quadbikeWith the IAF and IN ordering more Hawks I doubt IAF has any such plans with the Tejas.
quadbikeThe NG prototype is flying with the NG radar right ? So is its radome any bigger ?
quadbikeI don’t think IAF has taken to the concept of LIFT or is the HAWK MK 132 fulfilling that role ?
Is it not like
Basic training on HPT 32 then on HJT 16 Kiran and finally HAWK MK 132 followed by type training ?
quadbikeYou mean something like a LIFT ?
quadbikeIAF Jaguars Face Re-Engine Limbo As Single Vendor Situation Looms
Reports emerged from Aero India 2011 that Rolls Royce planned not to participate in the Indian Air Force Jaguar re-engining competition. The sense you get from the reports is that Rolls Royce has problems with the fact that this is an engine replacement programme rather than an engine upgrade, which if true, would be problematic. Why? Well, as far as the current competition is concerned, the Jaguar engine competition was never to be an upgrade. It was always to be be an engine replacement or “re-engining” effort. Rolls Royce has in fact always pitched its Adour Mk821 as a replacement to the existing Adour engines on the Jaguar, and not as an upgrade. Either way, the situation leaves Honeywell the sole competitor in the 200-engine competition. Does this mean the process gets aborted? Or can the IAF push through a single-vendor purchase?
quadbikeIntense dogfights were witnessed last week at Aero India 2011 in Bangalore between eight countries representing six fighter aircraft for clinching India’s biggest defence contract: The 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft worth $10 billion. The aircraft are Boeings F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martins’ F-16 IN Super Viper, MiG Corporation’s MiG-35, Saab’s Gripen NG, Dassault’s Raphael and a four-nation European consortium’s Eurofighter, Typhoon.
For the United States, which in the last five years has sold more defence equipment to India than it has in the last 50, bagging the deal has become both a prestige issue as well as a return for its critical investment in the India-US strategic partnership epitomised by the 123 civil nuclear agreement.
Next month, when the commercial bids are opened, L1 (lowest bidder) will be invited to negotiate the final cost with the Price Negotiating Committee.
quadbike
quadbikeSo what ?! are you trying to say that ANY of the Euro-canards were designed keeping RCS in mind initially ?! That’s plain lies. RCS was hardly even a design issue back in the 1980s when ALL the Eurocanards and the LCA were originally conceived.
All of them were
Lets start with the Rafale
Minimising the radar cross section has also been a design driver in order to make stealth tactics possible. Most of the stealth design features are classified, but some of them are clearly visible, such as the serrated patterns on the trailing edges of the wings and canards.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/optimized-airframe.html?L=1
Typhoon
The intakes themselves are S-shaped along their length, this ensures that the engine turbine blades are not within frontal view of the intake, which in turn lowers the frontal RCS. In addition the intake box has a rounded bottom with sloping sides, improving air flow and further reducing the RCS. The intake is fitted with a variable position lower cowl, the upper cowl is fixed.
Since the material used to construct the radome must be transparent to microwave energy it is an obvious source of Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction problems. To overcome this, BASE, British Aerospace Systems and Equipment who supply the radome structure have developed various Frequency Sselective Surface (FSS) materials which have been subsequently put to use in the Typhoon’s radome. FSS materials are composed of a precisely defined array of metallic elements contained within a conducting frame
The Eurofighter Typhoon cannot and is not classed as a stealth fighter (see fact box). However the consortium did take measures to reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section. Many of these Reduced Observable (RO) features were tested over the years at BAE Systems covered radar signature range at BAe Warton near Preston, NW England. Some examples of this design include; the intakes which are shaped so as to hide the engine compressor blades, the sloped intake sides, the fuselage recessed medium range weapons, the wing hardpoint placement and design, radome construction, etc. In addition Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM) developed primarily by EADS/DASA coat many of the most significant reflectors, e.g. the wing leading edges, the intake edges and interior, the rudder surrounds, strakes, etc.
The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter’s RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon’s RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon’s radar signature. This should enable a Eurofighter pilot to remain undetected by his enemy until he his significantly closer than he may otherwise be able to achieve.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/structure.html
Gripen
Signature reductions was part of design start, reduced for 39C and will according to the SwAF be further reduced for the Gripen NG.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1
All were designed with lower RCS is in mind, some bettered with RAM coatings.
LCA was not designed with low RCS in mind but they have reduced it using RAM coatings (but its an after thought),
quadbikeI haven’t made my mind up on anything my friend. What the DRDO pdf says –
The RCS of LCA has been brought down significantly by modifying certain shape aspects within the limits set by aerodynamics. Appropriate coatings have been proposed for canopy and windshield to minimise the radar return from cockpit and certain hot spots on the aircraft
Anyone can deduce from that that the initial design was not made with low RCS in mind but in the changing environment they managed to bring it down a bit by modifying some shape aspects of the original design. The second part talks about RAM coatings.
quadbikeThe sad part is that there are only slight changes in the overall design of the MK2, so I have my fingers crossed on it sorting out the issues.
Anyway you may want to take a look at this from Prof Pradyut Das.
VAYU MAG: An Open Source Assessment Of The LCA
shape modification has been carried out keeping in mind RCS and RCS has been brought down significantly this way.
sounds like after thought and using RAM coating they are even reducing MIG 21s RCS that doesn’t make Mig 21 designed to be low RCS.
Oh and Ajay I was only refuting Booms point of serpentine intake, the Y shaped intake was explained by some one 2 pages back.
quadbikeAs things stand, it’s full envelope hasn’t been explored as yet. The agreed limits between ADA, CEMILAC and IAF for IOC were these:
AoA (alpha)- 22 deg and this was achieved
Gs – 6 Gs and this was achievedThese were the limits that were to be reached for IOC. For FOC, G limit will be 8.
And till they do that, the FCS will limit it from pulling more Gs and that will automatically limit STR.
As simple as that. Neelam Matthews of AW&ST is not a lady whose reports are to be taken as the gospel truth. She has made such blooming errors that they really put her reliability at question.
It doesn’t say the story is from Neelam Matthews.
And secondly if everything was fine and dandy with the MK1 the IAF will not be wanting an MK2 with higher thrust.
quadbikefeel free to believe whatever you want. I cannot really educate you on every single aspect. You want to believe that physics only applies to the Tejas and not to the F-16 or Gripen, then its your choice really !
Its not about Physics its Tejas falling short of requirements and therefore needing a higher thrust engine to hopefully take care of it.
Are you saying AW&ST are running a bogus story
quadbikeIf you look at fighter programs around the world, the money spend on Tejas appear very less.
I am all for increasing the AMCA budget 🙂
quadbikenonsense. you pull lower Gs because you have not yet fully explored the entire flight envelope. As and when that is opened up further, the FCS will allow more Gs to be pulled.
Or do I need to post links to Gripen flight tests where it was shown that a Gripen B was limited to 7Gs till it’s FCS allowed it to go to 9Gs AFTER testing was complete and software changes were made ? :rolleyes:
Performance specifications that the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has not been able to attain include sustained turn rate, speed at low altitude, angle of attack and certain weapon delivery profiles. Exactly how far off the performance is from the specification remains classified.
clearly indicates its not an issue with G limit expansion.
quadbikeOn the Su 30 Canards Issue I read on the Russian thread that it was partly to make up for the Centre of Grativty changes that came with the rather Heavy BARS radar that Canards were used, with the Ibris weighing much less there was no need for the Canards on the Su 35.
Sign In
