mattit all depends on the amount of metals used isn’t it ? more the amount of metals more advanced it is ?
Shhh!! dont!! seriously you will start giving the USAF and the VVS a complex if they find out that the LCA is more advanced than either the PAK FA and the F-22.. It does use more composites at the end of the day. Why else would the Russian defense industry want to work with India if not to learn about composites.
mattof course not ! but I can certainly blame them for not telling the LCA team of this want in time.
matt, it’s the IAF’s job to decide what missile it wants and let the design team know in the ASR. how on earth is that the designer’s oversight ? :rolleyes:
in order to prove the incompetence of the LCA team (heaven knows they aren’t perfect) you are pushing logic to ridiculous zones.
you don’t need “some sources”. ajai shukla is reliable enough and no one other than you claimed that wing strengthening is the only source of weight increase.
To be honest i still need to go through the BR thread in detail found it too late last night to read it all but did go through your and Tsarkar(?) discussion 25% i think.
Anyway to be honest I dont care to prove the design teams incompetence (the end product may or may not do that adequately). what I would like is something more than the same old sound bites about the LCA and little or no depth.
I usually stay away from BR on most occasions but have to admit i will have to go back to that thread to learn some more. That is all i want to do :)…
mattPAK-FA is called to be definitely superior to F-22. :dev2:
We have to wait to know this for sure.
There are still some technologies which are being developed (if they have not been axed due to the recent financial trouble) or have been in development which could prove to be game changers that we dont know off. One that has had some press is LADAR (?) for the F-22.
mattFloating Targets?
Unable to effectively criticize aircraft carriers based on need or warfighting utility, some have latched on to yet another tired argument: “Carriers are vulnerable! They’ll be taken out by missiles!” Once again, such discussions are not new, and in fact date back to World War II. In a recent television series on the Discovery Channel called Enterprise, graphic computer animation demonstrated how carriers of that era were constantly under attack from the entire battlespace. The USS Enterprise (CV-6) fought in nearly every significant sea battle of World War II, surviving to eventually earn 20 battle stars.What the Enterprise series brings home is that lucrative targets need determined defense to prevail. Carrier strike groups of today get underway with sophisticated, multi-layered, and fully netted three-dimensional defensive systems. Advancements such as Cooperative Engagement Capability, as well as advanced antisubmarine warfare and missile defense tactics will continue to protect high-value units at sea.
When looking at carrier threats, much has been made of China’s DF-21/CSS-5 antiship ballistic missile. This journal went so far as to feature a picture of a carrier (and unlucky cruiser) blowing up on its May cover. While it is important to look closely at weapon innovations of other countries, it is just as important to not over react to what may or may not be on the horizon for China or any other nation. Last year it was the low-end swarm attack that concerned analysts, now the DF-21 has provided new ammunition for the old argument of aircraft carrier vulnerability. While the range of the DF-21 is under debate, what remains central to the success of a 1,500-km missile is targeting and locating data. The strident article from Dr. Erickson and Mr. Yang (using information primarily from Chinese field manuals) in the May Proceedings devoted exactly one sentence to the task of locating and targeting an aircraft carrier, stating that it would be a “key technical challenge.” In fact finding a ship at sea in the middle of thousands of square miles of ocean, even an aircraft carrier, is extremely difficult. The question remains as to whether potential adversaries have the level of persistent accuracy needed to stage antiship ballistic missile attacks. Should targets not cooperate by radiating military radars or communication gear, the challenge becomes nearly insurmountable given the current technical state of play.
One final question to ponder regarding the DF-21 is what type of situation would lead China to launch such an attack. Presumably there would be plenty of other indicators of increasing hostilities leading to a range of military options to defend our assets. Such things do not occur in a vacuum. Moreover, ceding the maritime high ground seems imprudent simply because some believe we can’t keep pace with the competition in the Pacific. The German Navy after Jutland comes to mind.
The DF-21 discussion is useful, however, in that it highlights a key tenet of China’s possible military strategy in the Pacific: area denial. If the Chinese can push naval striking forces farther out to sea, those platforms become less effective. Long-range missiles, submarines, and even a future Chinese aircraft carrier will undoubtedly be part of that mix. At a time when things like the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and budget pressures are coming to a head, some of these “threats” seem to have taken on a life of their own. Like the first carrier Enterprise, U.S. military weapons and technology will flex to meet this challenge and ensure we continue to operate “inside the ring.”
By Rear Admiral Terry B. Kraft, U.S. Navy
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2023
The rest of the article can be found on the above link, i am only posting relevent piece here.
mattThis BR discussion between Rahul M and other posters seems to have what you are looking for.
😀 … You seem to have been scarred for life.
Regards,
Ashish
Not scarred but you get to a point where your just banging your head against a brick wall.. all is wells or baki sab thik hai…
I did search for the clues last night and go through some of the discussions in BR some interesting discussions but i do not see how additional strengthening of the hard point would make that much difference (of 2000 Kgs if some sources are to be believed).
