You know, ‘can have’ and ‘will have ‘ mean different things in english.

Forget it, he can read my mind and tell me what I was thinking, and on top of it he insists that only he (pat. pending.) can know this. To do so, of course he has to selectively ignore the remaining posts in the discussion. :rolleyes:

A magician holds the coin with one hand while diverting the audiences attention with another. Dont try to divert this to another topic. It ahs nothing to do with bringitons post, its has everything to do with the claim “the LCA can have the first look”

What utter meaningless claptrap- oh wait, this is another “insult”. Twenty posts on the matter, and you REFUSE to see the context of the discussion. So, why are you trolling?

If you are so insistent on only seeing what you want to see, then nobody can help you..

It would help if you source was the correct one, You have provide one picture produced in paint and claiming it is some how a source?. I clearly asked for a SOURCE(not picture) with a statement about the indians originally intending for the LCA to feature LO features, which you did not bring

LOL, so now the source is unclear? That picture is from an ADA document in word, copypasted into paint…its clear you are just trolling..

I ask for statements from the design stage not when the project was done and dusted when they claimed they have added stealth features. One example of this is the 03 FC-1 and the 04 FC-1 when its DSI and LEXs were added after the design stage. Giving me some “Paint” made picture and telling me to look under the speech bubble is not a source, nor anything remote to what i was looking for

More circular arguementation, why am I not surprised! Now after the source has been provided, you seek to discredit it! Priceless!

Now of course, you bring the JF-17 into the discussion so as to later claim some imagined insult against it..

Here is what a LCA brochure I have says about the RCS:

Under composites:

“Composites : Low weight and low RCS requirements demanded extensive use of composites”

Harry has already noted that whilst the LCA was not intended to be a stealth aircraft, there are enough sources already testifying to its signature reduction, including ADA documentation.

But keep harping, keep baiting… :rolleyes:

Give it a break already… :rolleyes:

You CLAIMED the LCA will have first look, yet you are trying to change this fact. I reposonded to that post, not any other post which has nothing to do with the original one.

What nonsense- I responded making my views clear and yet you are being silly and combative.

Surely, you wouldn’t be refering to the F-22, JSF, EF, or rafale. And you were certainly refering to one aircraft which would have to be the J-10 since this topic sentence is about the LCA and the J-10.

That has been addressed in my reply to Bringiton.. did you miss it again?

HERE

Read it.

kindergarten aye?

Maybe you should work on yours, this is the list of your personal attacks, BEFORE you edited you first two(which contained the most)

– Are you blind?

In response to your constant misrepresentation. Just look at your refusal to read posts which you DONT want to read, so I ask again, is there some vision problem here OR your insistence that you will only read what YOU want to read?

– Cant you read them now?

And this is an attack?

– Dont be stupid

More lies. Point out where I said this.

– If you can go back up and read

How is this an attack? I asked you to go back to go back up the thread & read my prior statements.

– your statements make my eyes bleed.

Yes, they do. Spelling mistakes PLUS a tendency to misquote. Get the point!

– Perhaps reading comprehension lessons should help?

See above. Your dishonest insistence on picking and choosing which statements to read, testifies to the fact that you need to understand the context.

– But never mind, keep jumping at imaginary shadows!

In response to your “He insulted the J-10” crusade.

– I spelt it out clearly, now do you understand?

Huh? You regard that as an insult? When I post ten times for you to understand the context?

– Wow. And you want “sources”. Priceless!!

After your commments about “sources” while refusing to provide any for the J-10. Which YOU brought up.

– Or have you forgotten how to read, again?

I now realise that your actions are deliberate, not accidental. :rolleyes:

– Take that chip off your shoulder will you?

In response to the ridiculous I am Chinese, so you are doing this comment. :rolleyes:

– The one being ludicrous here is you

Gee, who used that word first? Guess, what- YOU.

– there really is no limit to your drivel again
– all you have done is post more and more of your drivel
– That you continue to do so, speaks volumes about your attitude.
– or is the meaning too hard for you to understand,
– More nonsense from you
– you need a crash course in basic logic!!
– Perhaps in the world that you inhabit

In response to your “idiot” comment and in response to your continued dishonesty in misrepresenting my words.

