveri design from France. Lmao.

so you think ADA is stupider than what I thaugh? I mean WTH who consult for something like that. So our scientists were in nursery school?:biggrin2:
These theoretical stuff is taught in Bachelor level.
So Dassault designs are perfect. (BtwIAF wanted our own Gnats not M2000 so Dassault designed it ap per our specifications .

FBW is feasible or not ? So we wanted to inquire them about our own capability.
Btw good luck with that certification. We are taking it since previous decade.

 

[Hydra3]

Ok put out data for latest f16.
Also if twr decided air to air battle mig29 will win every single time against f16. But it doesn't work like that.

Lca if flown without drop thanks ( in interceptor role) will have much lower rcs than f16 . Lca will see first and shoot first. Even in dog fight it will have all advantage of Delta which will equal to advantage of f16 design as well. TWR then will be calculated at half the fuel load as both will have spent half the fuel already.

Vivek ahuja has gamed the scenario on his blog pretty well . Check that out. Lca could be just as deadly as f16.

Low rcs of tejas doesn't play much role if it have missiles in its pylons.

 

[WARREN SS]

Check TWR of both..............

Read my earlier post, I have mentioned that.

IWR is Based On Empty Weight, MTOW And Fuel capacity

TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~ 1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.095

PAF 1.06 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: T/W = 1.055)


LCA has TWR 1.07 Is Full fuel




Comparison With Contemporary Fighters

F-35:
Loaded weight: 22500kg
Fuel load: 8300kg
Wing area: 43m^2
Thrust: 43000lb

Rafale:
Loaded weight: 14000kg
Fuel load: 4700kg
Wing area: 46m^2
Thrust: 33,800lb

Typhoon:
Loaded weight: 15500kg
Fuel load: 4000kg
Wing area: 50?m^2
Thrust: 40,500lb

EFT:
Rafale: 3 1250l tanks carry 2925kg of fuel
Typhoon: 3 1000l tanks carry 2340kg of fuel

F-35:
Fuel fraction: .37
Wing loading: 523kg/m^2
TWR: .87

Rafale no tanks:
Fuel fraction: .34
Wing loading: 304
TWR: 1.1


Rafale tanks:
Fuel fraction: .45
Wing loading: 367kg/m^2
TWR: .91

Typhoon no tanks:
Fuel fraction: .26
Wing loading: 310
TWR: 1.2

Typhoon tanks:
Fuel fraction: .36
Wing loading: 357kg/m^2
TWR: 1.03

 

[IndianHawk]

so you think ADA is stupider than what I thaugh? I mean WTH who consult for something like that. So our scientists were in nursery school?:biggrin2:
These theoretical stuff is taught in Bachelor level.
So Dassault designs are perfect. (BtwIAF wanted our own Gnats not M2000 so Dassault designed it ap per our specifications .

FBW is feasible or not ? So we wanted to inquire them about our own capability.
Btw good luck with that certification. We are taking it since previous decade.

Now you are just trolling. Our scientist knew the theory , consultant provide experience based data to go forward with decision. That's why consultants are hired to support with decades of experience based data and conclusions.

Even Lockheed hires consultant from all over the world from ex Lockheed to Boeing to dassault to bae people to help design platform.

Does that mean Lockheed is stupid? Lockheed is copying? Or you are the stupid one?

 

[AbRaj]

Ok put out data for latest f16.
Also if twr decided air to air battle mig29 will win every single time against f16. But it doesn't work like that.

Lca if flown without drop thanks ( in interceptor role) will have much lower rcs than f16 . Lca will see first and shoot first. Even in dog fight it will have all advantage of Delta which will equal to advantage of f16 design as well. TWR then will be calculated at half the fuel load as both will have spent half the fuel already.

Vivek ahuja has gamed the scenario on his blog pretty well . Check that out. Lca could be just as deadly as f16.

Again you are not paying attention. Mig 29 TWR is 1.09 which is lower than F16 newer blocks. (1.095 to 1.24) and I never said that TWR is the only factor otherwise commercial airliners win hands down.

 

[AbRaj]

Now you are just trolling. Our scientist knew the theory , consultant provide experience based data to go forward with decision. That's why consultants are hired to support with decades of experience based data and conclusions.

Even Lockheed hires consultant from all over the world from ex Lockheed to Boeing to dassault to bae people to help design platform.

