quadbikeHow so? And this time deal in specifics rather than some generic statement.
When Tejas was Concieved the world was not crazy about RCS. But when the Eurocanards were they were and all of them incorporates rcs reduction measures.
quadbikeBecause it has not yet reached FOC.
Because it has not yet been tested at more than 6.9Gs or certified to pull more. The airframe may be able to do that, but the FCS will not allow it to do so. Its called an MLL in the Gripen and also does the same. Till the time that the Gripen was not tested to 9Gs, its MLL (Load Limiter) wouldn’t allow its pilot to pull more than whatever it was certified to either.
The pilot could yank on the stick to the end, but the aircraft Gs would be limited by the FCS.
And because it has not yet been through spin tests, after which its AoA limits are supposed to be 26 deg / -9 deg or thereabouts (don’t remember the exact figures, but they were mentioned sometime recently).
You sure the MLL in Tejas is working because there were reports the fighter pulled 6.9G on Aero India while being only certified for 6G.
This is not the reason. The Tejas flight envelope expansion has been notoriously slow. Even now the IAF is saying it will be satisfied with 8Gs clearly a compromise.
If the Tejas had the STR and performance of a Gripen with the current engine the IAF would not have asked for a Mark 2 version. The additional thrust is needed to compensate for the poor airframe performance.
As the link i gave showed
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.
IT is not because of flight envelope not being expanded.
It isn’t a “customised” Elta 2032, rather a hybrid of the MMR and Elta 2032. All components of the MMR were not dumped. Customised is more like the Elta 2032 itself being used, with some changes per user specifications.
Ah Semantics, Anantakrishnans report for AWST suggest that its basically Israeli radar with some elements from MMR.
India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is set to fly for the first time with the Israeli Elta Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) onboard.
quadbikeno scorpion, it did not give any added performance for LCA’s particular design. the original LCA design did have canards and looked like the gripen. they later dropped the canards and adopted the twisted cranked delta config.
diff paths to same ends.quad, sigh, I give up trying to educate you. :rolleyes:
Not same end result as the performance difference of the similar weight similar thrust Gripen and LCA show.
I give up on you as well.
quadbikeWith a super low wingloading and decent thrust, a fighter would do rather well – LCA has great potential here because its wingloading is v,v, low. If they keep the weight the same for mk2 (which they intend to actually reduce from the looks of it), the a/c will behave beautifully.
USS.
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.
Then how come it cannot match the performance of a Gripen C/D with a similar thrust engine.
quadbikequad, YES the LCA does have a serpentine intake. it’s not a particularly advertised feature of the program for obvious reasons. just because you don;t know it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 😉
get Teer to confirm it for you if you want, he should know.
Yet again more stuff with no links to back it up.
as for the MMR, how does the article say anything contrary to what I did ? it just has less details than my post that’s all. they had problems with MMR’s A2G nodes and they used ELTA 2032’s signal processing backend in stead. rest is ravi sharma confusing stuff as usual.
Did you read the AWST article its Anantakrishnan and not Ravi Sharma. Says Israeli Radar and not backend.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2010/04/22/awx_04_22_2010_p0-221793.xml&headline=LCA%20Set%20To%20Fly%20With%20Israeli%20Radar
India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is set to fly for the first time with the Israeli Elta Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) onboard.
it’s a joke alright and not for the reason you think ! 😀
the LCA design is as far different from the mirage-2000 as possible as it could be and still be a delta.
the didn’t go for canards because :
a) it added weight
b) it’s bad for RCS
c) they compensated the need for a canard with the wing design.
LCA design is inspired from the Mirages (not necessarily the Mirage 2000)
a, Marginal compared to the advantages.
b, Europeans and Chinese don’t think so
c, possibly but we will see when the MK2 shows its teeth,
ah another youtube expert !!!! what would the world (and youtube) do without you ? 😀
While not foolproof its a relative accurate way to measure a fighters str, especially if its done by same people with same camera (same fps), In all videos LCA takes ages compared to Gripen/F-16 to complete a full turn.
because of lack of power on the Mk1 ! if you remember my little post on STR, you might see that I had mentioned TWR as one of the factors for a healthy STR. it’s not because of LCA’s design, which would give aerodynamic performance nothing short of phenomenal when paired with a decently powered engine. AoA is of course a matter of opening up the envelope. also understand that current LCA performance is still limited by the G restrictions, it’s not at its full potential.
Its not all due to Lack of Power only. The Gripen C/D with the RM12 which has lower thrust than the Ge F404IN runs rings around the LCA in terms of STR & AoA.
😀 really ? and you know this, how exactly ?
Newer designs made during a period when RCS reduction was given much more importance
yet another case of passing opinion for fact, my dear ?
:rolleyes:
quadbikeSAABs ability to meet offset needs in both India and Brazil is in doubt. they will struggle if they win both deals.
quadbikeIncreased numbers also don’t have to be for IAF only, more likely is a combined deal for IAF and IN. Not to mention that the time frame depends on the availability of the wining fighter, as well as how many squads will be procured directly from the vendor.