In fact that statement you made certainly applies, only that you should have looked in a mirror before using it. :rolleyes:

Thx a lot however it still bevilders me on how the RCS acheived would be in the very very low category , aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 use composites aswell as other materials which are app. for Stealth and the nature of the aircraft , they have internal weapon and can almost all FDOW missions without hanging a single weapon externally ( the raptor with 8 missiles in AD role or 4 missiles and 2 or 8SDB’s and the F-35 flying alongside with 2 missiles and 2K bombs) . the Y intakes would help but look behind the engine , what have they done when it comes to nozzle reductions like the LOAN or something on that regards ( shouldnt be that hard to acheive with ceramic nozzles or LOAN which is said to be much much better then the Ceramic TVC nozzle ont he raptor) . Size definately is an advantage however it also means to maximize range it would need Jugs ( atleast1 ) and it carries its FLIR etc on a pod ( what about IRST is it comformal or pod mount? ) it will be carrying atleast 6 missiles i believe in AD role ? I think it will most likely suffer from similar RCS shorcommings like the SH which although has a good RCS for its size ( apparently many believe on paper it is less then 1sq^m ) but for all practical purposes against raging Radars it offers little practical importance . Obviously it is a neat little thing to have however its combat utility specially against a force which is equiped with AEW is going to be rather limited acc . to me specially when it is carrying a mixed load , pods , jugs etc .

Thanks for the sane posts. I suspect this thread is going down the tubes soon as our combative troll will insist that I slurred the J-10 when I didnt even mention it, but never mind.

The LCA polar plot – which I have seen with ADA, is typical of other fighters of its class, but its overall spikes have been reduced , and the overall signature is lower than other fighters of its generation- thanks to the combination of its size and composite structure. This was an untreated LCA, a treated one with RAM etc would have some more signature reduction. Good results were obtained using the same vs Jaguars.

I’d also add that its apples to oranges to compare reduced RCS designs of conventional planforms against VLO/LO platforms like the JSF/F-22.
Reason being that these designs use RCS reduction and EW to increase their threat survivability, which is an entirely different approach from truly passive (and revolutionary, whilst expensive) stealth.

In this context, the LCA is basically, to the IAF, a low RCS Mirage 2000, with better capabilities- thats what they asked for anyways. The standard loadout for a point defence mission will be 2* WVR, 2* BVR missiles. The jugs, mixed loadouts come from strike missions, where the LCA will be relying on a combination of its lowered RCS, heavy EW and low flying to avoid detection and achieve surprise. It will not depend purely on its signature.

This is from Sumeet picking on some research papers on the subject @BR.

2) Now there has been speculation in various forums inlcuding this one that how much reduced frontal RCS helps v/s conventional aircrafts in airborne engagements. Following results from these paper will in my opinion help clarify people’s doubt.

From German paper:

The German graph doesn’t presents a scenario where ECM factor is inlcuded in airborne engagements between fighters. The russian paper provides that info.

From Russian paper: (This is relevant for the LCA)

3) Now third point of interest: what about effectivity of conventional fighters, reduced RCS fighters and VLO/Stealth fighters against ground based air defence.

From Russian paper:

From German paper:

Against GBAD, a true VLO platform provides the most advantage.

NICK this is true for a non stealthy asset , A non stealth jet which is larger will most likely have Larger RCS aswell however Stealth doesn discriminate between size and perfect example is the B-2 which is a large bomber and is many many times more stealthy then the LCA , F-16 or even a T-50 .

I am speaking of non stealthy assets here.

F-7/ MiG-21, MiG variants, Mirage variants (III, V, 2000), etc all are non stealthy aircraft…and which are all relevant to the subcontinent..

