21AnkushIf India wanted the Mirage, they would have offered the price, they knew/Know how much it cost just to upgrade the plane. Here we are talking about airframe with 80% life with weapons and support equipment offered less than quoted price of their own Mirage upgrade.
The whole “interest” was just to deny the Pakistan Mirages.:D
Nobody stopped Pakistan from making an offer or even looking to purchase it now ;).. Pakistan can’t afford to buy those Mirage-2000-5s and then pay for the associated set-up for maintenance..thats the plain old truth..they’re happy getting free upgrades to their older F-16s in the guise of using it against tribals. Qatar won’t sell it to them for free or for discounted rates for some “brotherhood” of Islamic nations..
21AnkushWell there is a reason that the weight was low in the first place. yes they can get a more powerfull engine and beef up the structure to cope with all the extra bells and whistles the IAF wants on its LCA but then you have to go and find a more powerful engine to cope with that!
Now if the extra 700kgs also includes in it an extra 300kgs of fuel then excellent!
The LCA should have been kept lighter.. It is supposed to replace a point defense fighter there is no need for the LCA to be an strike/interdict aircraft when the IAF has in its inventory Jaguars! Mirage 2000s Su 30MKI’s and Mig 29s!
Yes for sure the ADA can reduce further weight by lightening some of the other systems.. or some of the other structures but that would require expensive re-certification.
30% weight saving on the landing gear could be made by using composite materials but we would be kidding ourselves if we think it would make up for the increase in 700Kgs!
I guess IAF just got it self a small version of the Tornado.
Tornado’s were bomb trucks that were adapted to become a long range interceptor..even then, they retained the high wing loading of the Tornado IDS..thats altogether different from the Tejas, which retains the low wing loading of the interceptor role even for its multi-role version. they’ll simply add an engine with higher thrust at lower weight for improving its thrust to weight ratio.
there is simply no comparison between the two, flame bait posts aside. :rolleyes:
21Ankush“SAR will be capable of measuring the target up to a metre of accuracy”. Varadarajan also said LRDE has initiated development of active electronics scanning array radar for airborne applications. These radars are intended to be integrated with Tejas Light Combat Aircraft-Mark II in 2012-13.
“An active electronics scanning array radar in a fighter aircraft is one of the key elements to managing weapon systems, giving enhanced surveillance and fire power”, he said.
This confirms something that was told to me by someone in the know- that they’re already working on an indigenous radar and that the MRCA candidates, Thales, Selex, Phazatron, Ericsson are all trying to sweeten the MRCA deal by helping with the AESA that will mostly be developed indigenously with some key inputs from these guys.
India will go for a customized solution with indigenous input or just overall design & integration assistance, plus help with specific subsystems. Which happens will depend upon the timeline for the MRCA program and its offsets implementation and ToT.
In the past (one can refer ACIG.org), they’re shown modules which are for the CABS AWAC program, S-Band modules. But there are several other modules in production. Between ISRO and DRDO needs, there are several kinds of tx/rx modules already in production at both PSU and pvt. facilities. All this is from a very reliable source, so it confirms what has been highlighted in the article above, said by LRDE’s head, Vardarajan.
21AnkushConsidering its a lightweight fighter of relatively small size, I guess they cant do an awful lot about the rest of the excess weight, and hence the requirement for a more powerful engine. What you said, however, raises another question. Any idea about the weight of the production variant? Would it be 1 ton heavier or only 700 or so kg as it shouldn’t have any test equipment. So what do current official LCA spec (if any) say about weight?
Vikas, I think they’ll live with the weight gain. there’s been weight gain due to telemetry equipment, that we know, but there is going to be an internal SPJ and there has been strengthening of the wing and hardpoints as well. add to that OBOGS, a planned towed decoy and all in all, there has been a requirements creep, and to be able to accomodate some of them, weight has gone up..when it was being designed initially, there was a whole lot of things that were’nt considered as being necessary for light fighters, but the IAF appears intent on transforming the Tejas into a Tejas “NG”, so to speak.
21Ankushgood to see a thread on the Gripen. 🙂 I did wonder why the Gripen never had a thread of its own like the Typhoon or Rafale did..now it’ll be easier to follow the most recent happenings on the NG front as well.
21AnkushHMD/HMS + NG WVR missiles can technically replace the need for any high instantaneous TVC stunts – while allowing you to maintain higher energy states and therefore better survivability.
you don’t need to engage TVC all the time..yet, it offers any pilot a very useful addition, which an experienced pilot will use selectively and wisely. what does a regular non-TVC equipped pilot do when he has to resort to a guns-only fight with a TVC equipped Flanker or MiG-35 or F-22?
Additionally the 27 deg instantaneous – 22-23 deg sustained turn rates for the Su-30MKI are clean configuration turn rates. With a missile load – these will drop by a margin – how much so is unknown.
those turn rates are wrong- there was a clarification provided by an IAF pilot that those rates are actually higher. and anyway, Flankers don’t carry external fuel tanks.
while the F-22 seems to be in a class of its own.
thanks to ? b] TVC [/b] and an incredible T/W ratio.
funny thing is, F-22 fanboys always praise its maneuverability and ability to win dogfights, yet when it comes to running down the advantages of TVC, they’re always at the forefront- driven obviously by the need to defend why the USAF has never had a TVC equipped fighter before that, despite all the results of the X-31 studies.