I think an IN tender has to be a separate one according to the provisions of DPP. Never heard of follow on orders of IAF aircraft being redirected to other services.
But that does not mean the same aircraft will not be selected by the Navy, but any orders will come outside the scope of the MRCA.
quadbikeFrom 2010 for you Boom.
LCA Tejas Falls Short of Earlier Expectations
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.
quadbikeYes but can they be called serpentine intakes ? He claims LCA is designed with RCS reduction in mind I am yet to see where apart from its small size.
quadbikeclearly you are unaware that LCA is designed from the start with RCS reduction in mind, while it is no F-35 or even a rafale they have taken steps to hide the compressor face from incoming radar (using serpentine intakes)
they even rejected the canards and went for the innovative wing root twist because canards adversely affected RCS.
please know a little before you speak on a subject.
Clearly that is why they did not go for the canards ? What a Joke, they took design cues from one of the best fighters available at the time the Mirage 2000.
While the MCA does have serpentine intakes, I have never read anywhere the LCA having them.
All the Eurocanards are stealthier than Tejas despite having canards.
there is no ELTA 2032 on LCA
The Tejas MMR is a customised Elta 2032
Read away. http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/29/stories/2007062954380900.htm
would you stop saying this stupid thing again and again ?
what next, you are going to convince us the sun goes around the earth by repeating it again and again ? some deltas bleed energy more quickly in a turn, others don’t. get it ?
STR has nothing to do delta wing. the delta winged mirage beat the F-16 in dogfight on a regular basis.STR depends primarily on TWR and wing loading. check the values for LCA and then decide.
Again the ones who have superior turn rates usually have canards.
While not an ideal way to look at things, looking at videos of Tejas, JF 17 and F 16 on youtube will show you that the Tejas takes many seconds more than either of them to complete the turn.
The lack of performance at sea-level and maneuvering dogfight was the reason why the IAF wanted to go for the MK2 with higher thrust, thrust is not substitute for Aerodynamics how ever it does make up for a bit of it.
__________________
quadbikeVery informative.
Thanks
Credits should go to Austin.
quadbikeI asked for YOUR post Quadbike, not some article. You were claiming that you said earlier that all Tejas variants would be equipped with Derby.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1704090&postcount=1020
to which boom replied
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1704106&postcount=1021
quadbike:rolleyes:
do you understand the difference between a signal processing backend and ‘derived’ ?using a hyundai’s batteries in a honda car won’t make it ‘derived’ from hyundai.
ah good, so you write for mint now ? 😉
which one is you, sridhar or bhargavi ?
1. As I understand they messed up the fully indigenous MMR and needed an Elta 2032 derivative to help them out.
2. Refuting valid links just like that will not make them any less valid.
quadbikeMost indubitably, especially if the Mk2 comes along as proposed. I am willing to bet on the foll:
1) LCA will get more than just Derby
2) LCA will have a better RCS
3) LCA will have a better radar range/detection. The nose is bigger and has a bigger antenna.I wouldn’t be surprised if:
1) The LCA winds up with a better TWR
2) The LCA winds up with better ITR/STR thanks to a stellar wingloading. Conversely, the F-16 has only grown fatter – compromising on both the above criteria.The blk52 might have advantages in terms of # of missiles carried, but it won’t be by much. The LCA is smaller, has a bigger primary sensor, has more composites/rcs measures, has an amazing wingloading that contributes to decent turn rates. With a powerful TWR, it’ll do the old hag in for good.
The F-16 blk52 is undoubtedly a great bird and decidedly ahead in strike duties, but A2A? I think the LCA could certainly hold its own once it matures. After all, as great as the Viper is, it is a rather old design – you can do up Sophia Loren only so much.
USS.
1. More than Just Derby ? I think it will get Astra in the future how that compares to the C-5, we cannot say now.
2. Possibly because the F 16s are not renowned for its RCS, but neither is the LCA built with RCS reduction in mind, the MK2 doesn’t make serious changes to the design. Hence the RCS advantage will be nominal.
3. ELTA 2032 vs APG 68 (v9) is again debatable. The Israelis wanted the ELTA radar in their Desert Falcons (Americans didn’t let them) but that may be because of preference to an indigenous radar. IIRC the MK2 will also have a Mechanical array with a planned AESA coming much later.
4. The Block 52 has excellent T/W ration and proven Aerodynamics. The MK2 will gain more thrust but likely to gain a bit more weight as it gets more advanced subsystems.
5. Being a delta without canards LCA will not have the STR of the Block 52. The Mirage 2000 vs F 16 case is an ideal example, Mirage has better ITR while the F 16 has better STR.
6. The Block 52 is not fat especially without the CFTs, You are reffering to Block 60.
7. There is hardly ten years between the design of the LCA and the F 16, both uses similar FCS and so on.
quadbikeTarmak007 Videos (TV-007) ground run: Close encounter with a black beauty!
Awesome video of the LCH. Shows the cockpit Looks neat !
Sign In