A decent scenario although this might not always be the case for a point defence fighter which might find itself in situations where the RCS is compromised furthermore talking to the Viper Drivers here with the USAF who have had RCS reduced for years now they are almost unanimous in their opinion that the effects on papar far exceed the actual effect on the ground , for example the stealth in the Lab isnt operationally maintainable as they are relying more on coatings rather then actual Structural arrangements such as planform allignment,s shaped intakes , internal weapons etc etc moreoever you will most likely have jugs for added range , a refueling probe sticking out ( i believe LCA has one or is it retractable??) weapons of all sorts , their pylons , many many things that can bump up the RCS to a level where it is insignificant . The radar detection ranges will most likely improve for the enemy with the induction of newer radars with the PAF (f-16’s ) and with the J-10 etc therefore even if you reach respectable RCS with jugs,weapons and likes the detecion would still be at greater distances then the weapon ranges for those fighters , In addition to all this the LPI mode isnt all that great for legacy radars aswell .

Nice post but some caveats- the F-16 (besides only USAF ones have signature reduction anyways) is basically relying on RAM and its cockpit treatment/ canopy to reduce its signature, its small size vs a Flanker sized platform apart. The LCA has a huge percentage of its primary airframe itself composite, intended for lower signature. Now with jugs/ missiles etc that will be offset, but I dont think the difference will be that substantial. The APG-68V(9) from the other thread can detect a 5 Sq Mtr platform at 100-110 km, for a 3 Mtr Sqr it reduces to 96, for 1 it reduces to 73.. every little bit helps. Of course, with Erieyes/ KJ series AWACs, only VLO truly helps.

LPI…, LPI is already being combatted/offset by digital receivers in RWRs; the LCA is to get a state of the art EW suite codeveloped with Israel, and with datalinks, and I think there was a plan for an IRST as well, am sure that the MMR will be primarily used only for getting a firecontrol fix on the target/s at the last possible moment for max situational awareness. This is what the IAF actually trains towards.

The first look scenario comes from an aircraft to aircraft matchup, which will arguably be very rare- its going to be groups of fighters vectored against each other, but was just mentioned as an academic point. If we really have to compare, then I’d think that there could be a first look advantage.
I base this on Gripen results with other aircraft in DACT.

And that is why I think the MMR represents an adequate fix for the LCA, tho’ an AESA would be nice. But what we must also look at is:

Su-30 – Bars—> Bars upgrade
MiG-29- N019M—>Zhuk ME
Mirage 2000- RDM—> RDY 2
MRCA- AESA (assumed)

The arrows represent what we currently know from published sources about upgrades. The Bars will receive further upgrades in the future (Edefense), not that it requires any what with its current reach itself, the MiG-29s are to be upgraded in the 11th plan end, while the Mirage 2000s in the twelfth. The MRCAs will recieve an AESA, as its a dealbreaker per all Russian reports, also acc. to Flights look at the process.

So even there, two of the fighters will have slotted arrays, and a Slotted array MMR doesnt seem to bad with a 100 Km range, and the IAF will have AWACs (AESA) as well.

Thank you for editing your post five ways to monday, While claiming i cant read.

If you pick & choose single lines from my posts and give a different meaning as compared to the context in which they were used, then a) you misread or b) you did so deliberately. I assumed a)

I was not offended at that. I was offened at all those comments you edited out before.

I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, you didnt want that? I dont like having my words misrepresented & being badgered over it too boot, I dont think you would be any different. So next time, if you didnt do that, it would be a better thing.

I was talking about an indian RCS for the J-10 not chinas RCS figure for the J-10

:confused:

I could go into that, but whats the point! You will say that bar China nobody else knows the J-10s true RCS, and the discussion will end at that point, so why even bother going there.

I quoted your post BEFORE that post

You could have edited! A little civility goes a long way when you expect the same in return. :rolleyes:

I was not hoping for statements from you, but offical statements at the design stage. Difference between that?

Obviously the statements were made by the designers, or did you miss that, whilst saying the same thing three times over? :rolleyes:

Wrong. Harry should have the link, but the LCA was intended to incorporate a level of RCS reduction, this partly drove its requirement to use such a high percentage of composites in its airframe structure. This of course does not mean VLO/LO/ Stealth, before you start going off on that crusade.