“The X-31 program demonstrated the value of thrust vectoring (directing engine exhaust flow) coupled with advanced flight control systems, to provide controlled flight during close-in air combat at very high angles of attack. The result of this increased maneuverability was a significant advantage over most conventional fighters.“
21AnkushSustained turn rate (while nice to have) IS NOT the be all that is all in ACM…
And TVC has its limitations/disadvantages as well…
of course sustained turn rate is not the be-all of ACM, but in most cases, it will decide who ends up being the winner. and it is one of the most important parameters used to judge how maneuverable an airframe is.
BS.
The F-35 is designed to be capable of carrying two external fuel tanks – yes funding for it has been delayed/put on hold but it is ‘simply’ a matter of funding..
I didn’t say that it isn’t CAPABLE of carrying external fuel tanks- I said that if it were to carry external fuel tanks, its single biggest advantage, STEALTH would be gone. learn to read properly.
BINGO!
Sustained turn rate (while nice to have) is NOT the be all that is all in ACM & ACM is NOT the be all that is all in fighter capability/effectiveness…
if you want an air superiority fighter of the 5th gen, you need to have its sustained turn rates and instantaneous turn rates as high as possible. its not a NICE TO HAVE- its a NEED TO HAVE for a 5th gen air superiority fighter, which is why TVC was included on the F-22..you think they added it just for fun or because some general thought it was a neat addition !?
earlier generation fighters
going by your arguments, you should obviously consider the MiG-31s to be very capable/effective, since they have super-powerful radar, long range AAMs, very high max. speeds and are an absolute truck as far as maneuverability goes..the only thing it lacks is stealth and that is almost useless as far as ACM goes.
21AnkushNot patronizing. Just get tired of the same old worn out arguements. TVC isn’t magic.
I never said it was magic..
however the USAF Colonel in the Youtube video clearly said that an experienced pilot in the F-22 (yes, its great maneuverability is also thanks to TVC, as well as a superb T/W ratio), would use the TVC to get to 28 degs/sec sustained turns, whereas an F-15/F-16 pilot would be straining hard just keeping it at 15/16 degs/sec. the experienced pilot wouldn’t exceed that limit, so in most situations, he would come up trumps. the only way to beat the F-22 would be when the pilot would get greedy and pull tighter. so, one-on-one guns only fight, the F-22 would be beating the F-35 in the same way, using its TVC and higher T/W ratio.
21AnkushThe F-35 is not in need to be a “good” dogfighter. It has the first shot opportunity and can disengage at will. 😎
Exactly ! the point is that the F-35’s pilot, if he’s smart, will shoot at BVR range, and if he misses, get to the outer ranges of WVR and use his AIM-9Xs..if the bogey is still not down, then a good option against TVC equipped fighters would be to simply gun the reheat and scoot.
21AnkushROFL!!! TVC ain’t going to enable Brand X (take your pick) to outmanuever today’s WVR missiles. Your TVC-equipped fighter (assuming you have one) will be just as dead. And you’re also assuming that the F-35 couldn’t get close enough undetected to launch an AIM-9X or ASRAAM which the F-22 has been showing as not a problem at all.
you’ll be as patronising as you always are, but thats assuming that the F-35 has any WVR missiles left and that the other fighter doesn’t..for the same matter, the F-35 is as vulnerable as any other fighter when it comes to WVR..if the USAF were so confident that guns-only fights are completely irrelevant, why would the F-22 or the F-35 even need to carry guns ? to strafe enemies on the ground ?:rolleyes:
21AnkushNow even I’m thoroughly confused. As per Snecma, the JV Kaveri-M88 (if they’re chosen) will be ready in 4 year’s time. so what T.Mohana Rao meant when he said that the Kaveri will be ready to be integrated to PV1 next year, I don’t know.
PARIS: India’s first aero-engine ‘Kaveri’ may finally roll out in four years’ time, ending decades of false starts to power the country’s aspirations for an indigenous fighter aircraft.
Under plans being given final touches, European aero-engine major Snecma is expected to join hands with the DRDO to unveil the military jet engine in four years, leading to commercial production of the LCA Tejas multi-role fighters.
Apart from the four-billion Euro turnover company Snecma, Russian NPO Saturn is contending for the bid to co-develop and co-produce Kaveri engine.
The DRDO is expected to shortlist the winner “any time now,” a top Snecma official said and expressed confidence that once the contract is awarded the engines would be ready in four years’ time.
“We have submitted a short and secure four-year plan as the Kaveri engine development time-frame,” said Xavier Sahut D’izarn, Vice President, Military Engines, Snecma group.
India, after developing and testing nine prototypes of two ‘Kaveri’ engines, decided to seek foreign collaboration as the aero-engine repeatedly failed in high-altitude tests conducted in Russian facilities.
Refusing to be drawn in on where Indian scientists had faced problems in attempts to develop a purely indigenous fighter engine, the Snecma official said that Kaveri would be of nine-tonne capacity engine with low thrust to weight ratio.“We will transfer full know-how and the engines would be developed and produced by HAL in India,” D’izarn said.