And you cant blame the IAF for it wanting to carry missiles other than those carried on the mig 21! The weight increase due to that would be due to oversight of the design team.
@ whomsoever it concerns: I think the LCA is a wonderful and fluffy aircraft that can match the F-22 and the EFA in the air as it has the most amounts of composite materials.
mattThe IAF too has unfortunately not completely shaken off the “MiG-21 replacement” dogma.
Maybe because they as customers were promised that as a minimum?
Does anyone know what the IAF has asked for to increase the weight so much? Anything difinitive available?
Does anyone have anything concrete to say that the IAF is not being made a scapegoat by ADA and HAL etc for their own failures.
Also does anyone have specifications on the Mig 21 Bisons of the IAF? weights etc would be interesting to see what that all comes out to..
is this close? got it from wiki dont always trust that place.
Specifications (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21-93)
Data from [1]General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 (with pitot) m (47 ft 6.86 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 5.66 in)
Height: 4.125 m (13 ft 6.41 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumanskiy R25-300, 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry, 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner each
PerformanceMaximum speed: 2,350 km/h (1,468 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Armament1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon, plus
2x R-27R1 or R-27T or 4x Vympel R-77 or 4x R-60M or R-73E AAM or
2x 500 kg (1,102 lbs) of bombs
Let there be a challenge :- Find out a modern 4++ generation fighter jet, whose empty weight is 5,500 kgs, can carry 3,500 kg of external ordnance and pods, and has an internal fuel capacity of 2,500 kgs.
Big challange but some one promised to deliver as much for (from my recolation) at least 10 years. Looking back it reminds me of the scene in that bollywood war movie where the father writes a letter to the son and gives him a list of woes but mentions that “baki sab thik hai” after each item.
@whomsoever it concerns, the LCA is an wonderful plane and it should be bought for the MMCRA contract as it is better than any aircraft in contention as it uses the most % of composites.
mattMach 3 capable, fly-by-wire, Sukhoi T4 ‘Sotka’ strike aircraft……
Now at Monino………
Ken
Regret not going to Monino when i had a chance! is it good over there in the museum? (baring the blooming cold air)
mattAs far as RCS goes , it would be interesting to see if the shape is optimised to deal with just X Band RF like JSF thus making it cost effective fighter or a comprehensive broad band RF signature reduction like F-22 , which will be expensive but highly capable.
How can we know the difference from the photos.
I only ask because i am sure there are technologies used (stealth improvement ones) on aircraft from the 80s which have been photographed that general jo’s like us have not noticed..
mattI’m not sure what exactly you mean here. if you mean that NLCA will skip the Mk1 phase and jump into Mk2 I think that’s a possibility, yes.
Pretty much, I can not see how the ADA have any other choice in the matter.
Note: i am not by any means saying Greater % of graphite / epoxy = greater plane.
however some links for peoples interest of what else could be done.
http://www.nlr.nl/images/avst/brochures/f265-03.pdf
http://www.nlr.nl/id~2819/l~en.pdf
mattintake re-design is a surety, nothing rumour-level about it. wing-re-design, they might tweak it a bit but major re-design is unlikely. they may incorporate lessons from the LEX studies for NLCA though.
@ abhimanyu : Would you really save 300Kg’s from going LCD to CRT? If so would the ADA team not have implemented that already? I would have thouht they would try there hardest to reduce any weight before going for any certification.
Also what did the IAF actually add into the LCA to make it increase in weight by 1,000Kg’s-1,500 Kg’s? a radar, passenger? pressurised cabin?
@ Rahul: With most ship born fighters end up weighing a bit more than the land based counter parts surely the NLCA would have to be the first LCA MK2 varients? When you consider the extra long steel nosewheels arrester hooks and bulk up in supporting structure.
@ whomsoever it concerns: Obviously i remain calibrated that there are no issues and everything is wonderful and fluffy! and we do not need the MMRCA as the LCA uses more composites than any aircraft in the MMRCA contest including the EFA
matton second thoughts I would give burt rutan all the money and ask him to go to a lab someplace and come up with something wacky
mattCheck this pick out from the same set of links:
Do you know what this is? I noticed it also..
mattI’ll take it in another way–maybe the Su-30MKI is such a huge failure that instead of ordering more, they’re looking for the new type for the MRCA..my gosh, the Su-30MKI must be such a monumental waste of effort and money…oh my gosh !
Really?
Why would you say that?
mattTime to fly: India’s new bird…. LCH
December 14
A ‘baby’ of the Bangalore-headquartered defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the first prototype of LCH is expected to take to the skies between December 26 and December 29, a senior HAL official told PTI here today.http://www.ptinews.com/news/422197_India-to-test-fly-light-combat-helicopters-shortly
Excellent news! anyone got any pics?
A400M, 787, PAK FA and LCH it is a good christmas! fingers crossed!
mattPics of Mig-29KUB aerial refueling
via Shiv Aroor
Beautiful photos! cheers for posting them on here.
Sign In