What does that mean? A) There was a link B) Harry should have it. C) What link? D) A speech by the LCA Project Leader, Dr Kota Harinarayana where he speaks of the LCA intending to have low RCS from the very beginning. E) The document may have been taken down, so Harry may have a copy saved, cause I didnt.

I spelt it out clearly, now do you understand? Wait for Harry, & ask him & he might have it.

How can you caluculate without RCS figures?. At best, unoffical charts developed by forum members

Heard of the term back of the envelope? The statement I made was common sense, but never mind, get into a tizzy because you felt offended! :rolleyes:

Secondly, India has access to a variety of software packages that predict overall RCS measurements, I’d be surprised if China doesnt have them either.

Its not what you said, its what you did not have to say.

quote from you
“”the LCA can have the first look advantage”””

First look advantage at F-22, EF, rafale, JSF?
I doubt you would claim any of the above. Look at the topic heading

Are you dense or something? Again with the silly misrepresentation- read what I said to Bringiton-

Now about RCS reduction, yes, certainly- but the entire purpose of having an AWACs (apart from situational awareness) is to vector your fighters for the ideal intercept, where you present your least vulnerable aspect, while of course, deploying your weapons for maximum surprise. In this case, low airframe RCS would reduce tracking/lockon ranges for most light/ medium fighters without an AESA, (with AESA, the tracking ranges become large enough, that the gains obtained by such measures are not so great anyways).
“In India’s case the bulk of its opponents field such light/ medium fighters without heavy duty AESA radars, so the FCR tracking ranges etc matter (even with AWACS on both sides).
With heavy application of RAM to the airframe And EM hotspots on weapons/ pylons etc, the LCA can be pretty useful. The IAF is also reportedly inducting the de facto standard gold canopy developed locally on its fleet. That should also help.”

:rolleyes:

one more thing nick what bout 3D TVC? drdo working on that? it was there so that the vertical tail can go ..plus if the intake moved towards dorsal wont it help in the total geometry and the RCS?

i read bout it somewhere lca havin 3D TVC..

Thats a future proposal, the current focus is on certifying the aircraft for IOC and then FOC, with all the issues that arise from it.

Aesa will obviously help a whole lot , not only would it give it more LPI capability but would further reduce operating costs and add capability , but it is not the end of the game , they have to fix performance with the MMR , verify it in day to day operations and solve whatever shortcommings that might creep up ( and they do with even the most advanced systems anywhere in the world) , then they need to go and correct that , Getting the kaveri is far more important then sourcing an AESA although there wont be much performance difference ( f404 is more then competant enough) but a indegenous engine is of great strategic importance. Regarding the reduced RCS i am not a big fan of this even with USAF aircraft such as the F-16 which apparently have RCS reduced to around 1 sq^2 m etc because of the simple reason that the jets are small , they would on most missions be carrying jugs , munitions and even otherwise the RCS supression is not multifaceted or multi direction and the RCS can peak over the roof when veiwed from certain aspects therefore the performance and detection advantage for all practical purposes is not as much as those NUMBERS tell us as compared to a true stealth aircraft .

Sure AESA is anyday better – I am not contesting that, but from Indias POV- which is better, developing and fielding an airborne FCR which is suitable for the LCAs role, or just using a plug and play AESA made by someone else, like the F-50 project & others. There is a tradeoff here.

Now about RCS reduction, yes, certainly- but the entire purpose of having an AWACs (apart from situational awareness) is to vector your fighters for the ideal intercept, where you present your least vulnerable aspect, while of course, deploying your weapons for maximum surprise. In this case, low airframe RCS would reduce tracking/lockon ranges for most light/ medium fighters without an AESA, (with AESA, the tracking ranges become large enough, that the gains obtained by such measures are not so great anyways). In India’s case the bulk of its opponents field such light/ medium fighters without heavy duty AESA radars, so the FCR tracking ranges etc matter (even with AWACS on both sides).
With heavy application of RAM to the airframe And EM hotspots on weapons/ pylons etc, the LCA can be pretty useful. The IAF is also reportedly inducting the de facto standard gold canopy developed locally on its fleet. That should also help.