“Its going to be a joint Indo-French engine with shared expertise with gradual transfer of full know-how,” the Snecma Vice President said, adding that while high pressure part of the engine will be produced by Snecma, the low pressure part will be developed by Bangalore-based GTRE, a DRDO subsidiary.The speed up in efforts to give final touches to the development of Kaveri engine assumes significance as Defence Minister A K Anthony has given a go-ahead for commercial production of 150 Tejas fighters.
The initial 40 Tejas are to powered by US General Electric404 engine. But DRDO officials recently said that the GE404 lacked power to enable Tejas to undertake its multi-role capability in full.
But now the Snecma official says the nine-tonne thrust capability and low thrust to weight ratio would give the successive Tejas capability of greater manoeuvrability to undertake air-to-air, air-to-ground as well as carrier-borne operations.
The DRDO has been working on Kaveri engine for past 16 years and after coming up with problems in giving requisite high altitude thrust to the engines decided to float international tenders in 2005 for co-development.
Four companies — US Military Engine leader Pratt and Whitny and GE, European engine maker Snecma and Russian NPO Saturn — responded to the first Request for Proposals (RFP).
The RFP was modified and re-floated in 2006 extending the requirements from co-development to include co-production, as western companies were not forthcoming for mere co-development.
21AnkushThat’s just it. With today’s WVR missiles you need to have another trick in the bag besides trying to out manever it (which you WON’T be able to do). The F-35 has stealth. The others don’t.
it can only carry a certain number of missiles internally..if its doesn’t end the fight at BVR, its best bet is to simply scoot, else a TVC equipped fighter that could get close enough to it to engage in a dogfight, could outmaneuver it and IR missiles could theoretically take it down. since the F-35 doesn’t have TVC and is not optimised for A2A engagements, its sustained turn rates MAY be similar to or only slight better than the F-16 at 15/16 deg per sec, whereas a MKI is capable of 23 degs per second or more. the MiG-35 would probably have as good if not better sustained turn rates.
add to that the fact that it can’t carry external fuel tanks without losing its stealth advantage and that seriously affects its range, loiter time and time on station. I’m not saying that the F-35 is a bad airplane- just that the yardstick that was used to compare the J-10 with the F-16C and MiG-29SMT variants, if used for the F-35, it doesn’t stand out either.
obviously in a real world scenario, any first rate operator would have a lot of other factors too, such as jamming, EW, better WVR weapons and better situational awarness, etc. which could offset some disadvantages in pure maneuverability. so it would be silly to simply write off the F-16C, MiG-29SMT or the older Flankers against the J-10. it all depends on which operator is operating the platform.
21AnkushWishfull thinking, the Su-34 is delayed due to incompetance not your comical theory.
and what is the F-35 delayed due to ? stop using such ridiculous terms as incompetence to describe the Russians, unless you’re just an ignoramus, in which case it doesn’t really matter..they’re a very competent bunch of aviation engineers. funding issues led to the Su-34 operationalisation being delayed, and now that they’re being sorted out, the Su-34’s are coming.
21AnkushWhat the journalist says must be true, the J-10 must be better than the lagacy old MiG-29s and early F-16s, in fact he never says MiG-35 but MiG-29SMT or F-16C, he says as good as the Flanker i think he is just saying J-11s AKA Su-27SK.
Now the F-22 still is far far away from the J-10.
The Su-30MKI i have my doubts it is better, let us say it is as good but also i doubt it.
better than the Su-35BM i do not believe it (the Su-35 has supercruise uprated engines and thrust vectoring), the Su-35BM is much better and the MiG-35 must be better too (same as the Su-35).Better than the Eurofighter definitively it is not.
It is not because the twin engine factor
better than Rafale it is not.
Same as the Eurofighter
better than the Sufa F-16s it is not
Better missiles and electronic
So the guy just meant legacy Fulcrums and F-16s without any serious upgrade.
so you’re saying that F-16I Sufas are better than Su-30MKIs ? the F-16I has no PESA, no TVC and yet its better than the MKI ? please explain.
21AnkushDidn’t mention the F-16 because I thought that was obvious and the only reason I mentioned the Mig-29 is so the Star49s of the world wouldn’t be keeling over in their Captain Crunch if I’d only mentioned the Flanker. :diablo: Besides, we’ve got the F-35 coming down the pipe so it’s less of an issue.
except for avionics and stealth what has the F-35 got that would make it a terrific dogfighter? after all, the comparison with F-16Cs, MiG-29SMT and earlier generation Flankers was made looking at the flying display and not at a technical comparison of the avionics on board the J-10..its no secret that the Chinese radars have taken a lot of inputs from the Russians and that they would likely seek the Irbis-E for the upgraded Su-33s that they could acquire for the PLAN. so, the Russian lead in avionics still exists.
can one say that F-35 would be able to turn better and offer better acceleration along almost all parts of flight envelope than the J-10 ? without TVC, I doubt that the F-35’s sustained turning rate is particularly better than F-16 or F-15 types.
Sign In