Does that mean Lockheed is stupid? Lockheed is copying? Or you are the stupid one?

lol, we spent millions and millions for what is essentially a MCQ questionnaires. Hilarious :biggrin2:

Also can you provide a link to back up your claim regarding LM or Boeing corp.

 

[IndianHawk]

Again you are not paying attention. Mig 29 TWR is 1.09 which is lower than F16 newer blocks. (1.095 to 1.24) and I never said that TWR is the only factor otherwise commercial airliners win hands down.

Maybe I'm just pissed at your copied lca design part. That's juts too much for sincere discussion.

I need to stop using this forum . After all these years people believe lca design is copied it means all these pages of technical discussion have no meaning at all.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Mk1A is aerodynamically same as Mk1. Weight reduction is the only agenda in this regard.

No it is not. Mk1A will have many measures to lower drag which includes canopy redesign. Aerodynamic studies shown that drag reduction is possible ant transmission acceleration will improve by 20 pc. Highest speed will improve by 2 pc at sea level. There will be a improvement in STR as well. I think they already improved the range from 1700 to 2000 km. External weight improved to over 4000 kg. This all was on card but some of them are incorporated and some will be done in Mk1A.

 

[AbRaj]

IWR is Based On Empty Weight, MTOW And Fuel capacity

TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~ 1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.095

PAF 1.06 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: T/W = 1.055)


LCA has TWR 1.07 Is Full fuel




Comparison With Contemporary Fighters

F-35:
Loaded weight: 22500kg
Fuel load: 8300kg
Wing area: 43m^2
Thrust: 43000lb

Rafale:
Loaded weight: 14000kg
Fuel load: 4700kg
Wing area: 46m^2
Thrust: 33,800lb

Typhoon:
Loaded weight: 15500kg
Fuel load: 4000kg
Wing area: 50?m^2
Thrust: 40,500lb

EFT:
Rafale: 3 1250l tanks carry 2925kg of fuel
Typhoon: 3 1000l tanks carry 2340kg of fuel

F-35:
Fuel fraction: .37
Wing loading: 523kg/m^2
TWR: .87

Rafale no tanks:
Fuel fraction: .34
Wing loading: 304
TWR: 1.1


Rafale tanks:
Fuel fraction: .45
Wing loading: 367kg/m^2
TWR: .91

Typhoon no tanks:
Fuel fraction: .26
Wing loading: 310
TWR: 1.2

Typhoon tanks:
Fuel fraction: .36
Wing loading: 357kg/m^2
TWR: 1.03

Source link ?.....................

 

[AbRaj]

No it is not. Mk1A will have many measures to lower drag which includes canopy redesign. Aerodynamic studies shown that drag reduction is possible ant transmission acceleration will improve by 20 pc. Highest speed will improve by 2 pc at sea level. There will be a improvement in STR as well. I think they already improved the range from 1700 to 2000 km. External weight improved to over 4000 kg. This all was on card but some of them are incorporated and some will be done in Mk1A.

It’s a wish list. Not requirement.

 

[WARREN SS]

Again you are not paying attention. Mig 29 TWR is 1.09 which is lower than F16 newer blocks. (1.095 to 1.24) and I never said that TWR is the only factor otherwise commercial airliners win hands down.

Both TWR is Same In Full fuel Envelope

F-16 is 1.095
or Mig-29 1.090

Why Would A F-16 Will Fly With 50 % Fuel that Will make its Combat radius Below 300 km

 

[AbRaj]

Maybe I'm just pissed at your copied lca design part. That's juts too much for sincere discussion.

I need to stop using this forum . After all these years people believe lca design is copied it means all these pages of technical discussion have no meaning at all.

That was a metaphor. A philosophical POV.

 

[WARREN SS]

Source link ?.....................

F.16 Net
https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/

 

[AbRaj]

F.16 Net
https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/

A forum as a source. ?
IMO data is not reliable at all

Both TWR is Same In Full fuel Envelope

F-16 is 1.095
or Mig-29 1.090

Why Would A F-16 Will Fly With 50 % Fuel that Will make its Combat radius Below 300 km

Rd93 is a fuel guzzler. And you have two of those in Mig 29. So in real world scenario it more or less acts like point defence rather than interceptor or air superiority.
Expecting it to go half filled is quite unrealistic.

F16 uses drop tanks during combat patrols.

 

[WARREN SS]

A forum as a source. ?

F-16 Net is most reliable On F-16 Even than Wiki
Porkies Take It like Gospel And All other Military Enthusiast

What Is your Source Of higher TWR of F-16

And What its reliability ????